Various people are pointing to this story as another nail in the coffin of climate change scepticism. The thing is, “climate change scepticism” is a fairly broad term, embracing a multitude of viewpoints.
My scepticism is less about the fact that the world is (on most available indices) currently warming up, and more about the overarching narrative which seems to me to resemble nothing so much as a modern industrial myth of the Fall. We used to be Rousseau-free noble savages, at home in our planetary enviroment: now we are the estranged destroyers of Nature our Mother, caught up in an Oedipal conflict of environmental rape.
There is irrefutable evidence (to all except young earth creationists) that this planet entered and exited ice ages long before there was human pollution. Absent severe catastrophes of the sort which are credited with the extinction of the dinosaurs, for which there is relatively little evidence in subsequent millennia, we must assume that the temperature variation of the planet has some natural causes which may self-correct without reaching equilibrium.
More recently there is reasonable evidence both for a mediaeval warm period (the extent of which is disputed) and a subsequent cooling period, both approximately 500 years in duration. The period of global warming that seems to have begin around the mid nineteenth century coincides with the existence of scientific record keeping and the full onset of the industrial revolution. Global warming from this time was disguised by the cooling effect of Krakatoa, but generally trended upward subsequently, accelerating in recent years.
In all this, what I have failed to hear is a carefully articulated argument over the human contribution which also takes account of the history and pre-history of climate change.
In my view, until someone articulates an explanation which works equally well for both for the pre-polluting, emissions-light past and the polluting emissions-heavy present, every so-called explanation is at best seriously inadequate.
If that makes me a “sceptic”. then so be it.
{ 11 comments }
Well, ice cores give us fairly good climate history for the millennia before “the existence of scientific record keeping”. The problem is partly with our use of language ‘climate change’ has always been with us. But the argument for human influence on climate is based on the rate of climate change, not just the change: that the planet is undergoing more rapid climatic change than we have ever witnessed (in ice cores for instance). Ultimately, there we are in a Pascal’s wager situation: the long-term advantages from lowering pollution greatly outweighs the short-term advantages from maintaining our level of pollution. So, I would say that some reasonable scepticism is always healthy, but I would suggest that there remains an ethical imperative to act to reduce pollution.
Well said, Doug and Gareth both.
Oh yes, Gareth. I quite agree that irrespective of the detailed stuff, there’s an imperative to steward finite resources and minimise or counter damaging human impacts on the planetary ecosystem.
I still want to see a better theory that accounts for long term climate change and then shows how and why our current patterns fit into it.
Face it Doug, you just don’t want to sell your 4×4 and start cycling. Come to think of it, neither do I. There is an overarching narrative to climate change scepticism which seems, by strange coincidence, to slot right in to our modern patterns of consumption and self-indulgence. Scepticism and objectivity aren’t the same thing.
But does it matter? If the lives of millions are in danger because of climate change, is it not a good idea to reduce the human impact element, whether it’s the sole culprit or only a contributor?
I think I have quite a frugal carbon footprint – and a very small car!
I think the science is inadequate, precisely because it doesn’t account for natural change. The case for measuring human impact would be a lot stronger if we could be clearer exactly what change is down to human impact. This is particularly important because “global” solutions could easily be seen to fit into a pattern of trying to maintain Western economic superiority by suppressing competition from the lesser-developed countries.
@David – I’m all for being sceptical about every claim to objectivity, including yours
rate of change.. It’s all about rate of change. IF AGW is real, we should see rates of change that vary from recorded (or deduced) natural rates of change. That’s the question that needs to be asked.
For a brief and simplified overview of current theory, which does include paleoclimate data see NOAA:
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q8
The entire FAQ at this site notes the caveats which are many but still supports a prediction of significant short-term global warming even when the barely adequate paleodata is considered.
Clayboy, I am delighted to see that this thread is not without its conspiracy theory. How about if we do nothing about global warming? THAT will certainly put a quick end to “the pattern of trying to maintain Western economic superiority by suppressing competition from the lesser-developed countries.”
It doesn’t really matter. Nothing is exactly what we are going to do. Whatever the value of the climate science, pragmatically it will be ignored. So do not fear: global competition will not be suppressed by the fat cats’ implementing Kyoto. It will be suppressed by other means.
“am delighted to see that this thread is not without its conspiracy theory”
You’re not suggesting that I’m proposing conspiracy theory are you?
Phil_style: No. I was referring to this:
“This is particularly important because “global” solutions could easily be seen to fit into a pattern of trying to maintain Western economic superiority by suppressing competition from the lesser-developed countries.” – clayboy
November 25th, 2009 at 12:11
Comments on this entry are closed.