Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The White House science advisor John Holdren wants to use the term Global Climate Disruption rather than Global Warming.

What do you think?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/16/white-house-global-warming-global-climate-disruption/

republicans will still prefer their pseudo-scientific fantasies either way...

I thought we already switched to climate change?

Make up your minds darnit! My head hurts

I mean... The climate is changing, right? Do people still deny that?

yup they do indeed

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:yup they do indeed

I hear the arguments as to why it's happening, but I thought that the matter of Climate Change was pretty much settled.

Oh well.

I think the majority of people don't deny that the climate is changing (not including loony wing nuts) but where people disagree is whether it is natural or man caused.

My personal opinion is that the climate is changing and though it may have originally just been the natural rhythmms of the planet, the industrial revolution and the following growth of the use in fossil fuels has accelerated climate change. The problem is that it has been over politicized and hijacked by people who use it to further their own agendas. This is people on both sides.

However, those who advocate just ignoring it I have a low opinion of. Maybe we aren't the underlying cause of climate change, but that doesn't mean that it's not happening. Whatever the truth is, we certainly aren't helping.

It is a real concern and should be taken care of. On the other hand it isn't a catastrophe/apocalypse/doom scenario as some people would like to have us believe. At least not yet.

It's really just been hijacked by politics and distorted beyond recognition.

Have heard a lot of grumblings on other forums from punters denying that there is any change.

Some sections of the scientific community are doubtful, at least of the causation and the effects of greenhouse gasses. But there are occassional claims that there is no warming.

Sorry can't recall sources
cue petrol heads saying their driving won't make any difference.
Or buying plastic from the other side of the world come to that. Mia Culpa

amazing... how when climate scientists say
its changing

and republican radio hosts say
no it isnt

how many people prefer to believe the radio host. I mean whats their qualification anyway? What university did they go to? What experiments have they performed? What data have they collected? What research station have they ever visited? People are dumb. honestly.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:amazing... how when climate scientists say
its changing

One could say the scientist has ulterior motive in making a big deal out of nothing. After all, he needs more $$$ for his research It's not really that far fetched for me to believe a scientist would fudge numbers to get the result they wanted out of their research, especially when using computer models to generate those results.

That aside though, the radio host is probably wrong

LordofHats wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:amazing... how when climate scientists say
its changing

One could say the scientist has ulterior motive in making a big deal out of nothing. After all, he needs more $$$ for his research It's not really that far fetched for me to believe a scientist would fudge numbers to get the result they wanted out of their research, especially when using computer models to generate those results.

That aside though, the radio host is probably wrong

This is what i mean. The issue has been hijacked by politics and now no one knows who is right. Senator X pays Scientist Y to say Z so he can get his legislation passed. THE PROBLEM IS FETHING POLITICS.

LordofHats wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:amazing... how when climate scientists say
its changing

One could say the scientist has ulterior motive in making a big deal out of nothing. After all, he needs more $$$ for his research It's not really that far fetched for me to believe a scientist would fudge numbers to get the result they wanted out of their research, especially when using computer models to generate those results.

That aside though, the radio host is probably wrong

the work of scientists is subject to review by other professionals.
the work of talk show hosts is subject to review only by.... ditto heads.
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:
rubiks
the scientists agree. its pretty clear. the problem is politics yes, but the politicians arent influencing the scientific debate. the scientific debate has been over for a while now. what limbaugh and guys like him say isnt that the science is unclear - they say scientists cant be trusted.

well... my question to them would be.... errr.... if you dont trust climate scientists to tell you whether climate change is real or not.... who do you trust? the all knowing rush? these guys are a joke that's all. just a joke.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:the work of scientists is subject to review by other professionals.

I'm no expert but my understanding is that the work of one climate change scientist would stand to review from other climate change scientists. Of course, they'd never help each other out, being in the same field with the same goals and all trying to get funding for research.

Of course they're probably right, but the idea of a group of individuals with like minded goals and ideas helping each other out is always likely, even when you'd think they'd be in competition for limited funding, not that it stays limited provided they continue to tout the horrors and dangers of global warming and their need for more research.

But then that's a conspiracy theory and I only read about those for laughs, but the idea that scientists exaggerate climate change to further their own goals isn't that far fetched in my mind. Different people in different fields, even those unrelated to science, have done it before.

the scientists agree. its pretty clear. the problem is politics yes, but the politicians arent influencing the scientific debate. the scientific debate has been over for a while now. what limbaugh and guys like him say isnt that the science is unclear - they say scientists cant be trusted.

It ended because one group of scientists decided they were right and pushed dissenters out of the community regardless of whether their criticisms had any merit.

Scientists can be bought, just like anyone else. The thing you need to look at with a lot of these "studies" is where the money is coming from to fund them.

A study funded by Exxon/Mobil is probably going to have different findings than one funded by, say, the EPA.

Lord
yeah at the end of the day I guess its possible that they're in conspiracy with each other. It just doesnt seem all that likely. So I agree w you there.

Well dissenters always get marginilzed to some extent. Its possible that the dissenters are right, but you've got to defer to the expert consensus when you dont have knowledge yourself. thats the position we're in. Graham Hancock is a dissenter in the historical/archeological community, for instance, because he thinks the pyramids were built by space men. Gavin Menzis (sp?) is too, because he thinks the chinese discovered the Americas in 1421. Its possible that both of them are right and that the core group is wrong, but..... you know.... really..... I wouldnt bet on it. Thats how I feel abotu climate change too.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Lord
yeah at the end of the day I guess its possible that they're in conspiracy with each other. It just doesnt seem all that likely. So I agree w you there.

I don't really think they're wrong. I do think they grandly exaggerate how serious the problem is and make claims from a state of ignorance because they want them to be true regardless of whether or not they can be proven true, but this is a criticism I hold of modern science in general especially in fields where a lot of assuming goes on.

Are we really arguing what it is called? at the end of the day we should just call it " is happening to the enviroment shut up and do something"

That would be too sensible and straight forward Garret

First you have to have a moritorium, meetings to arrange the moritorium, discussions prior to meetings to arrange ...
and so on and so forth ad infinitum till it's too cowin' late!

The climate is changing? Yeah is does that. It be weird if it didn't change. It's not new, it always changes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
http://www.youaskandy.com/questions-answers/30-article-series-1970/12544-was-the-sahara-really-once-a-jungle.html

I think environmentalists are right we should protect the earth when we can. But not out of some idea that we really effect the earth or the climate. I just don't think we need to be sloppy pigs with everything.

Russia caught on fire this year.......Southern California has had the coldest summer in recorded history. ......yit happens!
It be good if we can predict and plan for change....I just don't think we can really ever control it.

Aren't we technically coming to the end of a "mini" Ice Age at the moment anyway?

Not to say that I don't believe humans are to blame at least in part.
Although I find it amusing that every now and then you hear stories about how cows, or camels farting in the outback are producing too many greenhouse gasses =/

I always wonder if maybe getting warmer isn't necessarily bad. I mean, who's to say that we were at an optimal temperature?

Which isn't to say that I think we should pollute all that we want, just a musing I have from time to time. I'm all about conservation. /flameshield

AbaddonFidelis wrote:amazing... how when climate scientists say
its changing

and republican radio hosts say
no it isnt

how many people prefer to believe the radio host. I mean whats their qualification anyway? What university did they go to? What experiments have they performed? What data have they collected? What research station have they ever visited? People are dumb. honestly.

There's a real problem when there are congressional hearings on the topic and one side brings in climatologists who work the topic to testify and the other side brings in... Michael Crichton. And somehow the media has to show "both sides of the story" and not point out how idiotic one side actually is.

Or when politicians (Sen. Inhofe, I'm looking right at you), during the local snowstorms here in the DC area this year, point to all the snow and claim that "proves" global warming (climate change, whatever) is a hoax. Oddly enough, one of them has mentioned that the record heat in the area this summer could "prove" the opposite.

Or when pundits can claim, without fear of being called out for their hypocrisy, that climate researchers are motivated "by money" because if they can't make a case for climate change then their funding will dry up. But at the same time are willing to hawk "studies" disproving/questioning anthropogenic climate change that are done by places like the Heartland Institute which receive their funding directly from the oil and coal industries.

And, of course, when serious climatologists are careful to couch all their findings -correctly- with the usual caveats of the scientific enterprise. While pundits are completely free to claim whatever they want. Repeat after me, "A theory is not a guess... A theory is a hypothesis which stood up to repeated testing against all the available data."

Charlie Pierce wrote a great book covering what's wrong with the American discourse on science titled, "Idiot America". The title's a bit misleading, but his insights are pretty good.

We've managed to find ourselves in a situation were people have been lead to distrust "elitist experts" on topics and the media feels compelled to show "both sides" of a story even when one side is complete and utter cr@p. The anti-climate change lobby will dismiss climatologists because they are "so called" experts, but I'd dare ONE of them say they'd rather fly in a plane piloted by a science fiction author rather than by an "elite" pilot because they distrust "elite experts". Or have their life threatening surgery performed by someone with "the common sense of 'real America'" rather than an "elite" doctor who happens to be an expert in the field. It's really close to being insane...

One shouldn't believe someone just because they're an "expert" but equally it's probably not a good idea to dismiss someone who *is* an expert without good cause. And when the vast majority of experts claim something's probably true, you'd better have a VERY good cause.

It's amazing that we've found ourselves with such a lack of ability to understand complex scientific issues... And in a word that's heavily driven by complex scientific issues, it's gonna bit is in the rear sooner or later.

The Tragedy of the Commons is a well documented problem. Unfortunately, the scope of our impact on the globe has reached the point that "the commons", basically, at this point equals the entire planet.

Valete,

JohnS

It's amazing that we've found ourselves with such a lack of ability to understand complex scientific issues... And in a word that's heavily driven by complex scientific issues, it's gonna bit is in the rear sooner or later.

We're talking about a country in which a majority of its citizens still don't believe in evolution. What part of this failure to understand is surprising?

LordofHats wrote:One could say the scientist has ulterior motive in making a big deal out of nothing. After all, he needs more $$$ for his research

If the scientist was simply chasing funding he could take one of the many lucrative 'research' projects funded by the oil industry. Yet instead he takes the much lower and much less reliable pay on offer from government research.

It's not really that far fetched for me to believe a scientist would fudge numbers to get the result they wanted out of their research, especially when using computer models to generate those results.

His work is subject to peer review. If his data cannot be replicated by other studies it will be dismissed. That's how science works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:Russia caught on fire this year.......Southern California has had the coldest summer in recorded history. ......yit happens!
It be good if we can predict and plan for change....I just don't think we can really ever control it.

Weather and individual elements points of climate across the planet are diverse and largely unpredictable. This does not mean we cannot identify long term global patterns.

These patterns, in turn, are themselves complex, the result of multiple cyclical events. This complexity does not mean we are incapable of identifying these patterns and noting when climate change is outside these patterns. We have done this, and now 97% of climatologists active in the field recognise global warming is real, and is caused by man.

The only issue is the range of possible extent of the change, and what we can do about it.

Monster Rain wrote:I always wonder if maybe getting warmer isn't necessarily bad. I mean, who's to say that we were at an optimal temperature?

Which isn't to say that I think we should pollute all that we want, just a musing I have from time to time. I'm all about conservation. /flameshield

Who's to say... Never mind that literally trillions of dollars of infrastructure have been built on the basis of our current baseline of temperatures and weather patterns. Never mind that vast swaths of applied human knowledge about agricultural practices are based on our current baseline of temperatures and weather patterns. Never mind that, based on some of the best estimates on the historical and current rates of the extinction of species, we are likely in the midst of a die-off as bad as any of the other great extinction events in the Earth's history.

There's no such thing as an "optimal" temperature. Life evolves. Climate change skeptics are, at least correct in pointing out that the climate does change over time. No one denies that. The problem is if you force a change in the baseline too fast you are likely to cause massive disruption across the entire system and to think that we, as the alpha animals on the planet, will somehow not be impacted by that is amazing hubris. There's absolutely no doubt that we are currently in the midst of a massive, and uncontrolled, experiment in what happens to a dynamically stable biosphere (one which, to the best of our knowledge, seems to have quite a few more potential feedback loops which favor increasing temperatures than those which potentially favor decreasing temperatures) when you dramatically change the composition of one of the key systems which moderate temperatures.

There are other factors which drive the climate. There's absolutely no doubt about that either. That's the beauty of a dynamically stable system like the climate. You can push quite a bit and the system may well adjust and regain it's stability. You may also, however, knock it into a new stable state. That's happened in the past as well. The human and capital costs (never mind the biodiversity costs) that would be imposed by mankind's being forced to adapt to a new stable state would make any previous disaster in human history look like nothing. And it'll happen in slow-motion (by our standards) so the deniers and skeptics will be able to continue to point out, "it's just the weather...".

Hey, and for the record, for at least the next century or so, the Russians, Canadians, and Greenlanders probably have a lot to gain from raising the global temperature a few degrees... Pity about all the other folks who'll be hammered by it.

Oh, and one of the key data trends to watch is the global average temperature of the oceans, even more so than the atmosphere. If the oceans are starting to significantly warm, then we have real problems no matter what the cause. The oceans are a far (by orders of magnitude) large heat sink than the atmosphere. Good data on global ocean temperatures is really just starting to come in, there's still quite a bit of controversy over the data, and there's not -yet- the cross-field breadth of temperature proxies as have been found in the atmospheric sciences. But the early data does not look good at all from what I've seen.

Guess with that, I'd better it shut down for the night...

Valete,

JohnS

LordofHats wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Lord
yeah at the end of the day I guess its possible that they're in conspiracy with each other. It just doesnt seem all that likely. So I agree w you there.

I don't really think they're wrong. I do think they grandly exaggerate how serious the problem is and make claims from a state of ignorance because they want them to be true regardless of whether or not they can be proven true, but this is a criticism I hold of modern science in general especially in fields where a lot of assuming goes on.

well scientists are what we've got. my question to anyone who doesnt believe what they're saying is
"ok. then who do you believe?"

I can think of a couple potential replacements.
radio talk show nutjobs.
corporate spokesmen.
astrologers.
spirits.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:The climate is changing? Yeah is does that. It be weird if it didn't change. It's not new, it always changes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
http://www.youaskandy.com/questions-answers/30-article-series-1970/12544-was-the-sahara-really-once-a-jungle.html

I think environmentalists are right we should protect the earth when we can. But not out of some idea that we really effect the earth or the climate. I just don't think we need to be sloppy pigs with everything.

Russia caught on fire this year.......Southern California has had the coldest summer in recorded history. ......yit happens!
It be good if we can predict and plan for change....I just don't think we can really ever control it.

there's something like 7 billion people on the planet. its got to be having an effect.
right now humans are *the* ecological fact on the planet. second to the sun.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Lord
yeah at the end of the day I guess its possible that they're in conspiracy with each other. It just doesnt seem all that likely. So I agree w you there.

I don't really think they're wrong. I do think they grandly exaggerate how serious the problem is and make claims from a state of ignorance because they want them to be true regardless of whether or not they can be proven true, but this is a criticism I hold of modern science in general especially in fields where a lot of assuming goes on.

well scientists are what we've got. my question to anyone who doesnt believe what they're saying is
"ok. then who do you believe?"

The other scientists?

AbaddonFidelis wrote:my question to anyone who doesnt believe what they're saying is
"ok. then who do you believe?"

Who says they have to believe anyone?

Who knows. Maybe all the people on both sides are wrong and it's really the Eldar trying to wipe us out before the Imperium rises to glorious power!

cygnus
agree 100%

LordofHats wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:my question to anyone who doesnt believe what they're saying is
"ok. then who do you believe?"

Who says they have to believe anyone?

Who knows. Maybe all the people on both sides are wrong and it's really the Eldar trying to wipe us out before the Imperium rises to glorious power!

Be silent, my kin!

The mon-keigh must not be made aware of their doom!