Thread: More than 31,000 scientists don't buy it!!

This looks appropriate.

The Woolly-Thinkers Guide to Rhetoric

Enjoy!

X

Originally Posted by Nickelking

Personally I believe we've had a magnificent effect on it, but as that's practically impossible to prove as we have no accurately recorded data beyond a couple of centuries, I'll concede that point on the condition that they agree we should try and maintain a habitable world for ourselves, some just can't accept that latter point though.

edit: And earlier in this thread I mentioned daisyworld, but didn't remember the exact circumstances of the hypothetical. I still stand by the analogy in that we're figuratively waiting for all the white daisies to die before we admit there's a problem.

If it helps, I read Lovelock about 20 years ago or so. From what I recall of the daisyworld scenario, a hot Earth caused more water to evaporate, causing more cloud cover, causing more reflected sunlight from the Earth, causing a cooler Earth. This example was quite specific, and of course Lovelock has since disowned it.

I really have no argument and have come to no conclusions other that the modeling effort by the global warming crowd is not that good. The daisyworld scenario goes right toward aerosols like water vapor cooling down a hot Earth, and the main serious critics-- those environmental scientists publishing criticisms in Nature and Science-- point out that the big modeling papers have huge error bars around their aerosol parameters, and that not every scenario in the model's predictive purview is gloom and doom. And yes, I have read the original modeling papers (as well as the original Vostok ice core findings they're based on), I have read the criticisms of the original papers, and I think the criticisms are quite valid. Of course, this hasn't driven me to conclude that the global warming doomsayers are wrong-- just that they're overstating the findings and conclusions of their model. While the model seems to say that global warming is spiraling out of control, tweaking the parameters a bit produces a model that doesn't produce doomsday. I do find a certain level of dishonesty in their analysis and presentation because of this, but I'm not sure it's intentional.

Environmental science isn't my field, but I do consider myself an expert in modeling (I use it in my research and teach it at the graduate level), as do three or four editors of a variety of scientific journals and some NIH study sections. I consider myself qualified to sign the petition, but I haven't signed it, and probably won't.

(Edit) Just to add: I think most here would call me a bleeding heart liberal.

I think the first paper was the Keeling paper from the mid-50's pointing out that CO2 was increasing. I think the Vostok Ice Cores were the first time they started looking WAY the hell back, along with the Greenland Ice Cores.

Scott, I gotta agree with you myself. My MS thesis was computational and I began to appreciate how much small changes can change a chaotic system. For a large, complex system like the climate, models will require constant tweaking as more observational data is gained and analyzed. I don't think anyone in the field believes a perfect model will actually exist.

To Lovelock's credit, he agreed that his choice of words tended to alienate (or just piss off) a good portion of the mainstream scientists. He acknowledged that this also tended to cause new-age hippies to gravitate toward his ideas, possibly reducing their credibility.

As a whole, I do think his basic premise is sound. The climate (like an organism) is basically a self-regulating system. He did believe that the system would respond to any changes induced (potentially) by humans and hoped that it would refine us for the better. However, he also believed that much of what we are seeing now in terms of eco-consciousness came about 200 years too late.

The long and the short of all this is we'll find out who was right one way or another. The scientist in me says maybe we can do something and maybe we can't. The soldier in me says "die trying."

I don't know what anyone here would call me. Liberals call me conservative, conservatives call me liberal. I say I won't buy in to any political dogma and I'll make up my own damn mind.

Originally Posted by xman

This looks appropriate.

The Woolly-Thinkers Guide to Rhetoric

Enjoy!

X

Those tactics in your link sound familiar X! I believe those tactics are what keeps a majority of people who don't buy global warming from buying global warming!

Originally Posted by artilleryo

I say I won't buy in to any political dogma and I'll make up my own damn mind.

I believe we all feel this way! We are all over 18 years of age, so we should all be capable, and allowed to think for ourselves!

Originally Posted by JMS

Those tactics in your link sound familiar X! I believe those tactics are what keeps a majority of people who don't buy global warming from buying global warming!

Yes, I believe you are right. I think all the rhetoric around this issue has alienated a good portion of the population to the point where they feel no connection to the messenger and therefore, won't accept the message. I always wonder what would have happened had the right wing been the first to jump on the global warming movement. Hippies everywhere screaming about how it's all a right wing conspiracy...

I believe we all feel this way! We are all over 18 years of age, so we should all be capable, and allowed to think for ourselves!

I've read that the extreme political polarization was started (or exacerbated) by Nixon to help him get elected. I can't remember the source (I read a lot) and I'm not sure whether I'm willing to give Nixon that much credit. But the situation does exist.

One of the great tragedies of modern American society is the opposing view is not just an opposing view, it is an attack on everything one holds dear. This utterly disgusts me because the system I have sworn to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic won't work unless one can see the opposite view and is willing to acknowledge both sides of the argument have merit.

I'm not sure why more people don't demand this from their representatives. I want to believe that most people can make up their own minds, but the diatribe I hear from both ends sounds eerily similar.

Originally Posted by JMS

Those tactics in your link sound familiar X! I believe those tactics are what keeps a majority of people who don't buy global warming from buying global warming!

I've no doubt. Acting, or in this case, speaking like a moron will not help your case, even if you are right.

X

Originally Posted by xman

I've no doubt. Acting, or in this case, speaking like a moron will not help your case, even if you are right.

X

If I am truly speaking as a moron, so be it!

Originally Posted by JMS

If I am truly speaking as a moron, so be it!

Amen, brother

Originally Posted by JMS

If I am truly speaking as a moron, so be it!

While I rarely speak for X or agree with him, I don't think this was directed at you specifically.

I rather think it was an expression of disgust at the way the whole argument of this issue is conducted from the pulpits on either side. Neither really uses effective language and its all become one big political pop culture mismash where the scientists can not longer figure out whose side is saying what.

Bad science bad arguments and bad decisions on all sides.

Because even President Bush now admits it's real.
QED