global warming denial

[geni]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

"Yup"? So it IS the end of the discussion? It's a foregone, 100% conclusion? Based on ONE ARTICLE in a journal? How is this viewpoint good science?

Scientific American is a journal?

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

Why on Earth would anyone WANT global warming to be true?

For the same reason they "want" there to be starvation in America: It make it easier to push forward their political agenda.

I see an OVERWHELMING number of scientists who are convinced global warming is real.

If you mean they are convinced that average surface temperatures are on the rise, you are correct. If you mean they are convinced that we are headed for a global catastrophy, you are far from correct.

All the arguments against it come from people with obvious stakes in it not being true.

I haven't had any "arguments" against it; just questions I want answered. And those questions have been ignored by every single GW advocate on this forum. So who is operating with an agenda here? My only agenda is skepticism and not wanting to enable a policy that would be detrimental to the economy without sufficient evidence that those detrimental effects would be outweighed by the benefits. Where are my "obvious stakes"?

Isn't it far more likely that the people getting funding and other benefits from a Socialist agenda are the ones with the "obvious stakes"?

All the "scientists" who don't believe in it seem to have clear ties to the right.

Oh, yes, it's all a conspiracy...Or are you just defining any scientist who disagrees with it as being aligned with the right? Because I can assure you, a lot of them aren't.

My vote goes with the vast, VAST majority of scientists who are convinced it's real. I believe in the scientific process.

Argumentum ad populum and argument by authority are NOT part of the scientific process. Yet, you GW people cling to them as pretty much your only defense of GW.

 

[shanek]

You guys believe in Science as long as it's busy disproving faith healers... and then get suspicious of it when it suggests the world is in desperate trouble?

Except that it suggests no such thing.

 

[shanek]

The measurements which show global warming occuring are not guesswork.

But the future extrapolations from it are.

Edited to add: Oops, I just realized I restated Luke T.'s second sentence, which I initially misread. Oh well; consider this an agreement, Luke.

 

[geni]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

argument by authority are NOT part of the scientific process. Yet, you GW people cling to them as pretty much your only defense of GW.

If the person is qualified to make the statement yes they are.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

Shanek, hush honey, go play. We're busy here.

Thank you for proving you are not being at all skeptical on this subject. You now officially rank with the other GW advocates on this board who refuse to answer direct questions. Congratulations.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Re: Re: global warming denial

All other objections aside, there is one aspect that the politicos completely neglect: that while there are arguably negative aspects to GW, there are positive aspects as well: foliation growing more densely, foliation growing in places where it hasn't for centuries (both of which have a counteracting effect on CO₂ concentrations), greater productivity (several scientists have pointed out the correlation between warmer periods and the more productive periods such as the Renaissance and the Greek civilization), on and on and on.

Ecological balances being thrown off on a massive scale, as plants adapted for competition in a carbon-dioxide-poor atmosphere are suddenly exposed to greater concentrations of it. Increased desertification. Unknown effects on global climate. Major coral die-offs (although coral may be tougher than we originally feared, it's still delicate stuff).

If it does turn out that human-caused global warming helps cancel out a cooling period, that's just dumb luck on our part. We'd be saved from our own ecological excess only through an accident of history.

What next? Claims that the holes in the ozone will reduce vitamin D deficiency? Give me a break.

The best possible result of global warming studies would be that we didn't screw up the world quite as badly as we thought we might have. We're still responsible for the greatest set of mass extinctions since the end of the dinosaurs. At worst, we run the risk of triggering a major climatological collapse.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

If the person is qualified to make the statement yes they are.

Then why is argument by authority not asserted in any other field of science? Why is it ONLY the GW people who cling to it so?

No, sorry, but Carl Sagan was perfectly right when he said, "Arguments from authority are worthless." What matters is the data and how well it stands up to scrutiny, not who is making the argument.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

If it does turn out that human-caused global warming helps cancel out a cooling period, that's just dumb luck on our part. We'd be saved from our own ecological excess only through an accident of history.

So what if we are?

What next? Claims that the holes in the ozone will reduce vitamin D deficiency? Give me a break.

No one is making any claim that even remotely resembles this level of idiocy, at least not on the GW skeptics side. Give me a break.

The best possible result of global warming studies would be that we didn't screw up the world quite as badly as we thought we might have.

Why are you ignoring all of the potential benefits of a warmer climate that I mentioned?

We're still responsible for the greatest set of mass extinctions since the end of the dinosaurs.

I'd like to see evidence that such extinctions are even occuring, much moreso evidence that we're responsible.

No, you and the others are just preying on unknowns. And since the unknown, pretty much by definition, does allow for a catastrophe, that leaves the door wide open for these scare tactics. But is it what the EVIDENCE shows? Not right now, it doesn't.

 

[geni]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

Then why is argument by authority not asserted in any other field of science? Why is it ONLY the GW people who cling to it so?

Er so what about the aninmal testing debate (both sides)? Appeal to authority turns up when either there is not really enough data or the data is way to complex for most people to understand.

 

[geni]

Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

We're still responsible for the greatest set of mass extinctions since the end of the dinosaurs. At worst, we run the risk of triggering a major climatological collapse.

Does anyone have any figuers for the extion rates in the last few ice ages.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

The best possible result of global warming studies would be that we didn't screw up the world quite as badly as we thought we might have. We're still responsible for the greatest set of mass extinctions since the end of the dinosaurs. At worst, we run the risk of triggering a major climatological collapse.

Forgive me for reposting but...

Steven Milloy Junk Science
Houghton’s assertion that the 1990s was the warmest decade in the last 1,000 years (search) draws out the question, “Why was it so warm 1,000 years ago?”

Since there were no power plants, factories or automobiles back then, that warm period was obviously natural climate change (search). So why should we leap to the conclusion that any 1990s warming is definitely manmade?

Of course, it’s not even clear that any measurable “global warming” has really occurred, much less that it’s human-induced.

Satellite and weather balloon measurements of atmospheric temperatures since the 1970s actually indicate slight cooling to no change. To the extent any significant warming may have occurred during the 20th century, most occurred before 1940, while most greenhouse gas emissions (search) occurred after 1940 -- so there’s no apparent cause-and-effect relationship.

While it’s possible that some human-induced warming may be occurring, Virginia state climatologist Pat Michaels (search) once pointed out in a television debate with Clinton administration eco-czarina Carol Browner: “The fact of the matter is if you look at those temperature records that you keep on citing, you will see that almost all of the warming takes place in the absolute coldest, most miserable air masses in Siberia and northwestern North America … Great. We've warmed Siberia from minus 40 to minus 38. Big deal.”

If the 1990s were unusually warm, we don’t know why. Neither do the global-warming pushers.

Where is the evidence that humans screwed up the earth as it relates to global warming?

 

[Kodiak]

Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

Ecological balances being thrown off on a massive scale, as plants adapted for competition in a carbon-dioxide-poor atmosphere are suddenly exposed to greater concentrations of it. Increased desertification. Unknown effects on global climate. Major coral die-offs (although coral may be tougher than we originally feared, it's still delicate stuff).

Sorry, but ecological balances, being complex and chaotic, are anything but "balanced". Ecology is constantly changing, and has always been changing. Oxygen was once a toxic gas in huge supply early in earth's history - life evolved to take advantage of it. Even today, those plants (weeds) and animals (man) most capable at adapting to change are the most successful, while "niche" plants (edelweiss) and animals ( the cheetah) suffer severe and sometimes dire affects from even the tiniest of changes.

 

[Luke T.]

Says who? You?

You'll have to back that up.

You guys are hilarious. You believe in Science as long as it supports what you WANT to be true.

SciAm article.

Denying uncertainty makes life so much easier, as many have discovered when it comes to climate change. Between skeptics' insistence that global warming is just hot air and radical environmentalists' advice to start selling the beachfront property, responses to climate change tend to be predicated on claims of absolute knowledge. Who wants to deal with the messy reality? There is plenty of evidence that temperatures are rising and will continue to do so but lots of uncertainty about the details and amount of future change.

The bad news is that uncertainty still paralyzes discussion, especially in the U.S. Scientists naturally generate a range of results. Not all of these results are equally likely to be true, and none is definitive, but people tend to latch onto those that suit their preconceptions.

(edited to kind of tie things together)

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

So what if we are?

Well, aside from shooting ourselves in our collective foot (the value of healthy ecosystems just in their ability to maintain basic "life support" is beyond calculation), there's always the wacky idea that life has worth beyond mere human evaluation...

Why are you ignoring all of the potential benefits of a warmer climate that I mentioned?

Why are you ignoring all of the potential negative consequences of a CO₂-enriched atmosphere that I mentioned?

I'd like to see evidence that such extinctions are even occuring, much moreso evidence that we're responsible.

This is a joke, right?

If you're not even familiar with the evidence of the massive loss of biodiversity presently taking place, what should cause us to think that your opinion on global warming has any value?

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

Sorry, but ecological balances, being complex and chaotic, are anything but "balanced". Ecology is constantly changing, and has always been changing. Oxygen was once a toxic gas in huge supply early in earth's history - life evolved to take advantage of it. Even today, those plants (weeds) and animals (man) most capable at adapting to change are the most successful, while "niche" plants (edelweiss) and animals ( the cheetah) suffer severe and sometimes dire affects from even the tiniest of changes.

Well, someone doesn't quite grasp the difference between a dynamic equilibrium and a system crash...

 

[Kodiak]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

If you're not even familiar with the evidence of the massive loss of biodiversity presently taking place, what should cause us to think that your opinion on global warming has any value?

Ah...The ol' "You haven't even read the bible. Why should we listen to what you have to say about god and religion" remark...


I'm familiar with the "claim" of the current "massive die-off", but no one has ever actually supplied evidence to back up the numbers that are thrown about.

Can you provide them?

 

[Kodiak]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

Well, someone doesn't quite grasp the difference between a dynamic equilibrium and a system crash...

It is refreshing that you are willing to concede that about yourself.

I'm happy to have been of service.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

Sorry, but ecological balances, being complex and chaotic, are anything but "balanced". Ecology is constantly changing, and has always been changing. Oxygen was once a toxic gas in huge supply early in earth's history - life evolved to take advantage of it. Even today, those plants (weeds) and animals (man) most capable at adapting to change are the most successful, while "niche" plants (edelweiss) and animals ( the cheetah) suffer severe and sometimes dire affects from even the tiniest of changes.

There has never been stasis. Changes in environment and the ever changing "arms race" (some species of ants rule some species of trees today, those species of trees rule the ants tomorrow) ensures that there will never be a pure state of equilibrium. It has never been in the cards. However humans can have a dramatic impact on change and we can and should work to mitigate that impact.

 

[Earthborn]

The denial of global warming, and the denial that burning fossil fuels contributes, has about the same intellectual honesty as holocaust denial.

OK, overstated slightly, but not by much. So let's grant a small degree of uncertainty...

I think that is a very unfair comparison. There is significantly uncertainty about global warming than the holocaust and there should be. The holocaust happened in the past and we have evidence that it did. The dangers of Global Warming are in the future, and I think there should always be more uncertainty about predictions of the future than about what happened in the (relatively recent) past.

You should not compare one with the other. You cannot be as certain about what is to come as you are of what has already happened.

Inaction is unacceptable when when best science indicates that disaster of biblical proportion looms as a real possibility.

You are correct about one thing: the best of science does indicae that disaster of biblical proportions looms as a real possibility. The problem is, the best of science indicates that climate is an incredibly complex and inherently unstable system and whatever we do disaster of biblical proportion always looms as a real possibility.

Not to mention that reducing fuel consuption would be an important "weapon" in the war on terror. Unfortunately, Bush et al do not fully appreciate the multi-dimensional aspects of this war.

Perhaps Bush is smarter than you think and he sees terror as an important "weapon" in the war for oil.

If you think that reducuing fuel consumption will benefit the war on terror, I think you'll need to provide evidence of the connection between oil and terrorists.

If the evidence does indeed show that there is a significant risk to global warming caused by burning fossil fuels then you are right.

The evidence does indeed show that there is a significant risk to global warming caused by burning fossil fuels, but still varwoche is incorrect. Burning fossil fuels is not the only risk, there are risks caused by nature as well. Nobody has yet figured out which ones are the most important, but they are all significant.

Just a fear that fossil fuel is suspected by many as being a significant factor.

As I understand it, there is pretty much consensus that it is a significant factor. The controversy is about whether other factors may even be more significant.

Does the magazine state categorically that humans have significantly contributed to global warming?

There is a more important issue then how much humans have contributed: can humans do anything to stop it? That's an even tougher question, but it needs to be answered, because if we can't it may be a better idea to try to adapt to the change, whether we have caused it or not.

The problem with the global warming theories floating around is the predictions for the future. They make it sound like the world will end in a sudden onrush of disasters in a brief period. And it is pure guesswork. This makes them sound like every other doomsday scenario the human race has been subjected to forever.

Yes, but there is a difference though: we know that such doomsday scenarios have happened in the past, we know they can happen in the future, we know that we are putting quite a bit of CO2 into the atmosphere, and we know that must have some effect, and we know that most likely that effect is warming. We also know that when the earth starts to warm, there are many factors that can increase that warming and escalate into a runaway climate shift. And we know that there factors that will resist that change and slow it down.

We just don't know which ones are going to be more important.