Perhaps we’ll be enjoying these scenes for a long time yet…
Are concerns over man-made global warming (i.e., anthropogenic global climate change) overblown? So says this January 27 opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal online, written by sixteen eminent physical scientists. They argue that predictive computer models have exaggerated the potential effects of continued emissions of carbon dioxide, and point to the documented halt (or pause, depending on your perspective) in rising global temperatures over the last decade or so as evidence supporting their position.
Not to be outdone, the UK Daily Mail waded into the global warming debate with two seemingly contradictory articles: First, theorizing that global cooling, not warming, may be a more immediate concern on the global temperature front, based on solar energy cycles – and then, on the same day, reporting that the British government’s national risk assessment on climate change warns that increasing temperatures will lead to “major increases in flooding, heatwaves and water shortages that could kill thousands of people a year.”
What should we make of the current state of anthropogenic climate change science?
I refer back to the perspective we espouse here: While not convinced that anthropogenic global climate change is a potentially catastrophic trend requiring massive socioeconomic response, we believe that good environmental stewardship – including voluntary efforts to measure, evaluate and mitigate negative environmental impacts of our activities – is always appropriate and desirable.
What do you think? Does the evidence for anthropogenic climate change demand immediate and drastic action? And should the federal government prescribe such action through regulatory control?