Climate change evangelists and climate change atheists -- me, I'm climate change agnostic -- are locked in a bitter struggle over whether global warming is occurring and what, if anything, we should do about it. You'll note that I've painted the two camps in religious terms instead of the more journalistically correct categories "supporters" and "detractors." And that's intentional. Religion seems like a pretty good analogy for the climate change battle, as each side is fighting for or against something that can't be seen and can't be proven or disproven, and each side is certain it's correct.
But this isn't a column about climate change; agnosticism means I don't claim enough authority or intelligence to call one side "sinners" and the other side "saints" when it comes to global warming. No, this is a discussion on evidence, and specifically, about how none of us is very good at accepting it. The double-think of certain environmentalists just happens to be a particularly telling example.
Those who consider anthropogenic climate change an issue worthy of drastic government intervention crow about the "scientific consensus" on the issue. The evidence produced by those who create climate models for a living, they point out, is greatly in their favor. And they're certainly right. Climate Change "deniers," they argue, are simply refusing to accept the evidence.
Well, putting your faith in climate scientists is all fine and well -- at least it's an ethos -- but if you're going to live by the beaker, you have to die by the beaker as well.
There are two other issues of note on which there is broad scientific consensus as well, yet many of those whose hearts bleed for climate change remain squeamish to recognize these particular inconvenient truths. Bring up the issues of hydraulic fracturing or the safety of genetically modified crops with a global warming enthusiast, and they often suddenly see "consensus" in a different light.
Both geologists and geneticists are experts in their respective fields, and they've crunched more data and invested more thought into fracking and GMOs than any politician or layman could fathom. And the data and models and experiments have confirmed again and again that each of those processes is scientifically sound and safe when done correctly.
There's no way for the high-pressure water used in fracking to traverse geologic boundaries created by rock strata, thus fracking poses no danger to groundwater. And similarly, there's no convincing evidence that anyone has ever gotten sick from eating food made with genetically modified crops. Them's just the facts.
Further, if you talk to a roughneck or a farmer, you'll learn that both fracking and GMOs are intrinsic to their respective jobs. You simply can't grow corn in a lot of places or drill for gas in shale rock effectively without the tremendous benefits associated with those two processes.
So if fracking and GMOs are economically invaluable and bear the stamp of approval from experts, why on earth are they controversial?
It's because most of us are terrible at incorporating new information into preexisting beliefs. We create a world view in our teens and 20s and then we stick to our guns. Any contrary info we come across is hammered and snipped and reshaped until data that started as a square peg finally fits into the round hole of our belief system. It's how one man's consensus becomes another man's conspiracy, and very few are immune.
This confirmation bias exists in each of us, and acknowledging it is the first step toward keeping it in check. And recognizing our own biases helps to keep us from unfairly judging the cognitive biases of others. So the next time someone starts sermonizing on climate change, ask them for their thoughts on fracking. Chances are they'll have a quick change of heart regarding the value of scientific evidence.
Commentary on 04/26/2014