Bob SparksSince Earth came into being eons ago, it has regularly adapted to climate change. Global cooling led to ice ages and glaciers. Global warming melted the glaciers.
Few paid little, if any, attention to this portion of science until recently. Today, climate change is fully ensconced in the minds and conversations of mainstream America.
Raising the topic of global warming during the winter, especially during brutally cold periods, often brings derision and laughter from skeptics. Whoever is responsible for re-branding “global warming” into “climate change” was wise.
According to polls, roughly two-thirds of Americans believe climate change is real. Climatological data over the past century supports that opinion. The cause of climate change is where consensus, and sometimes honesty, becomes somewhat harder to find.
While a strong majority believes climate change is occurring, polls show only half or less are convinced human activity is the primary cause. This latter group is often falsely labeled climate change “deniers.”
A better description would be “skeptics.” The term “denier” best describes someone who believes no climate change is occurring.
To further isolate the human activity skeptics, supporters often claim 97 percent of scientists agree that man is the primary cause of climate change. Not true.
This claim loosely refers to a study by IOP Science where nearly 12,000 abstracts on global climate change written over a 20-year period were reviewed for global warming causes. Unfortunately, nearly 8,000 of those papers offered no opinion on the cause of climate change.
Among those that did, 97 percent believe climate change is related to man-made activities. That means 32 percent, not 97 percent, of the IOP Science study made the case for man-made causes.
How many remember Al Gore from 2008, when he stood before a UN Conference in Copenhagen and predicted the northern polar ice caps would likely be gone by 2013? The caps are still there.
Is man or nature’s regular cycle the primary cause of climate change, or some of both? Honest exchanges and dialogue from both sides of the issue is the best way to get at the truth.
Don’t try to scare people, inform them!
Hysterical predictions from people like Gore make it more difficult for those calmly and reasonably making the case for climate change. Other voices need to come to the front.
Someone like Professor Peter Ray.
For the past few weeks, the Tallahassee Democrat published climate change columns by Ray, professor of meteorology at Florida State University. He is clearly on the side of man-made climate change, but understands the skepticism and hype from both sides.
“Both sides are guilty of selective use and interpretation of data and both vehemently deny it,” he wrote on January 3, 2015. “I think the evidence of increasing temperature in recent centuries is real, but that many of the forecasts are exaggerated and over generalized.”
Ray’s bottom line is “ice will melt” and “(n)ature seeks an equilibrium temperature and that equilibrium will be warmer than it is now.” If I had the chance, I would ask Ray to answer the question how melting glaciers 20,000 years ago (with no influence from man) are different from melting ice today.
What about the claim Florida’s beaches will be gone in 200 years?
“It is likely that we will lose some coastline and we will gain some elsewhere,” he says. While nature runs in cycles begun long ago, “(w)e do contribute to changes in the atmosphere, and we are adding to that for the first time in the history of the earth.”
Scientists like Professor Ray have a simple message: Climate change is real, but will not be the catastrophe as portrayed. There are things we can, and should, do to help nature adjust. He correctly assesses human nature as being unwilling to tackle something that is not a crisis today.
Heavy carbon taxes will not, and should not, happen any time soon as long as Republicans are in charge. How about other ways to mitigate greenhouse gases without hurting the economy and our global competitiveness? Many examples exist, but taking action to incentivize renewable energy would be a good step.
Incredibly, Florida is not a good place for companies other than the big utilities to market solar energy. Why not take legislative action to make the “free market” free?
Give capitalists a chance to make money and they will act. That way, even skeptics can be part of the long-term solution.
Why couldn’t a forum with scientists, legislators and citizens convene in Florida just to talk about the science of climate change? Both sides could hear and better understand the other point of view.
I would gladly take part. Professor Ray, are you available?
Bob Sparks is a business and political consultant based in Tallahassee. Column courtesy of Context Florida.
