One is, where does the *bulk* of the scientific opinion lie. If 100 scientists believe one thing, and 10 (or fewer) believe the other, we should... probably give *much* more weight to the first thing. In particular, if the 100 scientists are *in* the field, and the 10 are in different fields--for example, if we're discussing evolution, and the 100 scientists are all biologists, and the 10 are mostly physicists and chemists--we can probably pretty much ignore the 10.
The second is, which conclusion would it be more harmful to ignore.
If AGW isn't real, but we think it is, we will--waste some money and resources responding to an imaginary threat. But, since most of the things we need to do (like stop using oil and coal) we also should be doing for other reasons (particulate pollution, leaving reserves for future use, transitioning to alternate power before we run out), the real total harm is pretty small, even if we *do* spend a fair chunk of change making the transition.
If AGW *is* real, and we think it *isn't*, then we will be totally blindsided by the effects. We will be unprepared for droughts, sea level rises, shifts in agricultural productivity, floods, and so on. We will have to be reactive rather than proactive in dealing with the problems, which usually costs a lot more in the long run. In short, we will be massively, massively screwed, in ways we would not be if we knew it was coming and worked to prevent it.
We should not rely on the word of scientists to get our answers. The basis of science is experimentation. Are you familiar with the greenhouse effect? Guess what the biggest player in it is. It's H2O. And the second biggest? CO2. In the past we have experienced natural climatic changes. However, climate changes don't happen out of nowhere. It is primitive to assume that since a few thousand years ago a change in climate occurred, it must be part of a natural pattern. Climate changes occur due to geological and chemical processes. If we look at changes in climate in history, a change in atmospheric components generated a change in climate. We can also look at other planets, most of which are inhabitable due to the atmospheric components that produce an undesirable climate for human beings and other life forms. Now, looking at chemical and geological processes, is there evidence that shows that the atmospheric components of Earth are largely natural or unnatural? That is what we should be looking at. Most of the world believes that climatic changes are occurring. The only two nations that have large disputes over the matter are the United States and United Kingdom. The issue has become largely political in these areas. Evidence shows that humans are releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at an unnatural rate. Fossil fuels within the Earth stay there for thousands of years and are released ONLY due to tectonic processes. We are drilling oil and natural gas reserves from the earth and releasing them into the atmosphere at a much higher rate. Would you say that with the scientific knowledge that we have accumulated, it would be reasonable to say that there would be a climatic response through this process?
"Scientists largely dissented with evolution, the planet being round, gravity, the earth having a magnetic field, and the existence of pangea"
These dissents were based largely on incomplete data and flawed theory (as are most dissents).
Time will tell about global warming. Let's hope someone is still around to hear.
There have been several mass extinctions in Earth's past, that of the dinosaurs being the most famous. Humans are the first species EVER to have the ability to chart the course of our own evolution. Now that would take the concerted efforts of all of us. But all of us can't even agree to drive on the same side of the road.
The bottom line is data. We have temperature data from the 1860s onwards. We have CO2 data from the 1950s onwards. We have proxy data for both stretching back millennia.
The problem is simple. No theory besides AGW has managed to explain, fit, or model the data we have. No one has taken solar data and shown that the sun is responsible for the warming trend since the 1970s. No one has taken CO2 data and shown where that CO2 comes from and how it fits the levels. No one has taken cosmic ray data and shown how it seeds clouds. No one has shown that the earth has shifted in its orbit causing an increase in temperatures.
And so on. Individuals mean nothing. The scientific community believes the best explanation for the data we've obtained is AGW. That's it. What any one scientist thinks is irrelevant. What every national academy on the planet thinks is much more significant.
Here's some things that ALL scientists agree on:
1. The greenhouse effect is extremely important in Earth's climate, without it the Earth would quickly freeze.
2. Carbon dioxide is a major greenhouse gas
3. Humans have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by about 40%. with no end in this increase in sight.
4. The most important greenhouse gas is water vapor, and the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is controlled by temperature. Increasing temperature increases the water vapor.
Big Gryph: There is nothing wrong with Richard Lindzen's credentials as a climate scientist, and I don't think any scientist would make the argument that he is not qualified. They would make the argument that many of his ideas are wrong, though.
Caliservative: Is there a label for dismissing arguments by labeling them? Because it seems to me that is the only thing you ever do in your "answers", which are never answers at all. I think you would be better served by refraining from labeling people's arguments and instead trying to develop a coherent one of your own, if you are going to persist on answering.
Once again Caliservative: Yes, I'd like you to go away, because you contribute nothing. You said "... it must be highly uncomfortable to have your fallacious arguments exposed for everyone to see." Well, it would be, if you actually exposed any fallacious arguments that I made--but I see you didn't respond to ANY scientific arguments (there are several enumerated in my answer). In fact Caliservative, I have never seen you address ANY scientific argument that ANYONE has made--your "arguments" are all sociological sophistry. I would LOVE to see you start pointing out fallacious scientific arguments--but that would require you to actually think about the science, and not just pigeonhole people into your own rhetorical categorizations, then dismiss them without having to think about what people are saying..
If you had taken a credible college course in any science, you would know. First of all you would define Climate Change or Global Warming. Then see if conditions met the criteria.
For example: Quote by Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: “The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models.”
That is not very scientific, data does matter in science. Another part of true science is accurately projecting into the future.
Quote by Noel Brown, UN official: "Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos."
Do you really want to trust your liberty and money to fellows like these? Not if you are smart.
Then there is a question of how much gain is there for one side or the other.
Quote by Tom McElmurry, meteorologist, former tornado forecaster in Severe Weather Service: “Governmental officials are currently casting trillions down huge rat hole to solve a problem which doesn’t exist....Packs of rats wait in that [rat] hole to reap trillions coming down it to fill advocates pockets....The money we are about to spend on drastically reducing carbon dioxide will line the pockets of the environmentalists....some politicians are standing in line to fill their pockets with kick back money for large grants to the environmental experts....In case you haven’t noticed, it is an expanding profit-making industry, growing in proportion to the horror warnings by government officials and former vice-presidents.”
Recent history has proven that the Al Gore's, Maurice Strong's, and George Soros' of the world have had much financial gain from this subject. While nations are going broke these fat cats live the life of luxury and look down on us peons.
Quote by Maurice Strong, a wealthy elitist and primary power behind UN throne, and large CO2 producer: "Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable."
Notice it is the 'affluent middle class' that takes the hit? Certainly not those of the ruling class. Can you imagine Maurice going without refrigeration?
Then there are those of the AGW supporters class who know that AGW is all phony:
Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Quote by Timoth Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former elected Democrat Senator: “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
Quote by Richard Benedik, former U.S./UN bureaucrat: "A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect."
A true scientist will go on scientific logic, not political claptrap. It is not who is saying anything that we should follow, but only Scientific fact.
As a start, one must listen to various viewpoints, and use one's critical thinking. Regrettably, this commodity is in short supply today (and there has been a virtual absence of legitimate panel discussions and other forums for open discussion), perhaps especially in N. America. My next step would be to comprehend that the freq. claimed GW scientist unanimity simply does not exist. A careful perusal of the data reveals that there are at least a half dozen "holes" in the GW premise, including a large helping of politics and propaganda.
Incidentally, I strongly object to your referral to dissenters/skeptics as "deniers." If I one of my ancestors was a "denier" in the context of the geocentric cosmic scheme of things, 'twould make me proud, and would nicely redound to the honor of my family.
" ... humans are causing significant global warming."
What planet are you living on? Significant warming? Since the 1800s the temperature of the whole planet has gone up less than 3/4ths of 1 degree from the established average and it doesn't look like it's going to go up this year. What the hell is so significant about the planet warming less than 1 degree? I guess the cooling trend from 1940 to 1980 means nothing to you when human CO2 output was tripling.
Temperatures mainly react to water and water vapor. CO2 increases have very little to do with it.
---------------------------------------...
A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
The consensus was reached before the research had even begun. Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a skeptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Richard Lindzen is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT.
Look at the evidence and draw your own conclusions. For those of us who have been around a few decades there is enough evidence to prove we are suffering from Global warming and time is running out for humanity.
its more important that humans arnt treated like an infestation on the planet and taxed with a scheme to turn them all into defacto slaves .. you know who the problem is .. the big wigs that run the big corporations that FORCE people to use their products .. theres plenty of alternatives that are enviro-friendly but no .. they want to tax tyou .. in fact theyre already trading billions in carbon credits with plans to herd you off the land they want to own as a 'lord' ... no im not buying global warming for a minute .. at most theyre creating it on purpose .. if you can convince yourself just to look up on most given days, you can see the millions they spend spraying particulates into the atmosphere to make it muddy and make sure its warming up more than normal .. got those carbon credits a rollin in ..
Some people point out that not all scientists agree that humans are causing significant global warming. Two of the most famous disidents are Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen. But what is more important? That they could be right or that they could be wrong?
The ones who are 'right' are those that infer conclusions via rigorous application of the scientific method. A necessary component of that method is good logic.
The anti-science individuals are those who resort to logical fallacies to make their case. Some examples:
Ad hominem, or demonization. This would include any use of the 'denier' epithet. It also includes attacks based on where the funding comes from (i.e. oil companies).
Petito principii. This includes the presumption of anything not agreed to by the other, i.e. Michael Mann's assertion that there can be no discussion of the basic science, only of how to respond to agw. Also, see any of Chem Flunky's posts.
Ad populum (appeal to social proof). This includes all claims of 'consensus'. They have no validity in the scientific method.
Appeals to authority. Examples abound here; any claim that a hypothesis must be true due to the qualifications of those who make the claim. All of the claims about the endorsements of agw by the various academies are appeals to authority. Those who make such claims are violating the scientific method.
Fallacy of the biased sample. That would include Oserkes, Doran, and others.
Appeal to false certainty. This includes claims that agw 'has been proven', or is 'incontrovertible'. Nothing in science is incontrovertible. Such claims are the stuff of religion, not science.
Poisoning the well. Claims that certain sources are not qualified to speak on the topic. Claims that an individual is 'not a climatologist' are examples of this fallacy.
Argument from ignorance. It can't be anything else. This argument presumes that all causes are known. All the arguments that 'it must be' the co2 fall prey to this fallacy, as do all the assertions that it can't be the sun. NASA, the EPA, and the NAS all promote arguments for agw based on this fallacy.
Shifting (shirking) the burden of proof. The scientific method holds that the burden of proof rests squarely on those advancing a hypothesis. Claims that the skeptics are unable to prove it false are attempts to avoid scientific rigor and shift the burden of proof. See Hey Dook's post in this question for a classic example.
Those that use such arguments may have scientific credentials, but they are functioning as propagandists, not scientists. The entire agw movement is shot through with people posing as scientists, but using arguments based on weak and invalid logic.
@pegminer
Yes. When the arguments are fallacious, it's called critical thinking. Back home we used to call it 'calling a spade a spade'.
<...the only thing you ever do in your "answers", which are never answers at all. I think you would be better served by refraining from labeling people's arguments and instead trying to develop a coherent one of your own, if you are going to persist on answering.>
I know you would like me to go away; it must be highly uncomfortable to have your fallacious arguments exposed for everyone to see. But, as long as you continue to use invalid logic, I will continue to expose you. I don't have to develop any argument of my own; under the scientific method, that is your responsibility. You are (again) trying to shift (shirk) the burden of proof. All I have to do is point out that your arguments do not follow from their premises. Fortunately for the skeptics, you have made that really easy. Finding logical failures in the agw arguments is what we used to call in the military a 'target rich environment'.
@CR
<"Denier" is not an ad hom> <=== absolutely laughable; you live in an alternative reality.
<...because they reject the evidence...> petito principii (again)
<...every thing in accepted science is based on not knowing anything else that could be the cause...> what's the word I want...b*** s**t! That's it. Science is based on results that are reproduced by others, and models whose predictions consistently predict empirical results, not ignorance of 'what else could it be.' Your command of logic is underwhelming.
Richard Lindzen is famous for being a denier who not only denies GW but thinks it is entirely political. His academic PhD is in Mathematics and has no formal training as a climatologist.
Richard Lindzen has a degree in Meteorology and once again is a diehard denier but has no real climatological degree This a**hole thinks we need more CO2
GW is real, it is happening now and we have put enough CO2 into the atmosphere over the years to keep GW going until 2100 and beyond
97% of Climatologists (the people who actually study and research GW are convinced the current acceleration of GW is man made
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/20...
Check out http://skepticalscience.com to see 173 denier myths, that they attempt to present as science and true, debunked
Mlore http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Dor...
In any sort of rational mode of thinking, the burden of proof has to lie on the 1% (or less) who disagree with the decades-old scientific consensus endorsed by nearly every major academy, science text and university science department. When that 1% heavily and demonstrably not only fails to offer anything remotely like such proof but also resorts repeatedly to inconsistent arguments, sleight-of-hand rhetoric, etc. it is a closed case as to "who is right" when it comes to the basic realities of global climate. (Many details remain and will remain disputed and/or unclear, but not the basic conclusions). We can reliably trust the 100+ Nobel Prize winners here:
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
... ... ... ...
Lindzen and Spencer disagree with each other in the extreme. Lindzen does believe that humans are causing warming but that clouds will react to slow the warming. Spencer on the other hand believes that clouds caused the warming in the first place.
You cited two outliers who disagree with each other. Of those just one believes that humans are causing little warming, and he his known as "always wrong" Roy Spencer. He developed his cloud s theory in the 1990s as stuck to it even has he made a couple embarrassing errors. He changes the parameters in every paper to curve-fit the data to his pre-drawn layers. In different papers he has assumed the ocean mixing layer to be as little as 5 feet and as much as 700 feet. (Other scientists use about 25 feet.) He has no following among other climatologists.
It it basically 100,000 scientists versus the 1. I believe the 100,000.
Try this: explain Roy Spencer's theory. Do you know it? Does it explain the observations? Can it be reconciled with other researchers? Is it plausible? You have to answer yes that it holds up to the observations or you have to dismiss him as all other climatologists have done. He makes no sense.
That's easy, even for a none scientist to do.
Look for who's talking common sense backed by sensible arguments, view with suspicion those who declare unrealistic doomsday prophesies, skirt around the evidence, resort to arguments about consensus, precautionary principles etc, refuse to debate, demand political policies, demand a shite-load of money and especially ignore those who rant absurdities about deniers like some sort of modern day Spanish inquisitioners.
Well I would tend to believe those who are not employed by government agency's and are free to to say whatever they believe.
What you should do is act like a jury, jury's do not have special scientific knowledge but can listen to the evidence as presented to them and decide, if this is the basis of our justice, I cannot see why it should not work outside of a court of law as well.
The important thing is less whether they are right or wrong than it is that we have an objective way (science) to know if they are right or wrong - and we know that they are wrong.
====
\
Daniel --
>>I think it's just a regular climate change<<
There is no such thing.
Climate changes for specific physical reasons that can be described mathematically and explained scientifically. Unless you can provide that evidence, you're just making shlt up.
======
Dawn --
You forgot to put on your tin-foil hat this morning, didn't you?
Who's paying them?
