Global Warming Frames

Quick post while I have a connection.
Weather has been miserable this week. Was considering this the other day and developing the ongoing analysis of how we talk about climate change and weather events and whether global warming is caused by humans. (It’s a frame-related point, so those with Lakoff in their toolbox will get it easier.) Namely –
We/the media allows the debate over global warming to be framed in terms of scientific inquiry – is there still, scientifically speaking, doubt over whether global warming is caused by human activity?
(Answer: yes, of course. That’s how science works. The doubt is massively diminished, but it’s still there, and that means certain organizations will have room to resist any controls on carbon emissions and Kyoto and so forth.)
The frame in which we should be discussing this is one of risk assessment. Is it acceptable to risk that global warming is caused by human activity?
(Answer: no. Not even remotely. This is the fate of the millions we’re talking about.)
Talking about it in terms of science assumes a much higher burden of proof than is appropriate. Allowing the debate to be framed in this way is making it much more difficult for those arguing for urgent change.
(The fact that, despite this unhelpful frame, we’re still winning the debate is a pretty clear sign of how serious things are getting.)
—
Worth a read: Making Light reads a 1939 book on social control.

4 thoughts on “Global Warming Frames”

  1. Looking at the average temperature over the past few million years, we’re in a particularly cold bit right now. I think there’s a mentality in the world (more generally than this debate) that what is current is best, and that’s not a helpful generic philosophy. Am I arguing that we shouldn’t worry about Global warming? Not really: I think it would be unhelpful to have our low-lying cities flooded. However, I would like it if tree-huggers stopped talking about it as if it were the apocolypse! It isn’t, it’s just another change in climate in a very very long sequence of changes, and moreover, returning us closer to the average earthly temperature*. Not a change that’s good for us, but not one that will end us either.
    I am far, far more concerned about unrestricted deep sea fisheries; the dead fish are automatically excluded from the “evolve or die” equation which has so far allowed life to flourish on earth. There is a concept that the life in the oceans is infinite, but over fishing has necessitated drastic changes in the way we fish, and the kind of catches we’re after. It is not commonly recognised how important the oceans are in the land’s eco-system through heat exchange and carbon storage.
    *Note: I am well aware of the theoretical models which show the disruption of the hot-water corridor will lead to a new ice age. This too would be inconvenient, but not the end of the world. A nuclear war: that’s the end of us.

  2. “it’s just another change in climate in a very very long sequence of changes, and moreover, returning us closer to the average earthly temperature”
    You seem to forget something: the ways in which the world’s temperature is changing are utterly new. Past temperature changes were not caused by massive industry. We DO NOT KNOW what the long-term effects of human-cause global warming is because it has NEVER HAPPENED LIKE THIS BEFORE.
    People who refer to environmentalists in dismissive tones as “tree huggers” don’t seem to have clicked that the changes we have wrought on this planet are unprecedented.
    Either that or they just don’t care. There seems to be an attitude around that caring about something is the Height of Uncool. Far better to stand around looking bored and pretending nothing fazes us, right?

  3. >However, I would like it if tree-huggers stopped talking about it as if it were the apocolypse!
    The real issues are much more subtle than that, but potentially more disasterous. Birds migrataion patterns are being effected. What happens when birds miss their summer food sources and hence stop pollinating?
    What happens when climate affects species that have restricted ranges, for example above a certain altitude on a mountain range? Where are those species supposed to go? Further up the mountain of course, until there is no more mountain to go up.
    We have talked about it. We know its real. How many policies do we need on abating climate change? How many gov’t committees?
    We actually need to do something now.

  4. Yeah, I didn’t see the words “certain doom of mankind” in there anywhere, so I’m gonna continue to hold out some hope. 🙂

Comments are closed.