Needless to say, the subject of climate change has generated much debate in the bloggosphere. Some of the back/forth can get very emotional.
Before I go further, let me frame my position on this subject. I agree with the consensus of the scientific community that the current rise in global temperatures is driven by human activity. This is called “Anthropogenic Global Warming” (AGW). And the result of AGW is change in global climate, called “Anthropogenic Climate Change” (ACC).
I have a degree in Physics. I have worked in the high-tech field for many years. I have written peer-reviewed papers. So I personally understand how science and the peer-review process works, and its weaknesses. For me personally, I have no problems with how the process of climate studies have come to the consensus that AGW/ACC is real. But, that’s me.
The debates rage on, mostly among us who are not directly involved in the process of climate studies. This includes us laymen (those who aren’t professional scientists), and those who are scientists, but not directly involved in the process of climate studies. Keep this distinction in mind, as you read through this blog. Be mindful of who is doing the debating, and what they are debating.
Who is Doing the Debating?
We laymen will debate, based on our limited knowledge of the subject. But just because we may debate climate change, it does not mean the facts surrounding climate change are debatable on the scientific level. That means, those who are “in the know” about climate science – the professionals – are pretty much settled on the facts supporting the reality of ACC.
That “consensus” among the professional climate scientists does not mean they are 100% certain about ACC. But they are certain to a high degree of confidence – typically 90% to 95% or greater. This may sound like splitting hairs to the layman, but to anyone who knows science, or even statistics, knows that at the point you reach a high level of confidence, for all practical purposes, it’s settled. Time to move on to the next step.
What is Being Debated?
I’ve been following the blog spaces devoted to the “debates” on climate change. Some sites follow good protocols, allowing rational input from all sides. Some sites tend to favor one side over the other. I’ve noticed a pattern on some “popular” sites, where science and ideology is intermixed. I won’t judge whether that’s intentional, or due to ignorance. To me, this mixing of the “debate” subject matter serve no useful purpose, other than to score points for one side over the other.
I separate the subject of these debates into 3 categories:
- The science about ACC. This includes facts and data that either support ACC, or contradict claims about ACC. This focuses strictly on peer-reviewed papers. Blog postings, and media articles don’t count, unless there are solid links to peer-reviewed papers. This blog site will focus primarily on this topic.
- The effects of ACC. From a scientific viewpoint, some of the predictions regarding the effects of ACC are more “debatable”, because future projected estimates can always be adjusted as time goes on. But, there are effects that are occurring now. They’re observable, and have been linked to climate change. This blog site will include discussions about the effects of ACC, but we must distinguish between observed effects and predicted effects.
- The politics of ACC. This includes ideological arguments about whether “cap and trade” is a good thing, Al Gore is right or wrong, the IPCC is wrong, who said what in emails, etc. This blog site will NOT focus on this topic. I find this distracting from the facts about ACC, and serve no useful purpose, other than to push one agenda or another. Don’t go here at risk of being removed from the posts. If you don’t like this policy, start your own blog.
Now, that being said, I want to open this blog space up to anyone, regardless of their position, to freely post on this site. I will create subject areas as needed. Let’s keep these posts on topic, and off the politics of ACC.
