Global warming - beyond debate?

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Slybacon

I guess this worth commenting as the topic of proof seems to come up a lot. Outside the realms of pure mathematics it is impossible to prove anything absolutely. What you have here is a scientific consensus - it's the collective judgement of a very large majority of scientists. In 2009 the University of Illinois did a survey of 3146 climate scientists (all of whom had published papers on climate science), and 97% of those agreed that human activity is a major contributory factor in global warming.

Of course I guess the conspiracy theorists will argue that this just some sort of global conspiracy where thousands of scientists have got together to fool the rest of us. This is so ludicrously unlikely that I do not see how any rational person could take it seriously.

Absolute proof is not relevant anyway - even if there was a 10% chance that the scientists were wrong, who would want to risk the future of the world on such a long shot?

"Don't try and change my mind with facts" - Tom Paxton

Absolutely agree, however I was at least attempting to come up for a criteria for falsifiability. The unfortunate fact is there is but one earth which makes controlled experiments of large scale phenomena rather difficult.

As such you are left with direct observation and falsifying climate models until you come up with one that vaguely works.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Slybacon

I guess this worth commenting as the topic of proof seems to come up a lot. Outside the realms of pure mathematics it is impossible to prove anything absolutely. What you have here is a scientific consensus - it's the collective judgement of a very large majority of scientists. In 2009 the University of Illinois did a survey of 3146 climate scientists (all of whom had published papers on climate science), and 97% of those agreed that human activity is a major contributory factor in global warming.

Of course I guess the conspiracy theorists will argue that this just some sort of global conspiracy where thousands of scientists have got together to fool the rest of us. This is so ludicrously unlikely that I do not see how any rational person could take it seriously.

Absolute proof is not relevant anyway - even if there was a 10% chance that the scientists were wrong, who would want to risk the future of the world on such a long shot?

"Don't try and change my mind with facts" - Tom Paxton

The opinion of many scientists, but opinion nevertheless.

The general consensus a few hundred years ago was that the Earth was flat and that the Sun revolved arounf the Earth.


Consensus based on two questions:

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels? About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question

Pre 1800 levels??? Now that leaves a very wide band. Compared to the last 250M years, it's never been so cold. There is no doubt that the Earth is warming. Hey even I agree with that. We're coming out of a mini-Ice Age

and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures? 82 percent scientists agreed

Well I'll just have to fight against that one. Call me Canute if you want, I don't see how they can be using any science fact to come up with that one. When there isn't any.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Reference

Looks a pretty close correlation to me.

That's not from the Uni of East Anglia is it? Imo as an uneducated undecided I'd say the whole thing needs looking at from a truely independent organisation, graphs and computer models can say anything you want depending on the data people put in.

Originally Posted by Earl of Bronze
And lets not forget the evidence that the current upward trend in temperatures, is causing the permafrost to retreat all across the northern hemisphere. As the permafrost retreats, more and more previously frozen dead plant matter gets the chance to rot and all the resultant methane (21 times more efficient a greenhouse gas than CO2) into the atmosphere.

Seem to remember reading somewhere that as quickly as the North Poles ice caps are shrinking the South Poles are growing, don't know if that makes a jot of difference to the bigger picture but it never seems to be reported on.

Originally Posted by Taf
Agriculture causes more greenhouse emmisions than any other source, and agriculture must increase output to cope with growing populations.

We're stuffed.

Unlikely although I did hear that cement production caused more Co2 than all the cars and planes put together

[downquark1]

The general consensus a few hundred years ago was that the Earth was flat

This is a myth, since the Greeks invented trigonometry is has been accepted by the learned that the earth was round.

The opinion of many scientists, but opinion nevertheless.

Temperatures are not opinions.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by downquark1

This is a myth, since the Greeks invented trigonometry is has been accepted by the learned that the earth was round.

Temperatures are not opinions.

Go Away,

Do some research,

Come back when you have something intelligent to add to the discussion.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Go Away,

Do some research,

Come back when you have something intelligent to add to the discussion.

And allow urban legends and relativism to continue unopposed... I think not.

[Damien]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Go Away,

Do some research,

Come back when you have something intelligent to add to the discussion.

It's true that the Flat Earth thing is a misconception. Long before Columbus it was mostly accepted and Scientists, or what would pass for scientists, were the keenest advocates due to their observations at sea and by looking into space.

[nomadking]

It is easy to see why people at one time thought that the Earth was flat. The obvious thought would be that things would fall upwards at the bottom of a round Earth.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by downquark1
This is a myth, since the Greeks invented trigonometry is has been accepted by the learned that the earth was round.

Temperatures are not opinions

Originally Posted by Damien

It's true that the Flat Earth thing is a misconception. Long before Columbus it was mostly accepted and Scientists, or what would pass for scientists, were the keenest advocates due to their observations at sea and by looking into space.

Yes I know, I watched that episode of QI too.

It was said to make a point.

I.E. that because "scientists" reach a consensus of "opinion" does not make them right. It just means they agree with each other. It can equally mean they are all wrong together or right together. It is not evidence of anything.

If you need me to provide anecdotal evidence of incorrect consensus, how about Geology?

The idea of tectonic plates, continental drift was not supported. pre 1960s the "consensus" was that continents were static, and the way flora and fauna had moved around in earths history was due to magical "land bridges"

And allow urban legends and relativism to continue unopposed... I think not

Climate change is one of the biggest examples of "relativism" there is, I'm glad you're on my side in combating it.

[RizzyKing]

Flat earth side debate being intersting and all the truth is i and most people i think are not convinced by global warming in the way it is being presented to us and most feel it is just another way to be fleeced while appearing to look good. Scientists are not altogether on global warming there are many little groups within the two opposing theories and squables amongst them. We need serious research that isn't biased to look at this for whatever period of time and not be afraid to be honest which i think many scientists are at the minute given how disagreeing with either side seems to get you more trouble then being honest is worth.

All the guilt tactics that are used by the global warming brigade and the bully boy tactics they happily employ against people that don't agree with them do not make me really want to take their word for anything and as i said i am always concerned when something becomes so big so quick. Panic has never struck me as a fantastic scientific trait to have when researching something and until it can be rationally dicussed with an acceptence of all sides of an argument i have little interst in it at the minute.

[Hugh]

But........

You appear to be confusing the findings of scientists (peer-reviewed) and the interpretation/spin on those findings by the media and politicians. The consensus amongst scientists is that man-made actions are accelerating Climate Change - the politicians, "green" pressure groups, and the media are the ones who are blame-storming and focussing/exaggerating certain points, and when this is pointed out, they blame the scientists.

Try asking the old question "Cui Bono" (who benefits) - the majority of scientists who have reached consensus on this (with continual review, which points out flaws and errors), or the minority of scientists and vox-populists, usually funded by industry and oil companies.

Surely scientists, if they were doing this just for research grants, would be better off working for the oil, chemical, etc industries, and producing papers which backed up their viewpoints that it was all a fallacy?

[Damien]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

All the guilt tactics that are used by the global warming brigade and the bully boy tactics they happily employ against people that don't agree with them do not make me really want to take their word for anything and as i said i am always concerned when something becomes so big so quick. Panic has never struck me as a fantastic scientific trait to have when researching something and until it can be rationally dicussed with an acceptence of all sides of an argument i have little interst in it at the minute.

It didn't become so big so fast. It took way over a decade of scientists lobbying and shouting before anyone took notice. The Scientific consensus and will on Global Warming existed long before governments took interest. Governments who dismissed their concerns time and time again because of the negative impact on industry.

It's important to remember that despite what the sceptics claim that this issue was raging long before governments used it to win votes and large funding existed.

Also Science is rightly not interested in discussion and acceptance of all sides of a issue unless those sides bring concrete theories and evidence/results/reasoning to the table. Science is not a democratic system in which all views must be heard and given equal merit. It's a process by which to find out about our world and discussions in that field must revolve around evidence based reasoning and not political dogma.

The worst thing that happened to this 'debate' was the politicisation of Global Warming. It meant that it became not about science but about politics and that meant it had to be championed or attacked depending on what end of the spectrum your on. So childish imbeciles start framing everything in that context and we get no where. Meanwhile the actual science had been going on the years which out this rubbish.

[downquark1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvMmPtEt8dc