The Problems with the Global Warming Debate

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

There are a few very real and very potent problems with any debate about the subject of global warming. It makes actually debating the topic with skeptics damn near impossible.

It virtually all boils down to a simple problem: talking about science requires that you be informed of the science. This means that the skeptic has it incredibly easy - while the person who has accepted global warming is essentially obligated to really buckle down and do his research, look into the peer-reviewed journals, and understand what is written, the skeptic can simply say, "Nope, not good enough"... And that's assuming he even understands the science involved!

Another thing that's very difficult to deal with is how certain developments are incredibly hard to quantify to someone who hasn't been watching for the last few years. Take that there is an extreme consensus among climatologists that human-made carbon emissions are largely to blame for the current warming trend. How the hell do you cite that? So many papers take it as a baseline to work from that it's kind of hard to show off. Good luck finding a metareview of the climatological field. If someone wasn't, say, watching the scientific literature in the field over a reasonably long period of time, it would be very difficult to convince them that such a consensus exists to begin with.

And then there's the media. They just can't get it right, for reasons that should be obvious if you understand the media's relationship to the public: the facts behind global warming don't make for good headlines. It's a slow, trudging process with real consequences, but real consequences that almost none of us are likely to feel within our lifetimes. So the media can do well by either declaring it an outright hoax, stirring up outrage over how the government is trying to use bogus science to muscle in on our lives, or they can create shocker headlines that have more to do with "The Day After Tomorrow" than the actual climate research. Neither helps - the former is complete bullshit, and the latter is almost complete bullshit, but also almost worse because it gives skeptics a way to point to the "alarmist industry".

Finally, the last major problem is that it isn't common sense. It doesn't seem like it could be right that we would have such an influence, especially when the change in CO2 is so small. Case in point:

Pyro Paul:
There are too many things that must be contributed to the enviornment to cause a catastrophic break down of our current system which would cause such drastic a warping of the current biomes we see today.

While it is a possibility to occur, such an effect can not be caused by man...
well, short of nuclear armageddon.

This is obviously solid common sense, thought through with care and a good understanding of how the world works. It's also completely wrong, mostly because it's "common sense", rather than actual research and actual knowledge. "Common sense" divorced itself from science around the time when Newton published his work and Aristotle's theories of motion were left behind. It estranged itself completely around the early 1900s. We cannot use common sense as a metric - if the research seems to demonstrate it, and if the climatologists say it is so, then it almost certainly is so. They just know what they're talking about better than we do.

--

--

So... With that in mind... What are the facts about global warming? Well, my knowledge thereof is limited. I'm not a climatologist. However, I'll just throw out a few quick ones:

1. Anthropogenic Global Warming caused predominately by our massive expulsion of greenhouse gases is a widely-accepted theory in the climatological community... to the point where it's essentially a given. Dissenting views are present, but have widely been discredited, and are only held by a tiny minority. The vast majority of scientific papers in the last 30 years have spoken about man-made global warming. It is not considered natural by more than a small handful of skeptics within the field; their work has been largely debunked, but they are still seen as respectable researchers despite that.

2. We're not going to see extensive flooding of low-lying areas in the immediate future, at least not for several hundred years unless something drastically changes for the worse. Al Gore is not a good source for this. In fact: general rule of thumb: the more extremely a person warns about global warming, the more they talk about how it's going to cause untold destruction, the more you should take what they say with a grain of salt and a vetted source. If you're spreading these stories without a source, then you're part of the problem.

3. A temperature increase of a few degrees is the difference between Rome and London. For some places in the world, it's the difference between being able to live there and not; between being able to grow food crops en masse there and not; between being able to sustain the current water usage practices or not. If you're saying "It's just 3-5°", don't. 3 to 5 degrees Celsius, globally, is a huge deal.

4. The media gets it wrong almost every time. No, seriously, if it's mass media, it's almost certainly reporting the science completely inaccurately or at least misleadingly. There are almost no cases of truly good popular scientific journalism with regards to climate change in recent history.

If you're interested in more, a Youtuber by the name of Potholer54 has made an incredibly well-sourced and well-written 11-part series explaining the science behind climate change and debunking the myths. Part one can be found here.

Anyways... I dunno, just thought I'd post this to try to somewhat consolidate the debate on global climate change, and explain why it's simply so damn frustrating to hold these debates sometimes. As I pointed out earlier, there is a right and a wrong way to debate in favor of climate science[1]. The right way is hard work and involves keeping on top of trends, citing your sources from the scientific literature, tracking down what you're talking about, explaining it clearly, and admitting that it's not quite the end of the world if we know it yet. The wrong way is easy, quick, lazy, and more often than not leaves you spouting just as much crap as the denialists across the aisle.

[1] Well, any science, but climate science ESPECIALLY.

Post's long~ish article that is logical and thought through with few area's of confrontation...
1 hour later... no one has replied... what a shock >.> Lack of confronation... internet is not bothered >.>

-------------------------------

I found this post interesting but... yeah kinda dull as hell.

Having an interest in Science, mainly having looked at chemestry a lot of the post seemed common sense so +1 from me in that regard :)

You are also trying to educate people which is the best aspect of this thread. I haven't seen that YouTube series before but will now watch all of it.

-------------------------------

My regards to Global warming is sorta... meh, we have bigger immediate problems... I pretty much damn well believe there is some truth to Global warming (still watching video's), but I'm more concerned with the "we're running out of fuck'in oil" issue, which has driven our industrialization and allows us to move around, transport goods and FOOD and the use of oils allows us to grow abnormal levels of FOOD to support 7 billion humans on the planet... but thats off topic :P

Edit:
I like Episode 8 the best so far as it tears apart fuck-wits creating urban myths from blogs which don't actually use data.

As a handy reference guide, I wholeheartedly recommend http://www.skepticalscience.com/.

They even have an app!

And as with another thread where he was referenced, I would just like to reiterate my claim on having potholer54's skeptical babies.

Points 2 and 3 are the most critical here. The Day After Tomorrow is not what is going to happen, but climate change of this level will have an effect on the ability of certain areas of the planet to grow staple crops, and that could have knock-on effects if widespread crop failure starts to become more frequent.

"I was snowed in unable to leave my house today. So much for global warming."

Thanks for the site. I am in debate and one of the advantages that Have is Space Based Solar Power solving warming and i needed some more cards for the Alt causes to warming.

OT: this does come up in most of our debates about wether warming is real and usually it comes down to weird conspiracy theories.

Giza:
"I was snowed in unable to leave my house today. So much for global warming."

Yeah, some people can't see past their own noses.

The problem I have is that people turn what should be a scientific debate into a political opinion. I don't think Al Gore or Barrack Obama or Rick Santorum or Rick Perry or anyone else in Washinton really has a right to "decide" if global warming is a threat worth doing something about.

The issue of global warming should be a conversation between climatologists and environmental scientists, not between anti-intellectuals and people who just saw "An Inconvenient Truth". Politicians need to trust scientists for once and get help in creating environmental legislation.

Anyway, thanks for the insightful read. ^_^

I'd like to add this recent article to the conversation
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/14/BA8N1N7HNQ.DTL

It's an article that shows a study that snowfall in the Sierra Mountain range has been consistent for nearly 130 years. It's an interesting read if you take the chance.

Just a excerpt from Noble Laureate Ivar Glaever resignation from the American Physical Society: "He questioned whether the average temperature of "the whole earth for a whole year" can be accurately measured, but contended that even if the results are accurate, they indicate the climate has actually been "amazingly stable" for 150 years.

And he concluded that in any case, both "human health and happiness have definitely improved" over the so-called "warming period" of the last century and a half. "

The full story is here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8786565/War-of-words-over-global-warming-as-Nobel-laureate-resigns-in-protest.html

It is amusing to me that there are actually people who still believe in the Global Warming Myth. All due to politics~! I guess some people need something to believe in when they dont have belief in anything else!

xpowderx:
snip

It's like you are trying to make Stagnant's point for him.

Stagnant:

It virtually all boils down to a simple problem: talking about science the dangers of religion/Islam, the Singularity, the differences between the male and female brain requires that you be informed of the science the dangers of religion/Islam, the Singularity, the differences between the male and female brain. This means that the skeptic has it incredibly easy - while the person who has accepted science the dangers of religion/Islam, the Singularity, the differences between the male and female brain is essentially obligated to really buckle down and do his research, look into the peer-reviewed journals, and understand what is written, the skeptic can simply say, "Nope, not good enough"... And that's assuming he even understands the science the dangers of religion/Islam, the Singularity, the differences between the male and female brain involved!

Another thing that's very difficult to deal with is how certain developments are incredibly hard to quantify to someone who hasn't been watching for the last few years.

I understand your problems.

I think blaming only CO2 for all the problems is racist incorrect, but I do think we should invest heavily in eco-friendly technologies.

xpowderx:
Just a excerpt from Noble Laureate Ivar Glaever resignation from the American Physical Society: "He questioned whether the average temperature of "the whole earth for a whole year" can be accurately measured, but contended that even if the results are accurate, they indicate the climate has actually been "amazingly stable" for 150 years.

And he concluded that in any case, both "human health and happiness have definitely improved" over the so-called "warming period" of the last century and a half. "

The full story is here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8786565/War-of-words-over-global-warming-as-Nobel-laureate-resigns-in-protest.html

It is amusing to me that there are actually people who still believe in the Global Warming Myth. All due to politics~! I guess some people need something to believe in when they dont have belief in anything else!

Someone who says something like this: ""I am Norwegian, should I really worry about a little bit of warming?" he said. "I am unfortunately becoming an old man. We have heard many similar warnings about the acid rain 30 years ago and the ozone hole 10 years ago or deforestation but the humanity is still around."

Either got paid a lot by lobbyists or somehow bought his nobel prizes. Because it screams "stupid".

Oh and xpowder, you're a victim of the oil companies doubt spreading propaganda. The tobacco companies did the same about the links between cancer and smoking.

nice that you mentioned the ozone hole.

if anything its worth remembering that we have previously seriously negatively effected the environment on this planet and taken serious global action to counter it.

personally i think its "common sense" that we can affect our environment, the earth is a sealed & limited system and we are part of that and obviously can and do affect it and the argument that we can shape our immediate living area in near any way we chose but somehow have no effect on anything else simply isn't logical.

my personal opinion is that its worth doing most of the things we do in the name of "combating global warming" are worth doing for other reasons anyway and the economic argument against doing those things is weak at best because the simple fact is the birth of what is in effect an entire new industry sector has boosted the economy not hindered it and the only people who frame it in the opposite are those with a vested interest in energy sources we should not be looking to for the future anyway as they are finite (ie traditional oil and gas).

oh and PS i trust the collective and mostly publicly anonymous scientific community waaaaaay more than i trust the sensationalist news media or politicians.

generals3:

The tobacco companies did the same about the links between cancer and smoking.

And oil companies lied to the public over tetraethyllead.

generals3:

Either got paid a lot by lobbyists or somehow bought his nobel prizes. Because it screams "stupid".

Or maybe while a very good scientist in his field he has little to no understanding of other fields.

Stagnant:
There are a few very real and very potent problems with any debate about the subject of global warming. It makes actually debating the topic with skeptics damn near impossible.

It virtually all boils down to a simple problem: talking about science requires that you be informed of the science. This means that the skeptic has it incredibly easy - while the person who has accepted global warming is essentially obligated to really buckle down and do his research, look into the peer-reviewed journals, and understand what is written, the skeptic can simply say, "Nope, not good enough"... And that's assuming he even understands the science involved!

Another thing that's very difficult to deal with is how certain developments are incredibly hard to quantify to someone who hasn't been watching for the last few years. Take that there is an extreme consensus among climatologists that human-made carbon emissions are largely to blame for the current warming trend. How the hell do you cite that? So many papers take it as a baseline to work from that it's kind of hard to show off. Good luck finding a metareview of the climatological field. If someone wasn't, say, watching the scientific literature in the field over a reasonably long period of time, it would be very difficult to convince them that such a consensus exists to begin with.

And then there's the media. They just can't get it right, for reasons that should be obvious if you understand the media's relationship to the public: the facts behind global warming don't make for good headlines. It's a slow, trudging process with real consequences, but real consequences that almost none of us are likely to feel within our lifetimes. So the media can do well by either declaring it an outright hoax, stirring up outrage over how the government is trying to use bogus science to muscle in on our lives, or they can create shocker headlines that have more to do with "The Day After Tomorrow" than the actual climate research. Neither helps - the former is complete bullshit, and the latter is almost complete bullshit, but also almost worse because it gives skeptics a way to point to the "alarmist industry".

Finally, the last major problem is that it isn't common sense. It doesn't seem like it could be right that we would have such an influence, especially when the change in CO2 is so small. Case in point:

Pyro Paul:
There are too many things that must be contributed to the enviornment to cause a catastrophic break down of our current system which would cause such drastic a warping of the current biomes we see today.

While it is a possibility to occur, such an effect can not be caused by man...
well, short of nuclear armageddon.

This is obviously solid common sense, thought through with care and a good understanding of how the world works. It's also completely wrong, mostly because it's "common sense", rather than actual research and actual knowledge. "Common sense" divorced itself from science around the time when Newton published his work and Aristotle's theories of motion were left behind. It estranged itself completely around the early 1900s. We cannot use common sense as a metric - if the research seems to demonstrate it, and if the climatologists say it is so, then it almost certainly is so. They just know what they're talking about better than we do.

--

--

So... With that in mind... What are the facts about global warming? Well, my knowledge thereof is limited. I'm not a climatologist. However, I'll just throw out a few quick ones:

1. Anthropogenic Global Warming caused predominately by our massive expulsion of greenhouse gases is a widely-accepted theory in the climatological community... to the point where it's essentially a given. Dissenting views are present, but have widely been discredited, and are only held by a tiny minority. The vast majority of scientific papers in the last 30 years have spoken about man-made global warming. It is not considered natural by more than a small handful of skeptics within the field; their work has been largely debunked, but they are still seen as respectable researchers despite that.

2. We're not going to see extensive flooding of low-lying areas in the immediate future, at least not for several hundred years unless something drastically changes for the worse. Al Gore is not a good source for this. In fact: general rule of thumb: the more extremely a person warns about global warming, the more they talk about how it's going to cause untold destruction, the more you should take what they say with a grain of salt and a vetted source. If you're spreading these stories without a source, then you're part of the problem.

3. A temperature increase of a few degrees is the difference between Rome and London. For some places in the world, it's the difference between being able to live there and not; between being able to grow food crops en masse there and not; between being able to sustain the current water usage practices or not. If you're saying "It's just 3-5°", don't. 3 to 5 degrees Celsius, globally, is a huge deal.

4. The media gets it wrong almost every time. No, seriously, if it's mass media, it's almost certainly reporting the science completely inaccurately or at least misleadingly. There are almost no cases of truly good popular scientific journalism with regards to climate change in recent history.

If you're interested in more, a Youtuber by the name of Potholer54 has made an incredibly well-sourced and well-written 11-part series explaining the science behind climate change and debunking the myths. Part one can be found here.

Anyways... I dunno, just thought I'd post this to try to somewhat consolidate the debate on global climate change, and explain why it's simply so damn frustrating to hold these debates sometimes. As I pointed out earlier, there is a right and a wrong way to debate in favor of climate science[1]. The right way is hard work and involves keeping on top of trends, citing your sources from the scientific literature, tracking down what you're talking about, explaining it clearly, and admitting that it's not quite the end of the world if we know it yet. The wrong way is easy, quick, lazy, and more often than not leaves you spouting just as much crap as the denialists across the aisle.

While I agree that the layman isnt readily equipped to grapple with large areas of scientific inquiry, I find it insulting to my intelligence for you to suggest that "common sense" does not apply to the realm of scientific study. Many supporters of AGW suggest (or at the very least seem to suggest) that the Sun, the very star upon which life on our planet depends, has little to no impact on Earth's actual climate. Considering that without solar radiation this planet would be as dead and lifeless as Mars, I find it hard to take seriously anyone who espouses such an arguement. And that is one example of "common sense" having real application in this debate/discussion/forum/ what have you.

It also disturbs me that some are so dogmatically tied to this idea that they link denial of AGW to Holocaust denial, the denial of the link between cigarettes and cancer, "flat-Earthing", etc. I find it hard to accept at face value the claim that I, 24 yo American male, through simply existing am driving up the global temperature when my parents were told the exact opposite (that the Earth was cooling and we were entering a new Ice Age) due mostly to the exact same issue: pollution. Have humans polluted in the past? Most assuredly. Has the average global temperature increased? Also yes. Does this portend certain doom to the species and the planet as a whole? Considering Earth has gone through several phases of extreme climatic shifts in the past, without the existence of humans, I highly doubt it.

[1] Well, any science, but climate science ESPECIALLY.

Oh and xpowder, you're a victim of the oil companies doubt spreading propaganda. The tobacco companies did the same about the links between cancer and smoking.[/quote]

Nah, im a victim of our President and Ben Bernake producing and printing alot of American dollars and devalueing it to the point of Hyperinflation. Gas prices, food prices and everything else is due to that. Dollar has a lower value, means we pay more for products or services rendered. Has very little to do with oil like those on the left would want us to believe!

Brett Dumain:
While I agree that the layman isnt readily equipped to grapple with large areas of scientific inquiry, I find it insulting to my intelligence for you to suggest that "common sense" does not apply to the realm of scientific study. Many supporters of AGW suggest (or at the very least seem to suggest) that the Sun, the very star upon which life on our planet depends, has little to no impact on Earth's actual climate. Considering that without solar radiation this planet would be as dead and lifeless as Mars, I find it hard to take seriously anyone who espouses such an arguement. And that is one example of "common sense" having real application in this debate/discussion/forum/ what have you.

Actually, it's a fact that common sense is absolutely unreliable in science. See, common sense would tell you that an animal the shape and size of a bumblebee would never be able to fly with such comparatively small wings. Common sense tells you that you explode if exposed to the vacuum of space. Common sense is bullshit, and science constantly finds itself fighting against it. Reality is quite often counterintuitive, and only a fool trusts intuition more than research.

Brett Dumain:
It also disturbs me that some are so dogmatically tied to this idea that they link denial of AGW to Holocaust denial, the denial of the link between cigarettes and cancer, "flat-Earthing", etc.

That is a very strange argument. It's "dogmatic" because it's held to be true by scientists? Then, surely, the notion of gravity is also dogmatic, or thermodynamics!

There is a difference between something for which there is piles of evidence and something which is dogmatic!

Brett Dumain:
I find it hard to accept at face value the claim that I, 24 yo American male, through simply existing am driving up the global temperature when my parents were told the exact opposite (that the Earth was cooling and we were entering a new Ice Age) due mostly to the exact same issue: pollution.

This is an incredibly bad argument, for two reasons.

First, there never was a consensus among climatologists that mankind was causing a cooling trend. That is a stupid myth made up by people who want to pretend like anthropogenic climate change doesn't exist.

Second, your parents were taught alot of rubbish back in the day. They were probably taught that radioactivity was good for you. Does that mean that any research showing that radioactivity is harmful is nonsense? Of course not!

xpowderx:

Oh and xpowder, you're a victim of the oil companies doubt spreading propaganda. The tobacco companies did the same about the links between cancer and smoking.

Nah, im a victim of our President and Ben Bernake producing and printing alot of American dollars and devalueing it to the point of Hyperinflation. Gas prices, food prices and everything else is due to that. Dollar has a lower value, means we pay more for products or services rendered. Has very little to do with oil like those on the left would want us to believe!

This is a problem with the internet, I don't know if you are trolling, ignorant or just peddling the lies from Fox or Ron Paul.

You throw around words like hyperinflation without knowing what you are talking about. The definition changes depending on who you get it from but a very low hyperinflation figure is 30% a year. In history events of hyperinflation are generally much worst. A bad scenario is something like post WW1 Germany where inflation reached 20% per day, the worst in history is inflation post WW2 Hungary where inflation reached 207% per day. When you have hyperinflation you don't measure inflation by the year or quarter anymore, you start using months, weeks and days just so people can comprehend the numbers.

Under Obama inflation has averaged 1.49% per year, this is very very low, a tad bit to low. The reason it is low is because of a bad economy. People are spending less money so there is less pressure on prices. The US hasn't had double digit inflation for 30 years and the only time it has had hyperinflation is during the Revolutionary War.

This ties in with your beliefs on global warming. Your beliefs are not actually based on evidence, they are based on what specific people and organisations have said. You were probably raised to believe these people because your parents were raised to believe the same types. In your eyes they are the people that are always right.

Elcarsh:

Brett Dumain:
While I agree that the layman isnt readily equipped to grapple with large areas of scientific inquiry, I find it insulting to my intelligence for you to suggest that "common sense" does not apply to the realm of scientific study. Many supporters of AGW suggest (or at the very least seem to suggest) that the Sun, the very star upon which life on our planet depends, has little to no impact on Earth's actual climate. Considering that without solar radiation this planet would be as dead and lifeless as Mars, I find it hard to take seriously anyone who espouses such an arguement. And that is one example of "common sense" having real application in this debate/discussion/forum/ what have you.

Actually, it's a fact that common sense is absolutely unreliable in science. See, common sense would tell you that an animal the shape and size of a bumblebee would never be able to fly with such comparatively small wings. Common sense tells you that you explode if exposed to the vacuum of space. Common sense is bullshit, and science constantly finds itself fighting against it. Reality is quite often counterintuitive, and only a fool trusts intuition more than research.

Brett Dumain:
It also disturbs me that some are so dogmatically tied to this idea that they link denial of AGW to Holocaust denial, the denial of the link between cigarettes and cancer, "flat-Earthing", etc.

That is a very strange argument. It's "dogmatic" because it's held to be true by scientists? Then, surely, the notion of gravity is also dogmatic, or thermodynamics!

There is a difference between something for which there is piles of evidence and something which is dogmatic!

Brett Dumain:
I find it hard to accept at face value the claim that I, 24 yo American male, through simply existing am driving up the global temperature when my parents were told the exact opposite (that the Earth was cooling and we were entering a new Ice Age) due mostly to the exact same issue: pollution.

This is an incredibly bad argument, for two reasons.

First, there never was a consensus among climatologists that mankind was causing a cooling trend. That is a stupid myth made up by people who want to pretend like anthropogenic climate change doesn't exist.

Second, your parents were taught alot of rubbish back in the day. They were probably taught that radioactivity was good for you. Does that mean that any research showing that radioactivity is harmful is nonsense? Of course not!

Thanks for the strawman, my diet needs a lot more fiber in it. Also I notice you didnt tackle my main assertion, that the Sun has a hell of a lot more to do with any climatic change than my lone self does. But of course, why bother answering dangerous questions from a heretic of the church of AGW?

Brett Dumain:
...the Sun has a hell of a lot more to do with any climatic change than my lone self does.

Of course it does, however I don't think anybody meant to imply that you personally are the cause of climate change. To address your point I will ask if you are aware what the sun has been doing recently? It's output has been more or less constant, it doesn't match up with the change in temperature.

Isn't that the whole point of a debate to have two sides of a argument to argue their points ?. What would be the point of a debate if both parties were in agreement.

In this debate, unless you are a climate scientist or a scientist or a scientist sponsored by some powerful corporate interest, then you are at a disadvantage.

You have to go with a bit of evidence (which you only half understand) and a bit of politics and a bit of gut instinct.

I tend to believe that there is global warming because the people denying it seem so very in the pockets of big money energy interests; or are mavericks; or are people who don't deny it but have been misrepresnted; or are not climate scientists; etc, so much so that it just seems, you know, the whole "global warming is a myth kinda thing", it just seems a bit off to me.

Can I prove that scientifically? No. I am not a scientist and the scientific evidence I have seen is tough to understand when the debate gets technical.

But I do think this is not unlike the way the tobacco industry played "science" back in the day. Therefore the global warming deniers have a tough job to convince me otherwise.

I am more inclined to trust the climate scientists and NASA who are saying that there is change and it is significant.

Regards

Nightspore

spectrenihlus:
I'd like to add this recent article to the conversation
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/14/BA8N1N7HNQ.DTL

It's an article that shows a study that snowfall in the Sierra Mountain range has been consistent for nearly 130 years. It's an interesting read if you take the chance.

This is a great example of how the discourse is supposed to work. A skeptic is skeptical, does some research, and publishes a result that doesn't seem to fit the current model in a reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal. Climatologists are then forced to either explain what the skeptic did wrong, or adapt their models to deal with it. In this case, it seems to have been the former. Thanks for bringing it up. ^^

xpowderx:
Nah, im a victim of our President and Ben Bernake producing and printing alot of American dollars and devalueing it to the point of Hyperinflation. Gas prices, food prices and everything else is due to that. Dollar has a lower value, means we pay more for products or services rendered. Has very little to do with oil like those on the left would want us to believe!

Please don't post this kind of crap in here. We're discussing science, not your political conspiracy theories.

Danyal:
I understand your problems.

Not really a fair comparison. You're criticized primarily not for pointing to real threats from Islam (which is perfectly fine), but rather for painting all of Islam with the same brush and generalizing everyone from Al Qaeda to my next-door neighbor, be it intentionally or unintentionally. For those who are genuinely so bitchslapped by political correctness, you're technically correct... They just aren't as numerous as you think.

Brett Dumain:
While I agree that the layman isnt readily equipped to grapple with large areas of scientific inquiry, I find it insulting to my intelligence for you to suggest that "common sense" does not apply to the realm of scientific study.

...It doesn't. It doesn't matter how little sense something makes - if the scientific research backs it up, then it's probably correct.

Take Einstein's general relativity - you'd expect that, if you shot something moving at v = 0.11 * c from a rocket moving at v = 0.9 * c, it would move at v = 1.01 * c. That's what common sense would dictate.

Take the fact that light is both a particle and a wave. You'd expect that for something to be a wave, it couldn't simultaneously be just one single point, right? That's what common sense would dictate.

It's not an insult to your intelligence, or anyone's, it's just a simple, observable fact: "Common sense" is an absolutely terrible metric to judge the accuracy of a statement in science. Hell, just look at the "my uncle wasn't a monkey" crowd down in Kansas and whatnot who use their "common sense" to reject such far-out scientific ideas as, say, evolution.

Many supporters of AGW suggest (or at the very least seem to suggest) that the Sun, the very star upon which life on our planet depends, has little to no impact on Earth's actual climate. Considering that without solar radiation this planet would be as dead and lifeless as Mars, I find it hard to take seriously anyone who espouses such an arguement. And that is one example of "common sense" having real application in this debate/discussion/forum/ what have you.

...Citation, please? Where do they suggest this? Because all of the research I've read indicate that they have a very solid understanding of how the sun interacts with the climate - in fact, the graphs of CO2 and temperature don't correlate at all until you take solar activity into account. No, as far as I am aware (and please take this with a grain of salt, as I do not have the resources to back this up at the moment), what most supporters of AGW claim and have demonstrated is that solar output has remained relatively stable in recent times (well, the trend, anyways - there's always the 11-year solar cycle to keep in mind), and that as such, it couldn't be responsible for the changes we're going through right now.

It also disturbs me that some are so dogmatically tied to this idea that they link denial of AGW to Holocaust denial, the denial of the link between cigarettes and cancer, "flat-Earthing", etc. I find it hard to accept at face value the claim that I, 24 yo American male, through simply existing am driving up the global temperature when my parents were told the exact opposite (that the Earth was cooling and we were entering a new Ice Age) due mostly to the exact same issue: pollution.

Gonna have to stop you there, because if you're talking about the "new Ice Age" scare of the 70s... That was not the scientists. That was the tabloid media. In fact, there were far more papers about global warming than global cooling (full text can be found here), never mind that the "new Ice Age" stuff was an exaggeration in the same way that "Swine flu most dangerous disease ever" would have been.

Have humans polluted in the past? Most assuredly. Has the average global temperature increased? Also yes. Does this portend certain doom to the species and the planet as a whole? Considering Earth has gone through several phases of extreme climatic shifts in the past, without the existence of humans, I highly doubt it.

...And here, we have what may very well be a case of this:

And then there's the media. [...] or they can create shocker headlines that have more to do with "The Day After Tomorrow" than the actual climate research. Neither helps - the former is complete bullshit, and the latter is almost complete bullshit, but also almost worse because it gives skeptics a way to point to the "alarmist industry".

You may be getting the wrong idea about the actual science involved. Just sayin'.

All right, normally I don't dignify xpowderx with a response (it usually goes in one ear and out the other on his end, and a man who is convinced that Obama is actively trying to destroy America is not the kind of person you try to reason with). However, I'm going to respond to his assertions right now. This isn't for his sake; I know the chances of him listening are next to nil. No, I'm going to do this for you guys, to show exactly what I'm talking about.

So in order to start this, I'm going to time myself. Not the time spent on the entire post, simply the time spent refuting the claims made here.

xpowderx:
Just a excerpt from Noble Laureate Ivar Glaever resignation from the American Physical Society: "He questioned whether the average temperature of "the whole earth for a whole year" can be accurately measured, but contended that even if the results are accurate, they indicate the climate has actually been "amazingly stable" for 150 years.

And he concluded that in any case, both "human health and happiness have definitely improved" over the so-called "warming period" of the last century and a half. "

The full story is here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8786565/War-of-words-over-global-warming-as-Nobel-laureate-resigns-in-protest.html

While it is interesting that Ivar Glaever would say such things, I am left wondering where he calls the authority to do so in such a manner. You see, Glaever is a physicist. While the fields of physics and Climatology cross occasionally, Glaever never really jumped on board at those crossing. According to his page on the Nobel Prize website, Glaever worked primarily in biology, and specifically on how protein molecules work. It has no mention of his work on climate science. I personally could not find any peer-reviewed studies by him on the topic of anthropogenic global warming, or in fact any peer-reviewed studies on the climate by him at all. Skeptical Science couldn't either.

So what does this mean? Well, quite simply, it means that Ivar Glaever is not a climate scientist. He doesn't work in the field. Him casting doubt on the claims made by those who do work in the field should be treated like Richard Dawkins casting doubt on the claims of chemists that Ozone absorbs ultraviolet radiation - if he hasn't published a peer-reviewed paper in a reputable journal about it, then he should be treated as a layman, with a layman's opinion. The fact is, Ivar Glaever, despite being an acclaimed physicist and scientist, probably doesn't know much more about climatology than you or I. This isn't to disparage the man, of course - you cannot expect a scientist to know everything about everything, or even anything about many subjects. A metallurgist may be great at figuring out how metals work, but he's not going to be the guy you ask for help when there's a pimple the size of your brain on your ass. You ask a dermatologist.[1]

While it isn't shameful that he doesn't know much about the field, what is shameful, and what really throws him in a negative light, is that he was willing to speak as though he was an expert in the field, despite having no such experience. With the fact that he isn't a climatologist in mind, a lot of what he says (his comments on the Ozone layer, for example, which are patently ridiculous and outright wrong) makes a hell of a lot more sense, because people who had a good scientific understanding behind it wouldn't have said something so mind-numbingly dumb.

And as for his claim that health and happiness have increased... Well, jeez, no shit! We've gone through one of the most incredible growth spurts in human history in terms of how advanced our technology is. We've done things humans in the 1800s would have considered completely impossible. Hell, even the Haber-Bosch method for Nitrogen synthesis wasn't discovered until about 90 years ago! 50 years ago, we didn't have computers. 50 years ago, we didn't have the flu vaccine. 50 years ago, we were more stuck-up and oppressive. To connect that with global warming is just outright ridiculous.

In short, you offered a tabloid source talking about a layman's opinion on a subject he clearly has no understanding of. Not peer-reviewed literature or a scientific journal, but some guy who happens to have a Nobel Prize's opinion on the subject. That's not how this works. If you're going to go against the current consensus, you need to offer up some hard science. Not personal opinion of random physicists, actual peer-reviewed literature. This is a textbook example of exactly what I'm talking about in the first post. Maybe if you read it, you'd understand what I mean.

It is amusing to me that there are actually people who still believe in the Global Warming Myth. All due to politics~! I guess some people need something to believe in when they dont have belief in anything else!

...And this is why I don't normally respond to this guy. Not only does he just flat-out assert that it's a "myth", and all because of politics (never mind that its existence is only a political issue in the USA), he also conflates acceptance of a leading climatological model with atheism. Yeesh. XpowderX, here's my question: do you deny this statement:

"The vast majority of all climatologists accept that global warming is happening and that the current warming trend is caused by us. The vast majority of the peer-reviewed literature reflects this fact."

If not... Well, I don't know what to tell you. If you do... Well, then you need to go read the damn science papers.

Oh, and for the record... how long did it take you to write this (quoted) post? 5 minutes? 1 minute? Not even?

---

I needed 22 minutes. I looked at his source, investigated a little deeper, found out what he was talking about to begin with, did some background research, and proved him wrong. I didn't disprove the shitflinging, because, well, it's shitflinging with no evidence; simply brazen, ridiculous assertions that don't dignify a real refutation. However, notice the discrepancy. I'm looking for the actual science; he just took a tabloid newspaper article from a layman's perspective and tried to use that as proof. This is an incredibly difficult argument to hold with a skeptic, and this is a perfect example of one of the reasons: the media gets it incredibly wrong incredibly often, and the skeptics don't really see the need to cite the ACTUAL FUCKING SCIENCE.

[1] Or in your case, whip out the Clearasil.

Brett Dumain:

While I agree that the layman isnt readily equipped to grapple with large areas of scientific inquiry, I find it insulting to my intelligence for you to suggest that "common sense" does not apply to the realm of scientific study. Many supporters of AGW suggest (or at the very least seem to suggest) that the Sun, the very star upon which life on our planet depends, has little to no impact on Earth's actual climate. Considering that without solar radiation this planet would be as dead and lifeless as Mars, I find it hard to take seriously anyone who espouses such an arguement. And that is one example of "common sense" having real application in this debate/discussion/forum/ what have you.

Common sense would dictate that something as incredibly obvious as the sun would have been looked at by scientists. If they are discounting it, then there are reasons why. A layman could then use a bit more common sense, and look up those reasons.

That you haven't bothered to do so and think any meaningful truth can be achieved by attacking someone equally clueless is precisely the sort of thing the OP rightly disdains.

I think something that needs to be made very clear is the fallacy involved in the "the planet has had extreme climate shifts in the past" argument.

This is a true statement, that is however very misleading. The misleading part is that in the past the changes to the climate happened over hundreds of thousands of years, not a century. The change is not the main evidence of man made climate change, it is the time scale.

The thing that bothers me is that its pretty clear the climate is actually changing so then why are we spending so much time trying to find evidence that its linked to man's action (which would be circumstantial evidence at best) instead of trying to come up with common sense ways of adapting to and preparing for any effects of a warmer climate? In short, find out how high the water is going to rise in a certain location so they can start building levees tall enough.

Seekster:
The thing that bothers me is that its pretty clear the climate is actually changing so then why are we spending so much time trying to find evidence that its linked to man's action (which would be circumstantial evidence at best) instead of trying to come up with common sense ways of adapting to and preparing for any effects of a warmer climate? In short, find out how high the water is going to rise in a certain location so they can start building levees tall enough.

"Hey, this science doesn't suit my political preferences. It must be a waste of time then!"

Agema:

Seekster:
The thing that bothers me is that its pretty clear the climate is actually changing so then why are we spending so much time trying to find evidence that its linked to man's action (which would be circumstantial evidence at best) instead of trying to come up with common sense ways of adapting to and preparing for any effects of a warmer climate? In short, find out how high the water is going to rise in a certain location so they can start building levees tall enough.

"Hey, this science doesn't suit my political preferences. It must be a waste of time then!"

My preference is to support science. Science geared to support a preference probably isnt science.

Seekster:

Agema:

Seekster:
The thing that bothers me is that its pretty clear the climate is actually changing so then why are we spending so much time trying to find evidence that its linked to man's action (which would be circumstantial evidence at best) instead of trying to come up with common sense ways of adapting to and preparing for any effects of a warmer climate? In short, find out how high the water is going to rise in a certain location so they can start building levees tall enough.

"Hey, this science doesn't suit my political preferences. It must be a waste of time then!"

My preference is to support science. Science geared to support a preference probably isnt science.

It's not suited to a preference - and it is trying to deal with the problem, namely by trying to slow it, and highlighting our dependence on one harmful source of energy. I'm not sure how you can claim otherwise.

First and foremost here is a article about climatologists that reject the notion of the Global Warming Myth and consensus. http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2005/08/01/climatologists-reject-media-claims-global-warming-consensus

So I decided to give peer reviewed sources for this instance. Since it is claimed that only media articles are being used.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html

as well as some interesting views from climatologists themselves.

David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware wrote in a 2006 article for the National Center for Policy Analysis: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming.

Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada said in a 2007 newspaper article: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?

Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University said in a 2010 article originally written for the Italian magazine La Chimica e l'Industria (Chemistry and Industry): "At least 60% of the warming of the Earth observed since 1970 appears to be induced by natural cycles which are present in the solar system. A climatic stabilization or cooling until 2030-2040 is forecast by the phenomenological model

These are just small examples, just using Wikpedia.

I have yet to see this big consensus that pro global warming advocates say exists. In fact as of 2011 climatologists are divided by the issue.

Now to weather forecasters. The most ominous source for Global Warming Advocates is right here:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/science/earth/30warming.html

While I do believe that humans do have a impact upon the environment they live around. Which in some cases brings about dire and deadly consequences(Dust Bowl, Gobe desert erosion). This also includes biological catastrophes.As far as Global Warming is concerned. Most of it is B.S to effect the masses.

The latest Pro peer reviewed global warming outside the IPCC and Obamas government controlled agencies were in 2006. For the past 5 years there have been more peer reviewed papers calling Global Warming a myth than there are actual peer reviewed papers claiming otherwise.

Now if you want to know what kind of disasters take place in the world concurrently, please feel free to use this site: http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/index2.php?area=usa〈=eng

So my statement still stands. Global Warming is a MYTH! Even Global Warming scientists cannot even get facts straight!

The best story of the year! Gotta love it! Freezing Winters and Blizzards are caused due to "Global Warming". Desperation by these straight out liars among our science community.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9109106/Freezing-winters-ahead-due-to-melting-Arctic-Sea-ice.html One can only laugh when reading the article. Is that the lowest these Global warming supporters will go? Probably NOT!

One thing is for certain! This subject will stay divided! Until we have a better understanding of nature on our planet and the universe. Global warming will still be a subject of debate!

Now perhaps we can make a new argument! Polar Shift! I notice that is not talked about here. Even with full Empirical Evidence showing it happening. Global Warming advocates will discount such saying it is completely different. When in fact Polar Shift will directly influence and change our climate permanently!

Also had to add, as a P.S
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2012/02/28/richard-who-ap-nyt-others-ignore-uks-lindzen-he-pwns-global-warming-alar
From the Greatest Atmospheric Physicist in the WORLD!

First words from the peer reviewed source is "Christopher Monckton".

Unbelievable. (Literally).

Seriously guy, go to the actual "paper" linked.

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

First fucking line. (Emphasis ****ing mine)

"The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

Honestly.

Oirish_Martin:
Seriously guy, go to the actual "paper" linked.

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

First fucking line.

"The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

Honestly.

And currently? I prefer up to date peer reviewed data, not outdated versions. As well as scientists using current models and not models that go back to the 90ies! Thanks!

Now if you can provide a current peer review, that would be nice! This comment was not towards you Orrish, sorry, I justy have the same consensus feeling!

Oirish_Martin:

Seekster:

Agema:

"Hey, this science doesn't suit my political preferences. It must be a waste of time then!"

My preference is to support science. Science geared to support a preference probably isnt science.

It's not suited to a preference - and it is trying to deal with the problem, namely by trying to slow it, and highlighting our dependence on one harmful source of energy. I'm not sure how you can claim otherwise.

You don't need to be a scientist to know that even if we all stopped using fossil fuels tomorrow and let the economy collapse the current trend of warming would not stop. We should look for more efficient and cleaner fuels for a number of reasons including environmental ones. However it makes sense to look for ways to deal with any problems that a warming climate may present us in the near future.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked