I try to be a pragmatist on the issue of climate change. There seems to be several versions of it and people deny based on one or they demand action based upon some other. I may be missing things, but I cannot see how the science is settled. Not even close.
I have read with interest article in Financial Post this week. It is “Carbon Week” and I have learned a few things of interest. An article today touched on a subject I wrote more than two years ago so maybe I am biased.
The Church of Climatism by Nigel Lawson claims that climatism is a form of religion; satisfying the same personal goals and demanding adherence. A very high cost religion too.
Two years ago I estimated that environmentalism was the newest way people, as a group, had discovered to deal with guilt resulting from the eviction from Eden. As with other post-lapsarian methods, it has the ability to fail. You can see it here.
I, so far, remain unconvinced that Carbon Dioxide is a meaningful contributor to global climate change. Sadly the most probable cause, sun activity, is not helpful when it comes to regulation, taxation or research grants so few wish to travel that route.
I mistrust the political agenda and as a result may have missed some things I should know. I have a mute switch for Al Gore, David Suzuki and others of the type so anything they say is unknown to me. I think that all started eight or nine years ago when NASA found that surface temperatures on Mars were rising at about the same rate as on Earth.
I like the sun as the common factor, but can be convinced otherwise.
Our problem is this. If climate change exists and is a sun based trend rather than part of a cycle, then we must prepare. If it is carbon based, then much different actions are required. Possibly it will be a combination of the two or even with another yet undiscovered factor. Or maybe nothing at all.
Good husbandry of our resources requires that we first not waste them. We cannot address the wrong problem and do well. It is time to dismiss the fanatics on both sides of the question and do conscientious science to determine the proper course of action.
Peter Drucker has a pertinent thought.
The most serious mistakes are not being made as a result of wrong answers. The truly dangerous thing is asking the wrong questions.
Don Shaughnessy is a retired partner in an international public accounting firm and is now with The Protectors Group, a large personal insurance, employee benefits and investment agency in Peterborough Ontario.