31 July 2007

Climate Change and The Truth: Introduction

Darius and other readers,

The experience of writing this reply to your entries about antropogenic global warming has been very informative for me. I know much more about the arguments, counterarguments, and scientific details of climate change than I did before. I am grateful for that opportunity. I realize that I am unlikely to change your mind, but I do ask that this reply be given careful and thorough consideration.

This reply is in a different font than my usual blog entries because it is the best option for handling subscripts and superscripts. I must also thank my roommate Chris for proofreading my draft of this reply and providing several valuable questions, ideas, insight, and editorial comments.

This reply is divided into five parts to make reading more convenient and because the Blogger spell checker would not work properly when it was one monolithic document.


In this reply, I discuss your objections to the claim that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is real. I use the phrase to make clear that I am distinguishing between the natural variability of Earth's climate and the effects that human activities have had in the past 150 years. I am a physicist, not a climatologist, so I shall not address many scientific details of AGW; others can (and have) done a much better job of that than I could. Contrary to your claim that "those who are prominently pushing the theory of human-induced GW" are "U.N.-paid lackeys," I am funded by the United States Department of Energy, which is lead by Sec. Samuel Bodman, who was appointed by President Bush.

I shall focus on broad issues that I think I am qualified to address, so long as I cite the appropriate sources. I will address you objections by dividing them into three categories. First, I will address the issue of greatest importance, which is our Christian worldview. Then, I will address the power of science and whether we have the ability to understand and accurately forecast global climate. Third, I will address the proposed solutions to AGW and whether they are viable.

I shall conclude with what I hope are points on which we can agree.

1 comment:

Darius and Elisabeth said...

cool, I have been looking forward to reading your reply.

One note in passing: my admittedly hyperbolic reference to "U.N.-paid lackeys" was not meant to encompass all people who believe in AGW, but rather to those who have politicized the issue and made claims that debate is no longer necessary (i.e. Al Gore, Leo DiCaprio, and other celebrities/politicians/lobbyists).