|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
 Posted - 05/17/2007 : 21:10:13 [Permalink]
|
In my inbox today:
Climate change: A guide for the perplexed from New Scientist.
Our planet's climate is anything but simple. All kinds of factors influence it, from massive events on the Sun to the growth of microscopic creatures in the oceans, and there are subtle interactions between many of these factors.
... snip by John ...
So for those who are not sure what to believe, here is our round-up of the 26 most common climate myths and misconceptions.
There is also a guide to assessing the evidence. In the articles we've included lots of links to primary research and major reports for those who want to follow through to the original sources. |
I suspect it's just more sensationalism crafted for the purpose of selling magazines, but you never know.
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 05/17/2007 21:15:25 |
 |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2007 : 21:23:40 [Permalink]
|
JohnOAS---This is what I do not understand.
"Our planet's climate is anything but simple. All kinds of factors influence it, from massive events on the Sun to the growth of microscopic creatures in the oceans, and there are subtle interactions between many of these factors."
"Yes, there are still big uncertainties in some predictions, but these swing both ways."
---Big uncertainties and very complex, then this positive assertion:"this warming is due to human activity increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere"
Thanks for the post, I will read the "26 most common climate myths and misconceptions"; they may change my view, or give me more fodder for my augments.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2007 : 21:30:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
---Big uncertainties and very complex, then this positive assertion:"this warming is due to human activity increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere" |
Hey, you got something right! It should have been "this warming is mostly due to human activity increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2007 : 21:34:24 [Permalink]
|
http://tinyurl.com/ysrkqm
This states that exceptionally high solar radiation does not account for global warming.
This cant be serious.
If the sun does not cause the heating of the earth I may give up.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2007 : 21:46:36 [Permalink]
|
| No, you're not serious. That solar activity can't be responsible for the current warming levels doesn't mean that solar activity isn't responsible for any warming. Are strawmen all you've got, JEROME? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2007 : 21:53:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre
"Many of these papers are seminal studies on the evolution of the Earth, especially using isotopic evidence."
Would not the study of the the evolution of the earth give special insight into climate evolution?
Climate is a major factor in the change of the earth, would you not agree?
|
No, I would not.
Climate is a major factor in the change of species. This miserable rock could give a shit less about 15-20 degrees C. He's a geophysicist, not a climatologist. He is not an expert in the field discussed. Argumentum ad vercundium. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2007 : 21:54:50 [Permalink]
|
Dave---I do admit: "If the sun does not cause the heating of the earth I may give up." is a strawman.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 05/18/2007 : 06:54:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Kill---This is not a fair presentation of the survey of the data.
We are told that 75% the papers looked at, accept the view of mmgw including "evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals"
We are also told "Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural.
This is dishonest.
These papers "may believe its natural" but counted as accepting mmgw. |
Again:
Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point. |
I knew you were going to object based on the possibility that out of all the papers looked at some of the authors might have thought the warming is natural. But that objection is dishonest when you consider the number of papers and the number of chances any of those scientists could have stated that the findings were probably natural. Were also talking about the AAAS here. They publish the journal “Science” which is one of the two most respected scientific journals for peer review in the world, the other one being “Nature”.
It's grasping at straws to think that a majority, or even a significant minority of these scientists would not have offered a dissenting opinion if they had one...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 07:45:16 [Permalink]
|
Kil---There would be no reason in a scientific paper to state your view on the current causes if you are studying past change, mitigation proposals, and evaluation of impacts.
In fact the article states the opinion of cause in these papers "might believe that current climate change is natural".
To present as fact something which you state is skepulation is a dishonest representation of the survey.
I could make the same point and say all scientific papers that do not explicitly state mmgw as false, believe all global warming is natural.
The above is a misrepresentation, as is the survey you provided.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 13:40:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Just doing the math here:
604 scientist(lead and contributing authors)
The drafting looks to be reduced to the 154 lead authors.
Final meeting with 300 representatives comprised of 30 lead authors and 270 government agents.(this is where the consensus is reached)
The consensus seems to have been reached by 30 scientists (.012% of the claimed 2500) and 270 government agents.
The ratio of scientist to government agents is 1 to 9. |
Emphasis mine -- B10
Wow!
You seem pretty sure that those other guys are government agents. Mind telling me where the hell you came up with this one? This is especially interesting because I already gave you the right answer here. By what criteria do you determine that scientists are government agents? Am I, too, a government agent, eh? |
|
|
|
Vegeta
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
238 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 13:56:23 [Permalink]
|
| All the scientists who speak out against global warming are actually being bankrolled by Oil Fatcats, its a conspiracy within a conspiracy. |
What are you looking at? Haven't you ever seen a pink shirt before?
"I was asked if I would do a similar sketch but focusing on the shortcomings of Islam rather than Christianity. I said, 'No, no I wouldn't. I may be an atheist but I'm not stupid.'" - Steward Lee |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 16:00:55 [Permalink]
|
Jerome:
Kil---There would be no reason in a scientific paper to state your view on the current causes if you are studying past change, mitigation proposals, and evaluation of impacts. |
Gosh Jerome, you're right. So that is why the 25% group stated no opinion or conclusions about the cause of global warming. If you had not told me, I might have not known. What a guy. (Of course, they haven't come forward to deny that there is a human contribution to global warming or to complain that their papers were being misused by a bunch of fear mongers...)
But what about that pesky 75% group that either explicitly or implicitly accepts the consensus view?
Oh, I know, you don't hang with “implicit”.
–adjective
1. implied, rather than expressly stated: implicit agreement.
And you also probably think the AAAS are not smart enough to recognize an implicit agreement. Or, even though you keep saying it's the governments presentation of the facts you have a problem with, the scientists who did this study are dishonest. Wait, you did say that which brings up a prior argument about how honest you think the scientsts are.
Basicly it goes like this. They are honest when it suits Jerome's current argument, and they are dishonest when it doesn't sute Jerome's current argument...
I have to tell you Jerome. A weasel might call the AAAS study of the papers dishonest. A truely honest person would admit that at the very least, the 75% group poses a problem for the arguement that there is not a consensus among climate scientists.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 16:10:15 [Permalink]
|
By the way, Jerome, Boron10 is too humble to bring this up, but it's easy for me, being a proud dad and all. I think you should know that he has had his name on a paper published for scientific peer review. So he does have some knowledge about that process. And about how those kinds of papers are used...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 17:43:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
By the way, Jerome, Boron10 is too humble to bring this up, but it's easy for me, being a proud dad and all. I think you should know that he has had his name on a paper published for scientific peer review. So he does have some knowledge about that process. And about how those kinds of papers are used... |
Well, I am only the third of seven names, and it's in material science rather than climatology. And it was several years ago, while I was still working on my Bachelor's. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 18:15:16 [Permalink]
|
Kill---You skipped this part; "might believe that current climate change is natural" in reference to some of the 75%.
They assert that these papers "implicitly accepts the consensus view" and "might believe current climate change is natural".
They are talking about the same papers---they state that they are talking about the same papers.
So, the papers in question "imply" they believe mmgw but it "might be natural"?
Do you not see the contridiction?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Debunked-"world wide scientific consensus"
Topic Locked
