The discussion of studies over in Dave's "Get out of Poverty in Europe" thread and the discussion of hydrogen fuel cars over in Rick's "Hydro-Honda" thread got me wondering about another study-heavy subject, global warming. What do folks here think about the theory/condition? Please let us know why you believe or disbelieve that global warming is a real concern that needs to be addressed. For clarification, I define global warming as the increase in the earth's atmospheric temperature due to the increase in CO2 (and other so-called greenhouse gases) which in turn is the result of the burning of fossil fuels for energy.

 

I certainly believe that the changes we are effecting in the eco-system will have and has had a long range effect on our climate and hence, will result in some type of global changes. Simply put, I tend to think that if I burn wood in my fireplace or gas in my furnace, the emissions are having an effect on the earth's balance as well as the fact that I am using the earth's resources. I suppose I tend to look at it as the Butterfly Effect so to speak.

 

Sometime before I retired from California's Environmental Protection Agency, I was a member of an agency wide task force that was responsible for review of "emerging environmental issues". We looked at stuff ranging from fire ants migrating from Texas (maybe ants are smarter than we have thought ), population growth vs. infrastructure capacity and, you guessed it, global warming.

What stood out for me through all those discussions was the harsh distinction between science and politics. Virtually all of the support for the notion that burning of fossil fuels and the consequent release of greenhouse gas to the detriment of atmospheric stability came from "pure" (having conducted their own research) researchers and virtually all of the opposition came from either political or industrial based talking heads or from scientists who were more "applied" (using the work of others to come up with their observations) than "pure".

As someone with a background in clinical psychology, I can't claim to be well versed in the sort of science that would shed light on these debates from a purely scientific basis, but I did manage an organization with nearly 1,000 hard scientists and participated in the overall management of the Environmental Protection Agency with an additional 3,0000 staff, most of whom were hard scientists and, if I had been in a room with all of them throwing glue dipped hacky sacks at them, I would have bet my retirement check against having one of the sacks stick to someone who didn't accept that global warming was real and that the effect was harmful to the world as we would like to know it.

 

Every winter when the temps drop to 20 below zero I have serious doubts about global warming.

 

That's pretty much how I've come to my own opinion on the matter. There seems to be a worldwide consensus among independent scientists that global warming is a real anthropogenic phenomenon, and not part of some naturally occurring climatic cycle.
I'm somewhat familiar with the workings of the carbon cycle, carbon sinks, abiotic reservoirs, etc., and what little I've read of the various studies in support of global warming strike me as being reasonable and well supported.
Given a choice between believing a scientist or believing a politician when it comes to questions of science, I know where my bias will take me.

 

Interesting. Please keep the responses coming. Dean and Borzell, did either of you actually review the results of the field research? If you form your opinions based on converstions with scientists, did they actually conduct the research, read the research, or have a familiarity with it from reading the reports of others?

 

If we take as a given that global warming IS occurring and IS the result of man's activities (neither of which I am anywhere close to believing to be 100% correct), the question becomes, is global warming occurring at a rate that is material to the health of the planet?

IOW, I have heard reports that the average temperature has gone up +/- 1* in the past 40 years. So does it matter? Aside from the chicken little tree huggers worrying about us "changing the planet" (which we will inevitably do anyway), are there real, tangible, material consequences that can stem from that trend, or is it just a matter of us shrugging and saying "That sucks" and going on with our lives? Personally, I can't see how such an infintessimally small change can have a material effect on much of anything.

 

I've read summaries of some of the actual research, but none of the actual research papers themselves. There are just too many of them to wade through them all and I already have trouble enough just trying to keep up with advances in my own field.
I've had casual conversations with several actively researching oceanographers over the past couple of years who are associated with one of the top oceanographic research institutions in the world. Two of them I've known personally for years and I know their characters, their approaches to science, and their motives - neither has any political or social agenda. When they tell me the issue is a real one, I'm inclined to believe them based on what I know of their character and expertise.

 

Having no first-hand knowledge on the subject, several years ago I attempted to research the topic by googling in-depth. Certainly, there are never ending references on the topic. However, after tracking the backgrounds, affiliations, and writings by the various authors, I concluded that bias on both sides clouds the issue too much for my taste. Thus, I suppose I will remain ignorant until more real-science worthy results are available and published by credible sources.

 

[QUOTE=Legal Bill,Nov 9 2005, 08:11 AM]Interesting.