[Today is post #4 in our annual, summer Guest Writer Series. Note that the opinions expressed may or may not be held by the Intramuralist.]
I wrote “Heretic,” not “Denier,” although I defer to the reader’s judgment as to which label best fits. While I don’t doubt the evidence (at least through the end of 1990’s) that global average temperatures have been steadily increasing, I have misgivings about our understanding of the mechanism driving this change and grave concerns about the commonly championed responses.
One thing is certain in this debate – the global climate is mind-numbingly complex. It is challenging to understand and nearly impossible to mathematically model – as evidenced by the inaccuracy of your local weather forecast a mere 10 days out. I recall my own study of a simpler science, fluid dynamics, where my fellow students and I found it extremely challenging to arithmetically describe the behavior of a fluid flowing past anything beyond the simplest of surfaces. We spent hours building finite difference models that attempted to simulate what was happening in the real world – and even after our best efforts, we would sometimes get results that were directionally incorrect.
I realize I was but a lowly undergraduate student and not to be compared to those commanding a lofty doctoral degree in meteorology. Even so, the experience gave me an appreciation for the difficulties involved in attempting to model anything as complicated as an entire planet’s climate. Such a model would, by necessity, contain thousands of variables and also thousands of assumptions. It would be expected to explain many years of history while also correctly predicting the future. Developing such a tool is a daunting task, so it should come as no surprise that the climate models of the late 90’s have completely failed to predict the last 15 years. As Niels Bohr once famously said, “Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.” Perhaps someday mankind will develop the ultimate climate model, one that accurately foretells our planet’s past, present, and future, and one that takes into account the human impacts on global temperature. I submit that today, we are not there. Nor can we comfortably accept any model until its predictions are proven through actual experience. How well a model correlates to history is absolutely not enough to justify the potential disruption of the global economy currently contemplated by many climate change advocates.
Does this make me a “climate denier?” I certainly deny the perfection of the “accepted” IPCC climate models. I suppose this makes me a “denier” of sorts. That being admitted, however, I do accept that it is highly likely there is a causal link between human activity and higher global temperatures. Credible theories exist that tie increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere to increasing energy trapping by our planet. Historical curves that correlate global temperatures with rising CO2 concentration ought to be concerning to everyone. On the time scale of decades, it has been getting warmer. And it is hard to escape the conclusion that human activity is likely a contributing factor.
So what makes me a “climate heretic?” I don’t reject the illness; I simply have a problem with the proposed cure.
If global warming continues unchecked as per the latest IPCC consensus forecast, (which is based on their flawed, but the best available, climate models) we can expect a 1.5-2.5 degree Celcius rise in temperatures by 2100. According to the IPCC second installment, it will cost between 0.2% and 2% of global GDP to adapt to this increase. In other words, while adapting to higher temperatures will require large expenditures, they are less than either of the two World Wars or the Great Depression. Combating climate change, according to the IPCC third installment, will cost upwards of 4% of GDP by 2030, 6% in 2050, and 11% by 2100 – and these numbers may be optimistic as they assume the development of as yet unidentified technologies to combat CO2 emissions. So which is worse? The disease or the cure? If you analyze the situation in purely human terms, adapting to climate change is substantially cheaper than fighting to stop it. Adaptation is expensive. And halting it is economically crippling.
Of course, there is the often-cited argument that climate change will disproportionally impact the poor. If we are relying on this argument as justification for spending trillions of dollars in an attempt to slow and ultimately reverse a warming climate in full gallop, we’re fooling ourselves. There are much more cost-effective ways to help those in poverty. We live in a world where one in six deaths is a result of easily cured infectious diseases. One in eight deaths is caused by air pollution – mainly the result of cooking inside while using twigs or dung as fuel. Do we honestly believe that gradually rising global temperatures figure more prominently into a poor person’s needs than malaria prevention? Or the provision of sanitation and clean water? Or basic medical care?
I don’t disagree that a warming world represents a concerning problem, but it doesn’t seem to merit the degree of alarmism currently ascribed to it. If the world can afford to spend 4% of Global GDP, or 6%, or a mindboggling 11%, then why do we allow millions of people to die each year for a lack of cheap mosquito netting?
The 2015 Paris Agreement alone could cost the US an estimated 0.7 percent of GDP by 2030 and will barely make a detectable dent in temperatures, a minuscule 0.05 degrees C reduction in the projected increase. Given the extremely high costs and uncertainties surrounding our understanding of the climate change phenomenon, a combination of adaptation expenditures and research into economically viable alternative energy options for the longer term certainly seem to represent a better use of limited resources. If we used only ten percent of the resulting “savings” for health improvements and poverty alleviation for third world citizens, the positive impact on humanity would be vastly greater. The total bill to provide clean water and sanitation to those in poverty is a “drop in the bucket” ($10B annually) compared to the spending proposed to manage climate change, and yet the impact on the poor would be vastly larger and more immediate.
Yes, I understand there is a case to be made for preventing the Earth’s climate from charging headlong into unknown territory, a place where it potentially reaches a tipping point that tilts us toward some unforeseen, catastrophic result. But given the astronomical costs and the lackluster track record in our ability to forecast the future (and thus pinpoint that future doomsday scenario bogeyman), it seems prudent to take a more cautious approach to climate change at this time.
So, am I a “climate denier?” Or just a “heretic,” refusing to accept the orthodoxy of the green revolution that is currently in vogue? Or possibly I’m simply chronically short-sighted, overly worried about short-term reductions in human suffering at the expense of placating a vague, looming disaster that will manifest generations later? You, gentle reader, may decide.
Respectfully…
Tom
