Home > Uncategorized > Climate Change: where Robert Bryce and I part ways

Climate Change: where Robert Bryce and I part ways

As I said last week, I’m a fan of Robert Bryce’s book Power Hungry. His points are clearly stated, largely supported by data and quantitative analysis, and his style is very readable. But, being a fan doesn’t mean I agree with all of the statements he makes in his book – climate change being the perfect example. Here is a section of his pages on why he’s not a climate change believer:

My skepticism about the conventional wisdom on global warming arises from two main points. First, I adhere to one of the oldest maxims in science: Correlation does not prove causation. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere may be increasing, but that does not necessarily prove that the carbon dioxide is causing any warming that may be occurring.

Power Hungry ~pg. 150

I am glad that Bryce is a skeptical individual – the results of this skepticism resulted in a very good book full of quantitative analysis on subjects that have largely become qualitative debates, focused on sound bites and voter approval. I like that he questions the validity of global climate change accelerated by human actions – the best beliefs are those acquired after a large amount of questioning, soul-searching, and data crunching.

But, while I agree that “correlation does not prove causation” I find that this section of Bryce’s book lacks the quantitative analysis and scientific approach that most of the other pages include. This feeling is reinforced when Bryce states that:

For me, in many ways, the science [of climate change] no longer matters because discussions about the science have become so vituperative and politicized.

Power Hungry ~pg. 150

Dismissing a concept because the arguments surrounding them have become intense, negative, and political is a poor choice. Many important issues are highly contested and debated – exiting the conversation and closing your mind to the reality of climate change because the debate has gotten a bit hairy… I just don’t support that choice at all. Further, I feel that the statement “the science no longer matters” flies in the face of what this book is trying to do – dispute myths and support truths through quantitative analysis (the science).

That being said, Bryce’s statements regarding the difficulty of substituting enough hydrocarbons to decrease U.S. carbon emissions by 80% by 2050 are nicely discussed.

There is no doubt that, should the U.S. choose to aggressively tackle its carbon emissions “problem”, replacing hydrocarbons will not be easy.

But, difficulty is not a good justification for inaction.

  1. July 1, 2010 at 10:58 pm

    Also, lack of certainty is not a good justification for inaction.
    Just ask any insurance salesman.
    Smart Policy = Risk Management

    You have convinced me to read the book, though.

  2. July 2, 2010 at 1:11 pm

    Agreed. Thanks for the comment, Chad.
    It’s a good book – hope you enjoy reading it too.
    I’m about to start his book “Cronies” – all about Texas energy.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: