Common Ground...albeit for different reasons
I am terribly weary of the Global Warming debate, especially when people who have absolutely no climatological scientific background (and often NO scientific background) go on and on about how you are retarded for not believing in it or that you are retarded for believing in it. I recently read a column in which denying Global Warming (and let's be specific here - most denial is with regard to whether or not human's burning fossil fuels are the cause of global warming, NOT that global warming is not happening) was likened to denying the holocaust. Wow...a historical verifiable event compared to a hugely complex environmental ecosystem with reams and reams of difficult to interpret data...yes I see the comparison.
Fact is, most of your average Joe or Jane's on the street haven't got a single scientific piece of data in their skulls to support their opinion on the cause of Global Warming either way. And yet they will argue like rabid dogs...hope they are having fun.
The reality is: scientific consensus (whatever that is necessarily) is not like a theological decision of a Ecumenical Council. There are dissenters with solid credentials and with solid reasoning to suggest that we cannot be certain and that to spend billions of dollars and instituting massive regulations is not a very wise thing to do when we really do not have absolute conclusive proof that we are to blame for Global Warming. Science has a rich history of so-called consensus that turned out to be dead wrong. However...
There is common ground to be had here. No one likes pollution hanging over their city and even more broad, no one likes terrorism. So really, the tree-hugging hippy and the jihadist fearing militiamen have common ground here. So whether you are concerned about Al Gore's apocalyptic religious vision akin to "The late Great Planet Earth" or if you are concerned about the Jihadist neighbor whose apocalypse will bring forth the 12th Mahdi and is receiving funds from Iranian oil sales, burning less fossil fuel is a VERY GOOD thing.
So drive a hybrid or take a bus to "Save the planet!" or to "Fight Terrorism!" Whatever.
Jeez, I should run for office.
- Get link
- Other Apps
Comments
Maria from Long Island
(which is frozen under a thick layer of ice due to our turn at winter storms)
Yes, it seems we have passed our crappy weather to the Northeast...you all bundle up and stay warm!
Basically, to prove that global warming is occurring, one has to first prove that it is in fact warming and then that the single unique cause for this is human activity. You might say about the proof it takes more than a movie.
-Rick
But, [rolling up pant legs and putting on farm boots] we need to be uniters, not dividers. Uniters, not dividers.
what's that smell?
, and the idea is to change our behavior, if necessary, prior to achieving an experiment that proves to all dissenters that we have a problem. Human causes don't need to be the *single* cause. Perhaps it's a 40% cause. Or a 70% cause.
Formerly (read that very deliberately) reputable climatologists have reasons to be skeptical of the consensus.
I am on the fence on the issue...I have not seen the data. I bring up the issue of consensus NOT doing because scientists who are not apart of the consensus are being ostracized and in a very real way we are being "ruled" by a sort of scientific mullah-ship. Consensus can and has been dead wrong, a relying on a consensus is NOT good science. The scientific method cannot be sidestepped just because we cannot easily use the scientific method on a particular issue. Call me an Orthodox scientist...I'm a stickler on this point. If you do not have the data and IF that data cannot be reproduced according to the scientific method then DO NOT tell me or our legislators or our kids in school that your theory is "undeniable" "irrefutable" or that to question it is "asinine" and akin to "holocaust denial."
I would be laughed out of my career if I demanded such respect of my virological theories (no matter how logical they are) without the proper documentation etc etc etc.
There is an odd enovrionment in the sciences where so called "outsiders" are ostracized for their "unorthodoxy." It's really really really bad science and stifles what should be the upholding of good scientific method which includes debate and such. This is why publishing outside of peer reviewed journals is frowned upon: there is not interaction , no debate, no questions, no evaluation of scientific method.
All of this to say, I recognize that burning less fossil fuel has many advantageous benefits that ARE scientifically and politically verifiable right now, without debate. So everyone SHOULD be happy.
I'm a uniter, not a divider.
JamesoftheNorthwest 2008
:)
But even so, if you want to examine the politics, due diligence would require that we also mention how the Bush administration (true paragons of facts and data) has tried to censor and edit the attempts of Gov't scientists to publish data on the issue.
If you want to look at political motives, you've also got to examine the connections between big industrial and oil business and conservative politics. Corporate financial interests are NOT served by data published suggesting that their waste is causing significant environmental harm. Do you know how many law firms are currently gearing up for major class action suits on this issue?
Also - the list of 'reputable' scientist opposing global warming is shrinking, and many (tho of course not all) of those left are natural scientists - not specialists in climate change.
Note - the Intergovernmental reports on the issue are in their 4th stage of a series of reports, and as each report is published (ie, as more data is processed), there are fewer and fewer skeptics.
Search wikipedia on the issue.
Misc interesting articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6364663.stm
http://fightglobalwarming.com/page.cfm?tagID=274
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/02/15/debate_over_global_warming_is_shifting/
I am no scientist, but the data I've read seems pretty overwhelming, politics notwithstanding.
Please note that I have not denied that burning fossil fuel is arguably a cause of global warming, I merely suggest that consensus is not a replacement for the scientific method.
There IS a legitimate scientific debate to be had about the issue, but frankly politics are in the way of it happen. Patently awful science.
Even in reputable published peer-reviewed papers on climatology you will often see words such as "likely." They would not use such words unless they had to.
I realize there is a lot of solid evidence and much of it is very logical. But it is scientifically disingenuous characterize dissenters (or even folks like me who are at least willing to acknowledge that the causes of Global Warming are not FACTUALLY known) as backward ignoramuses with political or religious axes to grind.
The simple fact is that the climate has been variable in bigs ways, in historical times. To prove that this current change is solely due to human activity is a pretty tall order. So explain the Medival warming when grapes were grown in Great Britan and I will be a lot more convinced about global warming.
-Rick
2. Never called you an ignoramus amigo.
3. Politics are only in the way of the legitimate debate here in the US and perhaps Australia.
4. In countless peer-reviewed journals, there are hundreds of articles about what is happening NOW - without the caveat of 'likely' happening, but really happening.
5. The variables of historical warming are unprecendented. Dude - if you haven't read the data or dug deep, why would you assert that the causes are 'factually' unknown? The 'peer reviewed' global bodies say that warming it is 90% certain that humans are causing warming. That's a far cry from "we don't know"
Do you understand that there has been plenty of variability in the climate over history? A mere 10,000 years ago was the end of an Ice Age. Please explain why the Ice Age ended. Likewise, please explain the Medival warming. It both came and went, why?
There is a ton to my knowledge that is not explained. If you got references which explain the above, then your references to global warming become interesting. Otherwise, all you are doing is restating the current enviromental dogma.
-Rick
I wasn't writing under the assumption or onus that I was responsible for empirically proving GW. I am happy to share the sources, citations, and info that I've encountered, with the repeated caveat that I am not a scientist. It seems like we are addressing three issues - the politics, the actual science, and then the hermeneutics of how do we as a non-technical public trust scientific interpretation over an issue. I personally think it is at least reasonable for an average citizen to give validity to an issue when a significant majority of technical experts say that there is consensus around an issue, or at least to take that consensus seriously. I dont think everyone has to be a specialist in order to, as a society, come to an understanding about issues.
At any rate, I'm happy to continue the conversation, but wonder if email or the LOG may be a better venue.
Of course not, I know. But to even question the issue of human causes does tend to earn one a derogatory label amongst some.
...what is happening NOW - without the caveat of 'likely' happening, but really happening.
Right, but we can observe what is happening now, but observing the cause is where we start seeing words such as "likely"?
The variables of historical warming are unprecendented.
Do you mean what we are seeing NOW is unprecedented? I hope not, because man the North Pole ice used to be on top of us HERE. And now they have receded on a scale that Al Gore can only fantasize about.
There ARE scientists who question the data and their associated conclusions. Good scientists (or those who would obey the regime that is the sceitific community) would do well to consider their perspective. That's just good rational thinking and good science.
There are lots of reasons to reduce our use of fossil fuels...I support them all especially if it sells my Dad's engine.
:)
The easiest counter example against the preponderance of technical opinion is medicine. There are often perponderances that are dead wrong. Just remember there was a time when lobotomies were used on mental illness.
-Rick
>>yes... the rates are unprecedented, not merely the phenomenon.
you will hiss and boo and write clever 1-liner politicisms, but try watching Gore's Inconvenient Truth. You may disagree w/ some of his conclusions, but the stats he uses are not in debate.