CLIMATE CHANGE: what does it mean?

Day 1 - I Had a Dream

The characters in this seven-day dialogue are described in the first chapter. Please read it first to get a better appreciation of what they're saying.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chaud: Good morning Froid. I couldn't wait to tell you about this strange dream I had last night.

Froid: I'm all ears.

Chaud: There was an immense pasture with thousands of cows grazing, but the grass turned from green to yellow and then to brown, and as the colour changed, they slowly shrivelled to just skin and bones. They looked so ghostly I was beginning to shiver. That's when I woke up with a cold sweat.

Froid: I bet you there must have been at least ten thousand of them!

Chaud: There were easily that many, but what are you getting at?

Froid: Don't you see it? After 10,000 years of global warming, we're headed towards another ice age. I'm sure you remember the biblical story of the seven fat cows morphing into seven lean cows, which Joseph interpreted as seven good years followed by seven bad ones.

Chaud: Yes. Of course I remember it, but how do you jump to the conclusion that we are going to have another ice age?

Froid: Isn't it clear? The last ice age ended 10,000 years ago, so now ends the warm period. How else could you interpret it?

Chaud: My interpretation is that the grass dried up because of the coming global warming, which is going to turn agricultural land into desert and the population of the earth is going to shrink significantly. We are going to have ghost towns and cities all over the world. I am sure of it.

Froid: How can you be so sure?

Chaud: Because it's my dream. I saw it with my own eyes!

Froid: Did you see ghostly cows or towns? Make up your mind!

Chaud: I told you what I saw. Stop mocking me!

*******************

If I told you that the above dream is the basis for the climate change debate, you would thing I'm nuts. That's why I chose them to do it for me. But the actual situation is not too different. There is plenty of information that, just like the dream, can be interpreted either way. These data come from many different sources but can be accessed through the Intergovernmental Working Group on Climate Change and the NASA website on global warming. There are plenty of good data and their veracity is undisputed. It's only when we try interpreting them and making model predictions far into the future that the fun starts. The undeniable truth is that nobody knows how the future is going to unfold.

But rather than me telling you all about it, I will let Froid and Chaud tell you the story. Sit back and enjoy it!

*******************

Froid: Someone is a little sensitive this morning! The problem with your dream is the same problem we have with the climate change data that's available. It can be interpreted differently. You look at the graph of recent world surface temperatures and you see a straight line to the sky. I look at it and I see that during the last fifteen or so years the temperature rise has moderated. How do you tell me that global temperatures are going to keep rising at ever increasing speed?

Chaud: There are many scientists who know much more about this subject than you and I put together who say so. They have developed sophisticated models of the earth's biosphere, and those models are telling them that's what's going to happen!

Froid: And if those same scientists are going to tell you that next week, or a year from now, we're going to be hit by a tornado that will destroy our houses, you're going to believe them?

Chaud: Of course not!

Froid: Why not?

Chaud: Because they have no basis for making such predictions!

Froid: And those flimsy models they use to predict global temperatures one hundred years from now have such a good basis that you believe them?

Chaud: There are many models, and all of them are telling us the same thing: we have a serious global warming problem staring us in the face. That's a good enough for me.

Froid: Unfortunately, all of them have the same limitations, so it doesn't matter how many of them there are. Have you tried to understand how they work?

Chaud: Why should I? I'm not a technical person. There are so many brilliant scientific minds working on them throughout the world, who am I to question them?

Froid: For one, you are a thinking human being. You have the right to question their predictions, and also their motives. If a team of brilliant medical doctors examined you and said that you're going to be a very sick man, unless you buy their life-saving medication, at very high cost, would you do it?

Chaud: I would tell them were to go, in no uncertain terms.

Froid: Why? Are they not medical professionals who have taken the Hippocratic oath not to cause harm? Why would you not believe them?

Chaud: Are you nuts? Do you know how many unnecessary medical procedures are performed in hospitals throughout the country every year?

Froid: I believe it's more than half. But tell me, why do you believe one group of professionals and not the other?

Chaud: Isn't it obvious? One group is motivated by profit and the other is not!

Froid: Ha ha ha! You're more naïve than I thought. While I believe that the scientists working on climate change have irreproachable ethics, you need to keep in mind that they work for government agencies, subject to political pressure. I have been there, and I can tell you that, on occasion, published reports bear little resemblance to those written by the original author. There are many levels of review, and the higher up the report goes the more political and less scientific it becomes.

Chaud: That may be true, but what does it have to do with the Intergovernmental Working Group reports?

Froid: Have you ever read one?

Chaud: No. But I have read summaries and excerpts reported in the media. Have you?

Froid: We wouldn't be having this discussion if I hadn't read them. If I relied on the media, as you do, we would both be singing the same tune. There is no debate in the media on this issue. There is only one viewpoint. Not a healthy situation, wouldn't you agree?

Chaud: So, what have you discovered from the reports that is inconsistent with the media messages?

Froid: A lot! Firstly, the report summaries, written for the policymakers, gloss over many of the shortcomings and uncertainties of the climate change models. One is given the impression that they are perfect in their predictions, notwithstanding the fact that there are large variations among them. Secondly, they don't talk about the reservations that the scientists express about their own models. They are the first to admit that the models are far from perfect. Thirdly, independent reviewers consistently point out the models' inabilities for making reliable long-term predictions. It's an inconvenient truth that is left out of the executive summaries that are then further summarized for public consumption. So politicians, policymakers, media reporters, and public are given the impression that you can take model predictions straight to the bank as collateral against huge loans.

Chaud: You make it sound like there is a conspiracy to keep the truth from getting out.

Froid: Far from it! There is no conspiracy. It's just the way things work. Governments have always been sensitive about what is released to the public. Nowadays, they are paranoid about it!