Senate votes on whether or not climate change is real.

Senate votes on whether or not climate change is real.

Senator James Inhofe surprised his fellow Republicans today when he urged them to vote yes to climate change being real.

Climate change is a subject of scientific inquiry, and though it has implications for politics and policy, whether or not it is real is a question climate scientists constantly study. The consensus among scientists is that it is indeed real, and most scientists attribute increasing climate change to humans. However, this does not stop senators, none of whom have a background in climate science, from taking a vote.

Senator James Inhofe surprised his fellow Republicans yesterday when he urged them to vote yes to climate change being real, and not a hoax. Inhofe, who has historically been a denier, changed his tune and supported an amendment proposed by Republican Sheldon Whitehouse.

Inhofe and Whitehouse, however, make clear that they support the fact that the climate is changing, and has always changed, because of biblical evidence. Inhofe adds that there is no consensus that humans have a negative effect on the climate.  The consensus among scientists is that it is indeed real, and most scientists attribute increasing climate change to humans.

According to Whitehouse this is the first discussion in many years on the topic, and an important step forward. From the perspective of decision theory and risk assessment, however, the vote is irrelevant.

Nassim Taleb, a risk analyst, statistician, and co-editor or Risk and Decision Analysis has made clear his uncertainty about the relationship between human carbon emissions and climate change, but makes clear that this makes him more in favor of limiting pollution. “DO NOT DISTURB A COMPLEX SYSTEM, since we do not know the consequences of our actions owing to complicated causal webs,” he wrote on his website after he said his statements had been misinterpreted. This position is an aspect of the precautionary principal.

Simply put, the precautionary principal states that when there is uncertainty about an action, take the action with the least devastating consequences. Republicans have often used the uncertainty in climate science to support denial but uncertainty in modals, predictions and causal links makes precaution more important, not less.

Ford O’Connell attributes the 98-1 support of climate change by Republicans to not wanting to appear anti-science, and to ensure a Republican candidate for 2016 is not handicapped. The vote itself, however, did not specify human influence on climate change. An amendment specified that a yes vote meant support of anthropogenic climate change, and another emphasized that the human affect was significant. Each amendment got less and less support by Republican senators.

Be social, please share!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *