Global Warming is Real and it's Happening. Probably.

There is no such uncertainty as a sure thing.

    -- Robbie Burns (attrib.)

People who are interested in global warming—a subset which comprises about 0.0625% of the population—have asked me what I think about it, given that I'm an environmental scientist and all.

I have delved into the subject over the years, through arguing with friends about it on political chat forums on the internet (Canadaka, great site).  Yes, that's right, I'm one of these people:

Wit courtesy of xkcd.com

So here it is, folks.  I'm only going to post this once, so pay attention:

Global Warming is real and it's happening.  Probably.

When I say probably, I'm talking about a probability above 95% that human-induced (i.e. anthropogenic—those scientists just have to have a fancy name for everything, don't they?) emissions of carbon dioxide are causing measurable changes to the planetary climate and will likely cause significant damage down the road at the rate we're going.

But of course, everyone knows that already.  Even the great majority scientists that are trotted out as "skeptics" readily admit this, although their probably is a lot less probably than my probably.  The so-called "deniers"—the ones that dismiss any anthropogenic influence at all—tend not be scientists, and are more concerned about the perceived policy implications of global warming (wealth distribution, "one-world government," fettering of capital, etc.) than global warming itself.

And I'm pretty sure, as a planet, we'll pretty much sit around with our thumbs up our butts until the whole thing starts to be, in the inimitable words of the Brits, a "damn nuisance."  But we'll save that discussion for another day.

But, Adam, isn’t it certain?  What about the overwhelming consensus. The evidence before our eyes right now. 

Well, there is a boatload of evidence for sure, but science isn't about certainty, it's about uncertainty.  Certainty is a tenet of faith.  Faith is when you're certain of something despite any evidence to the contrary.  Faith is utterly unassailable by reasons, facts and science. It's a wonderful thing that way. 

So, despite the overwhelming evidence in support of AGW, as a good scientist I have to allow for the possibility that we're all just wrong about some of this.

That was all well and good before anthropogenic global warming (AGW) became a political debate.  Politicians don't like uncertainty.  The pulpit-pounding pontificators on cable news exploited this uncertainty thing:  "Well the scientists aren't even sure about this, but we are." Fervent belief is not a valid argument in a scientific paper, but it sure as hell plays in Peoria.  The AGW proponents started to lose ground.

Scientists who were—rightly—concerned that folks were ignoring a critically important issue fought back.  They became communicators themselves, and stopped with the uncertainty and other wishy-washy language. The communication of the message became even more important than the science supporting the message.

And they got caught.  Sophomoric errors found in peer-reviewed papers.  Exaggeration of conclusions.  Personal attacks against prominent scientists skeptical of AGW theory.  Alleged attempts to stop "skeptical" papers from appearing in the more prestigious journals.  Data manipulation to try to show results in a way to maximize communication impact, as opposed to maximize scientific illumination (the infamous "Hide the Decline" episode).

The damage to science has been, in my opinion, significant.  Science, in this hyperpartisan era, has lost its appeal to objectivity in this important debate.   The screaming on both sides makes it difficult to discern the sound of reason.

Or maybe I'm just being naïve.  Maybe we live now in a post-objective world and the whole notion impartiality is just quaint these days.  That feels right. I'll explore that idea some more.