Last week an Academy of Sciences panel reported on the validity of the “hockey stick,” the global temperature graph for the last 1000 years authored by climatologist Michael Mann.
So what did the panel decide? Well, it kinda punted. Yes, the global temperature is definitely increasing. In fact it is definitely warmer than 400 years ago. But we are uncertain about temperatures in the 900 to 1600 timeframe. And we are really uncertain about temperatures before the year 900. More research is needed.
The panel did its work well. The lefty MSM could claim that it’s the hottest in 2,000 years. And the conservative Washington Times could claim that the hockey stick is broken.
But now The New York Times has come out with a Popular Mechanics style report gushing over the whacko “geoengineering” proposals for reversing global warming.
Build sunshades in orbit to cool the planet. Tinker with clouds to make them reflect more sunlight back into space. Trick oceans into soaking up more heat-trapping greenhouse gases.
Er, just a minute, chaps. Aren’t we all supposed to be deeply influenced by the environmentalists’ latest wheeze, the “Precautionary Principle?” Given the radical uncertainty about anything connected with climate change, shouldn’t we think twice before parking giant sunshades in orbit?
Don’t all these proposals also violate an organic, planet-friendly approach, the kind of approach that living things have always taken to global climate change, that is, adapting to change? But let us not confuse the issue.
Martin A. Apple, president of the Council of Scientific Society Presidents, said of geoengineering at a recent meeting in Washington, "Let's talk about research funding with enough zeroes on it so we can make a dent."
So that’s what it’s all about. Zeroes on research dollars. As they used to say about the power of the Rolls Royce. It has “enough.”
No comments:
Post a Comment