Why politics and climate change science do not mix

With climate change becoming an increasingly recognized –- and feared –- phenomenon, it’s remarkable just how indifferent, even contemptuous, the Canadian Conservative government appears to be of it. The government has recently made the decision to withhold further funding [2]for the research organization, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Science, making this its last year in operation. Without the kind of research this organization provides regarding the state of Canada’s environment, in this time of dramatic temperature increases and ecological degradation, it’ll be very difficult to make the kinds of informed policy decisions we should expect from our representatives. Which is perhaps what the government intends. In light of the Alberta tar sands and the government’s failure to seriously commit to negotiations during the Copenhagen climate change summit, it’s reasonable to believe the withholding of funding serves political ends.

Another report [3]shows that the Conservative government has practically muzzled its Environment Canada scientists, refusing many requests from the media for interviews and developing guidelines regarding what the scientists can say.

The intense politicization of climate change science is a trend we should scale back. At worst, we get instances like those mentioned above: a complete loss of important voices. At best, we get the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s leading body for climate change research. In his recent book, Climate Wars, Gwynne Dyer levels his criticisms of the IPCC, noting its overly-conservative assessments and recommendations, and letting us know why that’s so:

"We really should not be surprised at the widening gap between the IPCC report and reality, for the IPCC’s estimates for how much global warming we should expect, and how soon, have fallen far short of the reality from the start. The IPCC is, as the title suggests, an inter-governmental organization involving all the major countries of the world. The executive summary (the only part of the report that lay people, including most journalists, will ever read) is edited by the participating governments in consultation with the scientists who are lead authors of the various parts of the report, but the governmental involvement starts well before that."

I hope we can make the division between the scientific community and those with political interests a lot clearer. Otherwise, we’ll be left completely uninformed during what might turn out to be the world’s most serious crisis.

Comments

Submitted by Can on March 15, 2010 - 12:50pm.

The fact that one has to do a fair amount of reading to sort out this issue (made more complex by the deniers and professional industry backed doubt mongers) is a big problem.

Please join this Facebook group to connect with other concerned members:

Climate Action Now (Canada)

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=346257176985

Submitted by monsey on March 15, 2010 - 1:08pm.

Climategate, Glaciergate and Amazongate and the resignation of the leader of "political group", the IPCC have destroyed any credibility the left wing activist research groups had. Most people think it sounds good to chant about the evils of CO2 when they have zero knowledge on the subject.

Here are the simple facts were always going to destroy the theory of man made global warming:

- 1st CO2 is a naturally occurring gas that is naturally occurring in the atmosphere.
- All the man made CO2 ever made makes up a minor part of the Total CO2 in the atmosphere
- Natural events like Volcano's constantly add mammoth amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere every year in a natural cycle
- Total CO2 makes up a very small % of the natural greenhouse effect, where water vapor H2O makes up 75-90% of the effect
- The natural greenhouse gas effect is only partially responsible for why our temperature fluctuates (solar flares, ocean currents etc...)

Do some basic math and you'll see how very little impact we could have on the climate by adding CO2 and it certainly isn't worth the economic destruction that is being called for to materially reduce it. Activist scientists have covered over these facts by coming up with all sorts of multipliers to make it look like man made CO2 is going to end the world and they've never had to justify it until now.

Extra fact: CO2 does NOT equal smog or general air pollution. CO2 is a natural gas used by plants and is necessary for life on earth. If you got rid of all CO2, you would still have smog because smog and actually harmful air pollution is made up by other particles (nitrogen dioxide, sulfur etc..).

Extremists like to ignore these basic facts and in doing so divert resources that could be used to work on more important environment issues. They do this because Al Gores global warming theory is instead about taxes, international control. These scientists are complaining, not about funding or access or support, but not being able to be the media darlings that they were before. That shows where their priorities are, these guys chased the easy grants and the limelight and left sceptisim in the dust, or should I say the snow.

Submitted by housey on March 16, 2010 - 1:45pm.

Monsey,

Your argument falls apart in your first few points! Sure CO2 is natural, but what about the nitrous oxides, sulphur oxides, CFCs, and countless other known GHG's that now pollute our air? What the 'lay' person doesnt understand is that 'CO2 Estimates' are used as an indication of ALL GHG's - not just CO2. CO2 is the 'measuring stick', the comparison so that many can get their head around it. It simplifies the science, it simplifies the numbers. But CO2 is not the bread and butter of Global Warming theories. Its the other gases that are feared the most. Unburnt hydrocarbons, soot, cabon monoxide, nitrous tri-oxides... geez the list goes on! An unbelievable number of gases that never existed in our atmosphere until we came along.

What we do is compare each subject gas/particulate molecule to that of a CO2 molecule (in terms of GHG effect - absorption, reflection and transmission of infrared light waves) and quantify it accordingly. For example: 1 molecule of soot is equivalent to approximately 3000 molecules of CO2 in terms of GHG effect (it absorbs a lot of infrared light). I know this because I worked with the Dr. who published the findings from the data I collected for him as a Master's student. Before you make such statements, you should buy the IPCC report, and look up Global Warming Potential (GWP) in the index. It tells you everything you need to know, and would enlighten you as to why your argument is suspect.

The bottom line is that their are a ridiculous number of new gases that have been introduced to our atmosphere - in ridiculous quantities - since the industrial revolution began. To believe such actions will have no consequences is nothing short of being in denial.

Your problem is the basic facts you speak of are only basic because you have believed them to be so, but the truth is that you dont understand the facts you speak of, nor the details of the assumptions inherent in the facts documented by the IPCC. You are doing your race a disservice by propogating such garbage.

Educate yourself.