I guess part of my skepticism over anthropogenic warming is that the complexity of climate science (with so many variables and moving parts) make it difficult, if not impossible, to arrive at a sure conclusion about the impact of CO2. I remember in grade school when climate scientists raised the alarm that we were heading into the next ice age, but it came to nought. We can’t predict the weather 2 weeks out, so how can we definitively deduce the effects of CO2 on weather patterns over the next 100 years.

While the impact of rising CO2 levels is uncertain, the consequences of significantly lowering carbon emissions are well understood: severe impacts on the world economies. Scientists say it’s not possible (realistically) to halt or reverse the changes they predict, so why destroy economies for unproven weather theories. I believe in green energy, reducing dependence on fossil fuels and minimizing pollution, but not at the expense of sending us back to the dark ages.

I’ve read many of the hacked emails, and there were organized attempts to stifle research and boycott journals that published peer reviewed papers with results that countered the anthropogenic cause. If you google around, pundits on both sides of the issue feel that this was inappropriate and detracted from the underlying science. I’ve read a fair amount about the controversy, and I think both sides have vested interests that push their agenda. In my opinion, there has been strong exaggeration on the anthropogenic side, with Al Gore pushing extreme scenarios and the hockey stick graph that he knew wasn’t accurate (ie. Inconvenient Truth…it was truly farcical). I’m reluctant to jump on that band wagon.

I think of weather science somewhat like economics, both are incredibly complex and no one really understands how to predict or maneuver them. Often, our attempts produce the opposite of what we hoped. Mother nature is very resilient. Why destroy our way of life to change something that is so poorly understood? I hope that there can be honest, open discussion of both sides of the issue (without the politics) to arrive at a well thought out and practical plan. Let’s hope for calm heads and rational thought as the world leaders meet in Copenhagen to consider how to proceed.

PS. For what it’s worth…I DO believe in global warming. It is undeniable that global climate change occurs over millennia. However, I’m NOT convinced that the cause is man made. I believe the jury is still out. The same kind of warming occurred in the middle ages, and was just a natural cycle.

PPS. Here’s a link to The Times of London story that covers the hacked emails. Also, a follow-up article from the Wall Street Journal. Both are fairly unbiased and present both sides of the issue. Very interesting.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936289.ece

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html