Global Warming: The Ethics of Dealing with a Myth
Environmental Ethics 320 (June – August 2012)
Instructor: Steven Ganz
By Chris J. Gentry 4337888
This paper is written to understand how man applies Philosophy and Ethics to concepts he cannot understand. Today’s example will be Global Warming. I will show quickly that many of the top scientists today do not believe in Global Warming, that much of the scientific work is more a projection of man’s hope to control things then a reality, and how man finds it easier to change his own actions, then to try and understand how a complex system, like the Earth, works.
Global Warming is the theory that solar radiation is trapped by emissions of greenhouse gasses that block its escape into space, and this solar radiation is trapped. This then causes temperature changes, leading to more heat on the planet.
Environmental groups have charged that the planet is getting warmer, and the main reason for the planet getting warmer is Carbon Dioxide. That man’s use of machines, energy, and just being alive, are causing this level to grow, and with that growth, the temperature will change 1 degree hotter or more. That once this occurs, glaciers will melt, cities will drown, and even severe weather and tidal waves may occur.
I have read the data on this subject, studied the temperature charts, and looked at other causes of greenhouse gasses, and have come to the same conclusion as many of our top scientists have. There is no proven change of temperature outside the normal range of temperature from the sketchy data we have on the earth itself, and temperatures analyzed and done by man.
Row W. Spencer whose resume includes:
“his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.”( http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/2000-years-of-global-temperatures/).
States that:
“Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming mechanisms at work.” http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/2000-years-of-global-temperatures/).
Dr. Spencer goes on to say:
“It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5 more years to increase that number by 1, to 40” http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/2000-years-of-global-temperatures/).
Richard Somerville a noted Scientist and Author on the Ethics of Global Warming suggests it is such a subjective topic, and that it may not be solved scientifically:
“In any case, dangerous climate change is a subjective concept, depending on one’s values and risk tolerance, among other factors. Science cannot say that a given atmospheric level of greenhouse gases is safe, and another slightly higher one is not {http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_ethics_of_climate_change/1365/).
Another Famous Scientist, and Noble Prize Winner had this to say, according to the Wall Street Journal in its Article, “No need to panic about Global Warming:
’ In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.'”
A study done on Tree Rings, to study the last 2000 years of Climate Change by
Craig Loehle and J. Huston McCulloch shows, that temperature has changed very little over the last 2000 years.
“This graph shows the average of 18 non-tree ring proxies of temperature from 12 locations around the Northern Hemisphere, published by Craig Loehle in 2007, and later revised in 2008. It clearly shows that natural climate variability happens, and these proxies coincide with known events in human history” (SEE TOP CHART).
2,000 Years of Global Temperatures Another chart done by NASA measuring the temperatures of the planet from satellite data shows no significant temperature changes ( http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/2000-years-of-global-temperatures/)(MIDDLE CHART):
Our last chart shows that Sea Ice amounts on the planet since 2002. There is no indication that Sea Ice is growing or getting less. The Ice currently trapped in Artic and Sub Artic areas are supposed to be melting and leaving, according to the Global Warming Theory. The chart shows no great changes over the last 10 years that could not be considered normal (BOTTOM CHART):
Thus we can see in the charts, we are currently well within the planet’s norms for climate at this time. That during the Medieval Warm Period, without factories and cars, the temperature on this graph were much higher than today. This suggests that there are other factors that contribute to global warming, much more then man, as indeed there are.
Volcanoes and Bacteria also emit large volumes of greenhouse gasses. Indeed a study at the University of Hawaii suggests that if the ocean is disturbed, and its stratification of sea water is mixed, that vast amounts of methane can and will be released which are at the bottom floor. Methane is a worse greenhouse gas than Carbon Dioxide, trapping more heat in lower concentrations. (http://www.sciencecodex.com/university_of_hawaii_researchers_discover_new_pathway_for_methane_production_in_the_oceans).
No one knows if this occurred in the past, no one has included this in their greenhouse gasses cause list to date, thus it was not entered into computer climate models of the past. But logically we must accept that storms and upwelling occur all the time past, present, and future, and these gasses may have been released, are being released, and will continue to be released. But because this is not a manmade greenhouse gas, it has received very little attention.
Why the concentration of study on what man does to cause Global Warming, without studying natural causes of Global Warming? Why not blame nature? God?
I believe it has to do with man’s ego and understanding. We as men find it much easier to blame something we understand, then to go and look for other answers to a question we may not understand. When man thinks he understands something, he believes that by directing his will to it, he can control the problem.
We see examples of this in our history, and religious history. Man doing magical rites and sacrifices to control weather, priests trying to predict weather by divination and astrology. These are all attempts at controlling ideas and processes about nature that we cannot understand. For man, when something is not controllable, it creates fear, (The fear of nature, gods, and other unknowns, like death and disease). In each case in history men have sought to explain and control the uncontrollable with their beliefs.
Philosophy and Ethics are no exception to this rule; indeed it may be one of the greatest examples of this rule. The ethics demonstrated by the subject of Global Warming are as varied as their explanations. Many philosophers have shown that man may not have the will or understanding of a topic, enough to change it, and even if they do have understanding may not act.
First let us look at the term Global Warming. This label is so subjective, meaning many things to many different people. Some see it as a pollution problem, some see it as deforestation, some see it a normal process of nature. Much like G. E. Moore’s “good”, the term is:
"…one of those innumerable objects of thought which are themselves incapable of definition, because they are the ultimate terms by reference to which whatever is capable of definition must be defined" (Principia Ethica, 10, 1).
Moore points out that ‘Natural Fallacies’ occur whenever a term that is used, has not been broken down, to its basic truths. Global Warming has so many different aspects to it, that a person can take his own subjective truths and introduce them with this theory, leading to further confusion by becoming a Natural Fallacy. (An example of this would be declaring Polar Bears an Endangered Species due to Global Warming. That Glaciers are melting due to Global Warming, while some glaciers are still growing, that temperatures are rising on the planet).
Turning to Aristotle we see that just because we believe in a problem, like the description of Global Warming, does not mean that we as men, are going to do something about Global Warming. Aristotle called this the “Weakening of the Will”, and goes on to state:
“Incontinent agents suffer from a sort of weakness of the will {Gk. [akrásia]} that prevents them from carrying out actions in conformity with what they have reasoned. (Nic. Ethics VII 1) This may appear to be a simple failure of intelligence, Aristotle acknowledged, since the akratic individual seems not to draw the appropriate connection between the general moral rule and the particular case to which it applies. Somehow, the overwhelming prospect of some great pleasure seems to obscure one's perception of what is truly good.”
Thus we see in modern times a lack of will by the general population to worry about certain problems in our society, such as Global Warming. Again the term and science are so subjective that the normal man cannot make sense of it, much less act on it. So even though the concept of Global Warming is important to many people, Aristotle states very few will act on the idea, due to “Incontinent Agents”. (Examples of this are South American Government’s actions on deforestation in their countries, and China’s growing automobile industry).
Let’s look at another ethical theory that seems to agree with Aristotle called Normative Ethical Relativism. This states there are no universally valid moral principles. Normative Ethical Relativism shows us that the moral rightness and wrongness of actions varies from society to society. That there are no absolute universal moral standards binding on all men at all times. Thus in subjective manners, all opinions are equal. So according to this theory, Governments and Societies all have the right to their opinions, and each is as true as the other.
Many governments do not believe in Global Warming, and even those who state they do believe in Global Warming, have many populations and societies that are not acting on their assumption, that Global Warming is occurring, (The United States of America being one of the best examples of this.).
Summing Up:
The theory of Global Warming is subjective. The label Global Warming and the “Science” of global warming has not proven that it exists. The study of temperature, causation, and implications, of Global Warming has been proven to mean many different things. to many different people. That other causes for Global Warming seem to have been ignored as a whole, compared to the studies of man causing agents. That this is due to man trying to control complicated systems beyond his comprehension as he has in the past, by modifying his own actions, even if said actions are not proven to change anything, and man is doing the same, with Global Warming. That even if a society does believe in Global Warming, ethics has shown it may not be a belief in other societies, and that those beliefs are just as true as any other subjective belief. That societies that do believe in Global Warming will probably, as the general rule proven by Aristotle and Normative Ethical Relativism, not act on those beliefs enough to cause any great change. That when things are going good man is a party animal, and will not change his opinion or his actions, even if he believes in something like Global Warming.
Environmental Ethics 320 (June – August 2012)
Instructor: Steven Ganz
By Chris J. Gentry 4337888
This paper is written to understand how man applies Philosophy and Ethics to concepts he cannot understand. Today’s example will be Global Warming. I will show quickly that many of the top scientists today do not believe in Global Warming, that much of the scientific work is more a projection of man’s hope to control things then a reality, and how man finds it easier to change his own actions, then to try and understand how a complex system, like the Earth, works.
Global Warming is the theory that solar radiation is trapped by emissions of greenhouse gasses that block its escape into space, and this solar radiation is trapped. This then causes temperature changes, leading to more heat on the planet.
Environmental groups have charged that the planet is getting warmer, and the main reason for the planet getting warmer is Carbon Dioxide. That man’s use of machines, energy, and just being alive, are causing this level to grow, and with that growth, the temperature will change 1 degree hotter or more. That once this occurs, glaciers will melt, cities will drown, and even severe weather and tidal waves may occur.
I have read the data on this subject, studied the temperature charts, and looked at other causes of greenhouse gasses, and have come to the same conclusion as many of our top scientists have. There is no proven change of temperature outside the normal range of temperature from the sketchy data we have on the earth itself, and temperatures analyzed and done by man.
Row W. Spencer whose resume includes:
“his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.”( http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/2000-years-of-global-temperatures/).
States that:
“Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming mechanisms at work.” http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/2000-years-of-global-temperatures/).
Dr. Spencer goes on to say:
“It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5 more years to increase that number by 1, to 40” http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/2000-years-of-global-temperatures/).
Richard Somerville a noted Scientist and Author on the Ethics of Global Warming suggests it is such a subjective topic, and that it may not be solved scientifically:
“In any case, dangerous climate change is a subjective concept, depending on one’s values and risk tolerance, among other factors. Science cannot say that a given atmospheric level of greenhouse gases is safe, and another slightly higher one is not {http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_ethics_of_climate_change/1365/).
Another Famous Scientist, and Noble Prize Winner had this to say, according to the Wall Street Journal in its Article, “No need to panic about Global Warming:
’ In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.'”
A study done on Tree Rings, to study the last 2000 years of Climate Change by
Craig Loehle and J. Huston McCulloch shows, that temperature has changed very little over the last 2000 years.
“This graph shows the average of 18 non-tree ring proxies of temperature from 12 locations around the Northern Hemisphere, published by Craig Loehle in 2007, and later revised in 2008. It clearly shows that natural climate variability happens, and these proxies coincide with known events in human history” (SEE TOP CHART).
2,000 Years of Global Temperatures Another chart done by NASA measuring the temperatures of the planet from satellite data shows no significant temperature changes ( http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/2000-years-of-global-temperatures/)(MIDDLE CHART):
Our last chart shows that Sea Ice amounts on the planet since 2002. There is no indication that Sea Ice is growing or getting less. The Ice currently trapped in Artic and Sub Artic areas are supposed to be melting and leaving, according to the Global Warming Theory. The chart shows no great changes over the last 10 years that could not be considered normal (BOTTOM CHART):
Thus we can see in the charts, we are currently well within the planet’s norms for climate at this time. That during the Medieval Warm Period, without factories and cars, the temperature on this graph were much higher than today. This suggests that there are other factors that contribute to global warming, much more then man, as indeed there are.
Volcanoes and Bacteria also emit large volumes of greenhouse gasses. Indeed a study at the University of Hawaii suggests that if the ocean is disturbed, and its stratification of sea water is mixed, that vast amounts of methane can and will be released which are at the bottom floor. Methane is a worse greenhouse gas than Carbon Dioxide, trapping more heat in lower concentrations. (http://www.sciencecodex.com/university_of_hawaii_researchers_discover_new_pathway_for_methane_production_in_the_oceans).
No one knows if this occurred in the past, no one has included this in their greenhouse gasses cause list to date, thus it was not entered into computer climate models of the past. But logically we must accept that storms and upwelling occur all the time past, present, and future, and these gasses may have been released, are being released, and will continue to be released. But because this is not a manmade greenhouse gas, it has received very little attention.
Why the concentration of study on what man does to cause Global Warming, without studying natural causes of Global Warming? Why not blame nature? God?
I believe it has to do with man’s ego and understanding. We as men find it much easier to blame something we understand, then to go and look for other answers to a question we may not understand. When man thinks he understands something, he believes that by directing his will to it, he can control the problem.
We see examples of this in our history, and religious history. Man doing magical rites and sacrifices to control weather, priests trying to predict weather by divination and astrology. These are all attempts at controlling ideas and processes about nature that we cannot understand. For man, when something is not controllable, it creates fear, (The fear of nature, gods, and other unknowns, like death and disease). In each case in history men have sought to explain and control the uncontrollable with their beliefs.
Philosophy and Ethics are no exception to this rule; indeed it may be one of the greatest examples of this rule. The ethics demonstrated by the subject of Global Warming are as varied as their explanations. Many philosophers have shown that man may not have the will or understanding of a topic, enough to change it, and even if they do have understanding may not act.
First let us look at the term Global Warming. This label is so subjective, meaning many things to many different people. Some see it as a pollution problem, some see it as deforestation, some see it a normal process of nature. Much like G. E. Moore’s “good”, the term is:
"…one of those innumerable objects of thought which are themselves incapable of definition, because they are the ultimate terms by reference to which whatever is capable of definition must be defined" (Principia Ethica, 10, 1).
Moore points out that ‘Natural Fallacies’ occur whenever a term that is used, has not been broken down, to its basic truths. Global Warming has so many different aspects to it, that a person can take his own subjective truths and introduce them with this theory, leading to further confusion by becoming a Natural Fallacy. (An example of this would be declaring Polar Bears an Endangered Species due to Global Warming. That Glaciers are melting due to Global Warming, while some glaciers are still growing, that temperatures are rising on the planet).
Turning to Aristotle we see that just because we believe in a problem, like the description of Global Warming, does not mean that we as men, are going to do something about Global Warming. Aristotle called this the “Weakening of the Will”, and goes on to state:
“Incontinent agents suffer from a sort of weakness of the will {Gk. [akrásia]} that prevents them from carrying out actions in conformity with what they have reasoned. (Nic. Ethics VII 1) This may appear to be a simple failure of intelligence, Aristotle acknowledged, since the akratic individual seems not to draw the appropriate connection between the general moral rule and the particular case to which it applies. Somehow, the overwhelming prospect of some great pleasure seems to obscure one's perception of what is truly good.”
Thus we see in modern times a lack of will by the general population to worry about certain problems in our society, such as Global Warming. Again the term and science are so subjective that the normal man cannot make sense of it, much less act on it. So even though the concept of Global Warming is important to many people, Aristotle states very few will act on the idea, due to “Incontinent Agents”. (Examples of this are South American Government’s actions on deforestation in their countries, and China’s growing automobile industry).
Let’s look at another ethical theory that seems to agree with Aristotle called Normative Ethical Relativism. This states there are no universally valid moral principles. Normative Ethical Relativism shows us that the moral rightness and wrongness of actions varies from society to society. That there are no absolute universal moral standards binding on all men at all times. Thus in subjective manners, all opinions are equal. So according to this theory, Governments and Societies all have the right to their opinions, and each is as true as the other.
Many governments do not believe in Global Warming, and even those who state they do believe in Global Warming, have many populations and societies that are not acting on their assumption, that Global Warming is occurring, (The United States of America being one of the best examples of this.).
Summing Up:
The theory of Global Warming is subjective. The label Global Warming and the “Science” of global warming has not proven that it exists. The study of temperature, causation, and implications, of Global Warming has been proven to mean many different things. to many different people. That other causes for Global Warming seem to have been ignored as a whole, compared to the studies of man causing agents. That this is due to man trying to control complicated systems beyond his comprehension as he has in the past, by modifying his own actions, even if said actions are not proven to change anything, and man is doing the same, with Global Warming. That even if a society does believe in Global Warming, ethics has shown it may not be a belief in other societies, and that those beliefs are just as true as any other subjective belief. That societies that do believe in Global Warming will probably, as the general rule proven by Aristotle and Normative Ethical Relativism, not act on those beliefs enough to cause any great change. That when things are going good man is a party animal, and will not change his opinion or his actions, even if he believes in something like Global Warming.