Tuesday, May 03, 2011

Global warming

A friend at Appropedia recently sent me a link to an article arguing that Richard Lindzen's global temperature forecasts have been consistently incorrect.

Here's a video summary of Lindzen's arguments.

The trouble is, the article didn't install any faith in the data for me, though I appreciate the quality of the effort to argue the point it was making. Lindzen would be frustrated by it, because essentially what he has been trying to say is the data can't be comprehensive or precise, so nor can the discussion. The reality is, we have surface data from 1981, and very rough data prior to that going back only so far as 1880. No adjustments made for geo political change either - which effects the availability of data collection points - such as the fall of USSR, apparently ending data collection in many locations in Siberia and Arctic regions... or the realisation that the few data collection stations we do have, is still not enough for a full global picture. Oh, and the rejection of geologists attempting to add their long view perspectives. Added to this is the working over of the data revealed in Climategate. So the window we have on the question is tiny, not enough to know for certain, too late if it is revealing something.

It seems to me, we (humanity) is neither politically or technically able to think globally, and so we can only continue to think and act locally, within our natural given senses of a community's ecological zone. This means to me, improve our local sensitivity, and respond. Globalism is the opposite to that effort. So far, anyone willing to try and think and act globally, invites the evil of Goldman and Sachs and other global economists, and the hegemony of the corrupt West, and global trade which breaks our ability to monitor resource use and impact. The discussion of global warming plays into this.

We've always known locally that many of our actions hurt our habitat, and don't need difficult conceptions of gas and global temperature models to confirm that. We know that deforestation is bad for fertility, rivers, farmland, local climate, and our spirit, and we have the technology to monitor and gauge that locally. If we lack the capability to act locally, Global power is not going to fix that. Globalism, whether it be economic or ecologic (they don't dare speak socially yet) is a distraction from our ability to think and act locally. For example, an increase in local taxes, to in a large part pay a global exchange system shown to be corrupt, pretends to be action when its nothing of the sort.

No comments: