The prestigious National Academy of Science has largely endorsed a study asserting that temperatures in North America are now the warmest in 1,000 years and that the rise is caused by human activity. Per today's The New York Times:
The study, led by Michael E. Mann, a climatologist now at Pennsylvania State University, was the first to estimate widespread climate trends by stitching together a grab bag of evidence, including variations in ancient tree rings and temperatures measured in deep holes in the earth.
So, does this end the global-warming debate? Hardly. First of all, the critics of the study remain. As the NY Times' article points out:
The main critiques were done by Stephen McIntyre, a statistician and part-time consultant in Toronto to minerals industries, and Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph in Ontario.
They contended that Dr. Mann and his colleagues selected particular statistical methods and sets of data, like a record of rings in bristlecone pine trees, that were most apt to produce a picture of unusual recent warming. They also complained that Dr. Mann refused to share his data and techniques.
Moreover, even the author of the study is less enthusiastic regarding the NAS' conclusion than might be expected:
In an interview, Dr. Mann expressed muted satisfaction with the panel's findings. He said it clearly showed that the 1999 analysis has held up over time.
But he complained that the committee seemed to forget about the many caveats that were in the original paper. "Even the title of the paper on which all this has been based is as much about the caveats and uncertainties as it is about the findings," he said.
Finally, assuming for the sake of argument that the NAS endorsement states the better view, this fact would only answer the first two of the questions this Blog has repeatedly asked:
1. Is global warming occurring?
2. If so, is it man-made or rather the natural phenomenon of such things as variations over time in the Sun's brightness?
This would still leave open for debate:
1. Is there anything realistically we can do about global warming? After all, major man-made factors causing global warming are emanating from places like China and India, rapidly industrializing countries that have repeatedly refused to participate in so-called "climate change" solutions; and
2. Would the cure for global warming be worse than the disease? No doubt we could stop man-made contributions to global warming by all ceasing to drive; by shutting down smokestack industry; and/or by canceling all airline flights. Alternatively, we could drive the prices of these endeavors sky high so as to lessen demand. Query whether the depression/severe recession that would follow would be worth attempting to avoid the 1/2 to 1 degree rise in temperatures that global-warming theorists predict may occur by the end of the 21st Century.
Comments