The world is fill with simple, easy-to-understand wrong answers. Science is filled with consensus that were wrong. Whenever the science is settled, you can be assured it is wrong. Does man contribute to climate changes? Sure. Most notably from land use changes. Is CO2 correlated to temperature change.? Somewhat, however geologically there is a relatively poor correlation.
The hyperbole surrounding AGW is astounding considering most of it is based on computer models that have consistently overstated temperature increases. It would be better to understand the dynamics of climate variation, including all natural and man-induced changes before running amok like Chicken Little. That is not a conservative or liberal position; that is a scientific position… and by that I don’t mean “popular science.” Climatology is far removed from the rigors of physics. Today it is closer to alchemy.
Now, let’s get to the point: earth has been warming for several centuries since the Maunder Minimum of the late 17th century. Of course, that warming has not been linear… climate change is never linear. Earth is approaching a “warm” period similar to that during the Roman Empire and the Middle Ages, but still within a geological cold period… a warm interlude that is not unprecedented within “modern” times.
What is unprecedented is the level of government funding and competition among the mundane science of climatology for these funds. But the money grab is not limited to the hyperbolic feeding frenzy of academics. Environmentalists, nascent industries, and former politicians have benefited enormously from this fountain of money. Is that bad? Well, only in the sense that it is an incentive to prove a conclusion rather than find the complete truth. Money guarantees that the answer will always support the continuation of the money supply.
In science, it does not take a consensus to find what is correct; it takes one scientist who is correct and others to verify. Politics relies on consensus, not science. Science relies on falsifiable evidence. Computer models are not falsifiable evidence. There is much more work to be done. The first step should be the verification of the raw data which has been the biggest source of contention, most notably data revisions and inconsistent measurement techniques. Then skip the computer models and move to real analytical efforts that don’t involve “earthquakes caused by global warming” type of hyperbole.
Of course, the consensus of “accepters” will not like that approach. Consensuses rarely do. Real science, such as physics, always does. Doubt and skepticism is the hallmark of real science. Any area of science that relies on ad hominem attacks on those who question consensus is not real science.
