What is the worst ethical scandal in the US Congress? Could it be climate change?

Although the US media has recently paid attention to the comparatively minor ethical stories unfolding in the US House of Representatives, there is not a peep in the US media about a much more momentous unfolding ethical failure in the US Senate. While many press stories have appeared in the past few week about potential ethical problems of Representatives Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters in the House, ethical lapses that harm society because public servants may have abused their power in ways that enrich themselves or their families, the US Senate ethical failure is more ethically reprehensible because it is depriving tens of millions of people around the world of life itself or the natural resources necessary to sustain life. The failure in the US Senate to enact legislation to reduce US greenhouse gas emissions is a moral lapse of epic proportions. Yet it is not discussed this way.

There are several distinct features of climate change that call for its recognition as creating civilization challenging ethical questions.

First, climate change creates ethical duties because those most responsible for causing this problem are the richer developed countries, yet those who are most vulnerable to the problem’s harshest impacts are some of the world’s poorest people in developing countries. That is, climate change is an ethical problem because its biggest victims are people who can do little to reduce its threat.

Second, climate-change impacts are potentially catastrophic for many of the poorest people around the world. Climate change harms include deaths from disease, droughts, floods, heat, and intense storms, damages to homes and villages from rising oceans, adverse impacts on agriculture, diminishing natural resources, the inability to rely upon traditional sources of food, and the destruction of water supplies. In fact, climate change threatens the very existence of some small island nations. Clearly these impacts are potentially catastrophic and there is a growing scientific consensus that we are running out of time to prevent catastrophic climate change.

The third reason why climate change must be seen as an ethical problem stems from its global scope. At the local, regional or national scale, citizens can petition their governments to protect them from serious harms. But at the global level, no government exists whose jurisdiction matches the scale of climate change. And so, although national, regional and local governments have the ability and responsibility to protect citizens within their boarders, they have no responsibility to foreigners in the absence of international law. For this reason, ethical appeals are necessary to motivate governments to take steps to prevent their citizens from seriously harming foreigners.

In 1979 a report issued for the United States Academy of Sciences acknowledged that humans were changing the atmosphere and predicted that if CO2 was allowed to increase to 560 parts per million (ppm), global temperatures would increase approximately 3 0 C. (Charney et al., 1979)

In May of this year, the US Academy of Sciences issued another report that found:

A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems. (US Academy of Sciences, 2010)

And so, after thirty years of first being warned that activities within its boarders may be contributing to huge suffering all around the world, despite frequent additional warnings with higher levels of confidence from many prestigious scientific bodies and organizations since then that have concluded that climate change is a grave threat, ignoring increasing scientific concern that the world is running out of time to prevent even more rapid climate change, the United States Senate refuses to take action to fulfill its ethical duties to others to prevent harm.

Both Democratic and Republican Senators who oppose action on climate change in the US Senate do so because such legislation would “create a ‘national energy tax”, warning costs would be passed to consumers in the form of higher electricity bills and fuel costs that would lead manufacturers to take their factories overseas, putting jobs at risk. (Haroon, 2010)

For twenty-five years, many American politicians have opposed climate change legislation on similar grounds that such legislation would harm US economic interests.

Yet, if climate change raises ethical questions, then strong arguments can be made that nations have not only national interests but also duties, responsibilities, and obligations to others. However, ethical arguments that could counter the national-interest based arguments are rarely heard in the climate change debate and are now virtually absent in the U.S. discussion of proposed domestic climate change legislation. We never hear, for instance in the United States that we should enact climate change legislation because our emissions are harming others. This is a catastrophic ethical failure.

By:

Donald A. Brown
Associate Professor
Environmental Ethics, Science, and Law
Penn State University
Dab57@psu.edu.

References

Charney Jule et al, 1979, Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment, Report of an Ad-Hoc Study Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, July 23-27, 1979 to the Climate Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC: National Academy Press,1979. http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf

Siddique, Haroon, 2010, US Senate Drops Bill To Cap Carbon Emissions. Gaurdian, July 23, 2010. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/23/us-senate-climate-change-bill

US Academy of Sciences, 2010. Strong Evidence On Climate Change Underscores Need For Actions To Reduce Emissions And Begin Adapting To Impacts
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=05192010

Share →
Buffer

50 Responses to The Worst Ethical Scandal In the US Congress: Climate Change?

  1. Gary Williams,

    Correction to my last. Sorry, it was past midnight in Switzerland when I wrote that

    “there are indicators that show that anything that does not fix proteins loses those proteins. That’s not a benefit for a wide variety of crops.”

    should be

    there are indicators that show that plants that do not fix nitrogen lose those proteins. That’s not a benefit for a wide variety of crops.

    Point being, that while there may be some benefit to plant growth which relates to the capacity of the land based carbon sink, we lose proteins. So the nutritional content of some crops are indicated to drop (ref. the FACE experiments Free Atmosphere Carbon Enrichment, performed during the Bush administration).

    Plus, the decreased soil moisture content in current agricultural regions combined with high precipitation events in various regions as they occur add up to increased fires, floods that wipe out crops and infrastructure shift.

    Remember, it’s all about the economy.

    Please note that the reason the scientific method is so robust, and can be better relied upon than mere opinion, is that it corrects itself. Scientists often correct themselves. Wouldn’t it be nice if everyone did that. If individuals did not get to hung up on always being right and admitted when we are wrong, we would make faster progress if people exercised humility and just admitted when they notice they are wrong.

    Unlike Professor Brown, as to which words I choose, I have fewer compunctions constrained by compassion towards those that exhibit willful ignorance of the relevant science.

    It is neurotic (aka denialism) to ignore (deny) the ‘well established’ science, as well as the observed changes that are already fitting said well established science (attribution).

    You said it’s the sun above. Okay. Prove it.

    The current radiative forcing mean above thermal equilibrium is estimated at 1.6 W/m2. Since the Schwabe solar cycle is 11.1 years average periodicity (9-14 year range) adding and taking away 0.2 W/m2. How can you reasonably claim it is the sun?

    [sound of crickets chirping . . . ]


    Fee & Dividend: Our best chanceLearn the IssueSign the Petition
    A Climate Minute: The Natural CycleThe Greenhouse EffectHistory of Climate ScienceArctic Ice Melt

  2. Gary Williams

    I was just up in the Alps about 10 days ago and visited a glacier that is around 85 to 90% gone since 1930. Glaciers melting don’t rely on models to melt, or do they?

    I outlined multiple lines of evidence in my recent ‘Leading Edge’ report. These lines of evidence derive from observations, and the observations are not reliant on models.

    http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/summary-docs/leading-edge/2010/aug-the-leading-edge

    You don’t need models to visible see what is happening. Plus it is false logic to assume something is not happening, just because you don’t believe it.

    As to better food production, studies already indicate that while increases in atmospheric CO2 can increase plant growth, there are indicators that show that anything that does not fix proteins loses those proteins. That’s not a benefit for a wide variety of crops.

    You make a lot of claims, yet you have cited no evidence for your claims in the peer reviewed literature? Why is that?

    Now, you stated “and the latest peer reviewed science show that the IPCC claims are false and that the Solar cycles influence climate more that man ever will”

    I would very mush like to review this peer reviewed science of which you speak. Please provide links.

    [sound of crickets in background . . . ]


    Fee & Dividend: Our best chanceLearn the IssueSign the Petition
    A Climate Minute: The Natural CycleThe Greenhouse EffectHistory of Climate ScienceArctic Ice Melt

    • DONALD A BROWN says:

      The ad homiem attacks, and substantively empty insults are not posted. We, as you can see, let disagreements on the site but not comments that are not an invitation to reasoned discourse.

  3. Gary Williams says:

    Oh Please!!!!

    Evidence??? all you can point to is the fact that the planet did warm slightly last century.
    That does not in any way validate the hupothesys that man made CO2 caused it.
    The only thing holding that myth together is computer models.
    Models that have been proven faulty and wrong many times.

    AGW is still just a loose theory. Nothing more.

    the DDT issue is jsut another example of dumb concensus based bad policy. Just happens to be a good esample.

    Now if anyone of you can actually show some real evidence (not computer models) that man made CO2 is causing anything other than better food production… Please Please Please show it.

    Nobody else on the planet has been able to so far….. so have at it.

    And please don’t waste everyones time with links to IPCC Propaganda, we all already know it shows nothing conclusive on any level.

    • DONALD A BROWN says:

      Mr. Williams, No fingerprinting studies and attribution studies which you seem to be completely unaware of, are not dependent upon models. They include how the planet is warming. If it is the sun, the Earth warms one way, if it is the greenhouse effect, you get differential differences in how the upper and lower atmosphere warms, if changes in ocean circulation are causing warming you dont get ocean warming at depth the way we are experiencing it. If it is natural carbon versus fossil fuel carbon, you get a different carbon isotope in the atmosphere than what we are seeing, if it natural variability you can measure difference in sun output, if greenhouse effect is warming the planet, you can predictable measurements that show differences about how much infrared radtiation is escaping to space, if it is fossil fuels, you get temperature rises in some proportion to fossil fuel use, we have known for 150 years how much additional inital warming will be caused by each molecule of each greenhouse gas with great precision, what we dont know is exactly how much warming will be caused because that requires knowledge of feedbacks, but can measure directly the feedbacks including water vapor in the atmosphere, and albedo of ice. If the sun is warming the planet you get on pattern of night-time versus day-time temperatures than what we are seeing

      Given this your claim that there is no scientific basis for concern is more than baseless.
      Everything I have just mentioned is the actual basis for the overwhelming consensus in those scientific institutions that have expertise, that the planet is warming and that it is at least partially human caused.

      Only compassion stops me from putting words to the damage you are doing by claiming that there is no scientific evidence. You are encouraged to reach your own conclusions about the science of climate change, but please dont make claims that there is no scientific evidence when every scientific institution in the world that has looked at this not only disagrees with you but explains in painstaking detail the evidence they relied upon. This by the way includes the United States National Academy of Sciences.. You are free to draw your own conclusions but people who claim there is no scientific basis for concern are not only spreading mis-information , they are endangering millions of people around the world by convincing others that there is no scientific basis. I am sure you are only claiming what you believe to be true. I will not stoop to use the tactics used by others among the more vocal skeptics that attack our character. But I beg you to be very, very careful of claims you make, particularly in light of the fact that you dont know the peer-reviewed evidence.

  4. To the anonymous Gary

    Do you have even the slightest clue how much it will cost the global monetary economy if we do nothing?

    What do you do for a living? What is your background? What do or did you do for a living? You see, I think you think you’re a conservative. But I don’t think you are.

    And speaking of ethics, please post your full name. I can not understand why people make statements without providing the integrity of their name to show that they truly stand by their words.

    Of course there is plenty of evidence. One does not need a computer model to see the physical reality of a warming world.

    What latest peer reviewed science are you referring to? Please provide citations.

    Also, your last argument is known as a red herring. DDT has nothing to do with global warming.


    Fee & Dividend: Our best chanceLearn the IssueSign the Petition
    A Climate Minute: The Natural CycleThe Greenhouse EffectHistory of Climate ScienceArctic Ice Melt

  5. Gary says:

    The Point is:

    Global warming is NOT a serious issue it is a perfectly natural and normal cyclic event and wasting time and resources on it is merely neurotic.

    We have real problems to deal with.
    We don’t need these manufactured ones.

    If there were ANY proof or even ANY good evidence that the small warming that occured last century was man made there might be a case to so a little something.
    But since there isn’t, and the latest peer reviewed science show that the IPCC claims are false and that the Solar cycles infleuence climate more that man ever will, your postiion is cleary unethical.

    Similar to the DDT farce that killed 40 million africans before the idiot greenies admitted they were wrong.

    • DONALD A BROWN says:

      Mr Williams claims that there is no evidence of human caused global warming despite the fact that every Academy of Science in the World including the US Academy of Sciences and recently NASA have not only issued statements confirming the consensus view but identified the peer-reviewed science that supports their conclusions. Of course, he gives no citations to peer-reviewed science that has been reviewed by credible scientific organizations. This would be nothing more than an odd historical development if it weren’t true that that there is so much at stake with climate change. This is truly a human tragedy unfolding.

  6. To the anonymous Justa Joe

    First I believe that anonymous voices on the internet have even less credibility than politicians in an election year, willing to ambiguously word craft there way around the facts to achieve a predetermined end, that of getting more votes at nearly any cost.

    Second You ask for citations and yet offer no proof whatsoever about the list you provided. In what peer reviewed journal were were all of these things debunked?

    Third Post your full legal name and show some spine.

    Forth Look at the data:

    http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/current-climate-conditions

    Fifth Global warming is a seriously critical issue. Ignoring it is merely neurotic.


    Fee & Dividend: Our best chanceLearn the IssueSign the Petition
    A Climate Minute: The Natural CycleThe Greenhouse EffectHistory of Climate ScienceArctic Ice Melt

  7. Gary says:

    Mike;

    Do you have even the slightest clue how much resource will be wasted on this nonsense?
    The best estimate is 45 Trillion Dollars.
    Yes. That was Trillion.
    One Tenth of that would solve all of the most critical problems for the most underprivilaged people on the planet.
    But nooooooo.
    Because of this sill scam, we will waste it on usless idiocy in the name of idiological Socialist regulations and usless projects like windfarms.

    I am concerned. Because we have real problems in the world.
    I am concerned because nutbars are insisting we blow our reaources on pseudo scientific idiocy.
    Talk about Ethical issues.

    Do you have even an inkling of what an 85% reduction in CO2 would require to pull off?
    No I didn’t think so.
    You are stil living in the green dream world of Eco nutbars and have no problem with causing millions of people in poor countries to die needless death so you can feel like a green hero.

    You guys discust me.

    • DONALD A BROWN says:

      The claim that economic cost will exceed $45 Trillion, we do not believe, represents the consensus view in peer-reviewed journals. Some economists, including Sir Nicolas Stern, claim that the cost of doing nothing will far exceed the costs of reducing ghg to levels needed to protect the environment.

      Stern claims that the cost of non-action could reach 20% of global GDP. (Stern 2006)

      Most economists have asserted the cost of doing nothing on climate change exceed the costs of taking action. ClimateEthics will write about this in detail in upcoming posts.

      In the United States, arguments have been made that 40% of the reductions that are needed could be achieved by conservation and elimination of waste— that is by measures that save money. Right now, Europeans use about 1/2 as much energy as the average American at no noticeable decrease in life-style.

      The point of this is that cost claims are highly contested and often rest on assumptions in models about what the solutions are.

      ClimateEthics is not qualified to synthesize the peer-reviewed evidence about economic costs of action on climate change (alhough we dont believe the commentator is ether) but this issue, like the scientific uncertainty issue needs to fought out in the peer reviewed journals, for this is the only way from protecting the public from bogus claims on both sides of the argument. The United States Academy of Sciences, knowledgeable about cost arguments, have urged the United States to take strong action on climate change.

      To think through the costs issues clearly it is important also to think about who gets harmed from non action, whether those who are causing the harm to those who are vulnerable should pay the cost of damages, and whether those who will be harmed have consented to be put at grave risk.

      Stern, Sir Nicloas, 2006. Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, HM Treasury, http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_Report.cfm, (viewed, May 31, 2008)United States, 1998, The Kyoto Protocol and the President’s Policies to Address Climate Change; An Economic Analysis, http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BWJUP/$File/wh_c&b.pdf

  8. Justa Joe says:

    Doc Brown, I hope that you’re an ethicist and not involved in the hard sciences. Your litany of proofs of AGW reads like the Warmlist, and most of your proofs have long since been de-bunked, have a dubious connection to AGW, or are just plain laughable.

    2010 is the hottest year so far and the last decade is the hottest on record.
    _____Some decade has to be the hottest on record. 2000 – 2009 purportedly replaced the

    1930’s as the “hottest”. This doesn’t prove much. I don’t have much confidence in these

    records as games are always being played with them.

    -Growing seasons are lengthening.
    _____And this is bad? If this is even true, which is doubtful, many factors would contribute

    to this.

    Nights have warmed more than days (this is very important to rule out the sun as the cause

    of the warming.)
    _____Who told you that? The relationship of solar activity to to climate is more complicated

    than simply having more or less sunshine. Read Dr. Willie Soon.

    -More wildfires are being seen around the world.
    _____As myriad factors contribute to wildfire and even the “seeing” of wildfires a connection

    to AGW would be unprovable.

    -Storm damage is rising as predicted.
    _____This is bunk on so many levels. How about man’s constructions have increased as

    predicted.

    -Snows are melting earlier
    _____Debunked

    -Fire seasons start earlier and are harder to contain
    _____LOL

    -The world is loosing snow cover
    _____Debunked

    -The globe is losing frozen ground . permafrost.
    _____I’ve never heard this gem. We would love to see a citation.

    -World’s glaciers are loosing ice each year
    _____Glaciers have been on decline since the early 1800’s. The great lakes were formed by

    glaciers. Where have those glaciers gone and better yet… when?

    -Sea ice is declining
    _____Debunked

    -Volume of sea ice is declining
    _____Debunked

    -Greenland is loosing [SIC] ice
    _____Debunked

    -Antarctica is loosing[SIC] ice
    _____Antartica is gaining ice.

    -Sea level is rising at the fastest level on record
    _____Debunked

    -Oceans are becoming more acid
    _____Debunked

    -Plant and animals are moving up slope and north 3.0 miles/decade
    _____LOL
    -Timing of flowers, butterflies emergencies[SIC] are appearing earlier,
    _____LOL

    Doc, Your niavete is almost refreshing in a way, but you really should try to learn a little

    about the otherside of the AGW argument. I can see why you’re a warmist if you’ve

    swallowed all the silly things that you just posted.

    • DONALD A BROWN says:

      Your claim that the all of the above have been debunked by the science depends upon citing citations that have not apparently been recognized by the mainstream scientific institutions that have responsibility and expertise for synthesizing the peer-reviewed science. In the United States that it is the National Academy of Sciences. Their latest report was in May of this year. If you are claiming that the National Academy is corrupt, what is your evidence?. They point in each report to robust lines of scientific evidence that leads them to conclude that the Earth is warming, it is at least partially human caused, and there is reason to believe that harsh impacts from human induced climate change will be experienced under-business as usual.

      ClimateEthics, is not opposed to skepticism in science. In fact skepticism is necessary for science to advance. However skeptics must play by the rules of science, that is subject their scientific conclusions to peer-review in reputable scientific journals. Many of the claims that something has been debunked are not based upon the robust lines of evidence in peer-reviewed scientific journals that the National Academy of Science relies upon.

      There are sound public policy reasons for making every claim go through peer-review. It is the only way of dealing with unfounded scientific claims both on the environmental and skeptical side. Particularly in light of the enormous stakes in climate change it is important to rely on peer-review and then assign responsibility to an organization with the highest scientific credentials to examine that science and make recommendations. Synthesis is necessary becaue no one scientists is an expert in all of the lines of evidence that goes into making claims about likely climate impacts. The US National Academy has now done this three times and in each case supported the consensus view. If you want to fight on the science, that is how you should proceed.

      ClimateEthics is not the place to fight about the science. What we do is develop the ethical implications of the the most respected scientific views.

  9. Bill Logan says:

    When denialists are confronted with the overwhelming number of scientists and scientific organizations that have reviewed the data and come to a conclusion that they disagree with they generally try to revert to the “appeal to authority ” argument. They need to learn to distinguish between an appeal to competent authority and appeal to denialist bloggingheads as authority. There is no logical fallacy in pointing out that virtually every single responsible scientist in the field has come to the same conclusion. It doesn’t specifically “prove” the point, but in the absence of any believable scientific results to the contrary, it certainly supports the point. In areas of science that are typically beyond the educational scope of the audience, it is important to be able to distinguish between competent authority and people like Anthony Watts.
    It is clear that since virtually all of the available science contradicts the conclusions reached by the denialists, they are left with nothing but the “kill the messenger” line of reasoning. In all of the contrarian posts here, and virtually anywhere for that matter, the position is defended by a pathetic litany of ad hominem attacks on the people who find evidence that they have already decided is incorrect.
    The last refuge of this group is to claim that taking action to mitigate CO2 will destroy civilization as we know it. Again, and as usual, it is an assertion presented without a shred of evidence, but is necessary to support a position that is taken and defended on strictly emotional grounds.
    A clear case in point is Gary’s claim that 31,000 scientists have contradicted the consensus view. He refers ,of course, to the Petition Project, sent out by the almost comical Oregon Society of Science and Medicine. The requirement that a participant be considered a “scientist” was only an undergraduate degree in any science. To this project the opinion of a vacuum cleaner salesman with a B.S in sociology from a community college has the same level of authority as a PhD in Climatology. However, Gary prefers to appeal to the authority of the Petition Project than virtually every other actual scientific organization in the world.
    We are left with the following:
    1. The Earths atmosphere exhibits a “greenhouse effect”.
    2. The relative concentrations of all the gasses involved is well known and quantifiable using spectral data taken from satellites. CO2 contributes, at current concentrations, about 14%.
    3.If you keep trapping more and more energy, the atmosphere will warm.
    4. The vast majority of all the research confirms that this is happening.
    5. If no action is taken, serious harm can be done.
    6. If we start taking action now, the economic difficulties will be minimal, but the longer we delay, the more harm will be done, and the more drastic the economic costs.

    With this in mind we establish an ethical responsibility to take action. It is up to denialists to demonstrate, with serious peer reviewed research, that that there is no such risk.

    • DONALD A BROWN says:

      Mr. Logan makes an important point. Skepticism is not bad, and is in fact necessary to make progress in science. But skeptics must play by the rules and only those who subject their claims to peer-review should be entitled to be respect because the science is very complicated, their are bogus claims being made on the internet every day at high volume that have been proven to be refuted by most science, and so society needs a process to sort out the bogus claims. That, in the United States is precisely the role that has been given to the National Academy of Sciences. They have spoken at least three times on the science of climate change, including last May, and they have said they support the view that the planet is warming and it is at least partially human caused, and that under business-as-usual harsh impacts are very likely.

      We at ClimateEthics work out the ethical implications of the mainstream view. Those who want to dispute the mainstream view should play by the rules of responsible science. Many claims about the science are uninformed, not knowledgeable about the science, dont for instance know about then numerous fingerprinting and attribution studies and other robust lines of evidence that point to human causation, not natural variability. This is not meant to discourage dissenting views but to appeal to a rational way of dealing with this problem

  10. Gary says:

    Couple of things.
    1.
    Mike: There is nothing unethical about my position.
    I run the IT division. I could not care less about their little hobby. I merely point out that they believe without having any knowledge to back it.
    2. James Hansen is not qualified to have an opinion. He is not a climatologist. He is Physisist.
    3. It is NOT up to us to prove that the hypothesys is incorrect. It is up to those that want to impose economic ruin to prove that it is correct. So far they have not even come close.
    4. The concensus is of course a myth so discussing it is silly. I am more impressed with the 31000 scientists that signed off that they don’t agree than the few that do support the AGW dogma.

    If you want to destroy the current way of life on the planet, you must at least show some good evidence that it is necessary. Proof would be good but even some sound logical arguments would help.

    So far The IPCC has little other than scandal after scandal, exageration after exageration.
    And of course there is the FACT that only 51 of them actually signed the chapter 9 “man made” declaration.

    Its sooooooo just a scam……

    • Mike says:

      Gray,

      Calm down. The fact you are flying off the handle here just shows you are not being objective. Why is this such a hot button issue? If we tax carbon and develop alternative energy sources and it turns out the scientists were wrong it is not the end of the world. We will need to convert to new forms of energy sooner or later anyway. If we do nothing and the scientists are right, life will go on – we will adapt to the new climate, but it will be even more costly and of course deadly for some (think Pakistan & Russia). Perhaps you’ve heard of Pascal’s wager.

      But there is no point in screaming it is all a hoax or that Hansen is not a climatologist (climate modeling is based on physics). Hansen is very political and I don’t agree with his opposition to cap and trade.

      So, chill out and spend some time reading both sides. Stewart Weart’s book The Discovery of Global Warming is a good place to start.

  11. WCK says:

    Dear Dr. Brown

    I invite you to re-examine the testimony to congress and the supporting study that James Hansen provided in 1988. He testified that he was 99% sure of his opinion but in hind site was completely wrong in his projections. I offer this to make the point that congress often hears testimony that is later found to be wrong as was the Hansen 1988 testimony. Just because a scientist or a group of scientists think they’re 90% correct or 99% correct in their projections, congress has experienced numerous examples of failed consensus opinions, that you have not, and they must be more cautious than you in accepting consensus opinion. You have the right to judge their actions based on your personal view but your personal view is only one of 310 million that congress must respect.

    Best regards
    Sundance

    • DONALD A BROWN says:

      Yes, of course, the consensus view can be incorrect and has been in the history of science. In fact, we would argue that skepticism is necessary for science to proceed. However, there is a huge need for skeptics to play by the rules of science, which includes among many other things. that skeptics publish in peer reviewed journals. This is also true of the proponents of theories that humans are causing climate change. And why is this necessary?. Because only peer review constrains erroneous claims, seeks to see if claims are being made that have been thoroughly refuted by scientific logic, and seeks to make sure that the claims are consistent with other basic scientific understandings that are not in contention. Given that there are numerous claims being made by so called skeptics as well as those who believe in human causation that don’t withstand serious peer review scrutiny.requiring proponents and opponents of climate change to withstand the rigors of peer review is extraordinarily important. We also need to rely on scientific institutions to synthesize the science of climate change given the huge mufti-disciplinary nature of climate change science. The fact is no one scientist is an expert in the entire field of climate change science. This is precisely the role that has been created by the National Academy of Science in the United States. It is also the reason why scientific organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, The American Geophysical Union, and others should be consulted about contentious scientific issues. It does not mean that the conclusions of such bodies should be accepted without limitation, that in fact would be an appeal to authority, but it is necessary to give potentially competent advice on science to policy-makers particularly in mufti-disciplinary matters such as climate change. This is a much longer story, but courts often go through similar logic to make sense of conflicting scientific claims. To put an expert witness on in a court, one must lay foundation that the expert is testifying consistent with the peer reviewed science with reasonable levels of scientific certainty. This is what we should expect of skeptics and non-skeptics alike. The only way we have to sort this out is to appeal to credible scientific bodies. They may be wrong, but that is not the question we are asking of them. We are asking whether the scientific claims are consistent with the best scientific views.

      The National Academy of Sciences has looked at climate change science at least three times. Once in the Carter Administration, once in the Second George Bush Administration, and once this past May. In all three cases the Academy said that there was a credible robust scientific basis for concluding the planet was warming due to human causes.

      Now we at ClimateEthics are not the place to go to get advice on the mainstream scientific view. That is not our mission. What we do is work out the ethical implications of the mainstream scientific view. We also believe what should be done in the face of scientific uncertainty is fundamentally an ethical issue, not a scientific question although the science is relevant to the ethical questions.

  12. gary says:

    Donald….
    I work for an organization that promotes the propaganda view.
    We just received 2 Million dollars to setup a Climate Change Action Center. We have Hired 4 new staff for it.
    There are no strings and no expectations attached to the money.
    All we had to do to get it was agree to promote the agenda.
    All of the Staff on that team believe absolutely in the doctrines.
    Not one of them understands the science or cares about it.
    They have lucrative jobs and don’t really need to accomplish anything with their efforts.

    I wonder what motivates them…..

    AGW is an interesting theory.
    It is more important as a social change tool and a Tax generator.

    Follow the money and you will absolutely wind up at huge profiteering and people who depend on the myth to keep food on their families tables.

    it is a moot point now anyway since the bubble is bursting as we speak and the whole movement is colapsing rapidly.

    It was a nice try however.

    • Mike says:

      Gray,

      I did a Google search for “Climate Change Action Center.” I found several private activists groups. They seem to be funded by private sources like American Express and PATAGONIA® CLOTHING & GEAR. Donald Brown did not list any such groups. Gray, if you are working for a group you disagree with, then you are the one behaving in an unethical manner.

      There are many private groups on both sides of the climate change debates. Denier groups like Heartland, Cato and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce do did list their funding sources. I think as a matter of ethics, all organizations that want tax exempt status should have to list their major funding sources.

  13. Karl says:

    Donald A. Brown @2:31

    Your list is an impressive appeal to authority. Science does not need such an appeal, politics does. All these organizations have a huge stake in the government grants that go toward studying climate change.

    • DONALD A BROWN says:

      It just not true that all the members of the National Academy of Sciences depend upon grants. It also absurd to assume that the grants are given only to people who will confirm the consensus view. Grants are given competitively based upon the scientific merits of what is being studied. Neither the granter or the grantee knows what the results of the grant will be. Anyone who is a skeptic can apply for a grant and will get the grant if he or she can demonstrate that their is an important area of science that needs to be studied.

      It is beyond absurd to conclude that all of the peer reviewed sciences is funded because granters know what results they want. You should not make such a claim unless you can prove it. There is too much at stake.

      The National Academy of Sciences dosen’t receive grants, it simply reviews the science to give advice to the government. The National Academy of Sciences is respected, trusted, and represents the best in science.

    • Mike says:

      Suppose you are on a jury and the prosecution brings out expert witnesses in DNA analysis, finger print analysis and ballistics, all giving evidence of the defendant’s guilt, and all the defense attorney says is “Science does not appeal to authority!” You’d find his client guilty. If you think the people with expert knowledge are wrong about climate change, it is up to you to show us where they went wrong. We as a people have to make some tough choices. Do we go by the best available evidence or rely on a few contrarians and bloggers?

    • DONALD A BROWN says:

      Several comments have been made about appeal to authority. We will be writing a much longer response to these issues soon as a post. However, we agree that there is a practical need in public policy to follow recognized expert opinion and the law in several ways is quite explicit about this. Before you can give expert testimony in most legal cases, one must lay foundation that the expert’s opinion is being given with reasonable scientific certainty, where reasonable scientific certainty is often understood to be consistent with peer reviewed science in the field. One, interesting exception to this rule, is when the government is taking protective action according to a regulation. Then the standard is that the scientific basis is not “arbitrary and capricious.”‘ We believe this is precisely what ethics would require, however, we will develop this in more detail in a future post. There are many practical reasons why society should look to expert bodies of knowledge to make public policy. We will show why this is so important in the case of climate change because there are wild unsubstantiated claims that have been made both by climate policy opponents and proponents that are not credible.

  14. gary says:

    30 years of research and 75 Billion dollars wasted and stil all we have are wild claims and an poorly supported hypothesys.

    Of course the political science acadamies back this money trough.
    They are in the middle of the single biggest gravy train in the history of funded science. If they even hint that there is any doubt, tey loose funding.

    Gee,,, I wonder what motivates them.

    Begin your serious look at this fraud with a visit to Thegreenagenda.com. Then look up the Club of Rome. The Al Gore is menber by the Way.

    Then expand to read some of the research on solar effects and ENSO cycles.

    If you still believe after that, then you are baseing your belief on Faith, not science.

    Studies have shown conclusively that the more you know about AGW the less it will concern you.

    CO2 is Plant food.

  15. Donald A .Brown says:

    ClimateEthics has recieved in the last few days a host of emails and comments on the last post claiming that ClimateEthics got the science wrong. Most of these are simply ad hominem charges, that is attacks on the character of the writer, not serious engagement in the issues under discussion.

    A few others are more respectful scientific claims but are at odds with the peer-reviewed literature or state no basis for their conclusions in the peer-reviewed literature.

    We at ClimateEthics have said over and over again that we encourage all parties to draw their own conclusions about the science of climate change, however, this requires engagement with the peer-reviewed scientific literature. We at ClimateEthics are not hostile to skepticism in science, in fact skepticism is necessary for science to advance. Yet skeptics must play by the rules of science, that is subject their claims to peer-review in reputable scientific journals.

    Skeptics also should not say that a piece of evidence that they want to rely on completely refutes conclusions of most climate scientists when at best it only dents one line of evidence nor should they make claims about the science that has been effectively refuted.

    The consensus view, that we can see human causation in the undeniable warming that the world is experiencing is based upon multiple lines of robust evidence. In the last response to recent comments we noted that there are numerous fingerprinting and attribution studies that have led to all known scientific institutions with expertise in the subject matter to support at least generally the conclusions of IPCC. In a democracy like the United States, we turn to the United States Academy of Sciences to review holistically the peer reviewed literature. They have said at least three times that we are aware of that there is a vast body of scientific evidence that supports the conclusion that the climate is warming, it is human caused at least in part, and serious adverse impacts will result under business as usual. In other words, the United States Academy of Sciences supports the conclusions of the IPCC as does every Academy of Science in the World. Instead of engaging in the evidence, respondents to this website just dismiss this on the basis that the scientists are bought off even though the Academy of Sciences and the IPCC lay out in great painstaking detail the evidence on which their conclusions are based.

    Now we at ClimateEthics should not be viewed to be the appropriate body to synthesize the peer-reviewed science. That is the role of the US Academy of Sciences, the IPCC and other prestigious institutions that have significant expertise over climate change science.

    The IPCC has drawn conclusions with higher and higher levels of confidence in their four reviews of the peer-reviewed science. Yet, even if there is more uncertainty than that acknowledged by IPCC, ClimateEthics asserts that decision-making in the face of uncertainty raises ethical questions in addition to scientific issues. That is particularly true when the science that concludes that there is danger reaches a level of respect even in cases where all the uncertainties have not been resolved. The duty to be careful once someone is on notice that they are doing something potentially harmful is a particularly strong duty when the harms could be catastrophic, to wait until all the uncertainties will be resolved will make it too late to prevent the harm to the victims of the harm, the longer one waits to resolve the uncertainties the worse the problem gets. These factors are all in play in climate change.

    Because if the mainstream view is correct, climate change is a problem caused by some people that will most harshly be experienced by others, the harms to the victims will likely be catastrophic, and the victims of climate change have not consented to be put at risk, climate change raises many civilization challenging ethical questions.

    Because climate change is an ethical question, decision-making in the face of uncertainty raises ethical questions. Where there is a lot at stake, most cultures place the burden of proof on those who want to continue dangerous behavior.

    The expertise at ClimateEthics is on the ethical dimensions of climate change. We encourage reasoned discussion on these issues but will not accept attacks on character that are not an invitation to reason responsibly.

    Simply saying that something is an ethical questions does not necessarily lead to a consensus on what ethics requires. It can lead to conflict among ethical prescriptions, an overlapping consensus among ethical theories about right or wrong, or it can lead to an agreement that some issues positions taken by a party is ethically problematic even if there is a disagreement about what ethics requires.

    ClimateEthics is eager to share its reasoning on its ethical conclusions in a reasoned way but will not respond to unreasonable ad hominem attacks..

Skip to toolbar