There are many different aspects to Climate Change, some of which are
obvious, some of which are obscure and controversial. Unfortunately
attention has focussed on what is probably the weakest indicator, Global
Warming. Hard to measure, since we don't have an adequate world-wide array
of thermometers with long-term records, and of little practical interest,
since people are most interested in local issues. Skeptics can easily attack
both the existence of global warming and the tenuous nature of the theories
that explain it.
On the other hand, Ocean Acidification is clearly happening and can equally
clearly be attributed to increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2. That
is why skeptics sink their teeth into Global Warming and never address Ocean
Acidification.
There are other aspects of Climate Change which are less clear, usually
because the mechanism is not obvious. The melting of glaciers, reduced
snowfall in many areas, and sea level rise are clearly happening, but it is
harder to prove the causality of these than Ocean Acidification.
So what are we to do? Robert Hamilton says that we need to make "accurate
elegant predictions" and holds up Acid Rain as an example, but that example
is impossible to match. When you have a smokestack pouring sulpher compounds
into the air and sulphuric acid showing up downwind the connection is pretty
obvious. No such tight linkages exist in any of the Climate Change
scenarios.
Does this mean that we should just sit back and say that since nothing is
proven, we should take no action? Faced with the possibility of irreversible
environmental damage, perhaps the Precautionary Principle is worth
considering. But maybe we should just wait another 50 or 100 years and hope
that something conclusive can be proven.
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wayne Tyson" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: terça-feira, 22 de Dezembro de 2009 22:24
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Credibility Research grants etc
ECOLOG:
One of the major propaganda statements of those opposed to climate change
research and actions to reduce atmospheric CO2 is that money is a major
motivation behind what they claim is a fraud. Funding requests are often
cited, and the claim has been made that, for example, "all you have to do to
get your proposal funded is to mention 'climate change,' 'global warming,'
or some similar buzz-phrase."
To what extent do you think this might be true?
WT
