I have recently seen comments by EvC members discussing Global Warming Theory (GW) as if it is some well established scientific theory, or perhaps even a fact. Some have also in the past championed Kyoto, lambasting people unwilling to sign it. It appears that to question or even doubt GW is a sign of great ignorance in the face of great evidence, including that we have measures that are likely to produce positive results.
I also recently read Michael Crichton's latest novel
State of Fear, which slams GW and concepts of managing the climate. In addition to pure fiction, Crichton did a pretty solid job of presenting actual data, and I do mean research data on that topic which was contradictory to GW. Furthermore it was not just from oil companies and such, but from scientists who are generally supportive of GW, or want more GW research.
This has put me in the mood to find out why people, on either side, feel confident in their position. What evidence have they used besides generalized media hype, to come to their position.
Let's say I am currently an agnostic on this subject. When I was in geology, I was specifically working with/studying under a professor of paleo/geoclimatology. He was in no way an industrial plant, and quite environmental minded. Yet he was quite skeptical of GW. He did not see anything in the data to support the very specific conclusions that GW entails. And I have to say, at the time, and have not since seen anything to support it. I admittedly may have missed some stuff, but Crichton's arguments appeared to align with what I had seen before.
Here are the issues which need to be shown...
1) That the Global Average Temperature is in fact rising.
2) Given that temps have risen and fallen over earth's history beyond what we have so far experienced, that the rise is uncharacteristic of previous fluctuations (perhaps faster).
3) That accumulation of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases has occured in the atmosphere, and coincided accurately with the rise in temp.
4) That human mechanical/industrial emissions are the source of that rise in greenhouse gases.
5) Based on all of the above, what is the modelled effects of this change on the climate and environment, and what assures these models' accuracy?
6) Sort of optional, is that the model of greenhouse heat trapping is what is responsible for the global rise in temp. After all industry will result in some increase of carbon dioxide and increased industry (which we've had) will thus create an increase in that increase. Just because there is a rise in temp during that increase in gases, does not mean the greenhouse effect is the reason.
7) Extra credit, show what scientific models indicate that Kyoto would be effective at reversing or eliminating the greenhouse "threat".
I will leave you all with something that Crichton mentioned, and I had forgotten. Before all of this GW stuff, there was a time when people were discussing how we were entering the next Ice Age and somehow contributing to that. For those not old enough to remember, not only was that a theory but freak weather occurences of extreme winters were used of evidence for this trend at the time, just as things like Katrina are used to justify GW now.
From threatened Ice Age to threatened Warming all within a period of twenty years. The Ice Age theory ended up being a fad, will GW suffer the same fate? Please provide some excellent evidence in either direction.
(AbE: My thoughts on placement are Is it Science, or Coffee House)
This message has been edited by holmes, 09-12-2005 02:59 PM
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2