A convincing truth may be only half the story and that is the best advice climate alarmists seem to be telling themselves. Take the follow article, page 4, http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=154118 , here's an excerpt:
Jones was asked about average global temperatures since 1860: In general – including the period 1975 to 2009 – they've increased about 0.16 degrees Celsius per decade, he explained. Those measurements cover enough years, and the increase is large enough, to meet technical criteria for statistical significance. Over the past 15 years, the measured increase was 0.12 Celsius per decade. The shorter time and smaller change don't quite pass the test.
Deniers spun this detailed, cautious clarification into an admission of error. Typically, the Globe and Mail's Margaret Wente wrote: "... he dropped a bombshell. He acknowledged there's been no statistically significant warming since 1995."
... The pattern repeated when Jones answered the question: "When scientists say `the debate on climate change is over,' what exactly do they mean?""I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this," he replied in part. "This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties."
To the likes of Lorne Gunter in the National Post this was a "dramatically" changed tone from the "alarmist" Jones; a "new willingness to concede doubt."But Jones' comment wasn't news: Doubt is inherent in true science. Put beside his main message, this is the scientist sensibly saying we don't yet know everything, but suggesting the evidence makes action prudent.
Although this is a convenient paraphrasing of Prof. Jones words, I'll accept it. This text indicates a relatively balanced view, something you might not have expected from an activist alarmist. You thought for them, the truth was only getting in the way of the agenda. But note the last phrase, the evidence makes action prudent. That's the whole point of the article. Not cleaning up the evidence, not re-evaluating poor practices, not checking whether this is the right action.
But this is not the whole story. Articles such as this, http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/denial?page=4 demonstrate there are wide swaths of the story not being covered by the alarmists, for example,
Jones dealt the science-is-settled narrative a huge blow with his candid admission in a BBC interview that his surface temperature data are in such disarray they probably cannot be verified or replicated, that the medieval warm period may have been as warm as today, and that he agrees that there has been no statistically significant global warming for the last 15 years—all three points that climate campaigners have been bitterly contesting.
The alarmist only went after the disputable last point. Not that either side is wrong on this point (although I would side against the alarmists who have been pounding home the idea that the earth is warming and time is running out). But confining myself to the text itself, both sides make a valid point. Then there's the other point: What about the all important loss of data that probably cannot be verified or replicated? There is no way to tell if the data was valid or fabricated, the reported results upon which these pivotal actions are to be taken. The alarmists don't touch that. The skeptics fill a crucial role here. First of all, it's faster reading, one paragraph instead of three. Second, it gets to the real issue, which appeals to at least some people.
We have decades of work to do before we accurately measure how much warming exists (if ever. The air is wispy stuff. What about down to the frost line, three feet or so depth of earth and the entire depth of the ocean?), how much of that warming, if any, is human caused (and I'll allow the possibility that some of it is, though I am skeptical), and what to do about it (global government and taxes are a no-go. How about hanging out white laundry in vast fields?). None of the three steps of the argument are settled.
No comments:
Post a Comment