elevated from the diaries
So I finally give in and start a diary thread on global warming. Why now? I commented on an article relating to "peak oil" on tfisb’s diary and tfisb responded to my comments and it seemed that s/he is a "climate-change skeptic." Here is my answer to tfisb’s specific points. Then in a separate comment I will outline my position on this issue.
The larger question is, how can the truth or falsity of a technical question be established, in a partisan society.
Very briefly: The "increased funding" argument is a red herring, you could assert that to discredit ANY scientific work. The tipping canoe is a dramatic image to help explain the similar physics to the layman, there is nothing fantastic about it. There is a widespread scientific concensus that human-induced climate change is here and now and important. Only a few outliers dispute that — what are their motives?
I am aware of no "latest studies" that have superseded that basic concensus which has existed for ~10 years now. Rather the latest studies refine our knowledge and change important details. For instance, how much will sea level rise in the near future? Obviously a crucial question. There is some evidence that it may actually fall, as warmer air means more snow piles up in Antarctica.