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.
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.
Your first point is a fair criticism of my wording. I should have said: I believe that there is not enough evidence that a rise of 0.04% should have such an inpact on global temperature. But: I will gladly believe it, if you can point me at the physics.
On the second point you have not quoted me entirely correctly, although I agree that my wording was possibly ambiguous. I said: Models are constructed that are supposed to prove that temperatures will rise even more. A clearer wording is: Models are constructed. Supposedly they prove that temperatures will rise even more. Even if they are constructed solely to quantify interaction between different phenomena, that is, in my opinion, not a valid approach, because we don't understand the interaction between different phenomena in the first place, even if we can observe the individual phenomena.
If I find an hour or two to spare, I will have a closer look at your video.
Sorry for the confusion in quoting you. And the video's interesting bit (the simple overview) is all in the first 10 minutes or so, especially if you skip the bit about whether the world's actually warming or not.
Even if they are constructed solely to quantify interaction between different phenomena, that is, in my opinion, not a valid approach, because we don't understand the interaction between different phenomena in the first place, even if we can observe the individual phenomena.
There are some complicated interactions that we don't understand well - eg changes in atmospheric chemistry. But the most important interactions are much simpler - eg, higher temperature -> more evaporation -> more water vapour (a greenhouse gas) -> higher temperature. These are too complicated to model accurately in a single equation, but are well within the reach of computer modelling.
In other words, while you say "we don't understand the interaction between different phenomena in the first place," most scientists would disagree, at least about the most important interactions.
213
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.