Thursday, May 17, 2007

Is the AGW Science Settled?

eems that the scriptural literalists disagree. Which repugnant, god-bothering draft animal to hitch one's wagon to -- the monotonous plantation pedant or the grinning Okie troll?

For now, I'm firmly in the skeptical camp, and here's why: Some of the most committed, serious scientific advocates of human agency in global warming sum up the research as follows:

"Despite current uncertainties, it nonetheless remains a widespread view among paleoclimate researchers that late 20th century hemispheric-scale warmth is anomalous in a long-term (at least millennial) context, and that anthropogenic factors likely play an important role in explaining the anomalous recent warmth."

Sentence-length distillations of settled science don't require more qualifications than the last five seconds of a prescription drug commercial. There are no "current uncertainties" that humans are possessed of a pancreas; it is not a "widespread view" among medical researchers that the pancreas excretes insulin; it is not "likely" that insulin metabolizes sugar; and a pancreas that fails to excrete insulin is not a "factor likely playing an important role in explaining" diabetes.

No comments: