As a scientist (a chemist more precisely) working in environmental science policy I am in the position to examine a lot of the material on the web relating to global warming. Before I start on my interpretation, I think it is only to fair to say that I trust the science behind global warming (GW) - in particular the reports of the IPCC.
Now, I'm not daft enough to suggest that my experience of online GW debate is representative of the UK or indeed the world - in fact I'm rather more convinced that the online debate represents a tiny, but passionate fraction of the public. However, what seems to be true is that people divide themselves very obviously into pro- or anti- anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW). Anthropogenic global warming theory essentially says that human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, is causing greenhouse gases to enter the atmosphere and ultimately the Earth to warm. Those opposed to AGW theory state, as was demonstrated in the Channel 4 programme the great global warming swindle, that the current warming trend is a natural phenomenon, with various explanations for the cause, including, for example, solar activity.
I don't want to get into the science behind AGW too much as there are some excellent posts here that deal with this.
What I do want to discuss is why people, and this is definitely not just scientists, position themselves so intractably into a pro- or anti-AGW camp? I've been involved in a number of discussions online now and it seems that no matter how good the argument is from either side of the debate there is always an opportunity for someone to leap upon an aspect of the argument and turn it upon its head. An example recently from the this forum revolved around a good discussion as to why the global temperature dropped between 1940 and 1970. The pro-AGW theory is that sulfur aerosol (from sulfur dioxide emissions particularly from coal fired power plants), which are known to have a cooling effect (which I will not bore you with here) were rife during this period. Post-1970 clean air legislation came in that successfully reduced these emissions - because sulfur has a low residence time in the atmosphere it was effectively scrubbed out quickly and the temperature began to rise. The anti-AGW argument is that China and India (and others) have rapidly growing sulfur emissions, because they are burning a lot of coal, and shouldn't this have a cooling effect. Pro-AGW lobby responds that global emissions are still down overall and that global warming is so far progressed that it dominates the cooling effect of aerosols. And then the argument goes round another round of iteration - there is never a resolution - it just moves on to another topic...
The arguments are fascinating and there are some excellent scientists and non-scientists involved on both sides. A lot of effort is expended, absolutely no conclusions are reached and some people get somewhat hot under the collar. At the end of the day both camps have absolutely no wriggle room in what it is they believe to be the case and, fascinating arguments aside, a lot of time is wasted. I'm beginning to think that online debate is so polarised because frankly there is no better subject around that you can have such a great and heated debate. The reason why the subject is infinitely debatable is because global warming is a theory and not all that could be known is known. This means that ultimately in discussions you have to move from objective data driven arguments, to somewhat weaker subjective (my opinion based on the data is...) and this is the battle ground where the debate is fiercest. In the IPCC report, the key finding is that 90%+ of scientists believe that global warming is due to human activity on the basis of what has been published in peer reviewed literature and what the predictions are predicting. This is subjective and therefore open to interpretation (and therefore heated debate). Global warming, of course, also has huge implications - if you trust the science it is obvious that action is required otherwise the future is very bleak, particularly for certain geographical regions. Doing something costs money and I have time and time again seen arguments constructed against what is perceived as unnecessary green taxation - and this is a cause of much ire!
In general I think the debate is very healthy and necessary - scientific theories are just that and should be put on a pedestal to be shot at - but if the theory still stands after your best shot then it should stand (until, if ever, a blockbuster alternative comes along that knocks it flying). However, this debate is only being had by a very small fraction of the public - and I think the fact that there is debate leads to confusion and inertia. Whether you believe in AGW theory or not, isn't it worth turning down your thermostat by a degree or two, just in case? In the worst case scenario, you'll save some money and that sounds like a fair compromise to me...
A very good post. My suggestion is that although it may appear people are getting a little hot under the collar debating the issues, it may not be a bad thing as you learn only when you engage with the topic and getting hot under the collar is a sure sign of engaging.
Obviously it is difficult to change opinions and even more difficult to make people admit that their opinion has been changed. So I will say that effectiveness of the debate should not be judged by lack of confessions from the people in the forum on their conversion.
Is AGW science a theory? What does the theory say? I am confused genuinely and would like you to, if possible, articulate the theory for me. As I understand saying rising CO2 has a positive correlation with temperature does not fit the description of a theory. We know from Popper, a sure test of theory is that it has to be falsifiable. So what is the AGW theory? will be glad to have your thoughts
Yes, AGW is a theory, or if you like a working hypothesis. The key to proving any theory is to do absolutely everything you can to disprove it (which is why it is vital that all scientific counterpoints are aired). If something categorically disproves the theory then of course the theory falls. The theory, very simply states that adding CO2 to the atmosphere, in addition to that which is naturally produced, causes global warming via the greenhouse effect. As I mentioned, I don't want to get into the science, others are having some excellent debates on that. In anti-AGW theory (yes this is also a theory) it is hypothesised that the current warming can be explained by natural mechanisms (i.e. solar activity).
This is why it is so difficult with AGW theory as in order to prove the theory we need evidence in the form of measured data. Of course we could wait a thousand years, carry on business as usual and have a look back at the end of this to see what happened. However, what is happening instead is that both pro-AGW and anti-AGW are modelling the Earth and predicting, based on the different hypotheses, what will happen if their prediction is true. Both sides are trying covince everyone that their model accurtately predicts the future. The problem is that the general public have very little trust in any of this because we can't even predict the weather accurately tomorrow - let alone in 100 years.
I don't imagine that many in the public will have the time to go through all the literature and are instead relying on high profile figures (e.g. Al Gore)/publications (The Independent)/TV (GGWS) for their info - and frankly in the most part these debates tend to be sensationalist and skew the issue to some extent.
On the other hand, you have the typical scientist who will by his very nature be very conservative (because its a theory) and hence you get statements along the lines of "its quite likely that..." or "the gulf steam might turn off in 200 years"...
Where is the middle ground in this debate? It must be very confusing...
And I agree with WIYM, that the forum is a way for people to frankly exchange arguments. Even if most people are polarised, I'm sure many of us have changed our opinion at least in part and we have learned new stuff.
so would you say that the assertion of some of AGW scientists, that global temperature can be controlled by controlling CO2 at the margin, does not form part of the theory?
But if the theory is all that you say it is, then it says very litte. Ofcourse CO2 is a greenhouse gas and man made CO2 is also CO2, so is the theory basically confirming that greenhouse gases warms the earth? That cannot possibly be all to the AGW science? I am not trying to be pedantic but trying to understand the contribution of AGW science to climate science. Just pointing that man made CO2 is also another form of CO2 does not add anything to the body of knowledge
I know that you post a lot on these sites, so I'm sure you've been over most of the arguments already - I'm hopeful that this post won't turn into a pro/anti-AGW post...I want to try to stick with what this post intended to do which was question why people entrench themselves on one side of the debate so intractably.
In a very brief answer to your question - yes AGW theory is as simple of that. If you add extra CO2 (that is CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels and land use change) to the atmosphere, the Earth warms via the greenhouse effect. I think we both know the arguments on either side of the debate from this point onwards...I refer you to the earlier point in post:
"The reason why the subject is infinitely debatable is because global warming is a theory and not all that could be known is known. This means that ultimately in discussions you have to move from objective data driven arguments, to somewhat weaker subjective (my opinion based on the data is...) and this is the battle ground where the debate is fiercest."
jjeh102, look as chemists if some one puts out a paper we can go into te lab and confirm it as fact (or false). However, and this applies to both sides, climatology depends on gathering information and guessing as to the cause. It is a crap primative science. Just because 90% of crap scientists think something is happening does not mean there is a 90% probability that it actualy is happening. As chemists we should fell rightly superior that our claims can be verified.
Yes Billy Bumbly but by your logic we shouldn't have crap politicians or crap economists and crap city workers making crap billions from crappy speculation on crappy markets.
It could be instructive to look at some examples and there should be plenty of material on the boards. I think it would be interesting to hear from a range of people on both sides as to how the debate has affected their point of view.
Personally, I started off being strongly on the AGW side. I was aware that there was a debate in some quarters but had no idea how extensive the opposition to AGW was or what the debatable points were. Having seen the Al Gore film and then the GGWS film, I learned something about the alternative point of view. Then having followed most of the threads here and looked up some of the links, my AGW view has been confirmed and strengthened but now I am much more aware of the pro and anti views which is useful when it comes to pub arguments.
Looking at the numbers of posts vs the number of viwers, it would seem there must be a lot of people like me who are viewing but rarely if ever posting.
I suspect that the answer to your question may be that there are a small number of gladiators who by definition have to take opposing points of view and a larger number of audience who's views may be more moderate or who are open to persuasion.
Anyone else want to say if your views have been changed in any direction?
An interesting poll but public opinion is a complicated thing, of course.
I think sweat-shop labour is an excellent example. I'm sure almost anyone would agree that the use of exploitative labour (even debt-slavery in some cases) is abhorrent. They would have no problem with the government banning the import of items manufactured in such conditions. They would accept that prices will rise and that this is the price they must pay. But give them a choice (such as we have now) and the vast majority will buy the cheapest supermarket stuff they can find, even knowing full well that it was probably made by some poor kid working for pence.
Tell people that they must make sacrifices to reduce CO2 and I think they might grumble a bit but will accept it. Give them a choice and they'll fight like anything to resist it.
You can see it occsionally in these discussions. People say that they don't believe AGW is real because if it was the politicians would be serious about doing something about it. They expect to be told what to do.
There seems to be more people who accept AGW than will be prepared to actually change their own behaviour.
Interestingly, I read somewhere, that whereas a higher percentage of young people accept AGW as opposed to older people. More older people are happier to change their behaviour.
Yup. Those foolish people do not know what is good for them, a bunch of greedy and self serving lot. The government knows the best. Choice is never a good thing, in fact the secret of world's misery is the abundance of choice. Life in Soviet Union, ah.. those good old days
So slavery is sweat shop labour? Remember 'sweat shop' is a label that is created primarily for consumption of the developed nations, specifically to trigger a sense of guilt
Amit and Rahul Amit (L) and Rahul (R) worked in sweat-shops producing zaris
The Kumar cousins - Rahul, 12 and Amit, seven - thought they were leaving their remote village in the north east of India to go to school and learn a trade.
They had no idea their parents had sent them to one of the most populated cities in the world - Delhi - to work in a sweat-shop.
The boys hated sewing beads on fabric for 18 hours a day.
Do you know what is a zari? It is something that is consumed primarily by the Indian public and not something that you purchase in your local super market. I have worked for a long time in India and I can tell you from my personal experience, the argument of sweat shop labour being exploited by the western companies is a bogus argument. Labour is exploited in India, this is a fact. But this exploitation goes on mainly in unorganized sector such as bidi making (cheap cigarettes) and for clothes like zari. There was also accusation that the carpet making trade in India exploited child labour- I would suggest that you read Mark Tully's book on India (the latest one, I don't remember the name) which exposes the scam behind this claim. The point is that the western nations that procure goods from India do it from the organized sector, and there is no exploitation there (unless you say earning money by doing a hard days job is being exploited)
Which is entirely irrelevant to my point. I was making an observation on public opinion using a subject (i.e. "sweat shops are bad") which goes without question in the UK.
I think labour policies are a bit beyond the scope of this thread, don't you?
Originally posted by What's in your mind: So slavery is sweat shop labour? Remember 'sweat shop' is a label that is created primarily for consumption of the developed nations, specifically to trigger a sense of guilt
Yes I admit I did go off-topic, so this will be my last point.
The definition of sweatshop traces back to the 19th century and was not created in the way you suggest.
Originally posted by What's in your mind: I thought I made it clear what I thought of your post
Well it seemed pretty clear to me that you missed the point. I certainly wasn't saying that choice is bad, but rather that if you give people the choices that they say they want they don't take them. Instead they expect to be told what to do.
