I’ve posted a lot on my opposition to cap and trade, and why I think the global warming people are wrong. I did this well before ClimateGate, because I’ve had my doubts. However, I’d like to clarify what I actually think about climate change.
Yes, the climate is changing; fortunately (so far), very slowly. The ice core studies and tree ring studies make it absolutely clear that our climate changes over time. Nobody disputes this. This is a natural process.
Yes, man has input into these changes. Pure logic indicates that every time you turn on an oven, or get in your car, you are adding heat to the environment that would not be there if you didn’t do those things. And I will submit that it is possible that ‘greenhouse gases’ are contributing to this. However, there are a couple of caveats:
- It has been shown in the fossil record that CO2 does increase in association with increased global temperatures – but the rise in CO2 levels always follows the rise in temperature by hundreds of years. This shows that the rise of CO2 is not causing the effect. Current global warming fans have found a hypothetical way to explain this, but there is no proof or data to support it that I could find. So on this score, we have facts vs ideas… and I come down on the side of the facts. CO2 is not an issue.
- In spite of the technology-driven rise in CO2 levels, the current global trend is cooling, for around the last eleven years. This is obviously inconsistent with the global warming dogma, and is the data that puts the lie to the computer models these researchers have been using.
- We are in an interglacial period; and we are actually at the end of the span of time these usually last. When we exit the interglacial, temperatures are going to drop globally. There is even a faint possibility that the cooling trend of the last decade is a harbinger of this.
What we’ve got here is a situation where we just don’t know what the climate is going to do next. And the fact that the Climate Gate researchers had to fudge their data to make it agree with their preconceived agenda is proof of that. The fact that they destroyed the raw data, and that NASA and other researchers are curiously unwilling to make public what should be innocuous temperature data indicates that there are major flaws in the science.
The fact is, climatologists did not expect and can not explain the cooling trend that we are currently experiencing.
I oppose legislation attempting to curb greenhouse gasses on the basis that we obviously do not understand the system well enough to intelligently modify it. It would be like a cave man working on a jet engine with a stone axe. The financial and social impact of such legislation is far too harsh to be justified with the current state of knowledge. And the risks of dinking with a system so poorly understood are literally unknown. Sometimes, the best action is to do nothing, while you study the situation.
I do not think it is prudent to wreck our economy to attempt to ‘save the world’ when it may not need saving. And make no mistake about it, this is what our illustrious government is talking about. More, better verified and open research may shed new light on this, and I am open to picking a new direction if it seems indicated. But not yet.