Readers of this blog know that I have a large degree of skepticism for much of the global warming rhetoric going around political circles nowadays. It's not so much that I doubt that the earth may in fact be getting warmer as much as I think the science is poorly understood by most people offering "solutions" and the potential impact of most of the "solutions" are poorly understood by those who do understand the science. I also believe there is far more disagreement among scientists about the cause of global warming than is realized by most of the public.
In trying to keep myself and others well-informed about this issue, here is a roundup of various thoughts and opinions on global warming from around the blogosphere:
Economists Joe Stiglitz, Nicholas Stern, and Martin Weitzman have new pieces on global warming. The most interesting (as well as the most technically demanding) is the one by Weitzman. His conclusion: "The Stern Review may well be right for the wrong reasons."
Do I "believe in " global warming? In the sense that the world seems to be warmer now than in recent history, yes. The more apocalyptic scenarios seem to me to remain unproven, but certainly cause for concern.
Do I believe that global warming is anthropogenic? Not so clear. Plausible, but still far from certain.
Does this matter? Probably not. Regardless of what you think of the above, burning carbon is a lousy idea. Coal and oil are, over the long term, far more valuable as chemical feedstocks than as fuels anyway, and burning them is unacceptably filthy regardless of greenhouse issues.
Burning less carbon is good planetary hygiene, and good practice generally, regardless of what you think of global warming. So, I suppose, in a way we should be pursuing global warming remedies regardless of what you think about global warming.
Cosmic Rays Blamed for Global Warming:
Man-made climate change may be happening at a far slower rate than has been claimed, according to controversial new research.
Scientists say that cosmic rays from outer space play a far greater role in changing the Earth's climate than global warming experts previously thought.
Senators Boxer & Inhofe Discuss Climate Change On Larry King
Sens. Barbara Boxer and James Inhofe, chairwoman and ranking minority member of the Environment & Public Works Committee respectively, discuss climate change on Larry King Live.
Global Warming Is Caused By the... Sun?
... did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.
That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.
Global Warming Deniers Are Like Holocaust Deniers?
I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.
Climate Change Concerts to Dwarf Live Aid
A series of concerts "bigger than Live Aid" is being planned for July, in a bid to put the subject of climate change before an audience of a global audience of 2bn. The event, scheduled for July 7, will feature co-ordinated film, music and television events in seven cities including London, Washington DC, Shanghai, Rio de Janeiro, Cape Town and Kyoto, with major broadcasters and media owners aiming to extend the reach of public awareness of global warming.
Information Visualization and the Debate Over Global Warming:
Images From Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth"
Joel Hunter Shares A Theological Perspective:
Every major religion has a moral mandate to take care of the Earth. For those who look to the Bible for instruction, it is the first responsibility given to man: “The Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep [protect] it” (Gen: 2:15, NASB). Our moral obligation, then, does not depend on the rate our planet is warming, or even whether the main cause is human activity. We are to refrain from harming God’s creation – period. Few Christians or persons of other faiths (or no faith) would disagree with that statement.
But the latest reports indicate the need to move the care of creation up the priority scale. The great news is that individually we can help as much as we have harmed the physical environment, but we must watch out that we don’t poison the environment of relationships in the process….
The environmental issue can become a substitute religion. Our faith has to do with obeying God and loving our neighbor. Hugging trees is not the point. Creation care is important to many Biblical themes we need to address, including sanctity of life, disease, poverty, and conflict.
(HT Joshua Sowin)
Bryan Caplan on "What Do We Know About Climate Preferences?"
Suppose you surveyed a random sample of Americans with the following question:
"Overall, would you rather the climate in the area you live got warmer, got cooler, or stayed the same?"
Has such a survey ever been done? My guess is that about 50% want warmer, 30% the same, and only 20% want cooler. Anyone else willing to hazard a guess? Or know of some real data?
The Real Questions Behind Global Warming by Tyler Cowen
The key issue is what we can expect from China and India. As I understand the evidence, if China and India continue to grow, the United States cannot succeed in much limiting global warming on its own. Let us assume, somewhat dubiously (many European countries are further from Kyoto targets than is the United States), that Europe is already on board, what are the options?
Global Cooling Costs Too Much by Jonah Goldberg
Earth got about 0.7 degrees Celsius warmer in the 20th century while it increased its GDP by 1,800 percent, by one estimate. How much of that 0.7 degrees can be laid at the feet of that 1,800 percent is unknowable, but let’s stipulate that all of the warming was the result of our prosperity...
That’s still an amazing bargain. Life expectancies in the United States increased from about 47 years to about 77 years. Literacy, medicine, leisure and even, in many respects, the environment have improved mightily over the course of the 20th century, at least in the prosperous West.
Given the option of getting another 1,800 percent richer in exchange for another 0.7 degrees warmer, I’d take the heat in a heartbeat.
These statistical projections are highly uncertain. In fact, I do not think that the climate modelers have anywhere near enough data to make usable predictions.
99 percent of the people who knowingly tell you that global warming is real and that the science is conclusive have no clue about statistical modeling. The statistical challenges of climate modeling that scientists understand among themselves are quite different from the popular conceptions that imagine some concrete certainty. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, never before in the field of public policy have so many had such confidence in model forecasts based on so few meaningful observations.
And finally, Don Boudreaux sums up my views pretty nicely in Let's Have Less Hot Air About Global Warming:
I am not so much a skeptic of global warming as I am of politicized efforts to deal with it. I am most assuredly a skeptic of pronouncements, predictions, and assumptions made by natural scientists -- and by politicians and pundits -- about global-warming's likely consequences on human economy and society. Many (most?) of these scientists have no earthly idea of the fundamental logic of market exchange.
(This charge is no criticism; it merely points to an inevitable result of a deep division of labor. After all, most of us who are not environmental scientists are poorly equipped to grasp the important details and nuances of environmental science. Likewise, specializing in natural science (or in politics, or Hollywood acting) reduces the time and effort you put forward to study and understand the economy.)
And someone with no firm grasp of economic principles can be as right as right can be about global warming and its causes while simultaneously being utterly benighted about what to do about it and even whether or not something should be done about it.
Here are some of my previous posts related to global warming:
No comments:
Post a Comment