Mae
Yes, it would be preferable to learn about the science for yourself. You can start by looking at these links. Global warming is happening
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010...
And we are causing it
http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-c...
The ten warmest years in the instrumental record are 2010, 2005, 2009, 2007, 2002, 1998, 2006, 2003, 2011 and 2012.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
You mean like deliberately ignoring data more than 15 years old, so that you can minimize the signal to noise ratio and say that the warming is not statistically signficant?
http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind...
Or using one isolated weather event
http://iceagenow.info/2013/01/record-col...
or one supposedly cold year
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2009/...
or a few growing glaciers
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/12-more-gla...
Or because of the fact that before we were driving SUVs, that carbon dioxide lagged temperature.
http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth
disprove global warming?
You need to challenge some of your assumptions.
Do we know what every disease is yet? What if your child has one that is unknown to medical science? What value will be the doctor's thoughts.
Can every disease be cured? The answer is no - so how could doctors help in that case.
Has anyone ever heard about a disease being mis-diagnosed by a doctor, or of a surgeon removing the wrong organ? It does happen.
There was a case many years ago about missionaries going into Africa and setting up a hospital. They out-performed the local witch doctors in most cases. But one disease had them guessing. Patients showed symptoms of fever, vomiting and diarrhoea. Eventually they died but not before exuding blood from several places. The locals kept coming to the hospital until they noticed that the medical staff were also falling to the disease. At that point they realised that the new medicine was not working so they stayed away in droves. They went back to their villages and barricaded themselves in.
The problem was they had ebola and mixing with lots of people in the hospital was just spreading the disease. Ebola was unknown to the hospital staff. The locals' natural reaction was to quarantine themselves and in that particular case they had a better solution than the doctors.
So ask yourself: Can and should climate change be prevented? Do climate scientists actually know enough about the workings of the climate yet to propose the correct course of treatment?
Not the best analogy of CC.
In that particular case I would be wanting to know my 'chances' of successful treatment by the 90 and how much life and what quality of life I can expect with treatment vs non treatment. Depending on the answers, I might well decide that go home and be merry is the better option. not because the 10 said no problem, but rather the difference between treatment and non treatment might not be such a clear cut thing. Six months of reasonable quality now vs 2yrs of pain and suffering followed by 3more of lying in a paralytic state on a machine and that is if the treatment works? mmmm What would you choose?
As I said not the best analogy.
For CC, do nothing ie business as usual burning ever more fossil fuels = a very high likelihood of a bad outcome and a very slim chance of getting away with it.
Curbing fossil fuel use on the other hand means avoiding the worst CC outcomes and no real pain in the process. We can have it all, abundant energy to do all we want and clean energy and energy security. With fringe benefits of a cleaner environment, less 'energy' wars and decentralized energy generation taking the 'power/control of energy away from mega corps and governments. There is no downside. The costs are trivial in the scheme of global economic capacity. It is disinformation creating a lack of political will and a lack of scientific literacy amongst the masses that is preventing the transition. With every year of delay the costs go up the transition becomes harder.
I'm not denying that the transition will be without pain and without its little problems but once the transition is achieved we [well our kids] will wonder what all the fuss was about.
There is more than enough renewable energy to satisfy even the most energy intensive cultures.
In principal, the analogy is good (Sir Paul Nurse used it too in his famous interview with James "I Don't Do Science" Delingpole; see below).
The analogy does need some twerking though: a more accurate analogy would be that 95 medical experts would all agree that a) there is something seriously wrong which needs urgent attention, and b) that based on their collective medical expertise and the current medical consensus regarding this particular disease, they propose Treatment X.
The 5 remaining self-labelled experts are horribly divided amongst them over what they object to: some deny there is a problem at all, others argue it is a 'natural cycle' one has to live with while a small minority of 'skeptical experts', while agreeing the patient is ill, argue that the proposed treatment is simply too expensive.
Of these 5 skeptical experts, just 2 actually studied Medical Science and of these 2 just one is active in that field, another one has some veterinary training and runs a blog critical of Big Pharma while the remaining two have no medical training or background whatsoever. In addition, 4 out of 5 skeptical expert have financial ties to companies and/or their lobby groups opposing Treatment X and, remarkably, some of them believe Treatment X is nothing more but a diabolical ploy by the UN's World Health Organization to install a World Government.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...
I go and research and find out for myself, and it happened to me, I had deep vein thrombosis, they recommended coumadin (rat poison) and a operation to put in a greenfield filter.
I went home did some research and took one aspirin a day plus mega doses of serrapeptase and nattokinase and after two months I was fine again.
If we are talking about climate change and our children, I worry about them, never mind the environment that will be fine, but we are screwing up energy policies and economic disaster and depression is sure to follow and perhaps violence too, as was with the Arab spring uprising.
Are you so willing to destroy your children's economic future to an outright lie?
Besides, the premise of your argument is wrong. The 97% of the world's scientists you see referred to is a big lie. It was only 75 out of a panel of 77 highly selected scientists. There are many more scientists who do not believe in AGW and have so stated. Just look up petitionproject.com and you will see over 31,000 scientists in the US that know that AGW is a lie.
Plus the fact that I have been 'taken' by too many doctors, to put complete confidence in their opinion.
Just because they are Doctors does not mean they have integrity.
I admit that the climate IS changing, BUT point out that it is ALWAYS CHANGING IN SOME WAY!
First it was global pollution and species extinctions, then global cooling, then global warming, AND more global pollution, NOW combined as "climate change" to cover ALL changes; and ALL in the last 50 or so years!
IF the alleged "scientists" can't make any better predictions than I have seen so far, just WHY should they be believed to be correct THIS time?
They can't even ACCURATELY predict the local OR global weather a week in advance in most cases!
AND, I note that you use a medical analogy; and would point out the less than 100 years ago, the "doctors" believed that: 1. tea was too dangerous to drink, and 2. too many baths were bad for your health, and 3. mental AND some physical illness was caused by "aethers" and/or cured through the use of "aether magnetics", leeches, special baths, etc.
Bad analogy all the way around.
Better one would be if you had no symptoms, maybe a mole popped up and a doctor tells you it is caused by the use of sunscreen. This mole isn't cancer he tells you but if you continue to use man made sunscreen you will have more moles and they are sure to be cancerous.
You tell your friends and they tell you your doctor is full of it, so you continue to use sunblock.
You go back six months later and you have another mole, not abnormal. The doctor isn't happy about the news that you are still using sunblock, informs you that your about to reach a tipping point, and continuous use of man made sunblock is going to result more moles or maybe less moles but more severe. You tell him that your family has a history of getting moles. He tells you just because they had moles doesn't mean your moles aren't being caused by sunblock and you're not a doctor, he warns you of the future again, .....
30 years later he has more doctors on his research team, government has invested billions on research, now there are alternative sunblocks that work, have to be applied every 10 minutes, cost twice as much, many companies have started making these alternatives and failed regardless of government support ....
You still get moles, still use sunblock, and ignore the threats of how your actions are a threat to the planet and your children's future.
What if the course of treatment is horrible and still won't save the patient? Give me a strategy that might actually make a difference and I'll consider it. BTW your example is not accurate since significantly more than 10% are saying that there isn't a disease at all.
Do the 90 experts you mention have access to unmanipulated, unfalsified data upon which they base their treatment?
I mean, it's a pretty risky strategy to take.
Say you have a disease. Before you is a panel of 100 medical experts and 90 of them point to a course of treatment that sounds horrible, but will hopefully save your life.
10 of them recommend you go home and do nothing and eat and drink whatever you want, carry on smoking etc, because they think the disease is nothing to worry about.
Obviously you want to believe the ten. But what do you actually do, and why?
Is that how you study science? You count opinions and then take the majority?
What if you perceive the science as a bunch of clowns who break every rule in the book with regards to statistical analysis, data sampling and computer modeling? What if you look at it that way?
I don't want these clowns affecting policy, especially since the reality of a cooling planet is falsifying the whole theory.
The 90 doctors say you will be dead in 1 week unless you spend $100,000 on the cure they recommend and from the company in which they all own shares. Unfortunately you can not afford the "cure" so you do nothing. 3 months pass and you are feeling fantastic. You go back to the doctors and they reexamine you. Instead of admitting they were wrong, they tell you that they were completely accurate in their diagnosis. They now say they have a 97% confidence level that you will be dead within 1 week unless you spend $200,000 on the cure they recommend from the company in which they all own shares.
nope., we deniers trying to save their future for them.
Spending 24 trillion dollars to affect one day in the future
is a waste . Its all about redistrubiting wealth .
Nobody can predict anything 50 to 100 tears in the future.
The varaibles and probabiltys infinite,
Yes.
If you would just why to think with your own mind ( if you have one?) you would see the globle warming is a big money grab at worst and at best a joke.
Just tell me how the CO2 atom can cause the temp of the world to incress?
Nice try, but not a viable analogy.
Most of these anti-science deniers of climate change are grumpy male geezers finally enjoying getting away with the juvenile delinquency they got in trouble with most of their lives, and getting revenge on all the people who showed up their arrogant feeblemindedness in the past, by lying now about scientists, and suffering no consequences on the world wide internut.
Anthropogenic climate change isn't going to kill anybody (at least not directly) and its most profound effects will kick in 50 to 100 years from now and last for centuries, so that their grandkids and the next 30 or 40 generations to follow will be considerably poorer, both materially and in terms of quality of life than they would otherwise be, but they themselves will suffer little.
So, to revise this to make the analogy fit better: if 90 of 100 doctors tell a bunch of science deniers of senior citizen age to not keep remodeling their family houses with asbestos paneling, because their grandkids living in those houses would likely suffer from serious medical problems later in life, they might be inclined to say that the 90 doctors are actually socialists who want them to move into public housing, and the fact that 9 of the other 10 have huge stock investments in asbestos companies is a healthist myth propagated by sellers of fire extinguishers and fire alarms. Especially if those asbestos deniers get most of their information from blogs that recycle propaganda from front groups for the asbestos industry, and if those deniers are told by their Congressional representatives (whose campaigns are also financed by asbestos manufacturers) that it is perfectly appropriate to be ignorant of what medical research shows on asbestos, because that research is nothing but a great hoax.
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.”
“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.”
“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/Stern_Revie...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/opinio...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergenera...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eaarth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_cha...
http://www.newsweek.com/2007/08/13/the-t...
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-mckib...
