Unsteady Hand at the Thermostat, Article Critique Example

Unsteady Hand at the Thermostat: Assessing Shifting Ideas on Climate Change

Introduction

Randall Holcombe, a professor of economics, veers into interesting territory in his article,

“Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Global Climate Change?”  More exactly, Holcombe reminds us of a fact largely forgotten in today’s emphasis on potential global warming; namely, that only a few decades earlier the same, universal fears were centered on how to avert a likely ice age, or extreme cooling.  This attribute of the article is essentially its essence, in terms of worth, yet that alone warrants respect.  The author himself makes it quite clear that, as an economist, it is the shaping of public policy here that commands his attention, and not science.  That essence, however, is important, particularly given the omnipresent feeling today that it is global warming we must address.  If the Holcombe article does not provide important insight into what we may expect in terms of climate change, nor any suggestions as to what courses to adopt, its purpose in reminding us of how varied have been expert assessments regarding climate marks it as an immensely valuable contribution to any such discussion.

Critique

There is a consistent quality in Holcombe’s article that may be called, for lack of a better word, gentleness.  He asks his title question, and then carefully and inoffensively goes on to suggest an answer in the negative.  This is itself an interesting approach; more exactly, given the evidence Holcombe intends to present, it would seem more likely that he would adopt a more militant, or at least warning, tone.  Instead, he begins only by documenting what is widely known, that international concerns regarding global warming are calling for action, and then only hinting at the revelations he wishes to present: “It is worth considering the effects of policy inaction in the face of the scientific consensus that existed on global climate change decades ago”  (Holcombe, 2006,  p. 284).  It seems probable that another author on the subject would more directly challenge the current viewpoints.  Holcombe’s article is essentially an observation of humanity’s “hand on the thermostat”, and in an uncertain approach, but he is from the start disinclined to render any specific opinion, or even challenge prior or existing beliefs on the subject.

To his credit, Holcombe does not offer only a random conception that, in past decades,  there was any sort of global sense that the earth would enter into an extreme cooling.  He documents the trajectory of the beliefs, citing research in the 1950s indicating the likelihood of a new ice age gripping the planet.  Holcombe then follows through by providing the reactions of both the scientific communities and national interests, which evolved into a wider acceptance of what was perceived as a genuine threat.  Then, the author interestingly notes how the potential for global warming was not ignored in these years.  It was eclipsed, however, by common scientific views that the greenhouse effect, while irrefutable, could not have a significant impact.  It is from here that Holcombe focuses on what is his true concern: policy, and how it was developing to address cooling.  This part of the article is nothing shorty of extraordinary, even as the author does not seem to appreciate the comic elements within it.  The striking aspect lies in the proposed measures set forth by established scientists, and considered seriously in the very recent past.  The measures ranged from detonating hydrogen bombs to melt the polar ice caps, to painting snow black to attract more heat.  These was as well the suggestion to dam the Bering Strait, to prevent cold water from entering the Pacific. To all of this, Holcombe’s response is mild, to an astonishing degree: “Thus, the problem of global cooling being widely acknowledged, many suggestions of technical methods to deal with it came forth” (286).

At the same time, this same unwillingness to criticize reinforces Holcombe’s credibility.  He has a larger issue on his mind, in that the necessity for taking action is largely a subjective thing, and that action in the case of policy in this arena may easily be disastrous.  He does not, again, even harshly judge former convictions; he is far more concerned with viewing from a distance how an international opinion could so radically reverse itself in so brief a period.  It may well be, in fact, that Holcombe realizes any extreme perception of his own offered here would eviscerate his chief purpose.  This being the case or otherwise, the reality remains that the article is indeed a crucial warning, if one gently presented, regarding just how mankind chooses to “adjust the thermostat.”

Conclusion

Professor Randall Holcombe offers a well-researched and readable article centered on the striking reversal of scientific opinion regarding climate change over the last few decades.   He makes an important point, as it is commonly forgotten that, only recently, scientists were urging on the greenhouse effects causing such concern today, to combat a foreseen ice age.  Holcombe refrains from any judgment whatsoever as to any of these beliefs, past or present, yet this same restraint adds force to what he has to say.  Ultimately, the article’s purpose in reminding us of how varied have been expert opinions regarding climate renders it an immensely valuable contribution to any such discussion.

References

Holcombe, R. G.  (2006). “Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Global Climate            Change?”  The Independent Review, 11 (2), 283-288.