Russell's Comments on AGW

Just a few comments on David's post about AGW:

It’s entirely possible the Earth is warming at the moment.

This seems odd phrasing. Why not just say "The Earth is warming at the moment." Seems like the average temperature of the planet is a relatively objective thing to measure. I realize that David is concerned that there are incentives to make AGW seem like bad news, leading to doomsaying predictions of the IMPACT of the warming, but certainly the value of a single metric can't be that hard to agree on.

(Also, AGW... anagram of GAW! Coincidence?)

I don’t buy that Earth just happens to be at some objectively optimal temperature right about the time the press and the environmentalists decide to freak out about it.

I think the point is that the optimal temperature was about a hundred fifty years ago, before there was any significant AGW. (Though we do want it warmer than The Little Ice Age after Krakatoa blew.)

I suspect the case for AGW relies too little on evidence and too much on guesswork, and I’m absolutely certain that the discussion of AGW does.

Sadly, if your hypothesis is "If the earth gets ten degrees warmer, everyone dies," it's very hard to prove the point experimentally. Personally, I think the answer really lies in hyper-advanced software that can do accurate global weather models. They seem to be close, since they can predict weather reasonably well on short time scales in small vicinities. If they can soup it up dramatically, that'll be the best possible evidence for something that we really never want to be able to measure empirically.

Consensus, on any topic, tells us nothing by itself.

I find it curious that this line of reasoning seems to apply to meteorology, but not other scientific pursuits, like medicine for example. Should I question the scientific consensus that not brushing my teeth will lead to cavities? I have no personal evidence that this is true. Perhaps it is a cabal of toothpaste manufacturers who have manufactured this consensus!

AGW theory is viewed by some as a way to rob from the rich and give to the poor.

Well, when the activity in question (emmission of carbon) is done most often and most liberally by the rich... well, then they'll get the fuzzy end of the lollipop on the issue, won't they?

Comments

[David Gaw]

"(Also, AGW... anagram of GAW! Coincidence?)"

Curses, you have discovered my secret code!!!