12-19-2008, 03:44 AM
michaelb wrote:
Global warming is both a belief system and a scientific theory. There is a lot more uncertainty in the scientific theory then the belief system acknowledges. Mattkime and I had this disagreement last week here.
The arctic is a good example. It is not clear that any recent warming in the arctic has been "caused" by anthropomorphic global warming. Cyclical shifts in water currents trends in the pacific are also likely to be involved. Also, there are a lot of gaps in the data on arctic temperature, since it is not monitored that systemically, and the data set is not nearly as old or as complete as for other regions. Melting ice suggests an increase in temps, but I don't know if we have actual valid measurements of increased temps over a time scale relevant to AGW. The trends in Antarctica have also not been consistent with warming there.
This is true, hence my caveat that the theory is still not well understood. The problem, as you point out, is that to test the theory it must be done over geologic time. Unfortunately we do not have the luxury of waiting a couple of millennia to see if we are right or not. It is not in dispute that we have injected a massive and unprecedented quantity of carbon and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and it is pure hubris to think there will be no consequence from that. But why stop there? We've also pumped insane amounts of known toxic chemicals into the environment and worse, into our drinking water, with no clue as to what the long term health effects will be.