“Listen, I’m not qualified to debate the science over climate change.” – John Boehner

I’m not a climate scientist and, chances are, neither are you. So how do we have an intelligent and productive conversation about one of the most critical challenges our civilization ever has confronted? We can’t turn to the GOP for a model to follow. In their view, the absence of scientific qualifications on their part isn’t reason enough to avoid making scientific policy decisions. It baffles me that people who otherwise would gladly take advice from experts on everything from preparing for surgery to how best to drive a ball down the fairway would make an exception in the case of climate scientists.

The problem with discussing climate change is two-fold. First, the science of climate and weather is physically and mathematically complex, which means it’s a challenge to distill it into explanations we lay people can understand. This isn’t all that different from any other fields of science, whether it’s the computer science that gives us amazing devices like smart phones or medical science that strives to understand and cure diseases. Exacerbating the problems is the fact that many people don’t understand the method and rationale of science, let alone its vocabulary.

Second, climate change is difficult to grasp because its consequences aren’t easy to observe in the moment (rather like fracking). We know that our activities can profoundly influence our environment, as evidenced by catastrophic events such as oil spills and longer-term but easily observed occurrences such as smog.

When it is climate that is being affected, however, the big picture emerges only through careful, long-term study. Once again, it bears repeating the difference between weather and climate: Weather is a particular atmospheric condition at a given time and place. Climate is the average weather over a period of time. (It’s in the difference between weather and climate that we can explain why we might have an individual snowstorm while the planet is warming on average. Climate is not defined by any single weather event, but by an average of weather events.) Unfortunately, even the way in which a variety of physical forces including sunlight, air pressure planetary rotation, atmospheric composition, land masses, water masses, the biosphere, and many others interact to produce weather isn’t all that well understood by the general population. To appreciate just how sensitive our climate is, it helps to consider that our Spaceship Earth has the right mix of elements to support life as we know it; 78 percent nitrogen, 21 percent oxygen, and the remainder consisting of CO2, water vapor, and other trace gases. To see what happens to a climate under different atmospheric conditions, look no further than Venus. With an atmosphere made up of 96 percent CO2, the notorious G.A.S. we’re aiming to reduce here on earth, Venus is the hottest planet in the solar system. And not livable.

Fortunately, ignorance is not an incurable condition. It does help to have clarity in what, exactly, we are talking about. A common equivocation among climate change deniers is that somehow “climate change” is merely a rebranding of “global warming.” Not so. Global warming refers to the fact that the world’s average temperature is rising. Climate change refers to the average of weather pattern changes around the world over an extended period of time. In short, global warming is not climate change; global warming causes climate change.

More importantly, there are plenty of resources, such as a document titled Climate Change Evidence and Causes, the UK’s Royal Society and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, that provide a very accessible summary of climate change science to date. They provide answers to question such as “how fast is sea level rising” (answer: “Observations show that the global average sea level has risen by about 20 cm (8 inches) since the late 19th century. Sea level is rising faster in recent decades …”) and “Is the current level of atmospheric CO2 concentration unprecedented in earth’s history?” (answer: Although concentrations were higher many millions of years ago prior to humanity’s appearance on the state, “the present level of atmospheric CO2 concentration is almost certainly unprecedented in the past million years, during which time modern humans evolved and societies developed.”)

Such is the strength of climate change science that even former skeptics have changed their mind on review of the evidence. At The New York Times, for example, U.C. Berkeley physicist, and noted skeptic, Richard A. Muller wrote:

Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

My total turnaround …is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years.

Yet for all the open-mindedness of people like Richard Muller, the “discussion” is dominated by people like Red State’s Erick Erickson who openly admit that they don’t care. In his view, climate change is “a religion of a secular left that rejects the God of creation in favor of worship of creation,” a religion held by people intent on “manufacturing a panic” with solutions “designed to hinder economic progress.”  This fits in with the right’s view that environmentalists are engaged not only in a conspiracy but a massive fraud intent on enslaving humanity to a narrow political agenda. How are we supposed to build a dialogue on that? There is no proof of a conspiracy between academics, and the notion that academic community could engage in a secret conspiracy while the NSA can’t keep its own affairs secret strikes me as preposterous. There is, however, strong reason to recognize a climate change-denial conspiracy between the oil industry (you know, the people making billions of dollars in profit a year), some scientists, politicians, and wealthy donors like the Koch brothers. (See here and here.) The rest is merely name-calling on Erickson’s part.

The irony for climate change deniers – aside from displaying the childish and angry lack of character they accuse the left of exhibiting – is that their own stance deprives them of a voice in the conversation. Denying the problem as a way to avoid confronting the hard question of what to do can only result in further isolation. By not participating in the dialogue, the dialogue will move on without them, as will the ability to influence policy in a way that is voluntary rather than regulatory. It has nothing to do with conspiracies. That’s just group dynamics. It’s a shame. As someone who enjoys reading perspectives from both Mother Jones and the American Conservative, E.J. Dionne and David Brooks, I regret the inability for all perspectives in the political spectrum to cooperate in regards to climate change. Because it is absolutely sensible to ask about how addressing climate change will impact our quality of life, our jobs. It absolutely makes sense to consider solutions that do not reflexively turn towards government regulations. But we do need to agree on reality first. The tragedy is that we really are all together in this. We just seem to forget that as we get caught up in partisan ideological battles.

Frédérik Sisa is the Page's Assistant Editor and Resident Art Critic. He can be reached at fsisa@thefrontpageonline.com