Global Warming Moderation

Here is a welcome statement by somebody easing back from the strident claims of the fanatical global warming crowd. This is excerpted from a posting by Geoffrey Styles in his Energy Outlook blog. While I still differ from him, I find a lot in what he says that I can agree, especially in the area of what it is reasonable to do in the face of uncertainties about the extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW):

Since the publication of the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) last November, we've been inundated with news reports and opinion pieces questioning the scientific consensus behind climate change. An editorial in today's Wall St. Journal on "The Continuing Climate Meltdown" is just the latest example of this trend, following a weekend that saw the release of a remarkable BBC interview with the CRU's former director. The fact that all this coincides with a northern hemisphere winter that has deposited record snowfalls on regions that don't normally see much of the white stuff serves to reinforce the message that something is amiss with global warming theory. It has also had me wondering if I moved far enough south, as I cope with "ice dams", cabin fever, and other consequences of a pair of back-to-back blizzards in the D.C. area. While I agree that the recent revelations have given rise to an understandable wave of doubts regarding climate change, this may say more about the way that extreme climate predictions have been played up in the last several years than it does about actual climate change.

Even the most ardent adherents of the view that climate change is real, man-made to a significant extent, and extremely challenging for humanity must agree that the science supporting this perspective has had a rough couple of months--largely deserved. Whatever the "Climategate" emails said about the underlying analytical rigor of the dominant scientific interpretation of global warming, they revealed a worrying degree of defensive groupthink and gatekeeping among leading climate researchers. I'm pleased to see that an independent group has been set up to examine the practices at East Anglia-CRU, though the inquiry has already experienced controversies of its own.

...

While considerable progress has been made in the last decade solidifying the evidence supporting the AGW theory, significant uncertainty still remains about the future consequences it suggests, particularly as relates to regional impacts and changes in precipitation. A lot more also needs to be done to clarify the relationship between proxy data and instrumental temperature data, and to ensure that the latter are consistent and truly representative. However, I don't see these deficiencies as justifying complete policy paralysis, particularly when it comes to those actions that can be accomplished relatively cheaply, such as improved energy efficiency, or that offer substantial benefits for other concerns such as energy security, including expanding nuclear power, low-cost renewable energy, and R&D to bring down the cost of other renewables. As for whether the time is right to pursue more comprehensive measures, there's a legitimate debate to be had, but it shouldn't start from the false assumption that anthropogenic global warming has been disproved.

Read the original to get the full position of Styles and to pick up his links.

I'm happy to find common ground with somebody who is willing to back off from the fanaticism of AGW extremists. I'm willing to agree to those actions that are relatively cheap and have immediate benefit. What I opposed most vigorously were the calls to hobble economic growth to "save the planet".

This rankled me because it was the call by elitists -- the comfortably rich -- calling for the poor to give up hopes of having a comfortable lifestyle. I will never accept that. I will never accept a "leader" who lives in luxury telling me that I have to tighten my belt. Only if he is willing to step down to my modest lifestyle will I be willing to listen. All those "green" politicians jetting around the world to attend "conferences" on global warming still make me want to puke. Planes are wasteful greenhouse emitters. I say "pick up the phone". Electrons are cheap. But the rich want to party, want to jet to luxurious locations, and attend "conferences" without limit while they prescribe bitter restriction for the great majority of humanity. It was hypocritical and evil. I will never accept that.