GameBanshee Forums

[QUOTE=Sononara]does this answer your question? Maybe not, as the view from Melbourne has shifted to central australia.

But thats not the point; the point is, that, temperatures are always going to be up and down. and arent we in an intermissio of an ice age anywho? i remember reading somewhere or another that we are.[/QUOTE]

You still miss the point. Using 10 singular points in time and taking the temperature from thoese is as bad as using 2.
If going by anything that simplistic, at least you should look at the average temperature per year on a global scale over the last hundred or so to see if any kind of increase is noticable. Thus using temperatures as you do by saying "temperature are always going to be up and down" is flawed in a number of ways.

Also - temperature meassurements are only one of the issues involved in meassuring/examining global warming.

[QUOTE=Hill-Shatar]

Not exactly the most stable evidence in any case. I will go to Tim Hortons tommorrow for lunch down the road, and ask random people there, and report back with my results. However, perhaps it would be best if someone who is not somewhat biased on the subject. Perhaps you, Fiona?[/QUOTE]

I'm flattered by this invitation but I am not sure I can contribute very much.

As I said, I have no science to bring to the debate, so my take on it is different.

As is probably clear from other things I have said, I am not bedazzled by science. In many fields I believe that scientists themselves, or perhaps a rather lazy media on their behalf, claim an authority which their particular expertise does not afford them. ( I don't want to get into this debate again here, but I have given reasons for that view elsewhere). Other disciplines(eg social sciences) frequently try to adopt the methods of science inappropriately, either in the hope of making better progress, or, sadly, sometimes to make the discipline's conclusions appear more persuasive (for bad reasons or good).

The misuse of the methods or appearance of science, coupled with overstated claims or reports of the results of true science, has led to a growing scepticism. Many people in power currently seem to be fostering that scepticism for their own ends. For example the attack on various professions is an ongoing feature of UK political life. It is easy for a politician to identify errors ( which everyone makes) and to imply that it discredits a whole enterprise. The media find that a "sexy" story so it gets splashed about. The gain for the government is the undermining of an alternative locus of power and influence. The long term implications of that are not their concern.

However I cannot emphasise too strongly that scientists do have knowledge the rest of us don't have in scientific fields. There are questions which are clearly in the realm of science, and are answerable using the scientific method. There are questions which are not of that type.

So for a lay person like me the first question has to be "is this actually a scientific question, or something else". In my opinion climate change is very clearly in the scientific field. It is true that scientists do not know everything about it, and some of the uncertainties are clearly acknowledged. However the scientific method is a legitimate approach to this question

A second question has to be "who is funding the research, and why". That question does not necessarily invalidate the results, but it may indicate a need for caution in some cases. Again in the case of climate change I see no reason to be suspicious about the research or the results.

A third question the sceptic may want to look at is what evidence is there which conflicts with a particular scientific conclusion. So far as I can gather there is little evidence against climate change. Those who deny it seem to rely on the kind of argument outlined above: ie that there is doubt about the extent and significance of it. Granted. But that is not evidence against it. What you would be looking for would be ice core samples etc which do not show any increase in average temperature over a long period etc. I don't think that exists. You can deny anything, and many people do. To paraphrase Shakespeare, you can call monsters from the deep, too; but will they come?

Even if one is not persuaded by the scientific concensus, it seems to me legitimate to apply a precautionary principle in areas where the consequences are so great. So it is reasonable to accept the scientific concensus meantime, while lobbying for more extensive and different research to settle this issue, if you have reason to rationally doubt the current wisdom

I believe that many vested interests benefit from a lack of "belief" in global warming (see Von Dondu's post)

I consider that it is in the interests of the powers that be to persuade the lay person that his opinion is just as good as anyone else's; and that years of study in a particular field count for nothing. It helps people to feel good about themselves and it stops them asking awkward questions or even educating themselves. It also makes it less likely that they will defend a profession or follow a well informed leader who opposes the existing power structure.

In contrast I have no reason at all to believe that the scientists in this case have any vested interest in reaching the conclusions that they have. Nobody is entirely disinterested, but I don't see the profit for them here

In short, scepticism is fine if the information is suspect; the expertise is not relevant to the field under discussion; or there are ulterior motives. Climate change research suffers from none of these defects and I am happy to accept the scientific view.

Sorry, I've gone on at great length. Just my thoughts.

C Elegans wrote:Actually Curdis, your post was the least target of my post, but since you replied I will try to reply to you. However, I am afraid I don't understand what conclusions you are drawing.

Thus, I am not sure why you label human CO2 input as "fiction". Is it a particular model you are referring to, that only takes CO2 into account? Or do you mean that all various climate models that show human emission of CO2 plays a role in global warming, are "fiction"?

As I stated initially, I don't understand your conclusion. As far as I understand, climatologists have concluded that it's a very small chance that the recent rise in temperature are unrelated to human activities. Are you saying that human activities have had no influence on global warming? If so, what is your evidence for this statement?

Perhaps the main difficulty here is that I actually broadly agree and accept that there is a substantial (and growing) amount of evidence to support the human activities deterimentally effecting the environment thesis.

My point of departure is with the "it is 100% correct greenhouse gases are causing global warming" position which the media (And vested interests) have pushed scientists into. This is now a much bigger obstacle to change than the truth, or otherwise, of the science. As you are well aware it is almost never the case that a scientific conclusion categorically states that something is a certainty. The terms, unlikely, most probably, tend to reinforce, are the ones used. This is now being used (in the media) as a way of discrediting any valid scientific evidence.

Unfortunately the environmental movement have been called out on the evidence in the past and now a wholly unattainable level of proof is being set as the benchmark. The authority of science has been undermined. I am deeply saddened by this and was one of the unheeded voices (within the enviromental movement) who cautioned that the evidence was sketchy at best when the trumpets first sounded on global warming. I also strongly advocated that to protect the environment we needed to focus on issues closer to hand for which there was general agreement about the science of conservation (i.e) forest blockades, opposing highway development, opposing land clearance. The amount of time and energy which has gone into achieving no net improvement to date could have ben much better spent. Does it matter if we reduce pollution by sensible direct initiative based solely on economic interests rather than in response to a threat of global climatic change? The environmental movement are fighting a losing battle on the greenhouse front.

To clarify matters regarding my previous statement. I unfortunately allowed myself to fall victim to the false dicotomy (and rhetoric). In a straight choice between Fact/Fiction I erred in placing one thing into a category which it can be argued it should or should not fit. Even the IPCC are not willing to categorically state that it is fact, false dicotomy leads one directly to fiction. My apologies. I should have stated:

1/Global Warming (Human CO2 input model)- as the evidence stands today - Probably Fact
2/Global environmental damage - as the evidence stands today - Fact

I think number one is serving as a distraction to the second.

I stand by the conclusion. - Curdis !

I say fact and why isn't this a poll? Look at hybrid cars for example. Their sales will skyrocket in the next ten years. For example the 2006 Lexus RX 400h gets 31/26 mpg. Pretty damn good for an suv.

Curdis wrote:Perhaps the main difficulty here is that I actually broadly agree and accept that there is a substantial (and growing) amount of evidence to support the human activities deterimentally effecting the environment thesis.

My point of departure is with the "it is 100% correct greenhouse gases are causing global warming" position which the media (And vested interests) have pushed scientists into.

Aha, now I understand you. I got the impression that you actually believed evidence did not show it was highly likely that human activities have affected global warming. This surprised me.

This is now a much bigger obstacle to change than the truth, or otherwise, of the science. As you are well aware it is almost never the case that a scientific conclusion categorically states that something is a certainty. The terms, unlikely, most probably, tend to reinforce, are the ones used. This is now being used (in the media) as a way of discrediting any valid scientific evidence.

Oh yes, I see what you mean. It is different here in Sweden, where global warming is not a hot political issue, media distort things here as well as elsewhere, but environmental issues are not popular targets here. This is probably due to the fact that Sweden doesn't have a strong industry or other interest groups that lobby in one direction or the other.

Unfortunately the environmental movement have been called out on the evidence in the past and now a wholly unattainable level of proof is being set as the benchmark. The authority of science has been undermined.

I agree this is deeply problematic. Creating the false impression that "100% certainty" is a realistic achievement for scientific conclusions, undermines all science until the day things are replicated and backwards replicated 3359452 times. The very idea of "100%" can also implicate that nothing is missing from the picture, that the explanation models cover every possible mechanism and factor of influence.

To clarify matters regarding my previous statement. I unfortunately allowed myself to fall victim to the false dicotomy (and rhetoric). In a straight choice between Fact/Fiction I erred in placing one thing into a category which it can be argued it should or should not fit. Even the IPCC are not willing to categorically state that it is fact, false dicotomy leads one directly to fiction. My apologies. I should have stated:

1/Global Warming (Human CO2 input model)- as the evidence stands today - Probably Fact
2/Global environmental damage - as the evidence stands today - Fact

I think number one is serving as a distraction to the second.

I stand by the conclusion.

This statement I completely agree with. 1) is probably a fact, but more research is needed, which is also stated by the IPCC.

I am however still curious in how others in this thread, such as Sononara, have formed the opinions they hold about this topic.

[QUOTE=C Elegans]I am however still curious in how others in this thread, such as Sononara, have formed the opinions they hold about this topic.[/QUOTE]

I am also interested in views relating to this in the way of lower atmosphere Ozone.

As some of you science types may know, Manmade Ozone is a type of pollution that settles close to the ground, and can sometimes be characterized as smog. Ozone is made by Nitrogen Oxides which come from such things as vehicles, fuel burning, and the like, or more largely based around combustion, and the second major ingredient, which are VOCs, or Volitile Organic Compunds, usually coming from things such as paint thinners, factories and other areas which result or include Hydrocarbons.

Unlike the Greenhouse effect, which many people still debate for reasons unknown to myself to this day, Low Atmosphere Ozone is a problem that plagues us today, and is a major creator of our current greenhouse dilema. Almost 70% of nitrogen oxides come from exhaust, and it is entirely man made.

What are your views on this, perhaps, and other things that are man made slowly leading towards the warming effect of Earth?

[QUOTE=Athena]I say fact and why isn't this a poll? Look at hybrid cars for example. Their sales will skyrocket in the next ten years. For example the 2006 Lexus RX 400h gets 31/26 mpg. Pretty damn good for an suv.[/QUOTE]

What does the Lexus have to do whether or not Global Warming is a fact or fiction? Please stay on topic when posting.

And perhaps it isn't a poll to encourage people to post a little more then "I agree", such as for instance the foundation/basis of the opinions

__________________
GameBanshee Moderator
GameBanshee - Make Your Gaming Scream
Forum rules