Naomi Oreskes recently wrote a piece in the LA Times telling us about the most recent scientific consensus on global warming: Global Warming -- Signed, Sealed and Delivered.

Whenever I read something about global warming, I find a suspicious number of "weasel words" in the text regarding human involvement. Ms. Oreskes, for example, quoting the National Academy of Sciences, calls it "likely." Is that a 99% chance? 75%? 51%? She says there is "no significant disagreement" among scientists. Does that mean nobody? Or just a statistically insignificant amount, which might be 1%, 5%, or even 10%. She then goes on to write, essentially, that we must accept that humans are causing global warming because a better theory has not yet emerged in a respected scientific journal. That seems a little elitist. But most interestingly, her article ends with a paragraph of disclaimers about the "uncertainties" inherent in any live science. She's basically saying, "we could be wrong, but we're probably right."

This reminds me of Robert Bazell's report on global warming on NBC Nightly News For Dummies a while back. There was a big splash at the start of the broadcast, saying that this was it, the debate is over, we're doomed if we don't do something, junk your SUVs now before it's too late, blah blah blah. Then the report went on to say that, yes, the National Academy of Sciences confirms that the earth is hotter than it's ever been in the last 400 years, but we aren't so sure about anything before that. Huh? How is that a slam dunk case for anything?

Robert Bazell's source of information, the National Academy of Sciences, in their Congressional testimony, state their "belief" that warming is "a result of human activities." But once again, we find weasel words, vagueness, and a lack of evidence. They admit that the surface temperature reconstructions examined in the report are not the primary evidence to look for a human cause. They admit that factors of volcanic activity and output of the Sun are "not very well known" prior to the Industrial Revolution. In other words, they "think" it's humans but they don't "know" squat.

I remain unconvinced that there's a "slam dunk" case that industrialization is causing global warming. I'm still looking for someone to refute that it's anything more than a simple increase in global population (more people = more lungs expelling carbon dioxide). Wouldn't it be funny if it turned out we had to start killing people off to control global warming and save mankind?