Tuesday, February 2, 2010


In the case of climate change, skepticism is increasingly mainstream--at least in the U.K. (The U.K. government has committed to spending a lot of dough trying to improve the climate, or lower the speed at which the temperature goes up, or something).

It seems that there has been a hesitation on the part of glacier experts to criticize what the IPCC says about glaciers, likewise experts on China when it comes to China, experts on South Asia when it comes to the Himalayas and flooding, experts on tree rings when it comes to using tree rings as a proxy for temperature, experts on infectious disease when it comes to malaria and West Nile virus, experts on the Arctic and Antarctic, etc. Even the temperature record for the 20th century, which you would think a group of Ph.D's could get straight, may be more or less bogus. As the experts come forward, things may change quite a bit.

In Canada and the U.S. there is far less coverage of the crumbling edifice, but voters may be more skeptical than they will admit to pollsters. I thought the 2008 election in Canada was one in which anyone who said the words "green" or "climate change" was reduced to a small pile of white ash, and just a trace of vapour. That may be even more the case next time around--and for the Ontario election in the fall of 2011.

No comments:

Post a Comment