

The Climate Science Isn't Settled - DanielBMarkham
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html

======
alexgartrell
I'm happy that the CRU hack has introduced all of this healthy skepticism back
into the debate. Any time people are so sensationalist about anything, there
should be a lot of concern.

~~~
dasil003
The skepticism is good, but my concern is that the issue has become so
politicized, and people are so emotionally invested in the outcomes, that true
objectivity is nearly impossible. Mix in natural variations and the fact that
the timescales are not intuitively understood by most people, and I really
doubt we'll be able to save ourselves from massive global catastrophe if
that's the way this ends up going.

In my mind, the _real_ problem is that we do not account for the value of
natural resources and the environment in our economics. That, combined with a
rabid consumerist mentality is rapidly leading us down a rode of polluted
resource-exhaustion.

~~~
lukifer
> In my mind, the real problem is that we do not account for the value of
> natural resources and the environment in our economics.

Couldn't agree more. We're not going to get anywhere by turning the issue into
a polemic "debate". We should be focusing on central tenets so obvious they're
impossible to disagree with: wealth is derived from the underlying ecosystem
of nature, and securing the long-term health of that system is in everyone's
best interest.

"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they
shall never sit in."

~~~
vannevar
Whereas the continued trumped up 'debate' over AGW demonstrates that our
society is full of wealthy old men quite willing to sacrifice the distant
future for their own profit today. There is no scientific debate here, only
the appearance of one. And in the end, that's all those corrupt old men need.

------
maukdaddy
OK these anti-climate articles are getting really lame. This is a fucking
opinion piece from one of the most conservative papers in the US.

Why do so many hackers/HN types seem to be skeptics? I would have thought of
all people, hackers/entrepreneurs would be forward-thinking and realistic
about what is happening to our environment!

~~~
electromagnetic
Because skepticism should be the natural state of being of any intelligent
person.

Unwavering belief and fanaticism is inherently dangerous and stupid, yet
unwavering belief and fanaticism is all global warming has had for the past
decade. The fanaticism has clearly got to the point of doctoring evidence and
attempting to sabotage critics. How long would it have been until we got to an
asinine crusade against non-global warming believers . . . oh wait, that's
already started amongst the GW scientists!

~~~
dasil003
But on the other side the evidence selectivity and baseless opinion pieces
fighting for mindshare are 100 times worse.

Of course it's healthy to be skeptical, but it really seems like _most_ people
writing about GW have an agenda. The politics of the issue are simply too
charged for any objectivity to sneak in.

~~~
jacoblyles
I hold scientists to higher standards of conduct. The "Other people behave
badly!" defense doesn't sit well with me.

~~~
dasil003
I'm not excusing their behavior. I'm just stating facts.

------
poutine
The climate is an enormously complex thing with so many variables that it's
difficult to analyze. If you do not believe the claims for Anthropogenic
Global Warming (AGW) I suggest you consider the Precautionary Principle:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle>

In the context of the environment it essentially states that if there is a
reasonable chance that AGW can be true then since the risks are so great we
must take action as if it were true.

This is what leads me, a hard core skeptic (and trained but very long ago
lapsed climatologist) to support reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. We
can not afford to be wrong.

~~~
Dove
Are you also a fan of Pascal's Wager?

I personally do not find persuasive the idea that decisions involving high
stakes should warrant an approach which embraces risk management over
skepticism. All things in proper order.

It all depends on the probabilities you assign things. If Traditional
Christianity has a 50% chance of being true, then of course the risk
mitigation of heaven and hell dominate decision making. But I should like a
better assessment of the odds before entering risk management mode. If the
odds are near zero, I shall ignore the claim--however horrid the hell or
enticing the heaven.

So with AGW. Perhaps the doomsday is quite terrible (though even this does not
seem obvious to me). I should like to see sound evidence that results in--at a
minimum--clear odds before I am willing to worry about it.

After all, as with Pascal, I may have other doomsdays to worry about. Perhaps
the real doomsday event is a killer asteroid, and nothing matters except a
relentless pursuit of technology aimed at a robust presence in space. If that
were the case, retarding industry out of a concern for your bogeyman might
actually be the cause of doom.

One cannot worry about every street preacher who claims the end is near.

~~~
poutine
No, Pascal's Wager is foolish since you could not possibly select the correct
god from the myriad of gods available (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism,
Hinduism, etc) given that belief is mutually exclusive.

At any rate it's not the same thing. The precautionary principle is an
insurance sale, not some metaphysical nonsense.

And you're being unfair about your characterization of Global Warming. It is
just not any doomsday scenario. There's enough reputable scientists getting
their panties in a knot that it should be cause for concern.

~~~
Dove
It is not being metaphysical in nature that makes Pascal's Wager nonsense. It
is that it demands action without sufficient rational foundation.

The rational reaction to a possible crisis in which one lacks information is
not to jump immediately away from what looks like the scariest outcome. That
tends to make things worse. The right reaction is to focus on research until a
decision absolutely cannot be avoided--and even then, make the minimum
decision the evidence warrants.

I view that as the case here. If the evidence is sufficient to convince and
act on, okay. Act on it. But if it is not, the stakes being high do not change
anything. By all accounts, there's time yet to be more certain, so let's take
the time and be more certain.

Incidentally, "a lot of reputable scientists are concerned" is a statement
about state of the evidence, and not a very persuasive one to me. I know a
thing or two about simulating complex systems; a non-predictive simulation, a
theory concerning a single variable input, a loose-but-not-awesome
correlation? In a complex system, that really _is_ street preacher kind of
evidence. Absolutely it warrants theoretical concern; follow that line of
research. But as a call to action? Nah. Call me when you've got a robust
enough model that you can use it to win wars or make money, and we'll talk.

~~~
poutine
Well, the problem here is that we're talking about a possible run away
greenhouse effect that will condemn most of humanity to death. The point being
is that you must act now in order to stop it and that this is the rational
approach even if you do not have conclusive evidence. Your gamble is an
unacceptable risk, or so the principle would say.

I spent a couple years living in mainland China with pollution so bad that you
literally could barely see across the street. On many clear sky days you could
look directly at the sun with no issue. I flew over the country to different
cities dozens of times and always the entire country was covered in a thick
smog for thousands of kilometres. We really have no idea here in North America
of the scale of things going on. And China is going to massively increase
their emissions in the coming decades.

------
Readmore
I think it's important to look at both sides of the debate, especially when it
appears one side or the other has been fudging data for years.

But it's also important to realize that even if Climate Change isn't man made
pollution still is and we need to do our best to reduce it.

Global Warming has been the specter hanging over our heads for the last decade
telling us to clean up our act but we need to start stressing the importance
of pollution cleanup and recycling outside of the climate change debate as it
is hugely important in its own right.

~~~
cema
Climate change, pollution, and global warming are all different issues. Should
not be confused.

~~~
Readmore
Really? It isn't pollution that is the supposed cause of man-made Global
Warming?

I agree that pollution is a very general term that encompasses things which
don't 'contribute' to Global Warming but saying that Pollution and Global
Warming are different issues is misleading.

You may have different definitions for Global Warming vs. Climate Change but I
have heard them used interchangeably, if there is a difference I'd like to
know what it is.

~~~
cema
[Sorry, could not answer earlier.]

1\. Pollution is listed as one of the sources of the (alleged) artificial
global warming, but not the only one.

2\. Pollution and global warming may be related but they are different issues.
For example, even if it turns out that global warming is not happening or is
not a problem, pollution will remain a big deal and will have to be taken care
of.

3\. They are sometimes used interchangeably but this is a logical error (if
not worse) and should be avoided.

------
baix
"Climate change is real enough, with enough backing observations and theory,
to run with the assumption that it is most likely true - but probably more
complex than we realize right now."

From:

[http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/dear-
science/Content?oid=...](http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/dear-
science/Content?oid=2820629)

------
DaniFong
Thanks, I appreciate this article, despite my being essentially convinced that
it's important to do something significant to reduce carbon emissions. The
fact of the matter is that the climate science isn't settled. It's a shame
that the nuisances of this have been glossed over for the purpose of the
public and policy makers.

~~~
febeling
Why have carbon emmissions to be reduced, unless climate warrants it? The
question is: of a dollar budget, how much should go into reducing emmissions?,
and how much should be spent to cure cancer, bring education to Africa, and so
on. There are rarely that absolute problems which justify any cost for a
solution.

~~~
DaniFong
I am convinced that the climate does warrant it. I just don't think the
science is a closed book.

There are other reasons to stop the burning of coal, for example: respiratory
illness.

