Chris Berry On The Net

I’ve never considered myself to be an environmentalist in the traditional sense of the word, but I do believe that we have a collective obligation to be responsible stewards of the Earth and its resources. For the sake of future generations, it is imperative that we consider the long-term consequences of our impact on the planet. The choices we make today will have repercussions that are felt for generations to come. Among other things, we all need to think more carefully about the environmental impact of the foods we eat, the cars we drive, and the homes we live in.

One of the greatest problems we face today is the fact that scientific research and government funding are so hopelessly intertwined that it has become virtually impossible to separate fact from politicized fiction. Ordinary citizens and government policy makers alike require unbiased data in order to make informed decisions. Unfortunately, information untainted by politics has become increasingly difficult to come by. What we end up with are situations where embryonic stem cell research becomes a proxy for the abortion debate, and lobbyists from corn producing states overshadow any efforts to develop rational energy policies.

Nowhere is this mixing of science and politics more evident than in the field of global climate research. Proponents of the case for man made global warming have told us for years that there is a consensus in the scientific community, and unilaterally declared that the debate is over. These people continue to push for drastic government actions that would severely restrict global economic activity, and place a burden on businesses measured in trillions of dollars. Failure to act now, they warn us, will have dire and irreversible consequences. What they never mention are the dire and irreversible consequences of acting prematurely in the event that their warnings are unfounded.

I admit that I do not have a scientific background, but there are several things about the global warming argument that have always aroused my skepticism. I’m not saying I don’t believe it’s possible, but based on the evidence I’ve seen to date, I am far from convinced. We know that the Earth goes through natural cycles of warming and cooling measured in tens of thousands of years, so how can we possibly draw any meaningful conclusions based on patchy temperature readings that only date back to 1880? How can we rely on 4 or 5 decades worth of satellite imagery to determine the relative size of the polar ice caps today to what they might have been 100, 1000, or even 10,000 years ago?

Until recently, climate change skeptics have been hard pressed to refute the assertions of the true believers with reliable evidence of their own. Those who challenged the conventional wisdom were generally dismissed as crackpots. In the past couple of years, however, the “consensus” has begun to unravel and more scientists have been willing to speak out in opposition to the theory of man made global warming. It is obvious now that the debate is far from over.

In my quest to become more informed on the subject, I’ve recently discovered a great resource. Watts Up With That is a multi-author blog that questions the basic assumptions behind global warming theory. Most of the information is well written and does not require a scientific background to digest. If you’ve had lingering doubts about the science behind global warming, I recommend you check it out. It may not change your mind one way or another, but none of us can consider ourselves to be truly informed without examining both sides of the argument.