Within the field, human-caused global warming is the strong majoritarian view among scientists.

No one denies that the earth has gotten warmer; the human cause is measured on the 'Keeling Curve', which plots an increase in temprature correlated to the quantity of carbon within a gaseous solution. This carbon, of course is the emmission factor.

Agruably, yes, there are scientists who claim that the entire increase in temperature can be explained by natural swings in long-term climate. These have been known to claim 'foul' with respect to the urgency of the issue as it spills over into public policy.

Yet Bill Mckibben's point is that even if (generously!) the data was ambiguous and equally weighted, public policy should demand an active lowering of emissions. The issue is so serious that to do nothing would demand a strong, majoritarian view that global warming is not man-made. In other words, we cannot afford to gamble.

Pre-revolution Russian genertics, biology, physics and chemistry was cutting edge-- comprable to France and Germany, and far better than America's.

Under Stalin, research virtually stopped , as the requiste is, was and always will be always world-participation. By contrast, Communiist Party science, in all fields, was 'communist science', pure and simple.

Of course, we all know how Quantum Physics was denounced. Likewise, in Biology, the party line demanded genetics consistent with environmental altering of the genotype itself. Enter Lysenko as the party flunkie, with his faked research that wheat seeds subjected to cold will produce cold-resistant offspring.

Perhaps those who see an 'interesting' parallel in rape and paying taxes disagreeably will find some parallel between Lysenko and modern climatology. Yet one can only present the facts and say, 'Well, perhaps, at least, the Lysenko metaphor becomes far less adhesive when one is informed about Lysenko

he was was far more redneck Republican in spirit (doubting on camera how such a little carbon could make such a big difference") than a major voice within the scientific community of his epoch and place.

Eva

The level of agreement among PhD Climatologists and other related fields is around 97%.

Calling these scientists 'witch doctors' only indicates that you don't know enough science to understand what they're saying.

And you're definately not the first to hide behind 'principles' of your own making: Lysenko had you beat by eighty years.

As for relativism, yes, science to a great extent is, indeed, 'relative'. For example, heat emission in a gas increases relative to the quantity of carbon.

So try learning a little and see for yourself.

HIV causes AIDs, milled seeds are the healthiest and important food, and consuming cholesterol causes cardiovascular disease!  Correlation is proof of causation!  The biblical record is Christian Science! Building 7 fell from an office fire! Inflation, spending, and debt (consuming) results in greater prosperity, with no regard for production!

re5:

First, you have to know what the correlates are, which isn't self-evident. HIV and AIDS are an excellent example as to how science discovered the two.

Only then, finding cause is more or less a matter of finding a mechinism--a temporal arrow, as it were. Wind makes the trees blow because of what we understand about the causal properties of wind.

In this sense, Rand's criticism of Hume is valid. Knowledge of something includes knowledge of its causal capacities. There is no 'fork'.

Measured global warming correlates closely with a causal standard called 'Keeling curve' that's based on rather basic Chem101 (or even high school). Again, this principle is the causal property of carbon to drastically heat up a mixed gas whan added.

By calling someone an 'alarmist' you've already answerd your own question as to motive.

But yes, actually, there are several valid proposals, including the market-driven cap- and- trade.

Most, however, will admit that some sort of high-tech sacrifice must be made until non-carbon buring energy can be sucessfully utilized....

At this point, however, it's not alarmist to say thet our present course will lead to catastrophe. For example, losing coastal cities is just what will happen when the ice cap melts away...

This is a debate between Alex Epstein and Bill McKibben hosted at Duke a while ago. Quotes from McKibben outside of this debate can only lead one to conclude that he's a misanthrope.  Alex is measured and thoughtful. McKibben sounds like speed talking snake oil huckster, ticking off every imagined horror we're causing the planet in rehearsed monotone. McKibben resorts to insults. Alex appeals only to facts. 

Yes, I've read 'Return'; it's excellent.

My personal sentiment is that 90% of all environmentalism is worthless posturing; the worst consequence being that such an attitude inhibits us from developing new technology. In other words you can't look to the past and the future art the same time.

But as Rand passed away before the global warming issue really hit (again, use of Keeling), we don't know whether or not she'd personally have considered the issue outside of the envirtonmnetal box or not.

I'm writing simply because I do--my reasoning being that the science is rather sound. In other words, we can agree on principles--the application to specific cases is always a question.

My belief on this specific issue is that the accepted principle that 'environmentalism' is anti-science simply cannot apply. Now I've tried to show why, with specific reference to the chemistry of gasses and how it's measured, but to no avail.

Re McKibben: yes, he's a rather nasty polemicist, which is precisely why I tend to seperate open debate (involving demeaner) from the written presentation of science. Assuming interest, google up his name & then nybooks for a coherent presentation.

Eva

Yes, Fleet Street pulp has always been big on denying global warming.

Kindly note that I cited 97% of qualified scientisis, not newspapers.

Peter,

Yes, indeed, and what she wrote was correct with reference to time.

In 1970, you had a chemical principle dating back to 1880 (% of carbon in gas >>>heat) which could not be linked to our climate. Rather, only a hypotheses that carbon emissions could cause hot weather.

So from this time line, it's clear that Rand was correct that 'global warming' was unproven hysteria.

Later, Keeling was the first to measure the real effect of carbon on a real atmosphere--Venus, specifically. here, the temprature was found to be far hotter than that which was predicted by solar proximity.

New instruments able to measure the carbon in Venus' atmosphere gave a preduictable correspondence.

Some debate remains as to how measured earth temps 'fit' onto the accepted 'Keeling Curve'.

Hence, 3% dissent that says, 'not'.

However, what's interesting (sadly) is that new measurements seem to indicate a greater % of carbon that previously imagined--the so-called 'China syndrome'.

Protocol requested that the Chinese --and Indians--offer their own data for scrutiny. This, for political reasons fell absurdly short. Independent measurements of huge swaths of Asian land mass have skewed the whole index upwards...

Again, one can only speak for their own time. Forty years is two generations of research.

Eva

Had you not noticed that Venus is a LOT closer to the sun?  Ever heard of the inverse square law as applied to sources of ionizing radiation? Yes it is true that the surface of Venus is hotter even than mercury and yes fully 96% of the atmosphere is constituted of CO2.  Of course Venus is hotter the air is also 90x denser than the atmosphere on earth.  Even of one snapped his fingers and "magically " over night converted all the CO2 into oxygen and lowered the tempurature to what it is on earth you still could not breath it and live, one breath of it would instantly turn your lungs into oxidized dust. Comparing the atmosphere of Venus to a global warming model on earth is like comparing wiping your ass with silk or using a pine cone.