Global climate change

[Ken Kurkowski]

Re: Global climate change

What turns me off about this debate is how most see this a black and white argument, from either side. I cannot accept that things are that simple and cut and dried. I think its pretty certain that there has been a significant increase in overall global temperature, and that human activities (carbon emissions) are a significant, MAYBE the major component of this change. But determining the actual impacts (and their timing) in different parts of the world is no simple matter. Accounting for other non-anthropogenic phenomena such as sunspot activity, El Nino, volcanic activity and so on isn't simple. I think that, on the political side, the debate is being driven by the now-popular 'Precautionary Principle' which basically says "Well, things MIGHT get really bad at SOME point in the future in SOME parts of the world, so we'd better assume the worst and take appropriate action" That's fine if said actions are fairly easy and not particularly inconvenient (e.g. using a blue box to recycle or using energy efficient light bulbs) but with major sacrifices (causing large economic impacts)- people are going to be a bit more hesitant until the proverbial wolf is at the door. Basic human nature.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Global climate change

What turns me off about this debate is how most see this a black and white argument, from either side. I cannot accept that things are that simple and cut and dried. I think its pretty certain that there has been a significant increase in overall global temperature, and that human activities (carbon emissions) are a significant, MAYBE the major component of this change. But determining the actual impacts (and their timing) in different parts of the world is no simple matter. Accounting for other non-anthropogenic phenomena such as sunspot activity, El Nino, volcanic activity and so on isn't simple. I think that, on the political side, the debate is being driven by the now-popular 'Precautionary Principle' which basically says "Well, things MIGHT get really bad at SOME point in the future in SOME parts of the world, so we'd better assume the worst and take appropriate action" That's fine if said actions are fairly easy and not particularly inconvenient (e.g. using a blue box to recycle or using energy efficient light bulbs) but with major sacrifices (causing large economic impacts)- people are going to be a bit more hesitant until the proverbial wolf is at the door. Basic human nature.

I'm not sure it would satisfy everyone, but I think the last poll option I offered:

something I'm not at all sure is happening

might closest suit the position you gave, Ken.


[edit: on the other hand, I wish I had added a ninth option to the poll, "happening, but I'm not at all sure is manmade". :( Hopefully anyone who might have chose that option won't be shy about making a post to that effect in this thread instead. It may have suited you better, Ken, for example.]

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Global climate change

What turns me off about this debate is how most see this a black and white argument, from either side. I cannot accept that things are that simple and cut and dried. I think its pretty certain that there has been a significant increase in overall global temperature, and that human activities (carbon emissions) are a significant, MAYBE the major component of this change. But determining the actual impacts (and their timing) in different parts of the world is no simple matter. Accounting for other non-anthropogenic phenomena such as sunspot activity, El Nino, volcanic activity and so on isn't simple. I think that, on the political side, the debate is being driven by the now-popular 'Precautionary Principle' which basically says "Well, things MIGHT get really bad at SOME point in the future in SOME parts of the world, so we'd better assume the worst and take appropriate action" That's fine if said actions are fairly easy and not particularly inconvenient (e.g. using a blue box to recycle or using energy efficient light bulbs) but with major sacrifices (causing large economic impacts)- people are going to be a bit more hesitant until the proverbial wolf is at the door. Basic human nature.

Actually, now that I've thought about it more, IMHO this position (highlighted) is basically in support of the argument that we humans have caused (with our essential/significant help) global climate change, i.e. to arise, or at least to increase/accelerate (in spite of the parts not highlighted in my quote).

[Mario Moran-Venegas]

Re: Global climate change

Interesting deviation into the "free will" debate. For me: our opinions are inseparable from reality.

[Louis Morin]

Re : Re: Global climate change

Some polls on chesstalk get a better response rate than others. Do you have anything positive to say for a change, Kerry?

Actually, I believe that any poll on a science topic is meaningless, since most people are scientifically illiterate.

For example, should I ask a very basic question like "All scientists believe in the existence of invisible light. True or False?", I am pretty sure that many people would get the wrong answer.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Re : Re: Global climate change

Actually, I believe that any poll on a science topic is meaningless, since most people are scientifically illiterate.

For example, should I ask a very basic question like "All scientists believe in the existence of invisible light. True or False?", I am pretty sure that many people would get the wrong answer.

Come on. Enough about science is taught in typical high schools in an advanced country like Canada that your example is child's play, and anyone who wishes to stay up to snuff can stay informed through media such as the internet, or various publications. Especially concerning the climate controversy.

That's not to say that people necessarily have to take only 'science' into account regarding the controversy. There's politics or religion too.

[Louis Morin]

Re : Re: Re : Re: Global climate change

Come on. Enough about science is taught in typical high schools in an advanced country like Canada that your example is child's play

About the question I asked, maybe you know the answer (although you did not give any), but many people in the street do not. In many contests (for example, in McDonald's), one has to answer correctly a very simple arithmetic question before getting a prize. I know for a fact that many people are unable to do so, and have to ask for help to other people around.

That's not to say that people necessarily have to take only 'science' into account regarding the climate controversy. There's politics or religion too.

Of course, if the question is "what should we do about it", politics, religion, economics and many other things may interfere, but as long as we only ask "is it real or hoax", only science should be taken into account.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Global climate change

...
Of course, if the question is "what should we do about it", politics, religion, economics and many other things may interfere, but as long as we only ask "is it real or hoax", only science should be taken into account.

When the science is arguably not settled, at least in the opinion of some scientists (and perhaps understanding the truth isn't about garnering the most votes, in answer to a question, like being in a democracy, even among a group of scientists), one has to look at motives (politics, religion). Sometimes religion can offer an alternative explanation to science's, too.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Global climate change

Of course, if the question is "what should we do about it", politics, religion, economics and many other things may interfere, but as long as we only ask "is it real or hoax", only science should be taken into account.

The problem with that laudable but idealistic viewpoint is that one can doubt the veracity of the DATA. Science is nothing without data. And as soon as you have to ask where the data is coming from, you involve politics, religion, etc. because data can be invented or corrupted in the name of politics, religion, etc. Scientists are not without their faults... some of them can have a bias or can be bought.

Lately there has been a lot of contradictory data about whether the climate really is warming or not. Suddenly there seems to be, according to some sources, this 'cooling off' period. But again... where is that data coming from?

This whole debate is much like the UFO debate. Will we ever see any 'real' evidence of extraterrestrial visitations of Earth by intelligent beings? There's PLENTY of circumstantial evidence, enough in fact to really weigh heavily in favor of such visitations throughout human history on Earth. But the kind of evidence we really want -- an actual UFO spacecraft in the Smithsonian with a propulsion system beyond our understanding and that works in ways that defy our understanding of physics, for example -- has not yet been produced, and so reasonable doubt can and does exist.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Global climate change

The problem with that laudable but idealistic viewpoint is that one can doubt the veracity of the DATA. Science is nothing without data. And as soon as you have to ask where the data is coming from, you involve politics, religion, etc. because data can be invented or corrupted in the name of politics, religion, etc. Scientists are not without their faults... some of them can have a bias or can be bought.
...

Not only that, but there can be tricks played with the data, intentionally or not (much like a chess annotator can make an unsound opening look playable). One time I heard a denier explain that there had been a record Global Average Temperature (let's call this GAT) declared for a certain recent year. It was, say, the previous record GAT plus 0.X degrees. What was not mentioned in the announcement (or by the generally left wing media) was that the margin of error was more than 0.X degrees.

[Louis Morin]

Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Global climate change

I think that all one needs to know about this topic is summarized here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

[Felix Dumont]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Global climate change

When the science is arguably not settled, at least in the opinion of some scientists

The science IS settled and there is a scientific consensus (97%+ is more than enough to be considered a consensus). Anyone thinking the opposite is either scientifically illiterate or well manipulated by deniers (unfortunately quite a few people fall in one of these categories).

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Global climate change

The science IS settled and there is a scientific consensus (97%+ is more than enough to be considered a consensus). Anyone thinking the opposite is either scientifically illiterate or well manipulated by deniers (unfortunately quite a few people fall in one of these categories).

There are at the least internet sites that dispute the 97% figure as a myth.

[Felix Dumont]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Global climate change

There are at the least internet sites that dispute the 97% figure as a myth.

I agree. I find it hard to believe that 3% of scientists would be that disconnected from the reality (I have yet to meet a serious scientist that does not believe in climate change). Perhaps they meant 99.7%.

[Louis Morin]

Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Global climate change

There are at the least internet sites that dispute the 97% figure as a myth.

I googled "97% dispute" and found this interesting website:

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...humans-causing