Let’S See If Inertia Trumps The Truth

For Vice President Al Gore and other promoters of environmental purity, there isn’t an issue of greater gravity than global warming. In his recent State of the Union Address, President Clinton made special reference to it.

It is this concern that resulted in the Kyoto understanding, the United Nations’ participation in the Rio conference on environmental matters and the administration’s promotion of restrictions on carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide.

The person most responsible for providing the scientific evidence to bolster the administration’s concern about global warming is James Hansen, one of the leading climate modelers for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

In congressional testimony in the summer of 1988, Hansen helped bring this issue to public attention. At the time, he said his model predicted that doubling atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide “would drastically increase global temperatures.”

In response, Congress increased expenditures for the Climate Change Research Program. The Clinton administration later made specific reference to the Hansen revelations as a reason for action.

Now, however, Hansen has presented very different evidence.

Writing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Hansen states, “The forces that drive long-term climate changes are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate changes.”

Climate modeling and forecasting needs to be re-examined, he concludes. “The summary implication is a paradigm change for long-term climate projections: uncertainties in climate forcings have supplanted global climate sensitivity as the predominant issue.”

Put another way: After spending $10 billion on this issue, Hansen reports deep uncertainty about climate forecasting. He has admitted that his own model was wrong and now he contends that modeling per se is inaccurate.

While some scientists have challenged Hansen’s turnabout, I find it refreshing that a scientist relies on evidence rather than his own assumptions to draw conclusions.

What is dismaying, however, is that the Clinton administration - which relied on Hansen’s original testimony - has not recanted its own position.

Moreover, the question must be asked whether rigid environmental controls should be imposed on American industry, based on uncertainties in climate projection and modeling that can produce only unreliable results.

There is little doubt that Al Gore, among others, has staked his political future on a concern for environmental issues. But suppose the evidence for legislative action and the mobilization of public support is ambiguous (as is now the case with global warming).

Should environmental steps be taken as a prophylactic, even if the evidence isn’t compelling?

Should goodwill trump hard evidence?

And should Americans be obliged to pay a high price for a “solution” that may not be workable?

The answers are obvious but the questions aren’t even being asked.

Americans cannot be expected to understand all the ramifications of the arcane global warming debate. If sacrifice is necessary, public support can probably be generated. But if the evidence for a course of action is unclear, it is incumbent on political promoters to tell the truth in order to get informed reaction.

At the moment, the global warming debate generates a lot of thunder and little lightning.

On one side are environmentalists who speak in apocalyptic terms about a global disaster if we don’t act immediately. On the other side of the question are the Pollyanna-ish optimists who regard all disaster scenarios with suspicion.

If one relies on James Hansen, who has invested his professional life in climate projections, we have evidence that is unclear, projections that are uncertain and models that are unreliable. Conclusions are therefore not unimpeachable and hasty action should not be fostered.

Americans like simple solutions for knotty problems. The case of global warming should give us and the Clinton administration pause.

If Hansen is correct, Gore ought to tone down his rhetoric, the Kyoto accord should be put on the back burner and spokesmen on this issue should exercise humility in their public claims.

Of course this is what should happen, but it is unlikely as long as so many have a stake in a global warming scenario. One can hope for the best but it would be wise to work for the truth.