Michael Shermer's False Dilemma

I freely admit a very great and growing disillusionment with Michael Shermer. While previously I had immense respect for him and what he had to say, I've been disappointed with some of his recent columns in Scientific American, and freely criticized his post dismissing the problem of income inequality in the United States when it was posted a few weeks ago. His libertarian flag is flying high again in his August column for the magazine in which he appears to side with known climate change denier Bjorn Lomborg in asserting that climate change is just one of many problems we face, and by no means the most important. The article is somewhat muddled, making it difficult to determine just what, exactly, Shermer is calling for. 

He agrees that climate change is real, and a threat, and that something should be done, but he attempts to cast a lot of doubt on how severe the effects of climate change will be. Shermer writes that while global warming is real, "predicting how much warmer it is going to get and what the consequences will be is extremely difficult because estimates include error bars that grow wider the further out the models run." While there is certainly some truth in this, it is disingenuous to pretend that just because we do not know how many degrees the temperature will rise and just how bad things may become as a result we should comfortably be able to dismiss considerations of climate change in favor of problems Shermer, and the economists he cites, consider more pressing. 

The economists, in a group headed by Lomborg, cite numerous public health concerns as representing far more immediate concerns than mitigating climate change. Malnutrition, malaria, immunizations for children, new crop development, and treatment of tuberculosis all rank higher. Shermer adds to this, asserting that as our resources are limited we must choose what problems we wish to solve, using a cost benefit analysis to imply, but never directly state, that climate change isn't a pressing enough issue to merit use of our limited resources. 

Shermer presents to us a classic false dilemma. It is a fallacy to argue, even in an understated way, that we cannot possibly be bothered with the climate when there are plenty of problems to deal with right now. This is not a choice we need to make; we can, and should, be working to mitigate climate change while also working to end malnutrition, preventable diseases, and so on. Worse still, in making this shoddy argument Shermer conveniently ignores plenty of evidence that climate change will increase likely decrease crop yields, thus increasing malnutrition and assist in the further spread of diseases. Ironically, in the very same issue of Scientific American an article discusses the increasing spread of diseases northward as climate zones shift--a result of climate change. If we do nothing to mitigate and adapt to our changing climate, many of the issues cited by the economists will only grow worse.

The final sentence of the piece is so outrageously insulting as to be beyond description. Shermer chides his readers that "we should not let ourselves be swept away by the apocalyptic fear generated by any one threat," in this case, climate change. Shermer should stop condescending to us just long enough to scan the most recent report from the IPCC, the result of years of research by thousands of scientists which, if anything, presents a nightmare scenario resulting from even the most modest increases in global average temperature, including overall negative effects on agricultural production. A leaked version of another report due in November allegedly contains even starker warnings about our grim future if we do nothing about the climate. And you don't have to wait until the end of this century, as Shermer seems to think, the effects of our planet's changing climate are already becoming apparent. Fear is an appropriate response in the face of what science is telling us about climate change.

Michael Shermer would doubtless be insulted at receiving the label of "denier," as Bjorn Lomborg does. But it is appropriate, for though their arguments are more sophisticated than what typically emanates from the shills of the fossil fuel industry on the Right (and in Congress) they are no less ridiculous. It is an absurdity to argue that climate change may be real, but we can't (or shouldn't) do anything about it. Climate change is real, it is man-made, it is a serious threat to our environment, and we can do something to slow and ultimately halt it. The siren song of libertarian arguments for doing nothing about climate change are more perilous than those of the outright deniers. Individuals like Shermer try to tell us how reasonable and logical they are, but their words are no less a poison, in attempting to lull us to into a false sense of complacency when we need vigorous action.

I'm ashamed that an otherwise excellent publication like Scientific American would continue to publish drivel like what Shermer has been offering.