Global Warming - Can Science Be This Wrong

[Mongo]

Note: This thread is about the politics and history of science and **not** the science.

 

The "Global Warming is natural" people all seem to have social and political explanations.

 

I find those arguments rather whinny like, "The green house gas people get all the money so we can't do the research to prove them wrong." Do I **need** to point out the flaw in that logic? Asshat arguments like that are the level or reasoning is worthy of the Creation Science Institute.

 

Those who venture into the science arena cite theories that have not gained general acceptance by the scientific community.

 

So here is the first challenge...

 

Demonstrate another period in politics / history where science has made a mistake in judgement that would be equal to or worse than the "Global Warming is Manmade" .

 

The constraints:

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. Abraham Lincoln

 

Since the "man made" argument is accepted by most people (more than some, less than all) I think you must find an equivalent time in history when most people were fooled.

 

As well, fooling all the people about an irrelevant point of science is equally unfair so your examples should represent issues of similar importance.

 

So, if these arguments are anything more than specious, there ought to be historic examples.

 

The second (perhaps easier) challenge...

 

Assuming that proof that "Global warming is Natural" exists and is being ignored... demonstrate in history an equally relevant discovery that was as widely poo pooed.

 

Final note: History is replete with people/groups who resisted change and new discoveries. Many people today still don't accept evolution as the *only* viable explanation for the biological relationships between living things as well as the explaining the fossil record.

 

Ultimately you must answer this quesion: What evidence and facts make the "Global Warming is Natural" case different than all those in history who have resisted the general scientific community?

 

Mongo

[Dave]

Note: This thread is about the politics and history of science and **not** the science.

 

The "Global Warming is natural" people all seem to have social and political explanations.

 

I find those arguments rather whinny .....

 

Some can get very whinny, usually when cornered. To me they seem to be stuck in a conspiracy type mode where they feel they have power in their "knowledge" that they have not been fooled and others have. Also they feel they have power from "knowing" what "the government" doesn't want them to know or from "knowing" "the government" (or any other powerful entity) is wrong.

[Mongo]

Some can get very whinny, usually when cornered. To me they seem to be stuck in a conspiracy type mode where they feel they have power in their "knowledge" that they have not been fooled and others have. Also they feel they have power from "knowing" what "the government" doesn't want them to know or from "knowing" "the government" (or any other powerful entity) is wrong.

 

Yes... it is not about science and that is what I'm trying to give them a chance to argue. If the problem is a scientific conspiracy or a mass delusion then we must have a basis don't we?

 

Mass delusions only happen in business (myriad of financial bubbles) and politics(wars started by nations perceiving themselves as invincible) where the important variables can't be measured?

 

Oh well, I guess it will be another lonely discussion.

 

Mongo

[Thurisaz]

I will gladly admit that by far not everything is 100 % (or even 95 %) proven about the global warming stuff. Which should not come to anyone's surprise, considering we're talking about the future (measured in years) of something as mind-bogglingly complex as world climate (remember the "accuracy" of regional weather reports trying to look just some few days into the future!).

 

However, just like the babblical cretinists are ludicrously wrong in their "logic" that says "if anything in science ain't 100 % proven truth then da babble is!!!111!!!!11!!!!oneoneone", so should the "global warming's natural" folks maybe... just maybe... think twice about their claims.

[Robbobrob]

But, the Biblephiles don't even care about this debate, because Jesus is coming any second now, therefore we don't need to worry about whether the planet is becoming unliveable or not, because God will fix it for the believers.

[Dhampir]

Well, if global warming is a largely man-made, or man-accelerated phenomena, then we're probably fucked. If it's natural, then life will go on, but we're most likely fucked.

[Dave]

Well, if global warming is a largely man-made, or man-accelerated phenomena, then we're probably fucked. If it's natural, then life will go on, but we're most likely fucked.

We're fucked, royally.As a species that is. We're fouling our own nests and instead of doing something about it they want to argue about Mars!

 

Man made? Do the math; 21 pounds of CO2 are created for every gallon of gasoline consumed. In 2005, on average, in the USA alone, we consumed roughly 680 million gallons per day. That's a daily addition of over 7 million TONS of CO2 added daily. Now, take that number and lower it by a few tons a year and go all the way back to the introduction of the auto, and you'll come up with a number too big for my calculator, and not an exact number, but a representation of what WE have added to the atmosphere.

 

Now add in a whole bunch for other human sources of CO2, sprinkle in deforestation, and a dash of cloroflorocarbons, and you have a mess.

[Dhampir]

I just think it's a stupid argument to have, y'know, whodunit? Doesn't fucking matter whodunit, the only thing that matters is what we do now that its happening.

[Dave]

I just think it's a stupid argument to have, y'know, whodunit? Doesn't fucking matter whodunit, the only thing that matters is what we do now that its happening.

It matters greatly in that we know what we now have to do to stop it, or at least slow down our contribution. We need to stop adding such huge amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere. No matter what though, that CO2 contribution will stop in 50 years or so when the oil runs out. I was thinking that we'd just find more oil. Any new oil will just be a drop in the barrel as China and India come on line as consumers. It's already effecting things.

 

Example; That oil they so desperately want to get to on the North Slope. 4 billion barrels (31 gallon/barrel). The world, right now, is consuming approx. 85 million barrels/day. That makes the North Slope a 47 day supply of oil.

[RankStranger]

No matter what though, that CO2 contribution will stop in 50 years or so when the oil runs out.

 

I wouldn't count on that. Peak oil predictions may well come true in some form, but there are still VAST reserves of coal out there. If energy becomes scarce & expensive, coal will again become an attractive option- environmental concerns be damned. There are already electric cars out there that are viable for the majority of daily commutes- so coal-powered cars could very well be our future.

 

Personally, I think nuclear power will ultimately be our main energy source. I'm holding out hope for ITER.

 

About the GW thing- I'm undecided, and I don't expect that my opinion matters much anyway. One crowd claims that there was hysteria in the '70's about a coming ice age- would that fit your criteria, Mongo?

 

I'll readily agree that several of the arguements against the existence of man-made GW remind me of Intellegent Design arguements. On the other hand, there are plenty of examples of politically motivated "science". And I think it's a sad commentary that the GW debate over the past year or so is generally percieved as having shifted STRONGLY in favor of the man-made-GW side... simply because Gore made a movie.

[RankStranger]

I understand where you're coming from, Burnedout... but doesn't this chest-beating get old after a while?

[Dave]

Personally, I think nuclear power will ultimately be our main energy source. I'm holding out hope for ITER.

I hope not. We can do better for our planet than nuke it.

 

About the GW thing- I'm undecided,......

Just do the math as I posted earlier. Search the web and find your own figures to insert.

 

....the GW debate over the past year or so is generally percieved as having shifted STRONGLY in favor of the man-made-GW side... simply because Gore made a movie.

Actually, people are against human caused GW BECAUSE Gore made a movie. To them it's politics and the truth means little.

[Dave]

Hmmm.......seems Mr. Dave hates the human race completely.....

Hmmmmm.... and emotional response instead of a logical one that presents facts. Fascinating.

[Dave]

Hmmm.......seems Mr. Dave hates the human race completely.....

Hmmmmm.... and emotional response instead of a logical one that presents facts. Fascinating.

Nope....a simple observation...

An ad homninem that seems beneath you.

[Grandpa Harley]

Don't you have trees to bother?

[♦ nivek ♦]

I don't give much a fuck about the CO2 gasses. BFD..

 

Does take 7-13 gallons of fresh water to make 1 gallon of gasoline using the cracking version of refining processes.

 

Out of each 100 gallons of crude we do make the necessary things our modern society requires to lube itself right along, almost 85 gallons are useless. Parafin wax, a major component of the oil, is something we've got in amounts unimaginable due to a lack of use for the majority refined from crude.

 

We're a wasteful society as we try and use what we've got.

 

I'd prefer that Occidental industrial society reuse the huge amounts of tin, aluminum, steels tossed in the garbage daily to be landfilled and not used again until someone in the far future goes mining it.

 

Paper and plastic used now in amounts that are staggering, and in turn not reused, nor yet have any appreciable remarketable recycled useage are tossed in numbers that do little but increase the use of more POL.

 

Mankind could do much more and much better in reuse of materials that can be used. "New and shiny" will end up aiding in the eventual downfall of the industrial tool using apes..

 

kFL

[Mongo]

...it does not take a majority of people to sway large masses. All it takes is a few dedicated people to make it appear to be an early consensus by the use of propaganda and logical sounding though, in part or wholly false.

 

Burnedout,

 

This is very true within certain limits that you are not mentioning. A government does not need everyone to believe a particular idea but rather that everyone who who knows better to be afraid to take action.

 

So if you are to extend any historical event as a parallel to GW today you must then either demonstrate that those scientests were in the past all collectively fooled or that many of the scientests today are very afraid of speaking out.

 

The closest example I have is of Trofim Lysenko (Stalin's chief agricultural scientest in the USSR).

Read in Wiki here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko

 

Trofim had his own philosophy of agriculture (it was not science) that he presented as scientific knowledge and persecuted scientests who disagreed with him. However not everyone agreed with him. As well, the international community did not agree either. This is an invalid parallel.

 

The breadth of scientific acceptance of GW is MM (man made) is not so easily explained which as I alluded to earlier, seems to have its best parallel to the theory of evolution.

 

...next they come up with a solution of their making and come up with a "thesis" (their own solution of their making), then the next thing is the "Antithesis" (the opposition), then the "synthesis"..(the solution that is agreed upon). The First 2 elements have been presented. The synthesis is yet to be proposed. This is a long term fight. I happen to follow the "Antithesis" view and it will be the arguements that can be the most persuasive and, let's face it, well funded that wins in a purely political sense.

 

This has yet to be seen so I cannot argue against your point. Often in the analysis of a problem, the solution is far more subjective than identifying the cause of the problem. If big money smells an opportunity they will wield much power.

 

I will conceed a much larger window of possibility on this question.

 

Mongo

[Mongo]

About the GW thing- I'm undecided, and I don't expect that my opinion matters much anyway. One crowd claims that there was hysteria in the '70's about a coming ice age- would that fit your criteria, Mongo?

 

I don't want to be the judge (unless all agree in advance to obey) but I can give a perspective.

 

I don't remember the lather over a coming Ice Age. (I must look that up.) This suggests to me that it was insignificant but maybe I'm just ignorant.

 

If one were to show that all of the scientific community with an informed (not necessarily expert) opinion on a coming ice age were in broad based agreement then I would have to say that it makes a pretty good parallel.

 

This of course begs the question, what were the consequences of an ice age and what was at stake for holding that position? Science does take positions that are later disproven. I would think there would need to be evidence that the scientific community in the 70s took a strong stance on the question.

 

Now... if one were to establish that the science behind the CFC ban was flawed and that it is not related to depletion of ozone and not responsible for the hole in the ozone layer... then this is a perfect parallel. But so far... it is not the case.

 

Mongo

[Grandpa Harley]

About the GW thing- I'm undecided, and I don't expect that my opinion matters much anyway. One crowd claims that there was hysteria in the '70's about a coming ice age- would that fit your criteria, Mongo?

 

I don't want to be the judge (unless all agree in advance to obey) but I can give a perspective.

 

I don't remember the lather over a coming Ice Age. (I must look that up.) This suggests to me that it was insignificant but maybe I'm just ignorant.

 

If one were to show that all of the scientific community with an informed (not necessarily expert) opinion on a coming ice age were in broad based agreement then I would have to say that it makes a pretty good parallel.

 

This of course begs the question, what were the consequences of an ice age and what was at stake for holding that position? Science does take positions that are later disproven. I would think there would need to be evidence that the scientific community in the 70s took a strong stance on the question.

 

Now... if one were to establish that the science behind the CFC ban was flawed and that it is not related to depletion of ozone and not responsible for the hole in the ozone layer... then this is a perfect parallel. But so far... it is not the case.

 

Mongo

 

It was pretty much as much of a scientific consensus at the time... UKGOV was certainly planning stuff around it, since there had been snow in June and July both in 1974 and 1975 in England. Labrador Bay hadn't thawed since 1960s (from memory) and summers had got cooler and wetter across the northern hemisphere since the 1950s... there was a rapid volte face (and a quick re-writing of the stuff being prepared in 1975 for 1976 publication) in 1976 when the globe was struck by a global heat wave... Since then, summers have been, for the most part, warmer... The only people you can now easily find on line are the nay-sayers from the 1970s saying 'I told you so' and people who were 'wrong' saying either nothing, or that they were 'misquoted'...

 

when you drop a bollock like 'The next 10,000 year Ice Age is coming' and 'The Fifth Winter' Hypotheis, beofre one of the mildest winter on record followed by one of the hottest (and dryest) summers ever (I believe 1976 is still the dryest on record... although no longer the hottest)

 

Seems to me, best we can do is say that the climate will do 'something' in the next 20 years, and will continue to do something for the 500, 1000, 10000 years after that...

[Dave]

The breadth of scientific acceptance of GW is MM (man made) is not so easily explained which as I alluded to earlier, seems to have its best parallel to the theory of evolution.

And don't the anti evolution arguments sound exactly like the anti GW arguments?

[Guest Sal1981]

The breadth of scientific acceptance of GW is MM (man made) is not so easily explained which as I alluded to earlier, seems to have its best parallel to the theory of evolution.

And don't the anti evolution arguments sound exactly like the anti GW arguments?

That analogy fails because the evidence for each is very, very different.

 

In practice there is no "anti-global warming theory", that's a common hysteria from the treehuggers. As with all theories, they compete - to see which ones best fits the data. I.e. which model for global climate best fits the data we have. There are surprisingly little public display on this (but lots of empty verbiage). You'd think that if global warming was man-made and it was such an important issue, that global climate model would be common knowledge.

 

I suspect that it's bad science. I.e. ideological and politically fueled, something that fits like a glove with green political agenda. It's the perfect political platform: elect us and we're gonna stop this imminent threat! Whereas, if it's something out of our control, the green parties lose that platform altogether. However, even if it is ideological & political says nothing of its validity.

 

Again, where's the science?

[dr_funkenstein]

My understanding of the situation is that global warming is real, and it is occurring. I'm not convinced that we've contributed to it significantly through CO2 emissions though, and neither am I convinced that by drastically reducing CO2 emissions will we have any effect other than destroying our own economies.

 

My concern is that ever since the release An Inconvenient Truth and its subsequent popularity, it seems that we can't even debate this issue without the mob screaming out "GLOBAL WARMING DENIER!!!" and practically getting the noose ready. The issue has become so stigmatised in the cultural zeitgeist now that even scientists who caution that we shouldn't jump to conclusions too quickly are afraid to speak out.

 

I'd even go as far to say that those who question whether human activities have really contributed to global warming in a significant way are more maligned and hated than even atheists!

 

As for me - the jury's still out and I'm happy to keep it that way until a clearer picture emerges.

 

Finally, my gut feeling tells me to be cautious of people who start yelling that the world is about to end. People who try really hard to convince you there's a problem quite often (but not always) have something to gain in selling you the "solution".

[white_raven23]

So here is the first challenge...

 

Demonstrate another period in politics / history where science has made a mistake in judgement that would be equal to or worse than the "Global Warming is Manmade" .

 

The constraints:

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. Abraham Lincoln

 

Since the "man made" argument is accepted by most people (more than some, less than all) I think you must find an equivalent time in history when most people were fooled.

 

As well, fooling all the people about an irrelevant point of science is equally unfair so your examples should represent issues of similar importance.

 

So, if these arguments are anything more than specious, there ought to be historic examples.

 

How about the idea that the mother is responsible for the sex of her baby? Or that she gets the blame for child deformity? Or is the responsible party if a union is unfruitful? Most people at one time DID believe the woman was at fault, and no blame whatsoever was incurred by the sacred sperm.

 

Your constraints are a very eloquent argumentum ad populum aren't they?

Since the "man made" argument is accepted by most people (more than some, less than all) I think you must find an equivalent time in history when most people were fooled.

[Mongo]

About the GW thing- I'm undecided, and I don't expect that my opinion matters much anyway. One crowd claims that there was hysteria in the '70's about a coming ice age- would that fit your criteria, Mongo?

 

I don't want to be the judge (unless all agree in advance to obey) but I can give a perspective.

 

I don't remember the lather over a coming Ice Age. (I must look that up.) This suggests to me that it was insignificant but maybe I'm just ignorant.

 

If one were to show that all of the scientific community with an informed (not necessarily expert) opinion on a coming ice age were in broad based agreement then I would have to say that it makes a pretty good parallel.

 

This of course begs the question, what were the consequences of an ice age and what was at stake for holding that position? Science does take positions that are later disproven. I would think there would need to be evidence that the scientific community in the 70s took a strong stance on the question.

 

Now... if one were to establish that the science behind the CFC ban was flawed and that it is not related to depletion of ozone and not responsible for the hole in the ozone layer... then this is a perfect parallel. But so far... it is not the case.

 

Mongo

 

It was pretty much as much of a scientific consensus at the time... UKGOV was certainly planning stuff around it, since there had been snow in June and July both in 1974 and 1975 in England. Labrador Bay hadn't thawed since 1960s (from memory) and summers had got cooler and wetter across the northern hemisphere since the 1950s... there was a rapid volte face (and a quick re-writing of the stuff being prepared in 1975 for 1976 publication) in 1976 when the globe was struck by a global heat wave... Since then, summers have been, for the most part, warmer... The only people you can now easily find on line are the nay-sayers from the 1970s saying 'I told you so' and people who were 'wrong' saying either nothing, or that they were 'misquoted'...

 

when you drop a bollock like 'The next 10,000 year Ice Age is coming' and 'The Fifth Winter' Hypotheis, beofre one of the mildest winter on record followed by one of the hottest (and dryest) summers ever (I believe 1976 is still the dryest on record... although no longer the hottest)

 

Seems to me, best we can do is say that the climate will do 'something' in the next 20 years, and will continue to do something for the 500, 1000, 10000 years after that...

 

Gramps,

 

You have a remarkable breadth of knowledge. I am forever envious.

 

My check into this phenomenon suggests that it was a media hyped story based on real science but not on conclusive science. The scientific community did not universally stand behind the findings and there is good evidence that their view was basically, "We don't know enough and need to study it more."

 

Commentary on the 1976 National Geographic article on the event:

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/n...og-1976-11.html

 

In that there is this link to a discussion that leads to a Mclean's article

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/m...on-science.html

 

A quote from the second link:

Its interesting to see that this article manages to quote the 1975 NAS report fairly: "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.". But what it appears to fail to see is the contradiction between the NAS report, above, and the alarmism of its own text.

 

I would however, extrapolate from this that the Ice Age hype spurred considerable study into issues relating to climate change.

 

Mongo

[Heimdall]

According to PAGES (Past Global Changes) a project of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme funded by the U.S. and Swiss National Science Foundations and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, sunspot activity has been increasing, with some periods of quietude, since 1600. From less than 10 sunspots a year in 1600, we have reached a level of 150 or more per year. Since temperatures have risen and fallen in synch with the number of sunspots, it is a logical step to recognize that earthly temperature is a function of solar activity. Especially since periods of much higher temperatures have existed in the past without human industry to contribute anthropogenic green house gases to the atmosphere. Likewise, examination of ice bore samples show that the higher temperatures came prior to the subsequent buildup of greenhouse gases, usually with a lag of at least a century for the gases. This presents the logical conclusion that the current “Global Warming Scare†is a power play by the power-hungry political left wing, aided and abetted by the EcoWacko parties of the 1st world nations. In other words, Al Gore is still an idiot and crybaby! - Heimdall