Cooling global warming hysteria just one story of '08
By Barry Cooper December 31, 2008
For us who enjoy the privilege of sharing our views with readers of the Herald, the last column of the year affords an opportunity to review the big stories of the past 12 months. Another option is to consider a few well-known stories, the significance of which was either overlooked or is as yet unclear. Here are two.
First, the scientific debate over climate change has entered a new phase. This change is reflected in, though hardly constituted by, petitions signed by natural scientists of various kinds disputing the so-called consensus that human-caused CO2 is responsible for global warming.
Two aspects of this story can be distinguished. As James Peden, an atmospheric physicist, said, many scientists "are now searching for a way to back out quietly" from global-warming fearmongering, "without having their professional careers ruined."
This is an ethical or political problem, not a problem in climate science. The crux of it is that major research grants and, in this country, prestigious Canada Research Chairs, have been awarded on the assumption something must be done to stop CO2 from destroying the world.
Those scientists who are the current beneficiaries of a moral panic they help sustain are squirming not because of their ethical transgressions but because of scientific facts. Facts are fragile because they could always be different, but stubborn because they are what they are, independent of opinions, including any "consensus." In this context the big inconvenient fact is that for almost a decade, ice-core data have shown climate cycles antedate changes in atmospheric CO2.
There was even worse news for those who believed in human-caused climate change. Up to now most of the debate, including the notorious intellectual swindle of the hockey stick graph, amounted to what paleoclimatologist Ian Clark called "wiggle watching" --matching the ups and downs of temperature with the ups and downs of CO2 or, say, sun spots. Until recently there was no experimental evidence to decide which wiggle was worth watching.
In 2006, experiments at the Danish National Space Center provided evidence that changes in the magnetic field of the sun can affect not CO2 but water vapour--clouds--which are responsible for up to 95 per cent of the warmth that keeps Earth habitable. Last year the implications finally sunk in.
The original experiment is being replicated by CERN, the European Organization for Nu-clear Research, so stay tuned.
Remember, there is no experimental evidence--none at all--that an increase in CO2 can increase greenhouse warming, and that ice-core evidence indicates the causal arrow does not go from changes in CO2 to changes in climate.
A second story concerns the 18 senators appointed by the prime minister. Due attention has been accorded the likely result of a "coalition" government. Senatorial appointments by Stephane Dion or Michael Ignatieff would have exacerbated the imbalance in the upper house even more than previously (58 to 20).A dozen or so vacancies coming up would make matters even worse.
Some commentators said Stephen Harper's action was unconstitutional. They were, by and large, Liberal voices from the St. Lawrence valley he quite properly ignored. Insufficient critical attention, however, has been directed at the provincial premiers who, for nearly three years, have been invited to follow Alberta and enact legislation to elect senators. None has done so. In that context, and given the track record of his opponents, Harper did the right thing.
One other consequence is even more interesting. By refusing to support elected senators the premiers acted out of self-interest to maintain their positions as exclusive representatives of the provinces. Ironically, this is not a bad thing. A democratically legitimate, which is to say elected, Canadian Senate would also strengthen the legitimacy of the bloated government in Ottawa. Albertans have considerable experience of MPs getting Ottawashed by the very clever and self-serving federal bureaucracy. An elected senate would not be immune to flattery.
Like it or not, the premiers have become the guardians of regional interests and thus of federalism. By having to appoint senators, even against his will, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has in fact enhanced the continued existence of the Canadian federation.
During the new year the meaning of these (and no doubt many other) stories will become clearer. Meantime, there's New Year's Eve to welcome.
Barry Cooper is a professor of political science at the U of Calgary.
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
