Skip to comments.'Just-in-Case': How to Think About Uncertainty and Global Warming
Posted on 02/14/2007 7:33:25 AM PST by jonno
"Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future." -- Ellen Goodman
"Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses. This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians." -- Czech President Vaclav Klaus
Pundits, politicians, and the public have a hard time coming to grips with uncertainty. This makes the atmosphere for debating global warming policy especially foul, because the key issues with global warming are the uncertainties involved. Those who would try to reduce the issue of global warming to a yes-or-no question ("do you believe or do you deny?") are not scientists.
Real scientists understand uncertainty. Real science deals with uncertainty through relentless, skeptical inquiry. Real science resolves arguments not with consensus, but with data.
My understanding of global warming is influenced by my background in applied statistics and economics. There certainly are scientists who have spent more time than I have analyzing the meteorological data. However, before you call me a "hack," make sure that you are capable ...
(Excerpt) Read more at tcsdaily.com ...
Nope---even THAT ain't so. The graphs of CO2 increase that I've seen don't bear any resemblance to an exponential curve.
One reason I love FR - a great knowledge pool (coupled with spirited debate of said knowledge).
The ideal approach would be a "just-in-case" climate-change mitigation plan. If global warming stays at or under current baseline projections, we probably would do best to simply just adapt. However, if global warming accelerates, we would want to take strong steps to counteract it.
I'm of a similar mind, although to me, the best "just in case" thing to do requires decades of construction, that is, a massive increase in the number of Nuclear Powerplants. I say we start now, hedging our bets.
This means that atmospheric CO2 on earth causes sunspots/solar activity!
Thanks - I'm familiar with the data.
I should have made a disclaimer as to a few of his "assertions".
It was really the overall tenor of the piece that I found worthy...
Depends on your selected time scale:
True. And I was referring to the actual CO2 measurement data (Mauna Loa), not the combined curve of ice-core plus Mauna Loa, which does look exponential.
Thank you, I had that copied and was just about to post when I saw yours.
All the graphs depict a linear increase over time that looks almost too good to be true, like watching a bucket fill from a regulated tap.
Not to mention the scale of your y-axis, which is carefully chosen in all of your examples to exaggerate any trends.
I dare you to show a graph with zero at the y-origin, but then that wouldn't show your hysterical trend, would it?
As one might expect comparing inferred data to measured data.
The author still has us operating from a believer's perspective.
Oh, goody, just what I need, someone in the MSM telling me how to think about an issue.
Before you flame me, I don't care if he is conservative or pegs the political meter at 3X the liberalism of Hillary. The MSM's job (conservative AND liberal, alike) is not to tell anyone how to think, but to report on facts and allow the reader to determine their own conclusion.
A 1 degree over the last 100 years of warming has witnessed the following:
A doubling of life expectency world wide.
A end of famine not related to political revolution.
The near extinction of Slavery.
A massive decrease in infant mortality.
An increase in forest covered acreage in North America.
The birth of the environmental movement.
The birth of dozens of new democracy's.
Man walking on the moon.
Should I go on? None of these quality of life benchmarks were improving during the little ice age, also known as the Dark Ages. The last cooling Trend from 1940 to 1970 brought us WWII and the Carter Administration...
I say bring on another 1 Degree over another 100 years!
The problem is that so many lack any tools relating to critical thinking, logic, etc (which can almost wholly be laid at the feet of our dismal public education system).
So, what then is the solution? IMO - training the masses to think (or re-think) critically, and not simply accept the so-called conventional wisdom.
Which I think was one of the points of this article.
IMO, theres little point in arguing over the shape of the CO2 curve its obvious that there has been a recent increase in the level of atmospheric CO2 and a recent increase in the rate of change, and the reasons are well established, in this regard we are quibbling over details.
The meaningful discussion is What are the implications of this change.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.