Post by unkleE on Sept 12, 2012 0:03:21 GMT
It is fast becoming a tradition - every year or two, James posts about his climate change scepticism and I argue that climate change is scientifically true.
James has posted again on the Quodlibeta blog, and I think it is worth discussing, and getting a number of people's input. Here is a copy of his post:
What do people think?
James has posted again on the Quodlibeta blog, and I think it is worth discussing, and getting a number of people's input. Here is a copy of his post:
SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 09, 2012
Lukewarmism
England has had a cool wet summer. The relevance of this in the debate on global warming is pretty close to nil. Likewise, the cold winters in 2010 and 2011 didn’t tell us much about the long-term trends of the world’s climate. The data that does matter, the average world temperature records, show that temperature rose to about 0.6 degrees centigrade above the long term mean in the twenty years to 1998. Since then, it has basically stood still. And not all the climate alarmism of all the lefties and greens on this Earth has managed to budge it one iota.
I’ve long struggled to articulate my position on global warming. Obviously, I’m a sceptic about the silly claims about tipping points, massive rises in sea level and extinct polar bears. The world isn’t going to see temperatures rise by 6 degrees any time soon, and if it does, it won’t have anything to do with us. But there is also no point in denying the temperature records that do show moderate warming in the last half-century or that carbon dioxide is part of the reason for this. Doubling the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-industrial levels should lead to an increase in average global temperatures of about 1 degree centigrade. You can only reach the alarming figures of warming of 3 degrees plus by adding feedback mechanisms to the mix. The scientific justification for these mechanisms is that they are needed to explain the past. Climate scientists have found that to get their computer models to reflect temperature records from the last hundred years accurately, they need to add more factors than just carbon dioxide to the mix. Then they extrapolated their models into the future and declared, on this basis, that things would get a whole lot hotter. Fortunately, this is scientific garbage. Taking a complicated model that you’ve tweaked to fit a certain curve and then rolling it forward is about as accurate as a predictive device as tossing a coin.
That’s why I am sceptical about predictions of future climate. You should be too. But that doesn’t make me a global warming denier, since I certainly accept the solidly-based past temperature records. So what am I? Matt Ridley, author of the excellent The Rational Optimist, has the answer. He calls himself a lukewarmist. And that is what I am too. As a lukewarmist, I accept the following aspects of climate change orthodoxy: the world is getting (a bit) warmer; atmospheric carbon dioxide is a major cause of this; and human activity has increased the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide from about 280 parts per million to 400 parts per million.
But thereafter, luke-warmists part company with green orthodoxy. For instance, I do not claim that the world’s temperature was an optimum in 1970 (or whenever). Instead, I recognise from history that warmer climates have been beneficial in the past and this is likely to remain the case in the future. I reject forecasts of future climate change based on computer models that have not been shown to make accurate predictions. I believe it is abhorrent to force poor countries to use expensive “renewable” energy when cheaper carbon-based alternatives would boost their economic performance. I believe wind power is an expensive white elephant and using agricultural land to grow biofuels is a scandal. I note most anecdotal reports on the effects of global warming turn out to be false or misleading (from Himalayan glaciers via increasing incidences of malaria to vanishing coral reefs). I note that the best way to reduce carbon emissions is to use more gas (thankfully there is plenty of it about and the fracking technology to extract it). And finally, I note that climate change propaganda is well-funded and pervasive (unlike climate change scepticism, which has to work on a shoestring).
In short, global warming isn’t much of a problem and is more likely to be mildly beneficial. If it does turn out differently, then we should adapt. But the current fad for destroying the world’s economy by artificially increasing the cost of energy isn’t just stupid. It’s wicked.
Discuss this post at the Quodlibeta Forum
POSTED BY JAMES AT 7:10 PM
Lukewarmism
England has had a cool wet summer. The relevance of this in the debate on global warming is pretty close to nil. Likewise, the cold winters in 2010 and 2011 didn’t tell us much about the long-term trends of the world’s climate. The data that does matter, the average world temperature records, show that temperature rose to about 0.6 degrees centigrade above the long term mean in the twenty years to 1998. Since then, it has basically stood still. And not all the climate alarmism of all the lefties and greens on this Earth has managed to budge it one iota.
I’ve long struggled to articulate my position on global warming. Obviously, I’m a sceptic about the silly claims about tipping points, massive rises in sea level and extinct polar bears. The world isn’t going to see temperatures rise by 6 degrees any time soon, and if it does, it won’t have anything to do with us. But there is also no point in denying the temperature records that do show moderate warming in the last half-century or that carbon dioxide is part of the reason for this. Doubling the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-industrial levels should lead to an increase in average global temperatures of about 1 degree centigrade. You can only reach the alarming figures of warming of 3 degrees plus by adding feedback mechanisms to the mix. The scientific justification for these mechanisms is that they are needed to explain the past. Climate scientists have found that to get their computer models to reflect temperature records from the last hundred years accurately, they need to add more factors than just carbon dioxide to the mix. Then they extrapolated their models into the future and declared, on this basis, that things would get a whole lot hotter. Fortunately, this is scientific garbage. Taking a complicated model that you’ve tweaked to fit a certain curve and then rolling it forward is about as accurate as a predictive device as tossing a coin.
That’s why I am sceptical about predictions of future climate. You should be too. But that doesn’t make me a global warming denier, since I certainly accept the solidly-based past temperature records. So what am I? Matt Ridley, author of the excellent The Rational Optimist, has the answer. He calls himself a lukewarmist. And that is what I am too. As a lukewarmist, I accept the following aspects of climate change orthodoxy: the world is getting (a bit) warmer; atmospheric carbon dioxide is a major cause of this; and human activity has increased the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide from about 280 parts per million to 400 parts per million.
But thereafter, luke-warmists part company with green orthodoxy. For instance, I do not claim that the world’s temperature was an optimum in 1970 (or whenever). Instead, I recognise from history that warmer climates have been beneficial in the past and this is likely to remain the case in the future. I reject forecasts of future climate change based on computer models that have not been shown to make accurate predictions. I believe it is abhorrent to force poor countries to use expensive “renewable” energy when cheaper carbon-based alternatives would boost their economic performance. I believe wind power is an expensive white elephant and using agricultural land to grow biofuels is a scandal. I note most anecdotal reports on the effects of global warming turn out to be false or misleading (from Himalayan glaciers via increasing incidences of malaria to vanishing coral reefs). I note that the best way to reduce carbon emissions is to use more gas (thankfully there is plenty of it about and the fracking technology to extract it). And finally, I note that climate change propaganda is well-funded and pervasive (unlike climate change scepticism, which has to work on a shoestring).
In short, global warming isn’t much of a problem and is more likely to be mildly beneficial. If it does turn out differently, then we should adapt. But the current fad for destroying the world’s economy by artificially increasing the cost of energy isn’t just stupid. It’s wicked.
Discuss this post at the Quodlibeta Forum
POSTED BY JAMES AT 7:10 PM
What do people think?
