BY STEPHEN MCLIN
Most of us are keenly aware of numerous climate prophecies appearing in the media. In some ways they are recycled versions of the old doom-and-gloom outlook borrowed from economics. These climatic predictions are based on computer simulations that have enormous shortcomings, including a glaring lack of agreement with long-term climatic observations. Kevin Trenberth, former head of modeling at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, has implied on numerous occasions that these modeling simulations contain significant uncertainties when compared to observed data. So why do we believe them? On a similar note, retired meteorology professor Judith Curry, formally with the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, has continued to point out the apparent corruption of science for political purposes. Our climate is not an existential threat and all life on earth won’t end in twelve years. Yet distorted summaries from these ICPP climate models continue to be used to promote anthropogenic climate change. Others have addressed the junk science question a little differently. I direct your attention to a recent 30-minute video (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GH8v5aCbZBs) featuring Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace. In it he explains why he left that organization. Moore’s reflection on our current global state of affairs relative to the next glacial onset is enlightening (starting about 13 minutes into his talk). He clearly restates that according to the Vostok ice cores, observed temperature increases have preceded CO2 increases by an average of 800 years over the last four glacial cycles. So how can atmospheric carbon dioxide increases trigger global warming if they lag behind it? The simple answer is they didn’t. We clearly do not fully understand climate or the implications of climate policy. So why are we preparing to sacrifice our way of life?
These climate models have excelled in one area: they have been successfully used to justify enormous funding increases in government-sponsored climate research, while other scientific efforts that are more skeptical of the anthropogenic party-line have been excluded. This funding has also helped unleash a Green New Deal, a costly energy paradigm designed to replace fossil fuels with expensive wind and solar power. Yes, I said expensive, especially when government subsidies are included. And don’t forget who pays for these subsidies. Check out the cost of electricity in places like Los Angles or Germany. I have sadly watched this growing paradigm unfold over the past nine years while serving on the Board of Public Utilities.
I have been encouraged by recent additions to the Board, and remain hopeful that the public will become more aware of this politicized agenda in time to demand significant course corrections, or at least delay the onset of carbon-neutral goals. Otherwise, I fear much long-term economic harm will befall us. We do not have to blindly follow an economic and environmental example that transfers subsidized costs to the poor and benefits only the wealthy, while actually harming the environment. The opinions expressed here are mine alone, and do not reflect those of the Board of Public Utilities or any group, public or private.