Which are you: DEnier, SKeptic, WArmer or Calamatist?
This is a great summary of the four main views on global warming, from the International Herald Tribune today (in the New York Times, pdf here).
Me, having been buffeted hither and thither by the evidence, I find myself somewhere between the Skeptic and the Warmer. That is, there’s warming (nearly everyone agrees on that), it’s faster in recent decades than for thousands of years (most agree on that), there’s evidence of connection with CO2 emissions (most agree on that) and man has contributed to that CO2 emission (most agree on that, though the argument is to what extent that’s had an impact more than the natural sources of CO2 or other drivers of climate exchange, such as solar causes).
The “science is settled” claim is not borne out by the evidence. There are quite a few scientists of repute in the Skeptic category and even a few in the Denier. Moreover, the recent “Climategate” release of emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit casts further doubt on just how disinterested are those working on global warming – though the emails themselves don’t seem to be a terminal wound for the Warmers or Calamatists, at least from those I’ve read, which you can access here.
Climate change mitigating measures are worth doing anyway as they will clean up the world and have a security benefit of weaning us off Middle Eastern oil. But when those measures involve massive transfers of wealth from rich to poor countries, we should be very wary – in other words, wary of the very “ambitious and binding” commitments that are being sought in Copenhagen. For such measures risk huge harm today, for little likely impact in future. Moreover, the moneys would be handled by international bureaucracies, which cannot for one minute be trusted to deploy them effectively.
There are other ways to handle global warming. I’ll write about that later .
Meantime, Stewart Brand’s article “Four sides to every story”
Selected Sources:
Neutral:
Summary of Climategate from The Times
Graphs of the “hockey stick”
Denier/Skeptic:
Prof Plimer: “Alarmism underpinned by fraud”.
Criticsm of the “hockey stick”.
Australian sceptic s: why an Emissions Trading Scheme is not necessary
Australian sceptic s: why an Emissions Trading Scheme is not necessary
Warmer/Alarmist:
Judy Curry: respected warmer, recognises faults with the position.
National Board of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Report.
A middle-of-the-road warmer view. NYT, 2 Dec 09
