so, i think i need to clarify my point a little, because i know i'm confusing people, who are not used to dialectical reasoning and just see me as supporting the "enemy" in my position. i'm really not.

what i'm doing is looking at as much of the science that i can and trying to come to a balanced deduction. it's not really dialectical, but it seems that way because the narrative has been set up as opposing viewpoints, when it shouldn't be - it should be set up as collaborative understanding. this is what happens when you politicize science, you break it. by asserting a dialectic, i'm trying to break through the ideology and get back to the science of the thing. and, i don't actually feel that i'm explaining myself to scientists, who understand this, but to non-scientists who have politicized the situation and identified an enemy to attack.

scientists make shitty political activists.

so, there's a 97%, 98%, 99% - an overwhelming - majority consensus amongst climate scientists on the reality of climate change. i'm not a climate scientist, i'm just a nerd with a math degree, but i do share in that consensus for two reasons: (1) deferring to experts and (2) based on my less than limited ability to understand the science, it seems to add up in my mind. but, what does that mean?

the consensus on climate change has two components:

(1) the cause of the warming experienced in the past was created by human activity,
(2) notwithstanding some alteration in the system, current trends suggest the warming will continue. that implies "if action is not taken". it also implies "if external factors do not change". it even implies "if internal factors are not changed".

now, external factors are always changing, because we live on a rock that is affected by everything else in the universe. we can't build a model with infinite inputs. we're going to have to discard things in the model. but, the model of the universe is not the universe itself (sorry, positivists). so, there are going to be factors we overlook. and, that's ok, it's always a work in progress.

now, if a gnome coughs in the alpha centauri system, we're justified in ignoring that in the model. but, if the sun decreases it's output by a factor that we can measure, we're not. we're really not. we have to understand this. and, this is most definitely an external factor that can change and alter the outcome.

the consensus on global warming is not a fatalist death sentence, it's an extrapolation of the data, followed by a predictive model. the point is that we have to stop it, right? it's alterable. but, the earth is not a closed system. and, there's lots of things on the earth, even, that could have an effect, as well. some plate could fall off, and produce enough volcanic ash to fuck the whole thing up. we could go into nuclear winter. even the dirty coal being burned in asia is measurable.

so, by suggesting that external factors may have the ability to offset global warming - even if it's only in the northern hemisphere, near the jet stream - i'm not contradicting any kind of consensus. i agree that human activity caused the warming we've already experienced and that, notwithstanding some alteration in the system, things are going to heat up. what i'm saying is that something is changing in the system, and understanding what's going to happen relies on a better understanding of that change - and of any other changes we can uncover, moving forwards.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard