Here's why I think that the discussion is one-sided:
- If it is unusually warm outside, people point to this as evidence of global warming
- If it is unusually cold outside, people point out that one day/season/year can't be used as evidence of no global warming
- If weather phenomena are unusually severe, climate change as an effect of global warming is cited as the cause
- If weather phenomena are unusually calm, climate change as an effect of global warming is cited as the cause
- We just had a really hot summer, which supposedly proves the existence of global warming
- Prior to that we had a couple of summers that were not particularly hot, but that's because the heat was hiding at the bottom of the ocean (hey, it's always in the last place you look, right?).
Once you get over your dizziness from the circularity of it all, consider that that climate changes all the time. We have whole channels and networks dedicated to the idea that weather is always changing. It's true you can't take one year as proof that global warming is a hoax; you can't take ten years to prove that either. And guess what? If ten cool years don't prove a lack of global warming, then ten warm years don't prove that it exists. Funny thing about that.
Worse yet is the assumption that weather and temperature are linear. If the weather rises by 0.1 degrees each year, does that mean in 100 years it will be, on average, 10 degrees hotter? Maybe, but maybe it will be 50 degrees hotter (exponential effect) or maybe it will be 1 degree hotter (diminishing returns). Maybe people will change behaviour or come up with ways to temper the temperature change. Last week I mentioned how you can't extrapolate data outside of the observed band (e.g. you can't test people in one age range and generalize it to everyone). Well you can't say that because temperature has risen for a set amount of time it will continue to do so in the future, at the same rate, with no end in sight.
Look, I'm not saying that this effect or its supposed cause don't exist. I'm just saying that we should have a reasonable, informed discussion where both sides are respected (and the aforementioned Fox News buffoons are hurting that as much as the die-hard global warming granolas). Whether you believe in climate change (the longer-term kind, not the sunny-this-morning-raining-in-the-afternoon kind) or not, it's in your interest to ignore the opinions that ignore the possibility of other opinions.
On a related note, the average temperature for today in my locale is 20 degrees, and it's supposed to up to 23. God damn you, carbon emissions!
I find it frustrating that they bring up the fact that there is scientific consensus. In science, we don't vote (well, not to decide that kind of thing). It's not a beauty contest ... where is the evidence? I'm not in the field so I must be looking with the wrong keywords, but where is a meta-analysis that shows a summary of all studies showing evidence that climate change is likely to be a result of human activity?
ReplyDeleteLaura G.
What, you missed the meeting where everybody voted? Seriously, though, it's easy to give the appearance of consensus when you refuse to publish dissenting work. And a bunch of scientists agreeing isn't the same as saying the science all agrees.
ReplyDeleteEric,
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that in your very next article you state that people incorrectly favour intuition over statistics, and perhaps in this case facts.
You state that if 10 cool years don't prove the lack of climate change, then 10 warm years don't prove the existence. The 2000's weren't preceded by the COOLEST 10 years on record... they were preceded by 10 years. The 2000's were the warmest on record. Ask your friends who are versed in 6-Sigma concepts, and they will tell you that this is a significant change.
You're saying that the linear assumption of 0.1 degree per year is being applied to say that in 100 years it will be 10 degrees warmer. Can you cite your reference on that? Or has it come from the free press, that you have previously stated sensationalizes science (causation v. correlation). Scientists dealing with climate change aren't working with rulers and sheets of graph paper when determining where they believe trends point, they are using complex simulations that are continuously being refined with additional information to predict.
Finally, you state that you think that both sides should have a place at the table. Great point. However, this implies that either ALL the scientists are on one side and some other group needs to represent the side of non-scientists. OR, that all the scientists are not on the same side, and the scientific community is silencing the groups that have objective proof that the climate is not changing. I find it hard to believe that you meant the first... which means you must think that the scientific community has a conspiracy of silence. I suppose this is another aspect of denial.
I know that there have been cases where science has been slow to turn towards new theories when they conflict with more established theories. However, I would rather think that this is the argument that better supports that climate change is happening. There must have been some overwhelming scientific evidence to change the minds of scientists from 'Climate is stable' to 'We are undergoing Climate Change'.
All this effort, and given what I know about you... this won't change anything. ;)
Ian T
Ian,
ReplyDeleteYou're right - your comment won't change my mind. But it is welcome, because one of my key points (that you mention) is that there needs to be more open debate on the topic, debate that is not dominated by the press (with their lens and goals) and scientists whose careers ride on the evidence falling in their favor.
With regard to linearity and prediction, as you know simulation of future complex behaviour is tricky business and relies on enormous assumptions. At best a simulation can provide a range of possible outcomes, not a precise confidence interval. Yet this possible range is not what we hear about (perhaps due to press bias, but also perhaps due to a growing need in science to be "interesting," a topic I plan to cover soon). Consider the recent situation with Hurricane Irene, which played out over days and yet the predictability was poor. Policy decisions are being made about potential climate effects years in the future.
Given what has happened in East Anglia and the comments of the head of the IPCC, forgive me for thinking that there may be a desire amongst the influential in this arena to present only one side. Not necessarily a conspiracy, but perhaps a departure from an unbiased search for scientific truth.
This is turning into a blog entry on its own, so I'll stop here . . . and I don't intend to change your (or anyone else's) mind on this issue, but simply to state an under-stated perspective on this issue.
Eric