Global Warming Revisited
By Daniel Miessler on May 1st, 2008: Tagged as Global Warming | Logic | Science
Ok, I’m tired of being clueless about global warming. Tired.
I’ve been roughly 90% convinced of man-made global warming for years now, but I occasionally see information that convinces me there’s less to it than many would have us believe.
At one point last year I saw some data that made me say something like, “This data makes me question my belief in global warming.”
One reader showed up and scolded my ass. He was like, “If that was all that it took to convince you that global warming was false, then we can’t possibly respect your view in support of it either.”
That’s paraphrased, but the point is completely valid.
I don’t want to to rely on experts; I want to become one…even if just to a minor degree. I want to get to where I interpret the data itself and not rely on someone else’s interpretation.
I need to be able to build my OWN argument for man-made global warming rather than do the famous “appeal to authority” maneuver. Another goal of mine is to be able to do this with evolution as well.
These are two goals of mine: be able to explain, in my own words, why I believe (with evidence) that man-made global warming and evolution are real.
Do you agree? Have you done the same already? Do you have your own arguments for these topics or do you also appeal to an authority? Why or why not?
--
If you feel inclined to become a mini-expert, then I say go for it. Sometimes the appeal to authority approach is necessary. We can’t all be experts in everything, so we have to trust the experts to some degree. One tool I use is the BS meter. I think this applies applty to global warming. When scientists who don’t have an obvious bias to the outcome look at it they always come to the conclusion the global warming crisis is man-made. The only people seriously pushing the hoax idea are scientists that are on the payroll of people who have a vested interest in that outcome. This doesn’t prove anything, but it does strongly suggest a conclusion.
Also, global warming is not the only reason to be “green.” It is simply a part of the equation, so even if global warming isn’t man made, we still need to be as environmentally friendly as possible.
Comment by Maxo — 5/1/2008 @ 5:28 pm
I did a google image search for “global temperature graph” and looked at the pages where the images were found. There’s data to support every point of view that people are just ignoring because it’s more convenient to go along with what everyone says is happening.
I’m far from an expert on the matter, and I believe global warming is happening, I’m just not convinced that it’s caused by the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere. There are just too many other things that could be causing it.
Comment by Zealot — 5/2/2008 @ 1:47 am
Also, I notice that my new handle seems to be fitting for comments on this thread. Strange.
Comment by Zealot — 5/2/2008 @ 1:49 am
I am also unsure of the validity of man-made global warming. I think that there are some pretty good arguments either way. I tend to think that (at least to some degree) we do contribute, but need more evidence to be convinced. My idea is that it doesn’t hurt to be “green”, so why not do it. I walk to work every day. I recycle as many items as possible at home and work(we are lucky enough to have really good programs, both at home and at work). I don’t print anything that isn’t absolutely necessary. There are several other examples. The point is that all of these are free or even save money and contribute to better air quality, less garbage in landfills, and less traffic in the street. So, why not.
Comment by brad — 5/2/2008 @ 3:16 am
I remain a big skeptic on CO2 causing global warming.
First, global warming isn’t really global - the southern hemisphere is cooling.
Second, I definitely question the pseudo-science that is used to determine the warming in the first place. It seems that the scientific method has been thrown out the door. Al Gore and his ilk are using correlation to imply causation - this is not science. I’ve watched an interview with one of the guys who got the nobel with Gore and he said they say it’s CO2 causing this because they have nothing else to point to. Now, this would be fine if they could rule other causes such as the earth getting warmer all on it’s own (which could be quite likely since it hasn’t been that long since we exited the Little Ice Age).
Third, maybe second plus, CO2 as a cause is a theory, there is no proof. Now, evolution is also a theory but it has stood the test of time and there is a lot of irrefutable evidence out there pointing to that it is more correct than not (even so, pieces get adjusted as new data comes along).
Forth, the modeling used. The most powerful computers and techniques go to try and predict whether and they can’t even get that right 12 hours in advance most of the time. How are they going to predict so far in the future. Granted, it’s not the exact same but it’s close enough.
Fifth, and maybe this bugs me the most, is the people involved. Al Gore went from being worth $1-2M leaving office to over $100M. One of the scientists said anyone denying man-made global warming is the same as saying the holocaust didn’t happen - WTF? Unfortunately, this gets around a lot more now. Who are these scientists? Like every field, there are tons of idiots who get things wrong. It’s not unusual to draw the wrong conclusions from data when you already had a bias and ignore or don’t even bother to gather evidence that would refute your claim. Heck, for a while, every week there was a new report saying the ice caps were melting even faster than a previous report (I think it was down to a few years the last I heard).
Now, that all said, I’m mostly behind a lot of the efforts to “combat” this thing that will destroy the earth. Well, not corn based ethanol, that is such a crock on so many levels. I’d like to see higher mileage cars and have cleaner air.
Comment by dale — 5/2/2008 @ 4:02 am
Check out a book called The Skeptical Environmentalist. It is often criticized for its conclusions but not for its factual accuracy. Its got like 100 pages of citations for facts. if you don’t believe it then don’t. But I think it will definitely educate and give a different perspective.
Comment by beau — 5/2/2008 @ 5:07 am
Good luck on your quest. I found that a great resource is at Gristmill (http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics). There you’ll find pretty much every argument against human-caused global warming (including all of the ones made above), and their well-documented counter-arguments. If you start there, you’ll be well on your way.
Comment by Dan — 5/2/2008 @ 12:51 pm
As far as evolution is concerned, the Index to Creationist Claims at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ is an immensely helpful reference. I myself came into the debate as a creationist, and therefore became a semi-expert as I saw the logic by which my beliefs were refuted.
Comment by 934 — 5/3/2008 @ 9:34 pm
@934
So you used to be a creationist and now you believe in evolution?
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 5/3/2008 @ 10:48 pm
Yep. I was raised as a creationist, but I was encountered some arguments on the Internet a few years ago and eventually changed my mind.
Comment by 934 — 5/3/2008 @ 11:18 pm
@934
Wow. Interesting.
I have a creationist friend you should talk to. He’s very smart and very nice. You guys should exchange thoughts. It’ll be interesting to see what comes of it.
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 5/3/2008 @ 11:22 pm
Dale, while a smart guy, is going at it wrong.
The process, in this case, is not to find evidence to support the theory that “CO2 is causing global warming”. The process is to take the evidence, and then formulate the theoretical cause.
I’ve studied and followed this for about 12 years now…12 years ago, the data that was presented to me was (and the reason I agree with Al Gore is that he presents most of the same data):
1/ Ice core samples from 100,000 to 150,000 years ago contain a trackable record of ratio values of co2 to oxygen in the atmosphere.
2/ The C02 level has been measured from the middle of the Pacific since the 1960s by scientists who have seen C02 levels rise and fall cyclically with the changing of the seasons, yet steadily rise in its baseline throughout that period. (I think Al Gore’s graphs show this)
3/ If you accept the two above premises, then you probably will accept that the data from them show that for the last 150,000 years, the Co2 levels in our atmosphere have risen and fallen cyclically, both in and out of seasons, and over 100s of years (small cycles and large cycles), but always within a relatively faithful range.
4/ The data also shows that this cycle continues to today, only that the baseline has risen steadily nearly every year in the past 100 +/- years(beyond any level seen in the past 150,000 years)
When did the Industrial Revolution happen?….oh, right.
So, if you are able to accept from this that:
…then it seems blatantly obvious, that, while technically still a theory, just like gravity is technically a theory, human activity has precipitated the rate of change of one energy form to another… that’s all.
However, there have to be effects from this, because no energy or matter is gained or lost in this universe.
Part of the problem is that there is too much emotion, politics and human fallibility mixed into this issue. The simple facts are just that, simple. You have 1 total, you change part of that total, it necessarily changes the remaining part of that total accordingly to maintain the 1 total. It doesn’t work any other way in this universe.
So while some parts may get colder, others get hotter — ice forms, ice melts. (Just exactly how do you measure the average temperature of the entire earth anyway? Humans don’t have the same temperature from their armpit to their anus). It’s global temperature change….period. It will effect some negatively, it will effect others positively. It maybe would have happened all by itself, over a longer period of time, if we hadn’t entered into the picture. All we’re doing is accelerating it, which means the felt effects will be accelerated.
Comment by Tim — 5/9/2008 @ 9:23 pm
Actually, I take back my original statement.
I reread Dale’s post, and I’m not so sure that he is a smart guy. But he is earnest.
So many take issue with Al Gore. On a personal level, I care a flying hoot about what Al Gore thinks, although I don’t personally know him from a hole in the ground. But so many I hear, dispute the premise of Global Temperature Change, based on the fact that Al Gore is the guy saying it… and they don’t like Al Gore. That’s lunacy.
If Brett Favre, Dale Earnhardt, Charlton Hesston (may he rest in peace..sniff), Rush LImbaugh, or someone else that many people idolize, was saying the same thing, people would believe it…
Comment by Tim — 5/9/2008 @ 9:32 pm