Climate change: A political shoutfest

This is from a lecture delivered at Hillsdale College on June 30 by S. Fred Singer, among other things a professor emeritus of environmental sceinces at the University of Virginia:

IN THE PAST few years there has been increasing concern about global climate change on the part of the media, politicians, and the public. It has been stimulated by the idea that human activities may influence global climate adversely and that therefore corrective action is required on the part of governments. Recent evidence suggests that this concern is misplaced. Human activities are not influencing the global climate in a perceptible way. Climate will continue to change, as it always has in the past, warming and cooling on different time scales and for different reasons, regardless of human action. I would also argue that—should it occur—a modest warming would be on the whole beneficial.

This is not to say that we don’t face a serious problem. But the problem is political. Because of the mistaken idea that governments can and must do something about climate, pressures are building that have the potential of distorting energy policies in a way that will severely damage national economies, decrease standards of living, and increase poverty. This misdirection of resources will adversely affect human health and welfare in industrialized nations, and even more in developing nations. Thus it could well lead to increased social tensions within nations and conflict between them.

Agree or disagree with Singer's conclusions, it's hard to disagree with the second sentence of the second paragraph.

Global warming ceased being a scientific matter or a social problem a long time ago. It's a political one. As with most political debates, people are free to choose whatever facts fit their biases and prejudices. Claiming the moral high ground is more important than determining the truth. Namecalling replaces reasoned thought. Shouting replaces rational discussion. The stakes are too high to admit you might be wrong. That's particularly true when the topic is so complicated that few of us understand what is really happening.

Case in point: For all I know, a slight increase in temperatures worldwide would be beneficial. (It still depends on the distribution of the increase in temperatures, not in the increase in average temperature worldwide, but we'll save that for later.). Somewhere I read that someone was concerned that a great enough increase in arctic regions would release a lot of methane that is stored in the tundra. Such a release would trigger catastrophic warming.

Assuming I remembered that argument correctly, I have to say I have no idea what that "tipping point" would be. And I cannot adequately judge whether that argument is reliable. All I can do is continue my own research and guard against people on one side or the other who seek to recruit me to their cause.

UPDATE: Here is a piece about the arctic methane pocket. I have not checked into the author's background yet. I merely offer this for people who want to read more.