Print 42 comment(s) - last by acejj26.. on Jan 9 at 3:18 PM

There is abundant data supporting the theory that our world is warming, such as the increase in melts in the glaciers of Greenland, such as the one shown here. However, when considering this data, and studies which support or oppose the view that man is causing warming it is desirable to examine dissenting opinions and avoid overreaching conclusions and sensationalism.
Two of DailyTech's most active writers offer up differing views on the state of global warming research and press

When I first started writing on global warming here at DailyTech, I wrote much in the style I saw at rival news sites like and  However, in the days since my articles on global warming have grown scarcer and, in my opinion, more considered.

You see, there is an alarming trend in the coverage of global warming which I have witnessed -- one that goes both ways.  Perhaps proponents that global warming is increasing and is anthropogenic (manmade) are indeed who launched this trend.  Regardless, there are many articles which litter the news citing doomsday observations about global warming from sea level rises, to storms and droughts.

A lot of the problem, as I see it, is not so much the material behind these articles itself, which certainly has scientific merit, but rather the context that it's provided in.  Global warming commercial press is overwhelming extremist -- whether for or against.  For proponents, this means drawing sweeping conclusions from select climatological events and writing dire doomsday predictions.

For skeptics, writing has come to an equal extreme.  I've seen articles, including from my fellow debate partner Michael Asher, suggesting global cooling could be the next big problem.  Headlines in particular tend to be equally sensational, indicating that hoards of major scientists are forsaking global warming and that trends are sharply reversing.  Again, these studies cite data, but place it in an extremist context -- in this case denialist.

In the end, though, I can only be my own worst critic.  I promised Mike Asher a piece if the North Pole ice cap did not melt, as some news sites suggested and I blogged on.  It didn't melt -- which really doesn't say much about whether global warming is occurring or not.  However, it did help me to see the sadly extremist and unscientific state of climate writing on both sides of the aisle.

The truth of the matter, which any honest climatologist would tell you, is that we just don't know yet.  Many believe there is solid data that a great deal of the Earth has been warming slightly over the last couple decades, but the exact reason why is still unknown.  There's an abundance of theory about what might be causing it, but much research remains to be done.  There also have been telltale signs that there has been some cooling this year, but again, this needs to be viewed in a broader context.

In the end, what people need to realize is just because it isn't the end of the world doesn't mean that global warming might not be happening.  And whether it is or isn't; understanding and analytically examining our planet's climate is an endeavor worth devoting time, money, and some of the world's brightest brains to.  Likewise, "environmental" initiatives like species conservation, land protection, fuel efficient vehicles, and alternative energy are good ideas with or without AGW beliefs. 

It’s been an interesting year, and it the coming year to follow, I suggest that readers following the warming debate take into consideration both sides of the issue, even if you agree more with one.  I am encouraged to see a trend here at DailyTech to provide a more balanced perspective, citing diverging opinions and putting things in a more scientific and less sensational context.  I feel that I have seen this in both some of my recent pieces, and in some of Michael's, such as his excellent article on the decrease in sea level rise this year.  I hope we both strive to continue this trend and continue to provide the best diverse coverage for our readers, and that the readership continues to provide both of us the feedback we find so valuable.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

we just don't know yet
By arazok on 12/30/2008 12:33:09 PM , Rating: 2
The truth of the matter, which any honest climatologist would tell you, is that we just don't know yet.

Thanks Jason, as a AGW believer, for admitting that.

"environmental" initiatives like species conservation, land protection, fuel efficient vehicles, and alternative energy are good ideas with or without AGW beliefs.

Now you need to admit that it’s silly to spend money on solving a problem you only suspect exists. Is it worth spending billions on solar and wind, when all it will do is provide more expensive energy? Shouldn’t we limit the money we throw at a suspected problems?

RE: we just don't know yet
By dlapine on 12/30/2008 1:36:27 PM , Rating: 2
It's not a matter of belief to recognize a potential danger and consider actions to avert it. The critical part is to determine the likelihood of occurrence and the level of danger.

One would not speak of "belief" when discussing the dangers of a large asteroid impact, as the event has already occurred in the past, and conditions prevail that make another impact probable in the future.

The same for a change in climate. There's no belief involved- just calculations of the probabilities of an event that would effect all of the earth. You then must weigh those probabilities against the amount of damage to determine the degree of effort we (the human race) needs to forth to prevent such an occurrence.

Belief enters into it only for the religious fundamentalists, as none of their religions specify the destruction of the human race via a change in climate, so obviously the probability of such an event is zero. Any supporter of a occurring climate change theory is not a religious fundamentalist.

You can have a rational discussion about the probability of a climate event (Global Warming, for instance) or the specifics of what the effects would be, and you can certainly argue about the level of efforts or specific actions needed to prevent such an event.

I'm not aware of any position in this discussion that doesn't note that the Earth's climate varies, and that it does so to extremes so as to make human life on the earth impossible, save for those who believe that the Earth is only a few thousand years old.

If you're not a believer in the young earth theory, you must accept the fact that the earth's climate may change. It certainly has in the past. The argument lies in whether it's happening now, and can the human race do anything about it.

Please note that I'm not making a personal claim about this one way or another at this time.

RE: we just don't know yet
By acejj26 on 1/9/2009 3:18:24 PM , Rating: 2
It can be agreed upon that a fair share of liberals believe in AGW (though not all) and those same liberals decry Bush for going to war in Iraq. They look at AGW as a problem that may have potential dangerous results, and as a consequence, they look to fight it. Bush, in going to war in Iraq, looked at a potentially dangerous situation and he fought it. Exact same ideology, but liberals choose to support one but bash the other. Hilarious.

"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki