Climate Extremes
Climate Extremes
Monday’s Wall Street Journal (6/26/06)included an op-ed by MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen repeating his argument that alarmists are overstating the scientific case that human activity is causing climate change. In Tuesday’s New York Times (6/27/06), William J. Broad reports on the growing respectability of geoengineering strategies for combating climate change.
Lindzen’s latest essay is a response to a comment by Al Gore in his new film that “the debate in the scientific community is over.” Lindzen is right—and Gore would probably agree—that this is an absurd statement. There is no scientific debate, there is a continuing scientific study of the climate. Although Lindzen has often raised reasonable objections to the way some people have characterized the state of climate science, in this case he is off base. He rightly criticizes statements about scientific certainty and consensus that go beyond what science can ever provide, but he implicitly sets a standard for the level of consensus necessary to justify action to slow climate change that is unreasonably high. There is no absolute certainty, but the weight of the evidence is growing enough to justify some action.
Broad highlights one of the seeming inconsistencies of those who are calling for action to combat climate change. Many environmentalists, who describe global warming as an environmental threat of unprecedented scale, are still unwilling to consider nuclear power as one of the tools that could be used to reduce the use of fossil fuels. The majority of scientists and engineers do see nuclear energy as an effective tool in the fight against climate change. But both scientists and environmentalists have been reluctant to consider geoengineering—ambitious proposals to tinker with the oceans, clouds, or atmospheric chemistry—as a practical response.
As the weight of the evidence for human-induced climate change grows and efforts to slow the production of greenhouse gases founder, scientists are beginning to talk more openly about geoengineering options. As Broad reports, this is far from a groundswell for actually implementing any of these strategies, but it is a significant change to be willing merely to discuss them. One of the most influential voices calling for more open discussion is atmospheric chemist Ralph J. Cicerone, the president of the National Academy of Sciences. Considering the growing evidence that the climate is warming and the possibility of dramatic, nonlinear changes in climate, it seems foolhardy not to be researching and discussing emergency geoengineering options.
As the geoengineering advocates point out, we are already inadvertently engineering the climate system. Although most people are predisposed to favor a “natural” approach that aims to limit human interference, it’s a little late for that. The planet’s climate is already in part a human creation. Of course, geoengineering involves serious risks, and we may never develop any strategy that deserves to be implemented. But research and discussion seems wise in light of the potential effects of climate change.
Monday’s Wall Street Journal (6/26/06)included an op-ed by MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen repeating his argument that alarmists are overstating the scientific case that human activity is causing climate change. In Tuesday’s New York Times (6/27/06), William J. Broad reports on the growing respectability of geoengineering strategies for combating climate change.
Lindzen’s latest essay is a response to a comment by Al Gore in his new film that “the debate in the scientific community is over.” Lindzen is right—and Gore would probably agree—that this is an absurd statement. There is no scientific debate, there is a continuing scientific study of the climate. Although Lindzen has often raised reasonable objections to the way some people have characterized the state of climate science, in this case he is off base. He rightly criticizes statements about scientific certainty and consensus that go beyond what science can ever provide, but he implicitly sets a standard for the level of consensus necessary to justify action to slow climate change that is unreasonably high. There is no absolute certainty, but the weight of the evidence is growing enough to justify some action.
Broad highlights one of the seeming inconsistencies of those who are calling for action to combat climate change. Many environmentalists, who describe global warming as an environmental threat of unprecedented scale, are still unwilling to consider nuclear power as one of the tools that could be used to reduce the use of fossil fuels. The majority of scientists and engineers do see nuclear energy as an effective tool in the fight against climate change. But both scientists and environmentalists have been reluctant to consider geoengineering—ambitious proposals to tinker with the oceans, clouds, or atmospheric chemistry—as a practical response.
As the weight of the evidence for human-induced climate change grows and efforts to slow the production of greenhouse gases founder, scientists are beginning to talk more openly about geoengineering options. As Broad reports, this is far from a groundswell for actually implementing any of these strategies, but it is a significant change to be willing merely to discuss them. One of the most influential voices calling for more open discussion is atmospheric chemist Ralph J. Cicerone, the president of the National Academy of Sciences. Considering the growing evidence that the climate is warming and the possibility of dramatic, nonlinear changes in climate, it seems foolhardy not to be researching and discussing emergency geoengineering options.
As the geoengineering advocates point out, we are already inadvertently engineering the climate system. Although most people are predisposed to favor a “natural” approach that aims to limit human interference, it’s a little late for that. The planet’s climate is already in part a human creation. Of course, geoengineering involves serious risks, and we may never develop any strategy that deserves to be implemented. But research and discussion seems wise in light of the potential effects of climate change.
posted by Kevin Finneran at
10:16 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home