Lucky or unlucky you, my division here at work just got reorganized (in a way that's good for me) and we're all sort of paralyzed temporarily while the money and org charts get rerouted. Lots of free time in Valgyland.

I think I'm a half-expert on this. I know enough to be able to pick up a climate article in a primary source journal and read it, but I don't have the depth to assess individual articles with respect to one another. So I do what I wish more people would do: Try to find the experts and see what their consensus is.

If something was going on with my car's transmission, I'd see a mechanic. It is useful for me to look into what the parts are, how it basically works, etc. It is useful for me to look into what mechanics have good reputations, rarely get sued, etc. It is useful for me to talk to a couple mechanics, but if I visited five different places and they all told me the same thing, and gave me estimates that were in the same ballpark, I'd probably figure they knew what they're talking about, and pony up the cash.

If you're charged with a crime, get a good lawyer. If you're sick, see a good doctor. If you're concerned about global warming, ask a good climatologist. Or read one, I guess.

The climate change debate is a political one. It gets conflated with dozens of other issues for good reasons (it will have far-reaching consequences) and bad reasons (fear and uncertainty can make certain people a lot of money).

If I only make one point, it's that the scientific debate is dead and buried. Done. Over. Every major organization of climatologists agrees that:

1) Human activity is changing the atmosphere.
2) These changes are impacting climate in a significant manner right now.
3) These changes will escalate if we don't make changes.
4) These changes will be unpredictable at best, and catastrophic at worst.

The best short article on this consensus IMO is here.

(Let me know if that link isn't open to the public.)

Brief summary: People looked at the 928 papers discussing climate change in peer-reviewed scientific journals from 1993-2003. Roughly 25% take no position on the causes, or are discussing ancient climate changes or whatever. 75% of the articles accept the consensus opinion, cited in that article and above. Precisely zero claim the opposite.

That's devastating. It's hard for me to emphasize how weird it is that counterexamples aren't out there. Remember that with 928 articles on climate change... it's not very sexy to publish the 929th article that expounds upon the consensus. You'd get international attention overnight if you backed the opposite with real data. The incentive is to be the maverick.

Yet zero show up. (I don't think that's changed since 2003.) A lot of quacks publish stuff on their web sites, blogs, etc., but that material doesn't undergo review. Anyone can write anything. (And will, especially if they happen to be funded by coal or oil companies.) But if no one can get anything published in the tens or hundreds of journals that would take a big-time climate paper... that speaks volumes.

The only real questions are what we should do. Fortunately, most of the suggestions (energy efficiency, mass transit infrastructure, lowered dependence on oil, pollution controls, etc.) are all things we should be doing anyway. Even if you think global warming is complete hooey, it's hard to oppose a movement that's asking for things like that. It would improve our geopolitical independence, public health, traffic situations, and so much more.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com