21 September 2008


Global-warming deniers would do us all a service by desisting from repeating what media were saying decades ago. That some in the media, in the 1970s, were popularizing the idea of an impending expansion of the ice sheets is not relevant now. Global-warming deniers make the point that since some in the media were "wrong" then, they are "wrong" now. That historical argument is not relevant to what climate science says today.

A more accurate term is global "climate change," since some parts of the Planet are warming and others are cooling; some parts are drying and others are becoming wetter. The point is that global climate is in flux.

Yes, there is a minority of climate scientists who theorize that rapid global warming will cause an extremely rapid cooling, especially in Europe. This is based on Greenland ice-core analyses which show an extreme cooling--the 8.2ka event--when the thermohaline circulation of the North Atlantic was disrupted by the melting of the Laurentine ice sheets, thus subsequently causing a rapid advance of polar ice sheets. This is what the film "The Day after Tomorrow" based its hyperbole on. But, this is a side issue about a possible result of anthropogenic altering of global climate.

I can imagine deniers saying that humans did not cause the 8.2ka cooling event. This is true, but it does not disprove anthropogenic influence NOW. And, please, just because professor Willie Soon publishes in refereed journals does not mean that the rest of climate scientists (and the media) are involved in a great climate hoax. As a climate professor friend of mine told me, "Lee, global warming is real; humans are causing it; and you should keep teaching it." And, I will, unless he and the majority of climate scientists change their evaluation of planetary climate change.

What global-warming deniers should do, instead, is convince us that MOST climate scientists are global climate-change skeptics. This is, of course, not true. Until the deniers can demonstrate this, why should we believe what MOST--actually, the overwhelming majority--climate scientists say. And, there is no need for deniers to offer the claims of the discredited Oregon (?) group of scientists. Deniers can try to chip away at what the majority of climate scientists are saying, but until THEY, the climate scientists, change their minds, then it is prudent for humanity to take to heart their warnings.

Why should climate-change deniers devote themselves to go against the majority of climate scientists? I must conclude that it is because of some kind of politico-ideological faith. Positing an argument based on a Kuhnian scientific revolution will not work, either. Again, if a majority of climate scientists say it is time to throw out the current paradigm, then I'll be with them. So, far, though, the evidence is mounting for global climate change caused anthropogenically.

No comments: