Have we discussed climate change enough yet? <grin> Here’s something worth a look: Daniel Botkin’s May 29 testimony before the House Subcommittee on Science, Space, and Technology. I agree with much of what he says. Here’s a excerpt from the 29-page transcript:
1. I want to state up front that we have been living through a warming trend driven by a
variety of influences. However, it is my view that this is not unusual, and contrary to the
characterizations by the IPCC and the National Climate Assessment, these environmental
changes are not apocalyptic nor irreversible.
2. My biggest concern is that both the reports present a number of speculative, and sometimes
incomplete, conclusions embedded in language that gives them more scientific heft than they
deserve. The reports are “scientific-sounding” rather than based on clearly settled facts or admitting
their lack. Established facts about the global environment exist less often in science than laymen
3. HAS IT BEEN WARMING? Yes, we have been living through a warming trend, no doubt about
that. The rate of change we are experiencing is also not unprecedented, and the “mystery” of the
warming “plateau” simply indicates the inherent complexity of our global biosphere. Change is
normal, life on Earth is inherently risky; it always has been. The two reports, however, makes it
seem that environmental change is apocalyptic and irreversible. It is not.
9. What I sought to learn was the overall take-away that the reports leave with a
reader. I regret to say that I was left with the impression that the reports
overestimate the danger from human-induced climate change and do not
contribute to our ability to solve major environmental problems. I am afraid that
an “agenda” permeates the reports, an implication that humans and our activity
are necessarily bad and ought to be curtailed.