Scientific evidence that climate change is under way, is man-made, and is likely to continue happening forms the foundation for an edifice of policy which is intended to transform the world’s carbon-intensive economy into one which no longer spews greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. A lot of money, and many reputations—both academic and political—are involved. Full Story »
Posted by Kaizar Campwala
Quite a nice editorial which makes a convincing case that scientists should not be silenced because of their willingness to question majority views regarding global warming and its pace on the one hand, and the anthropomorphic theory of global warming on the other. One aspect should always be clarified in such discussions: There are really two debates going on with regard to climate change--the first having to do with whether or not the earth is really warming up and, if so, how quickly this might be happening, and the second centering around the question of whether or not human activity, specifically carbon emissions, might be causing such warming. The reason these two debates are so contentious is that our climate models are still too primitive to ensure full reliability and our collection of raw data remains imperfect.
Reasonable people may still differ regarding the two basic questions noted above. Having witnessed the advent, and demise, of quite a number of apocolyptic futurists during the past 40 years (Cesare Emiliani and Carl Sagan with their concerns about the advent of a new "Ice Age" due to global cooling and Paul Ehrlich with his "Population Bomb" were among them), my tendency is to side more with those who wish to wait and see rather than those who insist that to wait will result in catastrophic climate change. If my stance must be labeled "conservative," so be it. Those who support far-reaching cap-and-trade legislation, along with other even more radical measures, point out that the stakes are too high to wait; they ignore, however, that the stakes associated with rapid deindustrialization, lowered food production, and massive economic disruption will also be extremely high--in fact millions, if not billions, might die during a full-court press to lower carbon emissions, especially among the poorer populations of the developing world.