More Guest Blogs
Sixteen young Montanans who sued their state over climate change emerged victorious on Aug. 14, 2023, from a first-of-its-kind climate trial.
The case, Held v. State of Montana, was based on allegations that state energy policies violate the young plaintiffs’ constitutional right to “a clean and healthful environment”—a right that has been enshrined in the Montana Constitution since the 1970s. The plaintiffs claimed that state laws promoting fossil fuel extraction and forbidding the consideration of climate impacts during environmental review violate their constitutional environmental right.
Judge Kathy Seeley’s ruling in the youths’ favor sets a powerful precedent for the role of “green amendments” in climate litigation.
The lawsuit, heard in Montana district court, was the first in the U.S. to rely on a state’s constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment to challenge state policies that fuel climate change. In light of the success in Held, it won’t be the last.
What is a green amendment?
The U.S. Constitution does not contain a green amendment, but several state constitutions do.
Pennsylvania, Montana, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Illinois all amended their state constitutions during the environmental movement of the 1970s to recognize the people’s right to a clean and healthful environment. Because these green amendments are constitutional provisions, they function as limits on what government can do.
Early cases in Pennsylvania and Illinois testing these newly recognized constitutional rights saw little success. By the 1990s, the Illinois Supreme Court had eviscerated Illinois’ green amendment, concluding that the environmental right did not provide a basis upon which a citizen could bring a lawsuit.
In 1999, however, when green amendments were all but forgotten, a single case in Montana quietly vindicated Montanans’ constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment.
It was brought by local environmental groups over water quality concerns at a proposed gold mine. At that time, Montana’s environmental laws allowed the state to issue permits for projects that would discharge pollutants into Montana waters without conducting any environmental review. The Montana Supreme Court determined that such a law violated Montanans’ fundamental right to a clean and healthful environment and was unconstitutional.
The next green amendment success took 14 years and occurred in Pennsylvania. In the early 2010s, Pennsylvania enacted a state law that gave the oil and gas industry the right to commence hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, anywhere in the state. This law prevented local governments from making land use decisions to restrict or limit fracking in their jurisdictions. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down this state law as violating Pennsylvanians’ constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment.
That Pennsylvania decision ignited an explosion of interest in green amendments.
In Hawaii, public interest groups began challenging the state’s approval of carbon-intensive electricity generation on the ground that it violates Hawaiians’ right to a clean and healthful environment. The state now relies on its green amendment to reject new carbon-intensive electricity sources for powering Hawaii.
In 2022, New York became the first state since the 1970s to adopt a green amendment. Arizona, Connecticut, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia are currently considering adopting green amendments.
Success in Montana
Based on the extensive scientific evidence presented at the trial in June, Judge Seeley found that the Montana youth are being harmed by climate change occurring in Montana and that those climate change effects can be attributed to the state law the plaintiffs challenged.
Seeley also determined that declaring the state law forbidding the consideration of climate impacts during environmental review unconstitutional would alleviate further harm to the youth. On these grounds, she struck down the state law as unconstitutional.
This result sets a groundbreaking precedent for climate litigation and demonstrates a new way in which green amendments can be invoked to elicit environmental change. It suggests that in other states with green amendments, state laws cannot forbid the consideration of greenhouse gas emissions and their climate impact during environmental review.
However, Seeley made it clear long before trial that she does not have the power to order the state to create a remedial plan to address climate change.
Further, the Montana legislature repealed the state policies promoting fossil fuel extraction just two months before the trial began, and a judge cannot generally rule on the constitutionality of a repealed law. So, whether state policies promoting fossil fuel extraction violate the people’s constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment is a question for another day and another case.
A spokeswoman for Montana’s attorney general said the state plans to appeal Seeley’s ruling.
Impact on federal climate litigation
It is unclear how the Montana youths’ victory will influence federal climate litigation. The federal youth climate case Juliana v. United States, which was recently revived, relies on the Fifth and Ninth amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as the common law public trust doctrine. Neither the Fifth Amendment nor the Ninth Amendment is considered environmental rights akin to a green amendment. However, the public trust doctrine has been relevant in some states’ green amendment jurisprudence.
In the states that have green amendments, climate advocates will certainly rely on the Montana youth case as they challenge state laws that promote climate change.
In recent years, we have witnessed an erosion of our environmental laws through politics and the courts. That has fueled new legal claims of environmental rights in the U.S., Canada and other countries.
This phenomenon is the focus of my research, of which green amendments are just a part. I believe we will continue to see cases, like Held v. State of Montana, invoke rights-based approaches to tackle environmental problems in the future.
Amber Polk teaches at FIU Law; her research focuses on environmental law and policy. This article originally appeared in The Conversation.
Weekly Newsletter
Get building science and energy efficiency advice, plus special offers, in your inbox.
81 Comments
I read the judge's opinion. She made plenty of very specific factual findings, after a trial, about specific harms that the individual plaintiffs have suffered and are like to suffer in the future.
If this wasn't so seriously flawed it would be hilarious. To wit:
Olivia suffers from pollen allergies and gets depressed thinking about climate change, so let's shut down the government. Claire is terrified because Glacier NP has less ice. Poor baby.
Mica's favorite animal is the pica. Pica's might not survive due to climate change.
Taleah had to cut down trees around her property for fire safety; sounds logical to me but somehow it's unconstitutional in Montana.
And on and on and on. This ruling sounds like the Dick and Jane reader from my elementary school days.
Are you making up facts or are those part of the lawsuit? I searched the article and some of the links but don't see any of the names or details that you mention.
In any case, kudos for a group of kids to actually get something done through legal means. They are the ones who are going to bear the brunt of anthropomorphic, catastrophic climate disruption after all.
Keep looking, it's there, I'm not the one making up things. And while you're looking come up with some real evidence that "catastrophic climate disruption" ( I love how you folks keep rolling out new terms) is man-caused
“[Deleted]”
I spent enough time looking. If you can't support your claims, they are worthless.
"Climate change" and "global warming" are politically-created names that minimize and distract from what's really happening, which is catastrophic climate disruption. I'm surprised you aren't in favor of a scientifically accurate, non-political term. Or maybe I'm not surprised...
The climate is supposed to be warming, we’re coming out of an ice age, conveniently just as we started keeping temperature records. This isn’t my opinion, this is fact:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been
Findings of fact 194-2008 describe specific harms to the plaintiffs.
Montana amended its Constitution to specifically guarantee its citizens a "clean and healthful environment."
The case addressed the Montana law prohibiting consideration of climate impacts on permitting of certain projects. It's hard to reconcile the constitutional provision with that law, as the judge found.
Everyone is a victim. Reparations and damages to be paid to all! Yeehaw, we’re all going to be rich! Lol.
Bingo
I believe Green Building Advisor should stick to advising on green building. Only a couple short years ago this site was an honest, focused endeavour. Now it’s rife with sponsored articles, and apparently climate politics. Stick to what you’re good at lest the site deteriorate into a cesspool of opinions.
Building Science is what this site knows how to do. Leave climate science to the politicians.
Anytime i read (or begin to read) an article that I have no interest in, I stop reading it and move on with my life rather than leave a comment proclaiming disgust. Im not the only person on the internet, nor am I forced to read every article on it.
Look at the name of the site...
This is "Green Building Advisor," not "Building Science Advisor," no matter how the Q+A forum tends to skew. GBA has always posted politically-oriented and climate-oriented articles.
Politically-oriented and climate-oriented articles are becoming more and more common here. Drives site traffic and advertising revenue I guess…
Lance_p,
There were very few sponsored articles which in no way affected their content. There are very occasional article on environmental issues among the regular technical blogs by Allison Bailes, Jon Harrod, Josh Salinger, Martin Holladay and Randy Williams, Ben bogie, etc. I don't think it's fair to say it is "rife" with that content.
Malcolm, I said rife with sponsored articles, which it most definitely is lately. Barely a week goes by where I don’t see a building science related article sponsored by the company who’s products are being showcased. That’s a sponsored article.
I don’t find this site rife with climate politics yet, but I do see a trend. I agree that climate and building are related and there will be overlap, but this article is a great example of something that has absolutely nothing to do with green building, and in my opinion doesn’t belong here. Remember that is just my opinion.
Nothing ruins a great gathering of minds like an injection of politics or religion… two topics that should not be mixed with objective conversations. In my opinion.
Michael Maines
Allow me to hold your hand. The link to the decision is right in the article:
https://westernlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/2023.08.14-Held-v.-Montana-victory-order.pdf
Regrettably, it is not searchable, but if you start reading about page 46 you can find the names of all of the children who "have been harmed" and who will be harmed. As I said, Dick and Jane. I believe this "supports my claims".
As to "catastrophic climate disruption" you call that science? As an engineer, I call that hyperbole.
Page 47:
“Rikki was often required to work outside on the ranch regardless of the temperatures or air quality. Rikki's physical well-being has been harmed by wildfires and wildfire smoke, as well as extreme heat.”
So how did the fire start? Negligence, arsen, act of God? I guess that doesn’t matter when you can sue the state regardless.
A list on p. 46 among 40 links in the article. No wonder it didn't jump out.
As an engineer, I call catastrophic climate disruption an accurate term. I guess you're old enough that you won't have to deal with the worst of it.
Many of us frequent GBA exactly because we don't leave climate science to the politicians. We leave climate science to climate scientists, hear their consensus, and choose to make our buildings less a part of the problem (or at least start learning how). So, well-researched articles about what climate scientists are saying, or how we are responding collectively, are appropriate at GBA.
And I think n7ws is on to something - at a certain level climate-related problems are elementary school simple...
I made a tornado machine powered by warm water for a grade school science fair. Sure enough, when the water was warmer the wind went faster, water became vapor more quickly, and the pan of water dried up more quickly.
Shorter winters will make allergy season longer, pretty elementary.
Most Pika are way up mountains. It is grade-school level thinking to surmise that if the peaks of the mountains warm up and so become like the lower parts the Pika won't have anywhere to live.
Fire seasons are getting longer so people are forced to take more extreme fire protection measures.
I'm not commenting on if these were in the lawsuit or not, I'm just saying the mechanisms behind these problems are easily seen.
Here’s earth’s historical temperature up to today. Everyone can judge for themselves:
What's relevant to you, me and the plaintiffs in the suit is temperature changes in human history. Not what happened millions or even thousands of years ago. And what we're seeing is abrupt increases in global temperatures since the start of the industrial revolution and most significantly, in the last 50 years, as our use of fossil fuels dump CO2 and other warming gases into the atmosphere.
It's inconvenient. That doesn't mean it isn't a problem.
That graph simply shows that we’re on a roller coaster and the track is going to go where it’s going to go. We might be able to influence it slightly, but I doubt to any real significance. Certainly not worth destroying our economies and giving up our freedoms for.
Why don’t we stop being distracted by CO2 and start cleaning up the messes we CAN clean up, like physical pollution and mis-management of our natural resources?
(Ahem… *biomass* Ahem..)
The relevant part of the graph shows temperatures going in one direction: Up.
Stephen, what are we going to do when temperatures start going down? Burn more fossil fuels to stop global cooling?
Temperatures will fall. You and I may not be around to see it happen, but it will.
Wow a graph! Of data collected by... scientists! Let's keep listening to their data and analysis, no?
I really wish i found this graph more encouraging:
The screen shot below shows some of the judge's Findings of Fact in the ruling under discussion.
I know the reaction I’ll get here for pointing this out, so keep that in mind, but this line is false:
“There is overwhelming scientific consensus that Earth is warming as a direct result of human GHG emissions…”
The “overwhelming consensus” is the result of silencing anyone who disagrees, especially scientists. It’s also the result of deliberately mis-quoting scientists who simply don’t disagree that there’s a possibility that the climate “could” be affected. The “99% of climate scientists all agree” line is 99% BS.
Decades of infiltration into academia has polluted the system to the point where research grants won’t get approved without some climate change association. Want to study “The Migratory Path of African Swallows”? Denied. Want to study “The Migratory Path of African Swallows and How It’s Affected by Climate Change”? Approved! This has led to a near complete brainwashing of entire generations of science students, tilting the scales in favor of climate catastrophe thinking. Only the elders in academia are left to reflect on these realities, and they’re disappearing.
Like I said, I know the reaction this will get here, but that doesn’t mean it’s false. “It’s easier to fool someone than it is to convince them they’ve been fooled.”
Lance, OMG, your tone from the beginning of this thread is derision. You're facing some headwinds here, but if you could just be civil and add a few references, perhaps a citation or two, we might all benefit from the exchange. It's not your arguments that prompt me to vote you off the island, it's your kamikaze attitude.
Andy, I appreciate your comment. While some of my reactions to the article are intended to be sarcastic (I think the ruling is a joke, therefore the humor), the dry nature of my comments otherwise is not intended to be abrasive. I go through this with staff at work all the time - email reads badly, and so do comments on message boards. I always encourage people to pick up the phone and have a conversation when things get edgy, because email often reads badly and people will rarely speak in person the way they will in an email. Unfortunately, a real conversation is not possible here.
I apologize if the way I have presented my views is not coming across nicely, but I will point out that I'm one of the few in this conversation who has taken the time to link to data backing up my views. Objectivity and "friendly" sometimes don't coexist in the same statements, but I will make an effort to be less sarcastic. :)
"I'm one of the few in this conversation who has taken the time to link to data backing up my views."
ROTFLMAO! I went to the state finals in debate. The case you present couldn't make its way out of a wet paper bag.
The scientists who have argued that human-caused climate change either isn't happening or will be beneficial are overwhelmingly individuals whose primary area of research is outside the field. Where are all the others that you refer to? Are they all afraid to speak up? Or are they waiting for the right time to show the rest how stupid they are? Obviously those who argue that the change is real and that we are causing it are just spineless sheep in your opinion. Scientific modeling, especially tied to predictions for the future is an imprecise endeavor, as scientists will acknowledge. But what we see developing appears to fit the models. Few of us accept the fact that all of these scientists are idiots, despite the inside evidence and insights that you no doubt possess.
Interesting statement you make: "The scientists who have argued that human-caused climate change either isn't happening or will be beneficial are overwhelmingly individuals whose primary area of research is outside the field."
Are you familiar with Dr. Judith Curry? She certainly was and is a scientist at the very top of this field. Her paper from ~2005 was responsible for the linking of severe weather events (hurricanes in this case) to climate change, which got her instant celebrity status. TV interviews, conferences, meetings with politicians... her research put her in the spotlight.
Then when she dared to re-visit her own work years later (as any credible scientist should do if new evidence presents itself) she was shunned by the scientific community because her views no longer supported the "scientific consensus" the system had worked so hard to achieve.
Scientific consensus, by the way, is not science. It's pure politics. Scientific consensus is a strategy to deliver a simple and believable message to the public that does not expose any inaccuracies in the methodology, uncertainties in the calculations, nor any views however credible that don't support that consensus, in an effort to gain as much public confidence in the message as possible. In fact, you can fairly accurately substitute the word "narrative" for scientific consensus.
Once scientific consensus becomes the goal it is quite literally career suicide for a scientist to publicly oppose it. Yes you can still publish papers to the contrary, but papers on their own are not newsworthy unless you start making noise about them. If you have a social media presence and start touting your work opposing the consensus, good luck staying gainfully employed in that field. At best it will become extremely difficult to get funding for your work, and at worst you'll be pressured out of the system.
More on this later when I have time to pick apart the studies linked to by michaelbluejay below.
Judith Curry debunked in great detail: https://skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_arg.htm
"The 'overwhelming consensus' is the result of silencing anyone who disagrees, especially scientists."
Wow, you really bought that one hook, line, and sinker, didn't you?
Otherwise, show me your actual evidence that scientists are excluded from the surveys. Here's a handy list of surveys for you to start with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change
The apple does not fall far from the tree: Ryan Busse is a friend of a friend of mine and I have heard him speak several times about his fight for stricter gun laws. Two of Ryan's children are parties to this suit. Ryan was an executive with a gun manufacturer but eventually spoke out against the undue influence of the NRA and how radical the NRA led anti gun control lobby had become. For that he was villified, forced out of his job and faced (and still faces) relentless death threats from hate filled people. But he never backed down even though he lives in a state where many people are vry militant right wing and it is difficult for him and his family to hide from the constant attacks......... So I am not surprised his kids are tough and fearless too. They faced harrasment and verbal threats and never once backed down.
He lives in Montana and he's afraid of guns, he's making his kids afraid of guns and he wants stricter gun control laws? Maybe he should move back to California to a safe space.
You think RYAN BUSSE is afraid of guns?! Seems like your reading comprehension could use some work.
And now we're talking about another completely separate, yet equally political topic - gun control. See what I mean about GBA staying in its lane? ;)
I'm responding to Nick's comment. What, in what he wrote would indicate that the guy isn't afraid of guns? I was able to read it just fine. You, on the hand read stuff that wasn't there. Who has the problem?
I had no idea who this guy was before. Now I've done a little research I see that he's selling books and is making money by being anti-NRA and working for Biden. (Nothing more zealous than a reformed drunk)
I am not, nor have I ever been an NRA member, although I have owned guns since I got my first one on my ninth birthday, 72 years ago.
If you read about Busse you know that he was a highly paid executive at a large gun manufacturer who lost that career when he spoke out against what he saw as dangerous and untrue marketing campaigns. And he reaped years of harassment that still follows him (No: It did not make him rich). I meant to point out that his kids are following in his footsteps: standing up for a principal they believed in despite great cost: risking threats and harassment locally and online. But if we are to tackle the climate crises we need folks like that from industry who place principal above profit.
By the way: Busse was born and raised on a ranch in Western Kansas -far form California- and has lived in Montana many years. His kids are native to the state. He and his kids still hunt and fish all the time so I am sure they are not afraid of or opposed to guns..
"What, in what he wrote would indicate that the guy isn't afraid of guns? I was able to read it just fine. You, on the hand read stuff that wasn't there. Who has the problem?"
Well, one of us got the highest possible score on the SAT Test of Standard Written English, and it certainly wasn't you.
Lance_P,
I used to be a researcher; have read many peer-reviewed papers and reviews; taught; and have published a couple peer-reviewed papers. This statement is not true... "Scientific consensus, by the way, is not science. It's pure politics." Consensus IS the goal of science. Single papers are interesting and likely reflect reality to some extent but we don't put their findings in textbooks. Multiple papers all pointing the same direction - now that's interesting. Seasoned researchers familiar with the single-study papers in their field write "review" papers that are a sort of state-of-the-research on "topic x." If others write reviews roughly agreeing with each other we're getting toward consensus, not of opinion, but of where the results of numerous individual papers point. New, related experiments are then based on the assumption that this consensus is roughly correct - many of this new generation of experiments will not work if the consensus is not roughly correct. If they do work this gives us greater confidence in how well that consensus reflects reality. Around this point it starts showing up in text books.
That's (loosely) the process. Consider the people. Climate scientists are like me... interested in the natural rules that govern their field, they learned how to design experiments to discover those rules, and now they're implementing that training. Most people with this intent and training will not subvert these for more grant dollars. And biases and bad actors that do slip in should be weeded out by the process. So the people and the process lead toward believable consensus (but yes, outside the lab any word, including "consensus" is subject to political spinning).
gordy_b: Nice try, but people like lance_p reject all science except the minority of scientists that tell them what they want to hear. And those few scientists are usually on the payroll of big oil. And it's not like people like lance_p are being duped, they WANT to believe the B.S. spewed by the spin doctors, so the spin doctors can spew literally any nonsense and people like lance_p will not only believe it but also repeat it as if it were fact.
This article I wrote a few years back is relevant: https://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/climatechange.html
It's the age of conspiracy theories. What more is there to say?
By the way, isn't the basic premise of "Green Building Advisor" that the climate is warming and that this site is a forum to address it and to share ideas about how to limit it within the residential building industry?
Ibutler,
GBA pre-dates the widespread concerns about climate change. It has always championed what you might call "high performance construction", building on the work of energy efficient pioneers in the 70s and 80s, and generally eschewing the more esoteric "Green" concerns of some other sites.
I'm not saying the conversation around how to limit emissions shouldn't be a (or the) prominent concern now, but that hasn't typically been what GBA has been about.
Malcolm,
When did GBA begin?
Martin's first Musings of an Energy Nerd blog titled, "Energy Use Is the Most Important Aspect of Green Building" was published in January 2009. The following snippets all bear mention to carbon/climate:
"And when you add together all life-cycle carbon emissions..."
"...it’s pretty clear that the big carbon impacts from a home..."
"...can make a huge difference to long-term climate impacts..."
"According to climate scientists, the burning of fossil fuels is bringing our planet close to a dangerous tipping point."
I agree that GBA covers more territory than just climate change, and indeed has a focus on high performance building, which may or may not be in response to climate change. But I do wonder if the basic premise was not pretty heavily geared towards climate change from the beginning. Obviously I do not really know, and perhaps it was more so for some GBA pioneers than others.
I can appreciate the connection GBA has with the builders of the 70's and 80's (e.g. passive solar) which obviously didn't have climate change as an issue on the table, so I see your point there.
The irony, Lance, is that you've generated all the buzz around a topic you proclaim shouldn't be here.
Why not ignore it?
Instead you try to argue climate science is bogus by linking to some NOAA stats? You don't refute climate science with a link or two, and certainly not that one nor the graph you pasted. It's comical. I would have thought we were a bit beyond that by now. Why don't you submit your peer reviewed articles as to the fallacy of climate change for publish? Oh that's right, CC is a hoax so you'll be rejected for disagreeing....
>"It’s easier to fool someone than it is to convince them they’ve been fooled.”
Yeah, my theory is that lots of folks like you ultimately cannot stand the though of being 'duped' so you take the stance that avoids that embarrassment in thr extremely unlikely event that it is really some massively well orchestrated hoax. How redeemed you would be eh! But it's no skin off your back to be wrong, because there is no way to prove climate change definitively correct as qe cannot prove the big bang, or God, or....
So your stance is the 'skeptical' one that acts as a security blanket. Snuggle on up with it.
"The irony, Lance, is that you've generated all the buzz around a topic you proclaim shouldn't be here."
Although there is a case to be made he as proved his point, and a lot of time and effort has been spent in futile arguments that didn't change anyone's views. Energy that could have more profitably gone into discussing the building science topics GBA excels at.
"he [h]as proved his point, and a lot of time and effort has been spent in futile arguments that didn't change anyone's views"
I agree on the futility of the basic climate change arguments. Though to be clear, he brought the arguments against climate change to the table, not the other way around.
I dont think he proved his point that the article should not exist here. The fruitlessness was the result of his comments, not the article. That's monkeywrenching. If we allow that tactic to dictate our behavior, we've handed over the keys to their agenda. In other words, his argument only carries merit insofar as he or others carry out needless and disruptive commenting.
If I didn't like an article about HVAC airflow, can I deliberately degrade the quality of the conversation, then use that as evidence that the article leads to dissonance? Maybe I'm too stubborn, but I don't think we should grant that.
If one can't abide people openly discussing the realities of climate change, I say that's their problem.
Of course articles like this are not why I come here, and I imagine that's true for most if not all here. If I'm not in the mood, I just skip it.
Not to throw more oil on the fire, but just something to ponder about:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVi01vJ4nxM&t=7s&ab_channel=JohnStossel
I saw “John Stossel” in the url and didn’t click. He’s a mouthpiece/apologist for corporate malfeasance who was outed over two decades ago for falsifying data in his quest to try to discredit organ foods. So now he’s going to “discredit” climate science? You don’t say.
If one wants definitive proof climate change isn't real, look no further than here:
https://youtu.be/nCd5SNFoulo?feature=shared
They do make a compelling argument.
Apologies for the delayed response, my spare time is going into building an efficient house. I am grateful for the information I have learned on this site as well as the time its members have spent answering my questions over the last few years. I do feel a debt of gratitude to this community which is why I voiced my concerns about the site posting commentary on political events like the one above. When things you enjoy are compromised, you voice your opinion.
Michaelbluejay. You went to the State Finals in debate? Oh yeah? Well I took swimming lessons. Now that we’ve both identified as being fully qualified climate scientists, on with the show…
Gordy_b, I see your point and understand what you are saying. As I said, the terms Scientific Consensus and Narrative can be loosely interchanged when it comes to science institutions delivering public-facing statements about their work. Dealing with an issue with the magnitude of Climate Change though, as decades have rolled by within the institution (and academia that feeds it new staff) there is sure to be momentum towards the long-held consensus. I do not think this is a concept that is hard to accept, and is definitely an issue in the sciences in general. Pure incorruptible scientists do exist, but so does human nature and lots of us can be prideful of our work or be bought in many different ways.
Look at the IPCC for example. They are the internationally recognized expert body looked up to for advice on climate change, and their Assessment Reports (on number 6 now) are generally referred to as gospel in the field. Do you think they could have a vested interest in promoting climate change? Do you think they may be hesitant to hire scientists who’s studies might blow against the wind? Knowing that all the large science bodies tend to think the same way, do you think it might be encouraging for students and young scientists to go with the flow?
Maine_tyler, I look at everything. I like to see both sides of the story and make up my own mind. When I first found GBA many years ago it was because I was interested in the climate and the technology being developed to help reduce mankind’s impact on it. I knew I wanted to build a house, and this was an AMAZING resource for just about any aspect of residential construction. I studied insulation, thermal bridging, low carbon impact materials, solar panels, wind generators, and I still do subscribe to several YT channels that cover these things on a regular basis. I find all this stuff and the discussions surrounding them to be extremely interesting.
The more I learned, the more I wanted to learn. Donald Trump messing with the EPA and pulling out of the Paris Agreement was horrendous… what an ignorant tyrant! I hoped my next car was going to be an EV, and I was contemplating whether I should try to get my new home LEED certified. The deeper I dug the more I started seeing some counter-points to the popular narratives that were intriguing. I kept learning.
I’m not foolish enough to deny that Climate Change is real. OF COURSE IT IS, you literally cannot argue against it. The climate is always changing, from year to year and from century to century, and that completely useless NOAA time/temperature chart I posted earlier is proof of that.
Everyone, I’ll go out on a limb here and assume that no scientist would ever argue that Climate Change is not real. I will also go ahead and assume that no scientist would ever claim that mankind is having no impact on climate change. OF COURSE WE ARE. Every barbecue, every gas car, every diesel truck, every cow fart… just about everything we do takes chemical energy and converts it into heat energy and airborne gasses and particulates.
As far as I can tell, nobody educated on the topic will argue these facts. Certainly not me. What is worth discussing is how much of an impact this is having and what level of effort should be involved to correct it. Do you know why it’s now called Climate Change and not Global Warming? Because the climate models up until recently were all based on the IPCC Extreme Emissions Scenario. Turns out that scenario was extremely unrealistic to the point of likely not even being possible (the consensus was wrong). Now the IPCC predicts 2-3 degrees C warming this century vs the previous estimates of 5-8 degrees C. It’s not getting hot enough fast enough, so instead of “Warming” it’s now called “Changing” which covers everything, though I did recently hear a UN official claim we are now in the age of Global Boiling… WTH?
Turns out climate modeling is tough. Actually, it turns out climate modeling isn’t even really a practical way to base future decision making. The best we can do is forecast a number of different scenarios from one extreme to the other (some even predict cooling), and aim somewhere in the middle… but which inputs are used in the models, the uncertainties in quantifying those inputs, the individual weighting applied to the inputs, the granularity of the models themselves and the chaotic unpredictability of the systems they’re trying to replicate all add up to an extremely imprecise method of predicting anything. Heck, it’s not until recently we were even any good at predicting a hurricane’s landfall a few days away, let alone trying to predict climate systems a hundred years from now. Tomatoes and oranges maybe, but I think you see my point.
I would like to see a more sensible approach taken to improve our planet, not one that’s dependant on fear mongering and doomsday predictions. We are over-fishing our oceans, we are cutting down healthy carbon-absorbing trees to use as biomass fuel (!?!), we are throwing ridiculous amounts of garbage into landfills (and plastic etc. into our oceans) and the world’s developing countries are polluting far more per capita than the developed nations are (yes, even China). Bjorn Lomborg has produced an extremely thorough list of prioritized actions the world could (should IMO) be taking which would cost far less and would very likely benefit far more than this crazy push into carbon reduction AT ALL COSTS. This would be a great place to start.
I hope that better explains my position. I welcome your thoughts.
P.S. Michaelbluejay, if John Stossel started supporting climate change would you immediately switch sides? Be careful not to dismiss everything someone says just because you don’t like them.
"I hope that better explains my position. I welcome your thoughts."
Actually it does, but it makes your initial posting seem a bit disingenuous and inflammatory. You're now claiming we ought to be discussing what level of intervention to take? That's pretty different than posting a geologic time scaled graph of climate temperatures and claiming 'the climate has always changed' so basically humans have no effect. No one is arguing the climate has been stagnant for thousands or millions of years so that's a complete strawman to even bring up. Lots of other things you posted along similar lines suggested you thought Anthropogenic Global Warming wasn't real to any discernable degree to the point we shouldn't (or couldn't) do anything about it.
You are right we cannot be 100% certain on climate outcomes (and you are also right that predicting the weather and the climate are NOT apt comparisons). But as you state, predictions have only improved as models have been refined, and it's sort of the best we've got to go on right now. Is your assertion that we should simply 'gamble' that the latest models are completely wrong and we ought not to act on them?
>"world’s developing countries are polluting far more per capita than the developed nations"
Unless you are referring to some very specific form of pollution where this may be true (?) then I think you are mistaken. Developed countries pollute far more per capita. A quick google looks to suggest that U.S. per capita carbon emission are about double China.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=table
As far as "I look at everything": If you mean you require yourself to click every article, and read it no matter how interested you are in it, I don't know what to tell you. That's your issue to work out. There's immeasurable information on the internet. No one looks 'at everything.'
Thank you for expanding on your thoughts, which come across quite a bit more reasonable than originally presented, even if I think the reasoning is still quite flawed.
"Do you think they may be hesitant to hire scientists who’s studies might blow against the wind?"
"I would like to see a more sensible approach taken to improve our planet, not one that’s dependant on fear mongering..."
All I'll say is that in general, your side is always horribly misspelled, which is telling. We're supposed to believe that people who can't even spell simple words are somehow experts on climate change, constitutional law, and infectious disease transmission. Yeah...no.
"Michaelbluejay, if John Stossel started supporting climate change would you immediately switch sides?"
A stuck clock is right twice a day.
"Do you know why it’s now called Climate Change and not Global Warming?...It’s not getting hot enough fast enough, so instead of 'Warming' it’s now called 'Changing'..."
When you post pure unadulterated B.S. like this you don't deserve engagement. Anyone who makes this claim is essentially waving around a big sign that says, "Look at me! I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about!" That includes Donald Trump, who made the same (dumb, wrong) argument, so you're not in good company.
"The climate is always changing," (forehead slap)
Source for pic: https://crankyuncle.com
michaelbluejay,
However passionate you are about this subject, you need to dial back the personal attacks, both because it degrades the debate, and they are against the terms of service on this site.
I find it fascinating and frightening, the cat fight that takes place on this forum.
It tells a tale of caution for the human race. This debate is not a crisis, I would encourage anyone that became bent out of shape to find something calming to do with oneself, or find something wedge like and rotate upon it if nothing else.
Capecodhaus has entered the conversation... to tell people to rotate upon a wedge.
Sounds about right. A real class act, consistently adding nothing but quality content to the conversation...
michaelbluejay - I read your article. Yes, an unbelievable number of researchers would have to be fudging data, even subconsciously. Even if that were to happen subconsciously, a lesser, but still unbelievable number of researchers would have to knowingly look the other way. I'm one of your (former) non-climate scientists who would also have to be fooled. Like Lance_P pointed out, he, your, nor I are climate scientists. But, as a biologist I have a lot of chemistry and some physics under my belt. For literally years I literally used certain molecules to change one wavelength of light to another. So while I can't do climate modeling, the general idea of visible light being transformed to infrared by surfaces and that infrared being absorbed and re-emitted by CO2 is second nature to me. Therefore I accepted the general outlines of climate change in the early 2000s when I read many primary research papers and reviews to better understand it - the basics make sense to non-climate scientists. As far as the details, these people know their field as well as I used to know mine, they're looking to understand their field (like I was), and we/they know how to quantify uncertainty. So I know they are roughly right.
lance_p - "... momentum toward the long-held consensus" IS hard for me to grasp. An experiment's outcome being sensible is dependent on the science it is based on reflecting reality. Applying this to hundreds of experiments by multiple researchers on a given topic, maybe a few researchers will fool themselves for a few consecutive experiments (or maybe one will make up data). But these will be found to be dead ends when others design experiments based on those (false) findings - the new experiments will not work. This creates a momentum, calibration to reality, maybe a gravity, toward a consensus that reflects reality within some quantified reason (the error bars on graphs).
The IPCC has staff it hires, but the authors of its reports are mostly volunteers from places where their main job is to teach and/or publish peer-reviewed papers (here's the author list for a recent IPCC report - https://apps.ipcc.ch/report/authors/report.authors.php?q=35&p= ). "Peer-reviewed" means farmed out to experts. One of my papers involved staining nervous systems of a particular animal at different stages of development and looking at them with a laser-based microscope to map populations of neurons over time. The paper was likely sent to an expert in nervous systems, an expert in staining and microscopy, and an expert in statistics. These reviewers are usually not known to the authors (so no shady ethical stuff there) and the reviewers will let the journal know if they think our use of staining, statistics, whatever the tech used was, was flawed such that our interpretation of the results is not believable. This is the day job of the IPCC authors - they write papers and review other climate scientists' papers (and many teach, again tying them to textbooks, which themselves are tied back to the peer-review process). First, again, they want to know the truth, so when writing or reviewing most won't let sketchy science slide. Second, if there's external pressure, it's not in promoting climate change or in illicitly getting more grant money, it's in not risking their job by doing sketchy science or letting it slide.
So, no, I don't think most climate scientists in the IPCC or other bodies would stretch the truth to keep a vested interest, deny a hire who went against the grain IF that hire used the tools at their disposal well (let's say atmospheric chemistry and statistics), or encourage science students to do anything other than design good experiments and follow the data.
Those scientists from other institutions bring their expertise and probably their peer-reviewed papers to IPCC meetings where they combine their findings into IPCC reports. So, the IPCC reports, like text books, are tied to reality by the peer-review process. I'm sure most of the authors are volunteering out of a sense of duty. If we suddenly found that climate change wasn't going to be problematic they'd be quite relieved to not have to write IPCC stuff.
We're not as far apart as I thought... "I will also go ahead and assume that no scientist would ever claim that mankind is having no impact on climate change. OF COURSE WE ARE." So our difference is about something much harder to prove/have faith in. You provide good examples of environmental problems we can fix or moderate for much less cost than climate change and I suspect you're right. But, given the developed world's excess and extreme focus on humans I feel we could fix or moderate the problems you enumerated AND climate change if we refocused some fraction of our efforts, money, etc. But that's a totally different discussion!
I admire scientists and have a great respect for the integrity of the scientific community, and the importance of the work (it sounds like you were involved in some pretty interesting studies!). I believe science is the bedrock of modern civilization and society, so please don't take it lightly when I voice skepticism. Here's some coverage of an event which saw a large company retracting over 500 peer-reviewed reports after finding dishonest behavior at work:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-K3obvnKYQ&ab_channel=BusinessReform
I do believe that science in general is to be trusted and that most scientists have integrity, but I also know human nature can mess with the best of things. I don't doubt that the core research being done at the IPCC and others is genuine, but I do believe that the outward facing conclusions derived from that research can be misleading since most people are not qualified to analyze the data.
I honestly believe that if open debate and moderate discussion were the norm, a vast majority of people would realize that the people they disagree with or who they have been told have unacceptable views are actually not crazy, and are actually not that far off. The distribution of where people fall on a given issue is certainly likely to follow standard distribution, but opinions are being radicalized, people are being demonized, and everyone is being divided into camps and programed to think the other side are either deniers or alarmists. This is extremely damaging and makes rational discussion very difficult. I'm guilty of it and the evidence can be read above where I didn't take time to thoughtfully express my views, and others are guilty of having a knee-jerk reaction to assume I'm "one of those people". It's not productive, and I honestly fear we're being programmed very deliberately to think that way.
I don't believe "The Science is Settled" because I don't believe ANY science is ever truly settled. Science is about the pursuit of truth, and as long as our understanding of something is evolving then it's impossible to claim it's settled. Given our knowledge of this planet is so extremely limited and improves on a regular basis, I think it's extremely naïve to claim any science related to climate is settled.
The apparently "de-bunked" Judith Curry is still sought after for interviews all the time. If you look at her CV I think you would find it hard to prove that she is not an extremely well-decorated scientist in fields that are very relevant to climate studies. If anyone is curious, here's a link:
https://judithcurry.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/link.pdf
Here's a list of her congressional testimonies and interviews:
https://judithcurry.com/about/
The link previously shared by pnwbuilder is a great, short interview where she covers some of her thoughts.
If you have an ear for factual information, it's refreshing to hear a scientist speak about data. She certainly does not come across as someone who is hysterical about anything, and her points are (according to her) based on the verifiable data published by the IPCC, NOAA and many others. Not all climate scientists agree with her views, and you may not either, but she presents some very convincing arguments.
Steven Koonin is another accomplished scientist who's interesting to listen to. He just did a very nice interview recently where he goes into great detail in justifying his claims:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l90FpjPGLBE&t=174s&ab_channel=HooverInstitution
I don't know if some of you will express a dislike of the Hoover Institution, but I urge you not to let a bias about the host taint your view of the information. The more I tune into a given channel the less I care about the predictable and repetitive position they take on any given issue... I'm tuned in to listen to their guests.
Jordan Peterson is someone I tune into frequently, and though I admire him for many reasons I completely understand why some people dislike him. Heck, there are things I dislike about him, but I'm not there to hear his opinion on things (I already know his opinion), I'm there because of the high caliber of respected guests he has on his show. It was through Peterson I first learned of Bjorn Lomborg, an academic who takes a very pragmatic economist's approach to how we can tackle many of the largest issues that face us:
https://lomborg.com/
These are three very credible people (in my opinion) who seem to be taking a practical view of the science and economics we know, and using that information not to discredit climate change science, but to caution against climate change hysteria. Scientists are generally not the ones running around screaming about the world being on fire, that's mainly politicians and activists.
I might as well cover a little about what I think:
I don't believe climate change is a hoax, and I DO believe there's a catastrophe looming. I don't believe that catastrophe is as imminent and as sudden as what we're being told through media and politics, and I definitely don't believe it's solely to do with how much CO2 is in our atmosphere. I do believe there are FAR more practical and less costly things we can do that will have a greater impact on our planet and its ability to support life.
I DO believe EVs are the future of transportation but I do NOT believe in forcing them into markets before the technology makes sense... they should be adopted as they evolve and make economical and ecological sense, which I also believe is not that far away in the grand scheme of things. I believe solar has an important role to play in our energy grids, especially where it makes sense to shave solar irradiance-driven air conditioning load peaks, but I believe it should be in small local applications (like rooftop residential/commercial), not in huge fields, and I also believe it should be intelligently mixed into our existing power systems and not DISPLACE our reliable sources of base load power. I believe nuclear should play a far bigger role in our energy future.
I do believe in wind power generation, somewhat, but I am skeptical around the true impact it has on the local environment, airborne wildlife, and the reliability, longevity and serviceability of the generators themselves. I don't believe we're being given a complete summary of this. I am curious about the many forms of tidal energy harnessing currently being explored, but again am skeptical about it for most of the same reasons I'm skeptical of wind.
I believe buildings should be made MUCH more efficient than they are today, and I believe that can be accomplished regardless of the local climate and without adding unreasonable costs to construction (like PassiveHaus fails to do, for example). I believe this can be accomplished with the proper use of conventional building materials, and that builders should be responsible for demonstrating performance targets are being met.
I believe most people are good people, and that given the opportunity to understand each other most of us would come to realize this. I believe our world is mainly run by narcissistic psychopaths and the vast majority of our problems stem from their views and actions. I also believe in capitalism, but acknowledge that there's a tipping point where an entity gains critical mass and can become too powerful.
Is any of this reasonable, or am I out to lunch? :)
My only response would be to point out that there are certainly many out there curating a specific point of view (cough) Peterson (cough). An agenda that is 'opposite' those you claim have 'the agenda.'
"The apparently "de-bunked" Judith Curry is still sought after for interviews all the time."
This shouldn't be surprising, nor should it even remotely suggest that she is making sound scientific statements.
Since the masses will never consist of all climate scientists, this mainly comes down to (beyond a bit of basic scientific literacy) who and what to trust. And in today's world, those are very different for people of different persuasions. One only has to look at the anti estabkishment, (though somehow, oddly, pro corporate) ideology of the new conservative movement to understand that they will almost reflexively reject consensus if that consensus is borne of some form of establishment, of which most scientific institutions would be considered to be.
lance_p - I watched the ~"Major Publisher Retracts Papers" video. I have been out of academia for years, but I have heard that increasing numbers of papers are being retracted. Definitely a problem. But those that should be retracted but weren't will still be dead ends eventually because like I wrote before and the commentator said, today's research papers are the "building blocks of future research." Experiments based on faulty research will expose the faulty research because the new experiments won't have sensible outcomes. Like you wrote, it evolves. The question is the state of evolution on a particular topic. Acknowledging I've not delved into your other links I don't think it's naïve to think the basics are settled enough to take action - climate change or increased ocean acidity are both like tilt on a pinball machine (let alone both). Even if one were wrong the other requires action. I'd say this is sort of like if four MDs said my weight could cause severe knee damage, one said they were wrong, and four others said my weight likely will lead to diabetes and one said they were wrong - I'd drop weight even though it was difficult and there was the slight chance I didn't need to.
Not sure if I'll get to the other links as I have a deadline coming up. I will say you're one of the few people I've read/heard that, like me, thinks we should use existing unused real estate (roofs) for solar before making fields of solar. The roofs are there! Solar does not impede their function. But solar on the ground as currently implemented removes any crop, biodiversity, etc. function the ground would otherwise have (fyi, some are experimenting with a hybrid approach in which crops are grown below a field of panels and I'm keeping my mind open to to this).
I would argue that increasing number of papers being retracted means the system is working better than ever.
No comment, just a link:
https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published
So every one who proclaims themselves a scientist should be able to publish whatever they want, regardless whether their peers agree with them or can reproduce their results? Without comment, that's what I'm assuming you meant with your link.
You beat me to it, I was away for work.
Look, this guy’s actions are not proof of anything, but it does add weight to my statement above… mainly that not all scientists have pure, undiluted intentions. He also feels that tailoring a paper specifically to get it published increases the odds.
We’ll just leave it at that for now.
I'll take it as a good sign that the latest iteration of climate denial is that "there's a narrative being pushed, even though fundamentally its correct..."
No S*** Sherlock, the world of information traffics in narratives, but fundamentally this person agrees climate change is real, and we know nothing about their own political agenda.
This boils down to culture wars and the inability of people to let go of their ideogical ego.
"Look, this guy’s actions are not proof of anything"
On that point you are correct!
LOL, well played!
https://heatmap.news/climate/patrick-brown-nature-climate-scientist
Very interesting article. It's much easier to make a snap judgement based on a headline. If only the people who needed to read this article would actually read it...
That article can be read many ways, one of which is to acknowledge that his paper was published by people who knew it lacked context and data that could disprove its point.
I don't think so. He focused on one factor. That there are other factors isn't disproving any point.
In any case, this is all in the weeds and matters very little. Science, it's practitioners, and the journals are not all infallible. But we're not talking about a handful of scientists and journals but a very large body of work.
Climate Science gets pretty well butchered in the mainstream media, for sure. I tend to ignore it, because while there are often inaccurate statements, the fundamental issue is of real concern. Moreover
the most abhorrent statements and attitudes are not those throwing around slight hyperbole but those that deny it entirely on political principle. I can hardly blame the hyperbole when there's so many with cotton stuffed clean through one ear and out the other. How are we to get through to these people?
OK, I'm going to throw this out there; if you personally believe global warming/climate change/global boiling is truly an existential threat, that mankind's actions are solely to blame, and that we may be on the cusp of a tipping point or exiting an unstoppable positive feedback loop, what are you personally doing about it?
I mean that. What are you doing? Have you stopped emitting CO2 or doing things that result in or require CO2 emissions? If our actions are literally and totally responsible for the inevitable and impending climate catastrophe, do you feel guilty?
I'm genuinely curious.
lance_p,
The may be a moral case for individuals altering their lifestyles to combat climate change, but I don't think there is a practical one. Individual action, even if adopted quite widely, won't make an appreciable difference, and neither will feeling guilty.
I'm sorry but I don't see this as a genuine question. Just because people think something is real doesn't mean they have the tools, ability (etc.) to implement solutions. Especially not if others are actively fighting them on it.
Though I think most here at GBA are indeed interested in solutions. That should be obvious.
To ask if they feel guilty? What's the point? Some might, others might not. Others might be angry, sad, etc. How does this help you come to terms with any of this?
To me, your question comes off like this:
That because climate change is clearly not fixed and most people are probably still contibuting healthily to it, then those who 'beleive in it' are hypocrits, inept, and to blame (insofar as it exists in your mind). Those who 'don't beleive' are off the hook because, well... they never bought into it anyways. Not their fault for a hundred different reasons, I'm sure. It's good to be a skeptic right, in case the others are wrong.
Makes the 'non-believer' position awfully convenient and comfortable. It's really a 'non-conformer' position because it has little to do with rejecting the science based on an understanding of it and everything to do with rejecting an idea on principle.
Tyler,
My question does come off a bit provocative but it's not intended as such, just that I'm not sure how to ask it in a non-provocative way. Your analysis is fair and I'm sure there are people who do fit that description/mentality. I've met lots of people who have a "screw the man" attitude even though they don't have a fully formed idea as to why they feel that way. I may have even been in that camp when I was younger, having a healthy but largely un-backed feeling that big business and big government were not in it for the regular folk. I still feel that way, but I can now back up that gut feeling... I've seen enough credible testimony on many topics to know where this world is headed. Let's just say one reason I'm not so worried about climate change is I've got other things to be concerned about, despite the parallel interests with which climate change is unquestionably tangled.
Malcolm,
This is kind of my point. I honestly do believe there are many things we could do to reduce the negative impacts we're having on the planet (as I've mentioned above). What I don't believe in is the hype around CO2 and how we must destroy our economies while surrendering unimaginable amounts of wealth, power and control to those who proclaim to offer the path to climate redemption. I feel this way specifically because the path shown and the solutions offered do not add up to a meaningful impact on CO2, from what I can muster anyway.
To expand, for every unit of carbon the western world reduces its emissions by, other nations increase theirs by several times. We all breathe the same air - we share one atmosphere, and soluble gaseous emissions in one place eventually end up everywhere. If Murphy ends up being correct and everything east of the St. Andreas Fault inevitably plunges into the Atlantic, Mother Nature would barely notice the reduction in CO2 and other nations would make up for that reduction within a couple decades.
CO2 is not a pollutant; it (Carbon) is the basis for all life on earth. We have very little credible science pointing to what is an "optimum" amount of CO2 to have in our atmosphere. Optimum for what? If we could successfully regulate the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere, what level would we choose and why? Some argue it's too high right now and it should be reduced to pre-industrial revolution levels, some argue that more CO2 is necessary as the planet's population grows because elevated CO2 fosters more efficient plant growth, requiring less fertilizer and less water. According to the LAI (Leaf Area Index, published by NASA) the world is getting greener at a pretty astonishing rate... as much as 15% more land is green now than was in the year 2000. Shrinking deserts - the opposite effect of what global warming science predicted in the 60's and 70's. Are there unforeseen consequences tied to this? Possibly, but so far it doesn't seem that way.
If Gretta is to be trusted (as our all-worshiping world leadership might have had us believe a few years ago), we just passed the five year deadline before which we needed to cease ALL fossil fuel use, else the world would fall into an irrecoverable tail spin. If that's the case we're all screwed regardless of what path we choose to take... might as well grab a bottle of wine, cozy up with your partner, and just wait for it all to come crashing down. :)
Log in or create an account to post a comment.
Sign up Log in