Another blog about climate change? Aren't there enough already?
There certainly are a lot of them. I monitor a number of websites that span the full continuum
of opinions from those that claim that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a hoax to
websites at the other end of the spectrum that claim a climate catastrophe is near unless
we drastically reduce the use of fossil fuels.
of opinions from those that claim that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a hoax to
websites at the other end of the spectrum that claim a climate catastrophe is near unless
we drastically reduce the use of fossil fuels.
The vast majority of these websites are at one extreme or the other. This issue is similar
to many other issues that we face, such as politics, where individuals pick their team and
then they subsequently tend to disregard any information that conflicts with that team's
worldview.
to many other issues that we face, such as politics, where individuals pick their team and
then they subsequently tend to disregard any information that conflicts with that team's
worldview.
I personally don’t want to be on a team. As naive as it sounds, I consider myself a seeker
of truth, or as an empiricist with a scientific background, I seek the closest approximation
to truths that we can find. It's pretty hard to do this when you're on a team. As I make
additional posts to this blog, I hope that I will receive comments that provide me with
new information or perspectives that might sway my beliefs.
of truth, or as an empiricist with a scientific background, I seek the closest approximation
to truths that we can find. It's pretty hard to do this when you're on a team. As I make
additional posts to this blog, I hope that I will receive comments that provide me with
new information or perspectives that might sway my beliefs.
No one can be completely free of biases - so what are mine?
My views on AGW have evolved, just as the name of the issue has evolved and now is
described as the all-encompassing climate change (CC). In the last two decades of the 20th
century I would describe myself as moderately concerned about CC. So much so that I
supported proposals such as implementing a carbon tax.
My views on AGW have evolved, just as the name of the issue has evolved and now is
described as the all-encompassing climate change (CC). In the last two decades of the 20th
century I would describe myself as moderately concerned about CC. So much so that I
supported proposals such as implementing a carbon tax.
My skeptical period started around the time (circa 2000) of the famous (or infamous) Michael
Mann "hockey stick” historical temperature plot. For those too young to remember, or just
generally unaware of the history of the whole climate change debate, Michael Mann's
historical temperature analysis claimed that global temperatures over the last 1000 years
had essentially been flat until around the year 1900, at which point temperatures started to
rise rapidly. Naturally it received tremendous publicity and was presented as Exhibit A
in the CC Alarmist position. But as a scientist, I was extremely offended by the manner
in which Mann’s temperature analysis was instantly accepted as the gospel truth despite
conflicting with numerous historical accounts that documented significantly warmer and
cooler periods over the last millenium that had been referred to as the medieval warm period
and the little ice age. Typically science doesn't work like that. If a researcher presents data
or analysis that attempts to change the existing paradigm, that analysis is treated skeptically
and the onus is on the researcher to present strong enough evidence. That's not what
happened. It didn't help that Mann would not share his data, analysis or methods
so his work could not be reproduced.
Mann "hockey stick” historical temperature plot. For those too young to remember, or just
generally unaware of the history of the whole climate change debate, Michael Mann's
historical temperature analysis claimed that global temperatures over the last 1000 years
had essentially been flat until around the year 1900, at which point temperatures started to
rise rapidly. Naturally it received tremendous publicity and was presented as Exhibit A
in the CC Alarmist position. But as a scientist, I was extremely offended by the manner
in which Mann’s temperature analysis was instantly accepted as the gospel truth despite
conflicting with numerous historical accounts that documented significantly warmer and
cooler periods over the last millenium that had been referred to as the medieval warm period
and the little ice age. Typically science doesn't work like that. If a researcher presents data
or analysis that attempts to change the existing paradigm, that analysis is treated skeptically
and the onus is on the researcher to present strong enough evidence. That's not what
happened. It didn't help that Mann would not share his data, analysis or methods
so his work could not be reproduced.
My skepticism peaked after the Climategate Scandal, where stolen emails showed that
Mann and cohorts had unscientifically (fraudulently?) concatenated data sets in his
meta-analysis to get the plot to show the desired recent spike AND that he actively used
his influence to prevent dissenting opinions from being published while simultaneously many
were claiming that there was scientific consensus on climate change. (Full disclosure: Mann
has many defenders and he was cleared of several charges including academic misconduct
by several investigative boards.) I plan a future post to this blog to answer the question:
“Why are there climate change Skeptics?”
Mann and cohorts had unscientifically (fraudulently?) concatenated data sets in his
meta-analysis to get the plot to show the desired recent spike AND that he actively used
his influence to prevent dissenting opinions from being published while simultaneously many
were claiming that there was scientific consensus on climate change. (Full disclosure: Mann
has many defenders and he was cleared of several charges including academic misconduct
by several investigative boards.) I plan a future post to this blog to answer the question:
“Why are there climate change Skeptics?”
More recently, I have gravitated back towards the concerned end of the spectrum. While I
still believe the most prominent voices in the climate change community are full of
exaggeration and hyperbole, there is no doubt that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing
the Earth to warm with resulting changes to the climate. How severe these changes will be,
what will be the consequences, and what can be done about it are intended areas for future
posts, which will hopefully include all valid perspectives and not just those from either team.
This blog is intended to document my search for the current state of knowledge regarding
numerous climate change issues of interest to me and also provide a concise and accessible
reference source on CC issues for those who don't have the time or inclination to do
a deep dive into hundreds of research articles necessary to separate the hyperbole from fact.
still believe the most prominent voices in the climate change community are full of
exaggeration and hyperbole, there is no doubt that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing
the Earth to warm with resulting changes to the climate. How severe these changes will be,
what will be the consequences, and what can be done about it are intended areas for future
posts, which will hopefully include all valid perspectives and not just those from either team.
This blog is intended to document my search for the current state of knowledge regarding
numerous climate change issues of interest to me and also provide a concise and accessible
reference source on CC issues for those who don't have the time or inclination to do
a deep dive into hundreds of research articles necessary to separate the hyperbole from fact.
