Alastair, I'm commenting on the American Scientist article you posted a couple of days ago. Given the rather inflammatory language of your opening paragraphs, I assumed it was yet one more summary of bits and pieces of counter evidence. However, as I've read the responses of the past few days, it's clear it is more than that.
So, I've just completed a read and have a couple of responses.
First, you don't make the charge, but it's frequently assumed that if any piece of Gore's argument comes apart, the entire argument comes apart. So it's important to position this argument about the status of the Gulf Stream argument within what I understand to be Gore's argument.
The two points about which he asserts scientific consensus vis a vis global warming are that (a) it is occurring and (b) a great deal of the explanation lies in human sources.
He never, at least explicitly, claims consensus beyond those two.
However, an inattentive viewer with less polished parsing skills than frequently displayed on this thread might come to the conclusion that many of the remaining assertions are also made on the basis of a scientific consensus.
So, on to the gulf stream warming argument.
First, the author of this piece assumes that the gulf stream argument he is trying to counter is the scientific consensus. He says as such several times in the piece. He and his friend Battisti are trying to counter that consensus.
So, on that point, Gore would remain correct.
Second, what about the viability of this author's argument. Best I can tell it's an intriguing proposal of a counter argument that's well beyond the ability of any of us who post here to evaluate. It's one of those items which makes science so intriguing. That is, the structurally induced incentive to counter "conventional wisdom" as this author has done.
The test of the viability of the argument lies in future attempts to engage it, the old Popperian argument that the truth of an argument lies in its ability to withstand counter arguments.
We are not likely, best I can tell, to know the results of that for some time.
So, in conclusion, contrary to your assertions, this piece strikes me as more substantiation for Gore's argument.
Thoughts? |
