AGW update

In my second post, I was challenged by one reader to try and sort out the argument for and against global warming being man made. (See comments under Anthropogenic Global Warming).

As pointed out, there was time when we were very concerned about global cooling. This was in large a media driven concern with very little scientific support. Volcanoes spewed enough particulate to in theory block the sun. Nothing like impending Apocalypse to get the media stirred up...

This concern wasn't really supported by scientists like AGW. It pales in comparison to the peer reviewed research and publications supporting the position that man is indeed affecting our climate. If one edits out the media, in all forms, which must include Al Gore, the climate scientists are pretty much in agreement. Man does have an effect.

I don't normally post a link but this is the list of those that support the research and the conclusion, http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm (don't read the darn thing because next you will have to read the IPCC report etc etc....my advice, steer clear.)

Once you remove the media naysayers and non-climate scientists from the mix on the non-man made global warming camp, it gets kinda thin...

But here is the current argument against man made global warming: They, the climate scientists, are all wrong. They are victims of their own research mistakes and economic/governmental pressures. They are drinking their own bath water. They can't show the effects definitively so therefore it's deemed supposition. Care for a swine flu shot? Worried about Y2K? Comet Kohoutek?

Largely the argument is, if it can't be proved definitively, it's hard to hang your hat (or economy) on fluctuating science.

Back to the media. One of the largest mistakes by everyone in the pro-AGW camp is trying to contribute yesterday's storm to global warming. Katrina? Remember how they said the next year would be even worse for hurricanes? If they find a dead polar bear it's because he ran out of ice to live on...scientists don't jump to those conclusions, at least most of them.

We are talking about parts per million of CO2. The change is very small. It's not going to sneak up on the polar bears overnight. The world won't go haywire in one news cycle.

Bottom Line - The only problem with the science is the projections into the future. As you can imagine, they aren't sure because of the huge number of variables. So they have hedged their bets by offering different AGW scenarios. When revisited, they adjust these scenarios (these days into more dire forecasts of acceleration). How do you get the world to act, based on these changing conclusions?

Some may have noted the loss of our new CO2 measuring satellite this week. If we still can't launch a satellite successfully, how should we expect the climate scientist to hit the nail on the head?