- Details
-
Opinion Pieces
-
Saturday, 29 December 2012 02:31
-
By Tom Harris
The usual year-end lists of “unprecedented” climate and extreme weather events have been bombarding us of late.
With them comes the excited claims repeated by environmentalists the world over—‘climate science is settled. Experts agree that humanity’s carbon dioxide emissions are causing a global catastrophe. To stop it, we need to revolutionize the way we generate energy.’
This is hopelessly naive. Leading experts in the field understand that the science is immature. The more we learn about climate, the more we realize how little we know. This problem is compounded by the revelation that much of the data used by campaigners to try to convince the public that today’s climate change is unusual is either wrong or highly suspect.
Rather than “remove the doubt,” as Al Gore told us in last month’s Climate Reality Project, we must recognize the doubt in this, arguably the most complex science ever tackled.
Many of the ideas expressed by opinion leaders such as Gore and United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon are the consequences of a belief in what professors Chris Essex (University of Western Ontario, Canada) and Ross McKitrick (University of Guelph, Canada) call the “Doctrine of Certainty.” This doctrine is “a collection of now familiar assertions about climate that are to be accepted without question” (Taken by Storm, 2007).
Essex and McKitrick explain, “But the Doctrine is not true. Each assertion is either manifestly false or the claim to know is false. Climate is one of the most challenging open problems in modern science. Some knowledgeable scientists believe that the climate problem can never be solved.”
Yet, as long ago as 1989, Gore insisted there was “no dispute worthy of recognition” about the dangers of man-made climate change. Since then, his certainty, and that of the UN and most governments, has solidified into a dogma that few politicians, media, educators or industry leaders dare question.
But that dogma is being questioned by more and more reputable scientists who are finally speaking out in an organized fashion.
Earlier this month, 134 climate experts sent an open letter to the UN Secretary General explaining that many of his assertions about climate change were scientifically invalid.
And, over the past four years, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) has clearly demonstrated that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has ignored or misinterpreted much of the research that challenges the need for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas controls. For example, the IPCC has unjustifiably downplayed research that suggests that variations in solar output have far greater impact on climate than human activities. If this is the case, then a great deal of the science being relied upon by governments to create multi-billion dollar climate policies is likely wrong.
Climate change and extreme weather have always happened and always will no matter what we do. Therefore, instead of vainly trying to stop them from occurring, we need to adapt to such phenomena by hardening our societies to these inevitable events. Adaptation measures could include burying electrical and communications cables underground, reinforcing buildings and other infrastructure, and preparing for a continuation of sea level rise. We must also ensure reliable energy sources so that we have the power to heat and cool our dwellings as needed.
While someday we may be able to meaningfully predict climate, it is not possible now. And actually controlling global climate will remain science fiction for the foreseeable future.
That may not be a comforting thought for climate crusaders, but that is climate reality.

Tom Harris is Executive Director of the International Climate Science Coalition and an advisor to the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
11 Comments In This Article
Agenda laden science
1. Is the climate changing? If so, how is it changing? - Rising global temperature, increases in severe weather incidents etc.
2. What is causing the change? CO2 emissions, natural phenomenon, land use change etc.
3. What are the long term effects? Sea level rise, ecosystem collapse, crop failures etc.
4. When will these effects occur? in the next 20, 30, 50, 100 years.
5. What should we do about the problem - Mitigate, adapt or do nothing.
6. What is the true economic cost of each of the above options?
Mr. Harris fails to recognize that these are all separate arguments and treats the subject in a very simplistic "good vs bad" manner. I guess his article is intended to appeal to the simple minded.
Observer Overseas
googles,,
www.desmogblog.com/tom-harris
www.zoominfo.com/#!search/profile/person?personId=16969180&targetid=profile
sciblogs.co.nz/hot-topic/tag/tom-harris/
deepclimate.org/2012/03/08/tom-harris-heartland-and-the-2007-bali-open-letter-to-the-u-n/
Nemo
Tom Harris is a xxx
Eddy Booth
RE: Time for an Adult Approach to Climate Change
Duncan Noble
Part 2 of my response to Nemo
"So IF the science is wrong is there really no merit in industry cleaning up its act, so that it does not poison and harm people who are usually of lower class standing and of minority groups residing near industrial areas, whose activity degrades their health and well being, surely not. Bophal is a reminder that this would be a good idea."
That has nothing to do with the topic. We are speaking about reduction in carbon dioxide to supposedly stop climate change, not to reduce pollution since CO2 is plant food and in no way pollution. Bophal was a serious pollution issue and had nothing whatsoever to do with climate change or CO2.
Nemo rants:
"And where are his references to the position he holds? There are none,Is he getting a nice salary from Big Industry?"
A quick check of our Website would show that we have no funding from industry of any kind. My salary is lower than the Canadian average and everyone else who works with ICSC does so as a volunteer with no pay.
Tom Harris
Executive Director - ICSC
"I find this man cynical and untrustworthy from the research Google has assisted me with."
Yes, Google can "prove" almost anything abut anybody. So what? Many Web pages have baloney as content.
Nemo continues:
"He may have a point that the science is not conclusive and there is still much to learn, however his main point being that those who are endeavoring to do something, whether that be negotiate for reduced greenhouse gas emissions or development of adaptions are misguided is plain rude and dishonest."
Why is it "plain rude and dishonest" to have a point of view different from those you agree with? I think your comments are certainly rude.
See part 2 of this posting for a continuation of my comments on Nemo's attack.
Tom Harris
www.climatescienceinternational.org
Tom Harris
RE: Time for an Adult Approach to Climate Change
Nemo
People ...
He may have a point that the science is not conclusive and there is still much to learn, however his main point being that those who are endeavoring to do something, whether that be negotiate for reduced greenhouse gas emissions or development of adaptions are misguided is plain rude and dishonest.
So IF the science is wrong is there really no merit in industry cleaning up its act, so that it does not poison and harm people who are usually of lower class standing and of minority groups residing near industrial areas, whose activity degrades their health and well being, surely not. Bophal is a reminder that this would be a good idea.
And where are his references to the position he holds? There are none,Is he getting a nice salary from Big Industry? If so that is a Big problem, though he is filling his quota of media hits and getting his articles published, thankfully it is an opinion piece and not factual reporting though it is written as fact.
So Mr Harris, grow up, get real and honest!
Nemo
RE: Time for an Adult Approach to Climate Change
Lead by example.
GoodJobBob
student of climate change for 20 years
climate change is a big ticket item that may cost between 5 to 20% of GDP in many countries. most scientist consider is now too late to avoid serious and cumulative adverse impacts. 4C average global increase is now likely which is a terrifying prospect for mankind. populations work be decimated due to climatic impact on food production and declines in marine ecosystem yields.
most of society are sleep walking into this catastrophe. adaptation is now the only solution. I live in the UK where we have record level rainfall, floods, spoiled harvests, landslides,, railway tracks washed away, soil erosion, drowned life stock and lightening strikes burning barns. just a taste of what is to come.
Paul2013
see the open letter to the UN Sec General
http://climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=761
Tom Harris
ICSC
Tom Harris
RSS