Log in

No account? Create an account


As I was walking into work this morning,a colleague greeted me and walked alongside me. As folks often do after exchanging pleasantries, we began talking about the weather. It was a bit cool at the time, but she told me they were forecasting temperatures exceeding 100 degrees later this week. She said she had not been able to work in her garden for very long lately.

I couldn't help but think about the global warming debate during this conversation. I don't know if she was thinking about it or not. She is considerably to the left of me politically, and is probably an AGW believer. Both of us managed to steer clear of the larger debate. It was a deliberate choice on my part. I don't know if it was for her  or not. If it was, this indicates she is a very gracious person, which I appreciate.

I'll grant the warmists two things. The first is that it has been very very hot lately. The second one is that even if the science is being manipulated to fit a politically favored theory , it doesn't follow that the theory is false. And I'll even admit that I'm not giving anything I don't have to give with my first point.

As for my second point, even though the theory isn't disproven by the flawed science, it does follow that you can't use the science to justify the theory, or (more importantly) policies that are derived from it. And I think the science in many cases has been flawed. The "nothing to see here" attitude after climategate didn't help matters anyway.

The real debate over global warming is really a metadebate. Has the science leading to the conclusion of AGW been sound, and is there room for disagreement? These are the real questions. Jo Nova weighs in on these questions quite effectively in We Need A Free Market In Science.  It's worth a read.