The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

The 3000 scientists in the "consensus" are NOT all climatologists. Infact, only a very small percentage are.

[sinmantyx]

The 3000 scientists in the "consensus" are NOT all climatologists. In fact, only a very small percentage are.

Sorry...delegates sent to a climatology conference. If you have the demographic of everyone there...post it. "Very small percentage" is a bit vague.

What disturbs me the most actually, as this debate goes into the public realm...and what ALWAYS happens when science goes into the public realm. Is that everyone wants to simplify the situation into some sort of SINGLE and indisputable resolution.

That's not how it works. That is never how it works. However, when you learn physics or chemistry or biology in high school, that is what you learn. You learn the concepts of science as a non-negotiable body of knowledge that has reached near consensus over many years of tweaking and reproducibility.

The idea that a bunch of scientists got together and their finding boiled down to one statement: "Global climate change is all our fault," is NOT the same as "'There can be no question that the increases in these greenhouse gases are dominated by human activity,' says Susan Solomon, co-chair of the working group and an atmospheric scientist with the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)." or "'The 2nd of February in Paris will be remembered as the day that the question mark was removed from the idea that humans had anything to do with climate change,' adds Achim Steiner, executive director of the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) 'The focus of attention will now shift from whether climate change is linked to human activity and whether the science is sufficient to what on earth are we going to do about it.'"

Does this mean that these scientists and people like them are ignoring the role of other factors such as the decrease in particulate matter in the sky? Does it mean they're ignoring that it snows in Antarctica? In fact, you'll probably find more scientists pissed that their research is being MISUSED to combat the consensus in the public arena than those that honestly disagree with the consensus and feel ignored or marginalized. It took me about one google search to find a great example. At least the author had the decency to say: The person whose work I'm co-opting is pretty pissed about the conclusions I'm making.

So the world of black-and-white thinkers who don't GET the science presented to them. (Such as those that would throw out decades of research and thought into evolutionary models; because Crick Francis said, "If a particular amino acid sequence was selected by chance, how rare an event would this be?" and continued to figure it out.) Are pointing at scientists' lack of uncertainty (perhaps finding the most uncertain portion of a larger model) as a means of debunking the entire conclusion as if they have no concept of the "error bar" (because they don't). This is a great example of such thinking: "...the "facts" are either true or they are not true." The majority of the world is stuck in the Pigiet's fourth stage of cognitive development. This makes a reasonable translation from the scientific community to the larger community (or the Bush administration -- ok, low blow, but I got a kick out of it) extremely difficult.

It reminds me of the Bush-Gore election aftermath. It was a tie. There is no way we could *possibly* know who won that election. Anyone with any statistical sense knows this, however, our psychology doesn't allow us to admit it. Unlike that election however, this isn't a tie. What we have seen has led many many people to conclude that human activity most likely has significantly contributed to global warming. This does not somehow NEGATE other contributors, but I tell you I would love to ask the scientists in the original posted video how it could possibly be so difficult to differentiate excess-of-full-spectrum-light contributions (a much higher quality energy) with excess-of-trapped-heat contributions (a much lower quality energy)...heck I might learn something.

However, back to the bathroom analogy that was presented earlier. Your ceiling is leaking water, you go upstairs and see that the bathtub has overflowed and water is puring everywhere. So do you A) Turn off the water to the bathtub and access the damage and continue to be vigilant to other problems or do you B) continue to be vigilant to other problems because you might get your feet wet if you go over there and actually turn off the water. If you need a dichotomy for how we should proceed...there you go.

However, even in this, we can't think of it as an all-or-none response. I think both "sides" (because apparently we need "sides" to talk about on television shows), have no need to be extreme. Should we simply stop using coal tomorrow? Of course not, our economy would go into chaos. Should we ignore what is the most likely scenario because other scenarios are more convenient. No.

[Marblez]

debating in a forum isn't going to change the world, either.

I agree with TA on this...

Perhaps I read this discussion and it spurs my interest to learn more about the topic. Then I may tell someone who cares about it even more than me...and that person becomes an activist and wins the MegaMillions jackpot and decides to donate half of his winnings to research.

Or perhaps I get a bumper sticker and someone sees tyhat bumper sticker....

[BrassFusion]

I agree with TA on this...

Perhaps I read this discussion and it spurs my interest to learn more about the topic. Then I may tell someone who cares about it even more than me...and that person becomes an activist and wins the MegaMillions jackpot and decides to donate half of his winnings to research.

Or perhaps I get a bumper sticker and someone sees tyhat bumper sticker....

Why should there have to be activists to encourage people to take responsibility for their own pollution?

[Marblez]

Why should there have to be activists to encourage people to take responsibility for their own pollution?

Activists will access more people with a stronger message than one individual who choses not to use his voice.

[Marblez]

I would prefer that my tax $ go to research and development of renewable resources and lessened pollutants. It was recently reported people who live near a freeway are significantly more at risk for heart and respiratory problems and associated deaths.

Personally, I would rather spend on things that we know that can help us lessen our contribution to Global Warming and other issues like improving the longevity and quality of life than spend money to prove that we are just globally fucked in the long run.

[BrassFusion]

Activists will access more people with a stronger message than one individual who choses not to use his voice.

If all these people had just watched Barney the fucking dinosaur it wouldn't be as much of a problem...

[Marblez]

If all these people had just watched Barney the fucking dinosaur it wouldn't be as much of a problem...

That wasn't at all from left field

[BrassFusion]

That wasn't at all from left field

FUCKING COMMUNISTS