Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
willm

Climate change issue resolved?

Recommended Posts

1) Should climate deniers be in the same general category as troofers?

 

Predictions and modelling can be wrong, any scientist can tell you that.

 

 

2) Why do most people have such a mistrust of science/scientists?

 

People mistrust what they dont understand. They also dont like how it gets hijacked by politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Not too many people deny climate change per se, the objectors simply disagree that the causes are man made and/or Co2, especially when that is used as the basis for global taxation and government.

 

2)Science, like most things these days has been corrupted by money, and besides for every expert scientific opinion you get you can also find an opposite opinion from an equally credentialed person somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty disturbing how the wider scientific community is treated even here on tech forums ffs, which is ironic if you even have the slightest understanding on the MASSIVE amount of concordance from many fields of science that work in harmony in order just to build a basic functioning computer. Anyway back on topic scientific method is what has taken us from Galileo trying to comprehend the nature of our solar system to inserting satellites in orbit and landing robotic rovers on other planets in around 350 years.

Now is not the time to turn your back on the most powerful tool man has ever known for increasing quality of life and contributing to the pool of human knowledge.

 

Science, like most things these days has been corrupted by money, and besides for every expert scientific opinion you get you can also find an opposite opinion from an equally credentialed person somewhere.

In science it isn't so much about what the experts say but what the experts can show through research observable outcomes and evidence.

The problem is we take what we hear on the news as fact and don't investigate it any further.

The mainstream media is not the proving ground for good science it is in demonstration of facts through peer review and publication.

Edited by Bundy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2)Science, like most things these days has been corrupted by money, and besides for every expert scientific opinion you get you can also find an opposite opinion from an equally credentialed person somewhere.

Rubbish on both accounts. Can the grant system lead to bias? Yes surely, but go to any scientific conference and you will see plenty of people being called bullshit on. Peer review works.

 

In this case the majority of the scientific community is clearly on the side that the action of man is a significant factor, the people that disagree are firmly in the minority or talking about a area of science they have no authority in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Not too many people deny climate change per se, the objectors simply disagree that the causes are man made and/or Co2, especially when that is used as the basis for global taxation and government.

It's not just that. While most scientists agree that global warming exists and one of the main factors of the cause is humans, the main issue is that scientists can't decide if the effects will be minimal, moderate, severe or catastrophic. Most of the main experts seem to agree that the risk of catastrophic outcomes are only about 5%.

 

The argument though is, would you eat a meal if there was only a 5% chance of dying from cyanide poisoning? Of course not, you would avoid that meal, even if it meant having to source and prepare a new one.

 

2)Science, like most things these days has been corrupted by money, and besides for every expert scientific opinion you get you can also find an opposite opinion from an equally credentialed person somewhere.

However, the vast majority of scientists do agree about climate change. While it's "possible" to find well-credentialed scientists with the opposite view, they are by far in a very small minority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either way it really makes no difference to me. So for the sake of conversation lets agree that the Earth is warming/cooling/whatever and that man made Co2 is to blame.

 

Now what?

 

If the goal (as stated) becomes Co2 reduction what's the BEST way to achieve that? Surely it would have to be govt. regulation of Co2 producing industry, that is to say that the government could simply put in place a mandate that all C02 producing factories must limit their output to a certain amount of co2. ANY ETS scam, errm, scheme will not achieve this as any new taxes or ETS scams levied on a particular industry will simply be passed on to the customers...that's you and me btw and industry can and probably will continue to function as it always has and C02 will not be reduced.

 

And why is it REQUIRED for us to sign binding international agreements in this regard that simply places what's left of our sovereignty under the (further) control of foreign powers who have their own agenda? This is the biggest tell of all in what's really going on here as Monkton (and many others) have noted, it's a bout global government and control and if 'Co2' is to be the means to achieve that end then that's what the hysteria is about, I have a 1973 U.N. document that states that very thing so it's not like nobody saw it coming.

 

And who's going to regulate the new global ponzi scheme in carbon derivatives trading, Chase Manhattan? They already have the scam ready to go in case you were wondering but it got a bit postponed when Copenhagen fell over. These are the same guys that caused last years crash (and now that the cracks are appearing in the great global bailout rip off possibly this years depression) using the exact same financial shenanigans. And lets not forget Al Gores' huge investment in this area.

 

So, true or not, man-made or not I'll fight the rot till there's no more fighting to be done OR a sensible solution, one with some integrity and credibility is put in place that doesn't involve the wholesale continued thievery by governments, foreign and domestic of people's hard earned cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that almost the entire scientific community is in agreement on this.

Nowhere near. Not even 5% of the scientific community agrees on this. As to how many climate-related scientists agree on it - maybe 50-70%.

 

It still makes absolutely no difference how many people believe or agree on something. I'm reasonably sure that in Galileo's day, the relevant scientific societies were writing letters to whoever they wanted to, complaining about deniers muddying the waters of the correct Aristotelian model of the solar system.

 

More recently, scientific opinion was that transposons were a quack theory and pilloried the scientist working on it.

 

And even yet more recently, the scientific community overwhelmingly believed that ulcers were caused by stress. It took two scientists to show that that was not true, and they were pilloried before they did so. They ended up winning the nobel prize.

 

What scientists agree on, what the believe, is completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what they can prove and provide repeatable experiments for.

 

1) Should climate deniers be in the same general category as troofers?

Yes. Anyone who denies the existence of climate, or the fact that climate changes is an idiot.

 

2) Why do most people have such a mistrust of science/scientists?

That's a bit of a generalisation, but let's run with it. Why should people have a trust of scientists? I mean, being a scientist doesn't immediately make someone trustworthy. Scientists are human - they're corruptible by money, fame, fortune.

 

It'd be like me asking you - why don't you trust the pool cleaners?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Should climate deniers be in the same general category as troofers?

Yes. Anyone who denies the existence of climate, or the fact that climate changes is an idiot.

 

I think what Willm was getting at was the phrase "climate change deniers" as used in the context of the ongoing debate. Generally climate change denialists refers to those who deny Anthropogenic Global Warming, not those who deny that the climate changes at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Should climate deniers be in the same general category as troofers?

Yes. Anyone who denies the existence of climate, or the fact that climate changes is an idiot.

 

I think what Willm was getting at was the phrase "climate change deniers" as used in the context of the ongoing debate. Generally climate change denialists refers to those who deny Anthropogenic Global Warming, not those who deny that the climate changes at all.

 

Then I think he's firing at shadows. I've never heard of anyone denying that humans influence climate with a warm bias.

 

CO2 + Methane are greenhouse gases. Every human emits 1kg CO2 per day just by breathing.

 

So we definitely influence the warming feedbacks. The problem is - there's absolutely zero conclusive evidence showing that humans are responsible for X% of the observed increase since the IPCC-determined AGW point of the mid 1950s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just reading this link on slashdot : http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/05/07...ience?art_pos=3

 

It seems that almost the entire scientific community is in agreement on this.

 

So my questions are:

 

1) Should climate deniers be in the same general category as troofers?

 

2) Why do most people have such a mistrust of science/scientists?

Because of the politics and bullshit such as the ETS which has nothing to do with science and everything to do with money

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just reading this link on slashdot : http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/05/07...ience?art_pos=3

 

It seems that almost the entire scientific community is in agreement on this.

 

So my questions are:

 

1) Should climate deniers be in the same general category as troofers?

 

2) Why do most people have such a mistrust of science/scientists?

 

1) No. Why should they be? Denying something due to lack of actual proof is different to denying shit with plenty.

 

2) They do? Where is that said/shown?

 

 

"It seems that almost the entire scientific community is in agreement on this."

255 scientists (not even all of them climate scientists) does not make a majority. Stick to facts please.

 

 

Slashdot is hardly a paragon of truth and reality.

Edited by Midnighter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should not have said a majority of the scientific community, but a majority of the scientific community who work in a directly related field.

 

It seems to be a closed issue, I just don't get why people are still discussing it. If you are not educated in that field, and the majority of people who do, and noteworthy institutions all reach the same conclusion, then why argue it?

 

It's pretty disturbing how the wider scientific community is treated even here on tech forums ffs, which is ironic if you even have the slightest understanding on the MASSIVE amount of concordance from many fields of science that work in harmony in order just to build a basic functioning computer. Anyway back on topic scientific method is what has taken us from Galileo trying to comprehend the nature of our solar system to inserting satellites in orbit and landing robotic rovers on other planets in around 350 years.

Now is not the time to turn your back on the most powerful tool man has ever known for increasing quality of life and contributing to the pool of human knowledge.

 

Yes, this is what I was getting at...

 

It seems many people suspect scientists just come up with things to further causes, and don't really understand that theories being made are quite a different thing from the media twisting them for a purpose.

Edited by willm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should not have said a majority of the scientific community, but a majority of the scientific community who work in a directly related field.

 

It seems to be a closed issue, I just don't get why people are still discussing it. If you are not educated in that field, and the majority of people who do, and noteworthy institutions all reach the same conclusion, then why argue it?

 

They do? Can you explain how you know this? Or is it just claimed in certain articles? Many people seem to keep making this claim, but I've yet to see any factual, solid figures, just claims. I am perfectly happy for you to link me to proof of this so i can be shown tho.

 

Perhaps it is discussed because people are NOT convinced, and it is NOT a closed issue, despite the personal beliefs of some.

Edited by Midnighter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we definitely influence the warming feedbacks. The problem is - there's absolutely zero conclusive evidence showing that humans are responsible for X% of the observed increase since the IPCC-determined AGW point of the mid 1950s.

There's conclusive evidence we're responsible a 1.5 parts per thousand increase in ratio of 13C/12C over the last 200 years. There's compelling evidence to suggest that our activities are the cause of recent warming trends. Applying risk management techniques, the logical course is to reduce our emissions until the risk is better understood.

 

Read the open letter before you dismiss it out of hand. It focuses on the politics of climate change interfering with the science, something I think you'll agree is a serious issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are not educated in that field, and the majority of people who do, and noteworthy institutions all reach the same conclusion, then why argue it?

That's a bit of a cop out.

 

Let me ask you willm, do you change the oil in your car or do you take it to a TAFE-accredited motor mechanic? When you play pool, do you defer to the opinion of a friend who's studied trigonometry at a university level?

 

The answer to both is that off course you do not. Each person on this planet has more qualifications than their uni degree. My uni degree will be IT, but I'm very good at stats, not half bad at physics, could probably go toe to toe with a political scientist and know a lot about rowing and soccer.

 

So, if we're all going to stick to our degrees, can I ask the climate scientists to stick to facts, rather than predictions? Last I checked they had no degree in prophecy or in economics.

 

The number of scientists is not important. Only those who are correct are important...

 

It seems many people suspect scientists just come up with things to further causes, and don't really understand that theories being made are quite a different thing from the media twisting them for a purpose.

I'm willing to bet right now that you have no idea what the best way for determining Earth's heat capacity is.

 

I'm 100% certain that you cannot access the contents of http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/...s/410355a0.html because you've never read a science paper from Nature, and do not have a subscription.

 

And thereby I conclude that you believe ONLY because of what you hear in the media, not because you've seen or appreciated a set of data that shows some sort of conclusive causation.

 

So we definitely influence the warming feedbacks. The problem is - there's absolutely zero conclusive evidence showing that humans are responsible for X% of the observed increase since the IPCC-determined AGW point of the mid 1950s.

There's conclusive evidence we're responsible a 1.5 parts per thousand increase in ratio of 13C/12C over the last 200 years. There's compelling evidence to suggest that our activities are the cause of recent warming trends. Applying risk management techniques, the logical course is to reduce our emissions until the risk is better understood.

 

Read the open letter before you dismiss it out of hand. It focuses on the politics of climate change interfering with the science, something I think you'll agree is a serious issue.

 

I've covered this before: it's ONLY conclusive if you don't understand uncertainty in science. Allow me to show you an alternate explanation from a NASA scientist who also happens to be in charge of the project to provide the IPCC with one of its four temperature datasets:

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increa...0%A6or-natural/

 

There are a dozen papers in reputable peer-reviewed journals that flow along the same lines, but I can't link to them since you'd never be able to read them - this is a decent summary and you can email Roy Spencer - he answers questions.

 

The point is that there are literally a dozen different explanations that all fit the facts for almost everything in climate studies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increa...0%A6or-natural/

 

There are a dozen papers in reputable peer-reviewed journals that flow along the same lines, but I can't link to them since you'd never be able to read them - this is a decent summary and you can email Roy Spencer - he answers questions.

Got any links to the peer reviewed papers? The article you linked above reads like any other hobbyist attempt at discrediting climate science, despite the PHD and Nasa references. At the end of that article:

 

"If an expert in this subject sees a major mistake I’ve made in the above analysis, e-mail me and I’ll post an update, so that we might all better understand this issue.

 

Comments are closed."

 

Says it all really. Then there's the fact that he's a proponent of intelligent design:

 

"Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . . . In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college."

 

Which shouldn't invalidate his arguments, but definitely makes me question his grasp of science. I'd prefer to debate credible sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increa...0%A6or-natural/

 

There are a dozen papers in reputable peer-reviewed journals that flow along the same lines, but I can't link to them since you'd never be able to read them - this is a decent summary and you can email Roy Spencer - he answers questions.

Got any links to the peer reviewed papers? The article you linked above reads like any other hobbyist attempt at discrediting climate science, despite the PHD and Nasa references. At the end of that article:

 

"If an expert in this subject sees a major mistake I’ve made in the above analysis, e-mail me and I’ll post an update, so that we might all better understand this issue.

 

Comments are closed."

 

Says it all really. Then there's the fact that he's a proponent of intelligent design:

 

"Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . . . In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college."

 

Which shouldn't invalidate his arguments, but definitely makes me question his grasp of science. I'd prefer to debate credible sources.

 

 

Errr, no, that does not "say it all really". And nothing in what you quoted shows him as a "proponent of intelligent design". Read it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Errr, no, that does not "say it all really". And nothing in what you quoted shows him as a "proponent of intelligent design". Read it again.

"Comments are closed"

 

This was the part I was referring to. I see it as a way to avoid embarrassment by keeping any debate of his arguments private. In regards to intelligent design, possibly I needed to add more context. You can read the full article that quote was taken from here: http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=080805I

 

This off topic though, I'm not interested in wasting time trying to discredit spencer. I'd prefer to argue over peer reviewed articles, as the information they provide is much more credible than something from a blog.

Edited by tastywheat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Errr, no, that does not "say it all really". And nothing in what you quoted shows him as a "proponent of intelligent design". Read it again.

"Comments are closed"

 

This was the part I was referring to. I see it as a way to avoid embarrassment by keeping any debate of his arguments private. If he was confident in them, there is little reason to turn comments off. In regards to intelligent design, possibly I needed to add more context. You can read the full article that quote was taken from here: http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=080805I

 

This off topic though, I'm not interested in wasting time trying to discredit spencer. I'd just prefer to argue over peer reviewed articles.

 

 

Comments being closed is not unusual. I see it on many blog posts and whatnot, they don;'t have the time to adequately moderate everything, these are busy people. Nothing unreasonable about it.

 

2nd part, context is good, gives more clarity, and now your reply has actual reference. As i said tho, nothing you quoted first actually backed what you said, was rather open-ended, but the whole post gives context. Good.

 

All for peer-reviewed articles. I prefer to deal in facts, and not conjecture and hypothesis. Evidence is what is needed, not guesswork.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As i said tho, nothing you quoted first actually backed what you said, was rather open-ended, but the whole post gives context. Good.

Fair criticism. I just figured his comment 'intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism' was a dead give away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As i said tho, nothing you quoted first actually backed what you said, was rather open-ended, but the whole post gives context. Good.

Fair criticism. I just figured his comment 'intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism' was a dead give away.

 

 

Not really. It lended to suggestion, but was , as i said, rather open-ended. It didn't push either, put both on similar level, which could have suggested he simply was unconvinced either way. But enough OT. Back to the topic. :)

 

As said, no one has shown conclusively that we are responsible for anything, many claims have been made, but no solid proof shown, only conjecture and speculation.

 

And the claims that the "majority of the scientific community " support such views has still not been shown, tho it is a favourite claim of those pushing their own views. But again, no evidence. I'm happy to be shown that this is the case, I'm still waiting for evidence. And evidence that man is definitely responsible for any planetary changes in climate. Feel free to enlighten me. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should not have said a majority of the scientific community, but a majority of the scientific community who work in a directly related field.

 

It seems to be a closed issue, I just don't get why people are still discussing it. If you are not educated in that field, and the majority of people who do, and noteworthy institutions all reach the same conclusion, then why argue it?

 

They do? Can you explain how you know this? Or is it just claimed in certain articles? Many people seem to keep making this claim, but I've yet to see any factual, solid figures, just claims. I am perfectly happy for you to link me to proof of this so i can be shown tho.

 

Perhaps it is discussed because people are NOT convinced, and it is NOT a closed issue, despite the personal beliefs of some.

 

Most "respectable" scientific institutions, individuals, organizations etc all seem to agree and there seems to be a consensus. The link I provided has some info on that.

 

The people who disagree don't seem to be working in that field and seem to have an agenda. That makes it pretty simple for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should not have said a majority of the scientific community, but a majority of the scientific community who work in a directly related field.

 

It seems to be a closed issue, I just don't get why people are still discussing it. If you are not educated in that field, and the majority of people who do, and noteworthy institutions all reach the same conclusion, then why argue it?

 

They do? Can you explain how you know this? Or is it just claimed in certain articles? Many people seem to keep making this claim, but I've yet to see any factual, solid figures, just claims. I am perfectly happy for you to link me to proof of this so i can be shown tho.

 

Perhaps it is discussed because people are NOT convinced, and it is NOT a closed issue, despite the personal beliefs of some.

 

Most "respectable" scientific institutions, individuals, organizations etc all seem to agree and there seems to be a consensus. The link I provided has some info on that.

 

The people who disagree don't seem to be working in that field and seem to have an agenda. That makes it pretty simple for me.

 

 

Respectable? Concensus? Why, and what concensus? What evidence do they have? Why are you convinced? Just because they are?

 

"Agenda"? "Seem to"? What agenda? Why? Evidence?

 

Lots of generalisations, lack of evidence of either. Do you have any?

 

You've clearly made up your mind, so any opinion not agreeing with yours is "suspect". But do you have any evidence? I'm sorry, but i keep asking, and am not getting any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×