Global warming?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Ruling belief system: global warming is a hoax.

This part is backwards.

Extraordinary standards: 100% of all scientists (and people who can be quoted as if they were scientists) must agree, or there isn't consensus.
Uncritically accepted: the occasional study that can be (sometimes mis)interpreted as casting doubt.

This part is filled with personal bias.
Who said 100% must equal consensus?
Occasional study...
mis)interpreted ...

You missed the part where the raw data is still being questioned as well.

My OPINION - You are in the "ruling belief system" not the other way around.

My personal position on this issue has been posted before, but it has become all to common for the same tired info to be posted without the opposing point of views. If we don't look at all the info we wont have many worthwhile discussions.

[xoxoxoBruce]

With scientific data piling up showing that the world has reached its hottest-ever point in recorded history, global-warming skeptics are facing a high-profile defection from their ranks.

Is there really a question that it's warming up? After all, it's been warming up for the last 12,000 years.

I thought the questions are;
Why?
How hot will it get?
How much of it is our fault?
Can we really do much about it?
Is the massive expense worth any effect we can produce?

I think one of the biggest problems is the whole thing has been distilled down to two sides, with their abbreviated slogans/sound bites. Fer us or agin us, with no discussion of the elements.

One example is CO2, everything is about CO2. Well I'm sorry but it's a hell of a lot more complicated than that. We had a real long thread that talked about the many facets. But since all that doesn't fit in a slogan, fergitaboutit.

What does CO2 do in the atmosphere?

It keeps me from getting Oxygen poisoning.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Attacking the science is the correct approach.
Attacking the believers, on either side, is not.

I'm discussing the attitude described by the Sagan quote. It applies to people on both sides, but when it comes to "extraordinary standards" required, it is extremely lopsided.

Originally Posted by classicman

This part is backwards.

Not among the deniers.

Who said 100% must equal consensus?

Anyone who says that there isn't consensus now. If it isn't enough that almost all climatologists agree, I can only conclude that 100% is required.

Occasional study that can be (sometimes mis)interpreted ...

What's wrong with that? Most studies support it, so the others are, comparatively, occasional. And sometimes (a word you missed) some aspect of a study that supports it is siezed on to imply that the study opposes it.

My OPINION - You are in the "ruling belief system" not the other way around.

There are different "ruling opinions" in different communities. I was saying that the "extraordinary standards" required by the deniers are ridiculously high.

[Undertoad]

I'm discussing the attitude

Discuss the science.

BTW science doesn't give a shit about consensus. That's not how science works. Science is evidence one way or the other followed by more evidence one way or the other. The truth isn't affected by our human beliefs and there are plenty of times when the 100% "consensus" has turned out to be 100% wrong. That's in recent history too: Stomach ulcers can't possibly be caused by a bacteria. Magnetism can't possibly be important to radiology. The list goes on.

If a post on GW is contains either the words "denier" or "warmist" it is really talking about people and not science. At that point it is just game-playing and can be ignored.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The politics of research is hard to separate from the science, in the results.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Discuss the science.

BTW science doesn't give a shit about consensus. That's not how science works. Science is evidence one way or the other followed by more evidence one way ot the other.

What science doesn't do is certainty. But as evidence mounts up, it generates consensus. A few decades ago, while most studies supported warming, there was enough disagreement that "global cooling" made the headlines. The evidence has built consensus for warming since then.

The truth isn't affected by our human beliefs and there are plenty of times when the 100% "consensus" has turned out to be 100% wrong. That's in recent history too: Stomach ulcers can't possibly be caused by a virus. Magnetism can't possibly be important to radiology. The list goes on.

Sure, but "they also laughed at Bozo the clown". Consensus isn't a guarantee, but it is all we have when we want to use science for public policy.

If a post on GW is contains either the words "denier" or "warmist" it is really talking about people and not science. At that point it is just game-playing and can be ignored.

But global warming isn't just an academic topic. Public policy is involved. You, or I, or anyone, can ignore any aspect of a discussion that doesn't engage us, but politics is a powerful force in this field.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The politics of research is hard to separate from the science, in the results.

Hard, maybe sometimes... but eventually it does get separated if/when it makes a real difference.

That doesn't always happen with other approaches... e.g., common sense, religion, etc.

In other words, if your bed is floating it's time to seek higher ground.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Is there really a question that it's warming up? After all, it's been warming up for the last 12,000 years.

I thought the questions are;
Why?
How hot will it get?
How much of it is our fault?
Can we really do much about it?
Is the massive expense worth any effect we can produce?

From the link (my bold)

"The Skeptical Environmentalist," published in 2001, argued that many key preoccupations of the environmental movement, including pollution control and biodiversity, were either overblown as threats or amenable to relatively simple technological fixes. Lomborg argued that the governments spending billions to curb carbon emissions would be better off diverting those resources to initiatives such as AIDS research, anti-malaria programs and other kinds of humanitarian aid.
...
Lomborg's essential argument was: Yes, global warming is real and human behavior is the main reason for it, but the world has far more important things to worry about.

Oh, how times have changed.

In a book to be published this year, Lomborg calls global warming "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today" and calls for the world's governments to invest tens of billions of dollars annually to fight climate change.

The money spent to counter global warming is like the money you spend on insurance - you may never need to use it, but if the shit hits the fan you're glad you paid the premiums all those years.

[Pete Zicato]

If nothing else, I think the spike in CO2 is worrisome.


http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

[Pico and ME]

Im horribly pessimistic about the whole thing...well about human nature. I think the only thing that will have any real impact is a massive viral pandemic.

[glatt]

Well, the silver lining of all the CO2 in the atmosphere and the warmer temperatures is that poison ivy is both more potent and more prolific. So we've got that going for us.

[Happy Monkey]

It's the perfect ground cover for people who want to keep the damn kids off their lawn.

[toranokaze]

Originally Posted by classicman

How technical an answer do you want?

Technical affluent , under 5000 words, 20 sources max.

Raw data would be appreciated.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by toranokaze

Technical affluent , under 5000 words, 20 sources max.

Raw data would be appreciated.

Thought so - been working on it all day hoping that would be your answer.

here is your answer.

You're welcome

[toranokaze]

This what that yeilded:
http://www.slideshare.net/tlenon/glo...ntation-850931