Climate change skeptics were rocked last week when the American Geophysical Union issued a policy statement saying that "human-induced climate change" was real and "the present level of scientific uncertainty does not justify inaction in the mitigation of, or adaptation to," such change. The AGU stopped short of endorsing any particular policy, saying, "Science cannot be the sole source of guidance on how society should respond to climate issues."
But the AGU did "recommend the development and evaluation of strategies such as emissions reduction, carbon sequestration, and adaptation to the impacts of climate change." It also noted that "some changes (in climate) may be beneficial and others damaging for different parts of the world. However, the rapidity and uneven geographic distribution of these changes could be very disruptive."
The AGU has over 35,000 members worldwide, including many scientists and students, although there are no qualifications for membership and many members merely subscribe to the Union's magazine Eos. However, the AGU also puts out the prestigious Journal of Geophysical Research, which publishes thousands of pages of climate change research each year. Critics contend that the publisher of an important peer-reviewed journal like the JGR should not take a position in what is manifestly a political debate.
Some of the attacks on the AGU decision are scathing. "The American Geophysical Union has betrayed science and embraced politics in its newly issued position statement calling for governmental action to stop global warming," according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "In rendering a policy judgment favorable to the Clinton-Gore administration, the AGU statement has crossed the line separating science from advocacy," says CEI's Paul Georgia, managing editor of Cooler Heads, a biweekly newsletter covering global warming issues. "The AGU has fully embraced the green activist philosophy that insufficient and contradictory scientific evidence should be no obstacle to putting this nation's energy system under political control."
Steve Hochman, editor of the Washington Pest, a gadfly publication, sent a letter to AGU President John Knauss saying, "The debate of global warming will continue...but your organization's irrational and premature statement will be etched in stone. You can no longer be viewed as a serious scientific organization. Perhaps you should recommend that the Defense Department spend trillions to defend against the onslaught of aliens traveling from distant planets, despite the level of scientific uncertainty!"
The AGU panelists who wrote the policy statement were taken aback by such harsh criticism. Panel chair Tamara Ledley notes that the 26 member AGU Council voted unanimously for the statement. Tim Killeen, representing the council, the AGU's policy making body, says that while the AGU believes that the uncertainties do not justify inaction, this does not mean that the certainties justify action. "It is not the end of the world" says Killeen, adding "we need more research."
Comments on this posting?
Click here to post a public comment on the Trash Talk Bulletin Board.
Click here to send a private comment to the Junkman.