Climate-change questions

Hmmm. Here's an interesting article by an Australian mathematician who is a former believer in human-caused global warming who has become more skeptical of the link between human action and climate change.

Let's return to the interaction between science and politics. By 2000 the political system had responded to the strong scientific case that carbon emissions caused global warming by creating thousands of bureaucratic and science jobs aimed at more research and at curbing carbon emissions.

But after 2000 the case against carbon emissions gradually got weaker. Future evidence might strengthen or further weaken it. At what stage of the weakening should the science community alert the political system that carbon emissions might not be the main cause of global warming?

None of the new evidence actually says that carbon emissions are definitely not the cause of global warming, there are lots of good science jobs potentially at stake, and if the scientific message wavers then it might be difficult to later recapture the attention of the political system. What has happened is that most research efforts since 1990 have assumed that carbon emissions were the cause, and the alternatives get much less research or political attention.

Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. Climate change has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate strongly blames carbon emissions, to the point of silencing critics.

Personally, like a lot of people with a limited science background, I waver on the global warming issue depending on who seems to be making a stronger argument at the moment. The bulk of support seems to be behind the position that humans are causing climate change, but much of that support seems to be almost faith-based--invested in the idea to the exclusion of contrary evidence. On the other hand, the skeptics seem to be relatively few in number, but they often make what sound like stronger scientific arguments that the case for human-caused change is still unproven.

I think I'll adhere to my "I just don't know" position for the time being. That means I'll remain dubious about any grand schemes to address a "problem" that may be nothing more than a phase in a natural climate cycle of which we're just now becoming aware.