Jimmy J is one of the voices of reason who comments at ShrinkWrapped and from time to time offers a guest post which I am delighted to host. In today's post, he offers a dispassionate way for the non-scientist to educate himself about the question of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Between AL Gore's hysteria, with 20 foot rises in sea level, the UN's obvious desire to enhance the power of the international community by leveraging the 7-20 inch rise their consensus supports, and the recent rising tide of voices critical of the entire hypothesis, it is hard for a non-scientist to know what to think of this issue. Allow Jimmy to be of assistance:
Global warming is much in the news and it generates a lot of passion on both sides of the issue. It is a very important issue because, if those who believe man made CO2 is the only cause of the recent warming are right, it means that the government is going to be restricting our freedoms in a very big way. That is why I believe it behooves all of us to inform ourselves about the issue so we can evaluate the claims of those who believe in Anthropogenic (man caused) Global Warming (AGW) and those who believe the warming is just part of the Earth's normal cycles of warming and cooling.
For myself I believe we don't know the answers yet. To definitively prove the case for AGW we need to see what happens over the next 10 to 25 years. If the warming continues over that period as predicted by the climate change models then the case would be much stronger than it is today. Many people on the AGW bandwagon will tell you that we can't wait 10-25 years, that we are in a CRISIS now. (The Earth has a FEVER! It needs treatment NOW!) My opinion is that they are, for whatever reason, trying to stampede people into letting the government take away a lot of the freedom we now enjoy.
I am not going to attempt to make the case pro or con other than to say that I have spent a lot of time studying the information on the Internet and I have come to the conclusion that the case for AGW has not been definitively made. That said, I believe there is some reason to believe they could be right.
But I do want to address what the real issue that is causing all the heat and light. The real issue is that if we are causing warming by burning fossil fuels, it means that it can be slowed, stopped, or even reversed only by changing the way we live. Our society is dependent on cheap, abundant energy from oil, natural gas, coal, hydro-electric, and nuclear power. To reduce man made CO2 means we have to replace oil, natural gas, and coal as sources of power. Think about that! More than 80% of our energy comes from those sources. We can develop more nuclear and hydro-electric plants, given enough time and money. However, it also means replacing most of our engines of transportation with engines that burn a fuel that doesn't release CO2. Hydrogen has been touted as a possibility, but it takes energy to produce hydrogen as a fuel. And hydrogen research is in its infancy. There are many, many problems in trying to change the energy we use for transportation. With a Manhattan scale project with trillions invested over 50 years this country could probably make that transition because we have the technological ability and we are rich. The problem is, what about the three other big CO2 producers - China, India, and Russia? Will they or can they make the same effort and investment? If the USA is the only country to drastically slow its CO2 emissions will it make any difference in the warming? Probably not.
It is because of the nature and size of the problem that I think everyone needs to be as well informed as possible. If AGW really is the threat that is claimed all of us are going to lose many freedoms. We may be facing a life where energy is rationed, small cars are mandatory, small houses are mandatory, air travel may be only for necessary purposes, etc. Not things that a lot of people would like to see happen. (Particularly Al Gore.)
I am not opposed to finding new fuels to replace oil, gas, and coal because they are finite resources and will eventually run out. It makes sense to use them wisely and try to conserve them. It also makes sense to reduce our dependency on oil and natural gas from a national security point of view. Let's face it, those hydrocarbons really are more valuable for use as fabrics, plastics, medicines, chemicals, and other industrial uses than burning them in engines.
Below are several Internet sites that I have frequented in my search for answers. I encourage others to open their minds, sit back and do some research.
The Great Global Warming Swindle
http://novakeo.com/?p=860 1hr 15min.
This is the movie that played recently on the BBC. It is very well done and presents the arguments of the people who are skeptical of AGW.
The Parliament of Things: Philip Stott talks about climate change
http://parliamentofthings.info/climate.html
Philip Stott is a well known skeptic and he has some well reasoned arguments for his position.
Climate Audit
http://www.climateaudit.org/
This site is run by Steve McIntyre, who is a Canadian. He is a well known statistician who got interested in the IPCC "Hockey Stick" presentation because it was based on statistical analysis. He has been trying, unsuccessfully, to see the data that was used to construct the "Hockey Stick". The refusal by the authors to share their data has made him suspicious. He has dona a lot of research himself and has concluded that the IPCC was misleading people by publishing the "Hockey Stick." Lots of math and science on this site.
Greenie Watch
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/
This is the site of the Australian Professor, John Ray. He is very much opposed to the environmental movement because he believes the environmentalists are essentially socialists/communists using environmental issues to put the government in charge of every aspect of our lives. Many spirited entries and a bit of humor. Most of the posts these days are about global warming.
The Scientific Alliance: A debate about all the knowns and unknowns in the climate change debate.
http://www.scientific-alliance.org/the_debate_climate.htm
The entry above tells the story.
Junk Science
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
This site has the most informative discussion of the "greenhouse effect" - what it is, how it works, and what gases are involved. This is a must for a non-scientist like me who wants a basic understanding of this.
The Global Warming Sceptic
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/
This site is filled with anti AGW essays and articles. When someone says there is a scientific consensus about the issue, you know they have never read this site.
Climate Science, Roger Pielke Research Group
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/
Probably one of the most even handed of all the climate sites. He talks a lot about what is NOT understood about climate and climate change. More than any other site this is one that makes me realize that AGW could be true, but also that there is so much we don't know. Should we go into a Manhattan project spending trillions to transform our economy unless it is absolutely necessary?
World Climate Report
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/
This is a middle of the road site. They report info and articles from both sides of the issue.
Mark's Global Warming Page
http://markbahner.50g.com/index.htm
This is a good discussion of CO2 in the atmosphere by an engineer who looks at the issue only from an engineering point of view. Some wisdom here, and he lets you draw your conclusions from the facts he lays out.
Real Climate
http://www.realclimate.org/
This is the biggie on AGW. The climate scientists that sponsor this blog believe that CO2 is the ONLY factor in global warming and that the case is CLOSED. They make many good points but they seem to me to be like religious zealots. There is absolutely no room for any other ideas or theories. They know it all and don't try to confuse them with new data, new theories, ancient climate data, etc.
Stephen H. Schneider's Climate Change
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/index.html
A much less passionate believer in AGW.
Coby Beck's post on how to talk to a global warming skeptic.
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
This is a good pro AGW site. The problem I see is that his answers to most questions raised by the skeptics are: 1. It just isn't true. 2. The models don't show that. 3. Yes, some other factors may have caused climate change in the past, but this present change is unprecedented, so that other stuff doesn't matter.
Article on Carbon sequestration
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/15/business/15carbon.html?ex=1331611200&en=db8831d023e2f1ff&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Several people have suggested sequestering CO2 as a way of reducing man made CO2 emissions. It may work. It is certainly worth studying.
So, if you choose to inform yourself about this issue, I have given you some tools. Go forth and become a citizen more able to make wise decisions about the political/scientific issue that is global warming. This may be a scientific debate, but the political ramifications are huge.
As opposed to Jimmy J, the more I read about the issue of AGW, the more skeptical I become that the human contribution is significant and that we need to make major changes in order to avoid catastrophe. That being said, I believe there are very compelling reasons for decreasing our use of non-renewable fossil fuels and for decreasing our dependence on foreign oil. Cheaper, more available, less polluting energy sources would increase the wealth of everyone, from the poorest to the richest among us, and would be welcome development.
Luckily, (most of the time) science does not operate by consensus or by the weight of political or ideological bias and eventually the evidence will accumulate that will enable scientists to understand climate well enough to make long term predictions with a reasonable degree of certainty and a reasonable degree of confidence that the causes of climate change are understood and know. We are nowhere near that point now.
Recent Comments