I’m tired of the global warming debate in this country. It isn’t any fun at all. Nobody on either side of the argument knows how to properly discuss an issue, and I’m just about fed up.
First, let me be clear about what is being argued. The only thing still up for debate today, it seems, is how and why climate change is occurring. One side believes that global warming is occurring because of some natural force outside of man’s control, the other side believes that it is entirely man’s fault.
Now, pretend I’m the average American.
I’m not an expert on climatology; I really have no idea why global warming is occurring– I can’t be too sure if its happening at all. There are pundits and
politicians on every side of me, yelling at me, telling me to take action, that its the biggest hoax in the history of mankind, that if I don’t agree I’m on par with Holocaust deniers. What am I supposed to believe? The whole issue just seems so political; who can I trust to be impartial? I can’t be called upon to know, or to think about it myself, thats for sure. So who do I turn to? Who knows? The scientists, of course!
But the scientists don’t agree either.
You are probably aware that in 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes released a study of peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003. She found that the majority of the work published during that period supported the conclusion that global climate change exists, and that it is man made.
What you probably did not know is that recently, Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte updated her research. From DailyTech:
Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, [Schulte] examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis.
This is hardly a consensus, especially considering that of all the papers that were reviewed, only a “single one” accepted the view that climate change could lead to “catastrophic” results– the dominant view held by Al Gore liberals.
So even the experts don’t agree. In fact, most of them admit that they don’t even know.
So here’s my question: if the majority of scientists are undecided about climate change, how can folks be so gung-ho about diving into regulating industry and levying carbon taxes?
Let us quit obsessing over majorities and consensuses. Let’s slow down, take a deep breath, and remember that science has nothing to do with what percentage of people believe what. Just ask Galileo. We can chill out a little bit, and have a real debate about this issue; we can come to real conclusions– you know, scientific, objective ones…
Listen to both sides of the argument, and whichever one seems most rational to you, that is where you should throw your hat. Hear what the scientists have to say, but do not let them decide for you. Science has a long history of political motivation. Finally, if you listen diligently to both points of view within the scientific community and you believe that major catastrophe will occur if we do not act immediately, recognize that you are in a small minority within the scientific world. Recognize also that there are other ways of reducing the effects of said global warming without the need of such a vast reduction in carbon emissions.
Personally, I believe that the reason that we are experiencing climate change is because of the increase of sun spotting; I think that the problem is solar.
But hey, that’s me. What do you think?
