Clouding the Issue

Republicans will deny that they have sold their souls to business interests.  Even when the GOP clearly does the bidding of its corporate masters, the party stalwarts make noises about how policies that look like giveaways to the wealthy, like tax breaks, are truly designed to help the country as a whole (by virtue of farcical theories like "trickle-down economics").  When it comes to climate-change, though, all such evasions fall flat.

Virtually all scientists--even those often cited by Republican corporate shills--agree the planet is heating up.  Those who would debunk the standard environmental consensus that something must be done generally argue that global warming is a natural, cyclical phenomenon (i.e., not something caused by man) and/or that it's not worth worrying about.  Most of these skeptical studies have been debunked by mainstream scientists.  Yesterday's paper, however, featured an article explaining how the vagaries of cloud physics provide the last line of reasonable doubt as to the dangers posed by global warming. This article discusses the work of Richard Lindzen, an MIT meteorologist, who believes that changes in the earth's cloud-cover will largely offset the rise in average global temperature, thereby counteracting any problems caused by global warming.

Most scientists disagree, but a few have stated that Lindzen's work is theoretically sound.  Lindzen himself is somewhat modest about his conclusions:

“If I’m right [about the effect of clouds on warming], we’ll have saved money” by avoiding measures to limit emissions, Dr. Lindzen said in the interview. “If I’m wrong, we’ll know it in 50 years and can do something.”

In the context of this heated debate, Lindzen's willingness to use the word "if" practically counts as abject humility.

The disturbing part of this research is that, since it is somewhat more sound than most studies produced by climate-change deniers, it will be seized upon by the Republican establishment as further proof that global warming is not something we need to worry about.  And so nothing will get done.

Here's the problem I have with the denialist attitude: Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the conventional wisdom is, indeed, wrong.  Let's say that global warming and the greenhouse effect are non-existent, or at least non-threatening.  It seems to me that any steps humankind might take to address the problems of global warming are at worst innocuous: increased reliance on renewable energy, for example.  We could spend (some would say "waste") money on exploring alternative energies and the worst thing we'd end up with is. . .  renewable energy.  And as for that "wasted" money, society would get it back in the form of increased employment, an increased tax base, a better-educated population, etc.

And that's only if the global warming conventional wisdom is wrong.  If the conventional wisdom is right, then mankind reaps all the above-mentioned benefits plus the not inconsiderable rewards of avoiding worldwide floods, famine, droughts, and plagues.  Sounds like a win-win to me.  Why would anyone have a problem with this?  The only reasonable explanation I can see is that those who are opposed to taking action against global warming is that they have something to lose--like, if their business model depends upon the continued burning of fossil fuels.  Or if their business depends upon such businesses for things like campaign contributions.