unconscious or deniable = OK

[jwgh]

I happened across this little quotation from the head of NASA a little while ago:

In an interview with NPR's Steve Inskeep airing May 31, 2007 on NPR News' Morning Edition, Griffin said the following: "I have no doubt that global -- that a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change.

"First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown, and second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings - where and when - are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."

The attitude displayed here reminds me of one I have seen elsewhere, too. For instance, a member of a university department consisting almost entirely of white men reacted to the suggestion that, among her other good qualities, a female candidate might bring some balance to the department with, "Yes, because gender is the only important thing to consider in hiring" -- the unintended implication being that you can tell which departments don't have sexist hiring practices, because they're the ones that are entirely male.

In other words, there are processes in place which have as (sometimes intentional but often unintended) unfortunate byproducts -- global warming is at least in part due to human activity, and the continued dominance of men in positions of power is because of various societal biases (not all of which are explicitly sexist). Measures to counterbalance these forces are then criticized because they explicitly are taking steps in the opposite direction -- we want to change human activity so that global warming slows down, and we want to enact policies explicitly to give women easier access to positions of power -- but the people who criticize these practices don't seem to spend much time worrying about the existing institutional problems. (Usually the people in question benefit from the existing institutional biases, of course. This may or may not be something that they explicitly consider in coming to their conclusion, though; I think a lot of people just have never noticed the institutional problems because they aren't adversely affected by them, and they seem like the natural order of things.)

So causing or reinforcing the original problem is basically OK as long as it's not intentional (or if the intention can be plausibly denied), but trying to fix it is problematic.

I don't say that various solutions to global warming, or to bias in the workplace and elsewhere, aren't problematic, or that discussions of their possible problems is bad, but it would be nice if people who oppose, say, global warming solutions because they try to change the environment would acknowledge that human activity is already changing the environment and that that, also, is a bad thing.

Comments

[jwgh]

I found out about this quotation from Conservapedia's front page, by the way, where it was reported as:

NASA Chief Questions Whether Global Warming Is a Problem. Could it be that Al Gore is wrong???

to which my immediate thought was, "Or could it be that an engineer who has never studied the issue doesn't know what he's talking about?"

[rimrunner.livejournal.com]

I've rarely heard so much hedging from someone who wasn't actually running for public office.

[rimrunner.livejournal.com]

Your response is much more articulate and reasoned than mine, which consisted of the utterance "What a schmuck" and a middle finger raised to the radio. (It would have been two middle fingers, but I was driving.)

[jwgh]

If it hadn't reminded me of the other thing I probably would have left it at that too.

[pentomino.livejournal.com]

It could just be an admission that there are possible hypotheses that indicate that climate change, as it is occurring now, might have unrevealed benefits to mankind. Dale Gribble's "growing oranges in Alaska" hypothesis being one of them, though it's easily refuted by Hank Hill's "it was 100 yesterday, and if it gets any hotter, I'm going to kick your ass." More sophisticated ones may exist.

Also, any life that exists in the distant future will have to have adapted to the changes we're making to the climate now, and that life just might include our own descendants. And those descendants might have a damn good quality of life, taking advantage of the climate change in ways that we don't, because our science isn't there yet, or can't, because our bodies have evolved for the Earth that was, not the Earth that will be.

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

Perhaps, but one problem with this notion is that if we keep pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere, the climate is going to keep on changing, not just find some new equilibrium. It's unlikely to get into a state in which the biosphere and crust can absorb carbon dioxide at the same rate we can produce it; we're releasing the carbon from millions of years of biological activity. At some point we run out of fossil carbon to release, but that's a lot of carbon.

[jwgh]

Maybe, but it's hard for me to see this sort of arguments as being, at their base, anything but an attempt to prove the moral superiority of being lazy.

[smashingstars.livejournal.com]

I think what appalls me the most are those who refuse to believe that climate change (or animal extinctions, or whatever) aren't at least partially caused by humans. The notion that this is all a natural, cyclical part of Earth's existence is so easily disproven that I don't know why people still think this way.

Eddie once heard George Carlin rant in an HBO special about how 47 bajillion species of animal go extinct every day, so humans are being egotistical fools who are playing God when they try to keep certain species from going extinct. Now Eddie believes this, and won't change his mind, no matter how many times I remind him Carlin isn't a researcher or scientist.

But Eddie's also very concerned about Peak Bee, simply because he likes to say the phrase "Peak Bee".

This is all distressing, because I know Eddie's somewhat smarter than the average bear, and if Eddie thinks these crazy-ass things, who knows what a lot of other people think.

[paracelsvs.livejournal.com]

The notion that this is all a natural, cyclical part of Earth's existence is so easily disproven that I don't know why people still think this way.

I think, maybe, that for some people it's a question of ideology? Or dogma? If maybe just subconsciously?

I am having trouble forming this theory properly because it makes so little sense, but I'm growing more and more worried it might turn out to be true. It's sort of like the first time I heard about chemtrails.

[majorzed.livejournal.com]

I think an important part of the debate centers on materiality. Sure, it seems irrefutable that humans contribute to global warming, but is it enough of a contribution to make it reasonable to try to do something (costly) about it? Is it significant or is it epsilon? That's where people of good will can still find room to disagree. There's also an intriguing hypothesis that anthropogenic global warming is indeed material, has been going on for 12,000 years, and has benefitted us by preventing an ice age.

[jwgh]

It makes sense to me that there might have been a lower-grade level of anthropogenic global warming before the industrial revolution kicked things into high gear (although it looks like the idea is still somewhat controversial with people whose job it is to understand these things).

I didn't think the significance of human contributions to global warming was the subject of much disagreement among climate scientists (although there are plenty of details that consensus has not yet been reached on), but I may not be correct about that.

[majorzed.livejournal.com]

Well, there's "significance" in the sense that scientists can measure it and statisticians can prove it is greater than zero, then there is "materiality" in the sense of practical impact and magnitude. The temperature amelioration expected from the Kyoto Protocol is, what, on the order of 10%? Put that against the economic costs, and you have a real debate (which is ongoing).

[jwgh]

Well, there's "significance" in the sense that scientists can measure it and statisticians can prove it is greater than zero, then there is "materiality" in the sense of practical impact and magnitude.

Right, but I wasn't aware of a significant debate among environmental scientists about either.

The temperature amelioration expected from the Kyoto Protocol is, what, on the order of 10%? Put that against the economic costs, and you have a real debate (which is ongoing).

I assume the agreement itself arose out of such a debate.

[majorzed.livejournal.com]

I think the current debate is arising out of the agreement.

[paracelsvs.livejournal.com]

Actually, most of the current debate is arising out of vested interests in preserving the status quo, and also the tendency towards sensationalist reporting by the media.