Climate Change Deniers and Boiled Frogs: Redux

By (O)CT(O)PUS

Last week, the White House released this 800-page report on Global Climate Change. Its conclusions are disturbing: Global Climate Change is no longer a theoretical construct or a distant threat, but a real and present danger to our country, our economy, and the world. Droughts, intense storms, floods, heat waves, melting ice, torrential rains, wildfires, rising sea levels, and higher levels of ocean acidity – these are examples of extreme weather conditions that have devastated every region of the country. Even more alarming, our infrastructure is designed for the climate we had in the past, not the climate we have at present, and certainly not the retrograde conditions we are likely to face in the future.

Incredibly, the Republican Party remains monolithic in opposition to these findings, and the reasons are several: An estimated $21 trillion investment in current energy technology, $$$ billions in political slush money to protect these assets, and the prospect of changing a deeply entrenched way of life that many people refuse to acknowledge or accept – these account for the ‘Flat Earthers’ and ‘Truthers’ of Climate Change who continue to deny the evidence.

Regrettably, the White House Report did not receive the coverage it deserved by a mainstream media that considers every scandal de jour as more newsworthy than a dire challenge to the future survival of humanity. That is why I consider it a moral imperative to cover it here.

There is no need to write a new post; the fundamentals of climate change science have been known for decades. In the interest of conservation – and brevity - here is a recycled older post that is just as relevant today as it was almost 5 years ago (originally posted December 10, 2009):

Credit: AZRAINMAN

Whatever you call it, a silly anecdote or imperfect metaphor, the boiling frog story serves a useful purpose, and it goes like this. If you place a frog in boiling water, it will immediately jump out. However, if you place the same frog in cold water that is heated slowly, it will not notice the gradual rise in temperature but will stay in the water until it boils to death. No frogs were harmed in the writing of this post, but the boiling frog story serves as a useful metaphor to describe how people refuse to recognize a threat that occurs gradually.

Climate change deniers are akin to slow boiling frogs. For most folks, the climate change crisis is vague and impalpable. You cannot see it, touch it, or watch it happen on cable news. It lacks the immediate drama of a hurricane or tsunami. Climate change may not be noticed for a decade or even within a lifetime. Yet, it exists today as a set of observations and data points that are too arcane and abstract for many people to grasp. But make no mistake: Global climate change is here … a dark cloud hanging over our lives and future generations. Despite the preponderance of data, there are skeptics, doubters, and boiled frogs. A case in point (source):

When a climate scientist looks at this graph, the most obvious feature is the red trend line [my addition]. This graph plots rising temperatures from different data sources. The skeptical boiled frog might look at these data and say: “So what! It proves nothing.”

There are two statistical concepts to bear in mind. Some data points conform to a pattern while others appear randomly scattered. When data points fall outside a trend line, we call these “outliers,” a fancy word for random distribution. The skeptical boiled frog focuses on the random jitters and ignores the trend line. “So what,” croaks the frog, “Mother Earth has mood swings.” My point: Statistical outliers turn boiled frogs into outrageous liars.

Still skeptical? Next slide (Fossil fuel combustion as a component of total greenhouse gas emissions):

What this graph shows are the various types of greenhouse emissions, such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorocarbons from various sources. Most importantly, the graph shows the source of each greenhouse gas: From forest fires, natural decay, agriculture, from waste, and fossil fuel combustion. Notice the large red area dominating the bottom half of the graph. This represents carbon dioxide as a product of fossil fuel consumption. What does this mean?

It means climate change is a man-made phenomenon. People burn fossil fuels in their cars, homes, and factories. Skeptical boiled frogs have claimed that greenhouse gases come from natural sources ranging from forest fires to flatulence, or from the rise and fall of some geologically unknown Dow Jones. These data tell a different story. It means that more than half of all greenhouse gases (56% of total emissions) have a human origin. Hence, the term “anthropogenic,” meaning “caused by human beings.”

One more slide for a skeptical boiled frog (Spatial distribution of greenhouse gas emissions):

This color-coded map shows the distribution of carbon dioxide around the world. Notice how concentrations of CO2 emissions correspond with areas of human population density and, most especially, with areas having the highest levels of industrial output. These data confirm the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and human activity.

Overall, the latest observations show that globally averaged levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) have reached new highs in 2008: Higher than those of pre-industrial times (before 1750) by 38%, 157% and 19%, respectively. Within the past 10 years alone, levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased 26.2%.

Admittedly, the boiling frog story employs a flawed metaphor. Experience has shown that most frogs are too restless to sit still long enough for any pot of water to reach the boiling point. However, the definitive experiment was performed in 1869 by the German physiologist, Friedrich Goltz, who was searching for the location of the soul and demonstrated a fundamental truth. Frogs that had their brains removed will remain in slowly heated water; whereas frogs with intact brains will promptly escape.

Thus, I end my post with this observation:  Climate change deniers, unlike their intact amphibian counterparts, have neither brains nor souls.