|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 06/02/2007 : 05:28:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Each point of the consensus I debunked, people tend to redefine the argument.
So:
What is; exactly, the scientific consensus are you defending?
What are you arguing is the scientific consensus?
These should be a simple questions; if unable to define what you are defending you should question your motives of defending an undefinable argument. |
This is unreal! You began this thread by noting various scientists-- most not climatologists, but people working in some field of natural science-- who, for some reason or another, doubt that either (a) global warming is happening, or (b) that humans are a cause. Now, you've cited a person who argued that (a) there is global warming, and (b) humans are the cause, but that we just shouldn't do anything about it. And yet you accuse us of redefining the argument?!? That's rich. You don't even know what you're arguing anymore, and yet it's somehow our fault. Puh-leeease! |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2007 : 07:05:54 [Permalink]
|
Let's step back for a moment and get to the heart of this discussion.
The term "world wide consensus" in this forum starts with the article Jerome linked to: "Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reserve Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics":
Link
It seems that from that article, there are in fact three components to the consensus:
1.) global warming is real
2.) global warming is caused by humans
3.) global warming is going to have catastrophic effects on humanity
The misunderstanding in this discussion perhaps stems from people on SFN thinking the consensus only included #1 and 2, while Jerome has also included #3.
The problem with #3 is that it is so hard to describe in any kind of detail. The science behind understanding global warming includes a huge number of environmental factors, and thus, it is pretty much impossible to make specific and reliable predictions about how global warming will affect the earth. Thus, I would say that the world wide consensus includes factors #1 and 2, but not 3.
That all being said, there is a strong and sensible majority that argue that if #1 is true, depending on the severity of speed of climate changes, the effects have much potential to be catastrophic to at least some or most humans, and that is a cause for serious concern. And if #2 is true, then humanity has even greater power to take action and make changes that would impact the course of global warming.
I don't think most supporters are "alarmists" about global warming, as the original article that Jerome posted implied. I think most supporters of global warming have very level-headed and rational concerns based on a real world wide consensus of scientific thought on global climate change and mankind's role in contributing to those changes.
Fixed source link.
Kil |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2007 : 07:14:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Let's step back for a moment and get to the heart of this discussion.
The term "world wide consensus" in this forum starts with the article Jerome linked to: "Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reserve Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics":
Link
It seems that from that article, there are in fact three components to the consensus:
1.) global warming is real
2.) global warming is caused by humans
3.) global warming is going to have catastrophic effects on humanity
The misunderstanding in this discussion perhaps stems from people on SFN thinking the consensus only included #1 and 2, while Jerome has also included #3.
The problem with #3 is that it is so hard to describe in any kind of detail. The science behind understanding global warming includes a huge number of environmental factors, and thus, it is pretty much impossible to make specific and reliable predictions about how global warming will affect the earth. Thus, I would say that the world wide consensus includes factors #1 and 2, but not 3.
That all being said, there is a strong and sensible majority that argue that if #1 is true, depending on the severity of speed of climate changes, the effects have much potential to be catastrophic to at least some or most humans, and that is a cause for serious concern. And if #2 is true, then humanity has even greater power to take action and make changes that would impact the course of global warming.
I don't think most supporters are "alarmists" about global warming, as the original article that Jerome posted implied. I think most supporters of global warming have very level-headed and rational concerns based on a real world wide consensus of scientific thought on global climate change and mankind's role in contributing to those changes. |
Oh. My understanding was that the quibble was over the definition JdG was using for consensus. It seemed to be the case that if he could show that just one person with a PhD in some field of science disagreed with the argument that humans were to some extent causing global warming, then there was no "consensus" and that it was all open to debate.
The general position of the us here at SFN seems to be that while there may be one person (or two or a dozen or even more) who doesn't see a human factor in global warming, the overwhelming majority would agree that humans are likely a major cause in global warming. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2007 : 11:18:03 [Permalink]
|
Each point of the consensus I debunked, people tend to redefine the argument.
So:
What is; exactly, the scientific consensus are you defending?
What are you arguing is the scientific consensus?
These should be a simple questions; if unable to define what you are defending you should question your motives of defending an undefinable argument. |
You are the worst troll I have ever seen. Absolutely pathetic. You're kind of funny for a while but then you just look embarrassingly silly.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2007 : 13:06:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Let's step back for a moment and get to the heart of this discussion.
The term "world wide consensus" in this forum starts with the article Jerome linked to: "Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reserve Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics":
Link
It seems that from that article, there are in fact three components to the consensus:
1.) global warming is real
2.) global warming is caused by humans
3.) global warming is going to have catastrophic effects on humanity
The misunderstanding in this discussion perhaps stems from people on SFN thinking the consensus only included #1 and 2, while Jerome has also included #3. |
No, the consensus, as embodied by the IPCC Report (see Kil's earlier posts for massive numbers of endorsees), especially in the form of table SPM-1 on page 13 of that executive summary, has always included #3 for purposes of this discussion, although "catastrophic" may be a bit strong.
To be technical, the consensus does not include #2 on your list. It instead includes "man-made causes of global warming have now overtaken natural causes." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 06/03/2007 : 02:45:46 [Permalink]
|
Perhaps this might shed some light in the subject: Global warming 'is three times faster than worst predictions'
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Published: 03 June 2007
Global warming is accelerating three times more quickly than feared, a series of startling, authoritative studies has revealed.
They have found that emissions of carbon dioxide have been rising at thrice the rate in the 1990s. The Arctic ice cap is melting three times as fast - and the seas are rising twice as rapidly - as had been predicted.
News of the studies - which are bound to lead to calls for even tougher anti-pollution measures than have yet been contemplated - comes as the leaders of the world's most powerful nations prepare for the most crucial meeting yet on tackling climate change.
The issue will be top of the agenda of the G8 summit which opens in the German Baltic resort of Heiligendamm on Wednesday, placing unprecedented pressure on President George Bush finally to agree to international measures.
Tony Blair flies to Berlin today to prepare for the summit with its host, Angela Merkel, the German chancellor. They will discuss how to tackle President Bush, who last week called for action to deal with climate change, which his critics suggested was instead a way of delaying international agreements.
Yesterday, there were violent clashes in the city harbour of Rostock between police and demonstrators, during a largely peaceful march of tens of thousands of people protesting against the summit.
The study, published by the US National Academy of Sciences, shows that carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing by about 3 per cent a year during this decade, compared with 1.1 per cent a year in the 1990s
|
Or not. I suspect that the summit will be like most others, with much hyperbole and hand-waving, and little of merit accomplished -- rather like parts of this thread, come to think of it. 
Emphasis mine.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 08:19:53 [Permalink]
|
Cuneiformist said: "The general position of the us here at SFN seems to be ..., the overwhelming majority would agree that humans are likely a major cause in global warming."
This would be different than Kils description: "human's are contributing to that warming well beyond what they would expect if the warming were solely due to a natural cycle."
The initiation of these talks was mmgw is a scam to tax. The argument against this was scientific consensus. Marfknox is correct, in that those are the three factors of scientific consensus that would be needed to dispute my claim of scam. If #3 was not part of the consensus; then the argument of consensus to dispute my claim of scam would be invalid. Without #2; as shown by Dave , in the ipcc report, the argument of consensus used to dispute my claim is invalid.
The only thing you all agree the consensus states is that warming is occurring.
I have never disputed that warming is occurring. Evidence I have provided shows many in science dispute mans degree of causation. Evidence I have provided shows many in science dispute catastrophic effects of warming.
The catastrophic effects of man made global warming is how behavior will be manipulated by governments through fear. Much the same way religions use "Hell" to manipulate people.
|
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 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 08:26:25 [Permalink]
|
http://tinyurl.com/3a7b7s
"Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled."
Al Gore 1992
"A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun."
Do these two quotes seem to portray two different ideas? Tell a lie long enough and loud enough and most will believe.
|
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 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 08:53:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Cuneiformist said: "The general position of the us here at SFN seems to be ..., the overwhelming majority would agree that humans are likely a major cause in global warming."
This would be different than Kils description: "human's are contributing to that warming well beyond what they would expect if the warming were solely due to a natural cycle." |
Again: you have no reading comprehension skills. I said that the general consensus is that scientists find it likely that humans are contributing to global warming. Kil said the same thing.
| Marfknox is correct, in that those are the three factors of scientific consensus that would be needed to dispute my claim of scam. If #3 was not part of the consensus; then the argument of consensus to dispute my claim of scam would be invalid. Without #2; as shown by Dave , in the ipcc report, the argument of consensus used to dispute my claim is invalid. |
I think this is a bit of revisionist history here. Your arguments to date have consisted either of posting the names of scientists who deny that humans have any role in global warming, or have been to suggest that only a few scientists had any role in putting together a particular report.
You have been shown time and again that even if it's the case that there are people who find the evidence for a human role in global warming, the vast majority of the scientific community would say otherwise. By any reasonable definition, this is a scientific consensus.
| I have never disputed that warming is occurring. Evidence I have provided shows many in science dispute mans degree of causation. Evidence I have provided shows many in science dispute catastrophic effects of warming. |
No. Evidence you have provided shows that a few in science dispute this.
| The catastrophic effects of man made global warming is how behavior will be manipulated by governments through fear. Much the same way religions use "Hell" to manipulate people. |
A completely baseless claim calling on a conspiracy on a grand world-wide scale for which you have absolutely no evidence. And no, a citation of Claude Allegre is not evidence for this. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 09:19:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
http://tinyurl.com/3a7b7s
"Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled."
Al Gore 1992
"A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun."
Do these two quotes seem to portray two different ideas? Tell a lie long enough and loud enough and most will believe. |
Unfortunately, the only liar is, well, George Will, actully. The survey you cite comes from a George Will op-ed column in the Washington Post from Sebtember 3, 1992. The relevant section, which can be found in a quick search through the WaPo on-line, is| Gore knows, or should know before pontificating, that a recent Gallup Poll of scientists concerned with global climate research shows that 53 percent do not believe warming has occurred, and another 30 percent are uncertain. |
Unfortunately, Will backs this up with no actual reference, so it is impossible to verify this claim. Moreover, our lazy press corps and its newspaper editors never bother to fact-check op-ed columnists, and so people like Will can lie and obfuscate all they want.
Over at EnvironmentalDefense.org, they note that| These numbers, apparently from a George Will column of 3 September 1992, are supposed to show the findings of a Gallup poll taken in late 1991 to ascertain the opinions of research scientists concerning global warming. Nowhere in the actual poll results are there figures that resemble those cited by Will or Limbaugh. Instead, the poll found a substantial majority of the scientists polled, 66%, believed that human-induced global warming was already occurring. Only 10% disagreed, and the remainder were undecided. |
Oops.
Unfortunately, a search of the Gallop site wasn't very fruitful and I'm still searching for the published data. However, given that in September of 1992, Gore was part of the ticket running against George Bush, a hit piece like this from Will-- replete with snide personal attacks and dissembling-- was par for the course from the right wing punditry and I'm almost sure that Will was wrong about this poll.
ETA: The bibliography for the study is:
The Gallup Organization, A Gallup Study of Scientists' Opinions and Understanding of Global Climate Change, November 1991.
However, I do not have access to this, so I can't read it or provide additional information. |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 06/03/2007 09:50:07 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 09:26:15 [Permalink]
|
Cune, "major cause" and "beyond expectations" are two very different degrees.
I think you need to decide what you believe the scientific consensus states. |
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 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 09:55:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Cune, "major cause" and "beyond expectations" are two very different degrees.
I think you need to decide what you believe the scientific consensus states.
|
This sort of semantic nit-picking smacks of desperation on your part, JdG. No sensible person-- unless that person were trying to cling to the last shreds of an otherwise utterly untenable argument-- would read the the statements of Kil and me and think that we're arguing for different things. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 10:20:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Evidence I have provided shows many in science dispute mans degree of causation. |
If by "many," you mean "very few," then I would agree.| Evidence I have provided shows many in science dispute catastrophic effects of warming. |
If by "many," you mean "very few," then you're right.| The catastrophic effects of man made global warming is how behavior will be manipulated by governments through fear. Much the same way religions use "Hell" to manipulate people. |
Except that the science predicts more bad than good to come of the largely human-caused warming, and some of it will undoubtedly be catastrophic (especially in the opinion of those who die because of it). There is no science predicting anything about hell. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Debunked-"world wide scientific consensus"
Topic Locked
