Global Warming: I’m Convinced
UPDATE: 04/25/2007
Please see the comments.
I cannot in good faith support what you will read below, and have struggled with it in the days since I wrote it. However I am going to leave the article as a reminder to readers who may believe that I never question my own beliefs, and to myself that it’s better to admit you’ve screwed up than to hide the fact.
To summarize: I believe the climate is warming. However I am not convinced that humans are to blame for it. I also believe that without a better understanding of the climate, the actions we take out of ignorance could make things worse. I’m not sure where this places me on the issue, but I’m sure it’s in the category of “flake”/”ignorant dissenter” depending on your point of view.
Scott Kirwin———
I really hate to admit this. It’s painful but necessary because this journal is devoted to the quest for Absolute Truth as revealed by Occam’s Razor. As the evidence for man-made causes of global warming continue to pile up, the arguments countering that evidence become increasingly shrill.
So I’m announcing that I have been swayed – not by Al Gore and the Hollywood Idiot Brigade – but by the scientists at this site: Real Climate. I accept that the phenomenon known as “Global Warming” is real and is largely caused by human activity.
There – I said it.
Occam’s Razor cuts regardless of politics; that’s part of its usefulness. When the evidence has mounted to a point where no other simple explanation exists to explain it because the alternate hypotheses have become convoluted an complex – then Occam’s Razor slices and you are left facing the Truth in all its beauty and grandeur – whether you like it or not.
I’m not dogmatic. The Jesuits killed off that tendency long ago, God Bless Their (excommunicated 3x) Souls. And I still don’t understand how scientists can predict the climate a hundred years from now with accuracy but can’t predict the weather 2 months out better than the chance. However, when the scientists at Real Climate smack down the global warming dissident arguments, they are devastatingly effective. I am not egotistical enough to believe that just because I don’t understand something doesn’t mean it’s not true. These guys are pros – and know their stuff alot better than I know their stuff – and certainly better than “1 Square” loonies like Sheryl Crow.
I do not see this issue as undermining my faith in the free market, capitalism and neo-conservativism. In fact the challenges posed by global warming seem to support them – new technologies, an America freed from imported oil – what’s not to like?
I can even continue to make fun of Al Gore.
There’s plenty of ground to argue about, but I cannot in good faith argue with this premise anymore. Global warming is real and it is largely caused by human activity.
What comes next? E85, better conservation and getting hypocrites like the Limousine Liberals to stop trashing the planet… Yeah, there’s plenty to fight about.
copyworld:
I just came across your blog about Global Warming and wanted to drop you a note telling you how impressed I was with the information you have posted here. I also have a blog about Global Warming so I know I’m talking about when I say your site is top-notch!Global Warming Keep up the great work, you are providing a great resource on the Internet here!
24 April 2007, 5:13 amGeorge Bruce:
I think you just tossed Ockham’s razor into the trash. Remember, the burden of proof is on those who maintain that the Earth is warming, man is causing it, it will be bad, and we can do something about it without the cure being worse than the disease. Since that is a lot to prove, let’s see how the new priesthood deals with the simplest concepts.
We know that the Earth has been both warmer and cooler in the past. Since these ancient trends mostly pre-date humanity, it is very safe to conclude that those warming and cooling trends had natural causes. What are those causes? If we cannot answer that question, how can we know if those natural causes are not influencing current climate trends? Whatever natural forces caused climate trends in the past, what has happened recently to prevent those natural forces from influencing the climate now? If they cannot answer those questions satisfactorily, everything else is pure speculation and unsupported by logic or data.
Remember, the burden is on them to rule out natural causes.
Let’s put this another way. The Earth’s temperature has naturally varied for a billion years. It is continuing to vary, well within the natural range. What would William of Ockham say is the simplest explanation?
24 April 2007, 8:38 amR.E. Finch:
I’m with George. You tossed Occams Razor far to quickly and without requiste substantiation. As long as thinking people are cowed by “consensus science” (there’s no such thing) then, we’re in real trouble as a species.
24 April 2007, 11:10 amAdministrator:
What can I say in my defense other than Occam’s Razor, The Law of Parsimony: “All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one.”
But things aren’t equal. There is no doubt that the earth is warming. There is significant doubt that humanity is behind it, but the body of evidence favors the opposite – that humanity is contributing to the warming.
The evidence supporting humanity’s hand in warming is greater than the evidence that it is not. Therefore things are not equal, and technically, Occam’s Razor isn’t even necessary.
I don’t like the term “consensus science” because it’s in reality an oxymoron. I’ve seen it applied to evolution – a theory that I have much more experience with and knowledge about. In fact it could be applied to any mainstream idea to support any crackpot theory. For example, the “consensus” that the earth is a satellite around the sun is very solid – however there remain doubters who could critique it similarly.
I am not happy at all with switching my position on this issue. However I am also an amateur scientist and a rational being that can weigh evidence. At this point either the evidence is what it is OR there is some big conspiracy that is blinding science.
Sorry, but the latter situation seems much more unlikely than the former. Therefore I must accept things for what they are, no matter how distasteful it may be.
And I’ll admit: It still doesn’t “feel” right (yes, I’m an emotional creature too).
24 April 2007, 8:08 pmGeorge Bruce:
I see no reason to agree that all things are not equal. The publicity and grant seekers have not ruled out the effects of the same natural causes that have warmed and cooled the planet for the past billion or so years. Nor have they given us any explanation of what magic is operating now to negate those natural causes. At any given time, in the absence of any human activity, there is approximately a 50/50 chance that the planet will be in a warming or cooling trend. If we were in a cooling trend now, no doubt the alarmists would blame that on human activity. There is no need to posit a big conspiracy. History is full of mass delusions: The South Sea Bubble, Tulip Mania, The Piltdown Man, The Cargo Cult, Marxism, etc. Like natural variations in global climate, these things come and go. They always have and probably always will.
That is the main reason I have always valued William of Ockham.
Mind you, we may very well be in a warming trend, and human activities may possibly cause some of it, but without ruling out natural causes, anybody’s guess is an good as anyone else’s. Beyond that, there is little but religious fervor behind the dogmatic allegiance to the belief that global warming will be bad or that there is anything short of de-industrialization, (with the resulting death of a couple of billion or so people) that can be done about it.
25 April 2007, 10:48 amAdministrator:
This has been bothering me a lot since I posted it. I have revisited much of the evidence supporting the case for man-made causes of global warming. In doing so I realize that there are several “layers” or converging arguments that pertain to the topic of global warming.
The first argument: The global climate is warming. I believe that the evidence is irrefutable supporting this argument. I have no problem with it.
The second argument: The climate is warming due to increased levels of carbon dioxide and aerosols in the atmosphere. The evidence for this seems strong, but not as strong as that supporting the first argument. I have more problems with this argument; however it seems to be holding up to scientific scrutiny better than alternate theories.
The third argument: The climate warming is man-made. At this point, in all honesty, you lose me. While the current scientific consensus supports Man’s hand in helping to warm the planet, I have yet to see convincing evidence that, to quote the original post, global warming “is largely caused by human activity”. The evidence I have seen so far is circumstantial at best:
CO2 causes global warming. Humans release a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere. Therefore Humans cause global warming.
This is an oversimplification of a complex issue, however one that I cannot in good faith advocate or defend because I remain unconvinced.
The fourth argument: That global warming is bad. Bad for who? The Pacific islanders who live on atolls 3 ft above sea level or the Canadian farmers who will be able to grow more wheat and corn?
The climate of the earth has to be one of the most complex systems that exists in the universe. As someone who works with complex systems (business processes and software applications) I am familiar with feedback loops. One of the most dangerous feedbacks for people to handle occurs when there is a long lag between cause and effect. People tend to expect “effect” to follow quickly after “cause”, and tend to overload such a system with input.
Given our apparent knowledge of the climate system, and the fact that the feedback lag between carbon entry into the atmosphere and its impact on the climate is measured in decades, I can easily see us as making things worse by attempting to make them better. An example of this would be the recent discovery that planting temperate forest raises global temperatures more than it reduces them by creating a new carbon sink.
You and the other commenters are correct: I acted too hastily in joining Al Gore’s bandwagon. I’m sorry – and will amend the essay to reflect my position. It will make me seem like an flake, but no one ever said that searching for Truth in this world was going to be easy or “cool”.
25 April 2007, 11:59 amCadillac Tight:
On, then off the “bandwagon”
Scott Kirwin displays immense intellectual honesty in this post. Do go and read it….
25 April 2007, 1:53 pmphysics geek:
For the record, the guys at RealClimate have their own act to grind with regards to human-induced global warming. Unless I’m mistaken, one of the authors created the infamous hockey stick graph of historical temperatures. Infamous because some statisticians fed Monte Carlo type (random) data into the simulation which, in turn, created a hockey stick shape.
I’m more convinced in the Sun’s ability to warm and cool the Earth, especially since Mars appears to be warming, but I would allow evidence to convince me. However, I do not accept models which cannot acurately predict our current global temperatures as evidence.
One more thing which has bothered me about the human-induced global warming crowd is the lack of falsifiability of their belief. Whatever happens (heat wave, cold spell, drought, rain, etc) is treated as proof of global warming.
Someone – I can’t remember who- mentioned that he was in a room with global warming advocates and asked
“Who believes in global warming?” ::all hands up::
“Is there any evidence which, if present to you, would convince you that manmade global warming isn’t real?” ::no hands went up::
His next comment was that he felt like saying “Amen” because the belief wasn’t scientific, but rather religious. Kind of my position as well.
25 April 2007, 2:12 pmchad:
I talked a bit about my take here: http://www.pirate-king.com/episode/1558
25 April 2007, 2:38 pmBut mostly I talked about the 4 types of people involved in climate change arguments.
heldmyw:
http://debunkers.org/intro/index.php?p=73
RealClimate.org isn’t that lily-white, either…
Kinda reeks of partisan politics over there.
26 April 2007, 9:34 amGeorge Bruce:
Thank you for your honesty, Scott.
geek, I think there are very few atheists in this world….especially amongst those who dispise traditional religions.
26 April 2007, 9:34 amCutting Edge Political Commentary The Razor:
[...] A healthy immune system is one that requires regular challenges by pathogens. In fact there is some evidence that the rise of autoimmune diseases like Lupus, asthma and others may be caused by modern living in a relatively clean environment. I believe that the body of one’s opinions needs regular challenges in order to become stronger. However, the analogy ends there because there are times when the idea that you accept the idea challenging you, and your opinion changes. That has happened to me on ideas such as Israel, gun control, capital punishment and recently, global warming. [...]
30 July 2007, 7:20 am