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.

Kilkrazy wrote:Why would one group of people holding a belief stop another group of people from analysing data?

Because the people crying "The sky is falling" want to force their views down everyones throat.

If people start looking at how these people reached their apocalyptic conclusions it would be easier to ignore them.

Plus, it is easier to say "It's settled science" if you can manopulate your data and silence any one that doesn't agree with you.

I'm not picking a side here. I'm just saying through history people have attempted to control data. It happens daily. Knowledge is power baby.

Since there are three sets of the disputed climate data, one held by NASA it is right there for anyone who wants to analyse it.

Why don't people go and analyse it?

It's not because they would be put in prison.

Kilkrazy wrote:Since there are three sets of the disputed climate data, one held by NASA it is right there for anyone who wants to analyse it.

Why don't people go and analyse it?

It's not because they would be put in prison.

The TV has not told them to yet.

this is worth the watch...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2009/copenhagen/8386319.stm

Another good article on the problems with the Global Warming Believers.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/climate-science-gore-intelligent-technology-sutton.html

To many of us, their already were a lot of holes in their theories before it was discovered they were hiding/altering stuff.

That article doesn't really point out any holes in the reasoning behind global warming.

Its simply a vehicle for one man to explicate his lack of belief with respect to the warming hypothesis.

dogma wrote:That article doesn't really point out any holes in the reasoning behind global warming.

Its simply a vehicle for one man to explicate his lack of belief with respect to the warming hypothesis.

I agree that the article doesn't poke any holes in the current theories being passed around.

It was just an example of the human tendency to talk ourselves into doomsday scenarios.

The people that argued the world was going to end in an ice age believed just as much as these guys that believe the world is going to overheat. There were scientist with "proof" to support their theories and the politicians were all over it as well. I was pretty young then, but I remember how similiar it is to the doomsayers today. I think many of the people today are more extreme however, and treat their theories as a religion.

I understand though. I think there are many down through the ages who just gravitate towards doomsday scenarios. The other half just wants to control people, and the global warming scenario is just the latest vehicle.

I fully expect Global Cooling to be the next great threat to existence again.

I expect the same gnashing of teeth, the same massaging of the numbers and hysterics and attempt to suppress reasoned debate. People just never learn.

I think its a bit disingenuous to characterize the climate change crowd as one which is defined by hysterics. There's a lot of overly dramatic nonsense that gets thrown around, but that's not really the meat of the issue.

Sensible climatologists will tell you that the world is getting warmer with respect to our (modern) understanding of the heat index. This will clearly impact the way we go about our lives, but that impact may not be sufficient to warrant crisis reasoning. Now, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything, but it does mean that we shouldn't jump the shark.

Unfortunately, the political nature of the debate forces the conversation into sensationalism. Its a fairly solid illustration of the inherent problem of Democracy: everyone's opinion counts, but most opinions are uninformed.

You are absolutely correct that everyone that believes in climate change is not hysterical.

I apologize if the impression I gave was that everyone was like that.

I was simply talking about those that believe it as a religion and try to dismiss/suppress anyone that raises doubts.

I know there are plenty of reasonable people who believe in manmade global warming and are concerned about the effects, while at the same time realizing that they don't have all the answers and aren't afraid of debate/competing theories.

Like the people who compared not believing in the theory to not believing in the holocaust...

Dorns Fist wrote:I agree that the article doesn't poke any holes in the current theories being passed around.

It was just an example of the human tendency to talk ourselves into doomsday scenarios.

So what do you think of the Stern Review which gave no doomsday scenario, but gave a plain economic argument; the cost of preventing global warming is much cheaper than the cost of adjusting to or correcting global warming in a few decades time.

The people that argued the world was going to end in an ice age believed just as much as these guys that believe the world is going to overheat. There were scientist with "proof" to support their theories and the politicians were all over it as well.

In the early 70s climatology was a young science and it developed several different and competing models. Over time, as we've increased our data and given more review to each theory we've built better models with greater predictive power. That is how science works. It is ridiculous to reject scienfitic models because earlier models are no longer valid - it would be like dismissing Relativity because people used to think Newtonian physics was the complete explanation.

The author of the article is also rather confused over the idea of global warming. Like a lot of folk who rely on little more than third hand knowledge based on what a guy in the 'lunchroom told me' and 'what I think a word should mean', he's fallen in with the idea that global warming will mean a uniform heating of the whole of the planet- therefore any cooling anywhere is evidence against global warming. Climate change actually predicts an overall increase in global temperature, leading to many different effects at the local level, including more extreme cold weather in some locations.

The author also adds in a heavy dose of 'scientists just say whatever they have to get their grant money'... ignoring the vast amounts of funding given by industry to support . If any scientist was motivated by a paycheque, he'd happily take the big money offered by private interests, where he'll getting paid big bucks for producing industry friendly conclusions.

There's no alternative but to reject the article as poppycock.

southern ireland is under water at the moment. Proof is in the inundated corkonians

sebster wrote:

There's no alternative but to reject the article as poppycock.

Unfortunately that is the attitude many take when anyone takes a view contrary to the dommsday scenario--"There is no alternative.."

I am also not saying there is no possible way the latest Doomsday Scenarios can be right. I'm just saying it is obvious to many that it certainly isn't settled, and there is no reason to force people to dramatically change their lives just because someone says so.

Dorns Fist wrote:Unfortunately that is the attitude many take when anyone takes a view contrary to the dommsday scenario--"There is no alternative.."

You need to read more closely. I gave multiple reasons to dismiss that particular article (none of which you appear to disagree with) and the said there was no alternative but to dismiss that article. You've tried to contort that into a position on climate change in general. In fact, there are many alternate approaches to climate change, all with their own strengths and weaknesses... but when it comes to poorly considered articles there is no alternative but to dismiss them out of hand. There's too much good writing out there to waste time on crap.

You've also continued complaining about the doomsday scenario people when I gave you an example of a non-doomsday scenario that argued for carbon emissions control. It is dishonest of you to ignore that point while continuing to try and make doomsdayers representative of the whole of the field.

I am also not saying there is no possible way the latest Doomsday Scenarios can be right. I'm just saying it is obvious to many that it certainly isn't settled, and there is no reason to force people to dramatically change their lives just because someone says so.

There's a clever trick people frequently adopt when faced with defending, ignore and supress the facts of the case as much as possible while talking about the issue in the terms of some vague principal. When McDonalds talks about how healthy its food is, it spends as much time as possible talking about the individual's right to choose, while at the same time trying to make sure the consumer has as little information about their free choice as is possible.

A similar trick is now being attempted with climate change, ignore or talk down the science as much as possible, and talk vaguely about people 'dramatically changing their lives'.

Sorry, I thought I had made it clear.

I have a problem with zealots who try surpressing every opinion but those that agree with them and try using their beliefs to control others.

I have no problem with those reasonable scientists that aren't trying to avoid any discussion on the subject and aren't trying to force people to live according to their dictates. It really doesn't matter what they believe or what their profession is. I think everyone should be free to state their opinions I understand their are extremists on all sides, and they tend to get all the attention (and $$$). Reasonable people can look at the pertinent facts and make decisions based on facts/likely possibilities. That is why I was focusing on the Doomsday guys--they try using fear and urgency to stifle debate and rush their agenda. You are correct--It is a trick, but I don't really think it's that clever.

As for the "There's No alternative" method, I was just saying I have seen it way too much--especially on this topic. I've seen a lot of "How long are we going to debate this?" which is just another way to do the same thing. Of course there are people who just want to rush on and make sure those blinders don't fall off.

There is zealotry on both sides.

A lot of anti-climate change articles amount to the following:

1. 30 years ago climate scientists were worried about a new ice age.
2. Of course they say there is warming, they would say that, wouldn't they?
3. Oh look! It's snowing!

We have been debating climate change since the early 90s. The science, like any body of work, is potentially incorrect or capable of revisions when new data and mechanisms are discovered. However, the vast weight of knowledgeable opinion holds the view that climate change is happening.

The question to be settled is what we ought to do about it.

Kilkrazy wrote:The question to be settled is what we ought to do about it.

And some would add: "What caused it, nature or man?"

There's a difference?

Who knows? I sure as hell don't. So I defer to my esteemed colleague, Dr. Giggles. I think he could answer your questions on this matter.

JEB_Stuart wrote:Who knows? I sure as hell don't. So I defer to my esteemed colleague, Dr. Giggles. I think he could answer your questions on this matter.

Just please be careful...

I think the good Dr. has been taing too many meds...

Dorns Fist wrote:I think the good Dr. has been taking too many meds...

Slanderous lies! I think you had better be careful! After all, Brent Tyler and Chelsea Tumbleston said the same thing...and look where that got them....

Dorns Fist wrote:Sorry, I thought I had made it clear.

I have a problem with zealots who try surpressing every opinion but those that agree with them and try using their beliefs to control others.

Yeah, but there's a much bigger issue at stake here than the presence of a fringe of annoying people.

I have no problem with those reasonable scientists that aren't trying to avoid any discussion on the subject and aren't trying to force people to live according to their dictates. It really doesn't matter what they believe or what their profession is. I think everyone should be free to state their opinions I understand their are extremists on all sides, and they tend to get all the attention (and $$$).

Sure, everyone has a right to their own opinion, but does that make every opinion equal? Shouldn't a more educated, more considered opinion be given greater weighting than a random bloke who thinks climate change means everywhere is going to get hotter?

Reasonable people can look at the pertinent facts and make decisions based on facts/likely possibilities. That is why I was focusing on the Doomsday guys--they try using fear and urgency to stifle debate and rush their agenda. You are correct--It is a trick, but I don't really think it's that clever.

No, those guys are really using a trick, they're self-righteous, annoying and frequently wrong, but they're rarely disingenuous. Most of the really deceiptful stuff (like the ten year temperature range that just happens to start with the hottest year in history or the tracking of temperature by sunspots that just happens to stop in the 90s when the greenhouse effect starts to drives yearly temperature increases more than sunspots) comes from the deniers.

In this case, though, the trick I was referring to was you talking a lot about everyone making up their own mind, but then talking around the actual science that would be needed to form a considered opinion.

As for the "There's No alternative" method, I was just saying I have seen it way too much--especially on this topic. I've seen a lot of "How long are we going to debate this?" which is just another way to do the same thing. Of course there are people who just want to rush on and make sure those blinders don't fall off.

Well, that's the thing, how long are we going to debate this? The people arguing against climate change haven't ever formed a theory of their own to be tested, they've just kept saying we need to wait until the science is in. What's the point where the science is in? What's the line in the sand where you'll say 'if a study can be shown proving this thing, then I will accept climate change'?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The question to be settled is what we ought to do about it.

And some would add: "What caused it, nature or man?"

Thing is, the original predictions for warming were based on the consequences of man releasing carbon into the atmosphere. This was debated, with many arguing that it would have no effect or a negligible effect. Once the warming occurred as per those models (actually, it's happened faster than had been predicted by most models) the deniers have changed the goalposts to 'okay, its hotter but we don't know if man is doing it'.

sebster wrote:Thing is, the original predictions for warming were based on the consequences of man releasing carbon into the atmosphere. This was debated, with many arguing that it would have no effect or a negligible effect. Once the warming occurred as per those models (actually, it's happened faster than had been predicted by most models) the deniers have changed the goalposts to 'okay, its hotter but we don't know if man is doing it'.

So what? I don't have a problem admitting I am wrong, in fact I strive for humility everyday. But that doesn't mean that I, or anyone for that matter, shouldn't stop asking critical questions. Is it frustrating for people? Hell yes! Is it worthwhile? Absolutely. I maintain a philosophy regarding things like global warming: It will be very hard to convince me, but once I am I will be a passionate supporter, and will be fiercely loyal. I guess you could say that I am pertinacious, but not blindly stubborn.

JEB_Stuart wrote:So what? I don't have a problem admitting I am wrong, in fact I strive for humility everyday. But that doesn't mean that I, or anyone for that matter, shouldn't stop asking critical questions. Is it frustrating for people? Hell yes! Is it worthwhile? Absolutely. I maintain a philosophy regarding things like global warming: It will be very hard to convince me, but once I am I will be a passionate supporter, and will be fiercely loyal. I guess you could say that I am pertinacious, but not blindly stubborn.

I'm not saying it's wrong to ask questions, it's absolutely the right thing for everyone to be doing. I wish I knew enough about the subject to ask decent questions, myself, instead of having to follow the larger debate somewhat passively.

It's just that... I think you can learn a lot by looking at the history of a discussion. In this case it was claimed 'we think A is going to happen, and it is going to be caused by Z' and the other side replied 'A isn't going to happen'. Then A did happen, and I'm now quite unimpressed with people who said A was never going to happen suddenly forming a new argument, 'sure A happened, but we don't know if Z caused it'.

sebster wrote:It's just that... I think you can learn a lot by looking at the history of a discussion. In this case it was claimed 'we think A is going to happen, and it is going to be caused by Z' and the other side replied 'A isn't going to happen'. Then A did happen, and I'm now quite unimpressed with people who said A was never going to happen suddenly forming a new argument, 'sure A happened, but we don't know if Z caused it'.

That is the unfortunate aspect of a debate like this though. Both sides say things with absolute certainty, and don't leave any possibility for error. So when one is proven wrong, guess what they have gak on their face, and make anyone who might agree with them look idiotic.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The question to be settled is what we ought to do about it.

And some would add: "What caused it, nature or man?"

I don't think that is relevant except to evaluate if changes in human behaviour might be helpful in limiting the effects.

There are two aspects to climate change, one is coping with the bad effects and the other is ameliorating change in order to prevent them

What I mean is, Bangladesh will be submerged by rising sea level whether it is caused by sun spots or coal-fired power plants. So Bangladesh needs a sea wall or something.

Obviously we can't change sun spot activity however if coal-fired power is a significant causal factor then reduction in its use might be helpful in reducing the amount of climate change.

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't think that is relevant except to evaluate if changes in human behaviour might be helpful in limiting the effects.

What I mean is, Bangladesh will be submerged by rising sea level whether it is caused by sun spots or coal-fired power plants. So Bangladesh needs a sea wall or something.

Obviously we can't change sun spot activity however if coal-fired power is a significant causal factor then reduction in its use might be helpful in reducing the amount of climate change.

And that was really the spirit behind my post, sorry if I wasn't clear.

As many of you know, I am a skeptic of man-made global warming. One of the biggest reasons is the actions of the supposed leaders of the movement. I mean for example, Al Gore was called out about living in his massive mansion, with a huge energy bill, flying around the country in private jets etc. I don't really see that as putting your money where your mouth is personally. Some tried to wave those criticisms away with nonsense like, "Oh, well he buys carbon credits, so its ok." If he were a true believer, and it really was going to be the end of the world as he declares, then wouldn't he be pouring every dime he has into buying carbon credits, living in a modest home with ample renewable energy sources, and delivering his lectures via things like a webcam or teleconference? That is just my take on it.

On another note, I do love the irony that was so adeptly pointed out by the Telegraph. All of these carbon emitting forms of transportation...at the climate change summit in Denmark! I can tell we are really concerned and doing our par

I thought Al Gore did put money into a carbon credit company, or maybe it was a green energy company (can't recall the details,) and his reward was to be criticised for conspiracy and insider trading.

But all politicians have their supporters and enemies, so it is to be expected.

The Danes provided a lot of bicycles for the delegates but everyone is driving around in big cars.

Kilkrazy wrote:I thought Al Gore did put money into a carbon credit company, or maybe it was a green energy company (can't recall the details,) and his reward was to be criticised for conspiracy and insider trading.

He was criticized for putting money into a carbon credit company so he could maintain a lifestyle far and above the common person. That is what irked many people. It doesn't look good when you preach fire and brimstone and you don't change anything in your life, other then throwing a couple thousand more dollars a year into planting trees. Do you see what I am getting at? Most of my friends, who like me come from Blue Collar families, don't trust him and other advocates for reasons like that. Many of my friends are a bit more radical and see it as an attempt to further the goal of a complete plutocracy, ie the rich can afford to break the rules concerning climate change, but we peons can't. I am not sold on the idea, but trust me, among the American Blue Collar workers it is gaining popularity.