En un par de posts anteriores (1) & (2), y en el contexto de mi columna sobre "Expansión Energética", discutí algunos aspectos relacionados con el cambio climático. Algunas adiciones
Adición No. 1: Quienes creen firmemente en el escenario infernal dibujado (con gran éxito taquillero y editorial) por Al Gore, han sido desafiados a que le pongan plata a sus pronósticos. El profesor Scott Armstrong, un experto en técnicas de pronóstico de largo plazo, y siguiendo la noble tradición de Julian Simon vs. Paul Ehrlich, ha examinado los modelos de pronóstico contenidos en el informe del IPCC y ha concluido que carecen de bases científicas. En sus palabras, y refiriéndose al informe del IPCC:
The forecasts in the Report were not the outcome of scientific procedures. In effect, they were the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics and obscured by complex writing. Research on forecasting has shown that experts’ predictions are not useful. We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts of global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.
Está tan descontento con los pronósticos, desde un punto de vista estrictamente técnico, que (sin ser un experto en el tema) apostó US$20,000 a favor del modelo naive; esto es, que en los siguntes 10 años no habrá variación en la temperatura, medida con parámetros aceptables para ambas partes. Hasta ahora, un 82% de quienes han contestado una encuesta preguntando quien ganará están con Armstrong... Yo, por mi parte, soy uno de ellos y ya voté.
Adición No. 2. Las opiniones sobre la magnitud del problema están muy divididas entre los expertos. Una cita, del Profesor R. Lindzen (Metereología, MIT) :
The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 [carbon dioxide] in the atmosphere have increased by about 30 percent over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming.
"These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming."
Otra, del Profesor Kurt Caffey (Geografía, California-Berkeley )
"It is time for remaining skeptics to look at the tear-streaked faces of refugees from New Orleans, as well as the startling map of ice shrinkage around the North Pole, and begin to plan for the future."
Adición No. 3: Este maravilloso ensayo del Profesor Freeman Dyson, (por lo demás, en uno de mis sitios preferidos en la web). Aperitivo:
When I listen to the public debates about climate change, I am impressed by the enormous gaps in our knowledge, the sparseness of our observations and the superficiality of our theories. Many of the basic processes of planetary ecology are poorly understood. They must be better understood before we can reach an accurate diagnosis of the present condition of our planet. When we are trying to take care of a planet, just as when we are taking care of a human patient, diseases must be diagnosed before they can be cured. We need to observe and measure what is going on in the biosphere, rather than relying on computer models.
