James Randi now sympathizes with climate change deniers:
I strongly suspect that The Petition Project may be valid. I base this on my admittedly rudimentary knowledge of the facts about planet Earth. This ball of hot rock and salt water spins on its axis and rotates about the Sun with the expected regularity, though we’re aware that lunar tides, solar wind, galactic space dust and geomagnetic storms have cooled the planet by about one centigrade degree in the past 150 years. The myriad of influences that act upon Earth are so many and so variable — though not capricious — that I believe we simply cannot formulate an equation into which we enter variables and come up with an answer. A living planet will continually belch, vibrate, fracture, and crumble a bit, and thus defeat an accurate equation. Please note that this my amateur opinion, based on probably insufficient data.
It appears that the Earth is warming, and has continued to warm since the last Ice Age, which ended some 10,000 to 20,000 years ago. But that has not been an even warming. Years of warming followed by years of cooling have left us just a bit warmer than before. This conclusion has been arrived at from data collected at some 1,200+ weather stations in the USA, though bear in mind that there are very few weather stations over the vast oceans that cover 70% of our planet, or on the continents Africa, South America, and especially Antarctica.
At least he’s self-aware enough to realize that he has come to this conclusion on the basis of his personal ignorance. He has two main reasons otherwise to disagree with the idea of anthropogenic global warming. [...]
Climate scientists have collected a huge amount of data, and the confounding fact that none of them would ever deny is that it’s variable, messy, noisy stuff, with loads of daily/monthly/yearly variation, and it has to be analyzed to find long term trends. The consensus was not reached because somebody had a magic formula that predicts a result. It was reached because a body of observation has shown long term change is going on. They are aware of possible causes, and they know that phenomena like volcanic eruptions and cyclic changes in solar activity effect climate…and our situation is not sufficiently explained by those kinds of natural events. One consistent change is a rise in CO2 levels, and we know that we are digging up huge reservoirs of sequestered carbon and dumping it into the atmosphere.The other source of his skepticism is one that Randi should have been more skeptical about: the Petition Project. This is a project by the denialists to gather enough signatures to show a strong pattern of dissent in the scientific community (Sound familiar? The Discovery Institute has done exactly the same thing with their “Dissent from Darwin” list). They’ve got over 30,000 signatures so far! However, as with the Discovery Institute’s list, only a tiny proportion of the signatories are actually qualified, and their procedure for gathering signatures is incredibly sloppy and prone to accumulate fake names. This is what you’d expect: they don’t want quality control, for the propaganda purposes of this list, all you need is quantity.
Has anyone here changed their mind recently about climate change, like James Randi has?
Please note that this my amateur opinion, based on probably insufficient data.
It certainly is.
This conclusion has been arrived at from data collected at some 1,200+ weather stations in the USA
The world consists of a damned sight more than the USA.
I’m dissapointed in James Randi. His whole ethos is about tangible evidence and proof, and here he has admitted that he doesn’t know what the tangible evidence or proof of anthropogenic global warming is, and then proceeded to speak as a sceptic anyway. That’s a bit like me saying I’ve never looked up on a Summer’s day so I’m skeptical that the sky is blue. It’s bullcrap and he should know better.
I cannot speak to James Randi. Personally, I am not familiar with the evidence for humanity’s agnecy in climate change, and I am not sure I would really understand it if I saw it. Even still, I can see the effects of pollution everywhere.
Reputable scientists everywhere seem to agree that certain human behaviors are at least partly responsible for global climate change. Who am I to question this? If I understood the science and I could demonstrate that this multitude of scientists were wrong, then I would feel free to offer any objections I have. Otherwise, I should keep my mouth shut about it.
Even were I to dis-believe what the scientists say, does this mean that poring noxious chemicals into the water, or pumping it into the atmospehere is a good thing? I do not understand how anyone can defend this with a clear conscious.
Even were I to dis-believe what the scientists say, does this mean that poring noxious chemicals into the water, or pumping it into the atmospehere is a good thing? I do not understand how anyone can defend this with a clear conscious.
Tim: That is a question that I have been asking myself, because it is an argument that I want to build up: Shouldn’t some form of Pascal’s Wager apply, with more justification I might add, to considerations of anthropogenic climate change?
The one counter-argument I have been able to build up runs along these lines: It is not a zero-sum game; you cannot, for instance, cap CO2 emissions across the board indiscriminately without, in effect, telling developing countries: “OK, you were late, so you get to stop developing now.” I am aware that that is a naive argument—if half of it is developing countries not wanting to stop developing, the other half is companies in already-developed countries not wanting to cut into their profit margins or their reasons of existence.
But I would love some thoughts and pointers into how to develop both sides of that argument. To be perfectly clear on this, I am on the “there is climate change and we should do something about it or it will become really unpleasant really fast” side of the line. But effective discussions require being able to understand the other side’s point of view as completely as possible.
This is disappointing. Primarily because it gives credence to those whose science has been looked at and discounted. The value of consensus is science why I believe that evolution is a fact. I’m never gonna understand all the science’s minutia but I’m gonna side with the widely accepted scientific consensus. If the theory falls apart (as theories have before), then eventually that consensus follows. That’s how science has worked, and worked brilliantly, for all these years.
If you want to know who the experts are in a field, ask those in the field. The vast majority of the most respected scientists in the field of climatology feel very, VERY strongly that global warming is occurring at a faster rate than normal fluctuations would suggest.
Who am I, who is Randi, to think they know more?
I have a lot of respect for what Randi has done, and even donate to his organization, but this is the same fallacious approach that the gets us “creation science.”
Changed my opinion? I haven’t really formed one yet.
I’ll add this: The entire concept of Freakonomics is to interpret world events using economic thought and methodology. This works fine on things like prostitution (i saw an excellent piece about this by the author that changed my position on it), which are fundamentally human. But to turn it on climate change, which is essentially physics, and anthropogenic climate change, which is based not on human behaviour but on physical evidence.
Economics is fundamentally a social science, and it should not attempt to breach it’s borders. The only insight economics can offer to climate change is discounting the cost of todays actions into the future, in order to aid us in understanding what we have to do now in order to maintain intergenerational equity with our descendants. It cannot offer any insight into whether or not agw happens.
I have always thought we should reduce our impact on the planet, but after reading Superfreakanomics about the work of Intellectual Ventures in Seattle, the correct course of action seems pretty unclear.
People I trust tell me that the section of Superfreakonomics on climate is extremely sloppy
Debunking bullshit MMGW sceptic arguments 101:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8376286.stm
Thanks Reginald and Custador. The Superfreakanomics section on environmental change did not sit comfortably with me, and your links proved useful. My field is high energy particle physics, where things are pretty simple really. All the fluid mechanics and biology makes environmental impact an intractable problem for me, so any help is appreciated. Still, it is a field with which I doubt I shall ever feel completely comfortable about the correct course of action.
“My field is high energy particle physics, where things are pretty simple really”
That was without irony?
Not at all. Particle physics is a lovely, reasonably closed, controlled system. The environment is not.
That was without irony?
When you understand that “simple” and “easy” are not the same.
Consider golf: The basic concept of hitting the ball with the stick until it goes in the hole is very simple.
There is a pretty good idea that applies to the Superfreak stuff called the precautionary principle. Don’t build a huge solar shade that will have difficult to predict results in order to correct the problem of doing something you can just stop doing the thing causing the problem. We know pretty well what GHGs do to the environment. We don’t really know what a geo-engineering project would do in combination with increased GHGs. Therefore, stop putting GHGs into the atmosphere.
That approach may have been sufficient twenty years ago, but it is probably too late for that now. At some point in the next century we will have to reverse the effects of GW, not just mitigate them, and that means carbon sequestration. This doesn’t have to come from far fetched global technological marvels–it could come from something as simple as growing new trees or using carbon-negative fuel sources like algae biodiesel.
I haven’t put in the time to understand the issues myself, I willingly accept the scientific consensus. I put my time into battling Creationists instead.
I wonder if the attendees at the Copenhagen Climate Conference ever heard of Telecommuting? What kind or carbon imprint is being left by all the chartered jets, private limousines, and large rooms at five star hotels.
I doubt Al Gore took a sailboat to Copenhagen.
During World War 2 there was a scene of shared sacrifice among the wealthy and powerful. Today the wealthy and powerful still live lives of over consumption, while expecting the poor and middle class to produce less carbon.
Until the powerful take it seriously , I won’t either.
The correct attitude in a democracy is to say: Unless the powerful take it seriously, I will work to remove their power and give it to somebody who does.
Wait, wait, wait. So you think people shouldn’t take something seriously unless people with power take it seriously? How many decades or centuries did Catholic priests abuse children while those in power turned their eyes? Must we wait for them to do something before we care?
The first pope was Peter and he created his position in the year 30.
I assume the catholic church has been in denial for roughly 1980 years, or to answer your question; 198 decades and 19.8 centuries.
Mark D is a bit negative in his outlook, and I disagree with him, but we do need leaders that lead by example. “Actions speak louder than words” or so they say.
This seems a pretty wonky way of looking at it.
On one hand you imply that it’s a disgrace that people in power aren’t taking it seriously and acting accordingly. On the other, you’re stubbonly refusing to do anything yourself because they won’t. It’s very easy to point the finger, and I agree people in power or the public eye should set an example (and they clearly have funds available to do this more comfortably than most), but I think it’s lazy to take this attitude of “not until they do”.
This is a bit confusing to me. Why is there a heated argument over global warming anyhow?
Scientist:”By polluting our oceans, air, and fresh water supplies; we are endangering the lives of thousands of animal species. We are also creating a world that is not sustainable given our current levels of energy and food production combined with our current levels of energy and food consumption.”
MoronDude:”…and…”
Scientist:”and…it is also causes global warming.”
MoronDude:”Ha, the earth isn’t getting warmer. It was -12 outside yesterday. We should change nothing!”
I think the world is missing the big picture hear. Weather we are or are not increasing the temperature of the earth is irrelevant. If we somehow master the weather and every place on earth is sunny and breeze with a high/low of 85/75 every day; it will be insignificant if we have nothing to eat or drink and everything on earth has died.
Global Warming is a byproduct of our careless behavior. No one questions if our behavior is careless, they only question if one of the side effects is as accurately portrayed as some make it out to be. Its annoying because we can’t see the forest for the trees.
Somehow the childish Democrat vs. Republican retardedness has reached the world stage and we are killing ourselves while arguing over insignificants. The future of mankind is slightly larger than the line drawn down the middle of the US house of representatives.
Please leave the science to the scientists and keep the politics out of it.
Agreed my friend. The argument is pretty simple too. Here is a good video showing why this debate on whether there is or is not global warming is pointless.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE6Kdo1AQmY
Great video :-)
I like the idea behind it, but I think he oversimplified the economic consequences. Take, for example, the food crisis that is occurring in other countries as we use food for fuel. All of a sudden, you add “starvation” or “death and destruction of third world countries” to the list, which is far more devastating than having to cut cable. Also, we don’t know the long-term results of any action we take. What if it makes the climate too COLD? It all starts to look the same.
Just playing devil’s advocate here. If someone can set me straight on how I’m wrong, I would appreciate it! :)
>Weather we are or are not increasing the temperature of the earth is irrelevant.
i c wat u did thar
Why is there a heated argument over global warming anyhow?
$$$$$$$
I don’t know if we are causing global warming or not. I suspect we are, but I don’t have the time to dig into it.
But here is what I do know.
The skies are less clear than they used to be. All the major cities are shrouded in a gray cloud. Even if we are not causing the planet to warm, it is still a good idea to stop burning stuff and find cleaner ways to produce power. Even if that gray cloud causes no health issues and it causes no warming. Get rid of it for aesthetic reasons.
The constant “no you’re wrong we are not causing warming” has the feel of the tobacco industry telling us that smoking did not cause cancer. It seems to be the coal and oil industry telling us that it is great and fun to burn stuff and it is safe too. I just don’t trust that. Even if they knew it was harmful, they would still be selling it to us, just like the tobacco industry. Because that is how they make their living. They are never going to come out and say “oh, you caught us. Yeah we are causing global warming. Sorry.”
…and then on top of that there’s also the issue of peak oil etc. You can deny human-caused climate change all you want, but you can’t get around the fact we’re using fossil fuels at a rate far faster than they’re being produced. People can quibble about exactly when the supply will peak/has peaked, but no matter how you look at it, fossil fuels are unsustainable. They do not renew themselves at a rate greater than or equal to the rate of consumption. And if we don’t work towards having a more sustainable mix of energy sources before the shit hits the fan, future generations are gunna be screwed.
(by “you” I mean “one”)
“we’re using fossil fuels at a rate far faster than they’re being produced.”
To be strictly accurate, they’re not being produced at all. There are fossil fuels in the ground as a result of past biological deaths and geological upheavals. There might be again, but not without another lot of deaths and upheaval. What we have is finite, and most of it is inaccesible.
I didn’t know that, thanks!
How do creationists think that the oil got there?
Goddidit
so if we kill anyone who ever bought a hummer and bury them under some shale, that might help solve the problem caused by all the people who bought hummers?
not that I’m advocating that…
Part of the problem is this is science making a prediction about future events. There are so many known factors that can change the climate that it would make predicting what will happen pretty difficult.
However what is known about CO2′s ability to retain heat in the atmosphere is very well understood. So when billions and billions of tons of CO2 are introduce into the atmosphere it doesn’t take a fortune teller to figure out the climate is going to be effected. Just how is open to some debate.
If there were no outside interests in this field of study then it would be able to continue unmolested. Scientists could say this is what we know, this is what we don’t know, and this is what we think may happen. However since there are outside non scientific interests that have a vested interest in seeing a this field of study produce an out come that would benefit them then you begin to see a lot of interference. This somewhat like the outside interference that evolution science gets but there are some distinct differences that are obvious which I won’t go into here.
A spin is put out against global warming trying to debunk it. since this is political in nature it draws criticisms in support of global warming from equally non scientific sources. This displaces the natural objectivity the scientific method needs to be able to work. They need to be able to say “we don’t know for sure but it seems highly possible that things could get really bad.” But they can’t because if they appear unsure of something then the opposition will attack them as being “wishy washy”. So a defense is mounted instead of just being completely objective. Granted a lot of this happens in the public eye and not in the scientific community but it can have a direct effect on what action is taken to addresses the problem.
While I can appreciate non scientists interest and support of Global Warming I have to ask if some of them aren’t just doing it for there own benefit. For example there are people giving lectures on global warming based off of information presented in the film “An Inconvenient Truth”. Apparently this material is copyrighted for some reason. I really don’t understand why that was done.
Also there are several companies that are exploiting the “Going Green” movement for there own benefit. Which only supports the nay sayers that are denying global warming.
Note: I am not a climate scientist. I realize that my argument is very simple and that the issue is more complicated but I’m just throwing out some of my observations and opinions, and didn’t want to write a Russian novel on the subject.
I tend to hold somewhat to Randi’s view, and I note that his view is full of qualifiers and admitted lack of expertise on the subject. However, he is not an unintelligent fellow, and appears to be a reasonably good judge of bias. I’m a fan of Myers too for generally the same reasons.
There is too much “we’re right/you’re wrong” going on in this arena. While I don’t doubt that CO2 traps infrared radiation from a pure physical chemistry perspective, it is also clear that, as Randi notes, that so much is going on a global/cosmic scale that it is notoriously difficult to tease out exactly, definitively, what is going on vis-a-vis climate change.
Should we reduce CO2 emissions? Sure – it would be nice to have alternative energy be viable regardless of who is “right” and who is “wrong” for a lot of reasons, some political and economic, others not. It probably helps in the grand scheme. But to demonize the moderates and skeptics in climate change for being moderate and skeptical, however, undercuts the position of everyone who tries to uphold logical argument and reason as their guides. We don’t like religious fundies, right?
^^ This.
I don’t think it’s the same. It’s not a case of “each to their own” like religion.
If I choose to live my life in “sin”, how does it actually affect a fundie? If a fundie never sees me and my lifestyle, they are not affected by my chosen lifestyle. The fundies are trying to take away other people’s freedoms because in their opinion it is “wrong”, not because of any actual physical effects.
However, wrt climate change the actions of each person actually affects everybody else. If I make every effort to cut my carbon footprint but the rest of the world carries on unchanged, I will be just as affected by climate change as everyone else. It is a global issue. And people will continue to push others to change their lifestyles accordingly to try to prevent a physical global catastrophe.
(The other major difference is evidence. There is no evidence for God, there is a lot of evidence for climate change.)
I sort of get what Trey was saying. Going through the motion or appearance of “going green” can feel somewhat like prayer or… you know, ineffectual ritual. Especially when it is marketed at us in ways that actions we do take happen to be ineffectual or counter-effective. Companies want to make money and some people don’t analyze the effects of their decisions or make exceptions for a lot of things.
I happened to get into reusable bags, I tried some brand and was very unhappy with them and sent them back. I am happy with the Whole Foods bags, and see supermarket reusables are very common in the city, but we haven’t outlawed plastic bags yet. When your (WF) bag breaks, you can exchange it for a new one, and they’ll recycle that, but I didn’t find that out until I was checking out and noticed that the handle was almost shot and the cashier told me. Maybe it is written in small print on the tag when you purchase it (it is only $1.00), but I think, does everyone realize this? Where is it posted so everyone knows what to do with their bags once they are totalled? I use the hell out of those bags for months, for more than just groceries. They do eventually break so they last many times one plastic bag and I guess people just throw them out. I hardly ever shop at Whole Foods – some people may think shopping there is greener; is it? I bought them because they are easier to carry, stronger, and hold more, and I was overcome by plastic bags in my personal environment = my apartment. They are awesome if you have to take the bus and subway everywhere. I take public transportation because it is more practical than having a car in the city, but not practical for people who live outside of cities. I recently opted for paperless banking because of the incentive plan at my bank, and I have a paper problem equivalent to my old plastic bag problem. I do all these things as they are convenient enough and offer a personal benefit.
I am saying this is what I do, and see that this does not what everyone is willing to do. Cars crowd my block and all the streets and parking garages. I wonder what these people do if they’re not using reusable bags or taking the train? Reusable coffee mugs instead of paper or styrofoam? I think some people are doing far more than I am willing or ready to do, things I think are proactive and not just cosmetic. I think a lot of household items meant to be used for a long time become litter rather more quickly than intended, and on the other extreme, I have seen such crazy things as a bell jar collection of bread tags (I suppose to keep them out of the landfill?) Crazy posters and home furnishings that are meant to enlighten, but consume resources in the process, “statements” to boost awareness or shrillness, but which contribute to waste in the end. People haven’t stopped buying things, like sneakers and bottled water and DVDs, not to mention an issue bigger than the environment – the changeover to digital TV, causing so many people to dispose of a working television due to its becoming broken by incompatible technology, more and more technology. What happens to all those plastics? The bottles can be recycled. People still indulge themselves in plastic technology which is heaped on the landfill rather than repaired – things go obsolete or are overtaken by superior technology – people want the latest, not the one that still works fine. People still buy junk like toys that break and go in the garbage in 6 months. A lot of magazines have gone under, but people who love magazines just can’t get used to consuming this medium digitally and indulge themselves. People cannot seem to reduce or eliminate their dependence on a ritual of eating cows or wearing leather, or dismiss the methane because vegetarians are annoying.
http://www.earthsave.org/globalwarming.htm
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/CowFartUnits_Schedule_UN.gif
So if I’m just one person, and I hypothetically do everything I can, but to me, it looks like nobody else is really thinking hard about their choices, and only making a few comfortable and convenient changes, well, I kind of think this is somewhat futile. People like my father who actively work against “going green” (because it’s annoying “hype”), or the load of end-timers who just don’t believe we’re not supposed to consume as much as possible, it seems to me, going through any motions is somewhat the same thing as praying – useless. No one’s there, nothing changes unless it changes. I’ll also be dead someday and won’t care what happens, won’t be able to care – I have to admit, I think about it from that perspective a lot. Some of this is definitely out of my hands, no matter how much I think I’m working for a particular cause.
I think people will be mining landfills for a long time in the future. They’re so rich in resources it’d be stupid not to.
As for cows producing methane, in New Zealand that’s a major part of our emissions, so our biologists are working on lots of different plans to reduce that. We may have a cure for farting in twenty years!
send them to the moon – it’s atmosphere needs methane to make it inhabitable!
Stupid cows just jump over the freakin’ moon, or have you missed reading all about it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hey_Diddle_Diddle
We need a big net – like the one that catches the football behind the goal post.
Yeah, I do get what people are saying about the going through the motions, and the money grabbing. I totally agree that chucking money at the people selling us ways to “be green” without consideration isn’t wise. But, there is always going to be someone trying to make money out of everything, so I don’t think people should distrust the overall message on that basis.
On an individual level, it’s more often doing things that will save you money but require effort that lower carbon emissions (walking instead of driving where possible, lowering enery required for heating via insulation, reusing bottles, jars, bags).
Re: shopping bags
Have you tried cloth bags?
I have 3 shopping bag sized cloth bags that live in my backpack or handbag or coat pockets. None of them has broken yet in 3 years. And they fold up super small and don’t rustle annoyingly like plastic.
I don’t mind the annoying rustle of the plastic. I like the whole foods bags because they stand up by themselves, and I can carry them over the shoulder – I imagine the cloth bag would too, but I haven’t seen any that stand up on the bottom. I bought another store’s bag and it ripped open the second time I used it = unreusable, eh? I tried it again another time, and they have a piece on the bottom to make it stand up. No matter what I put in, it falls over without the piece, so then it won’t fold up small enough to fit in my purse. I was unhappy with the commercial product I purchased originally, as they also didn’t stand up, and didn’t really fit over the shoulder as advertised, and really needed to be packed full or else looked a mess (I’m not confident they can carry the weight, and they cost serious money and you can’t turn them in if they tear) – these are intended to look fashionable so people who won’t be seen with a tacky cheap bag would pay money and go green at the same time, and fall out of the habit because the bags kind of suck.
I’m pretty set with the system whole foods has going, as long as I know now I can turn in the bags. I did like it better when they had bags with “retro” food designs instead of “I’m made from plastic bottles” or Sheryl Crow’s design “I love my home, Planet Earth.” I like low-key graphics, not “messages,” I guess I feel those messages are goading people to hop on the bandwagon with guilt. They feel kind of religious to me! I think the reusables make sense no matter what design people prefer, but I’m the kind of person who wears plain t-shirts with no logos or clever sayings for people to read on me. For a dollar, I can’t be that picky, they are strong and last through a lot of abuse. I might like cloth bags if they wouldn’t flop over, recommendation?
Hmm, dunno.
I’ve never been bothered by the floppiness of cloth bags. For packing I tend to sling an empty bag over my shoulder, hold it open with one hand and drop stuff into it.
Agreed about the annoying logos, they seem super smug. One of my bags says “I am not a plastic bag” on it, but luckily the lettering is so stupid that it’s pretty much unreadable.
My cloth bags have a stiff plastic bottom which can be folded up if you need to make them flat, but keeps them spread out and standing up when you need it. Seems to be standard in reuseable shopping bags (which are all cloth) here in New Zealand.
Fair enough, especially with your point on climate change being a global issue. I’m just saying that there is a debate over the evidence (good faith or non-good faith to be determined), and “evidence” can be used to push an agenda and generate hysteria (like religion) if we’re not careful.
It seems that there is solid evidence that mankind has caused a substantial increase in CO2 levels, and that there is has been a moderate increase in average global temperature over the past century. There is also good reason to believe that these two are linked.
Then we have computer models that say how much warming we should expect from a given increase in CO2. THIS is the step with which I have a problem. A computer program is, in essence, a very complex mathematical formula. Each computer model is written and accessible by a small handful of individuals, and, as far as I know, never even released to the wider community of climate scientists!
Then we have horrible blunders like the loss or deletion of raw data. This should never happen. The loss of raw data from weather stations means the original result can never be tested for reproducibility. Climate change is a much too important issue to let the current sloppiness in peer review and in data preservation continue unchallenged.
Actually it does not matter if global warming is human caused or not. But with 7 billion people the chance of having a human cause is very very probable. It is not only the burning fuels, it is also the lack of converting CO2 to O2 by destroying the forests that balances. So we are in control to have some effect, even if it is to decrease the pollution in our cities.
The danger is that politicians misuse the global warming to suck us dry with more obscure taxes that pretends to be for the global environment but in reality is used for making the rich more rich and maybe for war even if it destroys Earth. If a government wants additional taxes then this taxes MUST go to the environment. So we need some international control organisation that control this.
Just came in:
“AIRS measurements of water vapor reveal that water greatly amplifies warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide. Comparisons of AIRS data with models and re-analyses are in excellent agreement. ”
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2009-196&cid=kintera_release_2009-196&msource=19609&tr=y&auid=5719285
The thing is that all scientists that signed that anti warming petition will discover themselves to be the stupidest mistake they ever did in there science career and will unlikely ever recover from that ever. They might have been in disagreement with the global warming, but signing that petition is shooting yourself in the food. The thing they should have done is staying away from this kind of manipulation like a petition.
While it is true that raw data is lost it is untrue that it can’t be verified. There is much testing of core taken from various sites around the earth that does tell a much more accurate picture. Just as we can tell the age of a tree by its rings how dry or wet the year was for each ring and which minerals were available are greater tests than just when it was planted. The type of tree tells us about the region and climate.
Geological strata gives us the same stories as the trees.
Then there is the very simple observation which also gives us a clue as to who to believe.
This whole issue reminds me of the problems with the “safe” medicines, lead, arsenic, asbestos and lately the effects of smoking. All of which have had the fight with the companies that they were not good for our health.
I confess, I just don’t understand it. Growing up fundie, this is an issue we pretty much ignored. So as an adult, when I tried to give it a second look, I found a bunch of statistics and scare tactics reminiscent of the autism debate. Then you find that some of the solutions may be worse than the actual problem in terms of human lives lost. (It’s been awhile since I’ve read up on this, and I can’t remember the exact substance it was that they banned, but whatever it was drove the cost of refrigeration up so that people in third world countries could no longer afford to refrigerate their food, causing illness and death due to spoilage. There were some other examples, but I can’t remember.)
I think that the pro-global warming side is often so determined to prove themselves right that they tend to so thoroughly castigate those of us who genuinely want our questions answered we sit in silence, just wondering how x proves y or whether or not a method was valid. I tried asking a group of people once when I first became an atheist in the exact same manner I am doing here, and I was so ranted at that I felt about 2 inches high and never asked another question again. I did get one thing answered through all of it though, but all I remember is how stupid I felt for having questions so I don’t even remember what it is!
As someone who is new to the whole debate, I can tell you that there is a lot of bad information on both sides. Al Gore, the hottest summer of all was the year your movie came out, really? Spouting things like that that are easily refutable when summers start to cool that it tends to destroy credibility. And the science behind it seems so tricky and based on statistics that may or may not mean anything in the long run, that to a non-climatologist, it seems almost impossible to navigate rationally. I refuse to believe something just because everyone else believes it, but I also refuse to be the equivalent of a Creationist denying what science says around me. So I guess right now, I am just confused and all I can find online are “YES, global warming is happening” and “NO global warming is not happening” sites that don’t really answer the questions people have unless those questions are in favor of their position.
However, I can find other reasons to do everything green that they tell us we can do, so when it comes to my actual behavior, I am on board. (Ie, recycle to reduce waste in landfills; drive to conserve gas that won’t always be there, etc.)
oops, that last sentence should read “drive less.”
I agree with Laura. I neither understand the science, nor do I want to follow blindly. I am uncertain what other factors might cause GW, to just be led around by hysteria… what seems like hysteria. Maybe I just don’t think the world will end, maybe I just think someone will figure it out. I do my part, but I also feel like that isn’t making a dent. I have heard my father say dumb things like he wants to make twice as much trash or, you know, negate someone else’s efforts to go green. He’s a very weird guy, he’s normally a very nice person, but some of his attitudes are just spiteful and nonsense. I can’t imagine he’s the only one. So you can see when I think I’m just one person, he’s just two people! A lot of “going green” seems to be a superficial thing and a marketing tactic that people buy into, thinking they are making their piece of the effort but are really just spending money. I’m a lot more aware of things that are being sold to me than I am about understanding scientific issues. If this is still up for debate, study, and more research, I don’t know which side “sounds” more right, but I guess I err on the side where the fate of the earth is somewhat my responsibility.
People in this issue tend to get a lot of concern trolls JAQing off all over their forums, so you’re probably better off doing your own research. Wiki’s always a good place to start.
The earth has gotten warmer before, but what makes this warming unique is that the heat will get trapped in by all the greenhouse gasses humans have released, so we can’t cool down again.
As for the CFCs, Laura, it doesn’t seem like much to you, but if the ban hadn’t happened I, as a New Zealander living close enough to Antarctica that the Hole still swings up this way sometimes, wouldn’t be able to go outside right now without getting cancer. I’d question how many people in the third world depended on refrigeration for their survival, considering that they’ve been without it for most of history and all the staple foods don’t require refrigeration. So yeah, lives would have been lost if the ban hadn’t happened. Australia and New Zealand already have insanely high rates of skin cancer. Whether lives were lost because of the ban I can’t say.
Totally – As I recall it the “CFCs are the only way and every other way costs a bomb!” thing was a campaign funded by the one chemical company that was licensed to produce CFCs.
Now think: CFCs were invented in, what, the 1930s? So in the space of 50 to 60 years, humans adding a relatively small amount of an exotic chemical to the atmosphere by disposing of fridges and spray-cans actually partially stripped a layer of the atmosphere – and MMGW deniers are actually so dense that they use the argument that we can’t possibly be effecting the atmostphere when we add more than 30 billion tonnes of CO2 a year to it!
Ah, I see. Thanks for clearing that up. I was a kid when it was a huge issue, so I don’t remember much about it.
Not changed – I’ve been a skeptic on the GW front for some time.
Not that it’s happening – the data on that is conclusive. But I consider the hypothesis that this has been caused by human actions, and specifically by carbon emissions, to be unproven at this point.
Humanity, after all, did not cause the “Little Ice Age” – this was caused by the “Maunder Minimum”, a change in energy output of the Sun. And the Sun IS doing strange things now, things we don’t understand.
I believe this is a situation that requires greater study and debate. Precipitous action in an unknown environment possesses an extremely high probability of the Law of Unintended Consequences coming to the fore.
as I said above, the difference isn’t that we’re warming, because the climate fluctuates a lot. It’s that human action has put greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere so we can’t cool down again.
No, that doesn’t track. We’ve had different temperature levels on earth AND different atmospheric mixes – sometimes together, sometimes not. And anyway, that’s NOT the information being disseminated by the Global Warming Enthusiast side – their position is that the increase in greenhouse gasses is trapping more heat, thus CAUSING GW. Direct causality. THAT is where my skepticism kicks in.
why? what is so unbelievable about the idea that we might have triggered this?
remember, they’re not just talking about what we’ve already done, but what we’re projected to do in the future, as populations and demands increase.
It’s not the least bit unbelievable. And it may well be correct.
But at this point it’s only a good hypothesis for observed phenomena that are complex, difficult to study directly (we’re mostly seeing secondary or tertiary effects so far) and which have several aspects that we are very far from having a good understanding of. They have made several predictions based on this hypothesis, but then they’ve gone ahead and decided to act on those predictions – this is putting the cart before the horse.
Further, if GW has taken decades to reach this point, it will also take decades to reverse or even ameliorate. Let’s make darn sure we understand the science WELL before we take actions we may very well come to regret.
what about these actions could we regret? a more sustainable economy is a good idea even if GW turns out not to be such a big deal. We may as well go for it now, while we’ve got a political will and stuff still around to protect.
Maybe we can police the third world industrializing nations to make sure they can’t industrialize…
(I only say this because the developed world would basically have to do that. If that isn’t hubris, I don’t know what is.)
Oh, how about instituting carbon taxes that wreck the economy? Or energy generation choices that are less than optimal? Or, as JonJon points out, damaging the economies of developing nations? All possible, and none easily corrected if we’re wrong.
or how about taking this as an opportunity to make use of political will to convert to sustainable technologies? How about taking this opportunity to industrialise the developing nations in ways that are more efficient than those used by the developed nations, rather than just letting them make the same mistakes we did? Or how about creating a new market for the rights to carbon generation, which would provide another path of investment and the free flow of capital?
How about them? I’m all for sustainable tech. I’m all for more efficient industrialization. I’m all for new markets. I’m all for world politics that are this simple. But they aren’t, and wishing won’t make them so. Will you at least acknowledge that there are some serious potential problems with action on the scale you’re suggesting? It is absolutely fine with me if you think those risks are worth taking. But I don’t, at least not until I know slightly more than “global warming is happening, and it looks like we did it.”
what would make it seem like these risks are worth taking?
PZ posted something I think hits the nail on the head:
So what exactly were your objections again?
Either truth matters or it doesn’t. In my view, policy should be driven by evidential truth, and not what side benefits may or may not accrue if one pursues the policy regardless of the truth.
huh. Why do we engage in policies? Because we have evidence that they’ll do good, right?
Well, this argument is that if we pursue these policies we’ll have made a better world. And if we pursue these policies and the reason they were initially suggested turns out to be true, we’ll have made a better world AND saved the species from extinction. So you people who are objecting to these policies don’t have anything to stand on.
It’s an argument (a truthful argument!) for passing these policies whether you believe the (quite convincing) evidence that GW is occurring or not. No matter where you stand on that issue, these policies are still relevant.
To give you another example, if there wasn’t a speed limit, someone might suggest one because kids are racing on the roads. Other people might doubt racing is that much of a problem, but then someone points out that a lot of people speed to save time and that this also causes accidents, so a speed limit works whether or not there’s a problem with kids racing on the roads.
Wazza, your argument sounds like one I hear a lot from christians, that its better to believe and it be wrong than to die an atheist and find out there is a god afterall. Both sides of this discussion are less like skeptics and more like true believers.
except that the Christians don’t have any evidence that their doubleplusgood and doubleplusungood outcomes will ever happen, whereas if we don’t do anything, even if global warming does turn out to be a misinterpretation of the facts everything still goes to shit. CO2 doesn’t have to be the cause of warming to be bad… look at things like ocean acidification. I’m not taking anything on faith or hedging my bets just in case. No matter what happens with the debate about global warming (and indications are that AGW is really happening), cutting CO2 emissions is still something we have to do.
Analogy FAIL.
“And the Sun IS doing strange things now, things we don’t understand.”
Right now the Sun is the most dormant it’s been since we started recording; if it wasn’t for MMGW we’d be in a period of significant cooling.
Yes. And it shouldn’t be. The activity cycles aren’t doing what we expect, and we have no idea why.
Fine, but we’re not talking about solar cycles, we’re talking about MMGW. Let cosmologists worry about what the Sun’s doing, let climate scientists worry about its effects on Earth’s climate.
WHICH SOLAR CYCLES COULD BE AFFECTING. That’s exactly the kind of dismissive attitude that makes people like me question the hypothesis.
Yes, once again: Solar cycles DO effect the climate. I’ve already said that (twice, I think). The point is, though: CURRENT WARMING IS NOT CAUSED BY THE SUN – because the sun is in a fairly dormant part of its cycle. Sidetracking the problem to look at something we know isn’t causing it would be silly.
That is disappointing. However, we atheists, skeptics, and other non-believers should not expect that we will all always agree on everything. Having no dogma, no centralized authority that dispenses a “party line” for us all to follow, we have to work each question out on our own.
Personally, I find the most reasonable position on global warming to be that of Bjorn Lomborg [ http://www.lomborg.com/ ], whose stance is basically that, yes, climate change is real, but that we should not overreact to it. It’s not the end of the world, and there are far more pressing problems that we should be spending our time on.
I apply my skepticism to everything equally, and to AGW as much as to anything else. One of the reasons I find it all very suspicious is that everyone who offers a solution, is telling me it will cost me money. Either in the form of “carbon taxes,” other types of Pigovian taxes, or “cap and trade” — which while it’s not a tax per se, is intended to pad the cost of creating and selling energy, raising prices artificially, so that in the end it’s no different than being taxed.
This should make us all suspicious. Consider if we were talking about something else … let’s say, chimneys. Someone shows up at your door and tells you your chimney is about to catch fire insise; then he tells you if you pay him, he’ll clean it. You say, “But my chimney isn’t going to catch fire! I have an oil furnace!” He says it’s accumulated creosote inside, you just can’t see it, but trust him — it’s going to burn — better pay up quick before it’s too late.
This example is not spun out of fantasy, it’s one that crops up now and again, with people really promising to service chimneys that they swear are a danger to homeowners. As with the global warming, this scenario also is based on a very real risk: the fact that many chimneys do accumulate creosote. They just don’t accumulate that much creosote if you have an oil- or gas-burning furnace, and if you burn wood, you probably already know the danger and are dealing with it.
If you would question such a person (and you should), then you know why I find it all very funky.
I’m not saying that AGW isn’t possible. I’m saying anyone who says it’s happening, but simultaneously has his handout looking for my money, isn’t credible, and it will be a cold day in you-know-where before I give him any of my money just because he says I need to hand it over.
It really is just that simple. And yes, I do consider it the equivalent of the chimney-cleaning swindle.
actually, at a government level the solution to everything involves money. That’s basically the only true power they have: to take and give money (that and beating people up and locking them in small rooms. Which would you prefer they use here?)
The point of cap-and-trade is to let the free market decide where the emissions we do allow should happen. The trade is a secondary system; what matters is the cap, which is a straight-out ban on more emissions than the treaty says should be happening.
Of course, the solution to your chimneysweep dilemma is to open it up yourself and look for creosote buildup, and you can do the same thing with GW by taking a look at the evidence yourself.
It isn’t my job to find a different solution than the expenditure of money. That’s up to the AGW champions. So long as they’re demanding more of my money, they have ZERO credibility. Quite simply, they cannot be believed … so long as they profit from their claims.
If they want credibility it’s up to THEM to get it, by finding some alternative solution than the expenditure of my money.
The chimney parallel fails in this case because you can always inspect your own chimney. In the case of AGW, we have only “experts” to tell us what the story is. So long as we only have the word of the “experts,” it remains solely a matter of credibility.
And no one has credibility, who demands my money. No one. Doesn’t happen. I’m not stupid enough to fall for it.
must… not… feed… troll…
Let me get this straight, so we’re clear on this. You want me just to hand over lots of money, but get no discernible benefit in return for it?
Moreover, you think I’m a “troll”? The blog post posed a question, specifically asking for people’s opinions. I answered it, and offered mine. How is that “troll” behavior?
if I reply to you we’ll end up arguing at cross-purposes. You’ve already said you don’t see any benefit in avoiding the extinction of the species, you’ve already said you’re not going to look at any of the evidence yourself, and you’ve already expressed the opinion that anyone who asks for your money to solve a common problem has no credibility. Maybe you haven’t realised that that statement applies to road repair funds as much as to carbon tax, and is far more applicable to health-care funding than to cap-and-trade systems (where the costs are due to market machinations, not direct government charges). But the way you’re talking indicates you’re not going to listen to any of my arguments and will continue to respond with the same indignant tone, as though it’s my fault you won’t consider the evidence. That makes you a troll from my perspective.
I… I just replied to you, didn’t I?
crap.
Wazza, I am not a climatologist. How shall I research? Should I read a climatology paper? Alright, how do I know which ones are published by reputable scientists? Which ones are right? What does this result mean? Maybe I should go down to the university and find a climatologist and ask him? Unless he disagree’s with everyone else; I want to go with the consensus. Unless the consensus is wrong. Which I can’t tell, because I’M NOT A CLIMATOLOGIST.
Look, God knows I can try to be informed. I think “the extinction of the species” would be terrible, but that sounds incredibly far-fetched to me. In fact, it sounds like a claim which needs some serious support. There are actual climate scientists saying everything from “global temperatures are fine,” to “WE WILL ALL BE DEAD IN FIFTY YEARS.” There are powerful business interests on *both* sides of the debate.
@ JonJon:
The last major scientific organisation to question MMGW was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, a group with a vested interest in MMGW denial. They stopped denying it, and in fact publicly accepted it as scientific fact, in 2007.
Shell Oil, British Petroleum, Exxon – these are all petrochemical companies which readily admit that MMGW is happening. Think how overwhelming the evidence must be if even *their* scientists are telling them that.
I actually think most scientists are on the same page about the *occurrence* of MMGW; I’m not really talking about that. They do not appear to be on the same page about the speed or magnitude of the phenomenon.
Uhu – but those who have been the slowest to admit it’s actually happening are also the ones who claim it’s not that big of a deal. Who are you going to trust? The late-comers to the band-wagon, or the ones who’ve been working on it for 40 years? I know where my faith is on this one!
Having your entire life’s work built on one contentious idea does not always make you more trustworthy. People protect their ideas. Science has some tools for dealing with that, but it is still true that a deeply held commitment to a certain idea can make you just as biased as anything else.
“I know where my faith is on this one!”
That’s *good*! I’m glad that the evidence and support that you’ve found is enough for you to come to a firm conclusion. I still don’t think that means that it is unreasonable to withhold that sort of faith if you are not convinced by the evidence you have access to.
“Having your entire life’s work built on one contentious idea does not always make you more trustworthy.”
Uhu – but for the vast majority of climate scientists and every reputable scientific body on the planet, MMGW is not a contentious point. It’s only “contentious” in the eyes of the public and mass media who, in general, have not got either the data nor the expertise to understand it. Now, I’m lucky enough to be a pretty scientifically minded chap, and I’m also lucky enough to have seen a lot of the raw data through friends at university; I’m convinced by both the weight of evidence and the weight of authority.
For me, with what I’ve seen, witholding belief in MMGW would be bull-headed to the point of stupidity. For you maybe not – but I urge you to go out and look at the evidence, be cynical about media talking heads and decide for yourself.
“be cynical about media talking heads”
I am. I’m also cynical of… well, pretty much everyone else. It is just a little scary to see so many committed skeptics say “if you don’t *believe* this based on limited evidence, you’re an idiot.” It is a terrifying double standard. Of all people, skeptics should understand a little healthy skepticism. That’s all I’m saying.
(unhealthy skepticism can be a problem, no argument here. While this also isn’t an argument I typically see on these boards, I think it is definitely possible to be too skeptical, so I’ll willingly go that way.)
(For the record, I assume AGW is probly happening.)
I’ve been reading New Scientist for over 40 years. Read the book “Limits to Growth” in 1972 and have since followed the subject through European engineering magazines and National Geographic.
Global warming is real. Undeniably real.
The rest of the planet is working on the problem while many Americans are too happy to listen to the talking heads that spew lies and BS.
China is already beating us at manufacturing and now will make more cars than we do. Will soon have more wind turbines than we do. These nutcases are holding us back.
The two biggest poluters are china and the US. What never gets added to that sentence is this: China has a population of about two BILLION people. The US still manages to polute as much as China with a population of thirty MILLION people. Per capita, by far the worst poluters are the US, followed (quite some way behind) by the UK.
Well, ~1.4 billion in China, and ~300 million in the US, which is a factor of 5. However, GDP per capita in US is about 15 times that of China, and this seems like a better comparison. Perhaps, factoring in their wealth, and so capacity, Americans are far more restrained than the Chinese in terms of pollution.
OK, I think we’re off topic now. Sorry.
:)
When I see Chinese commuting to work in SUVs I’ll consider your point ;)
How many coal power plants did they build in china this year?
Custador, the biggest purchaser of Humvees is the Chinese middle class, and a Chinese company purchased the brand so they can be made there now.
Get out of town! Seriously?!
Again and again and again and again….
I dont know why we would care if James Randi has an opinion on climate change science any more than we would care if Richard Dawkins had an opinion on the best way to create stage illusions.
People have expertise. Its valuable. The only reason I hold the idea that humans are, in part, responsible for climate change is that the consensus of experts in the field is that humans are, in part, responsible for climate change.
Thats it. The end.
I wish It was.
Im not going to ask a playboy bunny about vaccines, I’m going to ask a team of immunologists. Im not going to ask a theologian about cosmology, im going to ask a team of cosmologists. I’m not going to ask someone who peddles water as medicine about quantum mechanics, I’m going to ask a team of physicists. I’m not going to ask a street preacher about evolution, I’m going to ask a team of biologists.
Are the experts going to get things wrong? Yes.
But they will be FAR more right than any of the armatures sitting at their feet trying to poke holes in their life work.
If the majority of climate scientists came out tomorrow and said “Ok, the data is in. Human made CO2 isn’t responsible.’ I wouldn’t skip a beat. I would stop assuming AGW is the cause of our planets heating. I would anxiously await their new findings.
Expertise matters.
^+1
I just stumbled on a show called conspiracy theory hosted by Jesse Ventura and it just happen to deal with global worming. I haven’t seen that concentration of stupidity in ages. The show just take the word of the conspiracy theorists as gospel advocating skepticism but only when dealing with the experts. On the other hand someone who just come up with some BS about how the global worming movement is a font by the UN to get their plan to take over the world can be trusted without question.
several people have commented in favor of the human caused global warming based on consensus among scientists. but science is not about consensus, it is about facts and testing theories against the facts to see if they hold up. I’m not a supporter or a denier but I see more heat than light in many arguments from both sides. there is also a bit of history we can look at. many theories accepted today as fact were wildly at odds from the scientific as well as public consensus of their day. the sun centered solar system was widely viewed as not only false but as heresy. likewise evolution which still has problems with some religious elements was not held as true by most of Darwin’s contemporaries.
Consensus in science is meaningless. Penn and Teller did a great stunt to illustrate the meaninglessness of consensus. They had a rabbit between them and they voted on whether it was male or female without examining it. their consensus was meaningless, the only thing that mattered was whether the rabbit was male or female. what P&T agreed about it was meaningless.
There is another consideration as well. right now funding is directed mostly to those who are supporting the human cause theory rather than merely seeking a broader understanding of an admittedly incredibly complex system. the oil and coal companies are funding people who don’t believe in the human cause. in both cases, when you fund people who have a set agenda going into research they are likely, being human, to find things that fulfill their beliefs. Recent email revelations point to the pressure to produce evidence.
I don’t have an answer. Pollution is bad but carbon dioxide can be useful and rather than making incredibly complex and possibly disasterous changes to our way of life, perhaps we should look at ways to utilize the the CO2 in ways that improve the environment and human life. grow more food that feeds the hungry, grow algae for fuels. Find ways to soften the heat island effect of large cities that also make them more livable by adding more greenspace to them.
Since the 60s we have worked steadily to improve our environment but we also need to live and I think the next generation of billionaires or trillionaires will be those who figure out how to make money by improving the environment. I am skeptical of Al Gore and his carbon exchange system. it seems a good money maker for Al but it doesn’t really get the polluters to change their ways, just they have an extra cost of doing business that they will pass on to the rest of us.
I think we need a way to fund some neutral science on environment, though this is well outside of my area of expertise such that I cannot describe it beyond that very general term.
Another point is that if we have determined that CO2 is the problem that pointing fingers to blame is less effective than pointing out solutions. People began demanding cars that were less of a strain on the planet and now we have hybrids and smart cars and neighborhood electric vehicles and soon plug in electrics will join them. these are positive changes. that is what we need. Carbon sequestration seems a dead end unless we sequester it in the most simple system out there – plant life.
The question of global warming brings other things to mind. First, what is the proper temperature for the planet and how do you figure it. and second, one thing a view of the fossile record shows is that life has adapted to every change in the planet. Many species are here for a while then become extinct as the climate changes. there is no reason to believe this will change. We may not have the same species we have today in another millenium but we will have life. evolution is the story of that change.
I have always had little faith in the original computer models for global warming. they reached further than I believe they can with their predictions. over the next century and a half there will be many changes which we cannot today even imagine. All discoveries of science build on what came before. much of what we take for granted today would have been inconceivable to all but a handful of visionaries. I say that we should take care of our planet but we should also, to quote James Tiberius Kirk, “boldly go where no man has gone before”.
Thus endeth my rant, have a nice day
Objectifier, just in case you were referring to my post, I just wanted to clairify one point on ‘Consensus’.
Science isnt about taking a vote to see who likes the idea best. Its about Peer Review. Peer Review is not perfect, and I don’t know anyone who claims it is. But it IS the best tool we have. Two scientists wouldn’t just sit and vote on the sex of the rabbit. One might study the external genitalia, where the other might dissect and search for a uterus. Both would write papers about their research. Many other scientists would review the work, re-perform the same experiments, and eventually the true sex of the rabbit would be discovered.
When I talk about experts, I mean people who know their shit. And people who tear each others ideas apart. They insult each other, ridicule each other, then after many debates, letters, experiments, experiments, and experiments, they finally agree on something. If you call this consensus, then fine, label it what you like. It is the single best way we humans have of finding ‘truth’ or at least truthiness of any aspect of our existence.
I wasn’t referring to any single post but to several. Peer review is important but so are theories in opposition. In the media, admittedly not always from scientists but often it is, I here the phrase that man created global warming is “settled science” as if there were no room in the scientific world for opposing theories. Given the short time that this theory has been out there, declaring it settled, especially since the climate is such a massively complex system, seems a rush to a conclusion. To be sure there is a political element to all of this and some approach it almost as a religious orthodoxy, though to be sure there are the deniers who have the same semi-religious zeal.
So much of the debate is outside the scientific realm now that it has taken on a life of its own. Many of us remember the predictions in the 70′s of a man made ice age that was seen as equally unavoidable. Indeed one major source of CO2 can be traced back to that argument when catalytic converters were required on cars, changing the CO to CO2. I fear the outcomes when science mixes with politics and is propelled by a popular movement, however well intentioned, of non scientists. Having grown up in the 60s and 70s I know the power of such popular movements to create political changes. I just hope that before we act we make sure of the science.
My scientific training is as a psychologist, a field that has often been victimized or become a victimizer as a result of poor science that gained political and legal support such as the “recovered memory” fiasco that led to many innocent people being put on trial and sometimes jailed, but always with their reputations destroyed based on some really bad science. I can see the popular movement behind global warming having the same kind of power but to an even greater degree.
The 1970′s ‘Big Freeze’ is an interesting story. If you go back and read up on it, the promoters skipped peer review and went straight to the news sources. Many climatologists in the 70′s were already studying greenhouse gasses and were predicting warming from CO2. There was hardly consensus among climatologists about the big freeze theory. Compare that to today, where the number of climatologists that deny human made CO2 is a factor to global warming is comparable to the number of biologists who think species to species evolution is impossible.
Most of the PhD scientists who claim humans are not the cause of our current warming don’t have their degrees in climate science, and arn’t currently working in a lab that studies climate.
When people say that its settled science, they arn’t closing the books to inquiry. They are basically saying that if you want to deny it, you had better come up with a complete model that is able to completely replace the current one. Its the same for all science. Einstein developed a complete model that replaced Newtonian gravity, so he was able to topple Newton. Newtonian gravity is a great model, and is still used today, but relativity is better. The same can be said for our current climate models. They are so good, that if anyone wants to prove them wrong they will have to produce a new theory that uses the same data to produce better predictions.
As for mixing politics, you are right on the money with that one. When politics and science meet, the results are explosive (Hiroshima anyone?) I don’t envy todays politicians. They are charged with writing policies that will directly effect the lives of people hundreds of years into our future. The people they might help will never vote for them, but the people who need to make those sacrifices are their constituents today! Throw in the business men like Al Gore who are circling the waters looking for profit off the new green economy, and you have a real political nightmare scenario. There is no safe ground.
I personally think we won’t learn our lessons. We will tank the planet, and humans will be radically depopulated through loss of habitable land and war over resources. With a bit of luck, the remaining humans might survive to learn a valuable lesson and form a new morality that lives in harmony with its environment.
Wow, I’ve always been a fan of Randi and his efforts to debunk pseudo-science and those taking advantage of people. It’s quite depressing to see him take such an anti-scientific position. I hope he will educate himself and retract such nonsensical statements.
Interesting article -anyone else seen it?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/science/15tier.html
That’s actually a really cute idea. I hope it gets some traction.
Might be a viable tactic. It would certainly avoid a considerable amount of entrenched opposition.
I think in the long run it doesn’t matter if global warming is human caused or not. Fossil fuels are getting scarce and economically we will be forced to switch to alternate energy sources.
Once we’ve switched power sources to nuclear, wind, solar and are driving electric cars C02 emissions will be greatly reduced thus making the issue moot.
Interesting to see the reactions here.
Many people here laugh about fundies and people ignoring evolution while everything is pointing evolution to be true. And now they are using the same mindless reasoning as the creationists do to refuse to accept that global warming might be true.
For example, they blame it on the sun the sun spots the sun spots, the volcano’s the moist in the air, everything, but don’t dare to think that it could be a human cause because that is blasphemy!
Then you hear the mantra that ‘Scientists don’t know’. PLEASE! Give me a break!
Don’t act as a fundie! Scientists do have tons of idea’s and models.
Also don’t come with the “Sun is warming up because Mars ans Pluto is warming up proof.” mantra.
Yeah right, ONLY 6 objects in our solar system warms up and MORE than HUNDRED objects including moons, asteroids and planets do not show any signs of warming up.
Yes I am also sceptic about global warming signals, but just like evolution there is no direct proof but al indirect proof shows global warming caused by humans.
Look there is no shame that we put so much CO2 in the air. Back then we did not anticipate this,
that CO2 could do any harm. CO2 is not something clearly poisoning or radio-active.
But it is very shameful not to do something about it.
Alternative energy sources are not the solution for this. It will only delay the inevitable for a few years and it is not very comfortable to sit in a dark cold house and hope for the best. What we need is an active research just like the Manhattan project and the Apollo moon landing and in a few years we might have the technology to create energy cheap for example with nuclear fusion or maybe completely something new. This will create jobs, cheap energy to actually clean our atmosphere,…
+1 !
Gee, Olaf, thanks for the misrepresentation.
So, if I’m unconvinced by the argument put forward, I’m irrational? If I want a little more data, a little confirmation that the hypothesis is true, I’m a fundie? Must be a lot of irrational scientists in your world.
Looking over the responses, I’m not seeing much in the way of “It’s not happening”. The basic datum that we have warming of the planet is undoubtable. The precise reasons for this to be happening is not, and I’m seeing a lot of people questioning the assumption.
And I have to say, part of the problem is that our fears and views are being dismissed out of hand. With the exception of Custador, who has made some good points, most of the replies seem to be variations of “trust the experts”.
Sorry, NO. First because I’ve never bought the appeal to authority (one of the main reasons I’m an atheist), and second because the definition of an expert is “Anyone from out of town with a briefcase.”
So, how about stopping with the rolled eyes and the knowing looks and actually engaging us? Give us the arguments. CONVINCE US. Or admit that your hypothesis isn’t anywhere near as strong as you make it out to be.
Point is, data and peer reviewed papers of ICC are avilable -well, maybe the data is not all that easy to get. I’m interested on climate change as anyone should be, but I’m not doing my thesis on it -well, I’m not doing my thesis at all, but that’s not the point.
I can get the information, i could “waste” a lot of time reviewing those papers, understanding them and arising my own conclusions. That’s the difference between “faith” and “belief based upon evidences” but… I have better things to do. So… I’m not screaming out that it is “not clear” any of those scientific conclusions. You want to? You are in your right. Do it. Do some study and publish it.
.
Oh, sorry, it is a lot easier to ask for explanations to random people in internet, isn’t it? But you -as I- are not going to believe us, I can’t prove to you man-made global warming, neither can a climatologist in a thread. You can check one by one the points done by deniers, you will see that most -when not all- have been debunked. Of course, you will need sometime to found them, hey, that’s what we are asking creationists to do about evolution: to learn before speaking.
Briefly: If you want to deny MMGW learn something and do specific hypotheses. If you don’t want to do that effort, you will have to trust scientific experts on this
Sundog, there are many indicators of CO2 saturization in our world. If you don’t accept any of the published papers on atmospheric CO2, then take a look at the reports on the the oceans.
CO2 is a heavy gas, and is easily absorbed into the ocean. The higher concentration of CO2 in salt water, the higher the oceans acidity.
We can measure ocean acidity by looking through core samples, and our ocean is at a dangerously high level of acidity. The hypoxia regions off the coast of Oregon are linked to high acid levels in the ocean, as is the shrinking of coral reefs.
Fossil fuels are sequestered carbon, you can’t deny that. We are taking billions of tons of sequestered carbon, and releasing it to the atmosphere. That also is a clear fact. Rapidly rising ocean acidity levels will make life for humans miserable.
Even if you deny that CO2 is a green house gas, even if there are other reasons that our planet is warming, slowing and reducing CO2 emissions will be critical if we wish to continue with our current world population (Or expand that population, which seems inevitable).
THANK YOU. You have just shown a 100% checkable reason to reduce fossil fuel emissions (which I didn’t oppose anyway – but for entirely different reasons, mostly to do with air quality and radiation emissions from coal power plants).
Now, someone want to point out something similar in the Global warming area?
Francesc, I don’t know where you live, but here in Australia, no, it isn’t so easy to get the information you’re talking about. Worse, some of the data I have been able to get seems to disagree with other aspects. I imagine that a climatologist could reconcile it, but I’m not a climatologist.
The worst of this is, I’m not your hardcore opposition here. I have questions. I think they need answers before I’m ready to support something drastic. But I acknowledge the basic science that says warming is happening, and I see human action as being the LIKELY culprit.
But by and large I’m not being engaged. A total of two people have given good arguments – everyone else has been either dismissive, superior, or has fallen back on appeal to authority, which is no argument at all.
I don’t have any axe to grind, here. Give me a good argument, and I will consider it. But lacking such, you’re not going to convince me of anything.
And if you can’t convince me, what chance will you have with the hardcore denialists?
that’s the thing about denialists… they show an attitude like Psicop up there (“Once they ask me for money they’ve lost all credibility”) and so you can’t even present the evidence to them in certain ways.
I’m no climate scientist Sundog. My schooling was in physics, and I ended up taking over the family construction business (don’t worry, the family is still eating these days, just more beans :)
I have an aunt in marine biology, so I get lots of news on that front. If youre willing to accept the conclusions of increased ocean acidity, then you can use the ocean core data and compare it with the historical atmospheric models. Compare that data to the ‘trick’ they did with the tree rings, then compare that to the ice core samples. If all those diverse methods agree, then you can build an accurate climate model.
The data released from many different labs studying these different samples all create the same model, which shows a strong correlation between CO2 levels and planet temperature.
My source for much of my knowledge comes from http://www.realclimate.org, and from the diaspora of links from science blogs like The Loom, Bad Astronomy, Pharyngula, as well as the bitchen videos from potholer54 on Youtube. Potholer54 makes some great videos on climate science, check them out if you get a chance.
So if were pretty sure that CO2 levels are much higher (close to 390ppm), and we know the physics of CO2 quite well (it transmits visible light, but absorbs infrared) then we can run fairly simple math to calculate the number of joules of heat any increase in ppm will have.
I need to repeat, I am not a climate scientist. I do have a decent education in physics. When I look at the reports from real scientists (also, i have to repeat, Al Gore is a joke, and many people behind the green movement have a profit motive) they look to have made a solid case for human produced CO2 to have a warming effect on our climate. Ive also read some of the skeptics work. Most of them are the ‘poking holes’ variety, as they mention one single factor like sun spot activity. I have yet to read a paper from someone educated in climate science who has put together research that accounts for the myriad of variables in our climate and shows no temperature increase from the higher levels of human produced carbon dioxide.
I agree that research into groundbreaking energy sources is very important, and the only chance of being able to maintain our growing energy use. But it’s not a given that such research will pay off, and in the meantime I think it’s important to push the more conventional renewables technology as well.
I find it strange that people are getting heat for being moderate on this issue. I am not a climatologist. Therefore *I* do not know one way or another. I can try to be informed, but I will not be informed enough to make a judgment on my own knowledge. I have to depend on other people, who know more than I do.
Based on the fact that others know a great deal more than me, I’ve come to the conclusion that carbon emissions are probably causing global warming. The bulk of the evidence seems to me to point that way. This is fine and dandy, but it simply does not mean that someone who says that they don’t know enough about the issue can’t completely withhold judgement. They can. Not only can they, but they should. Withholding judgement on things you know nothing about is eminently reasonable.
We have evidence that global warming is happening, sure, but that evidence does not *require* a responsible moderate to accept that evidence as particularly compelling. Even if (or, eventually, when) that evidence does become compelling enough there is absolutely no reason why everyone has to take exactly the same stance on what to do about it.
I keep seeing what appears to me to be a reasonable amount of skepticism shot down. I don’t understand why this is. I know that most people here aren’t going to acknowledge that religious leaders are worthy of blind trust; why on earth should scientists be different? The non-climatologists (who I shall assume outnumber the climatologists by a hefty margin) are in a place where they have to depend primarily on knowledgeable experts. Putting your trust in someone knowledgeable is completely fine, but a) why does that have to be *blind* trust at any time ever, and b) why is it so wrong to hold a position of skepticism until there is better evidence and our trust is better supported? The biggest single tenet of a skeptical worldview is that we should proportion our belief to the available evidence. If the evidence available to me is not compelling enough to justify a firm belief, then please tell me why I should profess firm belief. I would like to know why it is okay to blindly trust some knowledgeable people and not others. I am not an expert on used cars, but I am not required by this lack of expertise to blindly trust everyone who knows a great deal about used cars, from mechanics to used car salesmen.
Again, for clarity’s sake, let me point out that I think global warming is (probably) happening.
But there are far, far, far more important points of disagreement than “is MMGW happening?” The biggest question is “what it is reasonable to do, given the knowledge that we have?” Cutting carbon emissions might not be enough. Regulating carbon emissions might be too much. There is no way to know that given the data that we actually have.
The problem is you’re saying “I don’t know enough”, but the information is readily available. And just sitting back and waiting to see what happens next could send us all down the crapper.
http://xkcd.com/164/
“The problem is you’re saying “I don’t know enough”, but the information is readily available.”
SOME information is readily available. Some information (like the kind necessary to make any sort of informed policy decision) isn’t.
yes, but you’re not at Copenhagen. There is ample information for you to make a decision on the level of “Well, it looks like it is a serious problem.” Once you’ve got that, we do have to cut emissions. It’s that simple. The amount we’re putting out is enough that we’re actually making the oceans more acidic through dissolved CO2. By any measure that’s far too much.
JonJon, for me, I’ve been presented with what I consider quite conclusive evidence.
What would you consider to be missing in terms of specific information?
What types of experiments would you like to see that would convince you?
What specifically do you think climate scientists are failing to do?
You know, the bottom line with CO2 emmisions? We add thirty billion tons of the stuff to the atmosphere every single year. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 is percentage points higher now than it should be, thanks to us. Let’s ignore the greenhouse effect a second, I’m not interested in it for this point.
The more CO2 there is in atmospheric air, the more poisonous it is. You know when people suffocate? It’s not usually due to lack of oxygen, it’s usually down to too much CO2 in the air. So: Why poison the air we all breathe? Why not keep it as clean as possible?
On the other hand, plants are loving it. I read an article recently that the higher CO2 is actually making plants more drought-resistant, because they can keep their stomata closed more and still get enough CO2 to photosynthesise, which cuts down their water loss.
Well, that’d be dandy if we weren’t busilly killing all of them with chainsaws too!
indeed… increased atmospheric CO2 almost solves one of the problems it creates!
but not really.
Most realistic people know that the earth with self balance. Thats whats missing from this debate with the deniers. No one is saying that the Earth is going to end (except for Al Gore, but at least he will make a profit). The real question is, will humanity survive that correction?
Unless some science magic comes along to quickly sequester CO2, I think were in for an inevitable period of conflict while our planet corrects the imbalance.
I think this primarily because of 2 sources. The climate science community is debating whether were currently at, just before, or past the tipping point. I don’t see any real political solutions happening to the two biggest emitters. So going past the tipping point seems inevitable.
My second source is the NSA (national security administration in the US). They have been running war game scenarios for how to secure resources. Their game strategy assumes a warmer climate, higher sea levels, and massive Indian Asian drought. Which is exactly what the climate scientists are predicting.
When a group like the NSA uses data from climate science for war game strategy, It makes me real nervous.
When a group like the NSA uses data from climate science for war game strategy, It makes me real nervous.
Why? Just sounds like covering the contingencies to me.
The job of war gaming is to figure out how to handle “worst possible case” situations so I wouldn’t put too much concern into them wargaming about any particular scenario. Throughout the cold war they war gamed all kinds of scenarios that never played out. Interestingly they do find it hard to think outside the box, such as their failure to adequately prepare for situations like 9/11.
To really address the CO2 issue in our world today will involve finding a way to make the solution more profitable than the current system. I”m not sure that cap and trade will do this though it will certainly enrich certain brokers like Al Gore. Many in the environmental movement see capitalism as the enemy and much can be done wrong through it, but also much good can be done if the incentives are there. The growth in hybrid vehicles is one good example. Governments have not done a very good job at providing carrots as well as sticks, while both are necessary to change things.
The research into many of the most effective new drugs has been spurred on by the capitalist system. While this creates its own set of problems, it does provide the incentive for innovation. Government often has fueled business to achieve a desired goal, sadly much of this has been focused on ways to kill people more effectively in war. We need something akin to the Manhattan project or the US space program to find new and responsible ways to provide the energy we need. We also need to provide incentives to help people use the alternatives we already have. I live in suburban Atlanta. Two of our counties have excellent public transportation while the rest of the counties have little or no public transit. Where I live in Gwinnett county the bus service is very limited and only serves as a feeder into the MARTA system to get people downtown while most people who live in the suburbs also work in the suburbs as well. I have to have a car in order to do the basic things. Government should step up and expand public transit to reduce the number of cars clogging our roads every day. Providing incentives to non governmental transit systems could also help take vehicles off the road.
“Most realistic people know that the earth with self balance.”
I quite agree, but it might well do so by wiping out humanity first.
Yup.
People forget that we are by no means essential to the outcome.
Actually, we ARE the outcome, ie His nature formed in us (as it was in the beginning). It has nothing to do with self-importance and everything to do with Love.
All the best TY
Still babbling, eh?
The immediate problem with CO2 is the acidification of the oceans. We may be in for a cascade of extinctions as coral die off, destroying the fish ‘nurseries.’ Links here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090201124553.htm
Lots of studies are being done right now on the effects of elevated CO2 on insects as well as on plants. If plants become less nutritious due to faster growth rate, we can expect the animals that eat them to become larger. During the Carboniferous period the primary herbivores and detrivores were insects. Many of the same types of insects exist today, but the ones from the Carboniferous were HUGE. This may have been a response to their diet of low-grade plant material. So, that solves the mass-transit problem- ride a roach to work.
I love it when someone else comes by and does the homework I failed to do. Thanks for tracking down that link nazani. I was talking about ocean acidification in a thread up above.
Sorry, no change here. I went to the Univ. of Chicago and took Earth Science 101 back in 1977. Wish I could recall the name of the prof who told us about global warming (though he didn’t call it that,) because he made several predictions that I’ve seen come true. At the time, my family consisted largely of Very old farmers, who confirmed for me that the first and last frost dates in IL and VA had shifted. As I got older I noticed that I could no longer grow the kinds of flowers my Mother used to grow – and then the hardiness zones changed. Now that the bats are dying off, I predict a big upsurge in mosquito populations. Maybe we will get some action when our congressmen start getting dengue fever.
I have to say, one thing I’ve noticed recently is that this is such a complex subject I keep on forgetting things. It doesn’t seem so bad when it’s just warming, but then there’s all the other effects of atmospheric pollution and it’s hard to keep them all in mind while talking about it.
It’s worth adding to the acidic ocean debate, I think, because the same processes which cause it go on in our own body. The mechanism which is responsible for carrying oxygen around in our blood works on the same principle, believe it or not.
H2O (water) + CO2 (carbon-dioxide) = H2CO3 (carbonic acid).
H2CO3 (carbonic acid) disasociates into HCO3 (bicarbonate) and H (hydrogen).
Now, PH (the measure of acidity) stands for “parts of hydrogen”, and basically measures how much free hydrogen, or hydrogen which can be liberated, that a substance has. More of that in the air is BAD because 1) our own blood ends up being acidotic – and that can kill us. 2) the sea ends up being acidic – and that can kill the fish, and hence the food chain, and hence us.
Global warming is real, but there are all kinds of other reasons to worry about greenhouse gasses.
I am always disappointed by fellow atheists (and especially by fellow anti-theists) who use their critical thinking skills so well when discussing religion, but totally abandon them when it suits their political interests. No one understands the value of the scientific method better than James Randi. You can see it in the tactful uncertainty of his prose, which many of the commenters here have mocked.
You don’t have to be a “climatologist” with all the data in front of you to see the red flags in the whole AGW scare campaign. There are literally billions of dollars of government grant money at stake for funding-starved scientists looking for projects. This creates VERY strong incentives within the scientific community to keep the AGW industry afloat (and yes, it has become an industry, just look at where Pelosi and Gore are putting their personal fortunes) and the recent “Climategate” scandal has shown just how low these self-described “scientists” are willing to go to quell dissent (which is a vital aspect of scientific progress) and hide/falsify data.
This does not say anything about the theories themselves, but it does make a case for granting more respect to the skeptics, and granting less (dare I say) religious reverence to those who advocate AGW, and the political agendas that they serve.
Fogwa, I have no religious reverence for AGW, and I openly despise Al Gore and Pelosi. Take the time and go look at my earlier posts (at least, others have made far better cases). The politics of climate change are just as despicable as the politics of abortion or public vs private health care.
Politics aside, the case for human produced CO2, and its potential effect on our environment are quite solid. Take the time to read some of the many posts here that attempt to educate the solidity of the research on climate.
I think the valid skepticism should be towards the political motives and proposed solutions. Our current president is a pro business centrist, irregardless what the two political wings claim about him (that is, assuming you are a US citizen). And the US congress is tied to the insurance business just as much as they are tied to the oil companies. Getting them to change direction is a Herculean task.
Please, when you give an ear to the skeptics of climate change, pay attention to their methods and research. They often employ the anecdote, or cherry picking data (a good example is the skeptics who claim the sun is the reason for global heating. There are a myriad of factors that effect our climate. Just showing a graph of one factor is poor science). The best climate models today include the solar cycles, as well as particulate pollutants, volcanic activity, and many other variables. These models point out that human produced CO2 will create a feedback loop that generates global warming.
I would be glad to read about a climate model that shows elevated CO2 production that doesn’t predict heating. Unfortunately, all the ‘skeptics’ like to do is poke holes in other peoples work. Thats not how science works. You have to come up with a better idea if you wish to unseat the current favored theory.
“the recent “Climategate” scandal has shown just how low these self-described “scientists” are willing to go to quell dissent”
I assume you’re referring to the emails from the University of East Anglia?
1) What was published was NOT the entire exchange, it WAS heavily quote-mined and sensationalised in order to “support” the skeptic/denier position. In context, it does no such thing. More mass-media bullcrap designed to manipulate your mind – that’s ALL this was.
2) Even IF two scientists disented – so what? This is science! There will ALWAYS be sisenting voices, that’s what makes science to much more effective than religion.
“This does not say anything about the theories themselves, but it does make a case for granting more respect to the skeptics,”
There is not a single reputable scientific body on the planet that denies MMGW. The last one to openly confirm that MMGW is a problem was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists – they officially became concerned with MMGW in (I think) 2007. Now, saying that, I’m going to differentiate between skeptics and deniers: Skeptics need to see more evidence to be convinced, and I understand that. I saw an awful lot before I adopted any kind of position on this issue. Deniers, on the other hand, do not deserve my respect. To be a denier, one must either choose to ignore the evidence or refuse to even look at it. Career politicians and scientific bodies all over the planet would not stake their names and reputations on something was not effectively a settled science.
we have had a lot of people claiming to be skeptics on this thread then telling us they won’t bother to look at the evidence, so your definition works for me…
:P
(I’m drunk and in a fighting mood! Yeah!)
“Career politicians and scientific bodies all over the planet would not stake their names and reputations on something was not effectively a settled science.”
Man, I only wish that were true. Instead we have career politicians like Bobby Jindal questioning evolution. I do consider MMGW to be quite solid science, but I’ll never underestimate the short sidedness and ignorance of the average voter.