Sen. Tom Neuville, who represents my district in the Minnesota Senate, has posted a number of blog entries indicating that he does not believe that global warming is caused by human activity. These posts mainly contain information from sources that support that view.

A letter to the Northfield News on May 26 by Bob Ewing criticized the views of Sen. Neuville on this issue. It captured my own sentiments regarding the senator’s position quite well:

The facts are there, senator, find them

To the editor:

I’m not a scientist. I studied a little science at the college level, but that was 20-plus years ago. These days, I read and even understand some science. I would be deluding myself if I thought I could properly evaluate a scientific research paper. Instead, I rely on the work and opinions of others.

Whether state Sen. Tom Neuville is or is not a scientist is of little importance. What matters is that he is an elected representative, charged with the public trust of formulating public policy. It is in this role that he is ultimately held accountable; not his scientific opinions or credentials. Whether or not he has the time and expertise to independently conduct or evaluate scientific research is his own business. Judging by what he has posted on his website regarding global climate change, it would appear that he also relies heavily on the work and opinions of others.

What has been troubling to many of us has been his choice of sources. We are puzzled, even alarmed that he has chosen to base his policy positions on the work of organizations that have, at best, questionable credibility. I will not comment here on their methods and standing within the scientific community; other readers are free to visit his website and do their own due diligence. Suffice it to say that the opinions of his sources stand in stark contrast to these entities:

NASA, the EPA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, The National Academy of Engineering, the National Institute of Research, and the National Science Academies of the US, the UK, Canada, France, Italy, Germany, Russia, Japan, Brazil and China.

As a scientist or an observer of science, Sen. Neuville is free to disagree with the positions of these organizations. Less defensible is his assertion that they don’t represent a broad scientific consensus, which is simply this:

No. 1: Fossil fuel consumption is rising.

No. 2: Greenhouse gas emissions are rising.

No. 3: CO2 levels are rising.

No. 4: Temperatures are rising.

No. 5: Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 have, to a very high degree of probability, some sort of causal relationship.

The extent and implications of these conclusions cannot be predicted with certainty at this point. What can be predicted is that as global economic growth accelerates in the developing world - 85 percent of the world’s population lives in emerging market economies - fossil fuel consumption will increase dramatically as will greenhouse gas emissions and CO2 levels. How much temperatures might rise, and what effects such a rise might have are questions that have commanded the attention of not just the environmental movement. As a matter of policy, climate change is being discussed in corporate boardrooms and even the military.

A study by the Center for Naval Analysis published earlier this year was written by 11 retired admirals and generals and discussed the implications of global warming on national security. One of its authors, retired Army Chief of Staff Gordon R. Sullivan, said: “Climate change is a national security issue. We found that climate instability will lead to instability in geopolitics and impact American military operations around the world. People are saying they want to be perfectly convinced about climate science projections. But speaking as a soldier, we never have 100 percent certainty. If you wait until you have 100 percent certainty, something bad is going to happen on the battlefield.”

Again, as a scientist or observer of science, Sen. Neuville is free to disagree with these conclusions. However as an elected official, his responsibilities to his constituents require him to make prudent decisions in the public interest, based on the best information available. Please do your duty, senator.

Bob Ewing

Northfield

This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 30th, 2007 at 5:38 am and is filed under Environment and Ecology, Minnesota, Northfield, Science.