The Facts and Fiction on Global Warming

[vista]

My point exactly

That's the biggest pile of nonsense I've read in, oh at least 10 seconds.

Having worked for many years as a professional scientist, all I can say is that you don't understand how science works. The conclusion of point 1. is that science does not advance or change. In fact the whole point is that science advances based on the available evidence. Massive increases in CO2 are based on evidence and not wishful thinking. Uncertainty exists because the subject is complex, and draws in scientists from a wide range of disciplines. I believe few consider man made global warming a fact but most consider it by far the most probable explanation of observations and adopt the precautionary principle. Any scientist who had a clever idea for an experiment that could support, or disprove for good global warming, would have no problem getting funding were the experiment to be practical and based on good science. In fact that is exactly how scientists get funding.

I don't believe for one moment that you have the answers to the GW question one way or the other and neither do I, moreover I am not remotely inclined to find out.

So I look at how the pros and anti's behave and what is said to get a read on the situation. You like many other people kick off your comments with a belittling insult which betrays your bias instantly which is later reinforced by some quasi-factual attempt to seize truth. Then you try convince us that scientists/doctors do not get pillorised for challenging orthodoxy yet we can all probably recall people getting creamed for doing just that, MMR anyone Dr whatshisface had to leave the country.

So by the end of the post you have turned into snaw made me more certain than ever that zealots cannot be trusted and achieved nothing. ho hum.

[vista]

Care to tell me how the reaction of many people in this particular forum, is any different to the one of the zealots you mention? I wouldn't disagree that considered majority scientific opinion could be wrong, and there has to be room for debate on this.

But from the perspective of someone who clearly falls into the 'believer' catagory, the opposite reaction is equally distaestfull, varying from the fingers in the ears yelling I'm not listening to the outright 'who sh!t on my carpet' hostile in yer face approach.

Personally for me the thing that always swings it can be quite clearly stated. I'm an err on the side of caution sort of person when it comes to things of this potential impact. Compare the contrasting outcomes of both sides of the coin and the impact of being wrong is much more costly on one side.

I distrust the GW hype and 'believers' because of the way the 'believers' behave which makes a judgment call difficult though I agree the juries out. I haven't seen a concerted effort to completely discredit GW with the same agressiveness as GW believers display. I suspect the aggressiveness is a equal and opposite reaction.

[Fungus]

I don't believe for one moment that you have the answers to the GW question one way or the other and neither do I, moreover I am not remotely inclined to find out.

So I look at how the pros and anti's behave and what is said to get a read on the situation. You like many other people kick off your comments with a belittling insult which betrays your bias instantly which is later reinforced by some quasi-factual attempt to seize truth. Then you try convince us that scientists/doctors do not get pillorised for challenging orthodoxy yet we can all probably recall people getting creamed for doing just that, MMR anyone Dr whatshisface had to leave the country.

So by the end of the post you have turned into snaw made me more certain than ever that zealots cannot be trusted and achieved nothing. ho hum.

My first line was a statment of fact and not an insult. You clearly have no idea how science progresses.

Fungus

[Fungus]

The Translation:
Scientists like to eat, work, have a career and generally get on with their lives so they toe the line as GW naysayers are considered on a par with child molesters, flat earthists or worse.

Well it is obvious that a) you have no idea how science works, b) you have no idea how scientists work. I think that you should find out before insulting the integrity of scientists.

Perhaps if those that so feverently believe GW and its effects were more balanced, considered alternative opinion and didn't rabidly condemn or comprehensively attack/destroy those that questioned 'condsidered opinion' they would carry the day. Unfortunately those that try and even succeed in bullying others are rarely believed or supported by those that do not have a shared vested interest.

Read reviews in journals such as Science. They will give you a balanced view. Scientists are decent people who do believe in truth believe it or not, and they based their comments on evidence. Reviewers decide whether a paper is based on good science, not whether or not the content obeys the 'party line'. Any suggestion of the latter is absurd.

The 'we are the major reason' betrays the entire lie or convienent highjacking of the truth? Scientist and good science do not catagorically say anything unless there is absolute irrefutable evidence to back up assertions (and there aint many absolutes) yet here we have both an effect and a cause spelt out without a second thought. The timeframes involved make any such assertion at best risky and at worst undermines the entire message you are trying to get across and to the message is it really a planet saving message? or the latest 'cause'/big stick some people get their yah yahs hitting other people with.

You may be wrong or you and 'considered opinion' may be right however the way zealots behave it'll take a lot to convince me that you're not all 'Chicken Littles' with baseball bats beating cr@p out of anyone that disagrees with you just for kicks.

If more people list enironmental issues as a major concern then politicians take notice

We have had how many minority governments without a popular mandate for any policy? and bringing politicians in to the mix further discredits the argument. Once upon a time everyone from the pope down used to believe the planet was flat, this belief didn't change the spherical nature of our planet so yes everyone has been wrong before.

[Dundeegeorge]

Oh if only scientists were ruling the world, how much

Well it is obvious that a) you have no idea how science works, b) you have no idea how scientists work. I think that you should find out before insulting the integrity of scientists.



Read reviews in journals such as Science. They will give you a balanced view. Scientists are decent people who do believe in truth believe it or not, and they based their comments on evidence. Reviewers decide whether a paper is based on good science, not whether or not the content obeys the 'party line'. Any suggestion of the latter is absurd.

better it would be.
I think your hero-worship slightly ignores one very salient fact.
Scientists are human and are just as prone to wishful thinking as others of that ilk.

[lukemg]

So, fossil fuels rapidly diminishing (comparatively, 100 years is the blink of an eye in the earth's history). We will move on from the 'oil age' and there is unlikely to be any energy production that replaces it, which will produce the same co2 issues, even grown fuel is effectively carbon neutral and if we get fusion sorted - happy days.
So, is the earth at this stage a dust blown wilderness beyond all hope ? Nah, of course not. The biggest blight on the earth is the unfettered spread of an animal that collectively consumes all natural resources and expects to never reach the obvious finite limit to what can be produced. When we have finished fighting over the means of production or the natural resources, or been reduced dramatically in numbers by some means (nature finds a way even for the top of the food chain), a new equilibrium will be established.
So, forget about it and grab another cold one I say.

[vista]

Well it is obvious that a) you have no idea how science works, b) you have no idea how scientists work. I think that you should find out before insulting the integrity of scientists.



Read reviews in journals such as Science. They will give you a balanced view. Scientists are decent people who do believe in truth believe it or not, and they based their comments on evidence. Reviewers decide whether a paper is based on good science, not whether or not the content obeys the 'party line'. Any suggestion of the latter is absurd.

Oh dear, oh deary deary me.

[vista]

Bingo

So, fossil fuels rapidly diminishing (comparatively, 100 years is the blink of an eye in the earth's history). We will move on from the 'oil age' and there is unlikely to be any energy production that replaces it, which will produce the same co2 issues, even grown fuel is effectively carbon neutral and if we get fusion sorted - happy days.
So, is the earth at this stage a dust blown wilderness beyond all hope ? Nah, of course not. The biggest blight on the earth is the unfettered spread of an animal that collectively consumes all natural resources and expects to never reach the obvious finite limit to what can be produced. When we have finished fighting over the means of production or the natural resources, or been reduced dramatically in numbers by some means (nature finds a way even for the top of the food chain), a new equilibrium will be established.
So, forget about it and grab another cold one I say.

And this is exactly where we will end up, even our heroic scientists won't be able to save us.... The notion that the Earth cannot survive humanity is absurd.

[Fungus]

better it would be.
I think your hero-worship slightly ignores one very salient fact.
Scientists are human and are just as prone to wishful thinking as others of that ilk.

What a strange comment but it explains where you are coming from.

What you ignore is that scientists are constrained by the scientific method. That process includes peer review. If a scientist demonstated that GW was fiction, using reproducible methods, he would become famous overnight. That doesn't mean that they always get it right. Science progresses gradually, and is usually a process of assimilating multiple sources of evidence, as is the case with GW. The evidence associated with climate change is huge and building up all the while.

There have been cases of fraud and self-delusion. Cold fusion is a good example. Within a year or two other scientists had tried to reproduce the work and failed, which proved that the two scientists concerned - Fleischmann and Pons - were guilty of poor science. Fraud and self deception are usually outed fairly soon, though Piltdown Man did take a wee while.

Having met many scientists - I spent 8 years working as a research scientist in universities in the UK and North America - I know what an obnoxious, obsessive, semi-autistic and back stabbing lot many of them are. Or rather, that describes most of those who make it to lecturer level. It's a key reason why I left science. The way to understand scientists - IMO, and many colleagues disagreed - is that they yearn for success, and that means finding something new, and does not depend on supporting the 'party line'.

Fungus

[Fungus]

And this is exactly where we will end up, even our heroic scientists won't be able to save us.... The notion that the Earth cannot survive humanity is absurd.

You do realise don't you that the current climate was created by life?