Analogies are typically attempts to clarify things through comparison. Sometimes they can be used to sway thinking towards a particular point of view.

However, analogy is no substitute for actual science. Thermodynamics is based on mathematics, especially calculus. The math requires concentration and effort. So far, it has proven to be our most effective means of understanding the universe.

Like any human endeavor, climate science (which invokes many interrelated scientific disciplines) is being exploited on both sides of the issue for political gain and potential profit. Underneath all the P. T. Barnum, though, there is still science.

Science has always had competing hypotheses. Less than a hundred years ago, the controversy was between “static Earth” and “continental drift” geologists. Continental drift started out as geologic heresy from the lunatic fringe. However, as time passed and more data accumulated, with both improved quantity and quality, the new data was evaluated against both models.

Cory Lum/Civil Beat

A few items seemed to support the older static Earth model, but the overwhelming trend was in support of the new model, which was renamed Plate Tectonics. It wasn’t a popularity contest. Luckily for geology, there were no financial or industrial interests vested in the static Earth hypothesis.

Modern climatology based on sophisticated mathematical analysis of meteorological data, is a very recent occurrence in history. It is still being developed, refined, and corrected. Nevertheless, the basic model is well established.

We have the climatological equivalent of a biplane. Crude, inefficient, ugly, but it flies. And just as the biplane put us on the path to DC3s and 747s, the current models will lead to better ones.

When proponents of anthropologically-driven global warming state that the consensus of climate scientists support their hypothesis, they make a grave mistake by framing it as a popularity contest, something that can be outvoted by well-funded and organized opponents.

We should stop calling it anthropologically-driven global warming and call it anthropologically-aggravated global warming.

For every opponent of climate change who seizes a little scrap of data and waves it around on YouTube, there are hundreds if not thousands of dedicated researchers quietly collecting data and testing it exhaustively against multiple hypotheses. And the leading contender continues to be anthropologically-driven global warming.

Another bit of semantics: We should stop calling it anthropologically-driven global warming and call it anthropologically-aggravated global warming (“AAGW”).

Maybe our models will ultimately tell us that Earth does go though periodic warming cycles akin to cooling cycles like ice ages. Do we really want to take the chance that human-aggravated warming will tip the balance into the runaway greenhouse effect we see right next door on Venus?

The opponents of AAGW often admit to a correlation between the rise in planet-wide average temperatures and the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide due to industrialization, but are quick to point out that a correlation does not always represent a cause-and-effect relationship. Scientific Method demands that hypotheses be tested.

Before we have a mature, mathematically rigorous Theory of Climatology, we can test the current hypothesis empirically: Reduce the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere by whatever means we have technologically and socially, and measure the effects.

How many opponents of this suggestion would argue purely from a scientific point of view? Some claim to, but investigation has sometimes led to a financial connection to concerns who wish to remain in a static world. If we reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere and global warming continues increasing for the next 50 years, then the deniers can justifiably say, “We told you so!”.

The opposing view points to the potential of global climate change seem to be more concerned with who is more right. We are already experiencing changes in our atmosphere affecting not just Hawaii but the world. Regardless of who is “right,” shouldn’t we be planning and preparing for potential worst-case scenarios? We can all agree that change is happening.

The cause or causes will most likely be validated at some later date. We still have today to deal with. So, what’s the next step?