Before spending trillions of dollars trying to control climate change, shouldn’t we get a second opinion on both the science and policy options? S. Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science, U. Virginia & former director of the US Weather Satellite Service weighs in onThe Global Warming Debate. He reviews evidence against anthropogenic global warming detailed in the report Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate Summary for Policymakers of the Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change Singer notes:
My purpose here is to show that this concern is misplaced, that human activities are not influencing the global climate in a perceptible way, and that, in any case, very little can be done about global climate change. It is unstoppable; we should not even try to influence it. . . .I will also argue that –should it occur — a modest warming is on the whole beneficial.Singer warns:
In the mistaken idea that something needs to be done, policies are arising that have the potential of distorting energy policies, severely damaging national economies, make us poorer, and hurting standards of living. Such a misdirection of resources will adversely affect human health and welfare in industrialized nations — and even more so in developing nations. It can lead to social tensions within nations and to conflict between nations.
ICECAP summarizes NIPCC:
“After the Introduction (Section 1), the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change focuses on two major issues: 1) The very weak evidence that the causes of the current warming are anthropogenic (Section 2) and 2) The far more robust evidence that the causes of the current warming are natural (Section 3). The NIPCC then addresses the following issues: 3) Computer models are unreliable guides to future climate conditions (Section 4), 4) Sea-level rise is not significantly affected by rise in greenhouse gases (Section 5), 5) The data on ocean heat content have been misused to suggest anthropogenic warming. The role of greenhouse gases in the reported rise in ocean temperature is largely unknown (Section 6), 6) Understanding of the atmospheric carbon dioxide budget is incomplete (Section 7), 7) Higher concentrations of CO2 are more likely to be beneficial to plant and animal life and to human health than lower concentrations (Section 8), 8 ) The economic effects of modest warming are likely to be positive and beneficial to human health (Section 9), and 9) the Conclusion: Our imperfect understanding of the causes and consequences of climate change means the science is far from settled. This, in turn, means proposed efforts to mitigate climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions are premature and misguided. Any attempt to influence global temperatures by reducing such emissions would be both futile and expensive (Section 10).”
ICECAP notes that the “NIPCC is being presented in briefings throughout Europe over the next month.” Singer has published Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years.
Equity for the Poor
Singer and the NIPCC report raise serious questions both on how scientists have interpreted the data, and the more important aspect of the policy decisions that are being made – to “control” what is uncontrollable. Such policies made in the name of the poor are projected to seriously impact economies and seriously harm the poor.
Climate Scientist Roy Spencer challenges the Global Warming bandwagon with his book: Climate Confusion. Spencer exposes the weak evidence for anthropogenic warming and contrary evidence. He raises the serious consequences of how these policies seriously harming the poor. Similarly, Lester R. Brown addresses Why Ethanol Production Will Drive World Food Prices Even Higher in 2008 © 2008 Earth Policy Institute, Jan. 24, 2008
We are witnessing the beginning of one of the great tragedies of history. The United States, in a misguided effort to reduce its oil insecurity by converting grain into fuel for cars, is generating global food insecurity on a scale never seen before. The world is facing the most severe food price inflation in history as grain and soybean prices climb to all-time highs. . . .
C. Ford Runge and Benjamin Senauer warned: How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor Foreign Affairs, May/June 2007
Thanks to high oil prices and hefty subsidies, corn-based ethanol is now all the rage in the United States. But it takes so much supply to keep ethanol production going that the price of corn — and those of other food staples — is shooting up around the world. To stop this trend, and prevent even more people from going hungry, Washington must conserve more and diversify ethanol’s production inputs.
On top of this, we are now beginning to see the impact of peak oil with the price of oil doubling in the last year to $135/bbl. This is increasing the price of fertilizer and food, directly increasing starvation among the poor. The confluence of these issues raises serious challenges to review not just climate data and its interpretation but more importantly the impact of peak oil and growing world population on the poor.
These issues parallel Intelligent Design vs Evolution in science -reevaluating the data with different models, with major societal consequences.