Global Warming

[lilithu]

First you say that there is no consensus. Then you say that consensus is not to be trusted. Please make up your mind.

Either the scientific community is to be trusted or it is not. One cannot cherry-pick individual studies that support one's views and claim to have the backing of science when the majority of studies and scientists say otherwise.

 

[!Fluffy!]

First you say that there is no consensus. Then you say that consensus is not to be trusted.

No I didn't. At any rate IS there 100% consensus by all respected legitimate scientists as to the validity of the methods being employed by climatologists? There is a difference between perceived, promoted, politicized consensus and valid conclusions based on solid scientific methods and data.

Please make up your mind.

Okay. Remove "consensus" from the debate as it has been shown time and time again to have absolutely no bearing on the validity of scientific evidence one way or the other.

Either the scientific community is to be trusted or it is not.

No, that's a false dichotomy and depends among other things on a. the reliability /bias or lack of bias of scientist(s) conducting research and b. the reliability of the discipline itself and of the methods employed. I already covered that ground.

It's like saying "either the religious community is to be trusted or it is not", while ignoring the inherent contradictions between one religion and another.

One cannot cherry-pick individual studies that support one's views and claim to have the backing of science when the majority of studies and scientists say otherwise.

Of course one can. There is real science, and there is junk science. There is actual research and statistics, and politicized "scientific" opinion. Anyone can, given the raw data, perceive the difference between rigorous solid research and not so good research methods - as well as the truth or logical errors present in conclusions based on that evidence if you know what you are looking at. That becomes evident right away in the field of climatic research. Real science is one thing. Perceived, promoted, politicized scientific consensus is not to be trusted. Like I said elsewhere at length, it's turned into more of a religion than a science... and proponents are not likely to listen to anything that doesn't conform to their doctrine.

---------

So to answer this in a sentence I'm standing by my previous posts if anyone cares to actually read them, and bow out of the discussion gracefully before it goes in a less than friendly direction I'd rather not pursue.

 

[camanintx]

In the sixties and seventies the two major environmental concerns were overpopulation and global cooling. We were warned repeatedly that the world was rapidly heading into the next Ice Age, which combined with burgeoning population would spell worldwide disaster due to a mini ice age crop failure.

So because scientists in the 70's didn't have the data showing CO2 exceeding historic levels and rapidly climbing mean global surface temperatures, we're supposed to disregard what they say today?

 

[!Fluffy!]

So because scientists in the 70's didn't have the data showing CO2 exceeding historic levels and rapidly climbing mean global surface temperatures, we're supposed to disregard what they say today?

:biglaugh: Sure go ahead if you think that's a valid conclusion based on objectifiable data.



Like I said, I'll just stand by what I actually said in previous posts.

 

[lilithu]

Okay. Remove "consensus" from the debate as it has been shown time and time again to have absolutely no bearing on the validity of scientific evidence one way or the other.

That's ridiculous. Science works by consensus. One person or group publishes a study. The rest of the field works to either replicate or disprove it. If it's replicated, the community as a whole has more confidence in it. If a whole mess of scientists/groups replicate it, the community as a whole becomes even more confident in it. And so on. It's by no means foolproof, but it works better than anything else we have.

And AGAIN, consensus does NOT mean UNANIMOUS.

 

[yossarian22]

from wiki:

I said scientific community. Not the political organizations which have scientists in them. I am talking about consensus among individual scientists, not the politicized crap coming from an alarming number of organizations (on both sides). The view that man is causing global warming is a minority view. As is the view that man not causing global warming is a minority view. Most scientists are neutral on the issue.

Furthermore science is not a matter of consensus and never will be. Many scientists receive their fame precisely because the broke consensus.

 

[yossarian22]

So because scientists in the 70's didn't have the data showing CO2 exceeding historic levels and rapidly climbing mean global surface temperatures, we're supposed to disregard what they say today?

Scientists in the 70s said the exact opposite of what is being said today. If the data from 30 years ago is the total opposite of what data from today claims, what do you think the next 30 years will bring. Chaotic (non linear) systems cannot be accurately predicted from a narrow set of data points.

 

[logician]

"The view that man is causing global warming is a minority view"

This is a bald-face lie. Global warming is a scientific fact, RW logic is fiction, you need to get in a different debate.

 

[yossarian22]

"The view that man is causing global warming is a minority view"

This is a bald-face lie. Global warming is a scientific fact, RW logic is fiction, you need to get in a different debate.

Really, and do you have data that supports this?
I don't doubt that this is the view most people have, but that is irrelevant.
Scientists who believe in man induced global warming are in the minority.
How about some factual content instead of rhetoric. We get enough of that from politicians.
On the flaws in the Oreskes Paper (only thing supporting your consensus)
[FONT=&quot]According to Oreskes, 75% of the 928 abstracts she analysed (i.e. 695) fell into these first three categories, "either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view". This claim is incorrect on two counts: My analysis shows that only 424 abstracts (or less than a third of the full data set) fall into these three categories.[/FONT]
New study, showing that a minority of scientists believe in global warming.
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis.
The latter paper is from 2004 to now.

 

[lilithu]

I said scientific community. Not the political organizations which have scientists in them.

Do you have any understanding what a scientific academy is??! It's not a political organization. sheesh! It's made up of scientists who have been recognized by their peers as having made outstanding contributions to their fields. In other words, the academy is filled with people who would know their own field better than anyone else. And THEY all agree that Global Climate Change exists and human activity is to blame.

Furthermore science is not a matter of consensus and never will be. Many scientists receive their fame precisely because the broke consensus.

The reason why scientists who "break" consensus are so famous is because it happens so rarely. And the reason why it happens rarely is because consensus usually works. It's called reproducibility. There are always individual scientists who do not agree with the majority. Most of them end up in the dustbin of history. The ones that don't are the ones who were able to shift the consensus to their view. Science works by consensus - objectivity, reproducibility. It isn't "whatever feels right to me because I'm so special." I can't believe I'm having to argue with you about this.

Besides, you're the one who was harping on consensus!! If you don't think science works on consensus why was that even relevant!!

 

[logician]

Take a look outside if you're in the midwest, a spring-like super outbreak of tornadoes in OCTOBER, it's never happened in my lifetime (well over 50 years). Just a sign that the weather is getting wierder, amd a symptom of global warming.

 

[yossarian22]

Take a look outside if you're in the midwest, a spring-like super outbreak of tornadoes in OCTOBER, it's never happened in my lifetime (well over 50 years). Just a sign that the weather is getting wierder, amd a symptom of global warming.

You have shown nothing to prove global warming. Records are broken every year. Its a natural thing. There is also no proven correlation between bad weather and global warming.

 

[yossarian22]

Besides, you're the one who was harping on consensus!! If you don't think science works on consensus why was that even relevant!!

Because of how many people hide behind the consensus idea, when there is none.
I am talking about papers submitted into scientific journals. There is no consensus in the journals. I could care less what politicized organizations say. Claiming that those organizations are not political is like claiming the EPA is not political.

 

[lilithu]

Because of how many people hide behind the consensus idea, when there is none.
I am talking about papers submitted into scientific journals. There is no consensus in the journals.

The consensus is based on the scientific evidence, as published in the journals.

I could care less what politicized organizations say. Claiming that those organizations are not political is like claiming the EPA is not political.

lol, well at least it's clear where you are coming from. :areyoucra If by "political" you mean they actually want to make a positive difference in the world, then yes, they are "political." They are not, however, partisan.

Goodbye.

 

[yossarian22]

The consensus is based on the scientific evidence, as published in the journals.

Consensus comes from the journals, not the political organizations which interpret them

lol, well at least it's clear where you are coming from. :areyoucra If by "political" you mean they actually want to make a positive difference in the world, then yes, they are "political."

The EPA is so politicized its appalling. We need to rebuild it. I mean political as warping data to support preconceived notions. Thats what happens when politics meets science. Want proof of the politicization of the EPA? Second hand smoking (not the dangerous carcinogen it is made out to be) or blatant distortion of data, seen in the early recycling craze.

 

[vandervalley]

My theory? Its those evil vegetarians. They eat plants which absorb CO2, and don't eat animals which emit CO2 and Methane.

Do u know how much pollution a pound of beef produces?

Do u know how how much maize/veggies cattles consume in order to grow dead meat (literally speaking) for u carnivores?

Our Earth will be a greeners place if everyone is a vegetarian

Do some research before criticising us vegans

 

[yossarian22]

Do u know how much pollution a pound of beef produces?

Do you know how much pollution a pound of plants absorb?

Do u know how how much maize/veggies cattles consume in order to grow dead meat (literally speaking) for u carnivores?

Supply and demand does not affect this. It is a simple linear relationship. Decrease vegetarians, increase plants, decrease global warming.

Our Earth will be a greeners place if everyone is a vegetarian

Wrong. The earth would be a desert, as we would have eaten all the plants

edit: note that this is facetious argument. It does parallel many environmental arguments, albeit more blatant, as it is not covered in layers of rhetoric

 

[vandervalley]

Do you know how much pollution a pound of plants absorb?

Not enough to abosrb the pollution produced by a pound of beef that's for sure.

For your info. here is a link regading the environmental problems caused by carnivores like you

Fossil fuels, meat consumption and the environment

I got the following quote from the article:

More that 1/3 of all fossil fuels produced in the United States go towards animal agriculture. According to a study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1), the production of one calorie of animal protein requires more than ten times the fossil fuel input as a calorie of plant protein. This means that ten times the amount of carbon dioxide is emitted as well

 

[yossarian22]

I was not being serious. Good god, people can't comprehend sarcasm if they were hit between the eyes with it.

 

[camanintx]

You have shown nothing to prove global warming. Records are broken every year. Its a natural thing. There is also no proven correlation between bad weather and global warming.

NASA has documented an increase in the global annual mean surface air temperature over the last 30 some years. Does that qualify as proof of global warming?

Scientists have shown that the only explanation for the increasing global mean surface temperature is the increase of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. Data shows that the primary increase in greenhouse gases is from CO2. Data also shows that this increase is almost entirely man-made.

We can argue about how much we really understand about how climate works (and climate is not the same as weather, but that would need a new thread) and about how accurate our models are, but decisions must be made on what we know now. In my opinion, the data shows that our current actions will result in an environment unable to support 6 billion people, and if we are to have any chance of mitigating the effects, we need to make changes now.