I found myself taken by this analysis of Republicans on Grist.
I think it makes many true points about the nature of “conservatism” and why many conservatives use that belief structure to discount the idea of global climate change. It has that darn word “change” in it, just like Obama’s campaign.
Let’s hope we have more of Obama’s type of change in the next 10 years that the climate type of change!
justin
5 comments ↓
I have yet to see much (if any) data suggesting that the climate is not, or has not been changing. The subject in question on the whole global warming debate is not if climate change happens, it is weather or not human influence is significant. If it is not possible to determine how much of an impact we are having, what do we do? Taking rash action without any definitive proof is absurd. I have yet to see any published data that has been repeatable (aka good science) on the subject. Throughout history, and long before humans were around, the climate fluctuated a great deal, and at quick rates. So how can someone say “it’s all our fault?” That’s how I feel when Obama, and many others spew some environmentalist mantra. Asking, “you don’t believe in global warming?” is a ridiculous question. As soon as faith is implemented into science, it ceases to be science.
Nature is harsh. It can be ugly as well as beautiful. I’m not saying humans do not have impact on the environment, but rather, that global warming/cooling will continue to happen weather or not mankind exists. This last semester in my Heat Transfer class (for mechanical engineering), my professor calculated the average temperature increase over the planet with a 0.5% increase of the Sun’s energy ejection. I don’t remember the exact number, but I think he said roughly 5 degrees Celsius. One thing I took away from that class is this: heat transfer processes are literally the most complex problems I have ever seen. It is excruciatingly difficult to predict even simple (in comparison) heat transfer characteristics in complex geometries, let alone over the entire planet. It takes years of painstaking analysis and experimentation to begin to accurately predict and control heat exchange between various objects.
For example, in a cup of ice water, you will have natural convection of air to the glass with a portion being laminar and most being turbulent (both affect heat exchange). Then a latent heat phase change occurring as water vapor condenses on the glass, followed by conduction through the glass, along with natural convection heat exchange and currents in the water due to change in density from heat gradients, and again latent heat exchange with the ice melting and complex convective flow around the ice. And all this and still ignoring radiation! Note: anything with thermal energy (aka anything above absolute zero) emits thermal radiation.
It is difficult to come up with an accurate net heat exchange for this problem… You have multiple heat transfer processes occurring in unison, with complex fluid dynamics, all at changing rates. I can’t even fathom trying to do the entire planet. I’m not saying it’s impossible (I am a firm believer in human ingenuity to solve problems), but to get an accurate answer you need to account for as many significant factors as possible. In engineering everything is approximation. How you come up with an answer is entirely based on your methods, assumptions, and what your “acceptable” error is. I have not seen simulations that account for all the most important factors yet. They pop out huge number predictions yet fail to account for all the equalizing and dampening factors. These are probably the most complex component to this problem.
Anyways.. I’m done with the Science lesson; I hope I’ve given some perspective…
Eli,
Let’s just say for a second, that there is not rock solid evidence out there that humans are causing global warming. I’m sure that in the most rigid definition and morally relativistic way you could argue that we have to prove something that (in your own science lesson we learn…) is essentially an impossible science problem to get perfect!
But see, the thing is that cutting edge science, as you well know, is about gathering information and making educated guesses about that accumulated and shared knowledge! Sure, it’s not yet the “law” of global warming… just like the big bang, it’s still a “theory”… does that mean we just sit back and ignore it’s HIGH probability? Would you have us wait and see? Study it more, because we “just don’t know for sure”? If this was your house we were talking about, and the “experts” got together and told you that most likely, your house will asphyxiate you unless you turned off some lights and blew out some candles… wouldn’t you do it?
Call me a religious freak, but I think that most global warming skeptics are in serious denial and are unwilling to accept our own responsibility… so they cloud the issues with flimsy overwrought doubts. Don’t spend your life doubting… Take action!
justin
PS: thanks again for commenting. I’m seriously enjoying our discussion(s). I just want more people to join in!
Yes Justin, but the problem now is that people are willing to fudge data and make up data to match their predictions. The whole scientific process is gone when you throw out scientific method and manipulate data. I ask, why don’t so many of these global warming “believers” publish their studies? They should have no problems if they are actually practicing good science. What do they have to hide? Or has the cause been deemed so important that it is a waste of time to publish your procedure? Science isn’t Science unless you are willing to admit when your hypothesis is not supported by the data. This is the whole point of science, to see if a hypothesis is useful and repeatable. A good scientist challenges his hypothesis, as well as accepted theories and “main stream” thinking. I don’t like seeing people getting flamed if they are skeptical about human influence on global warming. To accept claims (even from brilliant and well-established scientists) blindly has yielded devastating results in the past. The list of challenged ideas throughout history is practically endless. Many of these challenges have yielded breakthroughs in human achievement and technology.
I have a theory about where all this global warming resentment and bickering is coming from. “Non-believers” get the perception that “believers” think that mankind is inherently evil when it comes to the environment. I don’t think this is true in most cases, however this perception puts believers on the defensive and it just snowballs into a **** storm of arguments and insults. Quite frankly am sick of it.
My position on global warming is this: we do not know enough to accurately predict our influence on global temperature cycles. Keep in mind that I don’t “believe” it is or isn’t happening (because of us), I’m just saying that I am not 100% convinced either way. I wont follow either of the dogmas blindly. I think it could be risky and costly to assume that we are having a significant impact, without very thorough, published, and repeated testing.
It has been said by many leading scientists that even if the Kyoto Protocols were fully implemented and followed, it would not have a significant effect on global warming. So why bother if it would cripple our economy? You might say “it’s just a step in the right direction,” but that again is based off an unconfirmed assumption that could turn out to be wrong. Ever think that maybe, just maybe, our influence on global warming is negligible? Don’t worry… I wont call you a non-believer if you haven’t.
But I would encourage you to ponder..
While making huge decisions about economic regulation and policies, making a bad or unjustified assumption could have disastrous consequences.
I would like to add a few things. Anytime I say that I’m not convinced humans are significantly constributing to global warming, I literally get a dirty look from people. “Are you ****ing stupid?” I’ve been called stupid, or asked, “you dont beleive in global warming?” with an ammused or patronising tone. Shouldnt people who think human influence is significant be trying to sway me with evidence and valid arguments rather than being shocked that I don’t blindly follow?
Also… yes it is impossible to calculate an EXACT solution to any real world problem. However, a adequet solution is usually possible given enough time and effort. I don’t think the possibility of signicant human influence should be ignored. But unless it is clear that the science has been done right, I wont support any significant action agaisnt global warming (especially if I’m not sure it will have significant results).
Also, I’m curious what you thought of the scientific study by that Australian gentlman that Joel posted. Did his findings hold no water for you? If they didnt, perhaps you could explain why.
Eli, I guess you haven’t looked much because there are numerous peer reviewed scientific papers on global warming and it’s effects and causes that should serve to convince you if you take the time to read them. The fourth report by The International Panel on Climate Change is called their “synthesis report”. I certainly didn’t read the whole 73 pages, but I found a great quote at the end:
Translation: We need to do what we can to prevent more warming as soon as possible!
Leave a Comment