Global Warming - Part 1

My friend Julie asked me what I thought about Global Warming. Her new boyfriend is very conservative and thinks the global warming debate is a scare by the Obama administration to shut down business. (Yes I realize the global warming controversy is much older than the Obama administration.) My Friend Mark, an attorney in the greater Los Angeles metroplex told me once that "the time for debate is over, we must take drastic action to avoid the coming ecological catastrophe." Most of us fall somewhere in between these 2 extremes.

My answer to Julie was basically in 2 parts. First I like to ask if global warming is man caused, what is causing global warming on Mars? Mark's answer to this was "oh, you found a red herring" and dismissed my question. Julie seemed to accept that the cause of global warming is not so clear. Second I told Julie whereas I am not a stupid person I just can't seem to get my head wrapped around the problem. There are too many variables. The famous Hockey Stick chart of warming trends doesn't seem to stand up to rigorous statistical analysis. The claim that Ice is thinner today than any other time in history lacks credibility because of how the data is collected. It is easy to take temperatures readings globally today using satellites but satellites have only be around since the late 1960's. Does ice core samples give an accurate temperature reading for a specific date? I don't know. Do you? Yet ice thickness and global temperatures are based on these measurements.

Global Warming studies use a lot of disciplines. Statistics, Meteorology, Climatology, Geography, Computer Science, Physics, Economics, Astronomy, not to mention Political Science and Psychology. I have training in Economics and Computer Science and understand enough of the Global Warming arguments in those areas to form an opinion. As to the other areas, I'm pretty clueless. Are you up to speed on these disciplines?

My friend Robert said the other day "it's a 50-50 proposition. Either there is a coming global catastrophe or there isn't so we better act as if there is and start trying to reverse it. This is kind of a variation on Pascal's argument for the existence of God. It is specious and doesn't prove anything but rather is designed to appeal to the emotions. (Both Robert's 50-50 argument and Pascal's wager.) But that seems to be the central theme of the Global Warming debate. Get as many people on you side as you can and build your power base. And once you have the power you can make changes to US policy to mitigate the effects of dumping so much "green house gases" into the atmosphere. Physicist and Meteorologist Craig Bohren, distinguished professor emeritus at the Pennsylvania State University, said "Whatever the US and Europe do to mitigate consumption is likely to be negated by increased consumption in countries such as China, India, and Brazil." http://www.usatodayom/tech/colum.cnist/aprilholladay/2006-08-07-global-warming-truth_x.htm

My point is this. I don't get it. And I don't see a clear path to determining the truth about Global Warming. But I can see a huge potential for abuse here. Hidden agendas being served, political power being fueled, and the usual blatant manipulation of the public.