Daily Five Minutes 12/22/09--ClimateGate

The scientists that have been researching human-effected climate change in the UK have now admitted that they witheld or downright falsified data and research in order to further their position. To some this reflects the political nature of science, while to others it is more sinister, and nothing less than "sham science" to extort more money from governments.

I have a rather eclectic opinion on climate change, a mixture of "it's human driven therefore humans must reverse it" and "it's part of nature's cycles and there isn't much we can do about it." I was interested to find a pundit whose opinions quite nearly match my own. I found his comments in, of all places, a football column. To be fair, Gregg Easterbrook is a Fulbright Scholar who happens to write a good football column, but still...

Here is an excerpt from his column that is a good summary of the whole issue:

• There is indeed a strong scientific consensus regarding climate change. The deniers simply aren't honest about this.
• The consensus is that in the last century, air has warmed by about one degree Fahrenheit while the oceans have warmed a little and become slightly acidic; rainfall patterns have changed in some places, and most though not all ice melting has accelerated.
• That consensus is significant, but hardly means there is a crisis. Glaciers and sea ice, for example, have been in a melting cycle for thousands of years, while air warming has so far been good for farm yields. The doomsayers simply aren't honest about how mild the science consensus is.
• Predictions of global devastation -- climate change is a "profound emergency" that will "ravage our planet" -- are absurd exaggerations, usually motivated by political or fund-raising agendas.
• Climate change has serious possible negative consequences, especially if rainfall shifts away from agricultural regions.
• Global poverty, disease, dirty air and lack of clean water in developing world cities and lack of education are far higher priorities than greenhouse gas emissions.
• Smog and acid rain turned out to be far cheaper to control than predicted; the same may happen with greenhouse gases.
• The United States must regulate greenhouse gases in order to bring American brainpower, in engineering and in business, to bear on the problem.
• A carbon tax, not some super-complex cap-and-trade scheme that mainly creates jobs for bureaucrats and lawyers, would be the best approach.
• If the United States invents technology to control greenhouse gases, no super-complex international treaty will be needed. Nations will adopt greenhouse controls on their own, because it will be in their self-interest to do so. Smog and acid rain are declining almost everywhere, though are not governed by any international treaty; nations have decided to regulate smog and acid rain emissions on their own, because it is in their self-interest to do so.

I find it unusual and refreshing to have someone lay out the common sense of the matter. Thanks Gregg!

Comments

[Nat]

What a great topic. I'm going to go out on a limb here and share what I think.

I believe in Climate Change. I believe it is a real and measurable thing.

But I think Global Warming is something completely different than Climate Change. And on the subject of Global Warming--as defined by climate scientists--the jury is still out for me. I'm not entirely convinced that the data that has been presented on the subject represents what some claim it does.

Here is my problem (challenge?). When dealing with something like the weather and the history of the earth we are talking about very large time frames. I put it in this perspective. If you take the climate data (assuming you can get completely unbiased and unfiltered data) for the last 20 years, when you put that in to context of the age of the earth (or even since humans started keeping accurate weather records) it's like taking my pulse for 100 ms, finding no heartbeat and assuming that I'm in cardiac arrest and death is imminent.

I don't believe correlation is causation. So I'm unsure what role and to what extent our modern age is contributing to Climate Change.

So there you have it. My two cents worth. Thanks for writing about this.