We don't dump enough CO2 into the atmosphere to make a difference either. Contribution of mankind to the total greenhouse gas balance is 0.26%. Thanks, I think. I'm still not sure I understand anymore than I did before. I understand the basic physics, to a first order, it's the conclusions that are difficult understand. People have spent their whole lives studying climatology and atmospheric physics and are not sure what conclusions to reach.
The non-physical problem is that people with an agenda will trumpet conclusions on one side or the other of the argument. This is an intellectually dishonest and tendentious approach and is contrary to the scientific approach. Personal bias can creep in and color the results. It is difficult for anyone to accept facts contrary to cherished beliefs. The "scientific" approach is intended to remove personal bias from observations and conclusions.
Global warming is too inviting an opportunity for some people, -neoluddites, power mad politicians, tenured communists, you get the drift - not to seize on to promote their agendas. Few of them even understand the basic physics "to a first order". They see this "docrine" as a holy writ, they rehearse its catechism and become more Catholic than the Pope, without only vaguest idea of what they are talking about. Celebrity poseurs in the media and public life fall in line in legions. (At one time - prior to Ptolemy and long before Columbus - "everyone" knew the Earth was flat. Few in the media today can cite any direct evidence for believing that the Earth is round, other than photographs from space. How can one take them seriously when they talk about global warming.)
The danger is, that in recognizing the shallowness of the proponents, we fall into the same trap. The facts are elusive, conclusions tenative. I suggest keeping an open mind. Just because Jane Fonda believes something to be true is not scientific proof of its falsity. Just generally a strong inference.
The facts are elusive, conclusions tenative.
Then I would suggest pinning our economy on such conclusions(e.g. Kyoto or similar accords) is not the smartest thing in the world to do.
The conclusions of the global warming folks are not based on measurement or predictive capacity of science but rather incomplete and imprecise modeling based on clearly false premises rooted in a invalid assumption of an inverted cause and effect relationship.
I suggest keeping an open mind.
I will continue to go along with scientific fact based in measurement as opposed to the modeled "storylines" of the IPCC:
Global Warming Score Card
- In a recent issue of Climatic Change (vol. 37, p. 390), Curt Covey and Martin I. Hoffert make the following comments: "Rather, the test should be whether a theory is false. As Sir Karl Raimund Popper, philosopher of science and developer of the doctrine of falsibility, put it. 'our belief in any particular natural law cannot have a safer basis than our unsuccessful critical attempts to refute it' (Popper, 1979). So far, the climate models used by the IPCC have passed this falsibility test."
Just because Jane Fonda believes something to be true is not scientific proof of its falsity.
Nor is it an indication of validity, OTOH these folks have a substantive weight to their "opinions":
Petition Project: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm
During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.
Specifically declaring:
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."
Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.
Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.
Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields.
