Anthropogenic Global Climate Change

I’ve been trying to decide if I should post something about Global Warming (or Anthropogenic Global Climate Change AGCC – my preferred moniker) for a while now. Following a couple of posts by leading sceptic James Randi (see here and here) which cause a little bit of a storm amongst the sceptic community I thought I’d add my own twist on the matter (although I doubt it’ll cause even a ripple).

In many ways AGCC is a very contentious issue, and in many ways it isn’t. There is a substantial, an often vocal, group of denialists who see a conspiracy at every turn, and try to use any perceived crack as a way to shatter the whole thing. There is also an equally vocal group of AGCC evangelists who are trying to get the word out to the world, and convince us to mend our ways. Both sides have a right to an opinion, although not everyone’s opinion is backed up by evidence nor does everyone’s opinion necessarily have a right to be heard on a public platform.

Then there is me. Up until about 9 months ago I was what most people would probably consider to be a denialist. Not that that is how I saw myself of course, but of the two extremes that is the camp that I probably closer fitted in with. I was openly sceptical of the climate change ‘promoters’, and their motives. I knew that the long term records (various proxies – tree rings, ice cores etc) showed that CO2 and temperatures had been both much higher and much lower than they are today so it seemed reasonable that whatever was the cause then could equally be the cause today. There was no need to invoke a human cause, and try to stir up the demons that changing our ways would invoke. I didn’t so much think that the scientists were part of a conspiracy, or that they were wrong per se, but that their models were too simplistic, and that there was some hidden ‘something’ that was being ignored or overlooked.

Then I decided to take a step back, and examine some of my core beliefs a little closer. My musings reaffirmed my atheistic beliefs, but in doing so I realised that my reasoning for being sceptical about AGCC were almost identical to that of Creationists/Intelligent Designers and their attitude towards Evolution. Given that I accept evolution because it works, it’s supported by the science, and is the prevailing opinion of the experts in the field it seemed slightly unacceptable to deny AGCC for exactly the same reasons.

That’s not to say that I’ve done a complete about turn. I haven’t. As I said above, I never thought of myself as a denialist to begin with. I accepted that the data showed that we have experienced a 0.7C increase in temperature since the start of the industrial revolution. I knew that CO2 had at least the potential to influence the temperature. I was just unsure that human activity was the sole cause of it all.

My current view is quite a bit more complex. I accept the prevailing scientific view that human activities seem to be the primary driver behind increased CO2 levels (and other atmospheric greenhouse gasses like methane), and that these increases seem to be the primary driver behind the observed temperature increase. I am still sceptical about certain aspects however. I’m not convinced that human activities are the sole cause of climate change. I have concerns that many of the pieces of remedial action that governments and ‘green’ groups are trying to push on us are nothing more than just fund raisers, or an attempt to gain attention. Whilst stumbling around the web I frequently come across websites promoting ‘green’ goods or initiatives. Almost without fail such goods only have a thin veneer of green, and if you dig even slightly below the surface they quickly lose their credentials and they just become another persons attempt to make money on the back of a global problem. I still believe that our understanding of the intricacies of our climate are still woefully inadequate. We still do not understand whether certain aspects are positive or negative feedback systems. We’re constantly gaining insights into how the whole system hangs together, and how best to integrate such information into the models that we use to predict what will happen.

One thing that strikes me as odd however is that there are certain aspects of the whole Climate Change/Green arena that are surely beyond argument, but are rarely mentioned. We are highly dependant on oil, and oil is a very finite resource. Once it runs out, it’s gone. At this point it’s unclear exactly how much is left (estimates change all the time, I remember in the mid 1980s there being talk of only 15-20 years left) but it will run out. We need to work hard to find alternatives to oil (and coal) that are at least as cost effective financially. At worst such alternatives are a win, at best they’re a win-win. As a minimum they will allow our society to continue to function approximately as it does today. If the currently accepted position of too much CO2 being a bad thing continues to be held as true then anything that reduces that additional load must be a good thing.

As always I must point out I am not a scientist. I do not work in any field even remotely related to any form of climate science. I am just an interested bystander, and aspiring sceptic. I am willing to be proved wrong, and if I have my facts wrong I only too happy to be shown sources that help me to understand where I have gone wrong.

Possibly related posts:

1. People are sheep