In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, there is a column titled “Don’t Believe the Hype – Al Gore is wrong. There’s no “consensus” on global warming”, written by Richard S. Lindzen, who is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
In it, Mr. Lindzen states, “A general characteristic of Mr. Gore’s approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse. Regardless, these items are clearly not issues over which debate is ended–at least not in terms of the actual science.”
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
The thing is, in that article, Lindzen is setting up a straw man argument to knock down, implying that Gore and others are claiming that there is a consensus opinion as to the exact impact of human actions (including the buring of fossil fuels) on the environment. There is no such consensus. As has been noted, climate is extremely complicated and indeed, it’s pretty much impossible to model correctly. (Interesting read that touches on this problem of modeling is James Gleick’s “Chaos”)
There is no consensus on exactly what impact human acts have on the environment as a whole. However, there is a consensus that the earth as a whole has experienced a significant warming trend that tracks the rise of industry and ever-increasing atmospheric emissions since the mid 19th century. There is also a general consensus that our acts are likely contributing to that trend, just as there is also a consensus that the earth’s climate patterns are dynamic (I doubt that Gore or, indeed, anyone, would disagree with that statement, despite what Lindzen implies).
Beyond that, we really cannot KNOW with certitude exactly HOW human-caused air pollution will impact the future warming trends. However, the lack of crystal-ball precognition in this area doesn’t thereby imply that there’s a global warming “hoax,” just that we don’t know the full extent of the potential danger that bears addressing — and neither do we know the extent, if any, which the warming trend may be alleviated by any changes we can implement now. We may be on an irreversible course towards a warmer planet. Or not. But what does it gain us (and our children and grandchildren) to deny that there’s an issue, simply because the extent and scope of that issue cannot be predicted with absolute certainty?
Would you not buy fire insurance because you don’t KNOW with certainty that your house would catch fire? By the time the house is engulfed, it’s too late to call Prudential.
July 5, 2006 at 5:40 pm
I think there’s a little bit of a difference between awareness, and calling it the “worst threat that the world faces” (even larger than terrorism and nuclear proliferation), as Al Gore has claimed.
Perhaps this warming is more natural than we know. After all, the meltdown of the Ice Age was caused by what?
To suggest that man has caused this, assumes that man actually has the power to control nature. If this is the case, then how come we can only impact it negatively?
I have been reading from Lizden for years. He is not new on the anti-global warming theory scene.
Remember what the word theory means. It is not proven that man has caused global warming. It is a theory.
Al Gore states that the earth’s temperature has increased by a couple of degrees in the last 400 years.
The earth is a billion years old. Do you realize how insignificant 400 years is to this number?
Secondly, since we’ve only been keeping records for as long as we have had the instruments to do so, we are relying solely upon computer models, which happen to be inaccurate as much as they are accurate. However, the crowd that is pushing this anti-industry agenda, headed up now by Gore, is adamant upon ignoring this fact.
They are attempting to build enough momentum in their ideal that any discourse will be dismissed. They are actually claiming that this “science” is undebatable. How can this possibly be, given the fact that it remains a theory, with which the vast majority of evidence is based upon computer models, not solid evidence –since it is impossible to go back in time, or into the future.
Gore wildly suggests that this issue is closed for any further discussion.
In other words, these people are guessing, and any debate is out of the question.
It does not take a scientist to figure this out.