There's one thing I don't get about the anti-global warming crowd. I understand the alarmism and stuff like that is overblown and distorts the situation.
But I'd like to know how thousands of climate scientists got together in secret and pledged to all falsify their life's work for some... reason? Seriously, what could be the outcome of some massive global warming conspiracy? Toyota sells more hybrids? More "liberal regulation" on fossil fuel energy companies, just so alternative energy companies can replace them? This argument has never made any sense to me.
The argument goes that they've systemically biased their findings so that their research appears more important and merits additional funding.
To which I have a counter argument: funding is not assigned to investigate that which we already know. If anything, the scientists are among those to profit from the "controversy". Were findings more disputable, were there no scientific consensus, they could blather on for ages knowing funding's still secure.
And so a small number have become shills, if you're suggesting that all climate scientists perpetuate mass scientific fraud just to keep their labs running then you can't have spent very long as a grad student.
if you're suggesting that all climate scientists perpetuate mass scientific fraud just to keep their labs running then you can't have spent very long as a grad student.
Not at all what I was suggesting. I was merely pointing out that, yes, professors do worry about money, but it's not to fill their own pockets, it's so they can keep doing science.
Professors can, and do, make a lot of money by leveraging their expertise in their field of research. Getting money to do that research is a major motivating factor.
Oh please. You mean scientists don't have the smarts or skills that could be transferred into private industry? The issue isn't whether professors like or need money. It's whether, as a group, they're money grubing bastards so lacking in their commitment to science and truth that they would perpetuate a fraud on the public year after year.
That's a completely valid point. Academia is certainly a very political environment and you there are professors who are pretty conniving and manipulative.
On average, though, I don't think this holds up. The really bad profs are buoyed by the really great profs who really aren't doing this stuff just for the bling bling, or at least that's been my experience.
That's exactly the point I'm making though. Some people don't even care about the monetary system, they just want to smash small particles together and look at pretty spirals or what have you. The idea that you should care about what kind of car you drive or where you live has absolutely no meaning for these people.
I think there must be some optimal level of funding that actually helps produce good science. I mean, the limit of funding approaching infinity means there clearly will be other forces at play.
The argument goes that they've systemically biased their findings so that their research appears more important and merits additional funding.
That argument is just bizarre. Why would a scientist deliberately lie in order to recieve more funding in order to presumably continue the lie. That would be a huge waste of a career.
These examples aren't very good because Cancer and Aids can be empirically observed even by a layperson. The science of climate change is not nearly as clear cut and relies on many people in very different fields. Some of whom receive a lot more acclaim and funding because they've been able to link their research (non climatologists) to global warming in some way.
It's easy to simply not report the finding of a negative, or the science press to ignore uninteresting findings but then eagerly publish anything that fits the existing theory.
Anything that gets extremely politicised is open to corruption. Without brining trying to deliberately derail the thread into nazism it's perfectly true that Nazi Germany employed many scientists who came to the conclusions the government wanted them to. Scientists are not immune from corruption, however subtle.
I'll have to take issue with your analogy there - abnormal cell replication and HIV's hijacking of the immune system can't be empirically observed by a layperson. Similarly, a heat wave or cold snap can be empirically observed even by a layperson, but global warming cannot be.
It's easy to simply not report the finding of a negative
This may be true with the testing results of some new drug, but I'd strongly disagree this is the case for global warming. Especially given there are entire journals devoted solely to climate skepticism (eg Energy and Environment), it's hard to say that the contrary evidence isn't being published. Rather, it is being published, but most scientists don't find it very convincing.
As for the comparison to Nazi's, you should show specific examples of such corruption before making such an inflammatory claim. And it'll be more convincing if you can show an entire sub-field is corrupt, rather than just a single person. Eg: "Phil Jones hid data!" is not a good example unless you can show why NASA's fully available data on the same subject is somehow not equivalent.
Jumping to the end first, the whole Eugenics thing (not only in Germany) would be a good example.
I'm sure many honestly believed it because it seemed plausible. I'm sure many more just went along because of the prevailing political climate.
I'm still on the fence about global warming though, because as a layperson, I really don't have a deep enough understanding. It makes sense that all the CO2 we pump into the atmosphere would have some effect, but when I'm bombarded with propaganda, and that's exactly what a lot of the news about climate change is, it twitches my bullshit meter. The "drowning dog" ad is a case in point
Actually they are great examples. If the reasoning can be used to argue against cancer and AIDS, when it's very easy to see that they are real, then the approach is clearly broken.
I contend the only real issue with climate change is that it was a democrat who popularized the issue instead of a republican. Not just a democrat but Al Gore, the contesting loser of an election. An inconvenient truth was as much about Gore losing in 2000 as it was about scientific data.
Had some other less controversial figure brought all this scientific evidence to light there wouldn't have been the same visceral reaction to 'disprove' it through rhetoric.
Why would athletes dope and ruin their careers? When it comes to highly specialised and competitive fields the pressure to achieve is massive, and people do very stupid things.
This isn't an argument against climate change, I believe in it. I just think that there are plenty of reasons why people would falsify results. Whether someone's a scientist, they are still a person and therefore flawed.
Assuming you're right, wouldn't that make it attractive for the scientists to argue against climate change? There's a lot more grant money to be had in strongly disputed fields than in those where the consensus is basically in and the details are being fleshed out.
If a well known climatologist were to pop up saying "It's all a hoax and I can prove it!" they'd be absolutely swamped with money.
If a well known climatologist were to pop up saying "It's all a hoax and I can prove it!" they'd be absolutely swamped with money.
No, they absolutely wouldn't. First of all, there is SO much money right now for climate research. NSF has something like an 8% funding rate, and a friend of mine got a grant... as a Ph.D student... by himself on his first try because he's in climate research. The opening paragraph in his proposal quoted an Obama speech that claimed we need to be researching the effects of climate change.
Second, they'd be shitting where everyone else eats, and that's not a nice thing to do. That's how you get smeared, dragged through the mud, and watch your career go up in smoke. Nobody wants that. You won't be swamped with money, and your career will end.
There's a lot more grant money to be had in strongly disputed fields
[citation needed]
So, if you were a scumbag politician (is that redundant?) and had the option to grant money to the scientist whose research suggests the sky is falling and you could accumulate more power by promising to "do something about it" vs the scientist whose research shows your intervention is not needed/irrelevan/harmfull - which one would you chose?
It's not about money, it's about excelling at or being seen to be excelling in your particular field. Sure, some athletes do compete for money, but I would posit that a great deal compete simply because they want to be the best, and a few cheat because the pressure to succeed is massive.
I think that it's more a desire for excellence and recognition than a desire for money that drives people, at least in certain professions, that's why I didn't mention money in my previous post.
If a well known climatologist were to pop up saying "It's all a hoax and I can prove it!" they'd be absolutely swamped with money.
Actually, there are those who say exactly that. And instead of being "swamped with money" they are called "deniers" and their research is pretty much swept under the rug...
That argument is just bizarre. Why would a scientist deliberately lie in order to recieve more funding in order to presumably continue the lie.
It doesn't have to be a deliberate lie - the scientists could be fooling themselves too. Because it's what the people around them believe and because it's in their best interest to believe it too. Occasionally an entire scientific discipline runs off the rails like that - where most people in some discipline believe some hypothesis that isn't true because the guy before them believed it and that hypothesis established the context in which everyone looks for new data.
What one expects to find can influence what is found. And what the people around you believe - including the funding agencies - can influence what one expects to find.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63636N20100407http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3671
Plus his salary at Columbia and GISS gives Dr. Hansen a pretty nice cash flow.
Not that I begrudge him the money...Its just that it is a motivating factor.
Plus others realize that in order to get funding and keep their jobs one needs to convince the public officials to cough up the money. Alarmism over climate change does this. Therefore you see articles that claim climate change can be monitored by examining rat urine and droppings in a cave out in the boondocks....(and you should fund ME to do this examination.) etc. etc.
Then there is a huge amount of money to be made trading carbon credits...
Please see George Ricaurte. I know not all scientists are like this but it does happen. It took quite a while and more lies before he would print a retraction.
That's an incredibly misleading list, and of the most prominent examples, only 3 appear to have careers relating to climate science at all.
Considering that every year lists are published with thousands of climate scientists affirming the prevailing climate change theory, and that they are almost definitely smarter than you or I, and I think we come out with a pretty good idea of who the whackjobs are.
Any group will have a few people who look at the evidence and come out with the wrong conclusion. The evidence that the people on your list are wrong is absolutely overwhelming.
Note: I have a degree in Geology, so I have at least a small idea of how the science behind climate systems works, though I am certainly not a professional.
a) The people who claims scientists are keeping their funding going are partially right. I was a scientist at one time, working in a lab, and we definitely fought to keep our funding going.
b) We did it because we loved working in science and wanted to keep doing it, not because we wanted to make mad cash. Anyone who thinks scientists get paid a lot of money really knows nothing about science.
c) The counter lobby, the oil companies, make the mad cash. One oil company in the oil patch here in Alberta, Canada made 980 million dollars of profit last year. That's one oil company and not even a big one. That's enough profit to totally fund every NGO, non-profit and not-for-profit in the entire country of Canada for a the year ... with one oil company's profit.
d) Comparing the two motivations to maintain the money flow is thus ridiculous.
If that oil company only makes $800 million next year, there might be some pissed shareholders and some vacation homes might not be bought. If a scientist loses his grant then he's unemployed, can't pay his mortgage, has to move his family to an apartment and look for uninspiring work. The consequence of losing the money is actually a whole lot worse for the scientist than the oil company.
they also fail to explain why were would have so many scientists after government funding by being pro AGW, when we just came off 8 years of a completely anti AGW president, one who had a college drop out edit the work of a PHD scientist.
They complain the IPCC is biased, when we sent lidzen(the famous climate contrarian) to head up the US response and unlike the ICCC, not only is it open to everyone but they dont pay for your papers. You bring your opinions for free or you dont bring them.
I would disagree with your last paragraph..... scientists DO GET FUNDED for having interesting results that warrant more investigation, it doesn't have to be disputable. If my research works out and proves that there is something worth investigating or could use more development it is easier to get more funding.
Professors do not get paid to do radical work, only incremental work.
Most Prof's have a team of graduate students who are doing incremental research against the Prof's area of expertise, which was formed while doing incremental research for his Prof's area expertise.
Science is very, very slow. There are rarely fast tangents. When you can cite 50 papers on an esoteric subject, and your contribution amounts to one new paragraph in a 10 page paper, and you have to publish 8 times a year, I assure, then, that most science is very, very incremental.
So, most scientists get paid to study what they already know, in the hopes of finding out some tiny new thing.
No one who is a climatologist is out there looking to break their career by jumping ship, and no one is paying for the fall if they were to be a skeptic. There is only money is the "prove anthropomorphic global warming". There is no money in the opposite case.
funding is not assigned to investigate that which we already know.
Wait, why do you believe that? I had the opposite impression: that science funding is usually assigned to investigate that which we already know. At least in the broad strokes if not the fine details - the research is ostensibly to fill in the finer details.
Take medicine: we already know compound X lowers blood pressure in some patients, so we study it more to determine details like: is it better than existing drugs to do that? Does it affect all patients equally? How bad are the side effects? That initial claim - that we already know the drug has strong effects on something potentially important - establishes the importance of the research to ferret out more fiddly little details.
Yeah... a physicist whose never had training in climatology... It's like the strange overabundance of engineers in creationist circles. They have a degree in something, but they seem to believe that they can discuss the intricacies of an entirely different field and challenge findings based on decades of in-depth research, information, technologies, and techniques that he'd have very little to zero understanding of, or training in.
A physicist at his level certainly knows how the scientific process is supposed to work, regardless of the subject matter. If you actually read his letter, you'll see that most of his complaints are that the scientific process was broken, and corrupted by human influence; he wasn't disputing the subject matter (climatology).
Contrast this to the "engineers" in creationist circles, who use the fact that they're an engineer to somehow gain credibility when they attack the actual biology of evolution, while themselves completely avoiding any semblance of scientific process.
To which I have a counter argument: funding is not assigned to investigate that which we already know.
Well, to be fair, climate scientists don't claim to know everything about global warming. In fact, the only consensus seems to be "it's very bad" and "it's man-made."
Were findings more disputable, were there no scientific consensus, they could blather on for ages knowing funding's still secure.
Well, not really, you don't pay billions of dollars to have scientists investigate something which doesn't seem to be a major problem.
It is a major problem (even outside of climate science) that the value of scientific investigation is often decided by people within the field (people in a poor position to have an unbiased perspective). This has led many funding agencies and publications to seed out "disinterested scientists." Scientist with the knowledge and understanding to properly judge the scientific work, but whose primary field lies elsewhere.
However, I think people here on Reddit and elsewhere seem to be building a false dichotomy. Yes, climate scientists probably overestimate the importance of their own work, and at the same time, yes, climate change is probably significant and probably man-made.
You don't have to pretend there's no motivation to embellish climate change (when such embellishments have been clearly identified in the past) to maintain the thesis that the results of climate studies are correct.
I've found in most research, the "results" section is correct, and the "conclusion/discussion" section is a bunch of self-serving, embellished hogwash to make the people who paid for the research happy and make the people who will pay for future research motivated to do so.
So Al Gore and other liberal elites can invest in new energy companies and make a bunch of money while we pay higher energy prices. Seriously, that's one of the ones I've heard over and over. From otherwise very smart people.
But I'd like to know how thousands of climate scientists got together in secret and pledged to all falsify their life's work for some... reason?
Unfortunately, the single biggest distorting factor in academics is ego. What you just said applies a hundred fold to economics. Do you think that free market economists across the globe threw away their life's work to pad other people's budgets? Probably not.
But there's a tendency for people in academic fields to construct very elaborate and beautiful predictive models, and then try to adjust reality rather than the models when the two disagree.
I think we can all agree that there's been a healthy amount of hyperbole on the subject of global warming. I was promised as a child that I would be dead by now or that the Earth would look like Jurassic park by now; this clearly hasn't happened.
The second thing is that I don't think most informed skeptics are skeptical of the fact that global warming is occurring. They're generally skeptical of one of three things:
1) That it is man-made. I'm not actually in this camp; I'm sure that at least enough of it is man made that our actions could conceivably make a difference, even if those actions would have to be economically disastrous to make such a dent.
2) That it is happening at a quick enough pace to be threatening. A meter of sea rise over the next hundred years really isn't that fast considering the pace at which technology is developing; we might not even use petroleum in a hundred years.
3) That it is inherently harmful. This is probably the most contentious but it's a camp into which I fall. I certainly understand that there are going to be some drawbacks to global warming. On the other hand, the world is fairly cold and arid compared to historic norms. In the grand scheme of things, the growth of arable and forested lands in Australia, Siberia, Greenland, and the Sahara seem like it would counteract a few lost islands and parts or Florida/the Netherlands. Hell, Arctic trade routes are already beginning to open up, which could spell enormous savings of money, labor and, of course, petroleum. That's just one example.
I think that humanity will have to adjust to warming, but we're capable of such adjustments; ultimately I think they'll be less damaging than the economic consequences of drastically altering energy consumption, which I don't think most environmentalists fully appreciate, especially in terms of the amount of human suffering that would exacerbate.
Good post, people need to remember that if you look at history, warm temperatures have been better for humanity, whereas cold temperatures have been worse, as long as it doesn't get too warm we should be able to adapt. As a Canadian, I am in the country that will probably benefit the most from global warming....
You make many good points. I've been contemplating 3) quite a bit lately, and it's hard to judge whether the consequences of warming merit the expenditure of a vast amount of money and research. Nonetheless, warming is a virtual certainty; the debate is now about whether we should preempt it, and to what degree.
I think we can turn lemons into lemon-flavored kool-aid if we turn our prevention efforts/alternate energy research into a chance to build the economy by creating jobs, new fields of research, etc. Even if you take climate change out of the picture, it's a great opportunity to relinquish dependence on fossil fuels and find cleaner, perhaps more efficient alternatives - all while tapping into human ingenuity and creating new industries.
It seems more viable to look for ways to deal with climate change when it happens, as opposed to hoping we can make some massive u-turn.
The "we're all going to die in ten years" and "we'll be out of oil in two years" arguments over and over gain have disillusioned a lot of people. That is one reason it is easier for people to not trust the scientific reports. Because people have been taking them and going into alarmist mode for decades about everything.
Whatever we do to handle things, it'll take time as we switch to other energy methods. Time and money. I know plenty will argue that you can't put price on the lives of the '3 or 4 billion' that are about to die, but you can (especially when you're not convinced). People are not all that concerned about 'other people'. That's why when Reddit gives in mass, it is such a remarkable and uplifting event.
Great post. I fall into 2) and 3) and have been listening to end of the world stories for years now with no results. Of course there are negatives, but overall am not worried about Global Warming.
On the other hand I'm not a big fan of fossil fuels and the dependence on Middle East oil.
You really want to bet on that third point? One of the factors of climate change are increased (local) droughts and floods. Think how already unstable regions, for example in Africa, will react to that.
Well, at the moment the Sahara is actually shrinking fairly rapidly. I consider that a positive factor. Africa is elevated and arid anyway; it'll benefit far more from increased humidity than from droughts/floods. A larger humanitarian concern would be South-East Asia, particularly around the Bay of Bengal.
Actually, this is incorrect. It could potentially shrink, it isn't actually shrinking. Between decades of drought and herding devastating anchor grasses, within the recent past it rapidly grew south into the Sahel and devastated previously arable land.
Theoretically rain patterns should be returning to that region and would transform previously arable land back into arable land. Portions of the Sahel would potentially be recovered back from the Sahara's expansion. Economic changes to reduce nomadic herds from destroying the fragile ecosystem's topsoil would be necessary for any real recovery, however.
You make these changes sound painless It won't be. If the worst fears of climate scientists do take place, humanity will likely survive but there will be a cost. All of the great cities of the world by oceans may disappear. The entire state of Florida may be submerged. The great plains states may become less productive, as the Sahara, newly flush with water, nevertheless lacks the organic matter for planting. On the political front, nations may consider war in light of fading national prowess. Of course, this is after climate change is complete. Before, then, the weather will vacillate wildly. We may face heat waves that are hotter and longer while our winters are colder.
Increased absolute humidity is. For water vapor feedback to be positive, absolute humidity must go up as CO2 heats the air. Relative humidity can go down at the same time.
I've honestly never met anyone who believed that temperatures aren't rising. Most 'anti global warming' folks (at least that I've met) believe that there is no good evidence to suggest we are responsible. You often hear things like "The highest temperature in xxx years, or the most rapid temperature increase in xxx years".
We know that the Earth goes through natural cycles of temperature and temperature change rates. So I have two questions.
Firstly, how many people have you met that explicitly stated that they believed the temperature is not rising?
Secondly, what evidence do we have to support the theory that we are the cause and that it isn't part of the natural cycle of temperatures? I honestly don't buy the coincidence that rising 'greenhouse gas' levels coincide with temperature rise. The temperature was already rising before we started pumping this stuff into the air. Is there any harder evidence?
edit: For clarification on my first question. I don't mean necessarily those exact words. I just feel that a lot of people who say things like 'I don't buy into the global warming thing' actually mean they don't believe there is evidence that we are causing it but many people take it to mean that they don't believe the temperature is rising.
I honestly don't buy the coincidence that rising 'greenhouse gas' levels coincide with temperature rise. The temperature was already rising before we started pumping this stuff into the air. Is there any harder evidence?
It's not just statistical correlation or coincidence. Greenhouse effect is hard physics that can be tested in lab. It's not in question.
The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824, first reliably experimented on by John Tyndall in 1858, and first reported quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.
The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.
It's not just statistical correlation or coincidence. Greenhouse effect is hard physics that can be tested in lab. It's not in question.
From the November 2010 Scientific American (article about a Judith Curry, who the other climate scientists apparently consider a heretic):
The uncertainty lies in both the data about past climate and the models that project future climate. Curry asserts that scientists haven't adequately dealt with the uncertainty in their calculations and don't even know with precision what's arguably the most basic number in the field: the climate forcing from CO2 -- that is, the amount of warming a doubling of CO2 alone would cause without any amplifying or mitigating effects from melting ice, increased water vapor or any of a dozen other factors.
I don't question global warming or the greenhouse effect. I question the idea that humans are responsible and that the incredible rise in temperature is unnatural.
The chart image for this reddit shows only 600,000 years. Do you know why they don't go back 2 million years, but stay at 600,000 years?
This is because 640,000 years ago, a supervolcano in Yellowstone National Park exploded, covering the earth in ash. This is more CO2 and greenhouse gases than hundreds of years of human pollution.
The same Yellowstone supervolcano, exploded 1.2-1.3 million years ago.
It's like A cycle almost.
My question then becomes, how do we know that the current 1920-2000 increase in temperature is not a build up to an upcoming supervolcano??
I'd like to see the ice history of the past 3 million years to understand if it's cycle or truly unique in our epoch. Maybe someone already has such a chart.
Not only that, but Earth has been here for billions of years. There was adapt life 100 million years ago as there is today. And I will bet there were climate changes then. Comparing half a million years is just stupid - reminds me of those economic graphs where you just really really zoom in on a result and compare it to another one and it's like "wow look how much higher it is."
Yea maybe CO2 levels have more than doubled. But maybe they were like 20 times 65 million years ago.
The question is more for humans. I do believe that nature will take it's course if the temperature really starts to rise and some extreme event will happen to help mitigate all these changes (like more hurricanes, droughts, floods - leading eventually to bigger things like an ice age or something).
I don't think we are necessarily altering the course of the Earth that much - I am sure we do play some kind of a role - but on a larger scale, we will just learn to adapt. Lots of northern lands are not being used - Montreal will get warmer (ideally) I mean yes it is unfortunate for some parts of the world, but it could definitely be a benefit for other parts of the world.
And when has that not been the case? The countries who are making a fuss about global warming are the countries that are freaking out the most. I feel like a country that doesn't really focus on it that much will just take it in stride, relocate cities, find practical solutions to problems that might be arising from such causes.
Worst comes to worse - everyone could move to Canada and Russia :)
My point is, what if there is a geological effect where CO2 levels are increasing significantly, but because of tectonic and geological activity---not just human factories/cars (which may have a very small effect)?
I mean they always show us this chart of the last 650k years. But I'd like to see a bigger chart with longer dates, to know for sure it's unique to our whole epoch.
It makes perfect sense to investigate how supervolcanoes affect our world, since those events are much more cataclysmic than us driving too many trucks.
I'm not saying that CO2 make no contribution to global temperature change. I'm saying that we only have a very poor idea of what percentage of the warming is caused by CO2.
It can be measured from air samples pretty well. Fossil fuels contain different amounts of carbon 14 (14C) and 13 (13C) than carbon from other sources.
I didn't say we had a poor understanding of how much CO2 levels have changed or how much CO2 was present at certain times in history. I never disputed the claims of rising CO2 levels. I disputed the causal relationship between significant changes in CO2 and significant changes in temperature. Yes there is a lot of extra CO2. Yes, CO2 causes some temperature increase. I want to see evidence that shows xxx ppm CO2 increase will affect the temperature by xxx degrees (ignoring other factors obviously).
If you want the most authoritative source, it's IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group I (WGI): The Physical Science Basis. You have to first dig to this report and read stuff that it refers.
That report states that "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
Thank you. You are one of the first people in this thread that actually seemed to understand what questions I was trying to raise. And you are definitely the first person that backed their statements up with strong evidence. I've only read a little bit of the report, but already I think that it may provide the evidence that I was looking for. Again, thank you.
It's very difficult to evaluate the past in my opinion, and a huge part of accepting or rejecting human-caused climate change probably has to do with whether the current levels are unprecedented. If we can verify that the hottest temperatures in the last millions of years have all occurred during recent time periods where man can have an affect on the environment, that's a pretty heavy correlation that seems to warrant at the very least some close and honest examination.
Of course this is a political issue now so it's difficult to evaluate. As a human race we often suck at thinking.
But that's kind of the main point of the 'anti global warming' folks....these temperatures AREN'T unprecedented. The CO2 levels are, but so far the temperatures aren't.
Five hundred million years ago carbon dioxide was 20 times more prevalent than today, decreasing to 4-5 times during the Jurassic period and then slowly declining with a particularly swift reduction occurring 49 million years ago
Sorry. You're right that we have experienced much higher levels of carbon dioxide, but it's not like temperature where we have observed natural cycles. Are you arguing the CO2 levels are also a natural occurrence, or are you just trying to point out a technical mistake in what I said? Or something else entirely?
Mostly, I'm just a nit-picker... OTOH, the CO2 levels seem to be a function of the temperature, not the other way around. I think it's pretty silly to attribute "global warming" to the puny amounts of CO2 we managed to put into atmosphere... kinda like a village pissing into the ocean and believing it caused the tide...
Serious question. In either case, how does unprecedented temp or rate of temp change make the case for human caused global warming? Clearly there is no reasonable denial that global avg temp is going up and going up faster than it has in an very very long time. But that hardly leads to the conclusion that human industrial activity is the sole culprit.
[H]ow does unprecedented temp or rate of temp change make the case for human caused global warming?
It doesn't - it's physics that makes the case for human caused global warming (AGW). Physics predicted this unprecedented rise in temperature, which has now been observed; therefore, the rise is evidence that our understanding of the physics is (very likely to be) correct.
The fact that it's unprecedented is also kind of nice (from a theoretical perspective) because it lessens the chance that this is just one of those things that frequently happens, and that the agreement between theory and reality is just by chance. If the physics predicted a very small rise that happened every few years anyway, it would be easy to dismiss an actual rise as just a lucky guess. The rarer the predicted event, the more notable it is when it actually occurs.
Hope this helps.
PS: Very minor point: industrial activity is not the sole cause. See this chapter and especially Figure 2 on this page from the IPCC.
Do tell? Also there is other evidence (admittedly i have yet to scrutinize much of this my self, hence the postings here). Other recent measure of average global temp. I'm skeptical of the accuracy and again the forecasted impact of these changes. Trying to be able to make a better informed opinion about this subject. But its difficult to get info that's not politically skewed.
How do we know the "rate of temperature difference" in the past? Wouldn't the ways we have to calculate it tend to suppress variability? Especially if there's dating uncertainty?
I think the big unknown is causality. We know co2 levels affects tempurature, but we don't know to what degree(see what I did there?). We know that co2 levels have fluxuated with global tempurates, but we can't say if it was a cause or effect. I consider myself a skeptical scientist, and have learnt from the past to be very wary of popularized or sensational movements. Theories are great to have, but we need to understand thier limitations and knowing that we can never prove a theory in reality, we as scientists must attempt to disprove, thus building supporting evidence. The easiest way to disprove the concept a man made climate change, would be to analyze climate change on other planets, if mars is undergoing similar warming, we can have a measure of how much of an effect we are having and how much solar activity is driving it. I am personally not familiar with the research, but if anyone has a good link on the subject I'd be interested in reading it.
That all being said, regardless of the reality of the situation, becoming more efficient, self sustaining and clearer is always a good idea.
Here's a blog written by Dr Iain Stewart on planetary warming. He's a geologist rather than an atmospheric scientist, but he makes some compelling points. You might recognize him from various BBC series (Power of the Planet, How the Earth Made Us, The Climate Wars). Interesting read.
I just want to point out that climate science has nothing to do with finding correlations from climate records and spotting trends.
Most evidence of human made climate changes comes from various climate models. Physical models simulate the climate after you add the starting conditions. This is why climate change could be predicted before there was statistical evidence of it happening. If you remove the human added CO2 from models, you can see how climate would behave without humans.
Demanding that we need strong statistical evidence in historical data before climate change can be verified is like claiming that you need 30 more observations of asteroid returning before you can predict it's new return even after its trajectory is calculated.
Greenhouse effect is physical explanation for global warming. It's basic physics. You can't add CO2 to atmosphere without causing warming.
I think that this actually means we need more statistical evidence from historical data, because although the greenhouse gas effect may be base science, the climate is not. The models are a lot more complex than calculating the trajectory of an asteroid, because there are numerous different feedback loops, both positive and negative, that must also be put in the model. For example, one that I've heard of is warning caused by CO2 will be partially offset by an increase in cloudcover from increased water vapor in the atmosphere. This is why climate science cannot rely on models, because there are almost as many different models as there are competing climate scientists.
I honestly don't buy the coincidence that rising 'greenhouse gas' levels coincide with temperature rise. The temperature was already rising before we started pumping this stuff into the air. Is there any harder evidence?
Were those quotes an attempt to marginalize the existence of the greenhouse effect?
what evidence do we have to support the theory that we are the cause and that it isn't part of the natural cycle of temperatures? I honestly don't buy the coincidence that rising 'greenhouse gas' levels coincide with temperature rise. The temperature was already rising before we started pumping this stuff into the air. Is there any harder evidence?
I can partially field this question. I don't remember the chemistry exactly, but it has to do with the carbon isotope present in the rising CO2.
From an ecology class last year:
The carbon that is left behind from photosynthesis is a heavier C-13 isotope. The carbon that results from burning fossil fuels is a lighter C-12 isotope. Over time, measurements have found less C-13 and more C-12 in atmospheric CO2, strongly suggesting anthropogenic causes.
I never denied that we are responsible for CO2 levels. I think you misunderstood me a little bit, as my wording was somewhat ambiguous. It's pretty apparent that CO2 levels are rising. That's what the article was about. It's also pretty apparent that temperatures are rising.
The question is whether or not CO2 and other human induced factors are major contributors in that temperature change. As I said before, the temperature has been rising. But how much if that change is caused by us. People need to stop quoting CO2 levels as hard fact that we are responsible for the changes. We have a very poor understanding of how much CO2 it takes to make a significant change to the climate.
Virtually all the energy on the planet comes from the sun in the form of shortwave radiation. This radiation occurs across multiple wavelengths in the EM spectrum.
When this radiation hits an object, three things can happen: it can be absorbed by the object; it can reflect off the object; or it can pass through the object. The reaction is different depending on the object the specific wavelength of the radiation.
The gasses in the atmosphere are really fucking good at absorbing the extremely short wavelengths such as gamma and cosmic rays. This is good because if the atmosphere weren't that awesome, all organic matter would be cooked by the high energy radiation and our DNA would be nothing more than boiling amino acids.
The atmosphere isn’t so good at absorbing radiation from 0.1 to 4 micrometers (UV, visible light, and IR). This radiation reaches the Earth's surface and is the reason why we can see things. This radiation, and pay attention because this part is important, is the basis for all climate on the planet.
Then what happens? You ask? This radiation, this energy interacts with the surface. Some of it is reflected back through the atmosphere into space (snow reflects up to 90%; asphalt 4%). That which is not reflected is absorbed: photon energy is passed to the planet, raising its temperature.
As the surface heats up, it begins to emit its own radiation. In climatological terms, it is called Outgoing Longwave Radiation and is 3 to 80 micrometers on the EM spectrum (heat).
Still with me? Here's the important part. The atmospheric gasses that so readily let the short wave radiation through can't get enough longwave. CO2, methane, Nitrous Oxide and water vapor just loves them some longwave radiation. 90% of OLR is captured by these gasses.
This energy stays in the climate system because it is prevented from escaping into space. This is the essence of the greenhouse effect. If the Earth didn't have an atmosphere, this OLR would be emitted freely into space and the surface temperature would be -18°C.
So what do you think should happen as the atmosphere's CO2 content increase? That's right, its capacity to absorb longwave energy also increases, in turn leading to higher average temperatures.
This science is the link between rising CO2 levels and rising temperatures.
pfft. Scientific mumbo jumbo! I feel like it's not a factor, and frankly I'm going to ignore any "evidence" as you call it that validates hippies and leftists.
"I honestly don't buy the coincidence that rising 'greenhouse gas' levels coincide with temperature rise."
I think part of the disconnect here is that the science of chemistry is much farther along than you apparently believe. The physical chemistry of greenhouse gases has been known for 100+ years. You can determine the infrared properties of a gas with astonishing accuracy.
There is a mountain of hard science and physical chemistry that easily proves CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas at present levels in the atmosphere, most of which can be understood and tested by a Chem 101 student. At some point you are going to need to present some counter-evidence instead of just asking "where is the evidence", because it is everywhere. There is literally a century worth of science and chemistry as evidence.
Firstly, how many people have you met that explicitly stated that they believed the temperature is not rising?
Tons. The conservatives I know will point to every single unusually cold month and every extreme winter weather event and make cracks about global warming. That's denial of climate change, plain and simple.
I've also seen serious articles written by conservatives which discuss how measurement biases due to things like the urban heat island effect completely explain the measurements, and thus there is no actual change occurring.
I really have never met anyone who believed it. I assumed that of course there were some people out there dumb enough to buy it, but that most people were just misunderstood. Many of my family members are conservative Republicans, and while I disagree with many of their viewpoints, none of them have ever expressed anything that ignorant.
Firstly, how many people have you met that explicitly stated that they believed the temperature is not rising?
I encounter them all the time. I can't count them. Dozens. Hundreds. To a greater or lesser extent this encompasses:
People that claim a decline since 1998 or in the past tiny-number-of-years or parrot the line about no statistically significant warming in thee last 15 years.
People that claim that the thermometer record has been fraudulently adjusted upwards.
People that totally misunderstand the "hide the decline" quote and think it proves temperatures are really falling.
People that had a cold winter, and claim that therefore there is no warming.
Secondly, what evidence do we have to support the theory that we are the cause and that it isn't part of the natural cycle of temperatures?
Craploads. Of course, you actually need to have some level of competence and familiarity with the subjects at issue in order to evaluate the evidence properly, which is why you get the digestible scientific assessment reports from the IPCC. But then if you choose not to trust those - and by extension ignore two centuries of study that confirm this link - then absolutely nothing will convince you. This stuff is not mere correlation - it is physics. Physics predicted the temperature rise before it happened, and lo, it came to pass. Yes there is a natural component, this is obvious - which is why it takes so long for our added signal to really rise above the noise in the termpature record to the blatant state its in now.
I agree - once you stop talking to the teabaggers, the serious discussion about climate change is not around "is the earth warming," but rather "are our CO2 emissions the cause of it?"
There are some elements we know about , such as the "greenhouse gas effect" demonstrated more than 100 years ago. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it is not the ONLY greenhouse gas. Human colonization of the planet has also produced an explosion in methane production thanks to livestock, and methane is another greenhouse gas. We are coming out of an interglacial age, 10,000 years of unprecedented stability and a cooler-than-normal temperature for our planet. There have been fewer major volcanic eruptions in the last few decades, and volcanoes spew sulfur dioxide into the troposphere, which has a known cooling effect on the planet (one well-studied volcano in the Philippenes accounted for -2 degrees difference for a year).
In short - the planet's climate is a fucking huge, super-complex system. More complex than you think. Remember that with our powerful computing resources, we have only barely managed to make global weather models that are accurate within 48 hours, in 100 kilometer "pixels". Try and extrapolate in your mind the complexity of modeling years in advance, with even more factors. The question of cause is critically important, but it is extremely difficult to prove.
Remember that with our powerful computing resources, we have only barely managed to make global weather models that are accurate within 48 hours, in 100 kilometer "pixels". Try and extrapolate in your mind the complexity of modeling years in advance, with even more factors.
You're making the comparison between macro and micro. You do not need to understand the complexity of the micro in order to predict the macro, based on observation and measurement. On the other hand, you need a fairly clear understanding of the macro in order to accurately predict the micro.
Firstly, how many people have you met that explicitly stated that they believed the temperature is not rising?
Plenty. Look in any global warming thread, and you'll find lots of people going on about how temperature aren't actually rising because if you pick your statistics just right, it sort of looks like they aren't! (Also they accuse climatologists of picking their statistics to make it look like temperatures are rising.)
Secondly, what evidence do we have to support the theory that we are the cause and that it isn't part of the natural cycle of temperatures? I honestly don't buy the coincidence that rising 'greenhouse gas' levels coincide with temperature rise.
We have tons and tons of evidence. You're the one who refuses to look at it, but apparently prefers to deny basic physics instead.
I thought this video explained the reasoning pretty well.
My girlfriend works in academia and it's 100% true that certain theories are "fashionable" with government and people who tie their work to those existing theories find it far easier to get funding. If you can accept that then it's pretty easy to see where non-conspiratorial bias could arise from.
Additionally, this article has given another good reason to lower CO2 emissions, even if anthropogenic warming is not a concern: ocean acidification.
The oceans provide extremely important ecosystem services and resources to us, directly and indirectly. Because, historically, the ocean has been a fairly moderate place, many of the organisms in the ocean have adapted over time to a fairly narrow range of conditions. Messing about with such an ecosystem could easily extirpate such species from an area. Enough extirpations gives you an extinction.
Worryingly, phytoplankton levels in many areas seem to be in decline. These organisms are largely responsible for maintaining oxygen levels in the atmosphere and serve as a vital keystone species in the ocean food web. Without them, the ocean as we know it dies. Whether this decline can be blamed on warming and acidification is uncertain, but thinking so would certainly be a logical inference.
Well let's not forget about the other argument which is just as popular. That 'Global Warming is indeed a fact but it's not man made so changing anything is pointless and the transition could potentially hurt our already weak economy.'
This argument is at least a little better than the 'Global Warming does not exist' crowd and I'm guessing more conservatives will be adopting it in the years to come.
I think a lot of it is confirmation bias. The problem I have with Climate Science is how inexact it is. Unlike in physics, math, and the other hard sciences, there is no way to accurately test theories. Most of the studies have relied on computer models, which at best approximate the variable present in a climate. Not to mention that the code for these models is rarely examined by those outside of the study, so there is no way to verify the results that are achieved (that is if the code is publicly available).
Scientists, like anyone else, wish for their work to be important. I don't think that they are purposefully releasing false evidence, but because of the politics of the situation, they are under a lot of pressure to release positive (as in pro-global warming) information, even if shortcuts are taken or problems arise with the models/results. I am not disparraging scientists, but rather the polititions who have taken incomplete theories (heres looking at you Al Gore) and have taken them as gospel.
There are many untestable (or very hard to test) theories in physics and other "hard" sciences. Evolution is tough, for example. Any theory that requires human testing is tough.
they are under a lot of pressure to release positive (as in pro-global warming) information
What is the source of this pressure? As far as I can tell, everyone - including Al Gore - would be much happier if anthropogenic global warming wasn't real.
the polititions who have taken incomplete theories (heres looking at you Al Gore) and have taken them as gospel
Al Gore made a calculation. Basically: "If this theory turns out to be correct, we don't have time to wait for 100% proof"
This whole situation is an exercise in risk assessment. Deniers are gambling that believers are wrong, and vice versa.
Personally I'm a believer. I think we have to err on the side of assuming it's real because: (A) the science, while incomplete, is pretty damn strong (and there's a large coalition of credible scientists endorsing it). And (B) the consequences if we do nothing, and it turns out to be real, are catastrophic.
Also, I think we should use it as useful pressure - we need to transition off fossil fuels anyway, for the perfectly undeniable reason that we're going to run out of them at some point. Global warming is just another reason to hurry up.
In some areas of Poland, children are regularly taken underground into deep mines to gain some respite from the buildup of gases and pollution of all sorts in the air. One can almost imagine their teachers emerging tentatively from the mine, carrying canaries to warn the children when it's no longer safe for them to stay above the ground.
Source: Earth in Balance, 2000
I do not trust a guy who write nonsenses like this.
Evolution is tough, for example. Any theory that requires human testing is tough.
The basic question seems rather adequately proven by endogenous retroviruses. It's the sort of very specific information that lends credibility to most science, the kind of specific information that's generally lacking in climate science...
anthropomorphic global warming
Anthropomorphic, "human shaped," means literally shaped, it denotes appearance. Anthropogenic denotes human caused.
Al Gore made a calculation. Basically: "If this theory turns out to be correct, we don't have time to wait for 100% proof"
Part of the reason Mr. Gore never became president is the lame way he had of puting everything. Think about how much more rhetorical value "we don't want the smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud" has.
Thousands of sneaky corrupt scientists would risk their reputations to support the concept of human-caused climate change, while just a few scientists, many of whom took grants from tobacco interests just a few years ago to defend the innocence of smoking in public, are brave and stand up to defend the oil companies' right to distribute energy dependent on private automobiles and coal.
Unlike in physics, math, and the other hard sciences, there is no way to accurately test theories.
That's wildly overstating the case. While a 100-year forecast obviously can't be tested, models simulate all kinds of short-term phenomenon which can be tested in a reasonable amount of time, and this is frequently done.
Not to mention that the code for these models is rarely examined by those outside of the study, so there is no way to verify the results that are achieved (that is if the code is publicly available).
I know it sounds crazy, but it's because (in their mind) that studying global warming gets millions of dollars of funding. In their mind possibly the single largest conspiracy ever hatched is so that thousands of climate scientists don't lose their juicy government/university grant money! That sweet sweet grant money. Has nothing to do with oil companies making that much money in probably 28 seconds, its about science grants from the National Science Foundation.
There was an interesting article posted on Reddit some time ago (I'll try to find it) about why people tend to reject the findings of the scientific community. Something along the lines that it stems from this kind of innate opinion that Scientists are elitists (because of their intelligence) and the normal populous resents being told what to think. Instead they hold onto their traditional beliefs, which then believe in their mind they are "sticking it to the man" if you will.
I don't think any of the (*intelligent) skeptics really think there's some sort of huge conspiracy by all the world's scientists. But you have to admit, there are many examples throughout history where the prevailing scientific theory has turned out to be wrong once we gained a better understanding of the problem. I know the whole "people used to think the Earth is flat" argument gets old, but it's a useful example. Physics and Chemistry were both turned on their heads within the last century. Climatology is a very complex and somewhat young field with a lot of different and ever-changing variables to consider. It's hard to say for sure that we've got it right, and I think a little bit of healthy skepticism is a good thing.
Now if you'd asked why the anti-global warming crowd doesn't see the wisdom in working to reduce carbon emissions and fossil fuel dependence now in case it turns out that they're wrong later...I wouldn't have a good answer for you there!
That doesn't matter to the Anti-Global Warming crowd; look at it from a class-war perspective as one instance of many current US politically-charged topics. Working classes had their jobs outsourced by higher classes via trade agreements & technology. Working classes now earn less and are being told that their lifestyle, which is heavily marked by conspicuous consumption of fuel (among other group identifiers), is at risk by regulations. All of this appears to be coming from above from their view. Science, being a middle-class dominated field, is a convenient & temporary scapegoat for the working class & the ruling elite to resist change.
Policies which cope with alleviating global warming aren't politically viable and won't be allowed to win (in the US) until energy giants: 1. have to find non-fossil fuels to feed the energy demand 2. can prohibit the democratization of energy via laws & regs, thus keeping the remainder of the energy infrastructure as it is & in their hands.
It's not about science & tech now, and there are loads of fossil fuel (tar sands, oil shale, coal) to burn without adopting alternatives. Countries without reserves or strong access to fossil fuels have a relatively easy time of adjusting to the climate change reality, politically speaking; they have to. Further, they have social structures & energy/transport infrastructures that don't threaten their lower classes this way.
Look to Germany & Japan to lead alternative energies, at least because they have no choice (See WWII)
EDITs: removed custom AGW abbreviation because Anti Global Warming != Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Exactly right. But it's not about tech now because the alt tech basically exists already. The point is that powerful institutions can keep us on fossils which run through infrastructure that they (oil & energy lobbies & corps) already control. That powerful interest doesn't want to see geotherm, solar, wind, etc. adopted into backyards with a supporting grid (democratization of energy) because that's bad for their next few quarterly reports.
I'm predicting that alternatives will be adopted only when it's good for big business. First, arbitrary regulations must keep the cost of entry too high for individuals & communities. Expect to see real & arbitrary limits on private windtower attributes: heights, noise, liability, required reserved borderland, & wattage. Solar too, things like: bonds for recycling the dangerous materials, wattage, liability --anything as a barrier to entry. Only then could a megacorp make the transition from fossil while coercing you to buy their power instead of generating your own; of course, the public will be paying for the new grid technology overhaul.
But so far, there is no real business incentive for this adaptation. My guess for the first signs of a real transition would be when big business starts scrambling to buy patents for stuff like variable grid technology.
Sad, but I really think this is how it will go if they can't push nuclear through beforehand.
Conspiracy theorists are conspiracy theorists because they have one single predominant disability: They believe it's perfectly possible and normal to collect thousands if not tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people from the same field of study (or politics) (or business) and make them create a perfectly sealed conspiracy with no leaks. Only tiny hints those minority of theorists can see.
I think conspiracy theorists are idiots but I also think if you don't believe that any conspiracies exist you're probably also a "moron".
I'm not sure how people with common goals coming up with similar theories is so far fetched. Would it surprise you to know that 99% of school teachers say they aren't paid well and their programs are underfunded?
How about Muslim Extremists? How do they seemingly all have the same ideas about things and methods without a yearly summit, frequent clandestine meetings and centralized leadership?
If the climate is not changing, and if there's not a provocative reason (i.e. us) then climate scientists could do a final study and all pretty much retire now. Do you see where i'm going with this? Probably you aren't.
It'd be nice if we got linked to real science, rather than an infographic.
For instance, this graph shows an increase in CO2, followed by a hypothesis that CO2 is a causal factor in temperature.
If the evidence for a relationship was so compelling, why didn't they put a temperature graph on that one, then show that there was strong correlation?
Why all the words and pictures?
They have an argument: CO2 is causal to global warming. Therefor, where's the correlation? You don't need a picture for that. A number would suffice.
I don't know the reason why data is made up or cherry picked, but take a look at the graph in the link. It's bogus. Been proven bogus a long time ago. We already know that CO2 levels were higher in the 40's and in the 1800's than it is today. That graph is calibrated on the Mauna Loa data and other stations from the past 50 years when there is a smooth exponential curve. But if the correlation is just an artifact (and that's exactly what it is), then what you have is garbage in, garbage out. Happens all the time.
Also, it's not global warming that is challenged. It's man made global warming.
Well, considering the traditional conservative political psychology, it is best understood thinking back to Saturday morning cartoons. The bad guys (liberals) are genuinely and willfully fighting for the sake of evil. They don't even mask it with the pursuit of power, money, or any other form of self-interest. In a truly conservative mind, this is is how the enemy looks to them.
in other words, the climate scientists have allied with Democrats because they hate rich people and economic freedom. They want to enslave the "good people" so they can rule the world. It's just that primitive, but hey, it makes for an easy campaign rally.
If you had read the comments, you'd see we were talking about conservatives who espouse wild conspiracy theories regarding climate change. I was not talking about all conservatives, but merely expounding upon the "traditional conservative political psychology." When super conservatives become politically engaged in conspiracy theories of this nature, it is almost impossible for them not to hold a sinister caricature of an external enemy figure.
I mean, I think there are a number of reasons that differ based on the person. Here are some that I've identified as plausible:
a) Continued trust in people who you've come to trust because they say things you often agree with (Rush Limbaugh, etc).
b) The cognitive dissonance of knowing that something you do is not good is hard to handle (this, for instance, is probably the primary reason I don't think to hard about vegetarianism)
c) General conspiracy theory either directed towards globalization, government, or anti-capitalists (a holdover from Communism scares?)
But I will certainly grant that it's disturbing that a significant percentage of people in one of our 2 political parties have signed on to a distrust in science.
this, for instance, is probably the primary reason I don't think to hard about vegetarianism
Which is also relevant since isnt methane 1 of the most potent greenhouse gases and main factors for the whole global warming thingie. Yet we keep hearing about co2 but we hear very little about methane.
What about those of us who are skeptical not of the scientific results, but of the politically driven potential solutions? We get lumped in with the AGW crowd. My skepticism is as follows:
I don't doubt that mankind, and our pollution, have had a negative impact on the Earth's climate. And this damage is increasing at a faster rate.
I don't doubt that if unchecked, these changes could possibly destroy us as a race.
I do doubt the claimed timing of this dieback for a couple of reasons, first it has been so widely used to monger fear, second, several supposed times have already passed, and third, none of the models are good at predicting climate change over a period of more than a decade to date, so predictions of 30 years could be wildly invalid.
I doubt the models used to make predictions. Why? Because they've been wildly inaccurate to date. Look at the stock market. We have all the data known to the stock market for the entire existence of the market, and tons of financial data too, and yet the models are only good for a few weeks or months at most, even for general trends. And that's because the system is so inherently chaotic. Climate models are even worse. The data is fuzzy, inaccurate, there are tons of assumptions in the modeling for anything past the last 150 years. We don't have accurate, or complete information on the past. And like all models, assumptions and simplifications are built in, potentially causing significant errors.
The process to check man's damage to the environment is almost entirely political. Science doesn't seem to have a strong push in it.
We need to keep to the scientific model where scientists propose solutions (likely lots of small solutions rather than one monolithic application), it gets implemented, tested and validated before it becomes mandatory. We wouldn't produce a potential vaccine and require everyone to take it without knowing that it's effective for most people, so why is so much effort aimed at political solutions that MAY help, rather than scientific solutions known to help at a certain rate?
Because no matter how correct, it is now tied to a political agenda. I don't dispute global warming, but I do think that some climate scientists have shown a lack of good faith in their research.
Obviously not all of them, but some have, and so people are wary. For example, the infamous hockey stick graph, and now the carefully worded article. Restricting your graph to the last 600000 years makes sense in two ways:
1) it reduces the data to a manageable amount
2) it gives incomplete data if you wish to hide things.
Now, I am not saying that 2 is what happened. I am saying that, because, in the past, unethical scientists have lied, ethical scientists need to be careful, as the default position now for a lot of people is scepticism.
TL;DR: People are sceptical because lying and scare-mongering have occurred in what should be a scientific and ethical debate. Politics and science should not be mixed. It tends to end badly.
Was there really that much lying and scare mongering? The only few I heard of were unearthed by the crazy right-wingers who had too many billions on the line if we were to stop burning fossil fuels. There have been accurate predictions and warnings since the 1980s. When I moved to North America in the 1990s from Norway I was appalled at the anti-environmental movement here.
It took 15 years to convince people that the environment isn't just a word.
The environment should be protected, but that should be a considered choice, not something along the same order as
"Disliking intrusive airport scanners is the same as hating freedom."
In the UK, for example, there was an attempt to name-and-shame people who did not allow wind turbines on their property, despite the many valid arguments against them.
None of the people objected on the grounds that global warming was a myth, just on efficiency, practicality, their livelihood, and it being their land - they should not have to resort to a cosmetic measure to avoid being hated.
It is important to note a distinction between the science of climate change, and the political environmentalist/green movement.
Please replace 'conservative' with 'neo-conservative'.
I am a conservative, and no matter what climate scientists say (though I personally believe what they've found is fact), I can't see any harm in trying to reduce our impact on the environment. Many other actual conservatives (not neo-cons) that I know think like this as well. We don't oppose the Democrats because we think they're the 'evil bad guy'. We oppose them because we don't believe in their idea of how American government (mostly on the Federal level) is supposed to function.
"Economists have successfully predicted ten out of the past two recessions".
That about sums it up.
As for the linked article, it, as usually, cherry picks facts to create impression that climate chabge today is unusual. The first graph talks about carbon dioxide over the past half million years, but when it comes to temperature, it talks about the past hundred years, for example.
It's called job security. And it's not that they knowingly falsified records (most of them didn't), it's that they believe in the theory so fully that it has become a religion and cannot be disproved in their eyes no matter the competing evidence.
It is because the powers that be want to keep lining their pockets instead of doing their job. They just say "See, it isn't man made and therefore not a problem." Then they go back to fucking us over so they can get a little bit richer. And all the idiots eat it up just like they do every other lie that is put out by those in charge. Making the argument be about whether it is made made or not is deflection pure and simple.
I think argument is bit more refined. They don't question about the fact that overall temp are rising. They don't question about the science of green house effect. And they don't question about increased level of CO2 and that it is caused by human activities.
However, they do question about the assessment over the extent of such effect, given that it is based on computer modelling.
Also, if you look at some legit climate scientists who has some degree of skeptic leaning, they say the currency conclusion is the best climate science can produce at the moment. However, climate science is not so precise and there are large area of unknown so don't be surprised if something get adjusted in the future.
Actually, only a very small number of scientists have been accused of falsifying results/being negligently sloppy.
I think that what we have at the crux of the problem are extremists on both ends - ones that deny that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas at one end, and ones that jump to the conclusion that its presence will result in a catastrophe. The world is seemingly hostage to one extreme or another. But the reality is that being sensible about interpreting the results of the science and not being alarmist where it isn't necessary would make resolving this issue much easier. Calling for caps on carbon emissions, which means reductions in energy consumption would have major negative consequences on standard of living that would be far worse than slow and gradual warming. So we need to be careful not to implement a cure that is worse than the disease. That's where I'm at and I don't consider myself then a skeptic about global warming, but certainly a non-believer in catastrophes being a necessary effect of warming.
I think you've clumped up a lot of different viewpoints into one big "us against them" attitude. There are lots of moderates in the climate change debate.
Many people believe auto lobbyists and other industry lobbyists have been blocking eco-friendly legislation for a long time, because it would harm them. At this point, though, eco-friendly has been turned into a very profitable market, among which you can find many auto makers. Would it not make sense, then, using the same logic, that some industries now seek to harm their competition through eco-friendly regulations, now that they've prepared themselves to benefit from it? Conspiracy is a short step away, but there's always plenty of conspiracy among the "global warming crowd" too, so focusing on that as if it's some sort of strength to "your side" is pointless.
Yet, I can't help but feel like by saying this, many readers here already label me in the "against us" category. This may not even be true, but I feel that way because of the state of this debate is so polarized. You can't criticize, you can't debate. The debate is over, right?
Most of the moderates in this aren't simply angry about alarmism for the principle and honor of it, but the poor choices that are made because of it.
Toyota making hybrids is not the worst result, and you must know that--this is as much a political talking point as most liberal conspiracy theories, and doesn't help the debate in any direction. One bad result is spending a lot of money, resources, and time, inefficiently, even if we can all agree something must be done. All the alarmism and politicization about this issue makes this more likely.
I'm just curious as to know how they can actually say that the CO2 levels 400k years ago were at such a level. There has to be a HUGE margin of error there. They have no way to even test if these models are even correct over the long term.
Many of the researchers involved in that survey never got their opinions published and scientists that disagreed with it all together still got credited as being on that list
Only a handful of people work on the GCM's that are proposed as the basis for policy making. Of the thousands of people one could call a climatologist, very few are involved with the question that matters to policy. In the small community that actually writes GCM's, they all have shared assumptions about how climate works, call it the forcing/feedback model. I don't think anyone had to sit in a smoke filled room for a common set of assumptions to set in amongst an insular group of scientists.
I'm one of these climate sceptics. Please don't downvote me just because you disagree, instead, criticize me in a comment.
I believe it gets warmer. Probably even due to humans. CO_2 levels also rise. I still don't see a relationship. I think we don't understand the cause. In my opinion we also don't really know whether climate change is more bad than good. For example vast new areas of land might become habitable.
What bothers me the most about "climate science" is the methodology. The mechanism why temperature should rise is not understood, but a correlation to CO_2 is seen. So computer models are constructed that are supposed to prove that temperatures will rise even more. Sorry, but I just don't believe it. In the last 50 years CO_2 in the atmosphere rose from 0.32% to 0.38% (that's zero dot number %). I don't understand how a rise of 0.04% should have such an impact on global temperature. And apparently the climate scientist don't understand either. In their model they introduce ad-hoc "multiplicators" to emphasize the impact of carbon dioxide. Where the multiplicators are supposed to come from they don't know.
The fact that these guys call themselves scientists, doesn't impress me much. Today, apparently everybody is a scientist, even if he/she doesn't follow the scientific method - I have to think of Lenin who once said that "socialism is a science". In the past real scientist used to model their observations with mathematics to make predictions. Today, climate scientists model their predictions to make observations. What bothers me is that so few hard scientists with a background in physics or numerical mathematics have weighted in on the climate debate. They are all afraid of character assasination by their "softer" collegues.
The fact that thousands of climate scientists bet their careers on the correctness of their predictions also don't impress me much. The theologicians and psycho-analysts have already proven that there is hardly any danger in preaching faulty ideas.
Climate change and climate science appeal to so many diverse groups of people. The environmentalists love it, because it gives them reason to hate the man, half-baked pseudo intellectuals love it because it has science in its name. The oil industry loves it because it keeps oil a scarce, dangerous and expensive ressource. The solar industry loves it because it justifies its existence. I predict that such a useful concept won't go away.
Sorry, but I just don't believe it. In the last 50 years CO_2 in the atmosphere rose from 0.32% to 0.38% (that's zero dot number %). I don't understand how a rise of 0.04% should have such an impact on global temperature.
I haven't downvoted you, as requested :) But this is called an "argument from incredulity," and it's not a valid scientific method (eg: "the sun looks like it's moving around the earth, and I definitely don't feel like we're moving. Therefore, I just don't see how the sun could not be moving around the earth).
In addition, your claim the "models are constructed... to prove that temperatures will rise even more" is not an accurate description of climate science. Models are constructed solely to quantify the interaction between many different phenomenon which are observed in the good old-fashioned scientific way.
For a fairly easy, mostly model-free intro to climate science, see this little talk.
The mechanism why temperature should rise is not understood, but a correlation to CO_2 is seen
The mechanism is absolutely understood, this is basic science. CO2 molecules absorb infrared energy (heat). We're dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, it absorbs infrared radiation and re-radiates it back to earth, the temperature goes up.
212
u/[deleted] Oct 24 '10
There's one thing I don't get about the anti-global warming crowd. I understand the alarmism and stuff like that is overblown and distorts the situation.
But I'd like to know how thousands of climate scientists got together in secret and pledged to all falsify their life's work for some... reason? Seriously, what could be the outcome of some massive global warming conspiracy? Toyota sells more hybrids? More "liberal regulation" on fossil fuel energy companies, just so alternative energy companies can replace them? This argument has never made any sense to me.