Space/Science — HabitableZone

Space/Science » in reply to "runaway" greenhouse effect

re: "runaway" greenhouse effect
ER — (archived)

There is no runaway greenhouse effect, and references to it are either alarmism from one side or a straw man/red herring distraction argument from the other. There is, no doubt, a highly complex tangle of perfectly natural competing effects which modulate global climate, and there are no doubt innumerable feedback mechanisms in the hydrosphere and atmosphere which manage it. We don't know how they work but we do know they do work because life has a long and basically uninterrupted history on this planet. But history also shows us that even within tolerable limits for life as a whole, the climate can oscillate wildly, from hothouse swamp to ice age, to vast desertification. And man's activities and the short time scale on which they are conducted is truly unprecedented.

You know my position. I am no climatologist, so I must rely on what I perceive is the consensus scientific opinion of those most qualified to study this phenomenon. This is why I choose to avoid detailed technical debate in which neither I nor my opponent are knowledgeable about. You can call that argument by authority if you like, but what other choice do I have? The reasons given for why the consensus could be wrong simply do not convince me. I'm perfectly aware of how an issue like this can be Lowellized, but I also am aware of how this consensus could generate bitter and irrational opposition from those likely to be inconvenienced by it. When faced with insufficient data, even the most rational mind must rely on its intuition, and however fallible, I trust mine.

Unfortunately, opinions on the AGW debate now seem to be highly correlated with the political agendas of the participants, even though there are mavericks on both sides of the fence. The unfortunate result is that research and consensus will be either influenced, selectively weighted, tainted, or ignored. We are doomed to either undergo great hardship and expense implementing an unnecessary solution to a non-existent problem, or not doing enough and paying a terrible price as a result.

Or, given the myopic greed of the human race, we might even figure out a way to do both.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (61 posts)