I've been going on and on about global warming and climate change all week (See many posts below). This is my last say on the subject, as it passes the discussion on to actual scientists who know things, on both sides of the issue. Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit apparently was following the global warming/Chricton book thing as well this week, as he again posts links to different debates on both topics, right here.
And he's right about a dialogue being opened, and I'm glad it's in the scientific community, especially after some MORE nutty headlines on Drudge today
about global warming being twice as bad as before. There are two articles there that go to the Guardian and the Independent, and again, the science is teneous, as computer modeling is used, and computer modeling is not very effective in predicting climate change over the long term. How do I know this? Well, here's the link to a discussion between a NASA climatologist and choas theorist.
The general consensus, which is actually part of Crichton's novel, is that computer modeling is poor because it picks arbitrary start times to examine historical and future trends, usually times that are known in advance to go to a particular scientists own expectations and bias. Crichton makes a long plea for more double-blind testing in climatology and there is some correlation in this exchange.
Anyway, I'm all gloabl warminged out. Other, much more educated people can take it from here. It's just this stuck in my craw and I felt like going on about it. I think maybe I made some good points, but who knows.
ETA: Reader and blogger Eric has a great, thurough takedown of the two new "threats". Read it right here.