Global Warming for Dummies

[lds]

Wait, wait, let's step back one: before we talk about what global warming is, vs. what it is not, let's talk about something more fundamental. Let's talk about what science is, and is not.

Science is confirming observations by repeating experiments, taking measurements in different ways to make sure the method isn't faulty, and having other people

Comments

[phanatic]

It's fair to say that we might not be, especially when we test against a control: Mars is warming too, and there are no humans there to cause it.

The warming on Mars is mostly thought to be a local phenomenon, and not a sort of Martian global warming. It's not even all that well-observed; mostly, we've seen increased sublimation of the southern-polar CO2 cap, exposing the underlying water ice, over a period of three ears. As proxy data, this is less well-understood than proxy data for Earth surface temperatures. Calling this "warming" is uncertain, calling it a *global* phenomenon that affects Mars as a whole is unsupported, and the best explanation currently is that it's the result of local topographical features.

[lds]

It's really sad to think that we might be able to learn more about what's causing Mars's warming than our own, simply because there isn't so much money and political power hinging on it. Scientific integrity is always the first victim once the money and political clout come into play.

Shame that's a for-pay article, because I really am as easy to convince as showing me a paper like that, with decently respectable observations and well-defended conclusions. Which just irritates me more that those who say, "OMG WINTER! GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE!" produce exactly zero such research.

My favorite option:

[visgoth]

3. It doesn't matter if nuclear power is the way to go, there really isn't even much support for looking into it, at least in this country, because Americans freak right the fuck out when you mention building a nuclear power plant. Politicians, who keep their jobs by not freaking people right the fuck out, are unlikely to champion such a move when they can say "wind, solar, natural gas, clean coal..." and paint it as a jobs package instead.

Re: My favorite option:

[lds]

That kind of goes along with the "stupid leadership" bit. A country generally ends up with the sort of leadership it deserves, as they say.

Sadly.

Re: My favorite option:

[molinaslim]

Visgoth said exactly what I was thinking.

[ernunnos]

In reverse order:

I'm not talking about federal leadership, bro'. I'm talking about the scientists and activists. And if they're that stupid, then their opinion on global warming is hardly worth mentioning, is it?

And if we're not causing it, it's hardly a matter for debate. But you can still judge by actions. Just how many scientists are buying vineyards in Canada?

[lds]

"Scientists and activists" aren't the policy-makers who control the grid and what goes onto it. I do see a lot of advocacy for nuclear from the forums and blogs I read, but I don't know how big the intersection is between these advocates and "people who understand climate science." If you've got some information about such an intersection, I'll listen.

And you're right: if we're not causing it, it's hardly a matter for debate. The only thing you really can do is buy mountain property.

*Smug grin*

[molinaslim]

*knowing grin*

[pasquin]

My problem with the science of global climate change has to do with it's failure to predict accurately. Yet governments are going forward with wealth-reducing measures based on these models-that haven't been proven to predict accurately.

In addition, my cynical side gets invoked when all the answers to global warming just happen to coincide with a statist agenda. And involve depriving me of freedom/money.

Too much of the climate debate is not centered on science, but the religion of statism.

[lds]

...and on fighting the religion of statism.

Don't get me wrong; you and I seem fairly strongly agreed on many political issues. However, flatly contradicting what data we do have in order to make a political point makes the anti-statists look just as stupid as the statists when they do it.

Whether the earth is warming, cooling, or staying the same cannot be decided through politics or religion. If you want to tackle something from a political or religious viewpoint, make sure you always put "anthropogenic" in front of "global warming." That's harder to prove, and is still up for discussion. Whether the earth is warming, though, is something that's now relegated to high-school level science fairs to be analyzed over and over and over using the several data-gathering techniques listed above that all confirm each other without exception.