Scrudato: Inconclusive data

This weekend, world leaders are preparing to push for new regulatory policies to combat global warming at the United Nations’ Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, all based upon the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports. Its data, we have been told, is conclusive. The scientific consensus is clear. The hockey stick has spoken. Hollywood beachfront is in jeopardy, and something has to be done.

Yesterday, in his column “Gaming Global Warming” (Dec. 3) however, Alex Klein ‘12 highlighted the cracks in this consensus. Using researchers’ own words, Klein reveals that the prominent Climatic Research Unit’s researchers are nothing more than manipulative ideologues.

Unsurprisingly, Klein’s revelation was met with the climate lobbies newest talking point. Sure, a few researchers are arrogant and secretive, but this is just one small piece of an overwhelming body of evidence. It doesn’t damage the credibility of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. The census is still clear.

Is it?

What is this consensus based on? Coincidentally, much of has been influenced by the CRU. Michael Mann’s Hockey stick? CRU data. The IPCC assessment reports? CRU researchers.

Climate science is based on global temperature data from the past millennium reconstructed from multiple sources. Disputes about collection accuracy aside, procuring this data is a gargantuan task that only a few institutions can afford. Chief among these are the Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the CRU.

If the processing done by these institutions is incorrect, in any way, their errors propagate to all research based on their data. For climate research to maintain its credibility, these centers must be beyond reproach.

But it’s hard to remain so when they keep revising their numbers. Did you know that hottest year in record in the U.S. was 1998? Wait, no, actually GISS admitted it was off by a few decades. It was 1934.

And then there’s the — to put it politely — personality problems. The head of GISS, Dr. James Hansen, has a long history of sensational rhetoric. He testified in Great Britain that Greenpeace members had a “lawful excuse” to vandalize power plants because, after all, “[s]omebody needs to stand up.” He later called on Congress to try energy company CEOs for “high crimes against humanity and nature.”

The head of the CRU, Dr. Phil Jones, was better at masking his sentiment, at least until the e-mails came out.

The most shocking revelation is just how far Jones went to hide his methods. Jones allegedly said, “If [Freedom of Information Act] does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.”

What was he trying to hide?

In leaked computer code, one comment elates that reconstructing old algorithms yields accuracy “within 0.5 degrees of the published data,” suggesting that researchers may have tried to match their results to previous results. Coincidentally, this minor snag is nearly as large as the .6 degree temperature increase over the past century. Did they ever solve this problem? Presumably, but who knows?

One data processing routine employs a “fudge factor.” No doubt that is a technical term.

There are 15,000 more lines, but I’ll close with some poor soul’s frustrated cry: “OH — THIS … I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases.”

I must stress that the entirety of this code has not been confirmed genuine, but that Jones has admitted it appears to be so. The information purportedly from the CRU may have been altered or completely fabricated; it could simply be an innocuous record of troubleshooting procedures.

On the other hand, I may be right. Programs may have been tweaked to produce favorable results, and papers could have been based upon databases in “hopeless” shape to meet publishing deadlines. But that is precisely the point: there has never been full disclosure.

Research from scientists like Jones serves as the basis for a consensus that increasingly isn’t. Until a full inquiry has been made, the credibility of nearly all anthropogenic climate science has been thrown into doubt. And implementing worldwide regulatory policy should be based on more than someone saying trust me. Until every step of the climate modeling processes is laid bare to impartial review, no decisions should be made.

Lux et Veritas, baby. Accept no substitutes.

John Scrudato is a junior in Morse College.

Comments

  • Y’11

    Global warming proponents have always flaunted themselves as the logical ones and accused anyone who dare to questing them as fearmongers.

    This is the irony I face as I compare your article to Ms. Twining’s sensational piece, which contained not a single piece of evidence.

    Bravo.

  • Charles
  • y10

    Yes. Spot on. It’s about time we pulled our heads out of the sand on all this. The caveat, of course, is that even if it isn’t contributing directly to the warming and eventual destruction of our planet, pollution should still be curtailed. That said, for all the reasons stated by Scrudato, we should not be compromising the economy and spending billions on doing so, much less paying third-world countries for being less technologically advanced than the western world. Total nonsense.

  • Grd ’13

    It’s amazing how you’re willing to relieve the recipients of a rigorous education on detached, objective, principled scientific research of their power because you don’t happen to agree with their near-consensus. Particularly amazing given that you are obviously not a scientist yourself or you would have made a meaningful, data-based contribution to the discussion.
    Here’s a quick tip: take an introductory science course or consider reading about the scientific method. If you knew anything about science you’d know that coming this close to a consensus on any issue is monumental. Furthermore, most of the skeptics either aren’t from a discipline that enables them to engage with the data or aren’t scientists. I know it can be hard to tell the difference between real science and scam science and I have sympathy for your ignorance. People are spending billions of dollars to mislead you, and many policy making parties (see FES fac profiles) are parading as scientists without doing anything but politicizing. But do try, if you think at all highly of yourself, to actually engage with the data or generate your own and refrain from regurgitating talking points. These arguments from ignorance telling other people to wake up are always so depressing. I believe in your power to think critically, even if you have given up on it.

  • @ #4

    HAHAHA that was a good laugh.
    If you know anything about the author, he’s spent the last 3 years in college studying… you guessed it: science. I know for physics alone, he was forced to take it 4 times in his life, much to his chagrin (middle school, summer camp, high school AP, and college). Not because he sucked at it… because it’s a requirement for high school graduation and now, his major. Are you suggesting that maybe he had the scientific method drilled into his head so much that he doesn’t have a clue what it is anymore?

    He’s not trying to disprove global warming, he’s merely pointing out the rather large holes in climate research. I had a very lengthly discussion with him while he was writing this. I know he did a lot of research for his article. He hates to be mislead and can’t forgive himself if he factually misleads his readers. I have seen his binder with over 100 pages of printed research for this article alone. Ironically, most, if not all, of the sources were from the climate scientists themselves: emails, code, quotes, research papers. It was best to let them speak for themselves. Unlike most people, he actually read popular papers that claim to show a temperature incline. He knows the methodology used, what data was used or discarded, and the margins of error. Call him out on anything he presented that was factually incorrect, ANYTHING, please, I bet he would want to be corrected. And if you want to see the PRIMARY sources (oh… he wasn’t just regurgitating taking points?) from which he got a certain fact, I bet he’d be happy to send you the link if you email him.

    So please, before you attack his lack of scientific knowledge and accuse him of just spitting out other people’s arguments, could you state something that factually falsifies one of his claims? I’d like to get a factual counterargument… Please tell me why when I read the tree ring paper, I shouldn’t have a weird deja-vu about me trying to get the “prettiest” curve in high school stats class. For the last 4 summers, I’ve worked in a lab, so I think I can handle your arguments about scientific methodology. Really. I’m not being paid off by big oil companies and I have no vested interest in having polar bears die. They’re actually my favorite animals along with pandas. You’ll find me quite reasonable I promise.

  • Yalie’11

    What perplexes me is an unwillingness to even investigate this. The British and Australian government are all over this. If the corrupted data doesn’t affect other research’s results, then great! Clarify it!

    But Senator Boxer is more driven to investigate the crashers. They broke the law, so I think they should also be investigated. However, I wonder if she did the same for the leaked Pentagon or CIA papers?

  • @Grd’13

    In case you didn’t get the memo, there’s actually people in the scientific community who question climate research findings. Even some people in environmental research. We’re not saying man-made global warming absolutely doesn’t exist, but we are very much questioning it. The methodologies are all but failproof. Isn’t this what science is about? Sorry to disappoint you.

  • wtf?

    Are you a scientist, John? Have you studied climate data yourself?

    An even better question is why is some random right-wing leaning guy at our school putting half-baked crap in the paper? Is the only point of this article that we should be skeptical about statistics? Or is he actually trying to make a point amid all those childish snipes at climatologists and climate science? Yes, the field is imprecise but you really have to do some better reading, John, before you start making all the right-wing-nut points. You’re embarrassing yourself. Did you know that the Middle Ages saw a mini-Ice Age period in Europe where temperatures were significantly lower? Or that temperatures have fluctuated throughout Earth’s history for reasons entirely unrelated to human emissions? Climate science is not all based on empirical data (some of it is based on simple science and the properties of the gasses in our atmosphere), and unless you understand all the caveats and ins and outs of why climate change occurs (human related or otherwise), you really shouldn’t be publishing ridiculous, strongly worded op-ed pieces. And YDN editor in charge of this page: please stop publishing this kind of crap! You do it week after week.

  • just another distraction

    The debate about scientific method clouds the real issues. The fact remains that by 2050, the population will grow by the equivalent of the world’s population in 1950; that oil is a finite resource; that our foreign policy is compromised by reliance on petro-dictators. The next great economies will have found ways to feed those extra mouths, and to separate themselves from the oil barons of Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. America can choose to turn deny this and suffer long-term strategic foreign policy and economic consequences, or it could realize that new American jobs won’t be found in steel production and oil extraction.

    It’s interesting that the very same people who rail against America’s “welfare state” fail to notice that we are cutting a great big welfare check to Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Russia because of our reliance on foreign oil.

  • Grd ’13

    I’m not interested in the author’s supposed qualifications, or how they don’t even compare to the thousands of scientists who are investigating this topic. I’m interested in why they aren’t bothering to apply that training. (I also like that #5 is trying to pretend that he’s not the author, in spite of a creepy level of insight in to the author’s life and a change in pronouns.)

    “could you state something that factually falsifies one of his claims?” There are a multitude of websites that have been labored over for this very purpose. I propose a simple Google search. That’s the point – the author is not making informed arguments. It’s all rewarmed talking points.

    #7: Some issues – first environmental studies offers little to climate science as opposed to say, physical dynamics, modeling and a multitude of geosciences, so check your sources. Secondly I’m not arguing that the methods or findings are absolutely unquestionable or that a healthy dose of scientific criticism shouldn’t be applied. I’m not sure, therefore, what you think you’re talking about.

  • Kai ’07

    As far as begging people to falsify your claims…you’ve presented no facts. You’ve provided no evidence to suggest that these e-mails are genuine, the terms within them were used in the context suggested or that you are presenting them in a manner consistent with their true context. For example, for all of your science background you don’t seem to have any concept of what a “fudge factor” is? Disturbing and sad.

  • @ #9

    Amen brother! So when will we be building all those Gen 4 Nuclear Plants? Cheap hydrogen and nearly unlimited power, you ready for it?

  • Hmm

    I’ll never be a scientist. I am in Morse and I know John to be an earnest and awesome guy. So with apologies for the anonymity-induced lopsidedness of this discussion(?):

    What exactly are you suggesting when you vaguely refer to a “full inquiry” and an “impartial review” of “every step of the climate modeling processes”? Isn’t that the job of the portion of the scientific community devoting their careers to climate research? Are you suggesting that politicians would be better-suited to this task? Or perhaps every scientist doing climate-related research should post his/her daily findings on a massive public-access blog so that it can be combed for political talking points on a regular basis? The conclusions that you reach in this article, methinks, reflect the “talking point[s]” of “manipulative ideologues” much more than any GISS or CRU report. If you’re going to deride Dr. Hansen for “sensational rhetoric,” you yourself should refrain from employing such.

  • Y’11

    Seriously. Build nuclear power plants!

    Even at lot of climate scientists are for it. We need to get rid of the stigma that a lot of “environmentalists” have instilled in us. Do the research. We’re definitively not going to give up the lifestyle we’re living, so it’s the only sustainable solution.

  • Factual Evidence

    There’s plenty of other aspects to climate science than just temperature reconstructions over thousands of years: for example we understand perfectly well why increased CO2 in the atmosphere SHOULD increase temperature, based on how it absorbs heat radiated from earth’s surface and re-radiates it back toward earth instead of into space. We’ve actually found that while the lower atmosphere is getting warmer, the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) is getting colder–and this is evidence of anthropogenic global warming because the extra heat thrown back at the ground comes at the expense of the upper part of the atmosphere.

    Maybe the author would like to explain where his “fact” that the warmest temperature on record was 1936 came from. The vast scientific consensus, based on routine record-keeping that people have been doing for 150 years, is that temperatures have warmed considerably since then. Maybe the author is referring to the temperatures reflected in the “proxies” that go back thousands of years: these same proxies tend to end around 50-75 years ago, not showing the most recent warming. But by then we were taking temperatures ourselves (and I think a lot of the alleged “fudging” is when scientists append modern temperature records to the end of the proxy data, which is perfectly reasonable to do.)

    Also, the quotes the author included that are supposed to show a conspiracy to mislead the public could mean so many other things that scientists were manipulating their data, and they were taken out of context by the people who leaked them. If there really is such a huge conspiracy, shouldn’t the hackers be able to find much more incriminating mateiral in their thousands of pages of correspondence? Maybe an email saying “don’t let this slip or they might find out about the whole conspiracy?”

  • John Scrudato

    First, I want to thank all of you for your comments. Really, I do, because they help me learn to express my points more clearly, in ways less likely to provoke anger and more likely to provoke a serious discussion. Let me refute the insinuations that I am scientifically illiterate. Until recently, science was the focus of my life and I am at least familiar with all of the basics (Chemistry, Biology, and Physics).
    In high school, my position on anthropogenic global warming was that the cause was not fully determined, but that it never hurt to cut greenhouse gas emissions. I recognize that greenhouse theory is not bunk. Likewise, I recognize that the Earth appears to be warming. I have never denied that the climate is changing and I never will.

    I might contest the cause of the climate shift and the magnitudes of the various forcing processes, but I recognize the data is conclusive on the point of temperature change.

    There are two issues that underlie your (the commenters’) fundamental disagreement and apparent revulsion with my work. The first is that you assume that my disagreement with scientists like Jones and Hansen is driven by a denial of monumentally obvious trends. I hope, from the above, that I have cured you of such delusions. I imagine the second point is my insinuation that somehow Jones, Hansen, etc. are doing bad science or doctoring the results.

    Do not misunderstand my point. I do not imagine Jones sat around a meeting table making up the day’s data. What I can imagine, however, is him picking constants (if not procedures) favorable to getting publishable results; after all, publishing prestige and grant money keeps most scientists afloat. I know it can be tempting to make slightly idealized assumptions.

    Let me illustrate this with Briffa’s tree ring analysis. In his paper, he throws away values after 1960, because the temperature record of the trees clearly does not follow measured temperature changes. He assumes that the tree ring proxy was correct before this date because he has plausible reasons to do so. He does not waste time trying to prove beyond all reasonable doubt because the research, as is, contributes enough to scientific discourse to publish.

    The problem is, however, partisans seize upon this incomplete work and use it to further their political goals. They shut down debate by saying “well, it science; it’s proven, so shut up.” These people often have goals that go against the majority of their peers. Being saddled with the unfortunate reality of a representative society, they find ways to change public opinion quickly and effectively. Their preferred vehicle is fear.

    When climate scientists allow their work, really an unfinished dialog at this point, to be seized by these people and used to create fear, they do themselves and science a great disservice.

  • John Scrudato Part 2

    This is the second part of my response:

    For one, the science is not conclusive enough for policy decisions to be made. Even assuming carbon is the primary driver, the opinions on the severity of the warming, historically speaking, vary widely. In all likelihood, carbon-based fuels will rapidly decline in the next century anyway, avoiding the need for restructuring of the world that alarmists want. If that is sooner than a projected global warming doomsday, there’s no need to crawl to the U.N. for guidance.

    I don’t think scientists realize how politics work. Unlike research, where superior theory usually takes the fore, politicians have a weird habit prolonging systems and policies, however obviously wrong, for as long as they can. Power given is rarely returned. Should the U.N. acquire more power at Copenhagen, even if it turns out it weren’t necessary, it will be nearly impossible to wrest it back.

    When scientists like Hansen feed call for show trials of energy company executives, they feed this hysteria; they draw themselves every further into a partisan fray that they must remain above. When they appear to be willing participants, their credibility is irreparably tarnished. When they defend Greenpeace radicals, obstructionist fools who blocked nuclear power and encouraged coal propagation, you have to question their dedication to the actual science of climate change and not the political issues associated with it.

    Finally, by impartial review, yes, I mean people who are not climate scientists. These reviewers must look for the shaky assumptions that disciplines often get into the habit of using from force of habit. I question whether the obviously tribal natural of some of these research institutes might lead to a herd mentality that accepts certain assumptions out of convenience. Naturally reviewers should be scientifically literate.

    Sincerely,

    John Scrudato

  • random internet reader

    I see #11 is a typical left wing intellect with no real intention to dialogue or solve the problem. Personally attacking someone becauuse you do not agree with his political views is very childish and immature. Thanks for showing me that once again if someone with a left view does not agree with you it should be sensored and thrown out. Shame on you #11.

  • Recent Alum

    Even if global warming was really happening, which is admittedly a big “if”, Levitt and Dubner have already shown in SuperFreakonomics (not exactly a right-leaning/conservative book) that the solution is simply to send sulfur in the atmosphere, which can be done for a few hundred million dollars rather than the tens of trillions that Al Gore wants us to spend.

  • @8

    You’re honestly suggesting we censor people simply because you disagree with them. That’s… what you just said. And you go to this school. I’m ashamed.

  • same guy

    Again, not being particularly well-read on the topic, I’m replying mostly to your political assertions.

    I agree with your assertion that “partisans seize upon this incomplete work and use it to further their political goals.” I think that statement describes the American conservative political establishment’s reaction to Climategate et al perfectly. The “impartial reviewers” would, I suppose, be selected by some kind of senate panel? I just can’t imagine a process or a body that would do that selection or be selected in such a way as to allay your concerns, even if I didn’t think these concerns were rooted in something other than science. As for “tribal” research institutes, I don’t think any of us outside the scientific establishment can constructively criticize – if you feel strongly about it, I encourage you to consider continuing to study science as a profession and to get involved with some climate research; then you would be in a position to constructively critique whatever “shaky assumptions,” as you call them, may exist in that field.

  • And they’re off!!

    And so the race to save the world begins! Since the common man will be cutting back on his carbon emissions, the delegates figured they could afford to splurge a little:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html

    Let the new age of fuedalism begin!

  • John Scrudato @ 21

    A senate panel? Don’t be ridiculous, they can’t even figure out the simple algebra necessary to create cash neutral programs.

    As for conservatives using Climategate for partisan goals, you have somewhat of a point but I think you miss the most important distinction between partisans using Climategate and partisans using climate research. Conservatives, for the most, part aren’t trying to tax away billions and scare countries into ceding power to international entities with Climategate. Sure some have exaggerated the issue and said it “disproves” climate research, but many people just want to use it to ensure that due diligence is done by policymakers.

    Those who have seized climate research, however, are trying to use it to bully their critics and reshape the world to their liking. I think there’s a big difference between the two.

  • Y’12

    @#21

    Yes, there’s partisans on both sides.

    BUT… considering a lot of the same climate scientists who are now warning us about global warming predicted a coming ice age in the 1970s AND considering the causes of the temeperature increase is still very much up for debate (measuring temperature is one thing, but quantifying how much of it is due to solar activity fluctuations, CO2, etc. is a whole other issue)… do you really think we should jump at the occasion to spend hundreds of billions of dollars and give the UN power that can’t be taken back?

    It seems to me at lot of people are using this “crisis” as a platform to give the UN power to dictate what each country should do. The top scientists involved in Climategate have publicly pushed for a one-world government on some level. People dismiss politicians for not having a background to debate about climate science; but what gives these scientists the knowledge to speak about how world politics should be? Not politically driven my ***

  • @20

    You clearly didn’t read my comment. I’m not proposing that we censor ideas. I’m proposing that the YDN Editors only publish well-written pieces. This piece simply was not written well. This has been an increasingly large problem on the YDN pages and I’m proposing that people return to spending time making their opinion pieces less childish, snipey, and filled with idiotic talking points. Look at the op-ed pages of the WSJ or NYT to see what real opinion pieces look like. Conservative or liberal is not relevant – good or crappy journalism is. It’s in the editor’s job description to choose what gets published – that’s not censorship, it’s “journalism.”

  • Wow

    I am very impressed that John S. continues to post and add to this dialogue. That shows dedication to the issue, and a willingness to put up with other people’s not-so-kind comments.

  • US History, maybe?

    @ #26
    I agree.

    @ #24
    Yes, I do think we should jump at this chance. Obviously the opportunity costs are huge, but I’m personally convinced that the consensus in the scientific community is powerful enough to assure that the models that are now being put forward will stand up to future research. As for the UN, as with any body that hopes to govern well, healthy skepticism is a must. But I think that the idea of a ‘feudalistic’ approach (I’m alluding to #22) to confronting global problems is also problematic. Analogies are inexact of course, but look at…the Articles of Confederation.

  • Recent Alum

    #25: So the uber-hackery posted by the likes of Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich et al. is what you consider to be pieces that the YDN should look up to? YDN is still a better paper than the NYT IMO, both for news and opinion pieces.

  • @#25

    If you want to talk about childish or snipey…. One name for you: Paul Krugman

  • hmmm….

    This article would be more valid had the research that the CRU scientists were deriding and trying to block not made the IPCC report. But they WERE included, referenced and discussed in the IPCC report.

    Secondly, there has been a lot of talk about whether Scrudato actually knows what he’s talking about re: science. The answer is yes and no. Obviously having taken physics, chemistry, etc. he is not some complete ingoramus on the subject. However, and I hate to burst the bubbles of all the undergrads here, but being an undergraduate science courses does not make you a climate expert — being a science major doesn’t either. That’s like saying a history major is an expert on the Peloponnesian war simply because he’s taken history classes. Not the case.

  • @#30

    That’s exatly the point. So only 0.0000001% of the polulation can talk about global warming because there are only so many experts?

    To the general polulation, the climategate emails can be unsettling, especially since trillions of dollars of our taxpayer money are going to this cause. According to the lastest informal poll on CNN, about 45% of American believe there’s no conclusive data that the warming is man-made. You can’t just brush them off since it’s still 45% of taxpayers. It’s their money. Is it so much to ask for the media to do some investigative journalism? Is it so much to ask for Congress to conduct a hearing so that the scientific community can weight in on it? They have conducted full-blown investigation into steriod use in the MLB for pete’s sake. If they can clarify that the transgressions on the part of 2 researchers do not affect the climate research findings, then GREAT!

    The average American, even the average scientist, does not have enough knowledge on this matter to reach a conclusion. And no, they have better things to do with their time than reading all the research papers. Isn’t this exactly why an investigation is needed? Right now, the sentiment we’re receiving is that: “You’re not an expert and you can never be. So just shut up, give us the money, and trust us.” I don’t know about you, but I’d like to be able to formulate an opinion on the matter before handing over my money. Make the hearings public. If they have nothing to hide, then isn’t it the perfect way to silence skeptics? People can still hijack the debate, but it’s still better to have a discussion in a controlled environment. Right now, Americans looking for answers can only turn to the internet, where accusations are rampant and unfounded.

  • to 31

    You’re ignoring the simple fact that the CRU is a UK organization, not an American one. I’d certainly like an investigation, and given that the CRU is a UK organization, their parlaiment can feel free to do it. A foreign country’s congress has no right to investigate them. But what exactly will they be investigating anyway? The articles in question that these scientists were bashing and hoping to prevent from getting in the IPCC report WERE INCLUDED AND DISCUSSED.

    As for 45% of the American people being unsure of the man-made global warming. Well rougly 49% of the population voted for John Kerry in 2004, and 48% voted for John McCain; and I’d guess that most of those people are tax-payers; but they still accepted that their MINORITY opinion was overruled, and you have the constitution to protect your individual rights. That’s part of living in a republic.

  • Y’10

    @#32

    Ah… the oppressive majority. So does that mean the current health care bill should not be considered because it’s actually been shown that the majority of Americans don’t want it? (Not that I would mind…) What good is the constitution nowadays? What happened to the part where powers not enumerated in the Constitution belong to the states? Not long ago, Illinois Democrats proposed a law which requires gun-owners to buy $1 million dollar policies. The problems: 1) the premiums gunowners have to pay and 2) there’s not actually any insurance company that offers this ridiculous policy. Thank God it didn’t pass, but just the fact that it was suggested frightens me. So excuse me if I don’t think the Constitution will always be there to protect my rights. But I digress…

    I agree with #31. The articles in question were included and discussed, but that still doesn’t change the possibility that the heads of CRU tried to prevent that. It’s the lack of transparency that worries some people. What happens behind closed doors seems at bit dodgy. Before you lecture me about how I’m not qualified, misinformed, blah blah blah, let me just clarify that I do believe in global warming and that we need to do something about it. But I also believe we’re taking the wrong approach. Right now, people are proposing to spend trillions of dollars on temporary solutions such as cap-and-trade and giving part of our GDP to poorer countries. I would prefer if that money went to research about nuclear waste disposal or nuclear fission. If people want to retain their lifestyles, wind and solar energy alone can’t do it.

  • a

    cap and trade worked for sulfur dioxide (remember acid rain?) and didn’t destroy the economy.