Climate Change: The Science Isn't Settled

[qandnotq]

Washingto Post by James Schlesinger, former Secretary of Energy
....
We cannot tell how much of the recent warming trend can be attributed to the greenhouse effect and how much to other factors. In climate change, we have only a limited grasp of the overall forces at work. Uncertainties have continued to abound -- and must be reduced. Any approach to policy formation under conditions of such uncertainty should be taken only on an exploratory and sequential basis. A premature commitment to a fixed policy can only proceed with fear and trembling.
....
There is an idea among the public that "the science is settled." Aside from the limited facts I cited earlier, that remains far from the truth. Today we have far better instruments, better measurements and better time series than we have ever had. Still, we are in danger of prematurely embracing certitudes and losing open-mindedness. We need to be more modest.
-----------

His comments about policy formulation under uncertainty are dead wrong; uncertainty should push one towards a precautionary approach. But, I'm curious about how much scientific uncertainty there really is about greenhouse warming. Anyone got a link to a credible scientific source that debunks the skeptics, like Mr. Schlesinger here?

[Maple]

1. Mr. Schlesinger is a scientist?

There are 18 national academies of science that agree climate change is mostly driven by human activity.
Over 100 Nobel Laureates agree,104 of the 178 living Nobel Prize winners in the sciences, along with 60 U.S. National Medal of Science winners.

[hatrack]

3. Exactly! Thank you, Maple!

And his qualifications to judge whether all of these climate scientists' work and research is valid would be . . . . . ?

Well, Mr. Schlesinger?

[qandnotq]

4. don't know if he is

Does he have to be a scientist to understand scientists' opinions? How many national academies of science, Nobel Prize winners, and Medal of Science winners don't agree that climate change is mostly driven by human activity? I'm trying to get a sense of the real scientific uncertainty. Is this 'uncertainty' just more Republican obfuscation, or is it real? Ordinarily I would assume he's just blowing smoke, but publication in the Wash Post made me wonder if he's got some credibility.

[pw]

6. Nope, no credibility

The science isn't settled as to exactly how much of the climate change is the result of human activity, but it's quite settled on the fact that we're pushing in the wrong direction.

Imagine someone standing on some slippery grass at the edge of a cliff. The fact that they're already in a risky position doesn't mean it's OK to give them a good hard shove.

Now imagine that they're wearing a rope whose other end is tied to your waste, and you're still arguing that pushing them isn't such a bad thing to do...

[hatrack]

7. He's sticking a finger into a crumbling dike, relying on science-ignorance

Schlesinger has no specialized training in climatology, atmospheric physics, paleoclimatology, glaciology, chemistry or any of the other fields that relate, directly and indirectly, to the consensus of knowledge he pretends to debunk. Given that most Americans dismiss as "theory" things like the greenhouse effect (well-documented by our existence), and are unaware that gravitation and both special and general relativity are also "mere theories", he can get away with it.

And his presence in the Washington Post? Who cares? This is nothing more than damage control after last week's stunning announcement from the World Meteorological Organization, carrying with it no more weight than the musings of any other washed-up Beltway hack.

The science will never be 100% certain (it can't - it's science), views on the possible consequences of climate destabilization will never agree 100% (since they're projections of future events, they can't either), and we'll never know all there is to know - we simply can't. But every academy of sciences in every developed country in the world including ours, the IPCC and a host of independent experts believe that it is real, that we are in large part causing it, and that grave consequences are possible. That, to my mind, handily outweighs the op-ed maunderings of a Nixon-era retired cabinet secretary.

For further information, check out some of the studies, news and leads you'll find at these sites:

http://www.nsidc.org

http://www.ipcc.ch

http://www.noaa.gov

http://www.nature.com

http://www.sciencedaily.com

http://www.pnas.org

http://www.ncar.ucar.edu

[comradebillyboy]

2. since science is a process of ongoing inquiry

THE SCIENCE WILL NEVER BE SETTLED in an absolute sence. As we gain more information we can make better and better scientific models, but scientific knowledge is not absolute truth.

[Maple]

5. This is an answer from another website some time ago

on a show ABC's Stossel did, interviewing kids, and dissing the idea of global warming.

"Stossel's discussion of global warming was highly selective in the information it presented. Instead of reporting the increasingly strong scientific consensus on global warming, Stossel chose to highlight the views of so-called "skeptics," giving center stage to three dissenters from among the 2,000 scientists of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which recently released a report stating that global temperatures are rising almost twice as fast as previously thought.

To back up the skeptics' claims, Stossel presents some deceptive evidence: "You may have heard that 1,600 scientists signed a letter warning of 'devastating consequences.' But I bet you hadn't heard that 17,000 scientists signed a petition saying there's 'no convincing evidence' that greenhouse gases will disrupt the Earth's climate."

The implication is that 10 times as many scientists question global warming. What Stossel doesn't note is that while the first petition was circulated by a group well-respected in the scientific community, the second petition has been famously discredited.

The first, smaller petition came from the Union of Concerned Scientists and its signatories included 110 Nobel laureates, including 104 of the 178 living Nobel Prize winners in the sciences, along with 60 U.S. National Medal of Science winners. The latter petition was a project of the George C. Marshall Institute, whose chair, Frederick Seitz, is also affiliated with the Global Climate Coalition (an industry group calling itself the "voice for business in the global warming debate"), in conjunction with the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine, a lesser-known group whose leader, wrote columnist Molly Ivins, is a biochemist who "specializes in home schooling and building nuclear shelters" (Los Angeles Times, 8/17/98).

Though OISM's signatories did include reputable scientists, it also included dentists, nutritionists and others with no expertise in climatalogy; the only requirement for signing on was a bachelors degree in science. In fact, OISM's screening process was so lax that for a time the list also included a number of gag names added by environmentalists, including Ginger Spice and Michael J. Fox. The OISM petition also came under fire for being deceptively packaged: The petition was accompanied by an article purporting to debunk global warming that was formatted to look as though it had been published in the journal of the respected National Academy of Sciences. The resemblance was so close that the NAS issued a public statement that the OISM petition "does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."

None of this controversy was mentioned in Stossel's report. "

In other words...follow the money and see who gets paid to scoff at the science.

[pmbryant]

8. Completely worthless article.

Actually less than worthless, starting with the nonsensical connection between economics and climatology he tries to make in the introductory paragraph.

And what was that comment about the "CO2/climate-change orthodoxy" that seeks out "heretics" to "punish them". !?!

:wtf:

How does this compare to the "Earth is round" orthodoxy or the "DNA is a double helix" orthodoxy.

:eyes:

--Peter

[JonasQuinn]

10. He's probably referring to...

the ad hominem attacks some of the "skeptics" like Bjorn Lomborg suffer.

[pmbryant]

12. Well, Lomborg isn't even a global warming skeptic

So I don't think that is what Schlesinger is referring to.

From an article I found by Lomborg online via google:

Global warming is important, environmentally, politically and economically. There is no doubt that
mankind has influenced and is still increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and that this will
increase temperature.

--Peter

[Kolesar]

9. ..the Bush admin said there was evidence of global warming last year

Their answer to global warming was "deal with it", move inland or build dikes. If the farm fields dry up, then move on.

So the question of whether global warming is real is laid to rest by the devils themselves.

[DrGonzoLives]

11. By that measure

We should stop teaching a lot of chemistry simply because atomic theory isn't 100% hashed out yet. As for economics, forget about it! Nothing there has been proven.

Et cetera, et cetera...

[lakerace1]

13. Clean Air, Water and Land

Baby steps are needed to clean air, water and land. Not giant leaps. If we take giant leaps to clean air, water and land we may be doing unnessary things that could be a detriment to the economy. We can however take baby steps that will not have a big impact on the daily lives of our citizens.

We've come a long way since the first Earth Day some 30 years ago. We've made major progress using a baby step approach cleaning our air, water and land. We've taken lead out of gasoline. Made gasoline, coal and natural gas cleaner to burn. Recycling has improved. Energy Star Compliant appliances. Fuel efficiency in vehicle is better, hybrid cars, the progress towards hydrogen fuel cells. Solar and wind energy is becoming more cost competative and is more prevelant. More forrest bought by U.S. Gov and designated off limits to logging. Arbor day, tree city U.S.A., conservation societies.

I support a baby step approach because I like clean air, clean water and clean land and a sound economy.