By David E. Ballantyne
I read with great interest Keith Pauley's Dec. 8, column titled "Concerns for climate are overblown."
I thought it particularly well written. It was thoughtful, and seemingly well supported by the references cited. I'm an engineer by education rather than a scientist.
I see engineering as the art of applying the principles of science for "getting things done." Scientists, on the other hand, I view are those interested in discovering and understanding the working of fundamental scientific principles.
I was impressed enough, and curious enough with Mr. Pauley's article to "click on" (since I was reading the article on-line) his references, hoping to explore the science underlying his thoughts and conclusions.
I was curious, partly because I thought and assumed that the scientific evidence on the existence, risks and consequences of global climate change were fairly well understood, and with widespread, general scientific community consensus. Mr. Pauley's article put that consensus in doubt.
Of course, as an engineer plus also a rational, thinking person, I realize that all claims about the future are projections based on extending from what we know to what might and could happen in the future.
Thus, for Mr. Pauley and his professor emeritus source to say, "the panic of skyrocketing atmospheric temperatures is based solely on computer models, not actual data," one won't have data until afterward, and by then, it won't matter, because it will be too late.
Mr. Pauley's other major source is the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a 25-year-old organization self-described as having a mission of "affecting policymakers and the Texas public policy debate," which seems to me to be hardly an objective, unbiased source.
Until we can get beyond using words like "alarmist" and "panic" and beyond junk (self-serving) science, rather than objective projections from what we know to what we don't, it's very difficult for us to have a reasoned, thoughtful "carbon conversation." So, here's my engineer's view of the science.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science, AAAS, a 150-plus-year old, member-run organization, the publisher of the Journal "Science," is quoted as stating in their paper, "What We Know; the Reality, Risks, and Response to Climate Change":
"Based on well-established evidence, about 97 percent of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening.
"This agreement is documented not just by a single study, but by a converging stream of evidence over the past two decades from surveys of scientists, content analyses of peer-reviewed studies, and public statements issued by virtually every membership organization of experts in this field.
"Surveys show that many Americans think climate change is still a topic of significant scientific disagreement. Thus, it is important and increasingly urgent for the public to know there is now a high degree of agreement among climate scientists that human-caused climate change is real.
"Moreover, while the public is becoming aware that climate change is increasing the likelihood of certain local disasters, many people do not yet understand that there is a small, but real chance of abrupt, unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes with highly damaging impacts on people in the United States and around the world.
"The average global temperature has increased by about 1.4 degrees F over the last 100 years. Sea level is rising, and some types of extreme events - such as heat waves and heavy precipitation events - are happening more frequently. Recent scientific findings indicate that climate change is likely responsible for the increase in the intensity of many of these events in recent years.
"Waiting to take action will inevitably increase costs, escalate risk, and foreclose options to address the risk. The CO2 we produce accumulates in Earth's atmosphere for decades, centuries, and longer. It is not like pollution from smog or wastes in our lakes and rivers, where levels respond quickly to the effects of targeted policies.
"The effects of CO2 emissions cannot be reversed from one generation to the next until there is a large- scale, cost-effective way to scrub carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Moreover, as emissions continue and warming increases, the risk increases."
As an engineer, that's all I need to know about the science. Now it's time to get things done. According to Yale University's 2014 Public Opinion Survey, a majority of West Virginians feel the same way.
David E. Ballantyne of Newport, Ohio, is a member of the Parkersburg Chapter of the Citizens Climate Lobby.