The real climate change catastrophe

[sandy whitelinger]

This basically backs up what I said in the previous post. You only distrust science when it conflicts with some personal or political belief. You trust it when it does not.

Surmising what I think or believe does your arguments no credit. It borders on an ad hominem attack.

The scientific method doesn't somehow change because the data has "far reaching consequences." It's the exact same method that is used to study genetics or to develop new drugs.

Yet the reporting of it does.

Actually, it all started with report in 9th grade. The title of my paper was something along the lines of "Global Warming is a Hoax". My encounters with the subject had been mainly through the media, and because of the way the media presented the subject, it made it sound like the scientists were split 50/50, and that it was really only the tree-hugging nut-jobs that were for it. As I began researching, I found study after study supporting the idea of global warming. It was like trying to find a needle in the haystack to find a dissenting opinion. I was flabbergasted; I had thought my position to be the stronger of the two, and I found that I was hard-pressed to find a scientist on my side.

Flash-forward to college. Intro to Bio and Ecology only reinforced what I began to accept in 9th grade. I got into a couple of debates with people, and looked up the info again. Statistically, it was something overwhelming, like 90%, of studies on climate change that either implicitly or explicitly support the idea that global warming is occuring, and humans are contributing to it.

It seems the answer is pretty clear. I would say that the media, and politics, are muddling it, and making it appear a lot more controversal than it actually is.

And all I'm asking is if you looked into the actual data and agreed with their conclusions. That 100 people may read about statement "A" and agree with what they read second hand and 1 person agrees with their reading of statement "B" does not make statement "A" more valid, only more popular.

The politics of a situation are important. If money can be made by changing how man may or may not effect his environment then there is more attention paid to it whether it is accurate or not.

There is no doubt that some other "mainstream" scientific thought of the past has been horribly misguided. A past movement, favorable reviewed by the journal "Science," endorsed by national leaders, endorsed by the majority of scientists of the field, backed with money from leading businessmen, had laws passed based on it, spoken of favorably by a Supreme Court Justice of the United States, two presidents of the United States, one of the leading chemist of his time, to name a few, the concept was dropped after it lead to worlwide disdain and horror. I'm speaking of Eugenics.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Have we ever emerged from the Dark ages? I mean we still have religion being practiced by 50%+ so I would say we are still there. As far as global warming is concerned yep I am pretty sure its substantially more uncomfortable than I remember as a kid. Is it man made - who cares.

Well that clinches it then.

Point is do we want to do something about it?

Cheers

Have you done any studies into man's success in attempting to control his environment?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Of course I have. And I have no preconceptions about your level of ignorance. Sometimes intelligent, well-informed people hold opinions that were not arrived at intelligently, and I do not exclude myself from that generalization. You seem to have a condescending attitude that you are the only one who has really bothered to investigate these issues, but I think that everyone participating here has been concerned enough to try to educate themselves. Engaging in debate with others is part of the educational process.

You're still full of crap.

Like you, I read studies and reports from the perspective of a non-specialist.

Please offer one of these studies and tell me why you believe it to be true or credible.

 

[Alceste]

I was hoping for something a little more educational than this.
Ok, since you are so well versed, help me with a few questions. Take this from here:
"There is no single thermometer measuring the global temperature. Instead, individual thermometer measurements taken every day at several thousand stations over the land areas of the world are combined with thousands more measurements of sea surface temperature taken from ships moving over the oceans to produce an estimate of global average temperature every month. To obtain consistent changes over time, the main analysis is actually of anomalies (departures from the climatological mean at each site) as these are more robust to changes in data availability"

Where were these measurements taken, by whom, how, and on what kind of thermometer? Also from the beginning of the record taking to the present how many times were the measurement devices changed?

I'm not your nanny. Go look it up. That's what I would do if I wanted to know something.

 

[Alceste]

Please offer one of these studies and tell me why you believe it to be true or credible.

Personally, I think you should go first. You're the only one here demanding everyone else cite all the studies, articles and / or books that fed into their opinion on AGW. If that's how you think the game should be played, it behooves you to take the first step as a gesture of good faith.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

And all I'm asking is if you looked into the actual data and agreed with their conclusions.

I have. I've looked into the actual data and I've been to seminars on the subject hosted by the physics department. Like all such seminars, it was an hour of graphs and figures and data. It was certainly no less compelling than the seminars on any other subject in physics. And remember this is a very critical audience, physicists will quibble and question and prod everything.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

By the way if you read Nature or Science or Physics Today or pretty much any scientific journal, there is P-L-E-N-T-Y of analysis and studies and data. And there is debate, too, as in EVERY subject (even stuff you don't care about, like protein folding) but one side is the overwhelming majority view AND i.m.o. that same side is winning the debate.

 

[Copernicus]

You're still full of crap.

I suppose that this is the most intelligent response you can come up with, but I understand your touchiness. If you felt more secure in your position, you wouldn't feel the need for this kind of response.

 

[Falvlun]

Surmising what I think or believe does your arguments no credit. It borders on an ad hominem attack.

How is what I said any different than your surmise that none of the rest of us have actually looked into this?

In fact, I think my statement was a bit more benign, as it is probably a pretty true fact about humans in general: We don't like our beliefs challenged, and we become defensive when they are. I think it is rather apparent in this sort of case.

Yet the reporting of it does.

Huh? How does how the lay media misperceives the science have anything to do with the validity of the actual science?

And this completely ignores the fact that it is the media that has made global warming appear to be much less certain than the scientific community believes it to be. If anything, the reporting of this science has aided your side much more than it has aided mine.

And all I'm asking is if you looked into the actual data and agreed with their conclusions. That 100 people may read about statement "A" and agree with what they read second hand and 1 person agrees with their reading of statement "B" does not make statement "A" more valid, only more popular.

When the people are scientists, yes, I think that means statement A is likely the more reasonable position to hold.

Besides, how did you get that interpretation from my anecdote? I have looked at the studies. And the majority supported the hypothesis, either implicitly or explicitly, that global warming is occuring and humans are partly responsible.

The politics of a situation are important. If money can be made by changing how man may or may not effect his environment then there is more attention paid to it whether it is accurate or not.

Agreed.

However, when the subject is sufficiently scrutinized, and it is shown that the majority of scientists support the idea that global warming is occurring, and the politicians still won't believe it, then that is a problem.

There is no doubt that some other "mainstream" scientific thought of the past has been horribly misguided. A past movement, favorable reviewed by the journal "Science," endorsed by national leaders, endorsed by the majority of scientists of the field, backed with money from leading businessmen, had laws passed based on it, spoken of favorably by a Supreme Court Justice of the United States, two presidents of the United States, one of the leading chemist of his time, to name a few, the concept was dropped after it lead to worlwide disdain and horror. I'm speaking of Eugenics.

I don't know enough about this subject to debate you on it.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I'm not your nanny. Go look it up. That's what I would do if I wanted to know something.

Wrong answer. I'm curious to see if you know these things or not.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I suppose that this is the most intelligent response you can come up with, but I understand your touchiness. If you felt more secure in your position, you wouldn't feel the need for this kind of response.

If you didn't start with speculation, surmising,ad hominems and condemnation to begin with...well, whatever.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

How is what I said any different than your surmise that none of the rest of us have actually looked into this?

I've surmised nothing. I've accused no one of anything. I asked a question.

Huh? How does how the lay media misperceives the science have anything to do with the validity of the actual science?

Because popular opinion is guided by the lay media and more decisions seem to be made based on popular opinion than actual science.

And this completely ignores the fact that it is the media that has made global warming appear to be much less certain than the scientific community believes it to be. If anything, the reporting of this science has aided your side much more than it has aided mine.

I haven't chosen a side. You just assumed I have.

When the people are scientists, yes, I think that means statement A is likely the more reasonable position to hold.

You misunderstood what I said and surmised more into it than I stated. This is turning into a pattern. I hope you aren't a scientist.

Besides, how did you get that interpretation from my anecdote? I have looked at the studies. And the majority supported the hypothesis, either implicitly or explicitly, that global warming is occuring and humans are partly responsible.


Agreed.

However, when the subject is sufficiently scrutinized, and it is shown that the majority of scientists support the idea that global warming is occurring, and the politicians still won't believe it, then that is a problem.

And what I am looking into is whether or not the majority of scientists who support the idea of man-made global warming are correct in their assumptions and whether their "cure" for it is worth the trouble.

I don't know enough about this subject to debate you on it.

Yet I offered you an example of something that in the past is a clear example of a majority opinion, among scientist in the field, politicians and the public that lead to horrible actions.

What I am looking into is whether or not "climate change" is not just another boondoggle. The catastrophic effect of climate change may just be what man decides to do about it.

 

[Alceste]

Wrong answer. I'm curious to see if you know these things or not.

Bill Bryson: A Short History of Nearly Everything contains a chapter on the study of atmospheric CO2 concentration and its relationship to climate, including methodology and key players.

James Lovelock: The Vanishing Face of Gaia contains fairly well-reasoned, fact-based criticism of the methods and findings of the IPCC as well as several references to specific research projects (for example, the ongoing measurement of rising sea levels).

Mark Lynas: Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet lays out what each degree of rising temperature actually means in reality, based on his extensive review of scientific literature, all of which is referenced in detail.

I've already pointed you in the direction of Real Climate, which is maintained by actual climatologists who can and will answer any lingering questions you might have.

So get to work. I don't care whether or not you ever become informed about the world you live in, and I'm done doing the legwork for AGW deniers. Do it yourself.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Bill Bryson: A Short History of Nearly Everything contains a chapter on the study of atmospheric CO2 concentration and its relationship to climate, including methodology and key players.

James Lovelock: The Vanishing Face of Gaia contains fairly well-reasoned, fact-based criticism of the methods and findings of the IPCC as well as several references to specific research projects (for example, the ongoing measurement of rising sea levels).

Mark Lynas: Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet lays out what each degree of rising temperature actually means in reality, based on his extensive review of scientific literature, all of which is referenced in detail.

I've already pointed you in the direction of Real Climate, which is maintained by actual climatologists who can and will answer any lingering questions you might have.

So get to work. I don't care whether or not you ever become informed about the world you live in, and I'm done doing the legwork for AGW deniers. Do it yourself.

Have you read these books?

 

[Alceste]

Have you read these books?

These are just a few (the most recent) of the many relevant books (and books containing relevant chapters) I have read.

 

[Perfect Circle]

Wrong answer. I'm curious to see if you know these things or not.

Forgot to phrase it as a question...

"Who is your nanny?"

 

[Perfect Circle]

Surmising what I think or believe does your arguments no credit. It borders on an ad hominem attack.

You're still full of crap.

Hmm... ad hominem you say?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Forgot to phrase it as a question...

"Who is your nanny?"

Does this have some sort of meaning?

 

[Perfect Circle]

Does this have some sort of meaning?

It's called humor. Sadly, it's lost on some people...

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Hmm... ad hominem you say?

I can respond in like manner if that is what you are asking.

Do you have anything meaningful to add? For example, does the perception of global warming add to the human error in reading a thermometer? Or do you know anything about studies that show CO2 levels lagging behind temperature changes which indicate CO2 levels being a result of warming temperatures?