Quantcast

Poznan Poland United Nations Climate Change Conference – Day Seven

The video update for the press of progress made on day seven of the UN Climate Change Conference in Poznan, Poland:

JOIN OUR NEWSLETTER
I agree to have my personal information transfered to MailChimp ( more information )
Get the latest news and commentary on climate, energy and sustainability delivered every week right to your inbox
We hate spam. Your email address will not be sold or shared with anyone else.

Comments

  1. What is actually happening to the world’s climate and what role does humankind actually play in changing climates? These are two questions that are being examined at the United Nations Global Warming Conference in Poznan, Poland.

    The global scientific community will have the responsibility to answer these questions. Science is supposed to operate within the framework of reason. Something as complicated as climate change demands the attention of real science along with a healthy dose of skepticism.

    The late astronomer, Doctor Carl Sagan said that, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. Our global climate system is very complex. It is influenced by a myriad of forces, including orbital eccentricities of the earth, the amount of water vapor into the atmosphere, and natural wetlands, which produce more greenhouse gas annually than all human sources combined. So, predicting changes in climate over long periods of time is not unlike rolling the dice. Meteorologists have difficulty forecasting the weather a few days out, attempting to forecast it 50 or 100 years in the future is … well, exceedingly difficult at best.

    Of course, a great deal of the information that supports climate change has its origin in global climate computer models. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) has put forth its dire warnings on the impact of climate change based on 22 computer-generated models that it openly admits cannot be validated. If you cannot validate the procedures used to confirm that the model is reliable, of what value are the results?

    The global community is being asked to make huge financial and resource commitments based on the output of computer simulations that are simply not reliable as tools for explaining past climatic events or even making projections for future trends. How do we verify the accuracy of these models? Where they constructed in a completely unbiased manner? Computer model programmers tell us that “hindcasting” or running a model for a past period and obtaining results that match what actually happened is an accepted methodology. Can the past be an accurate reflection for the future – given the inherent complexity of the natural world and the dynamics of climatology? There is widespread agreement among climate scientists that large computer models are unable to even simulate major features of past climate, such as the 100 thousand year cycles of ice ages that have dominated climate for the past 700,000 years. Even accurate past data cannot be expected to predict precise future trends. At their best, these climate models can only be utilized as a guide to possible outcomes, which need to be independently verified by other means.

    Quite a bit of the so-called “scientific consensus” on climate change and global warming is through the looking glass stuff and there is an increasing number of scientists who are expressing skepticism at some of the assertions being made. Doubtless, some of the climate change believers are sincere in their desire to live on a planet that is cleaner and greener; most of us feel the same. I would not place those moderate thinking individuals into the, mostly, anti-capitalist, collectivist camp of individuals who sit at the feet of Al Gore, who is currently running advertisements claiming that the U.S. could switch entirely to renewable power within a decade. What Mr. Gore asserts in these ads is simply not possible under any circumstances. Currently, less than 3 percent of the America’s electricity is generated from renewable sources.

    The hardcore, intractable global warming proponents are completely unreceptive and even intolerant to other points of view. They believe that a new world order is required to confront pollution, global warming, water shortages, and famine. The foundation of their steadfast conviction is that human beings are the cause of these threats and that reality translates into the recognition that humankind is the real enemy.

    If we are really interested in trying to understand climate change and global warming, we should make it a point to embark on a voyage of discovery by using the scientific method – ask the right questions, do the research, construct a hypothesis, test that hypothesis, analyze the data, and draw a highly probable conclusion based on the methodology.

    We can all agree that climate change and the prospect of the earth’s temperature increasing with catastrophic results is an extraordinary claim. What we should hope to achieve is a body of extraordinary evidence to support that contention. Right now, that evidence is inclusive at best. Even if you believe that absolute proof and certainty of knowledge are not possible in any circumstance, the standard should be the “highest probability” that something will or will not happen. The present reality is that both sides in the climate change debate still have a lot of serious work to do.

Leave a Reply