Fixing the Evidence for Political Reasons
If you haven't seen this New York Times article yet, it's not about Iraq, but about global warming. You can read it and draw your own conclusions.
As Jon Stewart just pointed out on The Daily Show, Bush has told us, since the 2000 campaign, that we need to do more research before we can make policy decisions related to climate change. After five years, Bush still doesn't know enough to do anything about global warming. In the meantime, administration officials are doctoring documents to take the edge off of rising temperatures.
I am hardly a scientist and will not claim to understand the root causes of global warming. But surely, based on empirical evidence, we can agree that the globe is, in fact, warming. With that out of the way, I think that three key questions remain:
Is the climate change we are experiencing extraordinary? Is the current rise in temperature unprecedented, or does it fit within age-old global heating and cooling patterns?
Is global warming affected by human activity? Do the chemicals we put into the air significantly and directly affect temperatures? If so, to what degree?
If the change in temperature is extraordinary and if human activity directly affects climate change, what can we do to stop global warming?
Again, I'm not a scientist. I just read the papers and listen to NPR. Still, the administration needs to take seriously these three questions and make a reasonable effort to find some answers in the next three-and-a-half years.
As Jon Stewart just pointed out on The Daily Show, Bush has told us, since the 2000 campaign, that we need to do more research before we can make policy decisions related to climate change. After five years, Bush still doesn't know enough to do anything about global warming. In the meantime, administration officials are doctoring documents to take the edge off of rising temperatures.
I am hardly a scientist and will not claim to understand the root causes of global warming. But surely, based on empirical evidence, we can agree that the globe is, in fact, warming. With that out of the way, I think that three key questions remain:
Again, I'm not a scientist. I just read the papers and listen to NPR. Still, the administration needs to take seriously these three questions and make a reasonable effort to find some answers in the next three-and-a-half years.
posted by Tinley | 8:24 PM
1 Comments:
Hi Josh;
Just found your blog. I am a Methodist blogger/geologist and I blog quite often on science issues, including climate variability.
Because of variations in solar output and Earth orbit and axial inclination, climate variation is the norm. We are in the third period of global warming in the last 2000 years, with there being two periods of global cooling in between.
There are human activities that may influence the climate, but carbon dioxide emissions are probably not among them. The atmospheric carbon dioxide content is 390 ppm (parts per million). This is the equivalent of 4 pennies out of 10,000 ($100). If it doubles, it will be 8 pennies out of 10,000.
Margaret Thatcher was responsible for bringing this paradigm to the world's attention, for political reasons. Please see www.john-daly.com/history.htm
Water vapor and water droplets (in clouds) are responsible for 90 to 95% of the Greenhouse Effect, but there is no political benefit in recognizing this.
So if you are listening to NPR or reading the NYT, when they discuss global warming, do they mention water vapor or the actual carbon dioxide content (390 ppm)?
Drop over sometime if you want to do some reading on this issue.
Post a Comment
<< Home