The climate summit in Copenhagen is fast approaching and the global warming debate is rising to a high pitch. As usual in such situations we are being told that unless we take drastic measures now disaster will follow in short order, and then it will be too late.

Now our purpose here is not to dismiss the climate change issue, which is a serious one, but to question the rush to take action, any action. While the accumulation of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere certainly has an impact, the global warming hypothesis is still just that: a hypothesis.

No one has proved global warming in terms of demonstrating that if A (greenhouse gas accumulation) occurs to such and such a degree, then B (a specified rise in global temperature) will take place within a given time span. Such proof of causality is the hallmark of any accepted scientific theory. Until it can be done, global warming remains a working hypothesis, though a plausible one.

The recent controversy over hacked e-mails supports the above. The fact that a key group of scientists feel a need to silence opponents and manipulate data clearly shows that the politics of the issue have gotten ahead of the state of scientific knowledge; in other words, that critical components of the greenhouse gas theory are still in doubt.

Besides, there are other plays in town.

Greenhouse gas accumulation is only one of several factors acting on the climate. Two others at least merit special attention.

Of these, orbital variations are the best documented. Such variations in the earth’s orbit and axis inclination have been correlated with ice ages, and according to one theory at least the earth is due for a significant cooling period, possibly a new ice age.

The other variable is the sunspot cycle. Normally sunspots wax and wane over an 11-year cycle, but at times, for reasons we do not know, the cycle weakens or even shuts down. The last such episode, which lasted from 1645 to 1715, is known as the Maunder Minimum or the Little Ice Age.

This should not overly concern us, except that the last solar cycle had an unusually long tail, much longer than normal. The sunspot count has been near zero for a couple of years. There is some indication that the cycle is restarting, but the trend will not be clear for two or three years.  Current projections for the next cycle make it the weakest in nearly a century.

Sunspots generate solar storms, sending charged particles towards the earth. These warm the atmosphere when they hit. In the absence of solar storms our atmosphere cools and contracts. If the cycle weakens over the coming years, or decades, the atmosphere will tend to cool.

Objective research on all the above, as well as other factors affecting global climate, is urgently needed. The funds spent on such research will be far less than the cost of various schemes aimed at reducing greenhouse gas accumulation, commonly known under the designation Cap and Trade.

The Cap part is a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, aimed at limiting the use of fossil fuels. Since roughly 90% of our energy comes from this source, it amounts to a tax on energy. Such a tax will be highly regressive, hitting the lower-income part of the population the hardest.

The Trade components allows energy producers to buy and sell carbon emission permits, which amounts to a new public subsidy for the financial sector, through which such transactions will be performed. In summary, the scheme will result in a transfer of wealth from the poor to the already rich.

This is objectionable to begin with, but there is another fundamental reason why the implementation of such schemes should be postponed.

As outlined above, a number of separate factors influence climate, and we know little concerning their respective impacts and their interactions. To date the climate debate has focused almost exclusively on greenhouse gas emissions, without regard to how this factor fits in the wider scheme of things. What if we implement a burdensome cap and trade program only to find out, a few years down the line, that it was unnecessary or even counterproductive?

A more prudent and effective approach would be to abandon the current growth-by-any-means paradigm in favor of a national program aimed at energy efficiency and the long-term development of a sustainable energy supply. This would reduce carbon emissions by a much larger amount the current tax-based schemes.

It would also be a boost for economic activity, domestic investment and technological innovation, all of which are urgently needed.

This entry was posted on Sunday, November 29th, 2009 at 8:30 pm and is filed under Planet Earth. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.