Dear X-Air, Randall, dfw, Herb, and WeatherCat outsiders peering into the dirty business of science and academia,
Just because it's "on the Internet" doesn't mean it's true.
Okay, this is always a good precaution, but in this case the links sure looked like perfectly normal academia papers from the past. Here is one paper from 1978:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0493%281978%29106%3C0755%3AGTVSMA%3E2.0.CO%3B2Sure looks like the sort of stuff I used to write during my attempt to be an academic.
This is just a table, but it is hosted on a government website and also looks authentic:
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/angell/global.datThere are additional tables at the bottom of the article. Both are again hosted on government websites. Short of the sites being hacked, we should assume these are actual sources of data collected by our own government that cast doubts on the details of the global warming by greenhouse gases hypothesis.
What makes this subject so difficult and therefore frustrating is that the proposed mechanism for global warming is undeniably real and potentially catastrophic. The $64,000 question lies in the details of how the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere and those gases humans continue to produce will actually effect the climate. It isn't nearly good enough to point out that greenhouse gases cause atmospheric warming. It is imperative to answer the question (in advance) of how greenhouse gases are (and will be) changing the climate. These answers need to be detail and in depth. If the current drought in the west is actually being caused by greenhouse gas global warming, then it is too late to simply throttle emissions, we need to change our water policy to support the millions of people out west who need water to survive. Moreover, some of the money earmarked for reducing greenhouse gas emissions should be instead redirected to respond to the crisis of greatest need - the water shortfall in the west.
The same point applies to any question of how climate change might effect people already. For example, it appears summers in Europe might be growing hotter as climate change advocates predict. Once more there is a very serious effect on the population. Most of the structures in Europe were built before the invention of air conditioning. Hot summers have been taking a ever more alarming toll on the population - especially the elderly. Should we spend all our money on reducing emissions or should some money be spent providing technology to people who are suffering and indeed dying?
I think the honest critics of climate change aren't so naive as to suppose all the greenhouse gases that humans have released into the atmosphere is completely harmless. The criticism in over the one-sidedness of the proposed remedies. Before we commit to an extreme makeover of human societies, we need more than hand-waving over whether or not the reductions in greenhouse gases that can be realistically achieved will have enough of an effect to avert the more severe consequences of climate change that are presently predicted. Even the most optimistic advocates of green technology recognize that we will only reduce the rate of greenhouse gas emissions. Human activity will still continue to add to the large amounts of greenhouse gases no matter what we do - we cannot stop all greenhouse gas emissions - we don't know how.
Under these conditions what is the most prudent: gamble the very future of human civilization on a hope that we can avoid destabilizing the climate?, or does caution suggest a two prong approach: emission reduction and mitigating the effects of climate change in whatever way we can? I'm not the sort of guy who would ever gamble everything on a single solution.
Edouard
