Global warming, 5/4/07

The more I read about global warming, the less argument I have with scientists on either side of the debate and more with reporters who cover it. And people like me who talk about it.

Take this AP article as posted on cnn.com:

The document made clear that the world has the technology and money to decisively act in time to avoid a sharp rise in temperatures that scientists say would wipe out species, raise ocean levels, wreak economic havoc and trigger droughts in some places and flooding in others.

"Made clear"? Whatever happened to, "If your mother says she loves you, check it out."

I've been reading as much as I can about the science of global warming, and it truly is confusing: ocean currents, tipping points, methane, the Icelandic low, solar cycles and more. I've tried to stay away from interpretive pieces that take dogmatic positions and get as close to the source material as possible. In this politically charged debate, that's not always easy.

I resent people on one side saying the debate is over, and I resent people on the other side describing talk of global warming as "junk science."

I've glanced through the IPCC report that came out today. I hope to read it this weekend around chats with visiting relatives from out of town. While some of the people who put it together think it's a brilliant document, sitting here in the American heartland, I have to take a different view from what I've seen.

It's easy to call for more centralized planning and more investment in sequestration (where would that money come from?), but the small part I've scanned looks incompatible with the modern American capitalist economy.

But let me look at the whole thing over the weekend.