Kernel of Science
Posted by Jeff Id on April 16, 2010
As I see it, the battle with global warming is not where many alleged ‘skeptics’ would prefer. Radiative physics mandates, and I mean MANDATES that CO2 makes it take more time for heat to escape from the surface of the earth to space. Since that is the case there are a few types of skeptics whom create more damage than good.
– Global warming is a lie.
– Global warming is a scam.
While I share some of the beliefs of the people who make these misguided statements, I’m forced to realize that global warming has a central truth in that CO2 does slow heat flow from the surface of the earth to space. That is what makes the whole war so ugly, it is a war too, a dangerous war. What it isn’t is a war FOR or AGAINST science. For better or worse, it is a war of politics and solutions, encased for convenience sake, in a kernel of science.
Government science is a funny thing, people need to make a living from it but they also expect truths to be described. Global warming science is no exception, except that the political solution has very much overwhelmed the kernel. For a naturally skeptical person who sees the politics yet has little scientific background, the temptation is to call the whole of AGW science a scam. Certainly, I’ve felt the pressure, yet the math is the math, the physics is the physics and again I force myself to remember—- we don’t get a choice with respect to the science.
Education is a process, not an event.
So with that in mind, if CO2 based warming cannot be negated, why not simply acquiesce to the political solution-oriented onslaught presented by the IPCC scientists– it is an onslaught!!
Well there is the fact that:
— We don’t have a single clue as to how strong warming will be. Models are nice and are a good guess, but feedback from moisture in the air drives the vast majority of the predicted warming. The single strongest factor in the equations creates the greatest uncertainty in the predictions. We don’t even know if moisture creates a negative feedback canceling the CO2, yet the ‘scientists’ assume it’s massively positive. The difference is 4c vs 0.01 of warming and despite claims to the contrary, nobody knows the real answer.
— We don’t know how damaging even severe warming would be. In fact to date, there has not been one single piece of evidence that man made global warming has done ANY environmental damage of ANY kind, ANYwhere.
— We don’t have to agree with the anti-democratic solutions to global warming. When famous (and income sheltered) scientists complain that democracy isn’t fast enough, we should all stop listening to their political solutions.
— Current technology cannot replace fossil fuels. No matter how you feel about the above, there is absolutely nothing we can do which will stop or even somewhat limit the impact of CO2 warming. — WE CANNOT EVEN BEGIN TO LIMIT IT!! Damn, think about it people, none here can prove my claim wrong- so what does that mean!!
This war from this skeptics perspective isn’t against science or physics. Additionally, it is not against the realities of CO2 warming. The battle is on more subtle and nuanced lines which have equal import and more realistic rationale. Nobody knows the magnitude of the problem, yet the scientists proposed answers are without exception, worse than the worst problems imagined by global warming.
My opinion is that we humans need to remember that we are not gods and are in fact, barely men. Start with raking the leaves in your yard, stop pretending to be intellectually superior to the rest of us and work up to global climate control later. Of course, that doesn’t fit the goals (or hubris laden beliefs) of many of the democracy impatient climate scientists.
May you live in interesting times.