Hank2211
AH legend
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2010
- Messages
- 3,289
- Reaction score
- 9,081
- Media
- 216
- Articles
- 4
- Member of
- SCI, DU, Pheasants Forever
- Hunted
- Canada, United States, Zimbabwe, South Africa (Eastern Cape; Northern Cape; North West Province, Natal, Mpumalanga, Limpopo), Namibia, Cameroon, Benin, Ethiopia, Liberia, Mozambique, Argentina
I don't think this needs to descend into a debate about climate change, or global warming. But a few things are worth noting:
1. From the '70's, global cooling was thought to be the biggest threat to humanity ("Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. This hypothesis had some support in the scientific community, and gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s)." That changed to global warming in the '90's.
2. After it became clear that the evidence for global warming was inconclusive at best, or explainable by other phenomena (El Nino, for example), the tag line was changed to "climate change."
3. There is absolutely no question that the climate is changing. Anyone who argues to the contrary is not being reasonable. The climate has always changed. There is evidence of palm trees having grown in the Arctic, as well as evidence of glaciation at the equator. The climate has alternated between ice ages and mini-ice ages to warming periods and extreme heat. The geological record is there.
4. The only thing we can reasonably argue about is the cause of current global warming. Some suggest it is principally caused by human activity, specifically the burning of fossil fuels. Others suggest there is no way to tell if we are in fact on a secular warming trend, and if so, what is the principal cause. Note that a times when the earth was much, much warmer than it currently is, there was little to no human activity, and in some cases not even any human existence. Our models are simply not sophisticated enough, and we will never have enough backward data (in our lifetimes) to prove one way or the other. All else is just conjecture, often driven by an agenda, be it environmental or distributional.
5. Those who believe that climate change is caused by people (the "anthropogenic argument") point to the number of scientists who support that view and compare it to the number which support alternative views ("deniers"). They conclude from the clear imbalance that science supports the theory that climate change is caused by people. Counting scientists is, I would suggest, a silly way to decide anything.
(a) Science can and has been wrong before - even where there was a clear scientific consensus. I could go back to the flat earth, or Galileo, but I don't have to. More recently, Dr. Barry Marshall was excoriated and reviled as a quack for arguing that stomach ulcers were caused by bacteria, and could be easily treated. Of course, we now know that he was right, and he has a Nobel Prize to show for it.
(b) I have some experience in the academic world and I can tell you without fear of contradiction that any scientist who applies for research grants to fund research to prove that humans are not the cause of climate change will be driving a taxi in short order. Those who wish to prove the opposite will find funding. Follow the money. It will rarely steer you wrong.
(c) When people count scientists, they don't count climate scientists, they count all scientists, most of whom don't know the first thing about climate science. Counting heads may work in a democracy, but it doesn't mean a thing in science.
6. So what's a poor boy to do? Well, I have a few suggestions:
1. From the '70's, global cooling was thought to be the biggest threat to humanity ("Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. This hypothesis had some support in the scientific community, and gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s)." That changed to global warming in the '90's.
2. After it became clear that the evidence for global warming was inconclusive at best, or explainable by other phenomena (El Nino, for example), the tag line was changed to "climate change."
3. There is absolutely no question that the climate is changing. Anyone who argues to the contrary is not being reasonable. The climate has always changed. There is evidence of palm trees having grown in the Arctic, as well as evidence of glaciation at the equator. The climate has alternated between ice ages and mini-ice ages to warming periods and extreme heat. The geological record is there.
4. The only thing we can reasonably argue about is the cause of current global warming. Some suggest it is principally caused by human activity, specifically the burning of fossil fuels. Others suggest there is no way to tell if we are in fact on a secular warming trend, and if so, what is the principal cause. Note that a times when the earth was much, much warmer than it currently is, there was little to no human activity, and in some cases not even any human existence. Our models are simply not sophisticated enough, and we will never have enough backward data (in our lifetimes) to prove one way or the other. All else is just conjecture, often driven by an agenda, be it environmental or distributional.
5. Those who believe that climate change is caused by people (the "anthropogenic argument") point to the number of scientists who support that view and compare it to the number which support alternative views ("deniers"). They conclude from the clear imbalance that science supports the theory that climate change is caused by people. Counting scientists is, I would suggest, a silly way to decide anything.
(a) Science can and has been wrong before - even where there was a clear scientific consensus. I could go back to the flat earth, or Galileo, but I don't have to. More recently, Dr. Barry Marshall was excoriated and reviled as a quack for arguing that stomach ulcers were caused by bacteria, and could be easily treated. Of course, we now know that he was right, and he has a Nobel Prize to show for it.
(b) I have some experience in the academic world and I can tell you without fear of contradiction that any scientist who applies for research grants to fund research to prove that humans are not the cause of climate change will be driving a taxi in short order. Those who wish to prove the opposite will find funding. Follow the money. It will rarely steer you wrong.
(c) When people count scientists, they don't count climate scientists, they count all scientists, most of whom don't know the first thing about climate science. Counting heads may work in a democracy, but it doesn't mean a thing in science.
(a) Conservation is never a bad idea, so let's not waste energy. But at the same time, let's not kid ourselves that we've discovered, or will discover, the ability to turn lead into gold. Every form of energy comes with a cost. All that changes is who pays it. You want to drive an electric car - a so-called zero emission vehicle? By all means, but your tailpipe emissions are being generated where the electricity is being generated, and if it's solar, or wind, then it's also being generated where the equipment was manufactured, and the raw materials were mined and produced.
(b) Trying to limit the change in global temperatures is hubris at its best. Not only do we have no idea what the right number for the climate is - we know as a fact that there is no right number. The world has certainly been warmer than 2 degrees celsius (the proposed limit), and it has been far colder than it currently is. Which is the right number? There is no right number. The entire question is stupid and wrongheaded. The climate will be what it will be. Only human beings could think they can or should change the natural course of the universe to suit their idea of what the right temperature in one part of the world should be. It is foolish, it is a waste of money, and it could be very dangerous. If anything scares me about this debate, it is this.
(c) Focus your efforts, and suggest that governments do the same, on adapting to whatever the world will bring, rather than trying to control our environment. You'd think environmentalists, of all people, would be against attempt to mess with nature, but apparently not when there's so much money to be had. Again, I repeat, we should do everything reasonable to reduce our consumption of energy or anything else, reduce our waste of the planet's resources, as well as our footprint on this home of ours. But we shouldn't try to control it.
Here endeth the rant.(b) Trying to limit the change in global temperatures is hubris at its best. Not only do we have no idea what the right number for the climate is - we know as a fact that there is no right number. The world has certainly been warmer than 2 degrees celsius (the proposed limit), and it has been far colder than it currently is. Which is the right number? There is no right number. The entire question is stupid and wrongheaded. The climate will be what it will be. Only human beings could think they can or should change the natural course of the universe to suit their idea of what the right temperature in one part of the world should be. It is foolish, it is a waste of money, and it could be very dangerous. If anything scares me about this debate, it is this.
(c) Focus your efforts, and suggest that governments do the same, on adapting to whatever the world will bring, rather than trying to control our environment. You'd think environmentalists, of all people, would be against attempt to mess with nature, but apparently not when there's so much money to be had. Again, I repeat, we should do everything reasonable to reduce our consumption of energy or anything else, reduce our waste of the planet's resources, as well as our footprint on this home of ours. But we shouldn't try to control it.
Thank you for clearing that up 
