Stuck in the Middle on Climate
by Rusty Pritchard
CounterCulture, September 21, 2008
http://countercultureblog.com/?p=218

Those on the left sometimes seem to claim unanimity among climate scientists as to the culpability of people for global warming. Those on the right seem to imply there is major controversy about whether people are to blame. Neither view is correct. The consensus among scientists is that greenhouse gas pollution is “very likely” responsible for most of the warming experienced since 1950. That’s a careful observation shared by government agencies, learned societies, professional organizations, and many, but not all, individual scientists. Its credibility comes from its humility. Scientists don’t claim to know beyond a shadow of a doubt, but they’re pretty sure we created most of this mess.

Environmentalists sometimes imply that global warming is completely anthropogenic, while anti-environmentalists claim it’s completely natural. Again, as you might expect, the truth is somewhere in the middle. The best current scientific estimate is that greenhouse gases and aerosol pollution are responsible for about three-quarters of climate variability in the last half-century. Natural driving forces, including solar variability and volcanic eruptions, seem to account for about a quarter.

I work with people trying to carve out that middle ground of reasonability — one that takes the scientific consensus seriously and that believes our moral responsibility means protecting the poor from the ill effects of both climate change and climate change policy. We believe we still have much to learn about climate change but are thankful for the credible information science has uncovered. The Evangelical Climate Initiative is the best expression of this middle ground. . . .

. . . those who deny global warming science revile our position on adaptation assistance, calling it a closet attempt at wealth redistribution. They focus on the costs of climate action while blithely ignoring the costs of climate inaction. They produce a tiny cadre of living, breathing climate scientists skeptical of the consensus view and regularly cherry-pick the “latest literature” on the role of cosmic rays or cloud formation, without admitting that the regular efforts to synthesize the science take those issues into account. . . .

. . . Christians are called to be truth tellers, honest listeners, advocates of responsible stewardship, and seekers of the common good. When the world sees half-truths and distortions coming from the mouths of evangelicals on important issues like climate change, they see us as reckless and uncaring. we can be a credible moral voice, champions of justice, prudence, equity, and reasoned debate, but only if we have a reputation for respecting truthful dialogue.

Read the whole article at http://countercultureblog.com/?p=218.

A Response to Rusty Pritchard
by Roy W. Spencer
CounterCulture, September 26, 2008
http://countercultureblog.com/?p=219

It is commendable that anyone interested in “truth” would be careful to test everything, holding fast to that which is good.  And to the vast majority of outside observers, it would seem that science has spoken with a fairly unified voice: Humans have caused global warming, and for the good of the Earth and future generations we need to find alternatives for fossil fuels very soon.

But as someone who has watched the progress of this issue over the last twenty years from the front row—and sometimes as an insider– I will argue that what we have witnessed from the science community on this issue is not what it seems. . . .

. . . In the last two decades I have seen what I consider to be a “perfect storm” of conditions that has led to our present state of “climate crisis”.  For me, it started 20 years ago when the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Dr. Robert Watson, told me that his goal as the first head of the IPCC was going to be to restrict the production of CO2.  Dr. Watson had helped to facilitate the Montreal Protocol to restrict ozone-depleting substances, and CO2 was the next chemical on the agenda. . . .

. . . Indeed, the IPCC was never tasked to investigate to what extent global warming might be natural.  Assuming the sensitivity of the climate system is sufficiently high, increasing CO2 was a sufficient cause of global warming. . . .

. . . Regarding the science, it will be a surprise to most that there has been very little research done on natural fluctuations within the climate system itself, and the possibility that the climate system is much more stable than currently assumed.  I have performed and published some of this research recently, and I have just submitted still more for publication. . . .

. . . But don’t look for the media reports on our recent scientific journal publications on this subject.  For some reason, the popular media have not been interested in keeping the public informed on any science that might indicate we are not headed for a global warming Armageddon. . . .

. . . I can assure you, the science has not been unbiased; the reporting has not been unbiased; and the science is far from settled.  So, if you are conflicted about which side of the debate is correct, just stay tuned.  Since this issue involves vast amounts of money and political power, it will take time for the truth to eventually emerge…but, in time, it will.

Read the whole article at http://countercultureblog.com/?p=219.