Changes

Jack M. Hollander wrote:

Jack M. Hollander wrote:

*The planet has warmed since the mid-1800s, but before that it cooled for more than five centuries. Cycles of warming and cooling have been part of Earth's natural [[climate history]] for millions of years. So what is the [[global warming debate]] about? It's about the proposition that human use of [[fossil fuels]] has contributed significantly to the past century's warming, and that expected future warming may have catastrophic global consequences. But hard evidence for this human contribution simply does not exist; the evidence we have is suggestive at best. Does that mean the human effects are not occurring? Not necessarily. But [[Climategate_media_coverage#Climategate_media_coverage|media coverage]] of global warming has been so alarmist that it fails to convey how flimsy the evidence really is. Most people don't realize that many strong statements about a human contribution to global warming are based more on [[politics]] than on [[science]]. Indeed, the climate change issue has become so highly [[Politicization of science|politicized]] that its scientific and political aspects are now almost indistinguishable. <ref>[http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2875898_ITM Global Warming: Both Sides] </ref>

*The planet has warmed since the mid-1800s, but before that it cooled for more than five centuries. Cycles of warming and cooling have been part of Earth's natural [[climate history]] for millions of years. So what is the [[global warming debate]] about? It's about the proposition that human use of [[fossil fuels]] has contributed significantly to the past century's warming, and that expected future warming may have catastrophic global consequences. But hard evidence for this human contribution simply does not exist; the evidence we have is suggestive at best. Does that mean the human effects are not occurring? Not necessarily. But [[Climategate_media_coverage#Climategate_media_coverage|media coverage]] of global warming has been so alarmist that it fails to convey how flimsy the evidence really is. Most people don't realize that many strong statements about a human contribution to global warming are based more on [[politics]] than on [[science]]. Indeed, the climate change issue has become so highly [[Politicization of science|politicized]] that its scientific and political aspects are now almost indistinguishable. <ref>http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2875898_ITM Global Warming: Both Sides</ref>

==Environmentalism and climate change==

==Environmentalism and climate change==

Jack M. Hollander wrote:

Jack M. Hollander wrote:

<blockquote>... climate change remains a fascinating and important scientific subject. Climate dynamics and climate history are extraordinarily complex, and despite intensive study for decades, scientists are not yet able to explain satisfactorily such basic phenomena as extreme weather events ([[hurricane]]s, [[tornado]]es, [[drought]]s), El Nino variations, historical [[climate cycles]], and trends of [[atmospheric temperature]]s. The scientific uncertainties about all these matters are great, and not surprisingly, competent scientists disagree in their interpretations of what is and is not known.<ref>[http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2875898_ITM]</ref></blockquote>

<blockquote>... climate change remains a fascinating and important scientific subject. Climate dynamics and climate history are extraordinarily complex, and despite intensive study for decades, scientists are not yet able to explain satisfactorily such basic phenomena as extreme weather events ([[hurricane]]s, [[tornado]]es, [[drought]]s), El Nino variations, historical [[climate cycles]], and trends of [[atmospheric temperature]]s. The scientific uncertainties about all these matters are great, and not surprisingly, competent scientists disagree in their interpretations of what is and is not known.<ref>http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2875898_ITM</ref></blockquote>

William Happer wrote:

William Happer wrote:

<blockquote>The current debates about global climate change are complicated by our not understanding the physics of the sun or of the earth’s atmosphere and oceans well enough to dismiss them as major causes of climate change on the earth. Dramatic climate changes like the [[medieval warm period]] at the time of the [[Viking]] settlements of [[Iceland]] and [[Greenland]] from about a.d. 900 to 1250, and the subsequent “[[little ice age]],” from about 1250 to 1700, which led to extinction of the Greenland settlements, were certainly not caused by manmade changes in the concentration of [[carbon dioxide]] in the atmosphere.<ref>[http://media.hoover.org/documents/0817939326_27.pdf]</ref></blockquote>

<blockquote>The current debates about global climate change are complicated by our not understanding the physics of the sun or of the earth’s atmosphere and oceans well enough to dismiss them as major causes of climate change on the earth. Dramatic climate changes like the [[medieval warm period]] at the time of the [[Viking]] settlements of [[Iceland]] and [[Greenland]] from about a.d. 900 to 1250, and the subsequent “[[little ice age]],” from about 1250 to 1700, which led to extinction of the Greenland settlements, were certainly not caused by manmade changes in the concentration of [[carbon dioxide]] in the atmosphere.<ref>http://media.hoover.org/documents/0817939326_27.pdf</ref></blockquote>

One of the major problems with many scientists' conclusions about climate change is a misunderstanding of [[correlation]] versus [[causation]]. Some studies show correlations between increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and increasing [[precipitation]], and between human activity and atmospheric greenhouse gases, and then go so far as to conclude that humans are causing increased rain, snow, and catastrophic flooding.<ref>Gillis, Justin. "Study Links Rise in Rain and Snow to Human Actions." <i>The New York Times</i>, February 16, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/science/earth/17extreme.html?_r=2&ref=science</ref><ref>Schiermeier, Quirin. "Increased Flood Risk Linked to Global Warming." 2011. <i>Nature</i>, Vol. 470, p. 316. http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110216/full/470316a.html</ref> Correlation does not imply causation. This is especially true considering the relatively short periods of data used (a few decades at most) compared to the Earth's age, and the fact that weather patterns have been cyclic throughout history (see [[climate cycles]]).

One of the major problems with many scientists' conclusions about climate change is a misunderstanding of [[correlation]] versus [[causation]]. Some studies show correlations between increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and increasing [[precipitation]], and between human activity and atmospheric greenhouse gases, and then go so far as to conclude that humans are causing increased rain, snow, and catastrophic flooding.<ref>Gillis, Justin. "Study Links Rise in Rain and Snow to Human Actions." <i>The New York Times</i>, February 16, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/science/earth/17extreme.html?_r=2&ref=science</ref><ref>Schiermeier, Quirin. "Increased Flood Risk Linked to Global Warming." 2011. <i>Nature</i>, Vol. 470, p. 316. http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110216/full/470316a.html</ref> Correlation does not imply causation. This is especially true considering the relatively short periods of data used (a few decades at most) compared to the Earth's age, and the fact that weather patterns have been cyclic throughout history (see [[climate cycles]]).