Andrew Krump #9

Sometime in high school I remember deciding to look into the actual evidence for climate change. I had always seen it presented on cable news debates as a seemingly controversial issue where both sides got roughly equal air time. It seemed strange to me that an issue of "science" which had clearly been heavily researched, could be controversial.

Upon investigating further, I found that the "debate" around climate change plays out almost exclusively in the political sphere. The "scientific" debate is basically non-existant (https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/). Around 97% of publishing climate scientists agree that humans have likely had a large effect on global temperature rises in the post-industrial age. As far as such a complicated scientific issue is concerned, that seems about as close to a consensus as is possible. When I hear arguments suggesting that these climate scientists are untrustworthy, I become extremely confused. If you have a medical problem, you seek out a doctor: someone trained and certified in a place of higher education to evaluate medical issues and recommend courses of action. It seems to me that not trusting a climate scientist (especially as a group) on matters related to the climate amounts to seeking medical advice from a lawyer or schoolteacher. There may be some truth to it, but few people would challenge the need to consult a medical doctor.



One of the more absurd arguments against climate change goes something like "But it's cold where I live, so how can there be global warming?" Global warming is referring to global mean temperature trends over time, so being cold in a particular place at a particular time does almost nothing to refute its validity. But the causal chain of global warming>warmer temperatures>cold where I am>therefore there must not be global warming is incredibly powerful because its immediate and able to be analyzed by anyone (no need for a climatology degree). This type of argument negates the need to have a professional explain a complicated issue or *shudder* differ to their professionalism and take their prescription out of trust (like what you do with a doctor). Furthermore, the stakes don't feel personally high for any individual. If the Earth will be uninhabitable 100 years from now, what does it matter to me? Why should I change my habits? How can I even think that far ahead in any sort of meaningful and concrete way? Medical issues are easy to trust a professional to because illness is usually experienced clearly ("I think I'm sick") and the penalty for refusing to seek medical treatment could be personally devastating ("Someone I knew got sick and they died, so I know I should get treatment"). When costs are shared among many people (especially abstract future people), it seems that people struggle with applying the same sort of logic that they apply to physically and temporally proximate problems.