The debate about global climate change should be considered as a bad reality show entitled "Scientists Behaving Badly"; sort of like Jersey Shore for the Ph.D. set. From suppressed or fudged data by of the "Warmthers" (who believe that Global Warming is real, and preventable) to Gleick's recent "fake but accurate" depiction of that data (discrediting the people who would discredit the "warmthers"), the entire climate change community should be ashamed of itself.
With that in mind I was reminded of a post that I made several years ago. In that post I referenced the opinion of Gregg Easterbrook, an author of profressive credentials who also happens to write a football column on ESPN.com. Given all that has happened since then I was surprised to find that his opinions still hold water. I repost them as a reminder that a moderate position on social hot buttons is often (usually?) a good idea.
Easterbrook says:
• 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.
Recent Comments