It's a debate again...

Recent continuing revelations about the carefulness, or carelessness, in
which the IPCC has prepared their report on climate change continue to
surface like polar bears with water wings. The latest revelation
indicates that elements of the report were taken wholesale from WWF
publicity pieces. Many of us, myself included, have a LOT of questions
about global climate change.

1 - How are we validating it?
2 - What is the MOST likely cause (natural variability, humanity,
deforestation, etc)
3 - What are the most likely effects for the near term (next 100-200
years)
4 - Can (and should) we do anything about it?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7113582/
Amazongate-new-evidence-of-the-IPCCs-failures.html

Asking these questions usually gets one branded with a green D, for
denialist, and a midnight visit by a brass knuckle wielding, internet
inventing Al Gore. Alas, the complex science and politics of this issue
have become more and more transparent. It now appears that a lot of
information is simply being submitted with little or no substantiation.

Let me be clear, less pollution and impact to the planet is good. No
amount of action on our part will stop earthquakes, hurricanes, asteroid
strikes or other natural cataclysms. So we need to be sure that we are
working on the right problem.

I want to get back to the debate.

I want answers to my four questions.

It's not the Physics Prize...

Congratulations Al Gore! You may (did) have already won the Nobel Peace Prize! Your lovely little film, despite its atrocious inaccuracies, has elevated the discussion of a weighty scientific topic to religious fervor! This prize, I regret to inform you, will be shared by a legion of scientists who know where their bread is buttered. The members of the IPCC have graciously allowed the policy makers in the UN to sanitize their analysis and recommendations to fit within the present environmental world view.

Gore's film has been censured by the British high court as being unsuitable for educational purposes without substantial caveats and clarifications. The facts surrounding climate on the earth are complex and variable. Simplistic assumptions by anyone place the individual in the likely spot of being incorrect. I certainly believe there is a cyclic nature to climate on this planet. I am NOT convinced that the reasons for the present change (if any) are due to human generated circumstances.

Let's be clear, reducing the input of all emissions into the atmosphere is a good thing. Just as the Malthusians were wrong about apocalyptic consequences from population growth, the prospect for error among the anthropogenic sect exists. Science needs debate. It needs debate in which theories are challenged and validated in the most scrupulous manner. I believe that this is occurring in the scientific community, however, as our media attempts to report on this issue - they get it horribly wrong.

There are web sites in which anyone who challenges the origins of current climate conditions is labeled a "denier". This is an extremely inflammatory term in which individuals are lumped with the likes of Holocaust deniers. A denier is someone who, against overwhelming evidence and facts, refuses to accept some issue. There are deniers in South Africa who refuse to acknowledge the mechanisms by which HIV infections occur or convert into AIDS. There are deniers within Islam who refuse to acknowledge the rights of women as equal members of the human race. Individuals who question the theories and hypothesis of climate science are not deniers. They may be skeptics, of which I am one, but hardly deniers.

As Mr. Gore assumes the position as high priest of the current cult of climatology, be assured that the one sided emphasis in this debate will accelerate.