Al Gore An Enemy of the Environment

The science by Wood was easy to look up. He pointed out correctly that the greenhouse worked primarily by prevented heat loss through convection, not by reflecting the IR (trapping it inside). But that insight doesn't apply to the atmosphere's misnamed "greenhouse" effect. The simplest explanation is that the Stefan-Boltzmann law shows the earth's black body temperature to be about 255K but the average is actually about 278K, the difference coming from heat trapping gasses like water vapor and CO2.

Why not come up with an objective test in a controlled environment? What exactly is the ratio of heat increase to CO2 concentration? Without referring to some cooked-up computer model, we ought to be able to get a decent idea. Then, we can compare the CO2 being added by mankind to the already-ambient amount, and calculate whether there is a significant increase.

Nevertheless, history is rife with examples of climate change occurring without our help. The Sahara was verdant 4,000 years ago. North America was an ice sheet 12,000 years ago. (I don't hear Al Gore complaining about that heat wave.) Nothing I have seen so far indicates that the CO2 we produce through fossil fuels has the ability to change the climate. Frankly, given the vast number of other factors, I doubt such a conclusion could be objectively reached in a purely scientific fashion.

Frankly, the amount of carbon in the atmosphere varies greatly over time, a factor which limits the accuracy of C-14 tests. One good volcanic eruption can contribute more CO2 than a century of human-produced pollution. That's science for you, take it or leave it.

For more rationality, visit my blog at:
theuseofreason.blogtownhall.com

One can always ask for another experiment; Our last president waffled on this issue for years - essentially inciting political opposition to true science. The question should be- have we no shame? Given alternatives that might slow the trashing of the planet, do we need to keeep barreling forward. Global warming - now climate change - has enough observable basis in fact... that climate change has occured in the past is not the point to be made. The questions are whether we are causing it, what rate is it changing at, can we and the ecosystem handle this, can we also slow it down if we need to, and how much damage will result if we do not take prompt action. This is called risk management; And the simple guarantee is that failing to have a set of tools to avoid disaster, we may be stuck unable to respond to one thats big enough. Just because climate change has occured in the past does not automatically imply we can survive a new variation - perhaps we can capture the really big reptile in the room instead of insuring it turns into Godzilla. Perhaps we don't have to keep feeding off fossile fuels like ravenous glutons. Perhaps we can be responsible custodians of the planet and system we obviously can effect in huge ways, rather than unthinking, inconsiderate, selfish fools. If an asteroid seems to be hading for earth, how long do we argue about the what is causing that big shadow in the sky? Because if you want absolute proof an asteroid will hit - you get that when the planet is struck and god sorts out the details. Perhaps climate change is that asteroid; Perhaps - just perhaps - however unpopular or inconvenient - we should consider slowing the train a little - just in case the tracks ahead, on the road we have never taken, are perhaps not what we hope they are. Perhaps something this big deserves a backup-plan instead of stubborn avoidance. Because the risk of being wrong is not anyone's right... and because truth is not dictate by hope or a popularity contest.

I do like the attempts at least to truly be scientific here, of course. But - sadly - a failure to understand or agree on our part does not slow down physics at all; You want a profound verification of what the climate change folks suggest - lets see if we can also change the direction of this trend. Lets see what a few changes on our part can do. We can't slow an actual asteroid; but maybe we can slow this one. Maybe we can prove ourselves responsible and powerful and considerate - by trying to make changes everyone KNOWS to be worthwhile. Trashing the planet - why would anyone support that? Lets not make excuses for change - lets see if instead we can incite positive action for a change... lets see how good humans can be, instead of rationalizing inaction.