the REAL issue with regard to climate change today

There, that makes a bit more sense...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KMO @ Mar 18 2007, 10:08 AM) [snapback]407866[/snapback]</div>

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Facts are secondary and have gotten lost in the debate, despite what the zealots would have you believe.

Go ahead, zealots, spew the hate speech against me. It's meaningless, and the only damage you do is to yourselves.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(adam1991 @ Mar 18 2007, 06:54 PM) [snapback]407932[/snapback]</div>

Ah, but there's the problem. That's the perception the "skeptics" would like to foster, but the problem is that the evidence isn't on their side. There's near total scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming, culminating in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports.

So the "skeptics" have to try to win the debate via the media. They have no data or alternative theories that stand up to scrutiny. They're not producing any scientific research papers that better explain historical data and present observations. But they're good for a 5 minute talking head argument...

The reason "facts are secondary and have gotten lost in the debate" are because if they stuck to the facts, there would be no "debate". Just as there isn't in the scientific community.

 

What sucks is no matter how much either side argues or which side will win, the environment continues to pay the price which means...... So do we.

 

The problem is a lack of understanding of where information comes from. There are four major "branches" of information today.

Opinion - these are editorials and talking heads. Best exemplified by O'Reilly and Co. These people have no real expertise but feel compelled to share their opinion because they have an audience.

Journalism - reporters that try to present the facts to the public but lack expertise.

Books - that can be published by anyone regardless of expertise. Think Coulter..

Peer reviewed publications - this is how the latest data and their interpretation are presented by experts in the field once methods and conclusions have been reviewed by multiple peers in the field.

The problem is most people do not make a distinction between these sources of information.

Regarding the OP you will find research by scientists on global warming almost is almost conclusive about significant contributions by humans. However, most people delve on the opinion entertainers without expertise or are confused by the tendency of journalists to be fair and present opposing views, no matter that it could be the opinion of a contrarian minority.

What needs to be communicated to people is that evidence CAN be overwhelmingly biased towards ONE conclusion. That doesn't mean you are being unfair, it means you are interpreting the data.

 

Unfortunately, many of the zealots on the other side of the debate [the ones who say GW isn't real/caused by humans/etc.] have been presented with the same scientific evidence as the rest of us and refuse to believe it. The GW-believing zealots then have to resort to something other than hard scientific fact to get their point across.

Most of the population just doesn't understand science. I wish everyone could hear the scientific basis behind it all in some sort of completely unbiased atmosphere. However, there's such a broad misconception throughout society as to what science is [there are countless religious people who continue to complain about Darwinism and contribute it to all sorts of things that it does not encompass [such as the creation of the universe] and don't realize that any science that tries to prove or disprove God is a pseudo-science anyway [/rant]], that many people will be hard to convince about GW using the scientific data, especially because acceptance of it means a pretty big shift in daily living and mindsets.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(adam1991 @ Mar 18 2007, 10:03 AM) [snapback]407858[/snapback]</div>

What experiment would the nonbelievers sugges to have the point proven to them?

Here's an example. If your child had a debilitating ailment and was examined and tested by 10 objective doctors and 9 of them said she had leukemia and one doctor said she didn't, what would you do? Who would you believe? Would you see another 10 doctors as her ailment progressed? Would you question the tests and methods used to come to the conclusions that the majority of doctors used to diagnose the leukemia? Would you surf the internet more so you could figure it out yourself?

 

As far as I can understand it, Dr Reiter is a biologist, and was objecting to a section on the health impact section of the IPCC report. It appears that yes, he did resign from the IPCC, and he has meaningful credentials on mosquitos.

But this appears to be a very narrow objection to something which has zero bearing on the actual climatology. I hadn't really considered that the IPCC had a group working on the impact to humans of climate change - I'd only been looking at the climate prediction work.

At first glance he seems far more sensible than most of the deniers, I must say. But realise he is a biologist, not a climatologist.

There seems to have been a minor spat over whether his name should be on the final report. He wanted it taken off, and it was taken off. But what can we infer from this? That there are some people with contrary views? We know that.

After searching around on the net, I get the impression that he has one specific objection, which is that he thinks that malaria-carrying mosquitoes aren't more common in hotter climates. (Seems counter-intuitive to me, but he's an expert). So therefore if global warming happens, its won't cause malaria to spread.

Fine. But that's the limit of his expertise. If he's right, it has no bearing on any climate prediction at all. I wasn't even aware the IPCC were making statements about malaria. But it seems that the "skeptics" are using him as a cloak of scientific respectibility. It seems he doesn't believe in man-made global warming, so he's happy to join in as "a scientist" fighting against the establishment, disputing the overall conclusions of the IPCC. But he has no qualifications beyond mosquitoes.

 

Well said! B)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Mar 18 2007, 07:17 PM) [snapback]408094[/snapback]</div>

You keep posting that. You do realize that "Well said" does NOT mean "you're wrong again", since that's my response to all the posts you post that to, don't you?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Mar 18 2007, 07:19 PM) [snapback]408050[/snapback]</div>

I think one salient point is missing: the first three sources have a definite, personal, financial interest in sparking controversy; and in Opinion and Books, would also have no audience for their comments without their penchant for pouring gasoline on fires.

 

But grant money isn't predicated on results. It's predicated on what's seen as worth researching.

Now, if climate change were to be a settled matter, the research money would taper down, as there would be less worth researching; the governments would move on to funding actions rather than climate research. If anything, scientists profit by promoting uncertainty. As indeed do the "skeptics".

And if you're talking about US government funding in particular, all evidence of the last 10 years suggests that the US government would much rather the scientists were saying there wasn't climate change. I don't see why you should suppose they were paying them to say there was.

This "financial interest" argument always seems to me to be one of those rhetorical pre-emptive strikes. Much of industry has a massive financial stake in being able to freely sell and burn oil, so to try and distract attention they accuse scientists, of all people, of suffering from a financial conflict of interest. That's laughable.

 

I still don't understand. Why are you attacking climate research, rather than any of the hundred other branches of science?

I can only assume it's because it's giving answers you don't like. And you're projecting your values, that of merely concocting "the results that will get them farther in life" onto scientists. That's absurd. If they wanted to "go farther in life", which you are clearly determining financially, rather than in terms of professional standing, then they wouldn't have chosen to go into science. They'd be off creating mathematical models for hedge funds for banks, rather than off creating mathematical models for climate change.

So you really believe that science is a hotbed of financial cronyism compared to the snow-white worlds of private industry and politics? And you're calling us zealots?

And are you going to explain what Paul Reiter has to do with anything?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(adam1991 @ Mar 18 2007, 11:03 AM) [snapback]407858[/snapback]</div>

Maybe I am missing something here. Is this suggesting that the global warming *advocates* are zeolots, and have a political/power/money agenda??

The folks with this agenda are found in the halls of Exxon/Mobil, a company with clear agenda and a strong anti-global warming stance. And a few other places, no doubt.

Part of the problem is that reporting on this issue still attempts to suggest that, in the spirit of 'fair and balanced,' there are two sides to report. In actuality, there is so little disagreement on this issue (amoung scientists) that in effect one side only remains, that global warming is occuring, and that we humans are most likely contributing (most likely in a major way).

I don't have the numbers handy, so this will not be 'scientific.' But I saw in a recent UTNE Reader that in the press/media there were, over the last several years, hundreds of instances of reports on global climate change (my prefered terminology) that offerred two sides to the issue. In the same period that number in peer reviewed journals was zero.

A visit to http://realclimate.org/ can offer some insights into the science of global weather.

Jim

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KMO @ Mar 19 2007, 05:07 AM) [snapback]408276[/snapback]</div>

Please explain to me the purchasing of carbon credits and how that works? And are you worried that that will become a big business or financial interest?

And speaking of conflicts of interest, do you think algore has one in owning a carbon credit company and at the same time promoting the politics of global warming?