Global warming reversals?

[RedjackRyan]

For Riki tiki tavi of the beautiful northwest areas, whose nickname I cannot for the life of me spell 12 seconds after i've looked it up in the memberlist! Hope you don't mind me calling you Riki Tiki Tavi... that i can spell. Rkitko there, cut and paste works well. <sigh> Its not been a good day for the I.T. challenged.

Found this article today and wanted to know your thoughts.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=

[Rkitko]

Haha, that's ok. Call me whatever you want! But I'll make it simple for ya ;) R - Kitko, first letter of my first name and my last name. Think "kitkat" and you're there. (If there's anything we can all relate to on this board, it's food.) Alternatively, call me Ryan. :)

Ok, so I read through it. I have several thoughts. First, this comes from Sen. Inhofe's blog. Regardless of who posted it on the blog, I can't just trust that there's no political motive or gerryrigging of the statements to make it appear like these scientists agree with Sen. Inhofe. I mean, this man even called Jerry Falwell a "tremendous American leader." I digress.

People in the general public and politicians that don't understand the ins and outs of scientific debate often see someone's statement questioning the status quo as a flip-flop, as a disagreement with the facts. It's not exactly so cut and dry. I welcome these comments and am interested in what they have to say and I'd like to do some reading beyond this, but unfortunately that blog left little room for more investigation with no links to academic papers or citations on the subjects which they were talking about.

But there seems to be something amiss. Take the first name, for example. From the French geologists comments out of context, it would seem that what the article says--that he's converted from a manmade climate change believer to a climate skeptic--is true. If you click on his name, you get taken to an article that gives you a very different perspective. Instead of converting to a climate skeptic, it would seem this scientist is really just concerned (and a bit outraged) by the "doom and gloom" types. He disagree with predictions, and perhaps the cause, noting that "Kilimanjaro is not losing snow due to global warming, but to local land use and precipitation changes." Many would agree that land use changes are contributing to global warming, reducing carbon sinks and allowing more carbon to escape into the atmosphere. And what has caused the precipitation changes? A lot of scientists will tell you that changes in atmospheric temperatures caused by this warming trend is to blame (wetter places get wetter and arid places get more arid).

In general, I think there's a lot more going on behind these simple remarks that what Inhofe wants you to think.

I'm glad there's some disagreement. Scientific inquiry wouldn't be as rigorous, productive, and progressive as it is without scholarly disagreement. But dressing up comments like that is a bit dishonest without displaying the entire truth behind it, which takes more time and energy than the average attention span.

I suppose I could boil this all down to a single statement: Regardless of what the cause is, it's clear our actions aren't helping and may be detrimental. Consumption is out of control. I prefer to act on the premise of the precautionary principle and reduce our carbon emissions until we really understand what's going on. What's the harm in reducing pollution?

Anyway, I'd have to read more, but I stand by my opinion: the amount of carbon dioxide we've extracted from the layers of rock beneath the surface and have pumped into the atmosphere has done nothing good for our planet, so we need to cut it out and mitigate the effects it's had.

Hmmm, enough thoughts for today? Thanks for the thought-provoking link! :)

[DaveM]

I rather wish it was possible to judge the objectivity of a scientist by objective means. At present, and certainly on this subject, it is virtually impossible to determine who has done more thorough and unbiased science. Rather, one can determine the politics of the person publicizing those results and who signs their paychecks.

"Debate" over global warming and related ecological concerns has assumed the posture of religion far more than science. As such, I truly do not know who to believe.

That said, to paraphrase an essay written during the 1970s, we are conducting a vast experiment with the earth's atmosphere for which only limited data is available, no control can be put into place, and the results of which are utterly unknown. That being the case, it does seem wise to err on the side of caution. Even if all the crap being dumped into the air does not affect climate, it's going to have some effect, somewhere. And we need that stuff to breathe.

Whatever is or is not done about carbon emissions, etc., a fair number of people are not going to like it. However, opinion polls are not science.

[RedjackRyan]

I need to go over the entire thing a few more times myself, but i did get the same feel you did .. things were being taken somewhat out of context. I have no idea who most of the folks mentioned are, so no idea if any of them are credible or not and Inhofe is suspect as well. I did think you'd find it interesting reading, and i'm glad you did.

I'll likely stick to Ryan, as that I can spell :D NewScientist.com is running this article as well, http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462 I haven't had a chance to read most of the links yet however.


Dave, I'd have to agree with you also.. its far past the debate stage and well into the religion stage for a lot of those involved. Though i'm not convinced of the impending clouds of doom trumpeted by the Global Warming crowd, even I as an unabashed charcoal user have to concede that a clean enviornment is better for everyone. Though anyone trying to take my charcoal away had better bring backup. :D