The subject of global warming (or climate change?) came up for me recently and I had to admit my doubt in anthropogenic causation. That's a really big word that means man made (And it's fun to say! Give it go!). In fact, after the Climategate debacle I had the opportunity to right about it on The Isle of Mulling in a post entitled, Michael Critchon was Right. And like many skeptics, I have to admit that my earlier position was much more in line with the uber conservatives in denying every contention of those radical, left wing environmentalists and their desire to take away my freedom to own an SUV (although, I've actually never owned one). That was several years ago and I've moderated my views, manly because of resources like the BBC's Earth: The Climate Wars (thanks for the tip coolname_123) and the preponderance of data pointing to the fact that the Earth has warmed up in the last hundred years. Even staunch skeptics will grant that concession now. And a circumstantial case for anthropogenic causation isn't far fetched in my mind, but I still have some reservations. Let me try to explain my reasoning.
Not being a scientist and not well versed in scientific jargon, I can only say that scientists stand behind the battlements of their position and fight hard to win public opinion on the issue. I'm aware there is consensus for the acceptance of global warming/climate change, but I can't imagine science being conducted by consensus, only by truth, so consensus has no sway with me. I do find the the hyperbole from some of the more extreme elements of the global warming movement to be telling, though. When a parade of celebrities offer environmental doomsday scenarios that eventually come to naught, or I see politicians decrying the evils of those who oppose their environmental concerns, I have to wonder what motivates the movement? Is it true concern for mother Earth, or is there a more personal motivator? We saw with the Climategate e-mail release that global warming proponents will obfuscate, change, hide, and pretty much lie about data that doesn't support their contentions. Politicians like Al Gore have bet their careers and credibility (not to mention Oscars) on the truth of anthropogenic global warming. In these cases it's not always scientific data they use to persuade, it's name calling and condescension. Does that make for a good argument? Is there a clear enough scientific case made to lead so many people typically motivated by self aggrandizement to become so concerned for Earth?
Well, maybe. I think that when you mix politics in with your science you have to scrutinize the motivation and the results. I'm really willing to be convinced that my carbon footprint is dangerous to my and your future progeny. But, I just can't help but to be skeptical when so many over-the-top statements are made in the effort to scare us into their corner. I think there is room for some healthy doubt here. Now tell me, am I wrong here? Have I misread the global warming/climate change movement? And which one is it, global warming or climate change? I gotta know.
Sure, and next you'll be telling us that women who dress immodestly don't cause earthquakes.
ReplyDeleteCrap, I literally laughed out loud and potentially woke the ladies! There goes my solitude.
ReplyDeleteI tend to fall on the side of 'Climate Change' (as opposed to global warming, personal preference). However, I do have reservations. Scientifically it makes sense... and there is certainly evidence of melting polar ice caps. But doesn't the earth go through cooling/warming cycles anyway? Thus the whole 'ice age' thing that gave us such a cute movie. But then there's the whole scientific evidence thing again. Help! I'm stuck in a circle!
ReplyDeleteDiane, you might be surprised to know that as part of an ice cap melts, another part grows! As the polar bear population diminishes in one area, it flourishes and increases in another. There's point and counter-point to support both sides of the issue. I believe climate change advocates make a good case, but so do their opponents. We certainly can deduce from the preponderance of studies that there is warming and we can understand the case made for the possibility of man being a contributing factor, but like I said, consensus ain't science and we can't settle an issue based on majority vote. And I'm with you, it's a circular track for us laymen trying to sort through mound of science and come to a conclusion. Welcome to the circle!
ReplyDeleteI have similar thoughts, I have read bits for and against but tend to think that the planet cycles and if we bother it too much it will kick us off. Not great for the human race but good for Earth.
ReplyDeleteYes, Mrs. M, I believe you share wisdom. It's anecdotal, but most people I talk to about this subject are neither hardcore for nor against it, but are more skeptical. I'm hoping this blog's principle writers chime in and prove me wrong, but until then...
ReplyDelete