| rose colored glasses? |
| ||
|
Maybe I should clarify this part: I think it would be hard to convince me one way or another that a link between human activity and climate change either exists or does not exist. I believe a link (maybe even a strong one) is possible, but I don't think it's possible to demonstrate a clear cause and effect link, because climate is completely chaotic and unpredictable. In fact I would broaden my position to state that I don't think a clear cause and effect can be proven between any specific factor and climate. If we were able to build a true understanding of what in fact influences climate (and weather! perhaps more to the point), we would be able to do a (much) better job at predicting it. |
| Here is the unfortunate truth |
| ||
You're kidding, right? Please say you are joking. "if you followed LR back in 2001-02 in the lead up to the war, there was very little doubt on here about the existence of WMD." Ummm....Are you confused about the definition of Pop Culture? Or are you not clear about the nature of LR? And "nonsense about everyone "knowing" the true dynamics of the solar system before Copernicus. Galileo was only very recently forgiven by the Vatican for his heresy. " OK, now that's not fair. You're going to give me a heart attack from laughing too hard. "The Vatican"?!? Seriously? That bastion of modern scientific thinking? OMFG. Just so you will know, the earth was known to be spherical by the 5th century bc, nearly 2000 years prior to Columbus. Look up Parmenides or Empedocles if you are interested. If this is too challenging to you, look up Aristotle. Shouldn't have too much trouble finding him, although by his time the earth's shape had already been known for a hundred years or more. Please, please, you're making my sides ache. |
| rose colored glasses? |
| ||
I'm not sure if you're trying to be an a$$hole, but the discussion was about what is "known by everybody" like the currently accepted understanding of global climate change being linked to human activity. Yes of course there were some (smart) people who understood reality. But the prevailing notion (let's not pretend that catholic dogma didn't have some significant sway within western culture at the time please) was that the sun revolved around the earth. As you well know. Hence "everybody knew the sun revolved around the earth," even though surely not EVERYBODY believed it. And today there are some (smart) people who understand notions of deterministic chaos, and are able to suspend judgement in the absence of compelling proof one way or the other when the mahematical abstractions and physical models fail to mirror an objective reality. You're proving my basic premise, the reason I don't bring this up with people I know. You can't help but engage in an angry argument with me, although up till now I think I'd said nothing particularly insulting to anybody. Just perhas insulting to their opinions, and the feelings attached to those opinions. |
| Citizen Runner |
| ||
Maybe I'm reading more into this than is there, but your line of reasoning is interesting. You give an example of the scientists Copernicus and Galileo being branded as heretics for disagreeing with the popular and seemingly intuitive notions of the time. With the benefit of hindsight we can see that the body of scientific evidence eventually became so overwhelming that it seems foolish to have opposed their theories, radical as they may have seemed at the time. Your analogy with the present time seems quite the opposite when you opine those that hold the popular and intuitive notion that human behavior cannot have any appreciable impact on planetary climate are the ones being branded heretics by the scientists. This in the face of a growing body of scientific evidence in support of (the recently radical notion of) anthropogenic global warming. Certainly the scientific process needs good informed skeptics to challenge the theories and supporting data, but neither uninformed skepticism nor blind faith in the one theory or another are of much value. |
| you sure about that? |
| ||
Science is not a belief system. Scientists collect and present scientific evidence, and use this evidence to explain observations and make predictions. Other scientists are either convinced or not convinced by this evidence. Separately from that, these other scientists will either accept or reject the associated explanations and predictions as the best explanation for observations. Belief is not meant to be part of the process. It's okay to have hunches. But until your hunch becomes a scientifically tested hypothesis, it is not okay to assume your hunch holds as much merit as scientifically tested hypotheses. |
| rose colored glasses? |
| ||
Now there's an interesting comment. Where I come from, there are very few people who are firmly on the side opposed to a human connection with climate change, and fewer still who don't think climate is changing at all. The comment earlier in the thread, that I was was replying to, was that "everybody knows cimate change is caused by human activity" (I paraphrase) I've been working from the assumption that this is in fact the prevailing common understanding, except perhaps is select conservative parts of the world. That said, I find that people on both "sides" of the issue tend to be equally emotional about their opinions. Fence-sitters such as myself are relatively more rare, and attract ire from both polar viewpoints. |
| rose colored glasses? |
| ||
I'll agree with that. I don't think my (relatively uninformed) opinion is of any particular value, but I don't want to choose a side until I feel I have enough information to support that choice. This is my preferred modus operandi, as I find once you've decided what you believe, no amount of new data to the contrary is likely to shake your belief. Therefore I generally don't take a side on an issue until either I feel I'm ready (I have enough information) or I'm forced to (I have to vote on something, or maybe make a life and death choice on something). |
| No Way |
| ||
|
The vast majority of climate scientists believe that global warming is caused by humans. This is the same situation as the examples that you brought up. The power of the leadership class rested in people believing one thing, and when science went against those beliefs those in power did everything they could to silence science. Now there's an interesting comment. Where I come from, there are very few people who are firmly on the side opposed to a human connection with climate change, and fewer still who don't think climate is changing at all. The comment earlier in the thread, that I was was replying to, was that "everybody knows cimate change is caused by human activity" (I paraphrase) I've been working from the assumption that this is in fact the prevailing common understanding, except perhaps is select conservative parts of the world. That said, I find that people on both "sides" of the issue tend to be equally emotional about their opinions. Fence-sitters such as myself are relatively more rare, and attract ire from both polar viewpoints.[/quote] |
| Citizen Runner |
| ||
re: "I have to vote on something" - Given that a miniscule portion of the population has a firm scientific basis for their, often strongly held, opinion on AGW, it's not surprising that their opinions are strongly correlated with their politics. Frankly, I think this is because people can't separate the scientific questions "Is AGW real?" and "What is the probable impact?" from the political issue "If it's real, what do we do about it?" At the level of detail I've looked into the issue, I think there is a compelling case that AGW is real. The timeline and specifics for the impact is less certain and will evolve over generations to come. Politically, I don't see much proactivity of global consequence happening, but the issue will be a political football for years to come and there will be winners and losers along the way as policy is driven by those with influence. |
| rose colored glasses? |
| ||
Since you've managed to express your views in a neutral tone, would you mind laying out for me the case that you believe supports your opinion? Thanks |
| drunk |
| ||
|
Richard Peet wrote that "Global climate change has become a theatre for governance through markets; governemnt provides incentives and subsidies, and corporations establish their own standards." Capatalist have poked and proded this issue into making sure all of you belive in global warming. I state again, and please prove to me if possible (you cannot) we do not have enough weather data to prove the global warming is taking place. We cannot even predict the weather next week.....please. |
| some data |
| ||
Interesting comment. I think most people understad that climate is always changing, and the evidence is really quite compelling. Yet I admit I find the current belief of global WARMING to be perhaps a tad oversold in the media. Here's a plot of mean annual temperature for Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada, from 1878 to 1982, just over 100 years: Image: http://i42.tinypic.com/14m70uw.jpg Is there an obvious trend toward WARMING there? The "best fit" line suggests a slight upward trend, but that's meaingless within the scatter of the data. This is just one location, therefore only one data point. It's a place I happened to need climate data on in relation to some actual work. I don't happen to have any other data at hand. But I wonder whether this kind of behaviour is more common than the media might have us believe? |
| gis |
| ||
|
I understand what you're saying, but you can agree that we all need to recycle more, yes? |
| green no it all |
| ||
|
Maybe if we drastically changed our habits 40 years ago we would stand a chance against climate change but we're long past the point of no return. No matter how much we reduce our carbon emissions or clora flora currently it won't make a difference toward effecting melting the ice caps. Besides, do you really think we can get 7 billion people to drastically change? Calling it, doomed within the next 50 years. |
| Ringer1 |
| ||
Wouldn't we be better off reducing waste. For instance, why do they double bag my shopping at the supermarket. Why use plastic bags at all? Stores across Europe either charge for plastic bags or refuse to provide them. |
| No Way |
| ||
Wait, I thought the Democrats were socialist and the Republican were capitalists? Or does it change depending on which issue you're arguing? |
| No Way |
| ||
Wouldn't we be better off reducing waste. For instance, why do they double bag my shopping at the supermarket. Why use plastic bags at all? Stores across Europe either charge for plastic bags or refuse to provide them.[/quote] They're not mutually exclusive. They actually go hand in hand. By recycling, you're reducing waste. But yes, if we limit production of "throwaway" items, it would absolutely be beneficial. |
| No Way |
| ||
Since you've managed to express your views in a neutral tone, would you mind laying out for me the case that you believe supports your opinion? Thanks[/quote] RCG, if you truly wanted to see the evidence, you would have looked it up. It is very easy to find. Since you're just sitting here waiting for it, here: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ Now go ahead and refute all of it with nonsense, I'm waiting eagerly to read your response. |
| Logical Man |
| ||
I always love this "argument". Since we cannot even predict the weather next week we obviously cannot predict the impact of El Nino which occurs over the course of many months. Since we cannot even predict the weather next week we obviously cannot predict that next summer will be warmer than this past winter. Obviously. Here's a bit of a hint for you folks - weather and climate are two different concepts. The ability (or lack thereof) to predict next week's weather has absolutely nothing to do with predicting the long term impacts of doubling atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Your "argument" is neither more nor less valid than saying, "Since we cannot predict who will win the Super Bowl in 2017 we obviously cannot predict the impact of rising CO2 levels." |
| Citizen Runner |
| ||
I'm not clear what you're asking for here. For someone with a modestly technical bent, the "Technical Summary" section of the 2007 IPCC "The Physical Science Basis" is a reasonable read. You can then read the various criticisms of the science and drill down into the full report, supporting references, or counter criticisms to your hearts content until you're convinced or not. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm |