International Report Cites Global Warming Cause, Effects

[reefgeek84]

But there is the real scientific community that puts its work through the scrutiny of the peer review process. There may be some other "communities" out there but none that can pass for real science through the time tested and tried and true methods. that is my beef.

 

The folks you listen to might have some really good stuff to say, why wont they get it peer reviewed? Maybe the conspiracy?!!!???!

 

This is why people do not take your side seriously, because you say you will listen to other people, but in reality, you do not and do not acknowledge others.

 

That is like me saying, the way I have my tank is the only way to have it, because there is way more people who have done it this way. so I do not think they way of doing things is real or correct.

[Piero]

hehe, idunno cyenna but that sounds like a fascinating major.

 

I hear the money used to be especially good at exxon/mobile if you agreed to help the oil industry disprove climate change. Although apparently they admitted recently that actually we'll need to start addressing climate change by reducing emissions. The first two Digg comments on that one were funny:

 

1) "In other news: Hell freezes over."

2) "...and quickly thaws."

---------------------------------

Today this came out:

Cheney: ‘There Does Not Appear To Be A Consensus’ That Global Warming Is ‘Caused By Man’

 

"Cheney added later in the interview, “I don’t know. I’m not a scientist.” But he appears comfortable enough in his knowledge to suggest that the scientists are all wrong." link

 

check out some of the 111+ comments on that story too.

[drock59]

This is why people do not take your side seriously, because you say you will listen to other people, but in reality, you do not and do not acknowledge others.

 

That is like me saying, the way I have my tank is the only way to have it, because there is way more people who have done it this way. so I do not think they way of doing things is real or correct.

 

Forgive me, but it is both naive and ignorant to think that the scientific community and peer reviewed process has no room for people that think differently about a variety of topics. You still didnt answer my question, how can you refute the real scientific community? Its what science as we know it today is based on. I dont get it.

[reefgeek84]

Forgive me' date=' but it is both naive and ignorant to think that the scientific community and peer reviewed process has no room for people that think differently about a variety of topics. You still didnt answer my question, how can you refute the real scientific community? Its what science as we know it today is based on. I dont get it.[/quote']

 

Its all relative on what you think is the real community and what I think the real community is. Correct you are naive and ignorant for thinking there is not a difference of opinion on scientific topics. I however have accepted that fact. I have said time and time again...especially you and Piero will not convince me otherwise and I will not convince you other wise because you have your evidence and I have mine, but apparently that is falling on deaf ears.

[drock59]

. Correct you are naive and ignorant for thinking there is not a difference of opinion on scientific topics

 

Wow, im pretty sure i never said there shouldn't be a difference of opinion in the scientific community and/or on the topics within. However, apparently you will not buy into the notion that the scientific community is how all of "real" science is done. Not some quack writing his own thoughts and research down in a book for YOU and five other people to read.

 

Not to mention the incredible level of hypocrisy you exhibit by telling me im a terrible person for attacking you when really, that is all you have done in this thread, attack people.

 

Once again, you just attacked me and dismissed my question. Im beginning to see a trend here. My question, how can you refute the real scientific community?

 

your evidence and I have mine, but apparently that is falling on deaf ears.

 

Your "evidence" is not credible. Period. I would be more than happy to change my opinion if there was more peer reviewed evidence. I have no problem with that at all, but the fact remains your so called evidence is impotent without some sort of process to validate and confirm its findings.

[H20cooled]

Ok, last warning, please stop the insults and rudeness or it will be CLOSED.

[reefgeek84]

Wow, im pretty sure i never said there shouldn't be a difference of opinion in the scientific community and/or on the topics within. However, apparently you will not buy into the notion that the scientific community is how all of "real" science is done. Not some quack writing his own thoughts and research down in a book for YOU and five other people to read.

 

Not to mention the incredible level of hypocrisy you exhibit by telling me im a terrible person for attacking you when really, that is all you have done in this thread, attack people.

 

Once again, you just attacked me and dismissed my question. Im beginning to see a trend here. My question, how can you refute the real scientific community?

 

 

 

Your "evidence" is not credible. Period. I would be more than happy to change my opinion if there was more peer reviewed evidence. I have no problem with that at all, but the fact remains your so called evidence is impotent without some sort of process to validate and confirm its findings.

For the last time, what you call the real scientific community, I do not call the real scientific community...if you disagree with that, then fine. But I am entitled to my own thoughts...I have not said otherwise...for the last who knows how many pages, i have simply been defending who I listen to...You may not like them or think that they are credible, that is your choice and I accept that. You however can not accept that and that is your deal....I only insulted one person, and that was piero and he took that just fine...other then that I have insulted no one.

[andy]

I've been thinking about this discussion a fair bit and I'd like to make a few observations on the discussion itself, rather than on the subject of Climate Change.

 

As an outsider (that is, not a trained and practicing research scientist), when I look at 'Scientific Research' I see two different systems.

 

The first (and more common to my eye) is what I'll label as 'progressive science.' It is the research that advances established disciplines -- drug companies learning more about the chemistry of the brain so they can produce more marketable drugs are an example. In this case, the basic mechanisms of the human brain are universally understood and agreed upon; the research is just deepening that understanding. That's not to say there isn't disagreement within the community, there certainly is but that disagreement resides within the details. Nobody would argue, for example, that the brain is a complex clockwork mechanism driven by watch springs cranked by tiny gnomes (remember, Tom Cruise isn't a scientist (nutty))

 

The second category I'll call 'disruptive science.' Here, an entirely new set of fundamentals is being proposed. Rather than tweaking current understanding, there is the proposition that things just *aren't* as the majority believes them to be. The past is filled with examples... Newton, Darwin, Faraday, etc etc etc. Currently, string theory is in a similar place. Even though a lot of the argument around string theory is a meta-discussion regarding science vs. philosophy, similar mechanisms are at work.

 

By it's very nature, disruptive science is controversial. The establishment often will not (or *cannot*) make the leaps necessary to submit to the new theories, and because the disruption is a work in progress supporters often cannot immediately integrate data that seems at odds with their theories -- the whole process is evolutionary and requires time and iteration. It's still science, after all. So, the establishment often grabs onto these exception cases that haven't yet been integrated and uses them as 'proof' that the disruptive theories are false in toto, thus forcing the disruptors to go back to the drawing board and either integrate the exceptions or go "oh [language filter]" and change careers

 

It seems to me that climate change science is a disruptive science that is just transitioning to progressive science. There is a great body of evidence that supports the fundamental ideas, but the establishment still has a sufficient number of exceptions to justify the continued existence of the establishment. The climate change supporters have a bit more work to do before the establishment shrinks to Tom Cruise-like size.

 

Of course, any of the establishment's remaining exceptions *could* be the loose thread that unravels the whole body of work, but as each exception is resolved it becomes increasingly unlikely that the fundamental premise is false.

 

If this controversy was about the hinkey differences in particle behavior between the super-atomic (Newtonian) and sub-atomic (quantum) domains, it'd be a done deal -- not all the exceptions are integrated but enough have been for pretty much everyone to be on board. In the case of climate change, the stakes are enormous on both 'sides'. The establishment has a huge economic and political investment so will require a much tighter integration of 'exceptions.' This is understandable and a 'good thing' -- many of the changes needed to battle climate change will be very disruptive economically and politically, and making them if not needed would be wasteful beyond imagining. Of course, the stakes are equally high for those supporting climate change -- hundreds of millions of people and countless numbers of other species will suffer, and the long term threat to our civilization is significant if nothing is done.

 

"Yeah yeah, so what you longwinded fool?" Okay, trying to bring this home...

 

It's perfectly understandable then that we'll not agree with each other. Because of temperament, personality, education, politics, economics or whatever, some of us are more likely to align with the establishment and others with the disruptors. What's not perfectly understandable are statements along the lines of "I don't care what you say, you'll never convince me!" When either side (or both!) adopt that stance the discussion is no longer about science, it is about faith... and then we're screwed, because you can count the number of such conversions on the fingers of no hands. Open minds are needed on both sides.

[fly guy]

What's not perfectly understandable are statements along the lines of "I don't care what you say, you'll never convince me!" When either side (or both!) adopt that stance the discussion is no longer about science, it is about faith... and then we're screwed.

 

 

True story there. Well said

[Piero]

andy, very good point.

 

Finally it appears we're approaching what has been a seemingly predictable destination from page one. I'm just shocked it took so long to reach what was inherently obvious from the subject of the thread. So much wasted energy on details we're not qualified to analyze in the first place. It felt like reducing 10 cows to demi-glace.

 

So after everyone (eventually)realizes/accepts that we're not scientists/experts, we're naturally reduced to the debate regarding which qualified sources are actually the most credible. Some just needed to get past the hurdle of the "I know better than all the scientists" mentality. The debate about the legitimacy of sources may be the closest thing to a worthwhile approach on climate change from a bunch of civilians, but realistically it's probably just as merry-go-round susceptible as the irrational approach Frankly all the irrational conspiracy claims were a bit more interesting.

 

The important question is: what is the best way to react given a) some uncertainty, and b) the fact that either way...the events we are attempting to anticipate/predict will surely take place before we have absolute certainly as to their potential nature.

 

So in closing, you're lying across some train tracks and cannot see either way(not an expert on train coming). A vast majority of the people standing around claim that a train is coming and will run you over, another few people claim that is not the case. Given this information, what is the safe course of action given uncertainty?

 

Now, I don't know what tools and faculties some utilize in their search for data, but I've been sitting on these links waiting for reefgeek to point to them(just google 'global warming skeptics'). Frankly I still think the dissent against the consensus from the majority is relatively feeble and does not change the logical conclusion given uncertainty, but nevertheless here's a bone.

 

Remember, wiki is created by readers and can be unreliable regardless of stance, but nevertheless:

wiki: Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

wiki: global warming skeptics

wiki: previous global warming skeptics

wiki: scientific opinion on climate change

[reefgeek84]

What's not perfectly understandable are statements along the lines of "I don't care what you say' date=' you'll never convince me!" When either side (or both!) adopt that stance the discussion is no longer about science, it is about faith... and then we're screwed, because you can count the number of such conversions on the fingers of [b']no[/b] hands. Open minds are needed on both sides.

I agree with this...but where I come from is that until, i see more evidence of it and more people jump on board from the community of science I believe, then you, piero, drock will not convince me other wise...Maybe I did not get that across, I have an open mind, but again, I have said time and time again, I have read and listened to both sides and I have taken my stance and until more evidence comes forth my mind is made up...Not sure how that is not being open minded.

[reefgeek84]

So in closing, you're lying across some train tracks and cannot see either way(not an expert on train coming). A vast majority of the people standing around claim that a train is coming and will run you over, another few people claim that is not the case. Given this information, what is the safe course of action given uncertainty?

 

Now, I don't know what tools and faculties some utilize in their search for data, but I've been sitting on these links waiting for reefgeek to point to them(just google 'global warming skeptics'). Frankly I still think the dissent against the consensus from the majority is relatively feeble and does not change the logical conclusion given uncertainty, but nevertheless here's a bone.

 

Remember, wiki is created by readers and can be unreliable regardless of stance, but nevertheless:

wiki: Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

wiki: global warming skeptics

wiki: previous global warming skeptics

wiki: scientific opinion on climate change

 

I did not bring up wiki, because there is much discussion of ho unreliable the data is on it...It's funny that I have now become the target again, because I am the most outspoken...180bob, gave you an article and no one touched on it, with the exception of drock, who said it was to small of time period. It's just pointless now...

 

The whole train does not hold water, these comparisons keep being brought up...but you are comparing physical things that can be seen, compared to graphs and data that is generated on a computer and are educated guesses. There have been alot of things in the world, that were great on paper but never worked out...thus the saying "It may look good on paper..."

[Piero]

The whole train does not hold water' date=' these comparisons keep being brought up...but you are comparing physical things that can be seen, compared to graphs and data that is generated on a computer and are educated guesses.[/quote']

 

It's a metaphor. It has nothing to do with the train at all actually...it is quite simply alluding to the fact that we're presented with a situation where we are not the experts, and the experts may present conflicting claims. It's also illustrating the logical course of action give any circumstance involving imminent risk and levels of uncertainty. I could be wrong.

[reefgeek84]

It's a metaphor. It has nothing to do with the train at all actually...it is quite simply alluding to the fact that we're presented with a situation where we are not the experts' date=' and the experts may present conflicting claims. It's also illustrating the logical course of action give any circumstance involving imminent risk and levels of uncertainty. I could be wrong.[/quote']

I know it has nothing to do with a train, but it is a poor metaphor, cause again you are making the comparison of being able to see something as opposed to something that is an educated guess.

[Piero]

ok, then simply substitute something else for a train. Something that fits the criteria. I think what's being illustrated remains the same. I could be mistaken.

 

1) we're presented with a situation that potentially threatens us

2) we are not the experts, and the experts may present conflicting claims(even if it's 100:1)

 

When confronted with similar risk and levels of uncertainty, the logical course of action is still the safest option I would think, no?

[Lowman]

Guys, let's get back on topic here. I cleaned some of the personal shots.

[180Bob]

ok, then simply substitute something else for a train. Something that fits the criteria. I think what's being illustrated remains the same. I could be mistaken.

 

1) we're presented with a situation that potentially threatens us

2) we are not the experts, and the experts may present conflicting claims(even if it's 100:1)

 

When confronted with similar risk and levels of uncertainty, the logical course of action is still the safest option I would think, no?

 

The problem with the train metaphor is that in the case that we are presently discussing the train might actually not exists. If that is the case we may be laying on the sidewalk, and when we get up and move we may be stepping into the middle of a road and get run over by a car.

[Piero]

ok, but beyond my crappy attempt at an effective metaphor, am i making any sense? I don't think we should need a metaphor to see that the logical course of action is the safest option at our disposal.

[180Bob]

ok' date=' but beyond my crappy attempt at an effective metaphor, am i making any sense? I don't think we should need a metaphor to see that the logical course of action is the safest option at our disposal.[/quote']

In my opinion, by far the safest action in this case is to get all the hot air out of this discussion. It does no good to anyone to have people singing doomsday songs. Antarctica isn't all of a sudden going to melt, the fuzzy little polar bear aren't going to need Bermuda shorts next week, and Florida isn't going to be the next Atlantis. Is it likely that global temperature is rising, yes. Should we keep studying it, yes. But, I would of said the same thing during the global energy crisis of the 70's and the global cooling crisis of the 80's, and the sunburn scare of the 90's. They all deserve attention, but the sky is not falling!!!!

[Piero]

(chuckle)...you're right the sky is not falling, and there is no doomsday on my calendar yet, so I'm not sure to what urgency you're referring 180. I doubt anyone's under the illusion that we're actually contributing to the investigation here. It's just a casual debate, so you can have my spot in the bomb shelter if there is one.

 

clever anecdotes aside....

given the potential of imminent risk, and uncertainty, is not the most logical course of action the safest option available?

[180Brandy]

Yes you are right, since the IPCC statement was that the imminent risk was for a 4" rise in sea levels, I shall head out and buy a new pair of goulashes and if in the next 90 years it happens to rise 10 inches I will save my pennies for a pair of rubber boots. If the Chinese paper that I posted earlier is correct and we are headed for a cool down, I hope I will be able to trade these in for a new sweater. In all seriousness, scientists should keep studying this issue and politicians, former politicians and actors should quit blowing so much hot air, which I believe is the major cause of global warming.

[180Brandy]

That last post was that of my husband.

[andy]

Just a quick note... While a global average increase of sea level by 4" wouldn't prompt much response here than the wearing of galoshes, about a billion people in southeast Asia and the Pacific islands would be affected catastrophically.

[Piero]

good point andy. the effects are disproportionate to the actual rise. A few inches sounds small, but the impact is predicted to be serious I think.

 

Oregon and other States pledge to work on emissions, today.

 

Given potential risk and uncertainty in any situation, can anyone think of a reasons why the safest option is not the most logical, regardless of subject?

[180Bob]

Just a quick note... While a global average increase of sea level by 4" wouldn't prompt much response here than the wearing of galoshes' date=' about a billion people in southeast Asia and the Pacific islands would be affected catastrophically.[/quote']

Andy do you have a peer-reviewed reference for this? I find it very difficult to believe that a 4" rise over a 100 year period will have any significant impact on many people.