A neighbor (and friend) sent me a link to a rather disturbing article in the Washington Post questioning the science behind the predictions of global warming. (https://wapo.st/3jVaArg) He sent it as a idea for a “conversation starter” for our little group of neighborhood friends when we get together for our periodic social gatherings. I am not sure how well that would work out as a conversation starter but it did cause me to write a response – perhaps mostly to help myself clarify my thoughts on the topic. I hope you can access the link, but if not it is an opinion piece by a columnist named George F. Will (whom am unfamiliar with and have no knowledge of).

This article is full of rather odd comments that appear to be logical, but aren’t really. For example, he mentions that CNN stated that oceans are warming at the same rate as five Hiroshima bombs per second – and then points out that the sun provides the equivalent of 2000 bombs per second – and then jokes that the comparison makes it clear that the five bombs per second are not important. Those are rather odd units of energy, but the point is that one is talking about changes in the temperature of the ocean, the other is taking about how much energy the sun provides to the earth, which is normally in balance so there oceans normally stay the same temperature. These are totally different topics and there is no comparisons to be made. The issue is that the oceans are heating up, not that there is a lot of energy in sunshine. He also points out that climate and weather are different (as if he is pointing out something different from what is emphasized constantly by the science community), and therefore there is no possible link between changing in weather and changes in climate (and then he adds that of course climate is changing because of what people are doing). He then goes on to say that humans are responsible for almost all of the climate changes, but since there are some difficulties in separating the purely human impact from the “nature” impacts, there is no point in doing anything to try to modify that impact. Then he says that there has been no detectable changes in hurricanes in the last hundred years (a false statement) – he claims that the reason that they are not detectable is that we have better monitoring so the old values are worthless as comparisons (again, a false statement), therefore since the evidence is less than perfect there are no impacts on hurricanes and hence no impacts on weather by climate changes (not related even if it were true). Then he launches into sea level rising not being caused by melting glaciers (perhaps true, and never claimed to be the cause in any case – the current cause is understood to be mostly due to water getting bigger as it gets warmer). He then makes a point that since glaciers might not be causing oceans to rise means that the average temperature in the USA is about the same as it was in 1900 (perhaps true for that year, but totally unrelated to his discussion which at this point is about sea levels). There are a bunch of other disjointed and meaningless comments before he gets to the final summary “zinger” that the projections by the UN that a 3% C increase might impact the economy by 3% by 2100 – and he then explains that during that time the economy is projected to grow by $400 trillion by 2100, and decrease by $388 trillion because of climate change – which is almost a push and therefore the whole concern about climate change (and presumably carbon dioxide levels) is not worth considering, there is no threat if the economy isn’t projected to crash.

Perhaps it would be an interesting place to begin a discussion. My personal opinion is that it is BS, but not just because much of what he says is false, but rather because of so much that was left out. He claims to be making a rational argument to support his contention that climate change is not a problem, but there is really just a bunch of disjointed statements. This is an example of stringing together “facts” taken out of context and then using them to create a narrative that suggests predictions of future actions that happen to suite the person’s philosophy. It would require much more to explain all of the things that we left out, glossed over, or incorrectly interpreted than it took to write the article.

Suffice it to say, my view is along the lines of “ok” – but so what? The author focuses his attention on what journalists say the scientists say, even though the scientists say no such thing. He is attempting to make the point that since journalists make incorrect, and misleading statements concerning what the scientists are saying that somehow the science is wrong.

A similar thing is happening with the covid issues, especially over the issues of masking and vaccinations. It is almost impossible to find any news that correctly states what the science folks are saying and have been saying for months. The problem isn’t with the scientists, the problem is that the journalists (and politicians) that are ‘interpreting’ the science know almost nothing about either the science, or even how to listen to what scientists are saying. Unfortunately, politicians seem to be even worse than journalists in that regard.

For example, yesterday I heard on the news that all school employees need to either be vaccinated OR tested weekly. This is close to one of the stupidest things that I have heard so far. For one thing, it takes significantly less time than a week to go from “testing clear” to being contagious. Obviously weekly testing won’t catch that, and it wouldn’t be a once in awhile failure to catch the problem, it will be every time someone catches it and then takes it to the schools. The science says that this approach will not work. For this approach to work the testing has to be frequent enough to be able to catch that someone has been infected before they have a chance to spread it – and that isn’t compatible with the once a week model. I am not even certain that it works at all. In addition, the science says that being vaccinated does not stop a person from being infected and spreading it. As far as I can determine, it probably doesn’t even reduce the likelihood of being contagious. The vaccinations minimize the outcome, but not the frequency. So what good does that do for the kids who haven’t been vaccinated ? None. So according to “science” the new demand is not likely to be very effective. Does this mean that the science is wrong? Nope – it means that it is being interpreted for to achieve goals other than protecting the students.

The same things are happening with the stuff about climate change. It isn’t that the science is “wrong” (understanding that by definition science is never “right”), but it is being interpreted to meet other goals.

Just my humble opinion, still interested in talking about these things, but the discussion is complex and long.