22nd May 2007

Debunking is as debunking does

posted in Uncategorized |

Gl0bal warm1ng is a quite popular topic, and being as I don’t want a bunch of crazies (from either side) showing up, and don’t want to deal with p0rn comments deluging this post (my “Gl0bal cl1mate change? We confess!” post is a p0rn magnet), I am disguising the topic quite a bit.  I just want my nice cozy collection of everyday readers on this one.  No Technorati linkage, either, for the same reason.

This story about how “an expert” has “debunked” gl0bal warm1ng is  getting a lot of linkage from folks gleefully saying, “See?!  See?!  Gl0bal warm1ng is going to be a joke in five years!  This scientist says so!”

The “expert” in question is a meteorologist.  Not to knock meteorologists, but I can point you to a site maintained by a professional meterologist that is all about the Sekrit U.S. Versus Russian Mobsters Weather War, evidenced by “chemtrails”, so being a meteorologist in and of itself is no guarantee of any sort of coherent expertise.

Meterologist ≠ climatologist.  Meteorologists study the weather.  Climatologists study climate–a statistical and historical conglomeration of weather.  One is short-term, one is long-term.  A meteorologist who talks about cl1mate change is akin to a car repairman talking about the theory of internal combustion design.  He’s going to have an idea, but he just doesn’t have the background and expertise that industrial engineers have.

Next, the ”expert” talks in terms of percentages of atmosphere that each of the greenh0use gases contributes.  All very well and good, and boy, oh boy, does showing the varying percentages of all those gases make it seem like the gases in question with gl0bal cl1mate change are negligable.  But when you delve into the subject, you end up with the reality that different molecules absorb different ranges in the electromagnetic spectrum, and behave differently, and have differing natural uptake rates, and blah de blah de blah.  If you’re interested, check out the “It’s not caused by C02″ section of “How to Talk To A Cl1mate Skeptic“.

To top it all off, this grand debunking was done for a meeting of the New Zealand version of a county farmers’ association.

Debunking should be made of sterner stuff, IMO.  I’m more likely to credit the opinions of climatologists who study the influence of the sun’s cycles on terrestrial weather than this dude’s talk.

All of this said, one does have to realize that “consensus” (as in, gl0bal cl1matologists have formed a consensus on the issue, etc.) in the scientific community does not constitute proof of any sort.  It does, however, indicate that the folks whose job is to study this stuff are pretty much agreeing with each other, with some wiffling and waffling as to how severe the issue is.  Barring any sudden paradigm shifts, I’m willing to read their discussions and (well-reasoned and coherent) disagreements, and try to come to my own decision.  That decision will be based on scientists’ discussions, not, say, economists’ discussions, or conservatives’ discussions, or liberals’ discussions…

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 22nd, 2007 at 8:15 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

There are currently 3 responses to “Debunking is as debunking does”

  1. 1 On May 23rd, 2007, J said:

    There will always be an anti for every pro. Sometimes, that’s good for checks and balances. Sometimes, it’s sad how someone can bury their head in the sand (after digging their own hole) for the sake of their own beliefs. There are still people who actively and passionately debunk the H0l0caust, no? Grrrr.

  2. 2 On May 23rd, 2007, Erika said:

    I had a geology professor in college who presented climate data from tens of thousands of years back. He insisted that gl0bal warm1ng was a load, because for as far back as his ice core data went, there was a cyclical up and down of temperature. Things got quite warm, then began to trend downwards to an ice age. Rinse and repeat. The overall slope of the data just barely trended upwards. The fun part is that about 2/3 of the class were dual Environmental Science/Geology double majors (myself included). He certainly got us riled up, and I still remember the awesome discussion that followed his presentation. It got us all motivated to look critically at all data, and to make our own conclusions.

    Ice ages come around ~10,000 years. We are just about due for another.

  3. 3 On May 23rd, 2007, carosgram said:

    Thanks for writing about this. It brings up a subject that everyone should be thinking about (not global warming) especially anyone who uses the internet as a source of information. It is important to know and understand the source of that information. All sources are not equal. Just because it is on the internet, or someone says it, does not make it true. All opinions are not equal. We need to use reason, logic, judgment, discernment and check the legitimacy of our sources when relying on information we hear. Studies that have been peer reviewed are usually more valid and reliable. Consensus among those who have devoted their lives to the study gets my vote. Thanks again for bringing the topic up.

Leave a Reply