My reading last night on the climate change controversy was very enlightening. Here's a basic summary, along with a personal preface.
In 1998 (the hottest year on record), I was all too aware of the hotter weather, as well as the change in weather patterns from, say, 50 years ago, when it was considerably cooler (according to older friend's recollections). We were living in Highlands, and it was supposed to be cooler up there in the summer (4,000 ft altitutude) such that you didn't need air conditioning. But clearely, we most definitely were uncomfortable in our unairconditioned home, with regular temperatures in the mid-80s.
I had heard of the theory of global warming but really didn't understand it (I kept confusing it with the ozone layer issue). So I got a book or two on the subject of global warming (one by Stephen Schneider, I remember), and when I was done, I literally couldn't sleep for three nights, I was so scared by the predictions of a warming world.
I became a confirmed global warming proponent--so to speak--and have been quite rigorous in my attempts to cut down on the use of fossil fuels and electricity (made largely by coal). Also, I have been distinctly distainful of many of the global warming skeptics, who seemed to me to be nothing but shills for the fossil fuel industry and free-market ideology (many of them are).
This has been my state of mind for the last decade or so. Over that time, I've also found libertarian thinking, as found on websites such as The Daily Reckoning and Lew Rockwell.com, to be helpful on such issues as the economy and war. But I've always found their skepticism about global warming to be very irritating.
So now comes this so-called 'climategate' scandal. The emails and documents of a number of leading global warming scientists, such as Phil Jones and Mike Manning, have been stolen and released online by some unknown hacker. And they have generated a firestorm, because they point to a number of quite unsavory actions on the part of their writers, such as trying to destroy the reputation of global warming skeptics, ignoring data which doesn't fit into their models, and harrassing peer-review journals and their editors to keep them from publishing articles that are critical of global warming.
All this has led me to look into some the arguments of the global warming skeptics, and this is what I found.
The actual global temperatures for the last five-ten years or so have been level or in a downward trend, which doesn't fit into the leading global warming models. As a result, global warming advocates have downplayed or ignored the recent data. All this is indisputable and troublesome.
From what I read last night, the ranks of global warming skeptics is growing among scientists. I used to think that it was only cranks, eccentrics and fossil-fuel industry shills who were skeptics. But now it seems that there is a growing number of reputable and truly objective skeptics.
The single most popular theory among skeptics is that the leading driver of global weather and temperature is not atmospheric CO2 but the sun and its variability (such as sunspot activity, magnetic field variation, and orbital changes). This would better account for the changes over time in the earth's climate from ice ages to so-called interglacials.
The sun seems to have gone into a 'quiet period' or 'sleep' over the last number of years, which may well account for the recent cooling of the atmosphere. If this is so, then alarms over CO2 levels may well be unjustified, especially if we are entering a larger cooling period, akin to the little Ice Age which affected the world from about 1300 AD to 1800 AD. In fact, according to these theorists, more CO2 could help to ameliorate the negative effects on agriculture from such a cooling.
Anyway, that's what I found last night. I certainly haven't made up my mind about any of it. Two websites which represent a more skeptical point of view, but also seem quite intelligent and scientific (and not ideological) are The Resilient Earth and Watts Up With That.
I've always said that I would love it if skeptics would prove me and the global warming theory wrong. I still feel that way, because the threat of global warming has been a royal pain in the butt and a source of great anxiety. But I remain skeptical of the skeptics, until further notice.
In 1998 (the hottest year on record), I was all too aware of the hotter weather, as well as the change in weather patterns from, say, 50 years ago, when it was considerably cooler (according to older friend's recollections). We were living in Highlands, and it was supposed to be cooler up there in the summer (4,000 ft altitutude) such that you didn't need air conditioning. But clearely, we most definitely were uncomfortable in our unairconditioned home, with regular temperatures in the mid-80s.
I had heard of the theory of global warming but really didn't understand it (I kept confusing it with the ozone layer issue). So I got a book or two on the subject of global warming (one by Stephen Schneider, I remember), and when I was done, I literally couldn't sleep for three nights, I was so scared by the predictions of a warming world.
I became a confirmed global warming proponent--so to speak--and have been quite rigorous in my attempts to cut down on the use of fossil fuels and electricity (made largely by coal). Also, I have been distinctly distainful of many of the global warming skeptics, who seemed to me to be nothing but shills for the fossil fuel industry and free-market ideology (many of them are).
This has been my state of mind for the last decade or so. Over that time, I've also found libertarian thinking, as found on websites such as The Daily Reckoning and Lew Rockwell.com, to be helpful on such issues as the economy and war. But I've always found their skepticism about global warming to be very irritating.
So now comes this so-called 'climategate' scandal. The emails and documents of a number of leading global warming scientists, such as Phil Jones and Mike Manning, have been stolen and released online by some unknown hacker. And they have generated a firestorm, because they point to a number of quite unsavory actions on the part of their writers, such as trying to destroy the reputation of global warming skeptics, ignoring data which doesn't fit into their models, and harrassing peer-review journals and their editors to keep them from publishing articles that are critical of global warming.
All this has led me to look into some the arguments of the global warming skeptics, and this is what I found.
The actual global temperatures for the last five-ten years or so have been level or in a downward trend, which doesn't fit into the leading global warming models. As a result, global warming advocates have downplayed or ignored the recent data. All this is indisputable and troublesome.
From what I read last night, the ranks of global warming skeptics is growing among scientists. I used to think that it was only cranks, eccentrics and fossil-fuel industry shills who were skeptics. But now it seems that there is a growing number of reputable and truly objective skeptics.
The single most popular theory among skeptics is that the leading driver of global weather and temperature is not atmospheric CO2 but the sun and its variability (such as sunspot activity, magnetic field variation, and orbital changes). This would better account for the changes over time in the earth's climate from ice ages to so-called interglacials.
The sun seems to have gone into a 'quiet period' or 'sleep' over the last number of years, which may well account for the recent cooling of the atmosphere. If this is so, then alarms over CO2 levels may well be unjustified, especially if we are entering a larger cooling period, akin to the little Ice Age which affected the world from about 1300 AD to 1800 AD. In fact, according to these theorists, more CO2 could help to ameliorate the negative effects on agriculture from such a cooling.
Anyway, that's what I found last night. I certainly haven't made up my mind about any of it. Two websites which represent a more skeptical point of view, but also seem quite intelligent and scientific (and not ideological) are The Resilient Earth and Watts Up With That.
I've always said that I would love it if skeptics would prove me and the global warming theory wrong. I still feel that way, because the threat of global warming has been a royal pain in the butt and a source of great anxiety. But I remain skeptical of the skeptics, until further notice.
No comments:
Post a Comment