The problem with political involvement is that the science is biased towards the hand that is feeding it. It really is lose lose for us.
Scientists may become biased, but science as a process is not (and cannot be). And science as a process works to weed out bias.
Just like with second hand smoke, or anything that threatens a company's desire to do what it wants to max shareholder value, there will always be some companies that will try and muddy the waters by paying "scientists" to generate disinformation. Often those scientists are well known for what they do however, there's a common cast of characters around since the days of "second hand smoke is fine".
On the other hand there are counter examples, the Koch brothers hired a scientist that had leanings against the consensus to generate a different temperature record (presumably to have something to point to to say NASA and those guys are all wrong), but ended up with another temperature record that confirmed the other ones... so the scientist stuck to the actual science rather than being biased towards the hand that feeds it.
And given two options, one that most scientists are people who are passionate about science and will let the results speak for themselves and two that there's this vast conspiracy among tens of thousands of scientists that don't actually care about science and will falsify results on a global scale across dozens of different scientific disciplines (biologists, zoologists, geologists, astronomers, physicists, botanists, etc etc) in order to.. well I don't even know what it would be in order to do, I know which option seems more reasonable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick Estrada
The information is all skewed depending on where it originated.
Then go to the origin of the source, the information is freely available, and many climate scientists host or participate in blogs and other online venues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor
You need to draw a distinction between lobbying and PR groups and the actual science. Scientific consensus isn't being perverted by monetary interests, just the public discourse is.
That's a really good way to put it, I like it.
The monetary interests don't care about actually doing science or coming up with alternatives to the consensus, their field of play isn't science (where they have to put up or shut up), it's public opinion.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
This quote essentially sums up the entire problem with the debate. I feel like I'm conversing with mouth breathing, raging, lunatics.
There is no debate. I know you think you are being reasonable by being open to all sides of the argument, but the question is scientifically settled for all intents and purposes. The fact that so many people believe the question is not settled, shows how successful the denialists have been in creating a false controversy. Their motives are not scientific, but are political and economic.
There is no debate. I know you think you are being reasonable by being open to all sides of the argument, but the question is scientifically settled for all intents an purposes. The fact that so many people believe the question is not settled, shows how successful the denialists have been in creating a false controversy. Their motives are not scientific, but are political and economic.
What is the argument? That the climate is changing? We all know it's changing. It always has throughout the history of the earth. The debate is man's role in climate change and I have not yet seen anything concrete on just how much influence we have on climate change. Am I to believe that just because man now widely inhabits earth that it would stand still for us when it didn't for other species over it's existence?
Last edited by Erick Estrada; 07-24-2013 at 03:13 PM.
There is no debate. I know you think you are being reasonable by being open to all sides of the argument, but the question is scientifically settled for all intents an purposes. The fact that so many people believe the question is not settled, shows how successful the denialists have been in creating a false controversy. Their motives are not scientific, but are political and economic.
Well....obviously it's not settled if you have credible scientists giving the oppossing view.
There are also a variety of sub-issues that remain far from settled. How much is the climate actually changing? What impact does human activity have on this change?
Ulimately, we shouldn't need to know these answers to push an agenda for conservation. Relying on oil, a limited resource, is bad for so many reasons. Humans should be doing there best to find alternative energy sources regardless of climate change.
The fact of the matter is that climate change is so complex that it's beyond our current scientific understanding. You can try and break it down into layman's terms and simplified pictures, but that in no way represents the entire issue. The issue has attracted so many reactionary responses that it's begining to become totally obscurred. You not only need to "believe" in climate change, you need to belive in a specific and uncompromissing variety.
Like I said before, issue is now a political one. I'd even take it a step further and say that the issue has now become a religious one. Hard core views on both sides of the debate have more in common with anti-evolutionists.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
Basically a scientific reason as to why I should drive a Prius instead of a Hummer.
If you live in Alberta a Prius might not be doing any favors to the environment.
Alberta's electricity is mostly generated from coal which seems to be about as bad as it gets.
I point this out not to pick apart your example but because it highlights how hard these decisions are for a consumer. An environmentally conscious decision in Ontario may be the wrong decision in Alberta.
The debate is man's role in climate change and I have not yet seen anything concrete on just how much influence we have on climate change. Am I to believe that just because man now widely inhabits earth that it would stand still for us when it didn't for other species over it's existence?
No scientist claims that the current climate change is caused by man just because man now widely inhabits the earth, or that climate would stop changing just because we're watching it. They have actual evidence, not assumptions. For example you can tell how much of the carbon that is in the atmosphere comes from fossil fuels due to the ratios of different isotopes of carbon. And that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is basic physics.
Climate changes for various reasons. Just because cause A causes climate change doesn't mean that when the climate changes it's always cause A, that's fallacious reasoning.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Human activities contribute to climate change by causing changes in Earth’s atmosphere in the amounts of greenhouse gases, aerosols (small particles), and cloudiness. The largest known contribution comes from the burning of fossil fuels, which releases carbon dioxide gas to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases and aerosols affect climate by altering incoming solar radiation and out-going infrared (thermal) radiation that are part of Earth’s energy balance. Changing the atmospheric abundance or properties of these gases and particles can lead to a warming or cooling of the climate system. Since the start of the industrial era (about 1750), the overall effect of human activities on climate has been a warming influence. The human impact on climate during this era greatly exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes, such as solar changes and volcanic eruptions.
Last edited by troutman; 07-24-2013 at 03:28 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
The composition of Venus' atmosphere contains considerably more than just CO2. The atmosphere of Mars is also considerably higher in CO2 by percent than on Earth.
There is no debate. I know you think you are being reasonable by being open to all sides of the argument, but the question is scientifically settled for all intents and purposes. The fact that so many people believe the question is not settled, shows how successful the denialists have been in creating a false controversy. Their motives are not scientific, but are political and economic.
This is a 3 sided debate and the 2 largest sides are both motivated by politics and economics
1 side says it exists and the only way to fix it is to stop burning fossil fuels. They talk about the rape and pillage of the earths non-renewable resources, evil oil companies, and a redisitribution of wealth from larger nations to smaller all of which have nothing to do with a rise in the earths temperature.
2 this side says it doesnt exist
3 the scientific side only gives you the facts - sadly its very difficult to see a report that only has the facts as it likely wouldnt give much press.
If the GHG effect is what is causing the rise in the earths temperature then the solution put forward should be simple: reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere by whichever means possible.
Either by reducing emissions or by finding a technology based way reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. If I was a smart inventor that is what I would be trying to come up is a scientific way to reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere instead of a socio-political game of shaming people to buy a crappy car. For this to work we need a % of good CO2 in the atmosphere - if the GH is a hypothesis then this number should exist somewhere.
__________________
MYK - Supports Arizona to democtratically pass laws for the state of Arizona
Rudy was the only hope in 08
2011 Election: Cons 40% - Nanos 38% Ekos 34%
The composition of Venus' atmosphere contains considerably more than just CO2. The atmosphere of Mars is also considerably higher in CO2 by percent than on Earth.
ugh
The CO2 share of Mars' atmosphere is the bottom we're digging at now?
Mars' atmosphere is 99% less dense than Earth's.
Ridiculous.
The Following User Says Thank You to Tinordi For This Useful Post:
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. ... Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. ... Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. ... Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research."
Well....obviously it's not settled if you have credible scientists giving the oppossing view.
The consensus is overwhelming, the number of credible scientists publishing completely opposing views (that warming is not due to humans) is very small.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
There are also a variety of sub-issues that remain far from settled. How much is the climate actually changing? What impact does human activity have on this change?
Deciding if it's 70% human activity or 81% human activity is important, but it doesn't change that humans are the dominant forcing currently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
The fact of the matter is that climate change is so complex that it's beyond our current scientific understanding.
The impacts might be complex, but the actual science is quite understandable, after all we're a ball in a vacuum with a single external energy source, the basic physics of it is straight forward.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Yes, if climate physics are complex then how the hell are you typing at us on a device that's harnessing the theories of quantum mechanics?
That is to say that just because something is complex and that we don't have a full understanding of the moving parts doesn't mean we can't significantly harness and affect a physical process.
It's technically correct. Not always easy to correct Photon, you gotta take it when you can.
But this is the type of obfuscation and confusion that drives me up the wall. Well read people such as yourself throw things at the wall for people to then lap up. "Well the CO2 composition of Mars' atmosphere is 95% and they don't have global warming there?!" It just serves to muddy what is perfectly clear.
