What will be the eventual consequences to human populations if global warming, or climate change, is occurring due to human activity and we ignore it?Global warming denials: Can you say intellectually dishonest?

Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion.

Is there a historical pattern to the current arguments against human caused global warming? The simple answer is yes, as you will see. I very distinctly remember playing touch football games outside on the eastern edge of Beverly Hills, California in the mid-1950s. After half an hour or so of playing, we were almost unable to take even a modest breath without coughing and hacking. We would have to quit playing and go indoors. At that time, scientific research seemed to indicate that the cause of our discomfort was something called photochemical smog. The hypothesis was that smog was formed during periodic episodes of a temperature inversion layer in the atmosphere of the Los Angeles Basin. This temperature inversion acted to trap automobile exhaust, which then allowed solar radiation to change the exhaust chemicals into smog. This research was published in various scientific journals and then started to appear in the existing media of the time (radio, television, newspaper, and magazine sources). Very soon, there was a reaction to this compelling and well-documented published evidence that can be summarized by this following comment: “The scientific research supposedly indicating that automobile exhaust contributes to the formation of smog is false, and there is no consensus among the scientists.”

Global warming denials: Can you say intellectually dishonest?
A view of the Los Angeles Civic Center in the mid-1950s

Such negative comments became increasingly strident through the 1950s and into the 1960s. As it turned out, the denials came mostly from a combination of automobile manufacturers and the petroleum industry and were filtered through various public relations organizations and local to federal politicians. These groups obviously had a vested interest in the continuous and ever-increasing production of automobiles and the various petroleum products used to operate and maintain such vehicles; such vested interests are otherwise known as maintaining the bottom line of profitability. Despite industry denials, by 1967 the Federal Air Quality Act was passed, and anti-smog devices began to be installed on automobiles. I remember my ’67 Corvette had a “smog pump” and a bunch of tubes stuck onto the engine. It produced a loud bang through the exhaust pipes if the accelerator pedal was released rapidly. This feature was very useful for scaring other drivers.

Progressing through the 1950s and up to the present time, and doing a little research, will turn up more examples of vested interests not necessarily supporting the public good. Some examples include “no scientific consensus” of the following:

—Cigarette smoking causes cancer or other health problems (1950s–1970s).

—Tetraethyl lead in gasoline creates health problems or environmental hazards (1950s–1970s).

—The insecticide DDT causes harm to organisms and the environment (1960s).

—Chlorofluorocarbons affect the ozone layer of the atmosphere (1970s–1990s).

—Global warming is caused by the human activity of burning fossil fuels (current).

Invention and the almost explosive spread of the Internet on a global scale has provided an immense boost to these anti-science, vested-interest groups, allowing them to instantaneously spread their misinformation far and wide and with essentially no regard for the accuracy of their claims. Additionally, very large sums of money are funneled into politics and politicians by a variety of lobbyists who represent the particular industry that feels threatened by the scientific evidence.

Science and global warming

Considering the current hot-button issue of global warming, it is quite evident that there are major differences of opinion as to whether it is occurring and, if so, whether human activity plays any role (there are multiple hypotheses). However, a very large body of scientific peer-reviewed published research exists on this topic, and the vast majority of scientists and research evidence strongly suggests that warming is occurring and that human activity is the main cause. Not surprisingly, in some circles there exists a strong negative reaction to this, and many vociferous arguments against this idea have been presented in public speeches, on radio and television broadcasts, published online as blogs or through social media sites, and also as written hard copy. You might be wondering why there are such negative reactions, especially from political figures and some industries as well as from religious and conservative organizations. Is the scientific research supporting global warming incorrect, faked, a conspiracy by scientists in many countries, or perhaps an attempt to change the “world order?” Is the concept really “the biggest scientific hoax of all time?”

It seems to be a strange coincidence, or maybe not, that these current anti-science/research comments are usually generated in some way by the affected petroleum and related industries (in the past it was cigarette manufacturers, pesticide manufacturers, automobile manufacturers, etc.). Again, we see examples of vested interests. The advent and global existence of the internet, with almost universal access, has allowed an almost instantaneous spread of such propaganda, and sometimes outright lies, with virtually no indication of the source for validation or who might be paid off to state these remarks. To illustrate my point of consider the example below.

The ”graph” below represents a nasty example of what I consider to be a high level of intellectual dishonesty (if not outright misrepresentation … like in a complete lie). Note: Both cfact.org and the Heritage Foundation receive major support from fossil fuel producers (public record), so this is certainly not an innocent coincidence (vested interest again).

Global warming denials: Can you say intellectually dishonest?
A “graph” attempting to deny climate change

This “graph” was originally published by cfact.org and was then modified and reprinted in a flyer mailed to educational institutions around the country by the Heritage Foundation, a self-avowed conservative think tank (?) that receives significant support from energy companies (public record).

Although cfact.org uses a credible source for its graph (see fine print at lower right), this “graph” is basically meaningless from a scientific or mathematic standpoint for the following reasons. First, disregard the rather obvious inappropriate attack on Al Gore. Second, note the mathematic calculation: 1997–2012 = how many years? Third, and more importantly, there are no vertical or horizontal scales on this “graph,” so essentially with no numbers it has no mathematical or scientific meaning. Fourth, the red line, which presumably represents temperature fluctuations, provides no actual values except at each end. Fifth, this “graph” also covers only a small, selected fraction of the total time framework of about 160 years used by the original source of the data, as indicated in the following graph (image below). I consider it to be an example of willful intellectual dishonesty. So in less subtle terms, this graph is actually a piece of crap. It is a blatant attempt to discredit strong scientific evidence, create doubt, and thereby protect the fossil fuel industry, to the eventual detriment of society.

Global warming denials: Can you say intellectually dishonest?
A legitimate graph of climate change. Compilation of global temperature data (Crutem 4), and a “best fit curve” from 1850–2010. The only similarity between the two graphs is the red color of the data line and I guess the yellow background. I have modified this graph by adding two other time intervals, each of which shows no global warming, but taken together, all three provide clear evidence of warming.

As you can see, what was done by providing the edited bogus graph used by the Heritage Foundation was to “cherry pick” a short time interval that appears to show no global warming and then generalize by claiming it doesn’t happen at all. However, with an expanded time frame of 160 years, like in the second graph, it becomes pretty obvious that global temperatures have been undergoing a sporadic but steady rise, especially since the early part of the 20th century. Well, maybe the graph is incorrect and global warming is not happening (which is doubtful), but at least this represents an honest attempt to show research data.

What about the years since 2010? Here is a quote from NOAA.

“The average temperature across the globe in 2017 was 1.51 degrees F above the 20th century average of 57 degrees F. 2017 marks the 41st consecutive year (since 1977) with global land and ocean temperatures at least nominally above the 20th-century average. The six warmest years on record for the planet have all occurred since 2010.”

Another common but misinformed argument against global warming spread by the same organizations is that the Earth’s climate has undergone fluctuations throughout its history. That is, in fact, a true statement. So that argument is used to downplay the temperature changes recorded for the past 160 years as being just another fluctuation similar to those “natural” ones that have been recognized in the distant past. Therefore, human activity, such as burning fossil fuels, is not really a causative factor. It’s true that climate fluctuations have occurred extending well back into the distant past, and there are numerous graphs illustrating that fact. However, what is conveniently ignored (perhaps not known by those presenting this current argument or perhaps willfully ignored) is the time framework.

Past climatic changes have occurred, such as the most recent glacial/interglacial episodes, but they have occurred over very long intervals of time — on the order of thousands or tens of thousands of years or more, not just 160 years. What we are seeing in the immediate past is a change rate order of magnitude more rapid than ancient changes. To note, though, there certainly have been catastrophic events in Earth’s history well documented by geologists, such as the meteorite impact about 65–66 million years ago in the Yucatan Peninsula, the massive ancient volcanic eruptions of the Deccan Traps in India and Siberia, and possibly other events that did trigger rapid changes in global temperature … and associated large-scale extinctions of animals and plants. However, I don’t know of any recent major bolide impact nor of any massive-scale volcanic eruptions … so, I guess it must be our fault!

Responding to one other point commonly put forth, a favorite ploy used by climate change deniers is to level charges that scientists are getting rich from doing this climate research. The hue and cry is “follow the money.” Ok, let’s do that. As a university-based research scientist, I wrote grant proposals to various organizations such as the National Science Foundation. Over the years, some of my proposals were funded to a cumulative total of nearly $300,000 … so did I get rich? The answer is no. Scientists working in academia, or in government, or in industry positions are paid a salary, so it is not common for award-granting institutions such as the National Science Foundation to provide extra salary or stipends to the principal researcher. Award money goes for supplies and equipment, field and laboratory expenses, student support if in academia, publication page charges, and overhead for the institutional organization in charge of the grant. If you really want to “follow the money,” go online and check out the huge salaries paid to oil company executives and also the large amounts of money petroleum industry lobbiysts pay to various politicians who promote denial of the evidenced. They are the ones getting rich!

The pattern of denial, which has been used by various industries in responding to scientific evidence harmful to their bottom line of profits, is currently being used against the science and scientists working on global climate change. This methodology is greatly enhanced because of the instant and uncritical information spewed out on the internet. All sorts of red herrings are flung out in attempts to deny the evidence. For example, “scientists are in collusion,” “it’s part of a plan for a new world order,” “It’s the biggest hoax of all time,” “scientists have to toe the line or they will not receive funding,” “the actual results have been altered to fit an agenda,” “the evidence is not conclusive,” “it’s absurd to think human activity is significant enough to change the Earth,” and so on. The most important thing to remember is the source of these statements and where their monetary support is coming from.

What will be the eventual consequences to human populations if global warming is occurring due to human activity and we choose to ignore it? What will be the consequences if we act on the current evidence and it turns out not to be as significant as thought? Rational thought would tend towards taking precautions and making changes with the assumption that we are the causal effect. Are we, as a species, rational enough to implement changes in our behavior?

The viewpoints expressed above do not necessarily reflect those of The Independent.

Articles related to “Human activity in global warming or climate change: Can you say intellectually dishonest?”

Majority of Utahns believe climate change happening, humans partly responsible

Letter to the Editor: Climate change denial in southern Utah

Letter to the Editor: Citizens’ Climate Lobby encourages ethical tragedy

How to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or letter to the editor to The Independent

Do you have something to say? Want your voice to be heard by thousands of readers? Send The Independent your letter to the editor or guest opinion piece. All submissions will be considered for publication by our editorial staff. If your letter or editorial is accepted, it will run on suindependent.com, and we’ll promote it through all of our social media channels. We may even decide to include it in our monthly print edition. Just follow our simple submission guidelines and make your voice heard:

—Submissions should be between 300 and 1,500 words.

—Submissions must be sent to editor@infowest.com as a .doc, .docx, .txt, or .rtf file.

—The subject line of the email containing your submission should read “Letter to the editor.”

—Attach your name to both the email and the document file (we don’t run anonymous letters).

—If you have a photo or image you’d like us to use and it’s in .jpg format, at least 1200 X 754 pixels large, and your intellectual property (you own the copyright), feel free to attach it as well, though we reserve the right to choose a different image.

—If you are on Twitter and would like a shout-out when your piece or letter is published, include that in your correspondence and we’ll give you a mention at the time of publication.

Click This Ad

4 COMMENTS

  1. Just a heads up, 1997-2012 is 16 years. Its Jan 1 1997 – Dec 31 2012. Just a minor correction but one you made a point about.

    I’m not sure most people even know graphs need to have axis labeled to have any meaning. But the not labeling definitely helps their cherry-picking.

    Hopefully more people will read reliable, peer-reviewed science to help deal with global climate change and warming but there is no doubt the “merchants of doubt” have gotten a good return on their investment.

  2. It’s a bit confusing when the graph refers to degF, and the text degC.
    It’s also useful when talking about “on record”, to point out that this is only about the past 160 years, as long as we accept that records were reliable for global temperatures 160 years ago (back in the 1800s).
    Of course, the temperature globally may be rising. It’s expected as we come out of the Little Ice Age. There is an hypothesis that increased warming (for whatever reason) will increase water vapour – the strongest greenhouse gas – which will further increase warming (positive feedback). However, there are other effects – eg increased cloud density, which probably results in cooling (negative feedback). The trick is to understand all these mechanisms, and see which are dominant. To date, this is yet to be achieved.

  3. When they all all been caught lying and manipulating data, especially historic temp records, unfortunately there is no other way to look at their shenanigans as fraud. I don’t blame them,, there is HUGE amount of money to made made here if you get on the payroll.

  4. Shaun.
    Thanks for your comment, although I suspect you did not really read my article. So here is a suggestion. Refer to page 6, paragraph 3, which concerns your “Huge amount of money”. If you knew about granting agencies, you would find that academic and government scientists are simply not getting rich doing research on global climate change, or, for that matter, on almost any other type of scientific research. Rarely does a granting agency provide salary to an already employed scientist. The people who really are getting rich, and have HUGE amount of money are the energy company executives, and the paid shills who write misleading articles.
    The so called shenanigans you refer to (“caught lying and manipulating data”) are simply not true. Historical climate data, and current climate data is adjusted when new information becomes available. This is another red herring thrown out to the uninformed masses by the vested interests (energy companies). There would have to be a global conspiracy among thousands of scientists for such shenanigans to actually happen…no way could that happen.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here