|
|
Dr. Seitz is a respected physicist but is not a climatologist. In a Wall Street Journal story he accused senior climate scientists of "corrupt[ing] the peer-review process" and accused one scientist of altering a major climate report without authorization.
In response, leading climate scientists stated that not only did Seitz fail to attend any of the group's scientific meetings, he also neglected to contact anyone associated with the report to verify there were unauthorized changes made.
Unfortunately, Seitz's unfounded and repudiated charges (made in 1996) are still being repeated today. Why? Misguided (to be charitable) energy companies are spending millions of dollars on an information campaign to directly influence media outlets.
An example of this is the supposed support of thousands of scientists (referenced in the editorial) for Seitz's position. Reportedly, a "petition" was sent to virtually every scientist in the United States--and there are about 10 million people with science degrees in the United States.
Accompanying the petition was an article that appeared to have been published in the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. This "article" stated that the release of more carbon dioxide would "help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people."
As it appeared to be a legitimate article, not surprisingly a few thousand scientists (again, not climate scientists) signed the "petition." The "article" was neither peer-reviewed nor published by the academy. The whole exercise was revealed by news organizations to have little, if any, validity.
It's worth noting that climate scientists have the training to interpret relevant data. Data is gathered from
a variety of sources including ships, buoys, satellites, balloons, and aircraft; and from a wide number of locations over a period of years. These extensive findings are analyzed and peer-reviewed by hundreds of qualified
scientists.
The most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body respected the world over, declared unequivocally for the first time that mankind is responsible for global warming. Mankind--not the sun or other natural factors.
"We see changes in climate, we believe we humans are involved, and we're projecting future climate changes much more significant over the next
100 years than the last 100 years," said Robert T. Watson, the panel's chairman.
This is not a conclusion arrived at lightly or without considerable evidence. Consider the data from the report:
The hottest years in recorded history all have occurred during the past 13 years. We just exited the warmest decade in the last 140 years.
Some 7.5 cubic miles of ice have eroded from a key area of the South Pole in just eight years. The ice pack is 30 percent thinner, a rather dramatic change.
One degree of warming has brought observable (unhealthy) changes to more than 80 percent of 500 species of animals and plants studied.
This is not a situation that can easily or quickly be repaired. For instance, the ocean temperature has much to do with the ambient air temperature of the world. It takes 2,000 years for deep ocean currents to cycle around the Earth. Changes in the temperature of that water occur very slowly and cannot be changed back quickly. Yet in relatively few years we have changed them.
There are ways to affect change, but it's a road we have barely started. A global transition away from coal and oil to an economy based on renewable energy resources such as solar energy, hydrogen-powered fuel cells, wind generators, and other noncarbon-based energy sources is a good start.
Hundreds of business and government readers reached a significant determination at the World Economic Forum's Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland, in January 2000. The greatest challenge facing the world at the beginning of this century, they said, is climate change.
Our individual actions make a big difference. Simply driving an average
of five miles less per day (or increasing the gas mileage of vehicles driven) would save more oil than opening the Arctic wilderness to oil drilling. Increasing household appliance efficiency, recycling, combining trips around town, gardening--there are any number of ways we can reduce our impact.
I believe our common sense tells us there's a problem. Let's not pretend it doesn't exist or that change is too costly.
Businesses, governments, and individuals can all work together using common sense, new technology, and political will to make a positive difference for today and future generations.
PHIL BAILEY of Spotsylvania County is an environmental consultant.