The major problem with “The” Global Warming debate is that it is actually six debates- and each side seems to assume that “proving” any one issues settles all six. This is the sort of argument that the UFO crowd uses- if I cannot prove that the strange light was a balloon or Venus, then “obviously” it is the mother ship of Grays, sending Reptoids to phase through the walls to collect our precious bodily fluids. The six debates I refer to are:
1. Are current global temperatures and weather patterns outside of the expected normal variance in the weather?
2. Assuming they are, is this a permanent upwards trend, or a change in normal cycles of ups and downs?
3. Assuming a permanent warming trend, is it caused by the actions of Man?
4. Assuming that it is, is the result a net negative?
5. Assuming that it is caused by Man, is it reversible by Man?
6. Assuming that it is, is the Kyoto accord the best method of doing so?
The usual Global Warming debate consists of “proving” or “disproving” point one, then assuming the other five- this is what Al Gore does in his movie. My own opinions are:
1. Probably, but not proven.
2. Insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion.
3. Unlikely, but not proven.
4. Insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion.
I’m quite willing to debate any of these points- but one at a time. In a future post I will list some things we can and should do, because they are worthwhile for energy independence, but would help the hypothetical Global Warming as well.