The Great Warming

Last night our synagogue previewed The Great Warming (with Keanu Reeves and Alanis Morissette) and promoted as a film that 'examines evidence that human activities are provoking an unprecedented era of atmospheric warming and climatic events". Since I have yet to find any credible evidence of such a phenomena I decided that I had to attend.

What I found was that the film scares people with the prospect of global warming but did not present evidence of the impact of humanity in causing significant global warming other than assertions and anecdotes. Since this event was a discussion - after the presentation people started reacting. A typical response is 'since this is such an obvious danger what can we do about it?'. I challenged the rest of the audience with a scientific view - science shows that this is a normal and repeating cycle with very controversial evidence that humanity has any significant impact.

The outcome was very positive - people shifted their focus to the positive actions being taken to pollute less and consider that the information in the film is presented by many with vested interests. One of the 'experts'  maintains that only government officials have the power to make the necessary changes but the 'rest of us' should  be so agitated that we force our elected officials to do something. This is the obvious activist and political thrust of the film. We had some discussion about the types of economic triggers people responded to and I found that the case presented in the film of Chris Holmes EcoCité was very compelling in that in Canada they can construct an apartment where the yearly energy cost is about $75 per year.

One important aspect that this film could address (but misses) is not how we can prevent global warming but how we could marshal efforts to survive global warming.

This film was presented in a religious context (Selihot) and our Rabbi offer verses from Genesis to compare mankind's domination of the earth with its care taking. I offered that in the Book of Job man is admonished for arrogance in thinking that we can cause the wind to blow or harness the power of Leviathan. Selihot calls for humility - a humility to walk respectfully and not to presume that we are in control of our destiny or of the earth.

Comments

[Scot Hacker]

How is it that *virtually all* climate scientists now agree that humanity's role in warming is incontrovertible while you seek further proof? Have you studied climatology for decades? Are you a better scientist than they are? Better versed on the topic than they are? Puzzling. What is the motivation for denying what virtually all scientists agree on?

[Stu]

Does history show that when a majority of scientists agree on something they are correct?

Global warming has become a politically correct third rail that threatens the livelihood of very human scientists who dare challenge it.

You assertion that "virtually all climate scientists now agree that humanity's role in warming is incontrovertible" is unsupportable. Even if that were true that doesn't dismiss the science that conflicts with the popular opinions in vogue today. If you want to read one unbiased scientist who teaches at Michigan read Harm de Blij (Why Geography Matters) or see my earlier posts.

[Scot Hacker]

Does history show that when a majority of scientists agree on something they are correct?

Ummm... yes. Gravity. Relativity. Chemistry. DNA. And so on and so on. Science changes when existing ideas don't fit evidence or new evidence. But agreement/finding consensus -- discovering reality as near as possible -- is what science is all about. When scientists approach consensus, that's a significant approach to the real world -- not trendy.

You assertion that "virtually all climate scientists now agree that humanity's role in warming is incontrovertible" is unsupportable.

Unsupportable? Go find a thousand climate scientists and ask them. At this point you'd be lucky to find 20/1000 who don't agree that global warming is human-caused. If one of us could do that experiment, you'd find that my statement above is totally supported.

By using words like "in vogue" and "trendy," it seems like you are being dismissive of the scientific method and of the scientific community's collective discovery of reality through peer review.

[Stu]

Sorry for the delay - I am traveling currently.

History also shows the opposite - comsider 'Ptolemy -> Copernicus -> Kepler -> Galileo'. (In more modern times other discipline has seen significant alterations from evolution to physics [eg the speed of light is not necessarily constant]. In the 1970's it was a common topic to research the global cooling concern.

A recent survey shows the support for human based causes in global warming about 60% - not that popularity has any place in the scientific method.

I am using terms like "in vogue" and 'trendy" to dismiss a volatile and recent consensus about this topic not scientific method in general. Your approach seems to favor the closure of debate (not very scientific) rather than fostering debate. Even though I present evidence of natural cyclical causation this is not refuted but the response is more personal polemic than reasoned.

Here is a report from last year that describes this difference is more civil terms:

Messrs. Flannery and Kheshgi were among the scores of scientists who helped write the U.N. panel's latest broad assessment of climate science, published in 2001. It said atmospheric concentrations of CO2 had jumped by 31% since the start of the industrial age and the 1990s were "very likely the warmest decade in instrumental record." Most of the observed warming of the past 50 years, it said, is "likely" the result of "human activities." Still, the panel said, models of climate change remain a work in progress. Among the remaining uncertainties it cited is to what extent "natural factors" unrelated to human activity play a role.

The Exxon scientists say they agree with much of the assessment. But they argue that policy makers often disregard the uncertainties noted in it. In 2003, Mr. Kheshgi and a University of Illinois scientist published a paper in an American Geophysical Union journal arguing that oceans, plants and soil suck up more of the carbon dioxide emitted from fossil-fuel burning than previously thought. As a result, the paper said, models that predict a big buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere need to be rethought.

That's the kind of research Mr. Raymond, himself a chemical engineer, likes to cite. "Our view is it's yet to be shown how much of this is really related to the activities of man," he says. "The world has gone through many cycles of climate change that man had nothing to do with, because man didn't exist."

Even some who advocate stricter curbs on emissions profess respect for Exxon's scientific work. "These are smart guys who shoot straight. I'm generally pretty impressed that their science is above-board and serious," says David Victor, who heads an energy-policy research program at Stanford. The program receives money from BP but isn't part of Stanford's Exxon-funded program.