Tre tankevekkende artikler fra den siste uken:
Richard Lindzen skriver for CATO Institute og sammenligner klimafrykten med tre tidligere historiske fenomener, nemlig Malthusianismen, som lever i beste velgående, sosial darwinisme, som ga støtet til rasehygienen, og Dreyfus-saken, der mangel på beviser ikke var til hinder for saken splittet Frankrike i to polariserte leire.
De manglende bevisene går som en rød tråd gjennom disse sakene, men er altså ikke til hinder for at grupper av interessenter blir «troende» og bruker saken til å fremme sine egne interesser.
Lindzen nevner også skadepotensialet:
Affordable energy has been the primary vehicle for the greatest advance in human welfare in human history. This issue promises to deny this to the over 1 billion humans who still lack electricity. For billions more energy will be much less affordable leading to increased poverty. Poverty, itself, is a major factor in reduced life expectancy. It requires a peculiarly ugly obtuseness to ignore the fundamental immorality of this issue.
Richard Tol skriver om den siste Stern-rapporten, «Stern2.0», som jo pussig nok er bestilt av landene Norge, Sverige, England, Colombia og Etiopia.
Man kan trygt si at rapporten slaktes
The new Stern Review calls for an international treaty with legally binding targets. Albert Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Since 1995, the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change have met year after year to try and agree on legally binding targets – and failed every time. The reasons are simple. It is better if others reduce their emissions but you do not. No country likes to be bound by UN rules for its industrial, agricultural and transport policies. The international climate negotiations have been successful in creating new bureaucracies, but not in cutting emissions.
Alltid lesverdige Ross McKitrick skriver om det påståtte hastverket med å «gjøre noe» for å motvirke klimaendringer, ikke minst nå når usikkerheten synes større enn noen gang og det blir stadig klarere at prognosene for klimaendringer må nedjusteres:
The arguments for hasty action on greenhouse gases do not hold up. This is a case where there is a positive value to waiting for the policy-relevant scientific information we know will be emerging in the next few years, before committing to a long-term course of action.
Og Steven E Koonin skriver i Wall Street Journal at
The idea that «Climate science is settled» runs through today’s popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that claim is misguided. It has not only distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the environment. But it also has inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future.
Koonin aksepterer en hel del av vitenskapen som mange andre stiller spørsmålstegn ved:
The crucial scientific question for policy isn’t whether the climate is changing. That is a settled matter: The climate has always changed and always will. Geological and historical records show the occurrence of major climate shifts, sometimes over only a few decades. We know, for instance, that during the 20th century the Earth’s global average surface temperature rose 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit.
Nor is the crucial question whether humans are influencing the climate. That is no hoax: There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. There is also little doubt that the carbon dioxide will persist in the atmosphere for several centuries. The impact today of human activity appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself.
– men er altså like fullt skeptisk i lys av at de menneskelige påvirkningene er så små:
Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere’s natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%. Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences.
Koonin er ikke kjent som noen «fornekter». Han var undersekretær for vitenskap i Energidepartementet under Obamas første periode.
God helg og god lesning!