You Don't Need a Weatherman to Tell Which Way the Wind Blows

(Bob Dylan song titles and lyrics are happily a lot like Star Wars movies.  There's a phrase in there for every possible life context and event.)

I've been quite busy the last couple weeks and haven't had sufficient time and energy in one spot to think much about writing here.  As a confession, there's been something else as well.  I'm going to blog about it here to help with my recovery. 

A few weeks ago, I became involved in a back and forth on the subject of climate change (specifically, anthropogenic climate change - AGW - humans causing weather changes) in the social media realm.  I'm not sure if I was the back or the forth but I was definitely one of them. I kindly used the word "involved" here regarding my engaging of the issue.  Slobbering obsession probably would be a more accurate description.

In this debate, I remain a skeptic in the formal sense of the word.  That is, I believe the state of uncertainty regarding the information base associated with AGW is far greater than any degree of certainty.  

I had considered this briefly a couple years ago.  This matter came up accidentally when I was searching for background information on the winner of the X-Prize, Burt yes-I-really-am-a-rocket-scientist Rutan.  I met Burt once at a function at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.  We are both alums. 

Burt has a hobby debunking AGW claims and supports a private website dedicated to the subject.  He acknowledges that he isn't a climatologist but rightly claims to being an engineer with excellent command of numeric information.  His approach to the subject is based on applying the values and process of an engineering design review to the scientific subject of AGW.  That has similarities to the idea of peer review in science but from personal experience, I'd have to say it's a good deal more harsh and often quite personal.  Burt has accumulated literally hundreds of pages of text and hours of videos by climatologists on his website.  His conclusion to date can roughly be described as:  "If you brought AGW to an engineering design review, it would be a short meeting and you shouldn't go away expecting positive feedback in your next review."

After discovering that site and spending way too much time there, I checked AGW off my list.  That was both a blessing and a mistake.

The general public may not be aware but the last month has been absolutely frantic in the climatology community.  As is often the case in things human, this isn't the result so much of new science but rather, it is the product of a number of human actions.  Briefly, information was leaked from an anti-AGW group called the Heartland Institute.  Within two weeks, it was discovered that it may have in fact been stolen by one of the chief AGW climatologists (Peter Gleick).  There is an ongoing felony in investigation...involving climatology and fraud of all things.

Don't confuse all this with "Climategate."  That involved the leaking of a number of emails from pro AGW scientists that hinted at the idea that observational data does not currently support the wilder assertions of the pro-AGW community and happened a few months ago.  You could say, that things are heating up in way that has nothing to do with the climate.

Let me lay out a few factoids to set the stage as it exists today with the proviso that this will in no way cover all then issues and will almost certainly be different by tomorrow.

1. The most comprehensive study of modern earth temperatures to date is the Berkly Earth Surface Temperature study (BEST).   The BEST study shows a virtually flat temperature signal (i.e. signal = wavy line on a graph) since 1998. 
2. Earth temperature has always been highly variable.  This is from less comprehensive information than the BEST study.  Namely, polar ice core samples and anecdotal (as opposed to systematic) geologic data.
3. Ditto item 2 for atmospheric CO2.
4. The graph plot of temperature over time is accepted as being chaotic.  "Chaotic" in this context is a technical term meaning that at any given point it is impossible to plot the next point with meaningful precision.  Further, you can't tell if the next point is to be up or down.  You can only make probabilistic predictions.
5. Until very recently,  AGW theory has held that all or at minimum the vast majority of global warming since 1800 is the result of human activity.  This has changed in the last year, simply because the observational data doesn't support the supposition.  For those scientists who have amended their position (and to be clear there are many who stubbornly adhere to the old models), the human contribution to global warming is taken to be someplace between 50% and 1%.
6. In any case, the idea that increased CO2 from whatever the origin, equals disaster is also highly problematic.  Underlying this supposition is the doctrine of carbon forcing.  Greatly oversimplified, carbon forcing states that a little bit of CO2 in the atmosphere means a lot of temperature increase.  The BEST study has called this theory into question as the increasing CO2 over the last decade has not resulted in what should be according to AGW models a corresponding increase in temperature.
7. Last, most plant life thrives on CO2.  The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the easier green plants breathe. This is well understood from millions of years of both fossil, geologic and again ice core data.  

Just as a note to those who like to argue from the position of  "But we have to do something just in case."  That in itself is a very dangerous approach with extraordinary compliments of really bad unintended results.  To oversimplify, consider that the sudden reducing of fossil fuel production would displace hundreds of thousands of working people around the world.  In Indonesia, this would potentially represent economic catastrophe for the middle class and therefore due to economic trickle down, probably result in a degree of famine and death for the lower classes...but at least we'd still get to wear sweaters.   The point is, it's not a standalone, science only problem.  The problem exists in a social context wherein the social aspects have more potential damaging and immediate consequences than they have for upside gain.

There are many many more aspects of this debate that have consumed my time over the last few weeks but I won't recite them here.  Suffice to say, I wouldn't get rid of my wool socks and overcoats just yet.

As is usually the case in human conflict, this is a story of one side against another.  There is good and bad on both sides.  Motivations get confused with facts and the arguments become about right and wrong rather than about science. It's always hard when you misplace your compass.

The best part though is that there are heroes lurking in the story.  They may even be heroic enough to teach us a thing or two.

I mentioned Burt Rutan above.  Burt's a fascinating guy.  He's not a huge fan of smokestacks.  Twenty plus years ago (1989 if you're going to Google), his self designed house was featured on the cover of Popular Science as the most energy efficient house ever built.  Hint:  It wasn't free either in terms of time or his money.  (Right now in his retirement, he's working on a flying car.)  Burt's not lost his compass and he doesn't mind advertising that he has one and what it is.  It's a good lesson I think.  Compasses are desperately important, particularly in a busy world where very often it's hard to pick out landmarks and all you can see is your next step.

I think the greatest hero to date though is Dr. Judith Curry.  Curry is considered one of the U.S.'s leading climatologists.  She is a co-author of the BEST study as well as being the chair of climatology at the Georgia Institute of Technology.  She appears to be the rarest type of public intellectual, that is she is disciplined in her pronouncements in her field of expertise and she is quite humble regarding related areas in which she is neither trained nor expert.  She is neither a "denier" nor a proponent of AGW theory, consequence and policy.  Rather, she's much more like a Joe Friday (i.e. "Just the facts ma'am.")  And not only that, but she actually encourages broad debate.  I think this is what an ethical scientist is supposed to look like but it's been a long time, there isn't really a standard anymore and as a result I think I've forgotten how that whole thing worked anyway. 

I have learned something from this process though.  In a conflict, search out the heroes.  If you run across someone prominent that genuinely does not regard themselves as heroic, watch them very carefully.  Naturally they must be vetted.  Still, you may quite possibly be in the very rare presence of greatness.  Don't miss it.