So which is it?

I'm sick of global warming. I'm tired of hearing about how it's responsible for all the worlds woes, and how we're all doomed. Part of the reason why is that I'm not sure I buy it. I haven't read all the studies, but like many medical "facts" reported on the evening news, the studies differ on their conclusion enough to muddy the water. Michael Chrichton does a nice job with the entire subject in "State of Fear". He even makes citations, which is nice. And any story where an actor... oh, I won't give it away. If you don't like activist actors, then read the book.

So, today, I'm reading a story in the Times Science section about moving off the coast, because.. now get this.. building your house on a barrier island in a hurricane zone, might, JUST MIGHT, be a bad idea. Here's the quote from A.R. Schwartz, a reformed Democratic politician who now opposes coastal development. (BTW, that means he made his money, and can now afford a conscience.)

A. R. Schwartz, a Democrat who for decades represented Galveston and much of the Texas coast in the State Legislature, said he now regretted some of the legislation he had pushed that subsidized development on the coast, particularly a measure that provides tax relief to insurance companies faced with wind damage claims.

Mr. Schwartz, whose constituents knew him as Babe, said that measure was "a terrible mistake - in my mind, as opposed to my heart, because the people need the insurance - because it has been an invitation for people to build homes on barrier islands and on peninsulas that are exposed to storms, at public expense."

So, what does this have to do with Global warming, you ask? Well, earlier in the article they talked about what coastal scientists had to say on the matter.

Coastal scientists have been saying for years that global warming will threaten coastal areas with higher seas and more powerful storms, and that a hurricane lull that began in the mid-1960's will eventually give way to the far more dangerous pattern of storms that prevailed in the 1930's, 40's and 50's. Since then, though, development has transformed the nation's shoreline, especially on the east and gulf coasts.

Lets see, first they say global warming will make hurricanes work. Then, in the same sentence, they say that it's all part of what looks to be a 100 yr or so cycle of strengthening and weakening hurricanes. So, which is it?

The thing is, they don't know. How do I know this? Let's see we have about 50 yrs of really solid weather data, maybe 75. Everything before that is kinda spotty, because we just didn't have the technology to get the data we needed.

So here's what we've got:
1) Temperatures may be rising due to humans or they may be part of a temperature cycle, but the cycle is longer than 75 yrs so we're not sure.
2) Modern technology may have caused the warming that may have happened, or it might have been the rise of agriculture.
3)Hurricanes might be more intense due to the warming that might be happening, or it might just be it's normal cycle, but we haven't got data on even one cycle, so who knows.
4)Conclusion, we may or may not have a temperature trend, that may or may not cause other weather to be more severe.

Very conclusive, I'd say.

Ultimately, for me it comes down to this. In my experience as a technical person, fixing problems is a three step process. First, identify problem. Second, identify and verify the cause. Three, find a solution. Anytime, you try to do step 3 before you finish step 2, it all goes to hell. Look at any social reform program for corroboration. The difficulty is that if you don't thoroughly understand what you're trying to fix, you often create as many problems as you fix. When talking about climate, we're talking about trends that take place over centuries. You can't look at the data we've got and come to a solid conclusion, there's just not enough good data about long term trends. Plenty of anecdotal stuff to identify the problem, and come up with testing procedures, just not enough to start getting all worked about about fixing things.

I'll get off my soapbox now. I love science, I just hate it when it becomes a "cause". Especially, when it's not finished yet. Scientists should be more like artists. If you walk up to an artist that's in the middle of a painting, and start critiqueing their work, you get covered with paint.