Dept. of Skepticism

I haven't had anything to say about the stolen climate e-mails from East Anglia University, largely because I know diddly-squat when it comes to climate science. However, Andrew links to an article in Popular Mechanics about the scandal that does as good a job of responding even-handedly as I think is possible right now.

I should disclose at the outset that I am skeptical about anthropogenic climate change. This is due in large part to a steady stream of skepticism directed my way by an incredibly smart person I happen to know, who has done extensive review of a lot of available data and feels pretty strongly that there is insufficient evidence in support of the now-consensus view. (He also may or may not be directly related to me.) Given my respect for his expertise and the time I know he has spent researching the question, I have become agnostic on the issue. If you're interested in what he has to say for himself on energy issues in general, you can go here.

By way of introducing my other reason for concern about our approach to climate change, I would like to quote from that Popular Mechanics article:

When scientists try to predict the future, they are even more hampered by the enormous scales of time, distance and complexity inherent in the global climate system. We Earth scientists have educated ourselves, and the public, about the difference between weather—short term fluctuations due to all kinds of "noisy" inputs, like sun spots—and climate. This difference means that short-term observations are potentially irrelevant, and we might have to wait decades to really test the efficacy of scientific models predicting future climate. But here's the rub: Climate models—which represent the good-faith efforts of a lot of very dedicated people to use a combination of physics and observations of past climate to make the best possible projections—predict some very unfavorable outcomes for humans within the next 50 to 100 years, unless we take substantial action to reduce and mitigate CO₂ emissions, starting right now. There is plenty of room for uncertainty, but the time to act is now.

That word act is where the problem lies. Certainly, if one believes the consensus view of climate change, it appears that things are quite urgent. But action in this case involves incredible cost.

In a nutshell (and as far as I understand a field wholly unrelated to my own expertise), we cannot come close to meeting our energy needs with so-called "carbon neutral" means. In small settings, carbon neutrality may be possible. For massive economies like that of the United States, there remain no alternatives to coal-fired power plants, with the possible exception of the environmentally (or, at least, politically) undesirable option of nuclear power. Wind, solar, hydroelectric -- none are capable of delivering nearly enough power to keep America running. In the words of the smart person (who might be related to me), get rid of coal, and people will freeze in the dark.

Now, there remain other issues of concern with regard to carbon dioxide levels. I think the pH of the oceans, in particular, demands our attention. However, given the enormity of the sacrifice that would be entailed if we wish to dramatically reduce carbon emissions, it is imperative that the science behind the recommendations be transparent and honest. The CRU e-mails cause legitimate concern about that transparency and honesty.

This leaves me in the indescribably galling position of agreeing with conservative Republicans on a major issue. Given that I disagree almost viscerally with them about essentially everything else, and that their objections stem in large part from an otherwise-repellant disregard for science, this agreement makes me break out in horrible hives. But even a broken clock is right twice a day, and thus I find myself holding my nose in the company of people I think might be right for all the wrong reasons.