tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8705078887057341738.post3382562795172587774..comments2024-03-19T07:30:55.288-04:00Comments on Curmudgeon: Science shouldn't be politicized.Curmudgeonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04323026187622872114noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8705078887057341738.post-64880927577301110172010-12-27T12:05:32.111-05:002010-12-27T12:05:32.111-05:00Yes, but not in the way that you might think. I si...Yes, but not in the way that you might think. I simply haven't heard enough evidence to convince me one way or the other. <br /><br />On the one side, you have scientists claiming an obvious fact and using data that may be valid, or may be apples and oranges. The global temperature is affected a lot by large volcanic explosions - Krakatoa in 1883 and Tambura in 1817(?) - changing the temperature by a couple degrees and setting off mini ice-ages. Pinatubo twenty years ago had a smaller effect, but still measurable in the fraction of a degree C. The questions for me is "Does the temperature rise when you control for volcanoes?" Is the average temperature actually rising or is the rise a function of the changing accuracy of the measurement methods or a change in the analysis?" I'd like to see more of the data before I'll go trumpeting my findings but since I don't have the inclination, I'll take the word of the scientists who have looked at the question.<br /><br />On the other side of the bar, there are far fewer scientists who state that the temperature is steady. The loudest voices constantly repeat really bad math, shout easily refuted correlations, and generally offend my sense of numerical propriety. This is a major strike against them, but doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong. The sting of money does seem to be behind a lot of the naysayers and I never did like the doctors who promoted smoking knowing it was dangerous.<br /><br />When I look at the question and ask what are the foreseeable consequences of following each course of action, I see the debate breaking into two factions: (1) do nothing because pollution isn't going to make any difference to the world so buy a bigger truck. (2) improve efficiency and reduce the need for fossil fuels, replace energy production with renewables keeping in mind that many of the rare earth materials in batteries and panels are more problematic than the fossil fuels they replaced. (CFLs)<br /><br />I come down on the side of improving the environment and I'll err on the side of caution. It bothers me that people claim "science proves" and "the numbers show" when they really didn't.<br /><br />I like it clean. I like the idea of being able to fall into Boston Harbor and still make it out alive. I don't like the Cayahoga catching fire. I really hate the Pittsburgh plants filling my air with crap.<br /><br />I therefore push for change with that in mind. Improve things so they'll be cleaner and help me save money on energy.<br /><br />A lot of this feels very similar to the screams and protestations that arose when CA first started requiring seatbelts and airbags. The auto industry was "GOING TO GO BANKRUPT" and then they figured it out and made money hand over fist again. <br /><br />Bottom line: follow the numbers and decide what they mean before you make radical changes, but don't deny it for political gain. "We're voting against this because a Democrat proposed it." is probably the most heinous statement I've heard out of Washington recently.Curmudgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04323026187622872114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8705078887057341738.post-12182346686888650442010-12-26T14:51:03.989-05:002010-12-26T14:51:03.989-05:00I infer that you have a fixed opinion on global wa...I infer that you have a fixed opinion on global warming. Am I incorrect?Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15730642770935985796noreply@blogger.com