The History of Global Climate Change, part 2

While we referenced many sources for this page, a key source was “The Discover of Global Warming” at the site of the American Institute of Physics. It is detailed, objective, and well written, and we strongly encourage people to go to the site and read all of it.

Climate is one of the most complex fields of scientific study, yet nothing prepared the scientific community for the new complexities they faced in 1988. Thanks to Jim Hansen’s testimony, global climate change was back in the news. Suddenly, men and women who were accustomed to working in relative obscurity and thinking at highly theoretical levels were faced with the problem of convincing the general public that a potentially catastrophic situation with global impact might…repeat, MIGHT…have already begun.

This was going to be a tough sell, particularly, it would turn out, in America. We’re used to thinking of America as one of the world’s "good guys," at the forefront on issues of social responsibility. This has not been the case with global climate change. On this issue, the United States has lagged behind much of the rest of the world, and has taken an active role is slowing and even blocking action to lower greenhouse gas emissions. While the community of climate scientists would soon reach consensus on the issue of global warming, and would make several forceful statements over the years to that effect, public understanding of the issue remains divided and largely skeptical. Before we move the story beyond 1988, let’s consider some of the factors that have contributed to this divide.

Scientists don’t think like the rest of us

While most people makes decisions based on "facts" and "truths," scientists live in a world where neither of these exists. A scientist may have confidence in an idea, but never certainty. Scientists work, and think, in a world of theories and data. Something is observed to happen; a theory (which is just a highly refined guess) is proposed to explain it; predictions are made based on the theory; and experiments are devised to test the predictions under highly specific conditions. The results are recorded and analyzed. If the results support the prediction, the experiment is repeated again and again to make sure the results are consistent. If the results don’t support the prediction, the theory is revised. New predictions are made and new experiments are conducted. Other experiments expand the scope of the predictions based on the theory to see how much it might explain. Over time, if enough results match enough predictions, the theory comes to be accepted by most of the experts in the field. This is called "consensus." There will always be some who doubt the theory or question the research; the scientific method encourages skepticism. But consensus is as close to a "truth" as science gets. Once consensus has been reached, experiments shift from testing the core ideas of the theory to finding out how widely it can be applied.

Scientist know that even the most established theories may, over time, prove false. New research or new technology may reveal flaws that earlier research was not capable of recording or measuring. New discoveries may open up whole new levels of complexity. Ideas which formed the basis of a lifetime’s work may have to be scrapped.

This is why, in the public eye, scientists often come across as indecisive or noncommittal. They’re just trying to be accurate. Good science rarely makes for good PR.

Besides, the days of the white coats were over

Up until the 1960s, faith in science was almost boundless. Scientists were seen as the epitome of rational, objective thinking, and their ability to improve life and advance society went largely unchallenged.

This unbounded faith changed with the growth of the environmental movement, as people became aware of the destructive, and often unforeseen, consequences of scientific progress. Science, it was revealed, is often wrong and sometimes shortsighted. Scientists sometimes let sponsorship dollars, rather than pure reason, guide their research. From the 1960s on, mistakes would make the news more often than triumphs. Just two years earlier, the Challenger disaster had shown that America’s rocket scientists could be undone by something as simple as a frozen rubber o-ring.

People were putting a lot less faith in the words of scientists in 1988. It’s notable that Ronald Reagan was just then preparing to leave office as president, still as popular as when he was elected. While in office he had once publicly claimed that trees cause air pollution. Many Americans had laughed it off. More than a few had believed it.

Nothing all that bad had happened yet

While there was no doubt within the scientific community that global warming had occurred, and strong suspicion that global climate change had already begun, no one knew for sure what was actually going to happen. The theories connecting global warming and climate change were purely speculative. The possibilities were frightening. Past climate shift had been extreme and often catastrophic to life on the planet. But no one could, in good conscience, make firm and specific predictions.

And nothing catastrophic had happened yet. There had been some hot weather, some strong storms, some troubling signs. But thus far, global climate change had shown itself to be inconvenient and a bit unpleasant, but no worse. America has shown in the past that it can act swiftly and with great purpose in the face of a clear and present danger. The danger was there, for sure, but it was neither clear enough nor present enough. Yet.

There was a lot to lose

To reverse the greenhouse gas problem, mankind would have to give up what may be the single most important invention in human history: the combustion engine. Engines burning fossil fuels are the foundation of modern, industrial society. Today, fossil fuel powers almost all of our transportation, generates most of our energy, warms and cools our houses and powers our factories. The very framework of modern human society, its densely populated cities and sprawling suburbs, its widely dispersed yet interconnected populations, its diverse industries, depends on ready access to the power of fossil fuels.

When the hole in the ozone layer was discovered, most people simply had to give up hair spray. Combating global climate change would mean rethinking and redesigning virtually all aspects of modern life. It would mean changing, and probably sacrificing, a way of life which had brought an unprecedented level of comfort and convenience to millions of people. And it would mean spending a lot more money for the same amount of energy.

Meanwhile, modern industrial society was just beginning to take hold in a whole new part of the planet. Economies in South America, Africa and Asia were achieving a new level of productivity, and their populations enjoying a new level of prosperity, all powered by fossil fuels. Asking these countries to give up fossil fuels meant asking their people to give up a level of comfort and security they were experiencing for the first time in their history.

The other side mobilized, and got its version of the story out, effectively

Powerful interests who were heavily vested in fossil fuels, including energy providers, auto producers, chemical industries and agricultural conglomerates were already working to increase public skepticism about global climate change. They had learned from earlier setbacks such as the ozone threat, when public opinion had forced them to change practices and lose money. They recognized that the best way to combat "inconvenient" scientific evidence was not through advertising and marketing, but by finding and promoting contradictory studies. This was accomplished through anonymously-named think tanks and foundations, which freely funded anyone looking to disprove global climate change. There was plenty of contradictory and unexplained data to use, and it wasn’t hard to find scientists willing to play the role of contrarian in the public eye.

Introduce enough complexity and enough conflicting opinions into the public debate of science, and many people will become confused, overloaded and frustrated. Frustration leads to doubt. And a doubtful public resists changing the status quo.

The birth of red state, blue state

Reagan’s term in office marked the beginning of a period in America where certain issues became closely tied to political allegiance. The environment was one of these polarizing issues. Republicans would hold the presidency for 20 of the next 28 years. And republicans put business first, environment second.

The growing influence of religion

There was also a growing religious movement in America that was highly skeptical of the scientific method, and in particular Darwin’s theory of evolution. Proponents would push for alternate science courses, called "creation science" and based on the Bible, to be taught in public schools. The states of Arkansas and Louisiana both passed legislation, in 1981 and 1982, mandating that these courses be taught. It took a Supreme Court decision in 1987 to overturn these mandates. The creationism concept would reemerge in the 2000s with a new name, "intelligent design," and a new public battle to force its teaching in public schools. Global climate change ran afoul of intelligent design proponents, because it used evidence from the fossil records which challenged an intelligent design principle that the world was only 6,000 years old.

Put all these trends together and it’s easy to see how the debate over global climate change has played out since 1988.

• The community of climate scientists were and remain largely united in their belief that greenhouse gases cause global warming, that mankind’s use of fossil fuels has contributed to global warming, that global warming causes global climate change, and that global climate change has happened in the past and will happen again in the future, perhaps even the near future.
• The general public, and particularly the American public, were and remain divided. A small, active minority will develop, but grow slowly.
• The world’s governments, faced with a problem that will require massive public sacrifice and restructuring, and unwilling to force this on a skeptical public, acted slowly and in half-steps. This has included lukewarm support for one potential solution to global climate change: green energy. Green energy supporters have, as a result, looked for other ways to generate the funds needed to help green energy grow. One of these other ways: the REC.

To find out what happened after 1988, read part 3.