World Cooled Over The Last Decade; Debate Concerning What It Means

Republican Punk is not a site to debate complex science (or pseudoscience, for that matter), so this post is not meant to argue over whether the significant fall in temperature since 1997, which was an El Nino year and thus naturally hotter, means that global warming is a hoax. Instead, we would like to point out a couple of significant lines from the article concerning this fall in temperature and attempts to rebuff the ensuing sceptics:

A decade of level or slightly lower temperatures is only a temporary dip to be expected as a result of natural, short-term variations in the enormously complex climate system, they say.

"Natural variability can account for the slowing of the global mean temperature rise we have seen."

"These short term fluctuations are statistically insignificant (and) entirely due to natural internal variability," Easterling said in an essay published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters in April. "It's easy to 'cherry pick' a period to reinforce a point of view."

The climate system is enormously complex, and while man is very likely affecting the temperature in some way, it is very unlikely that any measure we take as humans could unravel these effects. To believe otherwise is incredible hubris. Thus, while Republican Punk supports a carbon tax to fix the market failure created by the lack of a carbon price, it needs to be done in such a way that it doesn't destroy the economy, because we aren't stopping global warming, whether it was man-made or not. It is sad, but true, and there is no reason to mitigate the problems we fact by ignoring cost-benefit.

Also, liberals need to follow their own advice when it comes to not cherry-picking science. Accept that there is a debate. There is a majority viewpoint and a minority viewpoint, but it only takes one scientist to be right and these people aren't insane. There are arguments to be made on both sides, and policy makers are right to pay attention to both. While men like James Inhofe are wrong to ignore climate science showing carbon-caused warming, people like Barbara Boxer and Henry Waxman are just as wrong to ignore contrarian science and refuse to consider cost-benefit analysis when writing bills.

Source: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/74019.html