There can never be “proof” of human-induced climate change – and we shouldn’t look to science to provide that. Science is about the estimation of likelihood based on available evidence. There will always be uncertainties because the earth-atmosphere system is too complicated to be understood in intimate detail. So judgement is required.
There are two possibilities: either climate change is human-induced or it isn’t. Despite some inconsistencies in the former possibility, the available evidence is overwhelmingly at odds with the latter. If faith can be described as belief held despite a dearth of supporting evidence, then the “sceptical” camp has a far greater need to cling to it.
The most reasonable judgement is that future climate will fall within the range of IPCC scenarios. Both the rosier and the “gloomier” projections are among the least likely of them. But the mid-range projections don’t make for happy reading either. It’s kind of like riding a bike with no brakes onto a busy road (bear with me). You might get across clean or you might get mown down by a freight truck, but most likely, you’ll get clobbered by a mid-sized sedan, say a Commodore. It still won’t be pretty.
The world’s climate has varied throughout geologic time, but there are no natural forcings that can adequately explain the current warming, which is broadly consistent with the radiative effects of more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
It would be ridiculous to suggest that scientists who dissent from this view have not been given an adequate airing in the media. In the past ten years their voices have been heard out of all proportion either to their representativeness of the climate community at large or the evidence they bring in support of their views.
Ironically, by refusing to take action on climate change, John Howard is effectively shifting the gloomier predictions up the probability curve. His balance is an artificial one – we can’t meet the climate halfway on this, can’t strike a compromise amenable to both parties. Even confining our arguments to the purely economic, there is every indication that climate change will be disastrous for Australia. In other words, the only thing that seems certain is that things cannot go on as they are.
Nobody wants global warming to be a reality and neither Gore nor Flannery is involved in “forecasting the apocalypse”. They may be making money popularising the subject, but the suggestion that money drives the research agenda only holds if there are a bunch of climate scientists who can no longer see their computer screens for the annoying wads of cash piling up on their desks.
On the other hand, the fossil fuel industry is looking more lucrative by the day. The top 15 US oil CEOs were paid, on average, $32.7 million last year, around 280% more than CEOs in comparably sized non-oil businesses.
But I’m sure that isn’t clouding anybody’s judgement.
“There can never be “proof” of human-induced climate change – and we shouldn’t look to science to provide that”
What???? If science can’t provide proof, then who can? Without proof, you have no evidence. Without evidence, you have no facts. Without facts, you’re left with faith.
“There will always be uncertainties because the earth-atmosphere system is too complicated to be understood in intimate detail.”
So, because it’s complicated, we shouldn’t strive for a better understanding? The world would still be considered flat if we just shrugged our shoulders whenever something come along that we didn’t understand.
And without understanding it in intimate detail, how do you know that there isn’t another explanation that we haven’t discovered? The earth has gone through warm ups and cool downs before. Why is this one so easily attributed to human intervention? Human arrogance, I say. The earth is changing, we’re the most important species on the planet, so we must be causing it. There can’t be any other explanation, so don’t bother looking for one.
“They may be making money popularising the subject, but the suggestion that money drives the research agenda only holds if there are a bunch of climate scientists who can no longer see their computer screens for the annoying wads of cash piling up on their desks.”
Simply not true. The more dire climate change issues become (or the belief thereof), the more funding researchers will get. This is human nature. Why can’t you accept that some researchers are out to feather their own nests?
I’m not a sceptic of climate change myself, I just can’t see enough non-circumstancial evidence to convince me that if it is occurring, it is human driven. All I see are groups jumping on the bandwagon to further their own agendas. Vegetarian groups are now telling us to cut down on meat to reduce the methane levels caused by graze animals.
I’m still open minded enough to change my view if real evidence can be provided.