Published: Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Be skeptical of alarmists on climate
We now know that some of the world’s leading climate change scientists waged a loosely coordinated campaign of misrepresentation, intimidation, and — possibly — fabrication to further their agenda. The unauthorized release of thousands of e-mails and documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, England, shines an unflattering light on the folks behind the curtain and shatters the illusion that climate change is settled science.
Consider the leaked content: Requests to delete e-mails to avoid public disclosure. Complaints about having “to respond to crap criticisms from the idiots.” Frustration that “we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment.” Use of a statistical “trick” to “hide the decline” in global temperatures. Efforts to keep prestigious journals from publishing research departing from the orthodoxy. Computer code and programmers’ comments suggesting fundamental flaws in CRU’s climate model.
These aren’t the fevered fulminations of geeks pulling all-nighters at second-rate institutions. The CRU is — was? — a premier research center, whose work was relied on for the influential 2007 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. As CBS News correspondent Declan McCullagh reports, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency relied on that report when it concluded that carbon dioxide emissions should be regulated to protect public health.
Last weekend The Sunday Times (London) reported that CRU threw out the raw temperature data on which their models were based, making replication and independent verification of their findings impossible. That’s one way to silence the second-guessers.
I’m reminded of Duck’s Breath Mystery Theater’s “Ask Dr. Science” radio sketch. “Remember, he knows more than you do,” says the doctor’s assistant. That was comedy; this is tragic farce.
No doubt, these folks do know more than we do. They’re the scientists; we’re not. But what they know — what they can prove — clearly matters less to them than their belief that human activity causes climate change and, therefore, that activity must be controlled and modified. For the academic acolytes at the heart of the scandal, faith trumps fact.
Even before the leak, economic and political realities were sapping momentum from global, national and state regulatory efforts.
The UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen beginning next week won’t be any less consequential because of the scandal. Nothing important was going to occur there anyway. Just more self-congratulations from a global elite celebrating ambitious promises.
Meanwhile in Congress, the House’s climate change legislation, which squeaked through 219-212 last June, looks like the high-water mark for the green team. Just 35 percent of Americans supported the legislation at the time, according to Rasmussen Reports. When received wisdom becomes doubted dogma, support erodes. Consider the legislation dead.
Our state’s political leaders have long led the climate change phalanx, always in a hurry.
Last January, state Sen. Phil Rockefeller, D-Bainbridge Island, sponsored a massive climate action bill, complete with complex cap-and-trade provisions.
“The time to act is now,” he said. “Our state’s environment and quality of life depend on decisive actions to slow the dramatic changes in our climate.”
When lawmakers failed to pass the bill, Gov. Gregoire issued an executive order to accomplish many of the objectives.
“We can’t further delay action,” she said.
Yes, we can. Although conservation and alternative energy development still make sense, the “save the planet” urgency now looks, at best, suspect.
An artificial imperative propels climate change politics. The costs are visible and immediate; the benefits, distant and questionable. The case for immediate action depends on an illusion, a scientific consensus brooking no dissent.
There’s a lesson here: Be skeptical of the importunate appeals of alarmists who claim to know the future with absolute certainty, particularly those who demand instant policy gratification while vilifying critics.
Nearly two-thirds of us believe global warming is a serious problem, according to Rasmussen. But only 37 percent of those polled blame human activity, a substantial decline from a year ago. Nearly half blame long-term planetary trends, impervious to policy prescriptions.
We’d already, with ample justification, begun to doubt the experts. When they say, “we know more than you do,” they’re trying to stifle debate. We must insist on proof.
Richard S. Davis writes on public policy, economics and politics. His e-mail address is richardsdavis@gmail.com.
Consider the leaked content: Requests to delete e-mails to avoid public disclosure. Complaints about having “to respond to crap criticisms from the idiots.” Frustration that “we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment.” Use of a statistical “trick” to “hide the decline” in global temperatures. Efforts to keep prestigious journals from publishing research departing from the orthodoxy. Computer code and programmers’ comments suggesting fundamental flaws in CRU’s climate model.
These aren’t the fevered fulminations of geeks pulling all-nighters at second-rate institutions. The CRU is — was? — a premier research center, whose work was relied on for the influential 2007 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. As CBS News correspondent Declan McCullagh reports, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency relied on that report when it concluded that carbon dioxide emissions should be regulated to protect public health.
Last weekend The Sunday Times (London) reported that CRU threw out the raw temperature data on which their models were based, making replication and independent verification of their findings impossible. That’s one way to silence the second-guessers.
I’m reminded of Duck’s Breath Mystery Theater’s “Ask Dr. Science” radio sketch. “Remember, he knows more than you do,” says the doctor’s assistant. That was comedy; this is tragic farce.
No doubt, these folks do know more than we do. They’re the scientists; we’re not. But what they know — what they can prove — clearly matters less to them than their belief that human activity causes climate change and, therefore, that activity must be controlled and modified. For the academic acolytes at the heart of the scandal, faith trumps fact.
Even before the leak, economic and political realities were sapping momentum from global, national and state regulatory efforts.
The UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen beginning next week won’t be any less consequential because of the scandal. Nothing important was going to occur there anyway. Just more self-congratulations from a global elite celebrating ambitious promises.
Meanwhile in Congress, the House’s climate change legislation, which squeaked through 219-212 last June, looks like the high-water mark for the green team. Just 35 percent of Americans supported the legislation at the time, according to Rasmussen Reports. When received wisdom becomes doubted dogma, support erodes. Consider the legislation dead.
Our state’s political leaders have long led the climate change phalanx, always in a hurry.
Last January, state Sen. Phil Rockefeller, D-Bainbridge Island, sponsored a massive climate action bill, complete with complex cap-and-trade provisions.
“The time to act is now,” he said. “Our state’s environment and quality of life depend on decisive actions to slow the dramatic changes in our climate.”
When lawmakers failed to pass the bill, Gov. Gregoire issued an executive order to accomplish many of the objectives.
“We can’t further delay action,” she said.
Yes, we can. Although conservation and alternative energy development still make sense, the “save the planet” urgency now looks, at best, suspect.
An artificial imperative propels climate change politics. The costs are visible and immediate; the benefits, distant and questionable. The case for immediate action depends on an illusion, a scientific consensus brooking no dissent.
There’s a lesson here: Be skeptical of the importunate appeals of alarmists who claim to know the future with absolute certainty, particularly those who demand instant policy gratification while vilifying critics.
Nearly two-thirds of us believe global warming is a serious problem, according to Rasmussen. But only 37 percent of those polled blame human activity, a substantial decline from a year ago. Nearly half blame long-term planetary trends, impervious to policy prescriptions.
We’d already, with ample justification, begun to doubt the experts. When they say, “we know more than you do,” they’re trying to stifle debate. We must insist on proof.
Richard S. Davis writes on public policy, economics and politics. His e-mail address is richardsdavis@gmail.com.
Comments
(