I still believe in Global Warming. Do You?

[tokala]

Well, yes, you are stating the obvious. But this only applies to the first scientists who proposed the theory. Not to those who came after (and possibly constitute those 97% -if that figure is correct).

From the ~60% of
researchers where year of PhD was available, mean year of receiving a PhD
for UE researchers was 1977, versus 1987 for CE researchers, implying that UE
researchers should have on average more publications due to an age effect
alone.

Given that it usually takes more than 7 years from entry into university to a PhD , it means that the average entry year of leading climate scientists into academia is way before anthropological climate change became a major public issue.

You should really read that paper:
Expert credibility in climate change

What they currently say is however: "AGW is an indisputable fact, anyone who doesn't believe is not too be taken seriously".

Unfortunately, the scientific base of AGW has become that convincing (in a scientific sense) that the hard core "skeptics" (those completely denying the reality of AGW) have indeed run out of scientific arguments that could be taken seriously.

Even basic scientific knowledge is sufficient to form that conclusion.

It you are not willing to invest the time necessary to aquire that knowledge for yourself, on which base do you form your opinions of whom to trust regarding climate science, or anything requiring expert knowledge?

Gut feeling? Political convenience?

Why should say, plasma or particle physicists cheerfully burning through billions of Euro/Dollar with their expensive toys not be motivated to engage in a conspiracy to delude the public. After all they are getting far more funds than all of climate science, let alone the fraction of climate science dealing explicitely with AGW?
Why is noone going after them screaming fraud? Maybe because their results do not threaten entrenched economic interests and ideologies?

Is the Delta Committee in on the conspiracy, to waste public money on unnecessary coastal fortifications?

 

[Murky]

AGW isn't just a theory based on models any longer. There is strong evidence in multiple lines of observations; arctic ice loss, sea level rise, coastal flooding, heat waves, extended droughts, etc. To dispute a theoretical climate model for a future scenario is one thing. To dispute what has already happened and gradually getting worse is another.

 

[History_Buff]

What they currently say is however: "AGW is an indisputable fact, anyone who doesn't believe is not too be taken seriously".
I don't even mind them saying that, but what I find utterly annoying is that our (state-funded!!) television says so. Or rather, implies it. And this is the reason I took part in this discussion, because I really thought it was about propaganda techniques rather than climate change.

Would you have the same reservations about the state TV stations saying the Earth was round, man walked on the moon, and that we came to be through evolution?

 

[ParkCungHee]

He cites peer reviewed papers, which he posts with source links to the original documents

If citing peer reviewed material makes you peer reviewed, then I'm the Lord Protector of Ireland.

 

[El_Machinae]

That said, people who properly summarise and cite peer-reviewed research have a LOT more credibility

 

[rollo1066]

global warming is such a problem that the ice caps in Antarctica are increasing!

Not a surprise to me. Warmer air can hold more moisture. Since Antarctica is still far below freezing warmer tempreture means more snow.

 

[El_Machinae]

Celticempire, I hope that makes sense to you. If the area is below freezing, it can still warm. If it's warmer, there will be more humidity and therefore snow. Places where the temps are near freezing are likely to melt with warming. Places that are well-below freezing are likely to gain more snow.

What's a bit distressing is that the reporting from Fox News made people think that this wasn't a warming issue (or evidence for warming)

 

[midget_roxx]

If citing peer reviewed material makes you peer reviewed, then I'm the Lord Protector of Ireland.

I never said he was peer reviewed I meant he uses peer reviewed work in his videos

 

[caketastydelish]

I don't mean to flame anyone, but in my opinion, anyone who denies global warming is real is just as backwards as anyone that denies evolution is real.

 

[El_Machinae]

I never said he was peer reviewed I meant he uses peer reviewed work in his videos

Yeah, no worries. I just misunderstood what you meant. I certainly like Potholer54's climate (and evolution) stuff.

 

[Part_Time_Civer]

It you are not willing to invest the time necessary to aquire that knowledge for yourself, on which base do you form your opinions of whom to trust regarding climate science, or anything requiring expert knowledge?

Gut feeling? Political convenience?

Indeed, gut feeling. The same way I base any opinion about anything if I don't have the time, inclination, knowledge or resources to launch a fully-fledged investigation.
And I trust you use that same method, just like everybody else.

Why should say, plasma or particle physicists cheerfully burning through billions of Euro/Dollar with their expensive toys not be motivated to engage in a conspiracy to delude the public. After all they are getting far more funds than all of climate science, let alone the fraction of climate science dealing explicitely with AGW?
Why is noone going after them screaming fraud? Maybe because their results do not threaten entrenched economic interests and ideologies?
?

I didn't mention a conspiracy (the word conspiracy suggests an agreement between multiple actors: the conspirators). I rather suspect a tendency to make oneself more important than justified.
And I do suspect that a lot of sciencists (and people of other professions) suffer from this tendency (although for some, such as particle physics, it is pretty hard to make themselves as important as climate scientist do by saying "if you don't fund us it will have disastrous consequences").

Is the Delta Committee in on the conspiracy, to waste public money on unnecessary coastal fortifications?

No. I think that the delta committee is either making a responsible decision in a world of uncertainly (sea levels can rise, who knows?) or using the popular belief in AGW in order to exagarate their importance (I honestly don't know which one it is).

Would you have the same reservations about the state TV stations saying the Earth was round, man walked on the moon, and that we came to be through evolution?

As a matter of fact, I do. I opine journalists should state other people's opinions, not their own. So it is perfectly fine if journalists say that according to Darwin mankind came about through evolution (which I incidentally believe as well), but it would be bad journalism to state it as a fact.

 

[warpus]

It's bad journalism to state a fact as a fact?

"I'm here in Moscow, which some claim is the capital of Russia"

 

[History_Buff]

As a matter of fact, I do. I opine journalists should state other people's opinions, not their own. So it is perfectly fine if journalists say that according to Darwin mankind came about through evolution (which I incidentally believe as well), but it would be bad journalism to state it as a fact.

Here I stand at the memorial to the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic, where more than a thousand people allegedly died in the North Atlantic.

Here I am next to this agglomerate of wood and fibrous leaves. Residents refer to it as 'a tree'.

Facts are facts. State them as such.

 

[Part_Time_Civer]

Here I stand at the memorial to the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic, where more than a thousand people allegedly died in the North Atlantic.

Here I am next to this agglomerate of wood and fibrous leaves. Residents refer to it as 'a tree'.

Facts are facts. State them as such.

Yes, but the sinking of the Titanic and the concept of a tree are not controversial. As a matter of fact, the aforementioned "agglomerate of wood and fibrous leaves" is a tree by definition. So you can't dispute it.

 

[History_Buff]

Yes, but the sinking of the Titanic and the concept of a tree are not controversial. As a matter of fact, the aforementioned "agglomerate of wood and fibrous leaves" is a tree by definition. So you can't dispute it.

The fact that things are controversial has no bearing on whether they are true, at least in the public domain.

The science on all of those things is settled. The Earth is round. Humans evolved. The Earth is warming due to anthropogenic forcings. Matter attracts other matter.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Yes, but the sinking of the Titanic and the concept of a tree are not controversial. As a matter of fact, the aforementioned "agglomerate of wood and fibrous leaves" is a tree by definition. So you can't dispute it.

Here I stand at the site of Auschwitz an alleged German concentration camp where according to some sources thousands of Jews were supposedly killed during the Holocaust (a highly organized genocide that, if certain people are to be believed, took place in Germany and occupied territories from 1941 - 1945).

Better ?
The Holocaust is controversial ! There are probably thousands of people who think it's just a lie invented to keep the white man down and make him feel quilty.

 

[ParkCungHee]

the aforementioned "agglomerate of wood and fibrous leaves" is a tree by definition.

No it's not. Trees lack essential qualities.

 

[Part_Time_Civer]

Here I stand at the site of Auschwitz an alleged German concentration camp where according to some sources thousands of Jews were supposedly killed during the Holocaust (a highly organized genocide that, if certain people are to be believed, took place in Germany and occupied territories from 1941 - 1945).

Better ?
The Holocaust is controversial ! There are probably thousands of people who think it's just a lie invented to keep the white man down and make him feel quilty.

There is always someone who doesn't believe something. I wouldn't call the Holocaust controversial though. How many people on this forum do not believe in it for starters?

 

[ParkCungHee]

We've got a few.

 

[Ayatollah So]

(although for some, such as particle physics, it is pretty hard to make themselves as important as climate scientist do by saying "if you don't fund us it will have disastrous consequences").

?!! I've got two words for you: nuclear weapons.

All professions inflate their importance, but climate scientists don't have a special advantage in (claimed) consequences. They have a special advantage in evidence.