Thursday, April 22, 2010

Climate

I accept the science of climate change. A simple statement. Climate change is not a religion for me nor is it a money making venture. I have no axes to grind against Exxon specifically or capitalism in general. I am not interested in controlling the lives of everyone on Earth by making them drive bikes, turn off their lights and where hemp.
I am not a scientist, so when i have a question I look to science for the answers. I understand the scientific method and accept that conclusion arrived at through peer review, provide us with accurate answers. http://www.realclimate.org/ is a site that gathers the threads together for easy access by the layman.
All I can offer from this point is my opinion. You can determine the value yourself. I know that the average temperature of earth is higher now than when I was born. I know that the amount of atmospheric CO2 is higher now than it was 50 years ago. The Arctic sea ice while fluctuating in area covers less ocean than it used to and it is thinner than ever before. The number and size of glaciers are both in decline. The CO2 content of our oceans is higher now than in the recent past.
These are facts. Many try to argue the data is corrupted so conclusions drawn from such sources are not valid. Science works through the continual accumulation of information, models and theories change as new data is integrated into the theory. If the weight of new information causes the theory to break down it is slowly discarded and a better explanation is sought out. You either except that science contains within it a self correcting method resistant to manipulation or you don't. If you are one of those people no amount of information will ever satisfy you. You will never be convinced to change your mind.
When scientists are accused of misleading people on climate change for personal gain it is disturbing. I believe in the self correcting nature of science, but it does not mean a speedy reversal. We don't always have the time to get back on track. Now I have to weigh the accusation of corrupt science. Is climate change science being corrupted to secure government research grants or by the money flowing from the Fossil Fuel Industry and Conservative foundations. This is a personal call. It is unlikely that any Company would fund research that had the potential to damage profits or reputation. Industry has a long track record of buying the support of science. Government on the other hand funds the research and gets stuck with whatever conclusions are arrived at. They may favour one branch of research over another in an attempt to select direction of inquiry, but they don't order the results to meet their needs. Again this is what I accept to be true ,if your the kind that is thinks badly of Government I can't convince you different.
The mounting evidence of climate change has forced a change in tack. We are now trending to the belief that we have climate change but it's natural. Humans have no affect. This position once again favours industry and the Conservative position. If true it means that economic activity can continue without change.
Even without man made climate change we can't continue to use resources and pollute the way we do now it is unsustainable. It is better to transition to more sustainable economic activity while we have the time. The longer we take the harder it gets and the more expensive it will be.

No comments:

Post a Comment