What really worries me personally isn't the new data, or even the alleged manipulation of data (which is appalling), but the fact that there now seem to be two sides who believe whatever they believe _regardless_ of the data, and seem to think that when the other side is proved wrong they will have 'won' something. At the end of the day we still need a way of regulating the temperature of the Earth to ensure the survival of civilization in the long term.
What really worries me personally isn't the new data, or even the alleged manipulation of data (which is appalling), but the fact that there now seem to be two sides who believe whatever they believe _regardless_ of the data, and seem to think that when the other side is proved wrong they will have 'won' something. At the end of the day we still need a way of regulating the temperature of the Earth to ensure the survival of civilization in the long term.
The problem with that line of thinking is that we can some how regulate or impact the earth's climate.
We can't, we don't and we shouldn't.
Entertaining video, but he's not quite right saying the ozone hole is gone - here in NZ we feel the effects of depleted ozone quite regularly.Yup, that is a big problem, but it seems to be very pervasive these days across a large number of Subjects.
I rather like Christopher Hitchens take on the subject. Others have stated the same idea much more succinctly, Hitchens just states it from a more Common Sense approach.
The problem with that line of thinking is that we can some how regulate or impact the earth's climate.
We can't, we don't and we shouldn't.
Entertaining video, but he's not quite right saying the ozone hole is gone - here in NZ we feel the effects of depleted ozone quite regularly.
The truth is that no one here on this discussion board has any idea of what they are talking about. Some of us can understand the issue in broad strokes, or assimilate certain pieces of information. Charts and graphs are attractive to non-scientists because it helps us visualize. However, virtually no one who has a strong opinion on this issue is really qualified to hold such an opinion.
As lay people, we can only monitor what is going on in the scientific community, because that is what this is and all that it should be - a discussion among scientists. The rest is all just "hot air."
- wolf
The truth is that no one here on this discussion board has any idea of what they are talking about. Some of us can understand the issue in broad strokes, or assimilate certain pieces of information. Charts and graphs are attractive to non-scientists because it helps us visualize. However, virtually no one who has a strong opinion on this issue is really qualified to hold such an opinion.
As lay people, we can only monitor what is going on in the scientific community, because that is what this is and all that it should be - a discussion among scientists. The rest is all just "hot air."
- wolf
The problem with that line of thinking is that we can some how regulate or impact the earth's climate.
We can't, we don't and we shouldn't.
I've seen a lot of people make this argument, and it makes no sense. We have increased Co2 in the atmosphere by 50%. That's a huge change.
The real "not regulating the climate" would be to restrain ourselves from making drastic changes in atmospheric composition.
That is what I think, too, but (honestly) am not sure how much is because I believe it vs being personally too lazy to try and understand the issue in detail.The truth is that no one here on this discussion board has any idea of what they are talking about. Some of us can understand the issue in broad strokes, or assimilate certain pieces of information. Charts and graphs are attractive to non-scientists because it helps us visualize. However, virtually no one who has a strong opinion on this issue is really qualified to hold such an opinion.
As lay people, we can only monitor what is going on in the scientific community, because that is what this is and all that it should be - a discussion among scientists. The rest is all just "hot air."
- wolf
So, you should know, when will we?and I work in the oil industry.
35%I've seen a lot of people make this argument, and it makes no sense. We have increased Co2 in the atmosphere by 50%. That's a huge change.
The real "not regulating the climate" would be to restrain ourselves from making drastic changes in atmospheric composition.
At the end of the day we still need a way of regulating the temperature of the Earth to ensure the survival of civilization in the long term.
I was using Wikipedia's number. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxidePre-industrial was 260-270ppm, now we're at 388ppm. So 43-49% increase
My personal feeling on the subject is that a layperson who does not have the education, experience, capacity, or in some cases, the intelligence, to form a legitimate independent view can do nothing but assume the position of scientific consensus, in a cautious way, unless or until that consensus changes. This is true with virtually any subject. Take the Holocaust, for example. Few people have sufficient awareness of the primary source evidence to evaluate its quality and form their own independent view. The rational layperson can only adopt the consensus of historians, and will only alter that view when they become aware that the consensus has changed. Or that same layperson can learn to read German and Russian, then go into archives and study thousands of documents and trial transcripts. Good luck. Another example: I personally believe that "cold fusion" is total bunk, yet I don't fully understand the science. I believe it's bunk because the scientific community says it's bunk. Ideally, I would get a Ph.D in nuclear physics if I wanted to have a truly informed opinion on the subject, but I can't get a Ph.D on every subject, or spend 20 years studying every subject, so I will adopt the consensus expert view.
While this may sound like a copout, as a substitute for independent thought, it is actually quite logical. In fact, that understates it: it is quite INSANE for an ordinary person to do otherwise.
Minority opinions in science are certainly a point of interest, even though the general public cannot even come close to evaluating the merits of those positions relative to a majority view. It is certainly relevant how large the minority is in a given case, of course. In the case of MMGW, it appears that anywhere from 95 to 99% of climatologists adopt this view, while about 85% of the general scientific community adopts the view. Every science academy has endorsed it, as has every single Nobel Laureate who has spoken on the issue. That to me is persuasive, because it HAS to be. I cannot selectively disagree with the sceintific community whenever it suits my purposes, but agree with it on everything else. Nor am I arrogant enough to believe that any sort of "independent" opinion I form by reading a few books and internet blogs can possibly mean squat in the face of that sort of consensus.
But who knows. Minority opinions occasionally do eventually become the majority view. More empirical data can and will be gathered as time goes on. Maybe science, which has so dramatically transformed the world we live in, has hit an epic fail on this one particular issue. Or maybe we really are being told the "Big Lie" about global warming, just as we are supposedly being told the Big Lie about the Holocaust, or the Big Lie about 9/11. Anything is possible. But I am not going to preoccupy myself with possibilities. I will, instead, for the time being, do what any rational person does - assume that what I am being told by the vast majority of people who are massively more knowledgeable than me is probably correct, and that any future revision of that view will come from that same massively more knowledgeable group that informs my present view.
- wolf
The problem with that line of thinking is that we can some how regulate or impact the earth's climate.
We can't, we don't and we shouldn't.
Good luck with that, but you're not using my money to do it without a fight.
I was using Wikipedia's number. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
"Human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation have caused the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to increase by about 35% since the beginning of the age of industrialization."
NOAH says 278 ppm pre-industrial and that level did not vary more than 7 ppm during the 800 years between 1000 and 1800 A.D.
Current concentration is 383 ppm by volume...that's 37.7% assuming I did my math correctly.
Looks to me like you're cherry-picking your end points. Haven't we seen enough of these games?
This all makes sense unless the majority is overly biased by something else such as research/grant money. Still, for MMGW most of the scientific does agree it's happening, enough that a normal person ought to agree with them. Still, what to do with that information is another matter altogether.My personal feeling on the subject is that a layperson who does not have the education, experience, capacity, or in some cases, the intelligence, to form a legitimate independent view can do nothing but assume the position of scientific consensus, in a cautious way, unless or until that consensus changes. This is true with virtually any subject. Take the Holocaust, for example. Few people have sufficient awareness of the primary source evidence to evaluate its quality and form their own independent view. The rational layperson can only adopt the consensus of historians, and will only alter that view when they become aware that the consensus has changed. Or that same layperson can learn to read German and Russian, then go into archives and study thousands of documents and trial transcripts. Good luck. Another example: I personally believe that "cold fusion" is total bunk, yet I don't fully understand the science. I believe it's bunk because the scientific community says it's bunk. Ideally, I would get a Ph.D in nuclear physics if I wanted to have a truly informed opinion on the subject, but I can't get a Ph.D on every subject, or spend 20 years studying every subject, so I will adopt the consensus expert view.
While this may sound like a copout, as a substitute for independent thought, it is actually quite logical. In fact, that understates it: it is quite INSANE for an ordinary person to do otherwise.
Minority opinions in science are certainly a point of interest, even though the general public cannot even come close to evaluating the merits of those positions relative to a majority view. It is certainly relevant how large the minority is in a given case, of course. In the case of MMGW, it appears that anywhere from 95 to 99% of climatologists adopt this view, while about 85% of the general scientific community adopts the view. Every science academy has endorsed it, as has every single Nobel Laureate who has spoken on the issue. That to me is persuasive, because it HAS to be. I cannot selectively disagree with the sceintific community whenever it suits my purposes, but agree with it on everything else. Nor am I arrogant enough to believe that any sort of "independent" opinion I form by reading a few books and internet blogs can possibly mean squat in the face of that sort of consensus.
But who knows. Minority opinions occasionally do eventually become the majority view. More empirical data can and will be gathered as time goes on. Maybe science, which has so dramatically transformed the world we live in, has hit an epic fail on this one particular issue. Or maybe we really are being told the "Big Lie" about global warming, just as we are supposedly being told the Big Lie about the Holocaust, or the Big Lie about 9/11. Anything is possible. But I am not going to preoccupy myself with possibilities. I will, instead, for the time being, do what any rational person does - assume that what I am being told by the vast majority of people who are massively more knowledgeable than me is probably correct, and that any future revision of that view will come from that same massively more knowledgeable group that informs my present view.
- wolf
Lol...OK.I'm not cherry picking. Those are just the numbers I remembered. My point stands whether it's 50% or 38%. I trust NOAA so I'll accept their 278ppm pre-industrial number, and their current as of Jan 2010 is 388ppm, so 39.6%