30 December 2010


Personal observations are one form of empirical evidence, but they can obviously be misleading, and when solely relied upon, approach a solipsistic worldview. To wit: All the models of global climate change I have heard about indicate that extremes in weather events will increasingly become the norm. From that, we can expect more extreme storms of all kinds, including snow and ice storms, and extremes in temperature events, including record freezes. All this at the same time as the overall Planet increasingly becomes warmer, particularly at night and at the poles.

What many people forget is that the models are showing that the global climate, in its regional manifestations, will become more erratic and unstable. How this might play out in your area (and mine) remains to be seen. Yes, it is possible that your region could experience a colder winter as your area becomes warmer overall throughout the year. This is why scientists look at the data, and why we should listen to what climate scientists, as a whole, say.

At this point, you should claim the huge amount of data and the thousands of climate scientists are all suspect, even dishonest.

At what point, and at what level of evidence (yes, including taking into account natural climate cycles), will it require for millions of ordinary citizens to understand the science message that is given to us? I really am curious; is it religion or political ideology or a mass media source or worldview that humans are not capable of changing the Planet in a significant way?

No comments: