If this study is accurate then we could be in for even more gray skies here in Seattle.

If only gay sex caused global warming, an op-ed by Daniel Gilbert for the LA Times, gets at the psychological roots of why people have a difficult time believing in, or planning for, global warming.

My view on the subject is that some people look at their world, synthesize it, and come up with beliefs to support their views. Others come to the show with beliefs already formed. Then they look at their world and view it in such a way as to support their beliefs. The only other recourse is to change their beliefs which can be a scary thing to do. Even changing for small things can be dangerous to their belief structure because if they change one they often realize that the world didn’t come unzipped and maybe they can change another and so on.

I’ve noticed that a crisis in someones life can lead to a drastically restructured belief system. They were forced to change their beliefs about one thing and then it cascaded through all, or most, of their other beliefs.

I try to keep fairly current on the global warming news. I read a few sites, mostly RealClimate and Jeff Masters, and also have a specialized Google News category for “global warming” so that when new stories come out I’ll be likely to see them. The cool thing about the Google News category is that it presents commentaries from both sides of the isle, so to speak. And sometimes I just love reading the people who argue against global warming.

(Note: there are almost zero “news articles” that purport that global warming is either not happening or not happening because of man. There are however many commentaries that try to discredit the theory of global warming. And those commentaries can sometimes be laughably inaccurate.)

I read one just today by Patrick J. Michaels that made the following claim:

What’s going on? Can the news really be this bad?

The answer is simple: No. Not if mathematics is any guide.

Every time some “new” information is added to a weather forecast, it should have an equal chance of making it warmer or colder. In global warming, which is really just a super-long-range forecast, every new finding should also have an equal chance of making it warmer or cooler, or “worse than we thought” or “not as bad as we thought.”

The author spends the rest of the commentary reflecting on the consequences of his enlightened observation.

Mr. Michaels follows the same basic formula that his fellow disinformation spreaders from the Cato Institute - that revered institution of unbiased enlightenment - use.

1. Use a cool tone that sounds like the voice of reason
2. Purport to be applying simple logic and/or mathematics
3. Apply a dash of false logic
4. Misquote a respected scientist who vehemently disagrees with their view
5. Support the idea that there is an academic conspiracy to suppress their own view

So lets take apart his argument:

Every time some “new” information is added to a weather forecast, it should have an equal chance of making it warmer or colder.

Lets suppose that this is correct and that our “new” information is always 100% accurate. I should expect that over time the changes would average out 50% warmer, 50% cooler. So, I start making my measurements and low and behold it just keeps getting cooler. There might be a few days here and there that were warmer than the previous day but I’ve noticed that after 3 months of collecting new information the temperature has dropped by 20 degrees. Oh boy, what ever happened to global warming. We must be headed for a new ice age!

But wait, I started gathering weather data in September. Of course, it’s winter now and that’s why the temperature is dropping. So no, each “new” piece of weather data doesn’t have an equal chance of producing a warmer or cooler affect.

If you were to say, “well, maybe he didn’t mean on a day-by-day scale but a much longer scale.” Okay, then how would he explain the Little Ice Age that Europe went through from the 16th-19th centuries? Or even the glacial periods that have lasted for 100s of thousands of years at a time and then the interglacial periods that last for 10s of thousands of years?

So no, our “new” information is not just as likely to create a warming or cooling affect.

His second mistake, and much more subtle one that many people will miss, is his phrasing: “an equal chance of making it warmer or colder.”

You see, collecting data does not make it warmer or cooler. The only affect the data has is on the model. It does nothing to the environment. But that’s what he implies with his wording.

So please be careful when reading commentaries that sound like the voice of reason in a den of panic. If you want to believe one way or another then you can find plenty to read to support your desired outlook. But if you don’t want to be misled then you’ll have to lead yourself by reading critically.

I signed up for this blog action day thing to help focus attention on the issue of global warming. But really, what can I say that you don’t already know? The North polar icecap has reached an all time low this summer - 2007. Al Gore shared a Nobel prize for his efforts educating the public. Even GB himself has used the GW words.

Every public poll I’ve seen indicates that the majority believe global warming is for real and is being caused by human civilization. So kudos for awareness. But, carbon dioxide levels continue to go up. Not only are greenhouse gas concentrations going up but they’re going up at an ever increasing rate. I’m pretty sure that’s a bad thing.

So here’s my forecast: It’s going to suck. It’s going to suck soon. And it’s going to suck for some a whole lot more than it is for others.

But remember, what does not kill you makes you stronger. And hopefully this will apply to the human race as a whole.

In my opinion humanity is in it’s early childhood. You can see a whole lot of similarities between a bunch of children playing in a sandbox to the machinations of the United Nations.

I can’t imagine the world actually working together on something, like cutting back on greenhouse gas emissions, any more than I can imagine a bunch of kids spontaneously coming together as a whole to treat everyone fairly.

But kids grow up. And in the process small few of them gain the perspective to see that they were being childish when they were young and playing in that sand box. And they could have had more fun and been happier.

Hopefully humanity will suffer through the affects of global warming and come out the other side happier, healthier and wiser. Maybe we’ll grow up through the coming crises that are sure to arise.

I guess you could say that I’m pessimistically optimistic about humanities long term future. But the short term future is going to suck.

My friend Collis Ta’eed of FlashDen.net, and many other sites, is organizing an event to help promote environmental awareness. The goal is to get as many people as possible to blog about a single event on the same day.

On October 15th - Blog Action Day, bloggers around the web will unite to put a single important issue on everyone’s mind.

In its inaugural year, Blog Action Day will be co-ordinating bloggers to tackle the issue of the environment.

You can read more about it on the official site.