A team of physicists and statisticians who set out to challenge the scientific consensus on climate change recently released its results last week, and the conclusion was a set of data nearly identical to those that support the prevailing scientific view: That the Earth's atmosphere is warming and that human efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions can halt or at least slow that process.
We don't for a minute expect that the group's findings, reported this week in the Los Angeles Times and elsewhere, will be the end to the debate over human-caused climate change. No doubt those who feel - mostly for economic reasons - that climate change is all a cruel hoax, or largely the result of the Earth's natural cycles, will continue to challenge the prevailing scientific view. And all power to them -we think discussion and debate is healthy - to a point.
What point? Well, the point at which doubts about the so-called prevailing wisdom cripple efforts to move forward on reducing humanity's contribution to climate change. The point at which governments -including Canada's - buy into the argument that says, in essence, "We don't believe the data and even if we did, taking real action to reduce our emissions would cripple our economy."
As reported in the Times article, the Berkeley Earth Science Temperature Project was launched by physics professor Richard Muller, a long-time critic of government-led climate studies. Muller and his partners set out to address the concerns of skeptics who believe global warming is exaggerated.
Instead, "Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing last week that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends underlying climate science is 'excellent We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups.'"
An atmospheric scientist for the Carnegie Institute for Science, which contributed some of the funding to the Muller-led group, said Muller's statement to Congress was "honourable Willingness to revise views in the face of empirical data is the hallmark of good scientific process."
Not surprisingly, some remain unconvinced. And that's fine. Our next question, though, is, "Why does our federal government continue to state its commitment to reducing Canada's greenhouse gas emissions on one hand, yet lag far, far behind the rest of the world in setting firm but achievable reduction targets on the other?"
This writer suspects that it's out of fear -fear that efforts to transform Canada's economy into a low-carbon one will be a short-term failure; fear that we won't fully exploit the Alberta tarsands for fun and profit while we have the chance; fear that our economy will grind to a halt if we take steps to promote and support green energy innovation at the expense of traditional sources.
With a federal election just three weeks away, most Canadians seem to think the economy is the No. 1 issue. But economically speaking, Canadians need to think beyond the next five or 10 years. Given the current approach, where will we be in 30, 40 years? This is just one of the questions that should be asked of candidates as we approach election day.
- David Burke
