Being a non-expert, I don’t think there are any other options. And it is only a circle when viewed from a static timeframe, which we really aren’t talking about. That is the point of self-correction.
Where have I said that I did? Politics is a sad game and you and I know it. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a right side and a wrong side.
I disagree. When someone uses nonsense as a defense it is perfectly acceptable to dismiss it as such.
You haven’t provided any.
SIATD, I never claimed that the IPCC report, or the scientific process generally, is flawless. I presented it saying it was “as unbiased as this issue can get,” and you responded by showing that it is not perfectly unbiased. It is not a strawman, then, to ask you to provide what you find to be a less biased report. Criticizing the IPCC report is not enough to challenge the claim that “the IPCC Report is as unbiased as this issue can get.”
How can you accuse of strawmen and ad homs, and then turn around and make such a blatant ad populum argument as saying that there is “a dissensus supported by the majority of people worldwide”? Most people in the world have little education, and know extremely little about science. If the IPCC report were issued by a bunch of biologists, you might have a point when you say that “the vast majority of scientists are NOT climate experts,” but the experts in question are climate researchers. The peer review process may involve those who are not climate researchers, but though they are not climate experts, they are experts on scientific methodology generally, so they can still verify that the research supports the conclusions that are drawn.
Look, no one is claiming a worldwide consensus. No one. Not you, not me. If you’ll look carfully at what I said, which you quoted, I claimed only that the IPCC report is “a consensus supported by the majority of experts.” Dissenters do not bear on that fact until they amount to over half of the experts. A piddling few can dissent all day, and there will still be “a consensus supported by the majority of experts.”
Fanaticising this issue by making it about religion is a red herring. It’s not that consensus beliefs cannot be challenged, and it’s not about blind faith. It’s about going on the best information that is available. Do you think that no one has considered that correllation is not necessarily causation? That’s not a terribly insightful criticism of the idea that human actions are affecting the climate. It is considered, and in spite of that consideration the evidence that exists still indicates that human actions are affecting the climate.
I will start by saying I have very little knowledge of global warming (especially compared to some others in this thread). However, the majority of people are clinging on to the idea that it is indeed occurring and there are enough facts out there to support that claim.
That said, I have heard numerous statements regarding the inaccuracy of those facts. From my understanding, scientists out there without any political affiliation or connection say that we need to stop for a moment and look harder before all jumping on-board this theory. I can’t disagree with looking at each and EVERY bit of evidence first. I simply can’t.
The globe has been warming since the last ice age… better question might be in regards to man’s effect on it.
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
The conclusion from B ,“I can’t disagree with looking at each and EVERY bit of evidence first. I simply can’t.” does not follow from the opening statement in A, “I will start by saying I have very little knowledge of global warming.”
That is either an example of gross intellectual laziness/dishonesty or it is demanding that perfect knowledge be required to reach a conclusion. I’ll assume it isn’t the former, since that is a dead end, but the latter doesn’t make a great deal of sense either since we take informed actions on events that we lack a complete understanding of all the time and we can reliably attain desirable results from these actions as long as the authorities and models that we follow are robust enough.
Eh, I regret that post to a great extent now, mainly because I jumbled up my words and contradicted myself. My point is that I am no scientist and take what I hear on this issue from the news, the internet, you know - places people go that provide information on said topic. I have come to the conclusion that GW has become some sort of bandwagon that a lot of individuals blindly hop on to. I will go insofar as to say one of my old teachers from high school thinks Florida is going to be underwater within the next two decades. This is ridiculous. I think a closer analysis of data from scientists without anything political to gain who are independent and not funded by anyone might, while maybe not pointing us in a different direction, alter things up a bit.
That’s really all I’m saying. If you want to disagree with me, and say that such scientists are not credible, not worth waiting on or whatever you may, that’s your call.
I do agree that it has been hyperbolized, that is a major problem with AGW and how it is presented. But the trick with scientists who aren’t funded is that, well, that can’t actually do the research necessary to answer that question. And furthermore, a scientist who isn’t funded is a bad scientist, since good science is rewarded with things like grants. So if you take unaffiliated scientists, you are limiting yourself to either a) failed climatologists b) scientists from other fields editorializing or c) cranks claiming to be scientists. Clearly none of those are worthwhile authorities. So, what kind of scientist ought one listen to? Well, corporate funded scientists have an astounding track record of publishing what their company wants to hear. This is largely because their paycheck is dependent upon doing so, so if it looks like a line of research might be bad for the company they will either bury it or not pursue it (see: cigarettes and cancer, vioxx and heart-complications, and so on). Government funded scientists, on the other hand, have a fantastic track record of either publishing discoveries that go against the government’s interests (AGW being one of them) as well as being willing to go against consensus when there is good data for it (Woese is a great example there). That only* unaffiliated or corporate hacks are holding the torch for non-AGW, that makes me deeply suspicious of that particular model. Now, in a case where some deeply suspect authorities are calling for inaction and credible authorities are calling for action, I think that action is the best course. Now, if you have a means to discredit those primary authorities, be my guest.
*Recently a group in Denmark (I believe) has begun arguing for the sunspot theory. The correlation is pretty weak though, but we’ll see what comes of it. It has been investigated previously and found wanting.
You know wether a coming Ice age is natural or human induced is really irrelevent. It will come sooner or later. The only real pertinent question is what do we in order for humanity to save as many species as possible and of course man.
For me this debate over the Ice age is about as ridiculous as questioning how life began. Sure it might help us eventually but too much intelligence is wasted on this low priority debate when it would be better spent elsewhere. How to survive is the highest priority question.
Consensus Shattered As Major Scientific Study Says Global Warming Is Natural
Attempts to reduce CO2 emissions “pointless” as sun is cited as climate change culprit
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/121107_global_warming.htm
As if finding a direct and scientifically verifiable correlation between global warming and CO2 emissions is the only reason to want or need to reduce pollution? I haven’t read the article you posted, but the premise of your summary strikes me as spurious and almost completely irrelevant.
you are welcome to comment anew when you have read the article.
One must look at who is pushing for global warming reforms and what their objective is.
Ok, here are statements from the article that are obviously outside the boundaries of science:
Additionally, concerning the following quote, I have heard many reports of the opposite:
Sven, your article is not the end of the discussion. There are many, many other sources that say your study is wrong. There are likewise many interests who benefit enormously from such a study (which is not an attempt to discredit it, but rather to balance out your suggestion that we “look at who is pushing for global warming reforms and what their objective is”). It is a touchy subject, with much to lost or gained on both sides, and one clearly sensationalist article from a fringe source citing one study is not nearly enough to wrap up the debate.
But one paper by the IPCC is enough to wrap up the debate?
Where has the sunspot/cosmic rays/solar winds theory been found wanting?
All right, anon, Carleas, just throwing this on the table. Of course there are many sources that say the opposite, that is the official line. Isn’t it curious that the whole establishment is making such a rucous, more particularly the big banking interests families. As a side note, the Gores go back a long way with the globalist/centralist financieer crowd. His daughter even married a descendant of Jacob Schiff, who in his days sent Trotski" off with a few hundred strong men to Russia (and 20mil$) to spark a revolution.
The “fringeness” of the source, is besides the point. The study is what is important, and whether it is truthful.
Reducing arguments against atmospheric pollution and environmental degredation in general to a single issue of ‘global warming’ is problematic. It is a trump card produced by the environmental movement in light of the fact that localized pollution issues are never addressed on a national or global level. When I was growing up in the 1970’s I learned about how midwestern U.S. industries, in the form of extremely tall smokestacks, were polluting the Northeast U.S. through acid rain which were creating ‘dead lakes’, notably in the Adirondacks of New York State. Just a couple of years ago I picked up some magazine and read about the fight to get emissions controls on tall midwestern smokestacks in light of the same problem. This is 35 years later.
Everyone has their own agenda, and this is worth investigating and pointing out. But I have to confess it seems obvious to me that corporate power (including ‘big banking interests’) is what is largely controlling this picture.
The problem to me is that there is a dynamic involved that creates unquestioned economic growth regardless of which side of the equation a rich and powerful person or corporation falls on. In that sense I think you are right - the rich and powerful get more rich and powerful whether they are releasing a new hybrid model of car, mining for new natural gas sources, or burning tires. Does that completely paralyze the rest of us though who aren’t rich and powerful? Does it mean a rich and powerful person can’t be sincere and well-meaning? I think the answers to those questions are no. On the other hand corporations by definition are required to maximize profits for their shareholders primarily at the expense of all other motives. I think this makes corporate (and to a large extent governmental) interests highly suspect.
The study you posted points out that we don’t know with 100% accuracy what the causes of global warming are. Of course we don’t. But the conclusions so quickly and simplistically drawn are purely political rhetoric of the basest sort.
While the IPCC report is more credible than ‘Prison Planet,’ we don’t nee to rely on that survey alone to conclude that humans are affecting the environment. Natural climatic forcings are dealt with in the IPCC report, and in spite of them, the vast majority consensus conclusion is that human actions are warming the planet.
The sunspot study is wrong insofar as it claims that altering our actions is “pointless” (The full text of the article was not available through the link provided, so I don’t know in what context, if any, that claim was made). As Anon points out, there is more to pollution than global warming, so even if you are a fringe skeptic about anthropogenic global climate change, “pointless” seems quite strong.
And, Sven, fringeness of the source is quite the point. The article is not available, only the source’s interpretation and necessarily selective quoting is presented. A non-scientist, fringe journalist is likely to miss a lot more of the implications than, say, someone with a science background and experience analysing studies of this kind.
Interesting phsychology here. I propose that the most important part of Gobal warming is about survival and you all still want to haggle over why it is or is not man induced. Ice age is cyclic even if man induces an early one the Ice age will come again. so the point of why is moot. Survival is not. But, it seems people would rather point fingers. Why? Why is this argument so important when it has already been concluded by nature or by man it will happen, its not if, its just when.
Kris, part of survival is long term planning. If altering human action will prevent one degree of temperature increase, one large-scale climate cataclysm, one event that takes a toll on humanity, then it is an aspect of survival to show that altering human actions is important. Thus the debate.
Well that would make sense but, this argument seems to be stuck in first gear, as do most of these because niether side is willing to push the clutch in. Therefore it becomes a moot argument. Wether we alter what we do or not will not stop the cycle, it will only delay it at best or at worst. We know it is coming. So My point is why not make the arguments over something worthwhile, Such as survival of as many species as possible.
See, if we can salvage as many species as possible including ourselves, we, might not have to face too many new species after the ice age. The ones we save may be able to gain a foothold over emerging species that could prove formidable to us. I include the microscopic species as well as macro. Or should we try to save anything?
We can point fingers after provisions are made. That is the time for such arguments. Right now its like leaving the gate open and letting the horses escape. Folks are standing around passing the blame rather than getting the horses who are well into the mountains by now. In other words this finger pointing makes the job harder, by wasting time we may not have.
Questions for global warming: How to save as many as possible, size of gene pools where and how long? or should we?