Last Bastion For Climate Dissenters Crumbling 963
Layzej writes "The New York Times reports: 'For decades, a small group of scientific dissenters has been trying to shoot holes in the prevailing science of climate change, offering one reason after another why the outlook simply must be wrong.' Initially they claimed that weather stations exaggerated the warming trend. This was disproven by satellite data which shows a similar warming trend. Next, solar activity was blamed for much of the warming. This looked like a promising theory until the '80s, when solar output started to diverge from global temperatures. Now, climate contrarians are convinced that changes in cloud cover will largely mitigate the warming caused by increased CO2. The New York Times examines how even this last bastion for dissenters is crumbling. Over the past few years, Several papers have shown that rather than being a mitigating factor, changes in cloud cover due to warming may actually enhance further warming."
Last bastion (Score:5, Insightful)
What is the basis for the assumption that this is the "last" bastion? I am pretty sure, they will find another reason to hold out within days.... This is an issue of belief (at least for them), so arguments ain't gonna change a thing.
Re:Last bastion (Score:5, Insightful)
There is significant evidence that the earth's climate changed dramatically in the past, without any human intervention. So there is all kinds of historic evidence for climate change. The issue is how significant human activities are for climate change.
Re:Last bastion (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why SCIENTISTS MEASURE the things that could affect global climate instead of just flapping their arms and lips.
Re:Last bastion (Score:4, Informative)
They are not. In fact, measurements outside of cities show the same trends. You are just spewing the Urban Heat Island talking point that's constantly used by denialists to deny scientific fact.
Science deals with evidence, not proof. And there's a huge amount of evidence that the warming is caused by humans. Once again you are just spewing denialist talking points.
Re:Last bastion (Score:5, Insightful)
There is significant evidence that the earth's climate changed dramatically in the past, without any human intervention.
Yes, but some of the findings associated with such changes have never graphed anywhere near like they do now. For example, going back at least several hundred thousand years, the rate of rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide has never come anywhere near what we are seeing now, but yeah, you're right. That simply must be "natural phenomena". The burning of millions of years worth of carbon deposits in a few decades couldn't have anything at all to do with that. And unicorns are real.
Re:Last bastion (Score:5, Informative)
It is interesting to note that the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide may have been as much as 20 times higher as it is today at points in Earth's geologic past. Of course, you wouldn't want to live there :)
Sometimes people compare today's warming with the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum [wunderground.com].
Re:Last bastion (Score:5, Interesting)
I always wondered how insects in prehistoric times grew so large. As they have no lungs, they depend entirdly on Brownian motion for the exchange of O2 and CO2. During those times the percentage of oxygen in the air was even higher as well. Even fo the point that any dry wood would burst into flame, unless the air was extremely humid.
Re:Last bastion (Score:5, Interesting)
True, but it took millions of years to reach that point and millions more to change to a more hospitable environment. This time, it has taken around a century to do what would normally have taken hundreds of millennia to achieve. That's a huge difference. Atmospheric oxygen was also much, much higher during periods like the Cretaceous (the figures I've seen have been in the vicinity of 35%) but no such rise has occurred here. It is this rise in oxygen that allowed for massive insects.
The current imbalanced rise in CO2 is much more troubling because studies show that plants do NOT like massive levels of CO2 unless they come combined with massive levels of O2. CO2 rises alone, without any other alteration to the environment, will cause plant growth to decline and is eventually toxic. As such, it is very unlike the majority of historic events, which have tended to be balanced in some way. (PETM, for example, is linked to a massive increase in vulcanism. Volcanic ash contains superb nutrients for plants and algae, which meant that once the volcanoes stopped, things were ideally positioned for the CO2 released to be locked away on a much shorter order than it would have otherwise taken.)
This means that the potential exists for the end result to be far worse than for PETM. There's no introduction of a compensating variable, so even if industry stopped tomorrow, you would NOT see a rapid recovery as happened with PETM. Instead, things would worsen for a long time and - since chaotic systems leap from one orbit to another in dramatic and unpredictable shifts - a catastrophic switch could still occur at any time. The reason we've not seen the originally predicted shifts is that climate ISN'T linear, it's chaotic and Strange Attractors act in a manner analogous to quantum states -- systems don't change much until they leap from one state to another (the "quantum leap").
Natural climate shifts have built-in mechanisms that prevent quantum leaps, but this shift does not. If we want such mechanisms, we'll have to add them via geo-engineering of some kind.
Re:Last bastion (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that while this may be the last scientific reason to think global climate change isn't happening or won't be a problem, what's really the last bastion is "la la la la I'm not listening! It's all a conspiracy!" And if issues like the the shape of the Earth and evolution are any guide, it may be several centuries before we're done dealing with that one.
Here, I think, is the reason that this one is so difficult to accept for many people: Western society is fundamentally based on the ideas of growth and progress, where society produces more than it used to and by so doing enables scientific discoveries that enable it to produce even more which in turn leads to more scientific discoveries in a nice virtuous circle that has exponentially increased our quality of life. The challenge presented by global climate change (and peak oil and several other related problems) is that growth and progress can't continue exponentially forever. It's no different, really, than a colony of bacteria filling up their petri dish and being unable to expand any further. And what's worse, capitalism, while admirably suited to allowing humanity to produce more useful goods than ever before, is completely ill-equipped to handle situations where further growth or even preventing a catastrophic decline is impossible.
Re:Last bastion (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, the shape of the Earth was never a controversy: the Greeks not only knew it was round, they calculated the radius to within a few hundred km or so, and that knowledge stayed with humanity through the time of Columbus (who knew it was round, but miscalculated the exact circumference by a fair bit). Pretty much the only people who may have thought it was flat were the peasants.
Second, capitalism works perfectly fine with a non-growing system. Plenty of companies maintain stable levels of profit and production over years or decades, producing steady profits for their investors. A huge number of investors prefer start-ups and expansion, because those yield massive profits (or complete loss) much much faster, but capitalism doesn't require that. All it requires is that the stable system be large enough to create local instabilities. There will be sufficient fluctuation between the companies within the stable system to allow for new corporations in any case, and of course the progress of science means we will (for the forseeable future) be able to utilize more resources and do so more efficiently: oil is not the only source of energy in the world. It isn't even the cheapest or most efficient, just the easiest to utilize.
Re:Last bastion (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, the shape of the Earth was never a controversy
... among non-idiots after about 300 BCE. That's precisely my point: Even though modern humans have had every reason imaginable to believe the Earth is an oblate spheroid, and pretty close to complete proof of the idea by about 1550, there are still Flat Earth believers [theflatearthsociety.org]. That's why idiocy and denial are the last refuge of a stupid idea.
Same story with the development of life on Earth. Evolution was widely accepted scientifically by about 1880 or so, but surveys show a solid 30% or so of Americans still believe that life was created by God 6000 years ago.
Re:Last bastion (Score:5, Interesting)
> Americans still believe that life was created by God 6000 years ago
heh-heh.
I met one of those. Nice family. They an incredibly detailed history chart on butchers paper running all around the walls of their house. I was walking along it reading all of the diverging lines of societies, wars, inventions, etc. It was fascinating. Then I reached "the end". I said, 'where is the rest?'. "What rest?" they replied, "that is when God made the Earth."
The hairs went up on the back of my neck in an involuntary reflex inherited from my Ape-like ancestors... or was it?
Re:Last bastion (Score:5, Informative)
Evolution will always remain a theory, because a theory is the highest part of the scientific hierarchy. What a scientist calls a "theory" is what regular people would call "fact". So to us non-scientists, evolution is a fact.
That says that the earth is flat. Fail.
Re:Last bastion (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that there are valid reasons for distrusting the group think here. To me, there are four orthogonal issues: whether there is a warming, to what extent it's anthropogenic, what will the fallout be, and for how long. I think that the first two are answered with a yes, perhaps even a resounding one. To the third, there's plenty of reasonable scenarios. My main beef is with presumptions and handwaving on the last one. That's the real policy driver.
It's not unthinkable that the warming and cooling would happen with different time constants, as would increase and decrease in atmospheric CO2. Suppose we stopped all fossil fuel use right now. How far would the warming trend go, and for how long? One presumes that if we merely reduce emissions, it'll go farther and longer. How much are our sacrifices worth?
Re:Last bastion (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, the IPCC is discussing both the scientific basis and what can be done based on those facts.
And claiming that the IPCC has a credibility of near zero is just insane. Every single respected scientific organization in the entire world supports the IPCC. So you are basically saying that the entire scientific community is part of a major conspiracy to cover up the truth.
No one is arguing that emissions should be dropped to 0. Looks like you are rather confused.
Re:Last bastion (Score:5, Insightful)
AGW skeptics are being called names like "deniers".
Is "denier" not an accurate term for someone who refuses to see what's in front of their face?
And you wonder why people don't listen...
There's no wondering about it, it's typical human behavior. If people acknowledged the problem, then they would feel pressured to do something about it, and since they believe (correctly) that dealing with global warming would create hardship for them, the easiest way to cope (in the short run) is to pretend the problem doesn't exist.
Re:Last bastion (Score:4, Informative)
surely the crap spewed into the atmosphere by continuous seismic events must far outweigh your "graphed" metrics.
You mean volcanoes?
http://news.discovery.com/earth/volcanoes-co2-people-emissions-climate-110627.html [discovery.com]
No, no, not at all.
Re:Last bastion (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's the source you couldn't be assed to look up:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf [agu.org]
Science doesn't deliver certainty, it gives us the best we know. If you want certainty try religion.
Re:Last bastion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Last bastion (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course natural contribution matters. If we can run a whole industrial society and our contribution to the effect is effectively the margin of error of the measurements, then what is the point of getting torqued up about AGW? If warming is going to happen no matter what we do or don't do, then we can be spending our time and resources on a lot better things than controlling greenhouse gas emissions.
If, on the other hand, it is the only reason we are about to turn into a blazing hell like Venus, then we all need to start working on fixing the problem yesterday.
The question is, if human contributions to climate change are significant, what is the effect and what targets to we need to meet to avoid any negative effects?
Re:Last bastion (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course natural contribution matters. If we can run a whole industrial society and our contribution to the effect is effectively the margin of error of the measurements, then what is the point of getting torqued up about AGW?
Well, it's moot because as someone else has pointed out, mankind's CO2 output dwarfs that of volcanos.
But even if that were not so, your point doesn't work. OK - if man's CO2 contribution really was small enough to be within the error bars, you might have a point. But beyond that, a small delta to a large natural level matters.
By analogy:
- Imagine a substance X that naturally occurs in your blood
- By some natural process over which you have no control, the normal level is 20%
- 21% will kill you
The 1% is small compared to the 20%. But you'd do well to avoid ingesting that extra 1%, since it'll keep you alive, and it's the only part you can avoid.
Re:Last bastion (Score:5, Informative)
surely the crap spewed into the atmosphere by continuous seismic events must far outweigh your "graphed" metrics. Each side of the debate is hindered by FUD so choose your arguments carefully.
Even during the lead up to the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, CO2 and equivalents emissions were much lower than they are currently (1.1 to 6.32 billion tonnes per year. Compared to about 30 billion tonnes per year at present). Atmospheric temperatures got far higher than they are at present (6-9C), but over a far longer period of time (~20,000 years)
Here's my source: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n7/full/ngeo1179.html [nature.com]
For clarification, their number is 0.3–1.7Petagrams (1Pg=1 billion tonnes) of carbon per year. Multiply by 3.67 to convert to CO2.
Re:Last bastion (Score:4, Insightful)
What is the basis for the assumption that this is the "last" bastion? I am pretty sure, they will find another reason to hold out within days.... This is an issue of belief (at least for them), so arguments ain't gonna change a thing.
Belief for the hoi polloi who vote and put pressure on politicians and politicians use the Global Climate Change or Global Warming as a distraction issue to be not like the other guy. With other distraction issues like how GW will "increase taxes" or "eliminate US sovereignty" or "kill jobs" or what have you.
The real reason why there's so much resistance to the data and the conclusions drawn from that data is that there are some very powerful entities whose business will be adversely affected by any policies implemented as a result of stemming the effects of GW. In other words, there are folks who believe that they will lose big if GW is accepted as fact for policy sake - like the big oil and auto corporations.
Re:Last bastion (Score:5, Interesting)
I find it quite interesting to compare this to other historic debates such as
- whether the universe has always existed or came into existence (steady-state vs big bang)
- whether the milky way is the only galaxy
- whether earth is the center / only place with life
- whether humans are different in any distinctive way compared to (other) animals
The common theme is "can something come from nothing" and "is this place special". Some resistance in the debates comes from "it has always been like this". There seems to be some attractive simplicity to the idea that things never change and that there is only one of something.
The world seems to be consistently contradict our intuition on that principle.
Re:Last bastion (Score:5, Insightful)
What is the basis for the assumption that this is the "last" bastion? I am pretty sure, they will find another reason to hold out within days.... This is an issue of belief (at least for them), so arguments ain't gonna change a thing.
You only have to look at creationists, 9/11 truthers, moon landing hoaxers, anti-vaccinationists to know that you could lock such people in a warehouse full of evidence contradictory to their worldviews and they'd still deny it. I really don't see climate change deniers being any different.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
These aren't deniers, these are scientific dissenters. There is nothing wrong with that. Without scientific dissenters we wouldn't have as much confidence as we have today on theories such as evolution, quantum mechanics (with Einstein being a major dissenter), and Big Bang cosmology. Often, the dissent strengthens the theory, leads to new branches of study, or points out actual flaws that need to be adjusted.
Re:Last bastion (Score:4, Interesting)
No they're not honest scientific dissenters. The evidence is that they shift from one unsupported hypothesis to another as their ideas are disproven by data and careful analysis.
Re:Last bastion (Score:4, Insightful)
Einstein did the same damn thing. This is how science works.
I understand that it is disconcerting that people don't agree on this topic since it will have a major impact on the world. But that is why politics and science are separate. The politicians need to be wise enough to know that scientists will probably be debating global warming for the next 50 years, but that their time to act is very short.
Don't bash the scientists, bash to politicians who don't have the guts to do what they should.
Re:Last bastion (Score:5, Insightful)
No, in science, you modify your model and conclusions based on changing evidence. The difference here is that you're holding your conclusion constant and changing the reason you claim it's true every time your reason is found to be untrue.
Re:Last bastion (Score:4, Informative)
Personally, I see both sides as religious zealots.
Your logical fallacy is:
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/middle-ground [yourlogicalfallacyis.com]
Read Feyerabend's treatment of Galileo (Score:5, Interesting)
I realize that it was Einstein being discussed. But I think the same point about Einstein can be made about Galileo.
Galileo's observations, even the ones with the telescope, were arguments against his own heliocentric theory just as much as they were evidence against some forms of geocentrism (keep in mind that Tycho Brahe created a form of geocentrism that worked quite nicely). It wasn't until Kepler that a form of heliocentrism fit the observed facts any better than geocentrism. Despite the observed facts telling him his theory could not be correct, Galileo continued to pursue his theory. He did so by means of a propaganda campaign that sought to promulgate his (quite wrong) theory of optics, its accompanying technology (his telescopes), and his metaphysics. Eventually, he got other scientists to look at the world from a different point of view and, once he did that, new facts could come to light and enable such men as Kepler to develop theories to account for those facts.
In the end, I'm not certain that distinguishing between `honest' and `dishonest' dissent is very fruitful. Whether honest or not, dissent is important to prevent falling into a morbid state of what Feyerabend calls ``conceptual conservatism.''
This does not mean that one can't make the argument that most climate change deniers aren't kooks. It just means that when making policy decisions, it can be profitable to look at their analysis and examine what has to hold for it to be an accurate analysis and what would be the end result if it is accurate. This can be compared to the consensus view and a reasonable decision arrived at. And it will be a stronger, more reasoned decision than if the kooks were just ignored.
Re:Last bastion (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is that the global climate models suck at hindcasting outside of their fit region because they omit major variables (such as solar state) that almost certainly contribute as much to the climate variability as modulation of the CO_2 per se does. The GCMs also suck at forecasting. Compare the forecast temperatures from any of the early IPCC reports to the temperatures outside today, and you will observe an increasing divergence. The UAH lower troposphere temperature has been stable to slightly decreasing for well over a decade at this point and is actually bouncing by a tenth of a degree C around its 32 year average month to month at this very moment. Arctic sea ice is back to its 30 year average. Antarctic sea ice is actually above its 30 year average (so sea ice in general is both net surplus and on a positive trend). None of this makes any sense at all in terms of a model based on greenhouse gases with huge climate sensitivity, but it makes a great deal of sense if one considers variables omitted in the GCMs, such as solar state.
The Earth is in the middle -- well, honestly at the very beginning of -- an ice age. One likely to last roughly 300 million years. We do not have a very good understanding of why this is the case -- there are major competing hypotheses and some of them involve things like helium burning episodes in the core of the Sun where we have a very hard time "seeing" them and where in any event the timescale of variation is enormous, or the passage of the solar system through galactic regions with variable mass content, again on timescales and at density scales almost impossible to measure. Note well that I'm not talking about the "modulation" of the ice age with brief interglacial episodes -- those episodes are correlated to be sure with orbital periods (although not particularly well or consistently correlated) -- I'm talking about why the Pliestocene itself began.
It is also a simple fact that in the last 15 years, the Earth's albedo has increased by roughly 7% while the water content of the stratosphere has gone down by roughly 10%. If you want an even more interesting true fact, the albedo decreased sharply in the late 60s -- in consonance with an arguably extreme solar maximum -- and remained low for precisely the period where the earth was supposedly experiencing runaway greenhouse warming, and went down almost exactly when that warming seems to have gone away. For example and references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetshine [wikipedia.org]
This article is a bit specious. The effects of an increased bond albedo -- especially a daytime albedo which is what "planetshine" directly measures -- are perfectly simple to understand. If you visit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law [wikipedia.org]
You will discover a simple formula for the Earth's expected "greybody temperature". You will also learn that:
The Earth
Re: (Score:3)
These aren't deniers, these are scientific dissenters. There is nothing wrong with that. Without scientific dissenters we wouldn't have as much confidence as we have today on theories such as evolution, quantum mechanics (with Einstein being a major dissenter), and Big Bang cosmology. Often, the dissent strengthens the theory, leads to new branches of study, or points out actual flaws that need to be adjusted.
If they really were "scientific" dissenters, that would be OK. Indeed, good science demands well reasoned "dissent", but the plain fact is that most of the "dissenters" are anything but scientific, and good share of the "science" on the dissenting side has been bought and paid for by energy interests. Please...
Re:Last bastion (Score:5, Insightful)
You'd hope so, but I ain't hopeful. You dont' get round-earth level of blatantly obvious evidence for changes that occur over decades or generations. Peoples memory for what is "normal" weather is very short-lived, a decade or two tops. I don't -actually- remember how much snow was common for how many days when I was a kid, and neither do most of the people who *believe* they remember it.
The evidence in favor of evolution is scientifically as close to iron-clad as you can reasonably be, there's multiple independent tests that each match up exactly, and no competing theory whatsoever. Nevertheless lots of university-educated Americans remain firmly convinced that it's total bullshit.
Re: (Score:3)
Best reason I know to be un-hopeful has been the utter non-success of the metric system in this country. Obvious wins if we convert (we've lost space missions because of metric/archaic screwups), minor costs, yet we continue to drag our feet. Compared to that, the alleged inconvenience of dealing with GHG emissions looms very very large. Of course, the size of that inconvenience is marketed very effectively by industries that stand to lose inconvenient shares of their business.
Re: (Score:3)
Makes sense - but the level of insurance should be adapted to the perceived risk, otherwise you end up spending a lot of money to guard against very small risks.
It's pretty orthodox at this point to claim that earth is roughly spherical. It'd be insane to dedicate 10% - or even 1% of the money we use for researching the geography of the world to flat-world-research.
Especially in cases where there's an infinite amount of *wrong* theories, but only one *right* theory, dedicating 10% of the money spent on the
Re:Easy really. (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps if the denial crowd didn't use methods exactly like those of the evolution deniers and the tobacco firms who lied about tobacco being harmless, we'd stop making such comparisons.
Re:The opposite of Faith is Doubt (Score:4, Interesting)
What sides? The science and the anti-science sides? Do you also doubt that neither the scientists nor the creationists are entirely correct? That you are biologically agnostic?
It is a fallacy to assume that there must be a middle ground between scientific facts and dogmatic claims.
This Is Slashdot's Forte (Score:4, Interesting)
Over time, nearly every one of their arguments has been knocked down by accumulating evidence, and polls say 97 percent of working climate scientists now see global warming as a serious risk.
Despite this large consensus in the peer reviewed scientific community, it doesn't take much searching to find comments like this one [slashdot.org] modded up as high as it can go that say crap like:
Global Warming/Climate Change may or may not be happening.
Frankly, I avoid these discussions now. There is no reason to try to inform people of what you read like this NY Times article. Ignorance backed by corporations has won. It has won in the mind of the general public, it has even won on the "elite tech site" of Slashdot, even in the minds of those here who hold the moderator points.
Re:This Is Slashdot's Forte (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now we are in a carbon economy. It is critically important to many people to show that humans have no impact on global warming, so there is a lot of money invested in promoting that point of view. Even if the science remains as is, we are going to be moving away from a carbon economy simply because new scientists and engineers are going to be educated in the possibility that the carbon economy is not the best solution, and, being scientists and engineers, many of them are going to looking for a better solution. As time goes on, and those vested in the carbon economy become less powerful, than a more balanced picture will emerge. Remember that the first paper show smoking was harmful was published over 100 years ago. Fifty years ago it was clear that smoking caused severe health problems. it was only 10 years ago that the smoking interests admitted that smoking was a serious problem. And smoking is not nearly as ingrained in our society as energy from carbon sources.
Re:This Is Slashdot's Forte (Score:5, Interesting)
it was not that long ago that smoking was not considered bad.
Really? When was that? The 18th century, maybe? Probably not even then. In fact, as far back as the 17th century Dutch painters had used tobacco and smoking to symbolise human folly. In the opinion of King James I of England, tobacco was "loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain" and "dangerous to the lungs" [luminarium.org]. That was 1609.
I know, I know, they don't teach history in school anymore. It's all about indoctrination, propaganda, and conformity instead of critical thinking.
Re:This Is Slashdot's Forte (Score:5, Informative)
I know, I know, they don't teach history in school anymore. It's all about indoctrination, propaganda, and conformity instead of critical thinking.
Here's a bit of history [nih.gov] of indoctrination [brownecompany.com] and propaganda [healio.com] you ought to consider before branding the previous poster as ignorant.
Re: (Score:3)
It has its uses. The subject seems to provoke some people to spew various crazy conspiracy theories, and it's possible to note who those people are and discount their opinion in the future on other topics. Think of it as a canary in a mental coal mine.
Would be interesting to keep (and provide) statistics like "number of AC responses". I am guessing that climate change topics would rank relatively high.
The Republican 9 Step Global Warming Denial Plan (Score:4, Insightful)
1) There's no such thing as global warming.
2) There's global warming, but the scientists are exaggerating. It's not significant.
3) There's significant global warming, but man doesn't cause it.
4) Man does cause it, but it's not a net negative.
5) It is a net negative, but it's not economically possible to tackle it.
6) We need to tackle global warming, so make the poor pay for it.
7) Global warming is bad for business. Why did the Democrats not tackle it earlier?
8) ????
9) Profit.
Re:The Republican 9 Step Global Warming Denial Pla (Score:5, Insightful)
1) There's no such thing as global warming.
This has been proven true. We have enough temperature data to confidently say that temperatures have been steadily increasing since about 1850.
2) There's global warming, but the scientists are exaggerating. It's not significant.
This has been proven false. The 6 degree increase we should be experiencing now according to alarmists simply doesn't exist.
3) There's significant global warming, but man doesn't cause it.
This may be true, we have proof that there were much bigger climate changes even before man.
4) Man does cause it, but it's not a net negative.
This is a tricky one, I would say that too rapid change is never good for the environment, at least not in the short term. But if you only care about the effets on agriculture, it may very well be possible to breed/engineer crops that thrive in the new climate.
5) It is a net negative, but it's not economically possible to tackle it.
That's most certainly false, but the real question is whether its negative effects cost more than to stop it.
There is still much more research needed on the topic, and bringing politics into the debate is exactly what's halting progress.
Need Moar Dissenters! (Score:4, Insightful)
Not because of anyone's ideology. Because good science demands people check other people's work, look for errors, ask hard questions, and the like. If we all agree, pat ourselves on our collective back, and stare away people who would dare question what we've decided must be the truth, we've transitioned from science to religion, and are doing everyone a disservice.
Trust mainstream media to not understand this. *sigh*
Re: (Score:3)
There is a difference between questioning and dissent - unless you are intolerant.
Science needs everything questioned. It does not need the very basis of arithmetic, like 1+1=2, denied. That would be silly.
Re:Need Moar Dissenters! (Score:5, Insightful)
Scientific dissenters are fine, dissenters are great in fact!
We don't have masses of those though, we have people invested in denying it at any cost, who continue to repeat known-incorrect talking points and play the media game. There's a difference between honest dissent, honest scepticism and dishonest denialism.
A dangerous situation (Score:5, Insightful)
A much better example of good science was the recent discovery that neutrinos were going faster than light. Turned out to be wrong but most people were sort of excited as this would potentially be a huge change in physics. Another good example of the separation of science and policy would be nuclear weapons. Nuclear reactions are cool; nuclear weapons are not. But very few people criticized the work Niels Bohr for bringing the world to the brink of total destruction. It would have been a crap argument to say his work was the beginning of a science killed a whole lot of Japanese and thus was invalid. His models of how atoms and whatnot worked have changed significantly enough that they could almost be just called all wrong. But as will all good science people expanded and improved his work.
Where I am going with this is that the hysteria of dragging the scientists out for trials in the court of public opinion not only doesn't help the climate people get on with their research but it opens up other areas to the concept that somehow public opinion can shape science. Opinion does not change a fact. Opinion is to be used to decide what to do about those facts. Both sides on this issue are getting into the realm of those fools who try legislating that =3.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree to some extent. I look forward to the day when we can have miserable overly dramatic arguments about how best to approach the problem rather than ones over the existence of the problem.
To some extent these are the first salvos of that argument. Deciding the center is a function of impact and cost. Once we can move past debating whether the impact is effectively zero or infinite we can get on with the fun that will be whether the cost to correct is effectively zero or infinite. The initial hyper
Re:A dangerous situation (Score:5, Informative)
Al Gore got people cheering one side of this issue but being Al Gore managed to alienate and effectively create an opposing side.
That's a lot of crap. People used what they didn't like about Al Gore as an excuse to talk a lot of shit about AGW and now he's become a kind of curse word that they shout incoherently in the middle of arguments. If I have to hear one more global warming denier blame the fact that we're talking about CO2 on Al Gore I may fucking snap. What I find hilarious is that the nerd crowd here on Slashdot overwhelmingly berates him for being too boring when that is precisely how the rest of the world views us when we launch into an explanation of how something works — something the listener has asked us to explain to them. And you start explaining it and they say "don't tell me all that shit, I just want to know how it works" and you just want to slap the fucker, because clearly he's not capable of understanding this thing without extensive further education. Railing against Al Gore for being boring is a vote for the further dumbing-down of America. I don't want leaders who wave their hand and say "you don't need to see my four-year plan." I don't want them to say "you're too dumb to understand this." Unfortunately, that is precisely what the majority of the American people want. They have said so time and again.
Science does not need or want Bastions! (Score:3, Insightful)
Science is not politics or military action, both of whom require proponderences in numbers and quality. Science is about discovering underlying truth, quite irrespective of who believes what or how well they speak.
This is why the Climategate email scandal is an irrelevant distraction. It might mean something about the credibility of the individuals invovled, but science is supposed to be testable, so personalities are irrelevant. The climate does not care about emails much -- just from the slight additional power generation, somewhat less than for JanetJacksons nip-slip.
It is very odd (&revealing?) the NYT doesn't know better.
Bill Nye the Science Guy Boo'd off stage in Waco (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bill Nye the Science Guy Boo'd off stage in Wac (Score:4, Informative)
Go read your source a little more carefully, including the linked interview with the original reporter. When Bill Nye criticized literal interpretation of the Bible, there were a few people who left upset, but it was apparently very low key, no booing, no "bastion" of people storming out or making a scene, and Bill Nye's lecture was uninterrupted and Bill may not have even realized the reaction of these few people.
Sure I'd like to live in a world where all religious people accept that the Bible should not be taken literally, but you (like many according to the followups in your source) appear to have greatly overstated the negative reaction at Bill Nye's lecture by repeating the inflammatory punch line without reading any deeper.
One more bastion (Score:3)
Intelligent Opposing viewpoints are necessary (Score:5, Insightful)
Wake me when the discussion gets interesting (Score:3)
'The climate' is a complex system. Of course it's changing. Constantly. And of course there are trends in those changes. We get hung up arguing about how much the numbers are changing, when that's not even the interesting question.
The reason people take this issue so seriously is the idea that the system will run out of control if/when things get 'bad enough'.... That there's some sort of tipping point, after which things will somehow run wildly out of control. This is what we ought to be discussing. Instead we're yelling at one another about how much change we've seen and what it might mean.
We ought to be discussing things like positive vs negative feedback loops.
Instead, we've bickering over the numbers that people have seen on various gauges.
I hate these articles and this subject. (Score:4, Insightful)
Neither side cares about the science. Both sides are totally convinced in their virtue. Neither side is willing to look at the case dispassionately. Both sides are so invested in what they want the correct answer to be that they will not tolerate anything that contradicts their position.
Is there a case for AGW? Absolutely. It's a totally valid hypothesis. Is it proven? Of course not. There's no causal link. Getting a causal link is very hard but that doesn't mean you don't need one. AGW proponents almost all propose that we should accept a correlative link as proof of a causal link. That's not science. They say we don't have time to wait and we should assume there is a causal link based on the correlative data. That is a political response and again not science.
The anti AGW people are no better in that they'll ally with various political factions just like the pro AGW factions to form political pressure groups. And of course they don't want to hear they might be wrong any more then the AGW group might be.
Everyone has their egos, world views, political interests, and often careers involved in this matter. There are a lot of pro AGW scientists that might lose their jobs if AGW collapses and there are of course a lot of professional "skeptics" that likewise will find their employment terminated should that fall apart.
In this environment how can anyone really be sure what is going on? I'm not stupid and I'm not ignorant... but I can't sort it out. And find it to be unacceptable generally to simply assume one side or the other is right as so many seem to do. Sure, that's easier. Just believe the church is right about is and isn't true. Just trust the king to sort it out. I'm not a f'ing peasant though and I don't like having other people do my thinking for me.
I'm obviously going to get hate messages or... at least negative messages likely from the pro AGW people to the effect of "anyone that doubts the unquestionable virtue of our position is a fool or a heretic"... but that only underscores the sadness of this issue.
We're probably all bored to tears explaining the science of it to each other.
I've read through more material on the issue then I can pretend interest in. I just wish the issue hadn't been politicized.
I don't know when it started... was it when Al Gore made his fatuous little film? Or was it before? Some think the politicization was inevitable given the interests threatened by it but I'm not so sure.
Anyway... for those offended by my contrary nature... I'm not contrary to annoy you... It's just the best opinion I could come to with what information I have. If I'm wrong, I at least arrived at this position in good faith. If we can all say as much then it will at least be an honest conflict.
Journalism (Score:3)
Straw Man Arguement (Score:4, Informative)
I am a dissenter. I am however not paid by any coproration, and I would say I am "more educated and scientific than most" when it comes to the global warming debate.
As far as I am concerned, the NYT article is constructing a straw man to tear it apart. As a dissenter, I *know* that water vapor is a green house gas and is a positive feedback on the system. In fact one of the reasons why I am a dissenter is because water vapor is so much more absorbing of the infre red spectrum than CO2. Yet we don't call on our industry to condense steam back into water rather than directly vent it to the atmosphere.
Also the article describes this as the last bastion. The title is wholly undeserved because there are plenty of bastions still going on. The solar debate is still on, and stronger than ever since we're in a weak cycle and we have had no warming since 1998. In fact, Antarctica is still adding ice, and the Arctic has recovered to the 1979-2000 average and is currently within 1 standard deviation, which is impressive because just 3 years ago it hit it lowest point since being recorded.
I could go on, but that's enough to refute the article.
Nobody is checking the orbit (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is it that nobody checks the Earth's orbit at correlates it with temperature changes?
troll story (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen troll posts, but this is perhaps the first time I've seen an entire article that's a troll.
Oh, I know I'm going to be castigated as a "dissenter" (Yikes, just that name reeks of quasi-religious orthodoxy. How dare he disagree!) but sure, I'll bite:
'For decades, a small group of scientific dissenters has been trying to shoot holes in the prevailing science of climate change, offering one reason after another why the outlook simply must be wrong.' ...and that sort of bombastic pessimism HAS been going on for decades (real decades, not inflated decades).
I'm not sure "decades" applies, as it's only been about a decade and a half since the alarmists started warning us that the sky was falling. When initially presented by a blowhard self-promoting politician, it's hard to take the 'science' seriously. If Rush Limbaugh produced a propaganda film insisting that 2+2=4, I'd likewise start to doubt whatever it was he was promoting. Let's also remember that there's a bit of a 'cry wolf' case here; the people claiming that armageddon was now approaching, had previously told us that:
- we were going to all starve to death
- we were going to run out of oil
- we were going to run out of fresh water
- we were covering our country in landfills
- DDT was going to kill us all
- nuclear power was going to kill us all
(etc. ad infinitum)
Initially they claimed that weather stations exaggerated the warming trend. This was disproven by satellite data which shows a similar warming trend.
I'm not sure that's true. Well, probably SOMEONE somewhere said that. My concern was that weather station data was sparse, extremely questionably interpolated in a way that seemed to encourage bias (upward), anecdotal evidence that many of the long-standing weather stations in the US had been subject to encroaching urbanization without (as far as I could see in the data) any correction for that, etc. Further, while the "hockey stick" (that started this) shocked me as fully as it did Mr Gore, I was suspicious of the statistical methods that had been broadly explained in its initial presentation. Further, I'd (anecdotally) remembered stories about oranges growing in England that didn't seem to be reflected in the data. As more discussion followed, people who were far more savvy than me presented a more-convincing case that the statistics used were deeply flawed. This of course made me wonder why someone would do this - by accident or on purpose. To be frank, I immediately categorized Messrs. Mann (et al) as eco-alarmists, the broad group of discredited wierdoes I'd been ignoring since the 1970s. Frankly, that's the hole that "global warming" alarmists have had to try to climb out of since then. I'll be very clear: In my mind, this definitely weighed against subsequent AGW claims.
Further, and regardless of his conclusions (many of which I believe to have been either overstated or otherwise flawed; I *do* feel strongly that his whole point about opportunity costs of chasing CO2 vs other beneficial ecological investments is the baby that's gone out with the bathwater) the vitriol and fury directed against Bjorn Lomborg for daring to doubt the data was even more confirmation for me that this was no longer a scientific issue - this took on the tenor of a secular Inquisition.
Next, solar activity was blamed for much of the warming. This looked like a promising theory until the '80s, when solar output started to diverge from global temperatures.
Really? http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html [tmgnow.com] seems to present fairly soberly.
Re:troll story (Score:4, Insightful)
climate change seems a staggeringly massive system that we are only starting to understand
True. And this applies to almost all systems. Even seemingly basic things like how a block slides down ramp. Friction has some crazy nuances to it. But that's no reason to throw your hands in the air and declare that we know nothing about the system. There is always room for improvement. Always, because perfection is impossible.
there is every reason to try to be more efficient at energy production, distribution, and eliminating waste regardless of global warming
Well duh. Was this up for debate? Was someone arguing FOR waste? Did I miss that somewhere?
the histrionics of the AGW folks scare me badly.
Meh, there are crazy half-baked ideas whenever you have really big problems. Consider it brainstorming. Everyone laughed at the concept of a space elevator, but that's going to happen eventually. Cap&Trade, as a system of ecological indulgences, is perfectly fine, as long as we use those funds to counter the negative impact. You can chop down trees if you plant new ones.
What I see is yet another wave of mostly-white first-world conservatives who are ignoring the externalities of their businesses and don't want to be held accountable for fucking shit up for the rest of us. They're pushing an anti-intellectual agenda, buying corrupt science papers, and spinning whatever PR they can.
And you're certainly not the person to listen to on the matter. You've admitted that you no longer accept input and have officially put your head in the sand. Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree that 84% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change) is not unanimous, but it's getting closer every year.
Unless, ofcourse, you count the opinion of people who don't understand the science involved and blame other people for their own lack of understanding.
Re: (Score:3)
Why not? You're likely counting the opinion of Global Warming supporters that "don't understand the science involved"... Only seems fair to count the "D" Science students on BOTH sides of the argument. Supporters include Natural Science student All Gore who earned a "D" at Harvard [cnsnews.com] in Natural Science 6 ("Man's Place in Nature"), so why not the guy driving
Re:This is science (Score:5, Interesting)
People should dissent, people should disagree.
That is how science works: people testing other people's ideas and results. I don't know about your use of the word ''dissent'', since that implies ideological views, these are the very antithesis of the scientific method.
Climate change isn't understood well enough for there to be a unanimous consensus.
''Unanimous'' is a very high bar, one lone odd ball stops uninamity. What we should be looking for is what proportion experts in the field agree on the main points. We now have many more climate scientists who agree that there is a climate warming problem than the number of experts who agreed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. However: great political action and spending was put to bashing Iraq, much more than has been put to addressing climate change -- which is something of far greater danger than Iraq ever was. But that is politics for you.
Re:This is science (Score:5, Insightful)
I love the hubris of the original poster in declaring this the "last" possible avenue of dissent, as if all of climatology were a known, predictable science... I believe it to be an evolving science - otherwise, why do they keep changing their models and simulations?
Re:NYT Bias (Score:4, Insightful)
Do remember the NYT is a very left-wing paper and that climate change supporters are majority left-wing. Bias is everywhere.
Hmm, so you've observed a correlation between rationality in the face of evidence, and having left wing views.
Useful. I'll take it.
Re:NYT Bias (Score:4, Informative)
Do remember the NYT is a very left-wing paper and that climate change supporters are majority left-wing. Bias is everywhere.
Yes, but if you read the article you find that much of the Slashdot story was created by the /. submitter. A correction should be made to identify just what the NYT said.
Re:A sad day. (Score:4, Informative)
So where's your peer-reviewed research that backs up your claim?
Right wing shouty heads on Fox News don't count, I'm afraid.
Re:When I make Taco breathe hard... (Score:5, Insightful)
"If you wanna believe the earth revolves around the sun that's cool, but I'm gonna keep planting my crops based on my assumption that the bible is right."
Sure, that discovery didn't affect that guy either. But it didn't make him any less wrong.
Re:When I make Taco breathe hard... (Score:5, Informative)
The "Other Planets are Heating up too" hypothesis has been debunked:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/ [discovermagazine.com]
But, until the engineers get involved on a real fix I wouldn't bother changing your lifestyle, other than maybe switching to LED lights and turning down the thermostat. Politicians never fix anything.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:When I make Taco breathe hard... (Score:4, Funny)
Exactly! Follow the money trail and you'll find all these big wig professors living large, dangling their bling from their Corollas and Datsuns, as they go about lobbying congress and throwing money around.
Re:When I make Taco breathe hard... (Score:5, Informative)
Am I the only one who fails to see the massive logic fail in that statement? If methane only lasts for 9-15 years, how is more effective at trapping heat over a 100 year period?
Yes, you are the only one who sees a massive logic fail because you are taking the statement at face value instead of trying to educate yourself about what they are talking about. I hope you were being facetious, but just in case: Atmospheric methane [wikipedia.org] is oxidized in the atmosphere to produce carbon dioxide and water. FTA: "The 100-year global warming potential of methane is 25, i.e. over a 100-year period, it traps 25 times more heat per mass unit than carbon dioxide."
Re:When I make Taco breathe hard... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:When I make Taco breathe hard... (Score:4, Informative)
Take this [epa.gov] gem, from the EPA itself:
Methane (CH4) is a greenhouse gas that remains in the atmosphere for approximately 9-15 years. Methane is over 20 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (CO2) over a 100-year period
Am I the only one who fails to see the massive logic fail in that statement? If methane only lasts for 9-15 years, how is more effective at trapping heat over a 100 year period?
I've already explained this to you, using a very simple analogy with a hare and a tortoise. Did you not understand?
It makes no difference if the vast majority of the effect from the methane happens over 9-15 years. We can still say how much effect it had over any length of time we choose. Over 15 years, say, it might have 70 times the effect of CO2. Over 50 years it might have 45 times the effect of CO2. Over 100 years it might have 20 times. Over 500 years it might have 4 times the effect. [These figures are not meant to be exact, they are purely to illustrate the concept]
Do you understand it now?
Re:When I make Taco breathe hard... (Score:5, Funny)
Officer, I can't have been doing 60 miles per hour, I only left home 15 minutes ago
Re:When I make Taco breathe hard... (Score:4, Insightful)
In distance, this works. Not so much with heat. Put two pots on the stove, one on high for 10 minutes and another on low for two hours. Sure, the pot on high will boil, but it will eventually cool down to a temperature lower than the pot on low.
It does work with heat, in fact you've got it with your analogy, you've just left the pot too long. Put one on high for 10 minutes and one on low for 20 minutes and you might well have the one on high being hotter than the one on low!
Eventually is the key word. If methane just disappeared out of the atmosphere when it broke down then give it long enough and it would have had less of an effect than CO2 in the atmosphere would. It just takes longer than 100 years to do that. Well, it's complicated by that fact that methane breaks down to CO2 anyway, so that's like turning the pot on high down to low rather than off, but you get the drift.
Space is a poor insulator.
Actually, this is incorrect. The only way things can lose heat in space is through radiation. It insulates quite well. Your biggest problem with electronics in space is cooling them without convection.
Re:When I make Taco breathe hard... (Score:4)
You are very selective in the conspiracies you choose to decry.
Why aren't you up in arms about things like Big Pharma's focus on peddling more pills rather than finding genuine cures [alternet.org]?
What about Big Oil's lies concerning not just AGW (did you know of Exxon's support up to the early 2000s for think tanks and research that denies global warming?), but disasters like Deepwater Horizon [gregpalast.com]?
You're so outraged over Big Government. Yes, bash them hard over tax loopholes. But what about Little Government? For instance, many local governments have engaged in parking meter and red light camera programs of dubious merit that whatever else they are claimed to accomplish, extract quite a bit of money from the public. Many universities and colleges are even more notorious for strict parking enforcement. There's also a classic taxation without representation many have jumped on: special sales taxes for motel rooms, rental cars, and other things that hit travelers only. US sales taxes are under 10% for most items. But for rooms and rental cars, 15% or more is typical.
Speaking of government, what about attempts to rig elections, such as voter caging [wikipedia.org]?
Then there is Big Finance. Madoff is the only perp who has been locked up. The rest of them got off with pathetically small fines. Some even got a free bailout. Why is Goldman Sachs still in business, still paying their executives obscene bonuses? Why is Mozilo not behind bars?
What about Big Media and piracy? Hollywood Accounting, and lobbying for laws like DMCA, SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, and the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998?
But you put your energies towards calling out this supposed great scientific conspiracy over AGW. It's beyond the pail to suppose there could be a deliberate effort with active and explicit collusion among thousands of independent scientists. However, there could indeed be a groupthink problem, motivated in part by the desire to secure more funding. (Do you really think funding is only available for those who will affirm AGW?) Medical research has just such a problem. How can we tell the difference? By reviewing the evidence and the work. And what we see is that it's the deniers who have engaged in bad science, and who have a clear motive and financial interest in doing so.
Follow the money. Follow ALL the money.
Re:When I make Taco breathe hard... (Score:4, Funny)
Truck. The vehicle of a redneck. It all fits.
Prius. The vehicle of mass ignorance. It all fits.
Nothing fits in a Prius.
Re:When I make Taco breathe hard... (Score:4, Informative)
My bicycle, filing cabinents, furniture I've purchased. I'm 6'4" myself so driver's side room is always a major factor for me. I had to pass up a lot of good deals on vehicles just because I couldn't fit in the stupid things comfortably. You just need to know how to handle a Prius.
Re:When I make Taco breathe hard... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hard to say - some planets we've known about and observed for less than one of their years, so we essentially have no data.
What we -do- know with fair certanity is that *if* they are warming over the last 40 years, it's not due to increased solar influx, because the solar influx has on the average fallen somewhat over that period.
Re:When I make Taco breathe hard... (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is that whether other planets are heating up or not has nothing to do with whether we should be concerned about climate change.
I don't even think it matters whether climate change is anthropogenic (for whether we should be concerned - it obviously does matter in terms of studying the area and finding potential solutions)
If you are in a room that is getting too hot, it is a good idea to switch the heating off, open a window or turn the air con on. Who or what is to blame for the excess heat doesn't matter as much as stopping the room getting so hot it causes problems for the people in it.
For me the most important questions we should be asking are:
* Is the climate changing?
* What effects will that cause (good and bad)?
* What can we do to affect the rate of change?
* What can we do to mitigate the bad effects?
* What can we do to benefit from the good effects?
The reasons why the climate is changing are important as they can suggest what we can do to affect things but even if we determine that the climate change is not down to human activity, we should still be looking for ways to affect it in our favour.
Re:When I make Taco breathe hard... (Score:4, Interesting)
If we're not the reason for the climate change, with all the crap we're releasing in the atmosphere, there is little chance we can have any effect on the climate change in a reasonable and timely fashion.
So I'd say yes, it matters if it is anthropogenic or not.
Re:When I make Taco breathe hard... (Score:5, Insightful)
"The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community." This is my problem with climate change. While I believe that the Earth is warming. I believe it is prudent to work toward limiting our impact in the event we are causing drastic change. But most people I talk to about climate change have based their entire belief on a logical fallacy ( in this case Appeal to Authority). True or not this isn't science, it is religion.
Re:When I make Taco breathe hard... (Score:5, Insightful)
An appeal to authority is not a fallacy when the authorities you are citing are in fact knowledgeable on the subject.
Re:When I make Taco breathe hard... (Score:4, Interesting)
[M]ost people I talk to about climate change have based their entire belief on a logical fallacy ( in this case Appeal to Authority). True or not this isn't science, it is religion.
This is evidenced by the vitrio directed at the sceptics. Where real science is concerned, on the other hand, for example if someone questions the existence of gravity, the common reaction is puzzlement: "are we talking about the same thing?" No one wants to burn down the questioner's house.
Re:When I make Taco breathe hard... (Score:5, Informative)
False. Consensus is part of science. That's because Consensus is achieved through science, and consensus can change with the appropriated evidence.
As Tim Minchin so eloquently and accurately said:
"Science adjusts it's beliefs based on what's observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U [youtube.com]
You are the one using religion for your opinion.
Also, Look up Appeal to authority. hint: it doesn't apply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority [wikipedia.org]
Forms:
The strength of this argument depends upon two factors:
The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion.
These conditions may also simply be incorporated into the structure of the argument itself, in which case the form may look like this:
X holds that A is true
X is a legitimate expert on the subject.
The consensus of experts agrees with X.
Therefore, there's a presumption that A is true.
I highly recommend reading 'Introduction to Critical Reasoning' and 'Introduction to Logic' before churning out logical fallacy accusation. You look like a fool.
Re:When I make Taco breathe hard... (Score:5, Insightful)
Without any data to hand, it is difficult to say one way or the other - I certainly can't say for sure (unlike the OP who does assert one specific position with no evidence).
My position is that as a member of the scientific community, I tend to agree with most of the peer-reviewed science on AGW - more specifically the chemistry aspects (as a chemist, it's the easiest stuff for me to digest beyond the abstracts).
My point would be to look at the models used and data collected from a wide variety of different scientists and institutions. If you approach it from the standpoint that there's possibly "some sort of global scarcity" tactic where every single scientist is somehow involved in a secret cabal, then I'm not sure any evidence one way or the other is going to swing it. I mean, in that situation any evidence that supports you is "proof of the conspiracy!!!" and any that doesn't is "part of the conspiracy of lies".
Standing back and looking at the whole system objectively really doesn't suggest such a thing.
Re:Alternatives (Score:5, Insightful)
They have a 100% accuracy record for distinguishing between "weather" and "climate."
Re: (Score:3)
Weather is climate like me pissing on the ground is rain.
Nice try though.
Re:Is this a joke? (Score:5, Insightful)
What nonsense.
We have plenty of trustworthy science, but a huge and well funded propaganda machine telling people that those scientists are untrustworthy and "politically motivated". You've bought into the propaganda machine hook, line and sinker.
Now, there will certainly be cases of scientists and professionals that are crooked and politically/financially motivated (see, for example, Andrew Wakefield and vaccines - a whole, damaging scare because he wanted to make money off his competing vaccine for MMR), or the "cold fusion" science researchers, but they are very swiftly exposed by peer review.
That intelligent people can still be claiming that "nothing a climate scientist puts out" is trustworthy at all is just a demonstration of how powerful people like like Koch brothers are and how effective extremely large dumptrucks full of money are at running propaganda campaigns.
It doesn't help that very few people are able to interpret the data for themselves and must rely on an actual scientist, and somehow when this is related to climate science that's seen as a bad thing? Ask yourself why that is; why it has become ingrained to look at only climate science and say "I don't understand this data so it's clearly a trick!". This doesn't happen in other fields with equally difficult and impenetrable data, like cancer research or quantum mechanics - there's been no pervasive, relentless smear campaign that results in anything those scientists say being dismissed out of hand because they're "politically motivated and untrustworthy".
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting that you assume that any change to our environmental policy will be for the better, by definition.
There's not really a lot of evidence that any proposed solution to climate change will do anything meaningful that'll improve our chances of suvival.
Ce
Re:Devil's advocacy (Score:4, Insightful)
The majority of those treaties are as flawed and biased as the studies I detest.
Some policies I think are beneficial:
That's all I can think of offhand. Generally, I feel that policies of "do this to save the world!" waste time and money, while policies of "this is more efficient" are better.
Re:A dissenter is a dissenter... (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps. But raising objections in the form of plausible counter theories is valid science. Even if those counter theories are later disproved, that's all part of the scientific process. You can't just ignore an argument that may have merit simply because you don't trust the motives of the people making the argument. If someone has a reasonable alternate interpretation of the evidence, that needs to be considered (and I suspect a lot of things have been learned in the process of refuting alternate ideas). You can't just claim that your right because everyone agrees with you and they are wrong because the are stupid. ... Well you can, but that's not science.
Re:A dissenter is a dissenter... (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps. But raising objections in the form of plausible counter theories is valid science.
This is exactly right. However the scientific method says that when the theory isn't backed up by measurements and the evidence that it is to be abandoned. The revolutions like Newton, Kepler, and Einstein all involved the discarding of other systems because they didn't fit the facts. When you're ideas are shown to be incorrect the proper scientific reaction is not to simply scream your ideas louder, and the same thing goes with facts. That's why there are so many of us that are upset right now... it seems that screaming incorrect "facts" louder is what automatically happens in every sphere of life right now. That's why some of us believe we are living in an irrational age.
Re: (Score:3)
Raising objections in the form of new, unaddressed plausible counter theories is valid science.
What I often see is the same-old-same-old, popping up for yet another game of zombie whack-a-mole. Water vapor, not a new issue. Sunspots, not a new issue. Has changed in the past, not a new issue. Medieval Warm Period, not a new issue. Someone, somewhere, predicted a future ice age back in the 1970s, not a new issue. Unable to do a controlled experiment, not a new issue. Uncertainty in the models, not a n
Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)
Very few people disagree with the premise that the climate is warming.
Untrue -- that's a VERY recent (in the last year or two) change because the made up science people were using against warming was becoming unsupportable *even to the political base they were trying to influence*. To the tactics were changed from "its not warming" to "its not us doing it".
Where the disagreement is, is if that warming is a natural part of earths long term weather patterns and how much effect CO2 is having on speeding up the process.
No, among working climatologists, there's no disagreement. In fact, among anyone who has even a cursory understanding of thermodynamics, there's no disagreement. The tiny percentage of "climatologists" you see who publish papers suggesting otherwise are doing it because controversy will get you published, and its a publish-or-perish industry. And there's a LOT of money being paid to people who aren't otherwise being successful in the field to continue publishing bad science.
Also, they question the results of the warming... predicted increased hurricane strength and frequency have not come about as we'd expected.
Don't use the word "we" if you're not someone who holds a degree in climatology.
The only optimism I have is in that the one thing scientists have a proven track record of if being absolutely lousy at predicting the weather.
So, no degree in climatology. Climatologists don't have anything to do with predicting the weather -- those are meteorologists. People in either field know that. (And people in either field also know the current global climate models predict an increase in energy in the weather systems which produces strong, not greater numbers, of storms -- on average. Someone trained in climatology knows what "on average" means relative to the work a meteorologist does, too.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Climate proxies [wikipedia.org] are used to extend the record, and often give useful correlations between carbon dioxide and temperature.