In my latest reading of Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit (copyright 1992, 1993), Al Gore talks about climate change skeptics.
Gore acknowledges that there are scientists who are skeptical about climate change----he mentions Professor Richard Lindzen
of MIT. Moreover, on pages 36-37, Gore refers to certain arguments
that are advanced by a few scientists that climate change is no cause
for alarm: that greenhouse gasses trapping heat in the atmosphere
results in the production of more clouds, which help to regulate "the
earth's temperature"; and that "we don't have to worry about climate
change causing widespread droughts in the middle of continental
landmasses because the faster evaporation of moisture from the soil in a
warmer atmosphere will be offset by changes in rainfall patterns."
Gore
is all for seeking answers to questions to alleviate uncertainty, as
well as debate. But he expresses what his problem is on pages 38-39:
"In this case, when 98 percent of the scientists in a given field share
one view and 2 percent disagree, both viewpoints are sometimes presented
in a format in which each appears equally credible." As a result,
according to Gore, there is a reluctance to take the difficult yet
necessary steps to address the problem of climate
change. Meanwhile, there are special interests that are quite satisfied
with the status quo.
Not long after Gore makes this statement
about scientific consensus, Gore refers to times in which widespread
scientific agreement has been wrong: on continental shift not having
occurred, for example. I was not entirely clear on what his point was
there. But I can see his larger point about climate change skepticism.
There are plenty of debates that may not make that much of a
difference----even if we get something wrong, we can come back later and
get things right. In the case of climate change, however, suppose that
those who believe that it exists and is caused by humans are right. If
we do nothing to address the problem, there may come a point when it
can no longer be addressed, with disastrous results for nature and human
beings.
But skeptics about climate change can come back and say
that we can't impose regulations that will damage the economy over a
speculative doomsday scenario. I think that's why Gore's arguments that
you don't have to choose between the environment and the economy are so
important.