I'm a San Francisco liberal. Nancy Pelosi is my representative and I will be voting for her in the next election. But, I'm skeptical about the catastrophic claims made by some regarding the effects of greenhouse gases. This weblog is about trying to make these two facts about myself cohere.
Climate change has become so politicized that it's almost impossible to state one's position simply--but I will try and do so here. Climate change catastrophists classify those who disagree with their position as 'deniers,' Republicans in bed with big oil, etc. Well, there's at least one exception. Here's what I believe regarding climate change:
1. The greenhouse effect is real.
2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Doubling CO2 from 280 to 560 parts per million will, in isolation, tend to raise the Earth's temperature by between 1 and 1.5 degrees C.
3. Some scientists postulate that increased CO2 will initiate a positive feedback cycle that will amplify the effect by causing, for example, water vapour, to retain more heat. These scientists fear that the amplification will cause the 1-1.5 degree increase to be more like 4-7 degrees.
4. This hypothesis regarding positive feedback has not been proven.
5. Evidence found so far seems to suggest that this hypothesis may not be true.
If I utter statement 4 in certain circles, I get in trouble quite quickly. If I dare to use statement 5, some think me mad.
OK. I'm curious. When I click "about," I get this: "As part of Becta's Harnessing Technology Strategy, Kable and the Innovation Unit are publishing this weblog and associated wiki to present the results of our research and gather feedback." What does this mean?
Posted by: Walter Cronanty | 04/20/2009 at 04:25 PM
Guess I better change that. I used to use this account for a job I had in London a few years back. I'm no longer with Kable--although I do still do some work for Becta. They're a UK government department that is researching how best to use technology in education. Fun stuff.
Posted by: Tom Fuller | 04/21/2009 at 09:10 AM
Yeah. I consider myself a moderate liberal from Berkeley living in Los Angeles. Recently I did some research on climate change and global warming and was surprised to discover that there is no conclusive evidence of global warming being linked to human produced co2 emissions. The best I found was a 'strong possibility'. It was very confusing. I have always been somewhat neutral about the whole debate. It is so politicized that it's hard to tell which facts and theories are fair and which are politicaly motivated.
I do believe in environmentalism though because I do believe polution is a problem and I do believe that human actions are depleting other important aspects of the planet such as air quality and bio diversity. Living in smoggy la I would love if the skies were clear and polution free. To think it once was!
But yeah in respect to global warming I am still very ambivalent about it. I guess I think measures such as technological research and implementation can't hurt. But whether it actually is within human power to control remains to be proven.
Posted by: Tad Yagi | 08/09/2009 at 11:05 AM
In late October, during Q&A after a lecture he gave in Washington, CD, before the cooler heeads coalition, MITs Richard Lindzen stated he was no longer a global warming skeptic. He is now a proud "denier" - that is, he denies there is any global warming problem from ACO2.
Posted by: Orson | 11/20/2009 at 03:31 AM
Nah, you're mad for supporting Pelosi not #5, but you'll learn eventually. Nice work you and Mosh did in getting the book out so fast. Too bad it missed the stocking-stuffer season, but what are ya gonna do?
Posted by: Gary | 01/14/2010 at 07:48 PM