The Pielkes and The Global Warming Debate

Ok...I'm now about to venture onto foreign soil...climate science!!

Whatever possessed me to attempt this, you wonder?

Good question -- glad you asked!

First of all, I see that many discussants on the web mix my brother and his son up with me. I'm "Robert" and they are "Roger Sr." and "Roger Jr." respectively. They're both scientists...I'm a bull-shitter [a.k.a. philosopher] and an author [soon to be a world-famous author -- see...a bull-shitter, right?]

Second, I have no intention of saying anything at all about the science involved in this debate. I'm going to comment on the logic involved -- or the illogic as the case may be.

Third, they get tons more press than I do...and I"m jealous! So I'm hoping to glom some of their publicity. My two new books coming out in a few months could use it! [A New Birth of Freedom: The Visitor -- sf/alt history and Rock Music in American History: Stop Children! What's That Sound?] See...I'm glomming!

There's actually a forth reason and probably worth mentioning, since I tend to ramble a bit. My brother got to go to Copenhagen last week for the big Global Warming thing. I would have liked to go to Europe too!! Not for that conference! I would have stopped off in Amsterdam for a legal puff or two! Yaah mon!! Rastafari!

Ok...The Global Warming Debate [ahem...]

Logically, there can only be three positions, it seems.

1. Human activity has no [or no significant] impact on the climate and thus climate change. My brother tells me these folks are called "climate skeptics" in the trade. What he didn't tell me is that these people are idiots! They're certainly not familiar with rational thought processes! Think about it: in order to VERIFY such a claim, they would have to KNOW ALL POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES and rule them out-- but that's just not LOGICALLY possible. [You can't know all possible alternatives because there always may be others you don't know about -- you can't know what you don't know!! -- LOGIC 101! Verifying a negative proposition is ILLOGICAL.]

You can FALSIFY this but NOT VERIFY it.

These people can be ignored...if possible! It seems that Sara Palin is a prime example of such idiocy [no surprise there]; she recently signed on to this creed. And it would seem to be a mere chimera that we can ignore her. Presumably there are no scientists in this category.

2. So...that leaves us with the proposition that human activity has SOME significant impact on the climate and climate change, right? This proposition CAN be VERIFIED but NOT FALSIFIED. All it would take is showing ONE example of how human activity can accomplish this. Then it would be shown to be true.

Now here's where it gets tricky, because there are two very different positions packed into this notion. The word "some" logically and literally means "at least one and possibly all"! [LOGIC 101]

2a. The human impact on the environment is pretty much exclusively due to our excess production of carbon dioxide in various ways. Or...to put it a bit more starkly. The human impact on the climate is due only to CO2 pollution. And here there is a LOGICAL problem similar to the "Idiot's Alternative" above: "Exclusivity" can not be verified! You can NOT empirically [a.k.a. show that ONLY ONE thing causes another, because you can not rule out ALL other possible causes -- since you can't know things you don't know! [LOGIC 101 again]

2b. SO the ONLY LOGICAL alternative is that there is AT LEAST ONE kind of impact humans can have on the climate. Then the issue is to list the possible causes and assess which ones are more or less significant. THIS is the category for genuine scientific thinking: to consider all known causes and evaluate them objectively.

The core of the GENUINE debate seems to be that some scientists feel the evidence shows that CO2 is the culprit and that other causes are insignificant [Gore's people?] while other scientists feel that there is as much or more evidence to support other causes [Pielke's people?].

Evidence [not politics as those other Pielkes would say] should decide the matter...and as with all good and genuine scientific propositions, the matter is ALWAYS open for further consideration.

Now...I'm going to sit back, pour myself a glass of Bordeaux and wait for my brother to call!