Q&A - Global Warming

July 19, 2006 by faizoro.

Here is an excerpt from an email a friend of mine sent to me:

[What is the deal with all these people that are saying global warming isn’t real? Is it all just the usual partisan b***_***t? Is all this crud just people that don’t like Al Gore and so they are insanely rejecting the whole idea of global warming???? How stupid is that?
I know the science is a little bit sketchy but as it turns out that is only because of the limitations of science itself, not because it’s not us causing it. That’s another one I keep hearing… that it’s all a purely natural phenomenon. Of course none of that comes from climatologists or anything as far as I know. What do you think? Did you see the Al Gore flick? Did you read the book?]

Here is my (spell-checked and somewhat polished) response:

Haven’t seen it. Have heard of it of course.
Usual partisan BS? Yes, definitely- but never take my word for anything- not on it’s own.

Here’s what I have learned about it.
Global warming science is theoretical- yes. Notice however that so is the law of gravity called the “theory” of gravity. That gravity exists would be a fact- so would much of what we know about it’s behavior be factual- not theoretical. The reason it is dubbed ‘theory’ is because there are things about it we do not fully understand yet including some aspects of behavior and cause. It’s status as a theory owes much to the humility of the scientific discipline and little to any dubious quality of the underpinning science. In many respects global warming theory is the similar. The process of global warming and much else about it is actually well established. Many of the details- less so.
Note also that one of the things nay-sayers seem to frequently miss understand is the scientific distinction between theory and hypothesis. This is perhaps largely due to an inability to deal with truth or inquiry in non-absolute terms. The idea that a person might know something with quite a reliable degree of certainty and yet there be details of that knowledge which he/she might NOT be certain about; is abhorrent to them- or (to be perfectly candid) even worse- just too subtle for them to comprehend. Never the less- if a theory is deemed dubious- really it gets demoted to “hypothesis”. This is important to understand.
You might notice that some notable minds have some very crude and laughable points of view on science, as well as some of it’s subtopics such as ‘evolution/creation’. All I can say is: I too am amazed at the ability for some considerable numbers of people to attain high degrees of learnedness, and yet that knowledge be of such a myopic scope that they are able to be incredibly foolish and careless in one area of thinking, and highly precise in another. It boggles the mind.

There are many details to consider, whether we discuss ‘environmentalism’ (so dubbed) from the most basic and obvious axioms involved, right down to the minute, and more theoretical details. But to begin with- it is no great leap of faith to conclude that an economy such as the world has established, whose primary permanent, and predominant business and end product lies in the exploitation and compromise of the very house it lives in (by ‘house’ I mean ‘the planet’) - can only sustain it’s self until either it’s business is concluded and a critical mass of the house is destroyed; or else other accommodations can be made (Mars anyone?). So the questions such as “should we drill in the Anwar” should really naturally give rise to a much more fundamental question: “how much time do we have before nature balances the destruction we have created by beginning to destroy us?” whatever form that will take. For it is certain that sooner or later, nature is capable of balancing every force and every system within it’s influence. This is no theory. Are we a creature of nature like any other or are we somehow exempt from it’s influence?
The answer to that larger question is (and it is un-nessesary to believe in Global worming to conclude this)- the destruction has already begun. Thankfully- it won’t be something that occurs all at once. We destroy ourselves slowly enough that on the one hand, we largely fail to even notice it; but on the other hand, we have at least some time to respond.

More and more agrarian societies face the “starve or industrialize” crisis every year- and the momentum of that trend just builds as more and more airable land is depleted. This is one obvious problem. Another is one we learned to live with without fully grasping how sad it is: the extinction of natural treasures we used to take for granted, including anything from pristine natural landscapes, to entire species we have managed to annihilate from the face of the earth- right down to the once maindain assumption of safe, clean drinking water or even ponds and lakes clean enouph to swim in. How could we give so much up without feeling sad about it? Sure- some do feel sad or worried- but how do we manage not to be more concerned than we by en-large are about these losses? It’s like leaving debt to your children instead of an inheritance- it’s a shame and a burden- further- it’s not fair.

By nature yielding and submitting to us more and more, we should never be so naive as to think that in the long run we have won. It is one thing to beat the breast that feeds you and try to attain ascendency and control over it- it is another to poison the mother.

Now- we do know (or find me a scientist involved in anything other then a politically funded think tank who believes otherwise) that global warming is taking place, and that human activity is predominantly responsible. That claim leaves a lot un-answered. To what degree is human activity responsible? How long will a terrible process take to conclude? Would it warm without our help? Could we stop it? Could we reverse the effects? To what degree is the damage already inevitable (a principle we may call “slackening”?- in which, we may as yet not seen the consequences of a destruction we have already sewn). There are more questions.

Also while I no-longer consider myself a democrat (nor certainly- a republican)- I must point out that republicans with respect to this and other similar issues are fond of stray-haring arguments. Here is one good example which I heard on republican radio the other day:
It was pointed out that scientists are detecting annual temperature escalations of only a fraction of a degree on average per year. Upon this premise was spuriously argued the notion that therefor it doesn’t matter that we are polluting- or that it doesn’t matter “very much”.

Of course, what is missed is that this fraction of a degree- spread over the climate of the entire planet [whose surface area you will agree- is large] represents a veritable inferno were you to concentrate it at all into a smaller area. In other words, another important measurement is the total moles of heat per year the earth retains compared with prior years. That increase is considerable- and importantly figures in glacial recession, and oceanic elevation metrics. We see real changes to the actual topography bio-diversity of the planet which are mapped directly to this warming. In addition- while the earth’s climate has changed throughout millions of years- for the climate change to artificially increase creates an evolutionary pull in which animal life is destroyed faster than it can evolve.

Another argument I have heard made is that since there are many areas which have actually gotten colder, “global warming theory is ultimately untenable”- again pure non-sense. This kind of argument is so infantile (and yet so common) it would be like a Child telling a physicist that it is impossible for him to know that hydrogen is the thing that is exploding inside the sun since the child himself can’t actually see inside the sun. There is no way for a scientist to answer on the infantile terms they which are often demanded. All we can say is that- apparently science “seems to work” as demonstrated every time you turn on the mysterious light-switch, or drive that magic car to work. Whether you comprehend the engine or not- apparently someone comprehended enough about the related sciences to be able to design that engine- and in fact, the engine does what it is designed to do.

This is as close to a “proof” of the tenability of theoretical science as we can come to, short of a tour of the inside of the sun, or time-traveling into the future to find out whether global warming is real or imagined. Based on the past achievements of science, we can afford to put some stock in it’s conclusions whether or not non-scientists as individuals have the knowledge necessary to cross-examine the work. That’s as much as can be said about that.

That said- we don’t blindly trust science- we trust science with our eyes wide open. This is why we have a scientific method. This is why we have scientific journals and a culture of international peer review. If a theory is surviving this much rigor we should not contemptuously disregard it for political or religious reasons- it isn’t rational to do that. We have to let the theory survive or fail on it’s own merits- and so far it isn’t the scientists who are trying to kill the theory- it’s the politicians and perhaps the religionists. Firstly- such people are not qualified to kill a scientific theory- and second of all- I am not being cynical I don’t think if I can’t help but question their motivations. Of course I have read up on the issue. That’s just it- for anyone who is concerned about this- there is no shortage of information which will help illuminate where things seem to stand and why- in researching it though- try to stay away from the political blogs. That’s only reasonable. Likewise- read this one with a grain of salt. Find out what reputable scientists believe.

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | 1 Comment »