But this is exactly what was done last week when Fusion! advertised an event as a “debate between Fred Singer, the world’s most famous and respected skeptic of the theory of anthropogenic global warming, against professors Robert Socolow and Isaac Held, who are two of the most respected supporters of the theory.”
Socolow and Held are actively engaged in climate change research and agree with the majority of climate scientists that humans have contributed significantly to climate change. Singer disagrees. But Singer is not an expert on climate change. A renowned physicist and former professor at the University of Virginia, Singer’s research has focused on cosmic radiation, nuclear physics, ozone, satellites and Mars, among other topics. Climate change is not on this list. It is true that he had a brief stint at the Environmental Protection Agency in 1971, where he served as deputy assistant administrator for policy. But this in no way qualifies him as a leading source of climate information.
In 1990, Singer established the Scientific and Environmental Protection Project and turned his efforts toward denying that climate change is manmade, claiming that climate change is natural and that increased temperatures will be beneficial for humans. Since then he has been throwing out fallacious arguments that he hasn’t tested but that climate scientists have. One of his favorites is that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is good because it leads to increased plant growth since plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis. However, studies show plants are limited by other necessary nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorous, and therefore do not grow more solely from an increase in carbon dioxide.
Singer also likes to try to poke holes in the notion of a scientific consensus on climate change. One way he tries to do this is by petition. For example, the Leipzig Declaration — which sought to declare that there is no scientific consensus that rising carbon dioxide levels are warming the planet — was signed by 80 scientists. According to Ojvind Hesselager, a Danish journalist who tried to verify these signatures, most of them belonged to professionals and scientists unqualified in climate science — including a medical doctor, nuclear scientist and entomologist — and 12 signatories denied having ever signed the document.
As an aspiring ecologist and climate scientist, I fully support continued research on the causes and consequences of climate change as well as discussion of the remaining unknowns and uncertainties. Important issues remain to be settled — for example, whether 350 parts per million of atmospheric carbon dioxide or 450 ppm is the tipping point; what organisms are well adapted to survive climate change; and how nations should share the burden of mitigating climate change. Such a conversation should be interdisciplinary, including atmospheric scientists, oceanographers, ecologists, chemists, physicists, engineers, economists and policymakers, among others. Any climate scientist who is skeptical can test alternative hypotheses, while those who conclude manmade climate change exists should be open to any refutations or modifications that come to light through scientific, not political, activities. There are details that still need clarification. But a true discussion does not get derailed by uncertainty and does not conclude that an entire field of science is false because of occasional errors. Engaging in debate with the likes of Singer is not productive. Rather, it draws energy and attention away from real challenges that need to be addressed.
When a theory has as much weight behind it as manmade climate change now does, and when the ramifications of inaction are potentially catastrophic, it is time to stop pretending that the science is equivocal and figure out how to meet the profound social challenge that climate change poses.
Miriam Geronimus is an ecology and evolutionary biology major from Ann Arbor, Mich. She can be reached at mgeronim@princeton.edu.
Want to be an Opinion columnist? Apply by this Friday. Visit dailyprincetonian.com/join/opinion.
Read More
$56,000 in debt at graduation is not the financial aid Princeton advertises
Avi CheslerTake my story as an example — despite repeated evidence, both before and after taking out loans, that I would be unable to pay what Princeton asked of me — the University never set a cost that I could truly meet loan-free.
In the Garden State’s service and the service of humanity
Olivia Ragan, Lauren Aung, and Madison LintonIt is important to cultivate in students interest in local and state level change, because it is the most direct way to give back to the New Jersey community that sustains the University.
Why do two-thirds of your summer research wages go to Princeton, anyway?
Isaac BarsoumThe income that students earn from employment is not “miscellaneous.” So Princeton must decide: Does it want its students — all of them, not only those who can afford it — to be able to work on the important research happening at Princeton, or be forced to go home?
The income that students earn from employment is not “miscellaneous.” So Princeton must decide: Does it want its students — all of them, not only those who can afford it — to be able to work on the important research happening at Princeton, or be forced to go home?