Hi, I'm new here and have been catching up with all the recent Global Warming discussions.
By "controversy" I don't mean disagreements in the scientific community.
What I'm asking is: can anyone think of any other case where there has been such a vociferous and continued campaign in opposition to a theory supported by an overwhelming majority of scientists who are specialists in the field?
Why do so many people feel qualified to make judgements on the validity (not morality- that is a very different matter) of a particular field of scientific research when they would dream of doing so in hardly any other field?
Is it that this threatens our way of life in such a far-reaching and long-term way?
Lung cancer and tobacco is perhaps one example. Could there be a link I wonder?
Less controversial, was big bang versus steady-state theory for the universe, and often the steady staters were also the last group to accept the existence of black holes. However, the steady staters were generally active scientists in the field, whereas much of the strength of the AGW controversy stems from lobbyists and politicians.
Hi TrueSceptic, I'm new here too. What inspired your username? I was going for the first of the definitions here myself... .
Anyway, I was going to post something similar, but I thought I'd reply to your topic instead. Basically, there are two reasons I can think of that people would oppose the ideas of global warming. First you've got the group who simply don't want to think about it, and try to find excuses for their lifestyle. Secondly, you've got the group who think the majority of scientists have got it wrong, for one reason or another (There is a third group who accept its happening but believe there is nothing we can do, but they are really just an extension of the first group).
For the global warming doubters out there, I have created a simple test that really gets to the heart of the problem (and leaves very little room for questioning). I would really like to see someone show me the flaws in this...
1. Are humans releasing CO2 into the atmosphere? 2. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? 3. Is the purpose of greenhouse gases to trap heat produced by the sun in our atmosphere? 4. Even with other factors at play, is it reasonable to assume more greenhouse gases will increase the temperature of the world? 5. Is the warming of the world by a couple of degrees celsius likely to have negative consequences overall?
I tried to design that test so that it was possible to give yes/no answers to all the questions. I would argue that if you gave answers of yes to all five questions, then the answer to this sixth question has to be negative...
6. Is there any justification for opposition to the mechanics of climate change?
The test does not over simplify things. I could go on about why it does not, but think of this analogy... The temperature of my body is affected by many factors, but if I put a thick jumper on I would expect to be warmer than if I was not wearing the jumper. Similarly, the world's temp may be affected by many factors, but we aren't going to lower the temp by improving the insulation.
It really is that simple. I hope someone tries to challenge me on that.
Originally posted by Steve_M: Lung cancer and tobacco is perhaps one example. Could there be a link I wonder?
Less controversial, was big bang versus steady-state theory for the universe, and often the steady staters were also the last group to accept the existence of black holes. However, the steady staters were generally active scientists in the field, whereas much of the strength of the AGW controversy stems from lobbyists and politicians.
I remember the campaign mounted by the tobacco lobby, but in that case there were few other people joining that lobby and accusing the medical researchers of bias, conspiracy, only doing it for the funding, etc. There were very few people attempting to rubbish the research itself.
Originally posted by True Cynic: Hi TrueSceptic, I'm new here too. What inspired your username? I was going for the first of the definitions here myself... .
I'm a bit annoyed about the common (mis)use of the word these days, especially in reference to GW. Although I'm not a professional scientist, I have a sceptical outlook in this sense (from Wiki). Scientific skepticism
A scientific (or empirical) skeptic is one who questions the reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to a systematic investigation. The scientific method details the specific process by which this investigation of reality is conducted. Considering the rigor of the scientific method, science itself may simply be thought of as an organized form of skepticism. This does not mean that the scientific skeptic is necessarily a scientist who conducts live experiments (though this may be the case), but that the skeptic generally accepts claims that are in his/her view likely to be true based on testable hypotheses and critical thinking.
Common topics that scientifically-skeptical literature questions include health claims surrounding certain foods, procedures, and medicines, such as homeopathy, Reiki, Thought Field Therapy (TFT), vertebral subluxations; the plausibility of supernatural entities (such as ghosts, poltergeists, angels, and gods); as well as the existence of ESP/telekinesis, psychic powers, and telepathy (and thus the credibility of parapsychology); topics in cryptozoology, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, UFOs, crop circles, astrology, repressed memories, creationism, dowsing, conspiracy theories, and other claims the skeptic sees as unlikely to be true on scientific grounds.
Most empirical or scientific skeptics do not profess philosophical skepticism. Whereas a philosophical skeptic may deny the very existence of knowledge, an empirical skeptic merely seeks likely proof before accepting that knowledge.
quote:
Anyway, I was going to post something similar, but I thought I'd reply to your topic instead. Basically, there are two reasons I can think of that people would oppose the ideas of global warming. First you've got the group who simply don't want to think about it, and try to find excuses for their lifestyle. Secondly, you've got the group who think the majority of scientists have got it wrong, for one reason or another (There is a third group who accept its happening but believe there is nothing we can do, but they are really just an extension of the first group).
For the global warming doubters out there, I have created a simple test that really gets to the heart of the problem (and leaves very little room for questioning). I would really like to see someone show me the flaws in this...
1. Are humans releasing CO2 into the atmosphere? 2. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? 3. Is the purpose of greenhouse gases to trap heat produced by the sun in our atmosphere? 4. Even with other factors at play, is it reasonable to assume more greenhouse gases will increase the temperature of the world? 5. Is the warming of the world by a couple of degrees celsius likely to have negative consequences overall?
I tried to design that test so that it was possible to give yes/no answers to all the questions. I would argue that if you gave answers of yes to all five questions, then the answer to this sixth question has to be negative...
6. Is there any justification for opposition to the mechanics of climate change?
The test does not over simplify things. I could go on about why it does not, but think of this analogy... The temperature of my body is affected by many factors, but if I put a thick jumper on I would expect to be warmer than if I was not wearing the jumper. Similarly, the world's temp may be affected by many factors, but we aren't going to lower the temp by improving the insulation.
It really is that simple. I hope someone tries to challenge me on that.
I fear that you are assuming that a rational, logical series of tests will settle the matter. Unfortunately, this topic has a lot in common with religion, parapsychology: people cling to their beliefs regardless of the evidence (or lack of it), and tend to shift their ground as it is cut away from under them.
Originally posted by True Cynic: 3. Is the purpose of greenhouse gases to trap heat produced by the sun in our atmosphere? 4. Even with other factors at play, is it reasonable to assume more greenhouse gases will increase the temperature of the world? 5. Is the warming of the world by a couple of degrees celsius likely to have negative consequences overall?
I will challenge
3. A gas cannot have a purpose as it has no will.
4. Infrared absorption by CO2 is a logarithmic function, so waht you say might or might not be the case
5. A couple of degrees Celsius would do very nicely thank you.
The response to comment 10 by Raymond T. Pierrehumbert hints at the considerable complexity of the relation between the absorption and the concentration. As strong bands become saturated, weaker bands increase in importance. Though the suggestion is that you need to get to 10% CO2 before this is relevant.
quote:
5. A couple of degrees Celsius would do very nicely thank you.
You really want to go 2 degrees higher. That is the very top of this graph:
more than experienced for the past 12000 years anywhere on the planet, and over the whole planet at once. That's in line with the scenarios for towards the end of the century.
Not been on for a while the cutters and pasters are still here...
Right when all this hysteria started a couple of years ago we were all told in a 100 years disaster will strike then it was fifty years now in 13 years all the ice is going to melt.
Alternative so called clean technology is a massive polluter. e.g Siberia thousands of square miles of habitat destroyed by factories producing components for catalytic converters producing SO2. Huge ammounts of energy reqiured to produce solar panels...
The climate is warming yes it was going to do that anyway.. For all you newcomers there have been reasonable arguments on both sides..
The programme itself was polemic but didnt it need to be when the only information given to us throughout the official sources is polemic.
The need to recycle is obvious to deny global warming would be foolish..The cause of global warming is a little less obvious..
I have used computer modelling myself in engineering but im no expert..You can look at previous contributions from people with Knowledge of computer modelling who clearly state that the science is not exact and should not be relied on completely.
I see constant reference to all the scientists agree...who are all the scientists are they the ones that follow the body politic tied to funding... CO2 makes up only 4% of the atmosphere life on earth is carbon based 6 Billion people breathe out CO2 everyday along with pets, farm animals and wild animals trees also release CO2 as well as absorbing it.. CO2 is natural its part of this planet...
We cannot and will not stop global warming it is a cycle which has been proved by all the scientists........
This is another clue as to what might be warming up the Earth the big yellow disc in the sky...
The world should be looking how to adapt to climate change not how to stop it...We are not all powerful... The Holy grail for successive governments was to find a way to tax air.Well they seem to have done it.....
Oh by the way for those who dont know shipping releases a lot more CO2 into the atmosphere than planes no increase on shipping taxes though not a big enough target audience......
Originally posted by rickyjk: Not been on for a while the cutters and pasters are still here...
Please explain: what is your problem with that?
quote:
Right when all this hysteria started a couple of years ago we were all told in a 100 years disaster will strike then it was fifty years now in 13 years all the ice is going to melt.
Alternative so called clean technology is a massive polluter. e.g Siberia thousands of square miles of habitat destroyed by factories producing components for catalytic converters producing SO2. Huge ammounts of energy reqiured to produce solar panels...
Interesting: do you have figures for that?
quote:
The climate is warming yes it was going to do that anyway.. For all you newcomers there have been reasonable arguments on both sides..
Just wondering: how many "sceptics" said that 5, 10, 15, years ago?
quote:
The programme itself was polemic but didnt it need to be when the only information given to us throughout the official sources is polemic. [\quote] This is strange. The only information? Where the hell have you been? Polemic is one thing. Lies, distortion, and misrepresention are another.
[quote] The need to recycle is obvious to deny global warming would be foolish..The cause of global warming is a little less obvious..
Most "sceptics" said otherwise until very recently.
quote:
I have used computer modelling myself in engineering but im no expert..You can look at previous contributions from people with Knowledge of computer modelling who clearly state that the science is not exact and should not be relied on completely.
Agreed: because of the complexity of the system, it is difficult to provide simple, clear-cut answers. Economics is similar in this respect, yet the world's economists have been (arguably) changing human history on less "hard evidence" for decades. This was real, world-changing stuff. Where were have all the "ecosceptics" been?
quote:
I see constant reference to all the scientists agree...who are all the scientists are they the ones that follow the body politic tied to funding... CO2 makes up only 4% of the atmosphere life on earth is carbon based 6 Billion people breathe out CO2 everyday along with pets, farm animals and wild animals trees also release CO2 as well as absorbing it.. CO2 is natural its part of this planet...
We cannot and will not stop global warming it is a cycle which has been proved by all the scientists........
This is another clue as to what might be warming up the Earth the big yellow disc in the sky...
The world should be looking how to adapt to climate change not how to stop it...We are not all powerful... The Holy grail for successive governments was to find a way to tax air.Well they seem to have done it.....
Oh by the way for those who dont know shipping releases a lot more CO2 into the atmosphere than planes no increase on shipping taxes though not a big enough target audience......
Rant over goodbye
So much vague/mistaken stuff there that I gave up.
Originally posted by TrueSceptic: So much vague/mistaken stuff there that I gave up.
True. The whole GW thing is rather silly. Predicting the future from complex, poorly understood climate models is a fools game. What we are really looking at here is a money grab by leftist politicians in a last ditch effort to support their failed socialist dreams. Too bad. The real world won't allow such incentive robbing economic systems to endure.
Originally posted by TrueSceptic: So much vague/mistaken stuff there that I gave up.
True. The whole GW thing is rather silly. Predicting the future from complex, poorly understood mechanisms and ill-constructed climate models is a fool's game. What we are really looking at here is a money grab by leftist politicians in a last ditch effort to support their failed socialist dreams. Too bad. The real world won't allow such incentive robbing economic systems to endure.
More seriously, providing information without resort to other people's knowledge is a little unwise:
quote:
This is another clue as to what might be warming up the Earth the big yellow disc in the sky...
No the sun is keeping the earth warm. As the sun is not currently warming up much it is not by itself causing the earth to get much warmer. The increased insulation in the atmosphere is retaining more heat which is by far the biggest contribution to the last 30 years' warming of the earth.
quote:
I have used computer modelling myself in engineering but im no expert..You can look at previous contributions from people with Knowledge of computer modelling who clearly state that the science is not exact and should not be relied on completely.
As someone with some knowledge of climate models I would agree, and have said so many times on this forum. However, modelling provides a good tool for making predictions that can be compared with observations. The models confirm the expected impact of greenhouse gases, not only on the rate of warming but on where the warming takes place (eg. troposphere warms but stratosphere cools).
1. Are humans releasing CO2 into the atmosphere? 2. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? 3. Is the purpose of greenhouse gases to trap heat produced by the sun in our atmosphere? 4. Even with other factors at play, is it reasonable to assume more greenhouse gases will increase the temperature of the world? 5. Is the warming of the world by a couple of degrees celsius likely to have negative consequences overall?
... The temperature of my body is affected by many factors, but if I put a thick jumper on I would expect to be warmer than if I was not wearing the jumper.
It really is that simple. I hope someone tries to challenge me on that.
Its precisely because its not that simple that the sceptics have joined the debate. I asked elsewhere if there was a law of diminishing returns regarding warming via CO2. The answer from those that answered was yes. Try it for yourself, pull 12 jumps on - you will only get as hot as if you'd stopped at 6 (figures off the top of my head). It may well still get too hot for comfort but this illustration alone shows it is not that simple.
I agree with Rickyjk, its not a question of is warming happening and what can we do to stop it - its more a case of how we adapt. We have such a big opinion of ourselves don't we? Could it be that "Gaia" gave rise to us and will spit us out just as easily when we breaks the rules (as we are doing) - would it be a good thing for the planet and life as a whole it if did? I don't think we're that special in the big picture!
Then there is the politicisation question. I for one get cynical when issues such as these become subject to political spin. Saddam's WMD spring to mind as does the current pensions crisis. Our politicians/leaders let us all down badly in that respect. The Swindle program is also guilty of the same, when it was shown they had manipulated the temperature graphs - unbelievable!
Finally, in answer to the question that started this thread. We always need a questioning debate and various checks and balances, otherwise we risk sliding into totalitarianism. I also do not believe totally in the gospel of science and scientific method. Scientific "truths" change with time. Read Henri Poincare. The Theory of Relativity and alternatives to Euclidian geometry show that.
Originally posted by TrueSceptic: So much vague/mistaken stuff there that I gave up.
True. The whole GW thing is rather silly. Predicting the future from complex, poorly understood climate models is a fools game. What we are really looking at here is a money grab by leftist politicians in a last ditch effort to support their failed socialist dreams. Too bad. The real world won't allow such incentive robbing economic systems to endure.
You are mistaken if you think you are agreeing with me. I was referring to rickyjk's list of assertions.
I started this thread because I'm puzzled by the psychology of the "sceptics". Thanks for providing more evidence of the conspiracy theorists at work. Where do you get this stuff?
I have to say that all the "sceptics" I've heard in "real life" have been conservative people, whether they actually vote Conservative or not. Any mention of GW and off they go with the same old "greedy leftists taxing us" conspiracy.
I really wish GW, AGW or otherwise, wasn't happening, but it is. If the evidence for it is so weak, why do "sceptics" like Martin Durkin need to make a TV programme that contained so many distortions, omissions, and misrepresentations?
[/QUOTE] True. The whole GW thing is rather silly. Predicting the future from complex, poorly understood climate models is a fools game. .money grab - lefty politician's[/QUOTE]
No. Not a fools game. It's one for climate scientists. Allow me to cut from the transcript of the radis program "Intelligence Squared U.S. BGT NO. . Global warming is not a crisis" and paste it here.
On that show Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate fame said :-
"Serious scientists in the 1960s made predictions for what would be found if human emissions of greenhouse gases were to continue. They said the planet would warm. It has. They said the water vapor measurements would show rises. They do. They said that hos— ocean heat content would rise. It has. They said the stratosphere would cool. It did."
There's a subtle difference between predictions and projections but it looks like the experts are on the right track.
As for your money grab claim I'm sure there's an opposite claim. Like maybe the profit margins of oil and gas company's would be reduced by a move to a post-carbon era. So they ram the scientific uncertainties down our necks until, well doubt produces inaction which suits the oil boys just fine thank you.
Originally posted by Seskinreay: Scientific "truths" change with time. Read Henri Poincare. The Theory of Relativity and alternatives to Euclidian geometry show that.
At the risk of repeating myself, I think you're wrong. Relativity and Non-Euclidean geometry did not invalidate Newtonian Gravitation or Euclidean geometry, they merely extended the range of situations which physics (and mathematics) could describe.
There is absolutely NO chance (short of a breakdown of rationality) that someone will come up with new physics that proves that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
Originally posted by Seskinreay: Scientific "truths" change with time. Read Henri Poincare. The Theory of Relativity and alternatives to Euclidian geometry show that.
At the risk of repeating myself, I think you're wrong. Relativity and Non-Euclidean geometry did not invalidate Newtonian Gravitation or Euclidean geometry, they merely extended the range of situations which physics (and mathematics) could describe.
There is absolutely NO chance (short of a breakdown of rationality) that someone will come up with new physics that proves that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
Agree with you about the properties of CO2, but I am less sure about the the shock horror effects it will unleash, as put about by some. As I understand it before Relativity there was "absolute" scientific truth. I'm just trying to illustrate that the science changes and while it shouldn't be a function of time, for practical purposes it is. The harder you look the more you see. Are you saying we definitely have now arrived at all the answers to all the questions? Philosophically, is the power of nature or gaia or whatever you want to call it now subordinate to that man made thing called science? Would the greater good be served if we did nothing about GW?
Originally posted by Seskinreay: Would the greater good be served if we did nothing about GW?
In a word, absolutely. CO2 makes up such a tiny portion of the atmosphere that it's not worth all this excitement. I don't see anyone screaming about water vapor, the more plentiful greenhouse gas.
Originally posted by Seskinreay: Would the greater good be served if we did nothing about GW?
In a word, absolutely. CO2 makes up such a tiny portion of the atmosphere that it's not worth all this excitement. I don't see anyone screaming about water vapor, the more plentiful greenhouse gas.
Phlipper, the more plentiful and powerful GHG. Apparently water vapour is not counted as a greenhouse gas because man cannot control it! I asked somebody, anybody, to explain that but no replies!! Its laughable really, life on earth has survived for 2.5 aeons and we come along and in no more than a couple of minutes (relatively) we decide we know more about it than gaia, and dismi
gagagoogoogeegee - blehblehblah...waaah! 
