Dear Editor,
We have likely all heard about anthropogenic, or human-induced, climate change (ACC) through news coverage, apocalyptic films, or classroom discussion. We have also likely heard both passionate defenses of its existence by scientists and attempts to disregard it altogether by the seemingly significant number of skeptics. ACC has been tied to conspiracy theories, faulty research, exaggerated attempts to gain support for secret money-making schemes, and other drastic notions that make the whole issue seem like an ugly debate far from any sort of agreement.
However, upon closer examination, one finds that there is actually a widespread consensus among the scientific community that ACC exists and should not be ignored if we hope to combat the detrimental changes to our climate over the next few decades that will threaten our way of life. Still, the media presents a very different message, still placing a spotlight on the small community of skeptics in favor of balance and novelty. The public is thus left to make its own decision. While these conflicting voices can be confusing, they also pose the greater threat of deemphasizing the immediacy of the issue at hand.
This resulting lack of agreement among the public is just one example of the differences in perspectives and values for various groups that are naturally inclined to act in their interest and to support issues that affect them directly. While the scientific community is focused on the planet and its processes, policy-makers and government officials are focused on the interests of their country’s economy and development, and corporations are focused on profit. The public population, however, is not fully a part of any of these groups, and is left to acquire most of its information on these topics through news coverage that is often politically-oriented. Yet, like the other groups, the public makes decisions based on personal interest. Because of this, the looming economic problems and the growing national debt seem to take the forefront while ACC takes the backburner. As other countries around the globe face a similar divide of interests, international debates on climate change, such as the current U.N. Conference of Parties in Doha, Qatar, struggle to reach agreements that significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions around the globe. Although some of the United States’ leaders, scientists, and activists have demonstrated the country’s new attempts to reduce emissions this past year, the country and the world are far from reaching the level of reductions necessary to prevent significant climate impact by 2030.
So what else can be done? It is not difficult to recognize how widespread public support of an issue plays a substantial role in the success of national reform. With this in mind, perhaps what is needed is a change in perspective for the current attempts to gain support for the reduction of ACC. After all, the same processes that contribute to long-term climate change also immediately affect human health, surrounding resources, and plant and animal populations, but these impacts have generally been viewed separately as “environmental injustices”. Instead of projecting warnings of the future negative effects of greenhouse gases on the climate alone (which the EPA defines as changes in temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns), perhaps an incorporation of these existing impacts on local populations may be able to demonstrate the link between public interest and the concerns of the scientific community.
Considering President Obama’s recent statements in favor of developing a plan that improves the economy while also addressing climate change, it seems like this link may be needed now more than ever.
Jennifer Spero (’15)
Climate science is young and developing. The differences you attribute to bad intentions or ‘politics’ of one group are more likely a response to the other group coming to iron-clad conclusions too soon based on scant information, questionable models and very incomplete understanding of how all of the components of the climate work and interact – and dictating questionable policy solutions.
New climate influences are constantly being found and measured and worked into theories while accepted ones are re-evaluated and adjusted. That’s the way science works.
According to the EPA as reported by CNN, the US is indeed reducing greenhouse emissions without Congressional action in 2012 and is on target to reach its pledge of reducing emissions by 17% by 2020.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/21/news/economy/greenhouse-gases-cut/
It does appear that Obama will push the climate to the political fore this term. However, it is imperative the administration come up with plausible effective policies based on the latest developments in climate science. It is not certain they will as expressed in the following open letter challenging the EPA on CO2 Regulation that was published in the Washington Examiner December 27, 2012:
EPA’s CO2 Regulations are NOT Based on Sound Science
The Supreme Court, in Mass v. EPA, stated that the EPA must treat CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases (GHGs), as “pollutants” and then carryout an analysis to determine whether the increasing concentrations in atmospheric CO2 may reasonably be anticipated to endanger human health and welfare. The Court did not mandate regulation; rather it mandated that EPA go through an Endangerment Finding process.
EPA did so and on December 15, 2009 issued its ruling that CO2 and other GHGs must be regulated. This EPA finding and associated rulings were immediately challenged in the DC Circuit Court. The DC Circuit ruled in favor of EPA, but given the two dissents from the December 20, 2012 decision denying rehearing en banc, the matter will very likely go to the Supreme Court.
If allowed to stand, the very existence of EPA’s Endangerment Finding requires regulation that significantly increases U.S. fossil fuel and electricity prices–negatively impacting job creation as well as energy, economic and national security.
To many scientists this situation seems incredible given the ample evidence that EPA’s finding is grossly flawed. In its finding, EPA claimed with 90-99% certainty that observed warming in the latter half of the twentieth century resulted from human activity. EPA bases its finding upon Three Lines of Evidence (LoE.)
Using the most credible empirical data available, it is relatively straightforward to soundly reject each of EPA’s Three Lines of Evidence (LoE).
1.) EPA claims that the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) has been rising in a dangerous fashion over the last fifty years, in large part due to human-caused increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. But “Global Warming” has not been global and has not set records in the regions where warming has occurred. For example, over this time period, while the Arctic has warmed, the Tropical oceans had a flat trend, and the Antarctic was slightly cooling. The most significant warming during this period occurred in the Northern Hemisphere, north of the Tropics. But, as the figure shows, over the last 130 years, the decade of the 1930’s still has the most U.S. State High Temperatures records. And, over the past 50 years, there were more new State Record Lows set than Record Highs. In fact, roughly 70% of the current State Record Highs were set prior to 1940.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=66585975-a507-4d81-b750-def3ec74913d
2.) EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Fingerprint Theory is that in the Tropics, the upper troposphere is warming faster than the lower troposphere, and the lower troposphere is warming faster than the surface, all due to rising CO2 concentrations. This is totally at odds with multiple robust, consistent, independently-derived empirical datasets, all showing no statistically significant positive (or negative) trend in temperature and thus, no difference in trend by altitude. Therefore, EPA’s theory as to how CO2 impacts GAST must be rejected.
3.) EPA relied upon Climate Models, all predicated on this Fingerprint Theory, that all fail standard model validation and forecast reliability tests. The models all forecast rising temperatures beyond 2000 although GAST has actually been flat. This is not surprising because EPA never carried out any published forecast reliability tests.
Bottom –Line: No scientist or team of scientists has come up with an empirically validated theory proving that higher Atmospheric CO2 Levels will lead to higher GAST–not EPA’s team and certainly not to the EPA’s 90-99% certainty. Moreover, if the causal link between higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations and higher GAST is broken by invalidating EPA’s Three LoE, then EPA’s claim that higher CO2 concentrations also cause sea level increases and more frequent and severe storms, floods and droughts is also disproved. Such causality claims require a validated theory that higher CO2 concentrations cause increases in GAST. Lacking such a validated theory, EPA’s entire house of cards collapses.
More generally, EPA violated both the scientific method and the Scientific Advisory Board statute intended to enforce the scientific method when it made its highly influential scientific assessment in the Endangerment Finding.
EPA’s own Inspector General stated as follows:
“EPA did not conduct a peer review of the TSD [Technical Support Document] that met all recommended steps in the Peer Review Handbook for peer reviews of influential scientific information or highly influential scientific assessments. {—} The handbook provides examples of ‘independent experts from outside EPA,’ that include NAS, an established Federal Advisory Committee Act mechanism (e.g., Science Advisory Board), and an ad hoc panel of independent experts outside the Agency.”
EPA’s outsourcing of the science to international organizations beyond the reach of U.S. laws has also been challenged. Moreover, the ClimateGate saga is testimony to the dedication of some to subvert the science for their own agenda. And, a Hockey Stick is now famous as a symbol of temperature data manipulated to generate public alarm.
In summary, it is not incorrect to argue that further study of the role GHGs play in climate is in order. However, with what is known now, it certainly seems that a new Endangerment Finding analysis is required, using, for example, the far more rigorous Science Advisory Board process suggested by EPA’s Inspector General. A Remand of EPA’s Endangerment Finding by the U.S. Supreme Court would be appropriate.
Opinion Piece Signer List (alphabetically)
Dr. Timothy Ball
Climatologist & Environmental Consultant
Ph.D. (Faculty of Science), University of London, England
Joseph S. D’Aleo
Chief Meteorologist
WeatherBell Analytics
Dr. Donald Easterbrook (Emeritus)
Professor of Geology
Western Washington University
Dr. Gordon J. Fulks
Astrophysicist
La Center, WA
Dr. Laurence I. Gould
Professor of Physics
University of Hartford
Dr. William M. Gray (Emeritus)
Professor of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
Dr. Anthony R. Lupo
Professor of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Sciences
University of Missouri
Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen
Western Technology Inc.
Deer Park Maryland
Dr. S. Fred Singer (Emeritus)
Professor of Environmental Sciences
University of Virginia
George H. Taylor,
Certified Consultant Meteorologist
President, Applied Climate Services
Dr. James P. Wallace III
President, & CEO, Jim Wallace & Associates LLC
Ph.D., Economics, Minor in Engineering, Brown University
M.S., Mechanical Engineering, Brown University
B.S., Aeronautical Engineering, Brown University
Your cri de coeur is well intentioned no doubt, but without sound flexible adaptable policy based upon the best science (that is also changing) a costly tragedy could be in the making. Costly in human well being, wasted effort and misapplied resources of vast quantity.
One would have hoped that a young student would be seeking knowledge, questioning authority and challenging the status quo – learning and adding to knowledge – rather than simply parroting conventional, accepted opinion.