To answer the original question since I've been away for a long while...
I'm a meteorologist and understand the science. I know the strengths and weaknesses of arguments on both sides. And I believe....that I don't know if man's activities are warming the planet.
We put too much stock in the process of science, and too little in the uncertainties. I've done met modeling. The physics important to the processes of global warming occurs on a scale below the resolution of climate models, and therefore must be parameterized into terms that can be measured and modeled. What comes out is a simulation of the parameterization scheme, not the climate. How well the former relates to the latter hardly ever gets mentioned. There are real problems with the observations, as well. Bottom line--I think the uncertainties dwarf our understanding at this point.
The important thing is how do you take the science and its uncertainties and make reasonable policy decisions? This should be what we're debating.
Personally, I think we should transition to nuclear energy, with full reprocessing and development of mixed oxide reactors to burn the recycled fuel. This will minimize waste, and make the handling of the waste that remains far more tractable. For transportation, we should transition to electric vehicles as sufficient electrical generation infrastructure comes on line. Right now, we'd crash the grid if everyone had an electric car plugged in at night. In the meantime, we should exploit natural gas resources because it is a domestic fuel, and it'll hold us over until nuclear power comes on-line without enriching our enemies. Continuing to focus on energy efficiency is also a part of any comprehensive energy strategy. None of these steps would have to create economic havoc.
I believe man's inhumanity against their fellow man is still the greatest threat we face. We can handle the climate.
I'm a meteorologist and understand the science. I know the strengths and weaknesses of arguments on both sides. And I believe....that I don't know if man's activities are warming the planet.
We put too much stock in the process of science, and too little in the uncertainties. I've done met modeling. The physics important to the processes of global warming occurs on a scale below the resolution of climate models, and therefore must be parameterized into terms that can be measured and modeled. What comes out is a simulation of the parameterization scheme, not the climate. How well the former relates to the latter hardly ever gets mentioned. There are real problems with the observations, as well. Bottom line--I think the uncertainties dwarf our understanding at this point.
The important thing is how do you take the science and its uncertainties and make reasonable policy decisions? This should be what we're debating.
Personally, I think we should transition to nuclear energy, with full reprocessing and development of mixed oxide reactors to burn the recycled fuel. This will minimize waste, and make the handling of the waste that remains far more tractable. For transportation, we should transition to electric vehicles as sufficient electrical generation infrastructure comes on line. Right now, we'd crash the grid if everyone had an electric car plugged in at night. In the meantime, we should exploit natural gas resources because it is a domestic fuel, and it'll hold us over until nuclear power comes on-line without enriching our enemies. Continuing to focus on energy efficiency is also a part of any comprehensive energy strategy. None of these steps would have to create economic havoc.
I believe man's inhumanity against their fellow man is still the greatest threat we face. We can handle the climate.
