Over the last two days we have examined the rift between sceptical scientists on global warming, and the scientific establishment. The sceptics point out that observed data is more complex than the simple theory that increasing human CO2 will always produce rising temperatures would suggest. Climate models have been wrong in the past, and need further complex computing to get them to cope with the many variables affecting average temperatures – factors like water vapour, cloud cover, wind speeds and direction, ocean currents, natural CO2 , other greenhouse gases, the warming of the deep ocean and the patterns of solar energy to name a few which they try to quantify.
The scientists on the establishment side tell us they need bigger computers and more complex models. They agree they cannot predict average temperatures for next year or for the next decade. They go so far as to suggest it might be 50 years of low or no warming before they question their underlying thesis of a defined relationship which is quantifiable between extra human produced CO2 and average world temperatures. They agree there is still a lot they do not understand fully or cannot accurately model, which is why their forecast of warming from manmade CO2 may be wrong for a decade or more. Cloud cover and water vapour are two such variables. They see the role of water vapour as an accelerant of global warming by asserting that it mainly changes in response to CO2.
So what are we to make of it? I merely conclude two things. The first is the science is not settled. The fact that most of the funding and the people are on one side does not mean the sceptics and critics from within the climate academy are necessarily wrong on all counts. The bad way they are treated makes some of the lay public suspicious. The second is that the scientists themselves in their honest and enquiring moments agree there is more they need to understand before they can produce a model which does predict average temperatures decade by decade or year by year.
As a specialist in economics and politics I use other arguments and take into account other matters when considering what response we should make to possible changes to the climate. I have never ruled out the possibility that average temperatures may start to rise again soon, and of course accept there is a greenhouse effect. Indeed some of that is crucial to life on earth as we need to avoid extreme cold. Sufficient carbon dioxide is also central to plant life which in turn supports all of us. Mankind needs to study and watch the weather and the longer term trends which they call climate, and adapt our way of life and our physical surroundings as necessary.
I have been an advocate of the UK putting in more fresh water capacity for some time, to deal with the rising population and any dry periods we might face. I have also been working with the government. Environment Agency and others on projects to handle excess surface water during periods of heavy rain, which are made more necessary by increased building to accommodate a rising population. I would like to see the government start work on a plan for a second Thames barrier, further downstream, to protect the people and large investment in eastern London.