Anti-science liars (like Mushman here: there was NO "ice age scare" in the 1970s, I was around then, and there was much more hype about pet rocks than about climate change of any kind), do DO "research." But, their "research" is mostly along the lines of going to anti-science bloggers like Wattsup and copy-pasting the fossil fuel industry supported deceptions they find there). (Most of the phony "skepticism" you will hear from the liar-deniers here was thoroughly debunked years or decades ago; see the complilation here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument... So what results is mostly a "debate" (at least in the U.S. for the last 5-10 years) between science and anti-science lies.
There are two main reasons why this is a heated topic, rather than a serious but calmly and rationally discussed topic:
1) The anti-science pundits and (especially) politicians have the support, although more indirect than direct nowadays, of the multi-trillion dollar fossil fuel industry, the biggest and most powerful international business in human history.
2) The news media are incurably addicted to debates, no matter how bogus. If they could get away with "97% of mathematicians claim that 2+2=4 but 'some skeptics' have raised doubts about whether that is always true, and criticized the government funding of math teachers," they would write it.
Here the SCIENCE (see under sources re the ANTI-science):
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.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warm...
The idea that human emissions of greenhouse gases may affect the climate is not new. Scientists have been speculating on that matter for more than century. When, in the 1950s we discovered CO2 levels were rising and, in the 1970s, that temperatures were also rising, scientists started to mathematically model the situation and suggested that there could be a long-term effect.
The IPCC was set up by world governments to investigate if this was the case. It brought together scientists from around the globe in many different fields to examine the scientific literature. Their remit was to investigate whether there was a problem and, if so, to make recommendations to national governments.
They did their job. And the evidence is increasingly mounting that we have a problem. Now, if the IPCC came back and said 'there's no problem' I'm pretty sure that this board wouldn't exist. I'm pretty sure that all those people who claim the IPCC is corrupt and that climate change is nonsense would actually be quoting IPCC articles to state their case.
The issue isn't science. It's politics. And the two have gotten muddled.
It is denial. Climate change is closely tied to the economy, manufacturing. To understand climate change is to acknowledge the current activities such as riding in fossil-fuel power vehicles, cooking and heating homes with natural gas, international shipping are factors causing the climate to change slowly into an environment that is less suitable for human life and lifestyle.
The earth is constantly changing, even if these factors were stopped mankind is not able to stop the continuing environmental evolution of the earth. It is possible that humans will evolve through natural selection into being that can live in the future climate changed earth...or not.
What is the science, I keep having this thrown at me
1. CO2 vibrates with long wave length radiation and re-emits it causing warming, the amount of warming is calculated at 3.7 wm2 for a doubling of CO2 which equates to 1 degree C. (big deal)
2. To make up the rest of the dramatic warming they have to bring in positive feedbacks (melting ice causing reduced albedo. and increased atmospheric water vapor as per clasusius clapeyron equation)
3. The big problem with positive feedbacks is that any warming will do the same not just from CO2 so common sense tells us this should've happened a long time ago, when there was previous warm periods(holocene optimum) so if warming did not spiral out control then why should it now.
I am sorry the science does not add up, warming yes serious warming no.
Oh by the way a doubling will take about 200years
The Catastrophic Warming movement was exposed as being based on fraudulent/faulty "science" based on faulty/manipulated base data.
Many so-called, self-proclaimed, "Climate Scientists" jumped onto the Taxpayer-provided Welfare/Grant gravy train in order to enhance their careers and for some, to feed a mis-placed sense of self-importance.
Politicians have been more than willing to embrace the opportunity to reap more tax revenues via assorted CO2 tax schemes. The $Billions in taxpayer money shovelled out to some greedy "scientists" for "research" supporting Man's culpability in Catastrophic global warming, is merely an investment. They are hoping that this investment will reap $Trillions in future tax revenues.
Many scientists lack street-smarts when it comes to such scenarios.....their lives are spent in a lab or in front of a computer....they don't get out much....and are prone to believing that all of their colleagues are honest and ethical. Unfortunately, they are not.
Several reasons:
Those of us old enough to remember the ice age scare, are not so easily swayed by this climate scare.
For over twenty five years they have been selling this AGW climate scare. They push back the goalposts repeatedly, make predictions that don't happen, get caught fudging the data, and then go ahead and insult my intelligence when I doubt their word.
The science does not match the propaganda.
The evangelicals do not practice what they preach.
and,
Most people do not have time to learn this junk science.
Evolution is a process that takes tens of thousands of years to work.
And, it works by having the genetic lines of individuals not having the change die out.
In other words, 99% of people will have no surviving offspring.
However, the process doesn't involve evolution.
It really involves movement:
- Moving areas where farming is done.
- Moving where we live to new areas that have water, etc.
- Moving the places we live away from the ocean to higher ground.
- Finding different food to eat because we've depleted all the available fish stocks.
- Changing from a meat intensive, to a plant intensive diet.
As for why more people don't understand the science, it's work.
Way to many of 'em get their science from prejudiced / edited news sources.
Way to many of 'em worry more about the money in their wallet than
the world that they'll leave behind to their children and grandchildren.
It is such a heated topic in the media and in politics, but few people seem to look at the actual science (not just online articles). And I'm not pointing anyone out here on the forum, because I'd guess that people who answer climate questions here are doing some research :P
