March 16, 2010
Economic Snapshot
‘Climategate’ has taken much of the heat out of global warming argument
JOHN CLINKARD
consulting economist, CanaData
The release of a series of e-mails written by scientists at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (now called “Climategate”) has triggered a sharp increase in uncertainty not only about the cause of climate change (manmade or not?), but also whether the world is actually getting warmer.
With respect to this latter issue, Professor Philip Jones, who recently resigned as head of research of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Institute – and who was the author of many of the leaked e-mails – admitted in a BBC interview that rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were not statistically significant.
This indicates that the world has not suddenly become hotter.
Moreover, it was recently reported in the Wall Street Journal that “Mr. Jones told the BBC there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming over the past 15 years, though he considers this to be temporary.”
In the wake of the Climategate e-mails, the International Panel on Climate Change admitted that its Fourth Assessment Report, published in 2007, contained the scientifically unfounded statement that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.
These developments highlight the fact that the science being used to underpin government policy aimed at cooling the planet, or at least attempting to mitigate the effects of global warming, is much less settled than many have been led to believe.
And while “sustainable” energy sources such as wind and solar may give a temporary boost to employment in the short term, their ultimate benefits in terms of offsetting climate change are almost impossible to quantify.
The one certainty about these technologies is their high cost.
Given that jurisdictions that adopt these technologies will have higher energy costs than those which don’t, there is a strong incentive for energy intensive industries to migrate from the former to the latter, taking the associated jobs with them.
That the medium term costs of these untested technologies appear to be greater than their more uncertain benefits suggests that we should get the science right before adopting such a potentially costly energy strategy.
Note: The views expressed here are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of Daily Commercial News or Reed Construction Data.
John Clinkard has over 30 years’ experience as an economist in international, national and regional research and analysis with leading financial institutions and media outlets in Canada.
Data sources: IPCC and Dr. Phillip Jones. Chart: Reed Construction Data – CanaData.
