I side with columnist Charles Krauthammer, who once wrote that when it comes to global warming he is neither a believer nor a denier, but rather an agnostic. It can’t help matters to keep pouring CO2 into the atmosphere, but what effect it really has on climate change — especially compared with the natural climate change that Mother Nature has been perpetrating for billions of years — is hard to judge. Actually, impossible to judge.
My agnosticism also stems from the fact that, for every 10,000 climate change believers, each with several doctorates and official titles that would impress The Royal Family, there are another 10,000 climate change deniers with the same number of doctorates and equally impressive titles. Or to put it hypothetically: For every Phillip Montague (PhD, Quantum Environmental Physics), director of the Royal Academy of Newtonian Studies and Applied Meteorological Sciences, who claims that, according to his organization’s most recent study, releasing CO2 at current rates will put California under the sea in three years, there is an Ethan Fitzsimmons, (PhD, Einsteinian Climatological Relativity Theory), president of the International Organization of Advanced Ecological Research, who claims that Dr. Montague’s study is hogwash because it ignores IOAER’s recent study, which proves sunspots have a greater effect on climate change than all human activity since the dinosaurs.
To me they cancel each other out, and let’s not forget that both sides are dialing for dollars. All studies published by both climate change alarmists and deniers have, as one of their goals, increased financial support by outside groups that share their beliefs. Professional alarmists, professional deniers — they all want to keep drawing paychecks, so they all need funding, so they keep churning out studies.
I bring this up because a recent article on climate change described what I think is as close to the “truth” about global warming as we are likely to hear in our lifetime. “True experts in the field understand that climate change is highly immature,” the article said. “We are in a period of ‘negative discovery,’ in that the more we know about climate change, the more we realize we don’t know … while someday we may be able to meaningfully predict climate, it is not possible now.”
From everything I have read, that makes the most sense to me. Certainly it makes more sense than a recent article written by Colorado State University professor Philip Cafaro, who argues that the United States needs an even stricter immigration policy because Third World folks tend to become more prosperous after they immigrate to America, meaning they use more energy, which puts more CO2 in the air, which increases global warming.
Naturally, Professor Cafaro also has a PhD — in philosophy.