This is a comment about global warming. To begin we might ask how to make a decision about the following:
1. Is Global Warming (GW) a fact?
2. If so, is a significant part of it due to humans?
3. If not, how can we correct the claims for GW?
4. If 1 or 2 is correct, should we do anything about it?
First I note that science is not a democratic process. Both the education and experience of a writer are very important as well as their recognized expertise. Within mathematics and physics (my areas), the important problems are most often set by experts in the field. There is also a general consensus about the identity of the experts. While there are exceptions (else new experts might seldom emerge) there are standard paths by which one becomes an expert. (A Cincinnati boy, Thomas Kuhn, discusses this in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions---I hasten to add that GW falls in the area of Kuhn's "normal science.")
While consensus indicates a kind of democracy, one should not think that there are "votes" on the important problems in graph theory. Nor are there "votes" on the direction that particle physics should take.
With that in mind, I will refer the reader to the NASA website on Climate Change:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
There are links to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) at the NASA site.
We find there this statement:
"The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years."
There is also a quote from the IPCC:
"Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am probably a typical GW “skeptic.” (And, incidentally, I find it ironic that “skeptics” demonize GW skeptics! I think every issue needs skeptics to keep it honest.)
ReplyDeleteI fully acknowledge that:
(1) The climate is warming,
(2) Humans have been contributing to it, and
(3) We should do something about it.
I am skeptical about:
(1) The extent of the warming and methods used to measure it,
(2) Projections about future effects GW will have,
(3) Any statements claimed as “certainty”, and
(4) Political solutions, many of which are ill-advised, such as Cap and Trade, Kyoto, and the ethanol fiasco (which skeptics warned would cause an increase in world food prices). Especially when people who don’t agree with them are accused of “not caring about the environment.”
We recently attended a presentation by Richard Louv (author of Last Child in the Woods) and I think he hit the nail on the head. The problem is that the message being sent is one of despair – it’s already too late, the sky is falling, we’re all going to die. This is not perceived by everyone as credible, and a lot of people are tired of hearing it. If, on the other hand, the message were framed as the benefits to be gained by “green” solutions, he believes (and I agree) that it would be more widely accepted.
I read Lester Brown’s book, and I actually agree with a lot of it. I think a lot of the applications of renewable energy are great. But I think his estimate of the problem is overly pessimistic, and his estimate of the solution is overly optimistic! Hopefully the two will somehow balance out!