"Balance & Context in the Global Warming Debate" by Prof. Bob Carter

Image credit.

What I take away from the lectures, among other things, is a reminder of the danger of one's thinking getting misled by imagery and semantics.

In the first lecture, Prof. Carter mentions homoeostasis, the self-regulating quality of a (complex) system. We like to think of mother nature as an equilibrating system and speak contentedly of nature being in equilibrium.

What is insufficiently appreciated is that what we mean by equilibrium is often a highly complex set of conditions, not just a frozen end state. Thus for plants and animals and our species to be capable of viable existence on this planet (a condition defining a complex and dynamic equilibrium), there has to be a lot of change going on, all the time, both within, say, our species and within its environment.

We can sensibly speak of a person being in equilibrium if there is air for her to breath and in disequilibrium if she suffocates; however, for equilibrium thus defined to exist, countless processes of change need to be operative, both in the environment and within the human being.

Hence, with a view to nature, the concept of "equilibrium" will tend to be such as to presuppose and summarise complex and significant change enabling conditions that may appear to be static, such as the abstract quality of "viability," when in fact they are requiring change and the ability to adapt to change.

The current fad of over-dramatising climate CHANGE seems to draw on the subliminal expectation that equilibrium is a condition of stasis.

Be this as it may, the below videos offer a good summary of the discrepancy between the evidence on global warming / climate change established according to valid scientific methods and the rendering of some of the most pertinent issues in the media and popular discourse:

For a more lengthy presentation and better video quality, see this equally spirited lecture of the late Prof. Bob Carter.