Global warming A challenge to our generation

Author: RYAN GAMBLE '06

At Middlebury, we students have the opportunity to not only gain an understanding of the current state of the world, but also to practice the valuable critical thinking skills that will allow us to succeed in diverse occupations and to live purposeful lives. How we discuss important issues such as global warming reflects a more personal matter of what we, as students, take these critical thinking skills to be. Michael Jou's article in The Middlebury Campus two weeks ago ["Think about it, global warming does not exist," March 2] was "written to incite the reader to question global warming." I believe in testing the quality of our knowledge, but I'd like to contribute a better representation of what I believe critical thinking skills should entail.

Thinking critically about a topic requires accurate and precise knowledge of facts. For example, while it is true that glaciers in Greenland are not receding, that does not mean that climate change is not affecting Greenland. In fact, the glaciers are sliding into the sea. A recent Science article (v. 311, pp. 986-990) finds that the speed at which Greenland glaciers are moving into the sea is twice what was previously thought and is accelerating, due to warming.

Beyond understanding the facts, there is a more important issue of the construction of arguments and what constitutes "thinking critically" about a topic. Probably not unlike many other Middlebury students, I learned to write five-paragraph essays in middle school. This was how I was formally introduced to the idea of a persuasive essay where a main argument is proposed, and supporting evidence is presented. But should we give equal weight to any opinion that can be supported with evidence? For example, if we can give some evidence of cooling in some parts of the world, is this evidence against global warming? In examining complex issues, the paradigm that any opinion that can be supported with some evidence must be valid breaks down rather quickly. In terms of the case in question, the scientific community has increasingly emphasized that global warming is a component of global climate change, a model in which increased climate variability and the complex effects of changing climate patterns imply that some regions may undergo periods of cooling. Evidence pointing to slight cooling in specific regions is thus not evidence against global warming, but fits in with the global climate change model.

These facts bring to light a fundamental problem of applying the simple argument/supporting evidence model to writing about real world issues - sometimes the world turns out to be rather complex. When I think about the issue of global warming and Michael Crichton's "State of Fear," a number of questions come to mind. Firstly, what does Crichton actually believe related to climate change? In a radio interview with NPR's Ira Flatow addressing "State of Fear," Crighton said, "No one is denying that temperature is increasing, it is." Secondly, what is the issue in question? Crichton is questioning whether the rise in temperature is due to anthropogenic emission of CO2.

So the issue is really whether global warming is anthropogenically caused. Crichton is accusing environmental scientists of academic dishonesty - is this plausible? Throughout history have there been any examples of an entire field of scientists falsifying knowledge? Is the system of writing grants set up in such a way that there is pressure on scientists to present false data that global warming is anthropogenically caused? Personally I would be more inclined to think that corporations, entities that are legally bound to exploit their workforce and the environment when it is in the interests of their shareholders, would have a stake in suppressing information about the cause of global warming. And since the media are owned by corporations, well, I'm just glad information about global warming is available. In any case, these are the kinds of questions we need to address to have an informed discussion of Crichton's version of global warming. And, in a broader sense, these questions help us examine global climate change from multiple perspectives. For me, critical thinking must always involve this strategy of studying a single issue from varying viewpoints.

One example of an environmental problem that has been solved is that of ozone depletion. Science informed policy, and governments signed the Montreal Protocol banning CFCs, the cause of the depletion. That was a problem that was relatively easy to solve. In the case of CO2, reducing emissions will entail large-scale economic, if not lifestyle change. This is a challenge that we, as a generation must face. But to do so we need to think critically about the problem and about potential solutions.