Sweedish chemist Svante Arrhenius was the first to quantify earth warming due to carbon emissions saying "We are evaporating our coal mines into the air". He wrote that in 1896. Was this a "left-wing liberal agenda hoax" in 1896? Guy Stewart Callendar further established the link between carbon dioxide and global warming-- in 1938. Climatologist Bert Bolin warned in 1959 that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would rise 25% between 1850 and 2000. These are all before anyone ever heard of Al or Rush. I doubt the commentariat talkanistas know this.

European astronomers JUST reported the discovery of a "New Earth" 20.5 light years away, based on remote sensing by a telescope (they didn't actually touch it or measure it in any direct way). Based on observation, theory and mathematical calculations they tell us this new earth can support life! Nobody blinked an eye. I didn't hear anyone scream bias or demand to know if all scientists agree or what their agenda is about. Nobody pointed out that the conventional wisdom of star gazing scientists about the stars and planets has been wrong before. For decades the tobacco industry countered lung cancer causation with hired scientists. Experts who questioned what science really understood and what the data really showed. Purposely confusing the public worked, for a while. As Churchill said, a lie will go around the world before the truth gets on its pants. The nation has since put aside unreasonable doubt about smoking and cancer.

When it comes to global warming there is doubt, and there is also necessary acceptable uncertainty. Sorting out cause and effect is difficult. Other sources of natural or manmade variability may yet prove to be the primary cause of global warming. It's a climate puzzle we need to keep working. Today politicians of both parties can be found on both sides of the issue. Many public figures have switched sides at least once, including men of the cloth and political strategists.

When in the course of human events have there not been serious questions raised and doubts about the best path to take and what are facts and what are assumptions? From our founding through every war and defense plan and foreign policy to economic policy and the space program there has often been as much or little consensus as on global warming. In most cases less. The Victorian poet Mathew Arnold knew well of the clash of old and new ideas: "For the world, which seems to lie before us like a land of dreams, so various, so beautiful, so new, Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light, Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain; And we are here as on a darkling plain, Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight, Where ignorant armies clash by night." The pressing matters of the hour are hardly the first waves of controversy to crash on the American shore. So let this be a place, as John Masefield said of the English university "where those who hate ignorance may strive to know, where those who perceive truth may strive to make others see."

There have been some shameful attempts at pressure tactics and censorship of experts on both sides. This is appalling and I am against it. In fact dissenting views have stimulated new research and helped reduce uncertainty in climate projections. The scientific process of debate and testing is the lifeblood of science; this essential process must continue. Thanks to skeptics, uncertainties have been factored into emission scenarios and climate model projections taking socioeconomic responses into account. The key point is the uncertainty in assumptions and the limitations of computer models is taken into consideration in looking at past data and projections for the future. In short, limits of understanding and ability have been factored in and not ignored by those who believe anthropogenic global warming is real and a real concern for the future. I have found this to be less true of the opposing side. They seem to have a greater reluctance to admit to limitations and uncertainties in their data analysis or their ideas.

Still it's worth noting that there is limited historical basis of experience on which to judge the accuracy of climate projections. Therefore are best currently available methods must assess this confidence while the record builds. This is not the first or last time in history this has been done. Predictions of consequences are based on IF warming continues at its present rate beyond the 21st century. Some of those predictions are beneficial, at least regionally. Some projections are worrisome and others are dire and worst-case scenarios are a crisis. They do not all have the same confidence level or probability of occurrence and the methods for deciding them differ in objectivity. The fine print of the latest consensus report does not hide the unknowns and highlights areas where there is much work to be done. In fact the IPCC 4th assesment features diverse results, a range of possibilities for a doubling of CO2 from 2-4.5+F with some uncertainties in clilmate simulations of a factor of 2. Black Carbons role is just being studied. Still, there is a clear seperation between simulations with man-made climate forcing and the simulations without. This should not be ignored anymore than the computer simulations consistent with observed changes of the last half of the 20th century should be ignored. Let us take Saint Augustine's counsel to heart: "if the mind discerns new truths incompatible with standing interpretations, then it is the interpretation that is wrong, and not the truth."

Scientific inquiry involves critical thinking and requires every hypothesis be tested in some useful, rigorous and repeatable way replicated by many independent sources. When it can not be proven wrong it becomes a working theory. All theories need to be challenged and good scientists are or should be by nature skeptics until evidence proves too strong to doubt. There is an international effort underway to connect the dots by linking the past observed record with computer simulations of the future. Models are not the end all and be all. For example we are just now starting to better factor the major greenhouse gas called water vapor and related fair weather cumulus clouds. Their crude parameterization is a major source of uncertainty in global climate models.

I dont know if we've yet modeled the role of land-use changes in shifting climate. Problems will diminish with the implementation of more advanced physical processes in the models and improvements in data assimilation. One problem we have is that unlike in some sciences direct testing of the global atmosphere is not possible, we cant do a lab work up or put it under a microscope. We rely on datasets that characterize the climate of the earth both in instrumental and preinstrumental times, even using centuries-old ships' logbooks to recover data. We gain confidence in numerical equations to predict the future though their ability to model the evolution of past climate change.

The climate of the earth cannot be properly described by time averages alone. Diverse and changeable natural processes dominate climate over a wide range of time and space scales. This includes changes to transient small and large weather systems that last hours or days to phenomena on time scales from months to several years. Many atmospheric features undergo rapid changes. Some variations are driven by internal mechanisims in the atmosphere, others are related to interactions between earth atmosphere and oceans. Others are due to solar and volcanic influences. At the same time, Earth's climate is increasingly exposed to manmade changes such as deforestation, urbanization and increasing greenhouse gases.

High resoulution data sets are required for studying climate, in particular for the validation and development of global climate models. There is a need for continous records of the longest possible duration because some studies require data over a century or longer. Such data would help to clearify the large climate variations of the 20th century, with the warm period of the 1930s and 40s followed by the cooler period of the 1960s and 1970s. It is fair to make sure flaws in the observed surface temp record of the U.S. is accounted for in analizing the past and modeling the future.

I see man-induced global warming as clear and present, and a potential danger for the future of man. But with too much that is not certain to be a clear and present danger. The list of formal studies and scientific organizations doing original work or concurring that global warming is real, to me is staggering. But there are individuals and research sources I respect that have full or partial disagreement. Everyone in the field knows that there are at least hundreds of counter studies that dispute man-induced warming as the key mover of the global thermometer. The knowledge and vision of both sides is imperfect. "For now we see through a glass, darkly..." I Corinthians 13:12.

It is a widely held misconception that mitigation of global warming will automatically require economy-wide sacrifice. Senior policy fellow Paul Higgins of the American Meteorological Society calls it canned fiction that policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will necessarily damage the economy. Harmful policies may be suggested as in the past but I trust our Republic democracy will reject them in the future as it has in the past.

Just months ago 10 pro-business, pro-capitalism leaders testified before congress demanding federal action on global warming including CEOs from General Electric, Pacific Gas and Electric, Dupont, Caterpillar, Florida Power, Duke Power, BP of America, Lehman Brothers and Alcoa. As former house speaker Newt Gingrich points out: the gridlock on global climate change can be broken when the left gives up on exaggeration and draconian pain and the right gives up on obfuscation and denial. I think compromise and pragmatism can win the day--making partisan dividers the only losers. I pray it may be so, that I might have back the country of my youth.

Intuitively I see ample tangible evidence of global warming because signs of it are reported across a plethora of fields, not just meteorology and climatology. Experts are telling the same story worldwide about birds, misc. animal habitats, insects, reptiles, plants and disease. But comparing this to what may or may not have happened in earth's history is problematic. Maybe polar bear populations are in decline or maybe we just weren't keeping track last time they were drowning. Perhaps only some polar bears are in decline and others are thriving. Maybe the thriving is not because there's no global warming maybe it's because of repopulation efforts and global species protections that have world bear populations increasing.

Maybe Armadillos were once as far north as we now find them but we weren't here to know. My further point in these arbitrary examples is that experts in those fields are in a much better if imperfect position to answer than you or I. But I know enough to know that anecdotal evidence alone is no evidence at all. But that patterns that fit together need to be explored. While I lack the background to address first-hand those type of anecdotes I do have the training and knowledge to address others. Some have attributed the up tick in hurricanes over the past 12 years to global warming, yet it was predicted 30 years ago prior to the global warming concern and fits pre-industrialization pollution up ticks in hurricanes in the 1930s to 1950s and net hurricane activity globally is in balance. There are respected scientists who disagree with me.

There are legitimate scientists who say the number and intensity of tornadoes and hurricanes is increasing due to global warming. Other legitimate scientists disagree. There is NO consensus on this point. There are legitimate scientists who claim it's all due to changes in the sun or the earths orbit. There is NO consensus about that point either. While there can be no doubt that humans influence the worlds climate the degree, mechanisms and results of climate change are incomplete. Are both sides acknowledging what they don't know and are they addressing it? The greatest minds in the world are working to understand climate change and its impacts on life on earth with new data like deep-sea samples and better numerical simulations coming online every day.

Scientific understanding comes about through full consideration of all available data and points of view—appropriate debate and the application of agreed upon scientific analysis. All views on science questions should be expressed without the constraint of a political or economic position they must follow. We all have our biases but like jurors we must be aware of them so we can set them aside to decide the question in a just manner. Inappropriate phony debate or wild untested or attestable theories do a disservice to the advancement of science and mankind, and pain the patriot heart.

In the last 100 years we've added global warming gasses but also reduced global cooling aerosols in efforts to reduce acid rain and the ozone hole. How much has this impacted warming? Experts are in position to have a better idea than me. I do know that we succeeded in reducing pollution that caused acid rain and added to the hole in the Ozone layer without the ruinous impacts on the economy the alarmists had predicted. We mended the ozone hole and acid rain problem and the heavens didn't fall. We might also have caused other problems yet revealed with our fix or maybe those problems would have solved themselves. Or if we did not mitigate them by now they might be a real crisis. On Gods green earth, God only knows. I am reminded of the great moment from the movie Apollo 13, people need to stop screaming at eachother and just "work the problem".

Back | Next