1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Question to all climate skeptics

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by storealex, Dec 17, 2009.

  1. Verbose

    Verbose Deity

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Messages:
    9,704
    Location:
    Sweden / France
    You know, this was the conservative view taken by a number of climate researchers back in the 1960-70's. They did however lose out to the group going: "Hm, but we do think we have something to worry about here, and IF we have, it's going to be a very weak defense when the feces hit the fan, that we saw this looming, but said nothing until we were sure."

    There is an actual dilemma here for them. Wait until it's obvious, but don't give people a heads up in advance, or get themselves out there now, and risk being accused of fear-mongering.

    It about how to manage risks.

    But now the climate researchers have said their piece. (Though they did think they might actually be believed pf course.) So now it is actually a matter of politics, and of course we have the option of dismissing the science we have so far. But that's politics, and not science. And it's the way it was supposed to work anyway; science supposedly provides an unproblematic basis in the form of facts, and politicians then decide policy.

    Except in this instance enough of the scientists thought it too potentially risky to wait for confirmation.
     
  2. BasketCase

    BasketCase Username sez it all

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    13,024
    Location:
    Closer than you'd like
    Yeah. And before 1935, it was WARMING that had everybody worried. In fact, AGW was first theorized in 1894 (yes, I said EIGHTEEN ninety-four! :eek: ) and science has flip-flopped between warming and cooling many times since then. The basic pattern is that science changes its tune to line up with whatever the planet appears to be doing at the moment.

    I know, I know--you're sure science is right this time. Guess what, Sherlock, that's what science was thinking in 1970. That those science wonks from 1930 (in 1930 it was warming they were worried about) were a bunch of cavemen working with stone knives and bearskins; the guys from 1970 were thinking "our science is much better, so we MUST have it right".

    You know the old line about learning from history? Well, you're not.
     
  3. Ziggy Stardust

    Ziggy Stardust New Englander

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2005
    Messages:
    24,105
    Location:
    High above the ice
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-said-about-global-cooling.html
    Popular media
    http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm

     
  4. BasketCase

    BasketCase Username sez it all

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    13,024
    Location:
    Closer than you'd like
    Blah blah blah, heard it all before. Same reply as last time. NASA's summary of the scientific literature of the time disagrees with yours. And NASA is pretty much the most reliable source there is. The biggest thing your summary keeps missing is that the consensus on global warming did not occur until at least 1976. The fact that there was a consensus on warming AFTER 1976 does not conflict with or disprove the fact that there was a consensus on cooling BEFORE 1976.
     
  5. Ziggy Stardust

    Ziggy Stardust New Englander

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2005
    Messages:
    24,105
    Location:
    High above the ice
    What my summary keeps missing is being read :(
     
  6. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    44,507
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    Sure, but that's missing the point of why there's concern regarding climate change. Right now, we have breadbasket regions with good rainfall & good soil. If the climate shifts, we might see rainfall move away from those breadbaskets onto regions with poor soil. Now, that's a terribly simplistic model of the concern, but it gets the gist.

    We need more than rainfall to turn a region productive, topsoil is an important component. There's no good reason to think that reducing water in a productive region will be compensated by increased rainfall in a low-productivity region.
    I was using the Congo as a proxy for an ethical argument. The point was that a company that toxifies the region for the Congalese, even if there's a net benefit for 'humanity' (the harvesting & distribution of essential elements for computers), requires some type of intervention to make things fair for the Congalese. Just because there are other problems in a region, we're not allowed to aggravate those problems in other ways.

    Anyway, about the short-term ability of models. Let's use the DOW as an example. I can tell you that I have good reason to say that the DOW will be higher in 30 years than it is now. Improved education policies will raise the DOW more. Over-reacting to terror plots will hinder its growth. This modeling, as simplistic as it is, can't predict the DOW next week. No one can. People who say "low taxes are good for the economy" can't predict the DOW next week. People who say "free trade is good for the economy" can't predict the DOW next week.

    20 years ago, the scientists were confident enough in their models to actually aggressively push the politicians. The deniers scoffed at those models, denied warming, denied actions, etc. For 20 years, we've had skeptics who were unable to predict the warming, and who've said it wouldn't happen. They were wrong. So, if we're looking for credibility, there's one side with much more credibility.

    The 1998 El Nino killed a huge amount of coral. This turned swaths of productive ocean (productive as in 'useful for people') into non-productive ocean. The warming trend has continued since 1998. It will continue to warm, even if we enact wise policies. The goal is merely to slow the warming, in order to cheapen adaptation.
     
  7. bigfatron

    bigfatron Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2002
    Messages:
    1,927
    Location:
    London
    http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=206221
    We covered this nearly three years ago. You're wasting all our time bringing it up again...:rolleyes:
     
  8. Verbose

    Verbose Deity

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Messages:
    9,704
    Location:
    Sweden / France
    I have no idea who you're actually arguing against anymore. Or for.

    The point is the question: Do you want those for all our tax money expensively educated egg heads to try to blow the whistle ahead of potential problems, or to sit tight with the info until they're actually certain? They have a problem with that issue right now, regardless of how things eventually turn out, and as a consequence so do we.
     
  9. Orange Seeds

    Orange Seeds playing with cymbals

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2008
    Messages:
    784
    Location:
    Vancouver
    If Basketcase were a criminal lawyer he would argue that his client could not have committed murder because people have always been accusing other people of committing murder yet some of these accusations were rescinded and proven wrong, and sometimes whole other persons were actually convicted and sometimes we find that people have been killed by natural occurrences, or that there was no fault to attribute. Such inconsistency proves that there can not ever be anyone guilty of murder at any point in the future.

    There is no point arguing the particulars of the case--you can't come to truth that way!
     
  10. BasketCase

    BasketCase Username sez it all

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    13,024
    Location:
    Closer than you'd like
    Something else for you to think over, Zig.
    At this point in history, the popular media had TWO environmental calamities available to write stuff about--global warming AND global cooling (as I said, the theory of human-induced global warming was first developed in the EIGHTEEN hundreds). If they were interested in shock value and writing about disaster, they could have written about either one.

    So why do you think they chose to write about global cooling....? Because that's what science was worried about when the article was written. To write about the other one and draw mass criticism from the scientific community would have been stupid. That's why the popular media are today worrying about global warming instead of cooling: because everybody else is.

    Absolutely.

    AIDS. Nuclear proliferation. Starvation. Pollution in Third World countries. Earthquakes and tsunamis hitting unprepared Third World countries.

    All of which are already bigger problems than global warming ever will be.

    And yet here you are. Admit it--you're addicted. I'm like cocaine to you guys. :D

    BECAUSE HE HAS NOT BEEN FOUND GUILTY.
     
  11. Orange Seeds

    Orange Seeds playing with cymbals

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2008
    Messages:
    784
    Location:
    Vancouver
    That doesn't seem like a very convincing case either.

    Spoiler :
    "My client could not possibly have committed that murder. 'Why?' you ask? Because you have to yet to find him guilty. Case closed."

    I'm pretty sure what you're trying to do is provide reasons against AGW. One of those reasons was that people have often held claims about something resembling AGW and they were apparently wrong or contradictory. My analogy showed why that sort of reasoning is fallacious. Your response to it was that AGW does not exist. Which, of course, begs the question 'why?' Your entire argument immediately above this one appears to be void.
     
  12. Ayatollah So

    Ayatollah So the spoof'll set you free

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2002
    Messages:
    4,389
    Location:
    SE Michigan
    No. Your hypothesis is independently known to be false; and, the choice of the newspapers to write about cooling has another explanation, which you just quoted!
    Hmm, the media speculating on the causes of what's bothering its readers at the moment! That only happens, like, ALL THE TIME. :rolleyes:

    Edit: added link. Linked article (Table 1) specifically refutes "early 70s vs late 70s" sub-hypothesis.
     
  13. BasketCase

    BasketCase Username sez it all

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    13,024
    Location:
    Closer than you'd like
    Oh, and furthermore.
    The above fact--that criminal convictions sometimes turn out to be wrong--is perfectly true. And the result of that is what? IT'S THE REASON WE HAVE SUCH A FORGIVING JUSTICE SYSTEM TO BEGIN WITH. Trial by your peers, innocent until proven guilty, blah blah blah. Maybe the fact that we've been wrong on global warming and global cooling so many times should teach us to be a little more cautious about what conclusion we reach.

    Edit: And further-furthermore. If I was your conventional global warming skeptic, I would not only be arguing that there was a consensus on global cooling in the 70's, but I would also be arguing that there WAS NOT a consensus on global WARMING in the 70's. That's why I'm more trustworthy on this topic than most: because I post stuff that's inconvenient for BOTH sides of the issue.
     

Share This Page