February 16, 2006
As Night Follows Day
 |
An earnest young woman comes to my door last night, about 7pm. I'm with so-and-so action group, says she, we're a state environmental &c... I'm trying to be cheerful, as it's my nature, but when she says "now, we're targeting 'global warming!'" my face fell and she saw it. "No," asks she? "I think not," replies me. She kindly and professionally took her leave, then. And I snidely added as she left: "You won't need a coat! (It was about 30 degrees.)" I wished that I had not said that -- if I could take it back, I would. She believes, I believe. We may as well respect each other. But I had to laugh when I got up this morning and saw the (predicted) three inches or so. Here's a shot of my adorable Skylark enjoying the global warming. |
Hehehe. Given a choice, I bet 99% of humanity would be for warmer weather.
Posted by: AlexC at February 16, 2006 5:18 PMAll in good fun I suppose, but you'll have to pardon me for laughing as well. Sorry guys, but there are lots of good arguments in the debate about the validity of the theory of global warming, but the "look its cold outside how can global warming be real?" just falls into the stupid category. Ditto for the how can it be bad if we all end up living in torpical splendor.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at February 16, 2006 7:03 PMAgreed that one snowstorm does not refute or confer climate change (yet a record year for hurricanes does?)
I refute global warming by citing Karl Popper's epistemology of science that things are not proven true, only proven false. As climate modeling has not matched computer modeling predictions, it should be called false and not morphed into a similar theory.
alexC's point holds as well. There are many people who would benefit from a longer growing season in cold climes (which matches the original predictions).
Posted by: jk at February 16, 2006 7:17 PMNow you are in the realm of science. I am just amazed that intelligent people who I know have had some scientific training could be so blinded by the political dogma on this issue that even your semantics are wrong. Belief is not the right word and really has no place here. The theory of global warming is a valid scientific theory in that it is currently undergoing the rigors of experimentation and mathematical analysis. You can choose to accept that the current evidence is sufficient to support the theory or claim that it is not. (or even that sufficient contrary evidence exists) You do not believe or disbelieve, it is not a tenet of faith, it predicts outcomes and can be tested.
The term "global warming" is based on predictions of an average increase in the temperature of the earth by a few degrees per century. Thus expecting it to suddenly be warmer outside misses the point. So too do you miss that all important word "average". The predictions are for lower low temps as well as higher highs (and the resultant increase in the intensity of weather patterns) that compute to a slight increase in yearly average temperatures. Thus even if global warming turns out to be valid your comment about not needing a coat in winter would be wrong.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at February 16, 2006 8:00 PMThe original global warming theory included very specific suggestions, based on computer modeling, of when and where the changes would manifest. The actual data did not match the model or predictions, but since it seemed to indicate warming (at the surface but not satellite later, again contra predictions) they proceeded undeterred.
We should have a more serious airing. You are throwing my jokes and flippant comments back at me. I understand averages, and I know the young lady will still need a coat.
Nor do I say that global warming does not exist or even that it is not possibly man made. My concern is that people are rushing to make policy decisions on unproven theories.
Lastly, I can certainly suspect that a theory is false. I cannot claim it is false until disproved, perhaps, but scientists have opinions. My opinion is that any human contribution to climate change is very small.
Posted by: jk at February 17, 2006 12:31 PMAnd the opinion of a scientist who receives government funded research grants to study climate change will invariably be, "further study is required." (Let's see ANYBODY disagree with THAT!)
I am actually impressed that Silence is arguing from the basis of objective reality. The earth IS actually warming, on the average, or it is NOT. And it IS or is NOT related to human activity, and IS or is NOT subject to alteration by human economic policy. These observations are absolutely correct. But the evidence, my good man, is not so cut and dry. The "evidence" is collected, processed, and presented by humans. If these humans were true scientists (objective, consistent and dispassionate) and if they were in near universal agreement that their theory is consistent with reality it would be far more difficult for partisans to be "blinded by poliitical dogma" and dispute the "science." Conversely, since there are virtually as many respected scientists who dispute the theory as who swear by it, we have our current state of polarization.
Oh, and if I remember correctly, we're talking about changes in the temperature of the earth by a few TENTHS of a degree per century.
Posted by: johngalt at February 17, 2006 7:58 PMMy brother-in-law treats me to a New England joke:
Where'd all those rocks come from? The glaciers brought 'em.
Where are the glaciers? Gone to get more rocks!
Posted by: jk at February 19, 2006 7:56 PMYes johngalt, I am arguing from an objectivist point of view. (you have taught me well Obi-Wan) Seriously I just wanted to make the point that global warming theory is not junk science. It is an incomplete theory and could very well be proven wrong, but it is a valid theory that can be tested. I too am skeptical but I do believe there is enough evidence not to dismiss it out of hand. Yes JK I realize you were being flip but with so many good points to stand upon to be critical of global warming the weather jokes just seem silly.
Now johngalt I will disagree with you a bit on the motivation for further study. I see top level scientific researchers motivated more by ego than money. Those folks want to make the big discovery or write the earth shattering analysis and this dictates that they be correct. I do not see the motivation as simply following the research grants. I have not looked at the studies in many months so I will have to do some more research myself, but I would love to see the statistics that show the scientific community nearly equally divided on this issue. I think though that most of the competing claims here are not comparing the same things. There seem to be two facts that garner nearly 95% agreement, that data exists to show that the earth has warmed more in the last 100 years than it has in any such period for the last 10,000, and that there appears to be a correlation between this rise and the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Beyond that is where the real discussion begins, that correlation is not a proven cause and effect and the modeling is incomplete to be able to extrapolate the current trend. The rush to enact policy may be way ahead of the science, but given the potentially catastrophic effects I personally would appreciate further study.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at February 20, 2006 11:45 AM | What do you think? [8]