Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Climate Change Skepticism


Recommended Posts

Here is a short paper that explains why it was the hypothesis that CO2 causes GW was a reasonable hypothesis prior to 2003:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evans-CO2DoesNotCauseGW.pdf

Unfortunately, too many people accepted the CO2 causes GW hypothesis as fact and are not willing to consider new data that contradicts this hypothesis.

Three Stages of Knowledge and the IPCC

Our scientific understanding of global warming has gone through three stages:

1. 1985 – 2003. Old ice core data led us strongly suspect that CO2 causes global warming.

2. 2003 – 2007. New ice core data eliminated previous reason for suspecting CO2. No evidence to suspect or exonerate CO2.

3. From Aug 2007: Know for sure that greenhouse is not causing global warming. CO2 no longer a suspect.

The IPCC 2007 report (the latest and greatest from the IPCC) is based on all scientific literature up to mid 2006. The Bali Conference is the bureaucratic response to that report. Too bad that the data has changed since then!

The interpretation of the ice core data changed in 2003 because better measurements established that CO2 levels rose nearly 800 years *after* the temperature rose which suggests that rising CO2 levels were a result of warming and not the cause.

Here is another report that establishes that the data suggesting warming was biased by the urban heat island effect: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/...-background.pdf

I found the IPCC response to this report to be most telling:

The final version of the report, published in May 2007, included the following paragraph (Chapter 3,

page 244).

McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and De Laat and Maurellis (2006) attempted to demonstrate

that geographical patterns of warming trends over land are strongly correlated with

geographical patterns of industrial and socioeconomic development, implying that

urbanisation and related land surface changes have caused much of the observed warming.

However, the locations of greatest socioeconomic development are also those that have been

most warmed by atmospheric circulation changes (Sections 3.2.2.7 and 3.6.4), which exhibit

large-scale coherence. Hence, the correlation of warming with industrial and socioeconomic

development ceases to be statistically significant. In addition, observed warming has been,

and transient greenhouse-induced warming is expected to be, greater over land than over the

oceans (Chapter 10), owing to the smaller thermal capacity of the land.

In the first sentence, the phrase “attempted to demonstrate” should be replace with “showed.” This kind

of slanted wording arises when organizations like the IPCC fail to control the biases of their lead authors.

5

The above paragraph acknowledges the correlation between warming trends and socioeconomic

development. But it dismisses it as a mere coincidence, due to unspecified “atmospheric circulation

changes.” The two cited Sections discuss some natural circulation patterns, but do not show that they

overlap with the pattern of industrialization—the topic simply does not come up. And the de Laat and

Maurellis paper effectively refuted such an explanation anyway.

The IPCC authors also claimed that, in view of the natural circulation changes “the correlation of

warming with industrial and socioeconomic development ceases to be statistically significant.” Statistical

significance is a precise scientific term, and a claim that results are insignificant requires specific

numerical evidence. The IPCC evidently had none, but made the claim anyway. The technical term for

this is “making stuff up.”

My BS alarm bells went off when I looked at this - these guys are right. Their conclusions could be wrong but their paper is good science and deserves to be taken seriously. The fact that the IPCC tried to dismiss it with nonsensical hand waving is extremely disturbing.

I leave this rant with a final thought: science does not work by 'consensus' - science works through scepticism and by constantly challenging the widely accepted views. Anyone who tries to dismiss alternate scientific views by claiming it violates the current 'consensus' simply demonstrates that they don't understand science.

Edited by Riverwind
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 277
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I tend to agree that urbanization over large areas combined with skyrocketing populations are one (errr...two) of the major reasons for short term climate change. Los Angeles for example diverts water from as far away as Colorado to satisfy the area's water needs. This apparently lowers the water table on both sides of the Rockies.

As for long term reasons for climate change...there are numerous natural cycles involving both the Earth and the Sun that could affect the ulitimate outcome. Greenhouse gases being just one process out of many causing us grief.

The one part that bothers me is the current Mountain Pine Beetle outbreak in BC's forests. Here's a bug that has lived in the pine forests since the last major ice age. Due to it having a natural anti-freeze you need COLD winters to keep their numbers in check. By cold I mean -35C -40C for at least two solid weeks. We haven't been getting those kinds of temperatures for that length of time in this area for decades. The net result is that the forest is destroyed by the trillions upon trillions of these beetles.

It makes me wonder why the forest wasn't destroyed during some other warming trend like that of the mid-1700s.

As I sit here, it is -22C outside...cold...but, not cold enough. They'll be back in greater numbers next year.

------------------------------------------------

Water and air, the two essential fluids on which all life depends, have become global garbage cans.

---Jacques Yves Cousteau

Edited by DogOnPorch
Link to post
Share on other sites
It makes me wonder why the forest wasn't destroyed during some other warming trend like that of the mid-1700s.
You give a good example of the anecdotal evidence of which leads many people (including myself) to conclude that some sort of warming must be going on. However, there are a couple points to consider:

1) The earth has been hotter in the past with no assistance from humans.

2) The CO2 levels have been much higher in the past yet the temperature was the same or lower than it is today.

3) You cannot measure a climate trend from a few decades of data - temperatures have risen rapidly for several decades and then dropped off in the past;

4) Lodgpole pines live less than 100 years so they could have been wiped out in the past and later recovered;

Also fire supression in the last 50 years has provided the mountain pine beetle with an amply supply of the mature trees. The outbreak would likely be much less if we had let forest fires thin out the beetle's food supply.

Edited by Riverwind
Link to post
Share on other sites
Also fire supression in the last 50 years has provided the mountain pine beetle with an amply supply of the mature trees. The outbreak would likely be much less if we had let forest fires thin out the beetle's food supply.

Great point. This gives credence to the adage "don't fool with mother nature".

Link to post
Share on other sites
As for long term reasons for climate change...there are numerous natural cycles involving both the Earth and the Sun that could affect the ulitimate outcome. Greenhouse gases being just one process out of many causing us grief.
I tend to agree with you and Riverwind that the CO2 hypothesis is bunk. The environmentalists' aim is to find a way to hobble growth, more out of a sense of "guilt" for affluence than anything else. Mind you, Gore doesn't' feel that guilty; he takes private jets to rail on enviro causes.
The one part that bothers me is the current Mountain Pine Beetle outbreak in BC's forests. Here's a bug that has lived in the pine forests since the last major ice age. Due to it having a natural anti-freeze you need COLD winters to keep their numbers in check. By cold I mean -35C -40C for at least two solid weeks. We haven't been getting those kinds of temperatures for that length of time in this area for decades. The net result is that the forest is destroyed by the trillions upon trillions of these beetles.

It makes me wonder why the forest wasn't destroyed during some other warming trend like that of the mid-1700s.

Just wait a few years. The "cold-phase" of PDO that prevailed from 1947-77 is kicking in. The coldest is yet to come in your neck of the woods.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I found the IPCC response to this report to be most telling:

My BS alarm bells went off when I looked at this - these guys are right. Their conclusions could be wrong but their paper is good science and deserves to be taken seriously. The fact that the IPCC tried to dismiss it with nonsensical hand waving is extremely disturbing.

I leave this rant with a final thought: science does not work by 'consensus' - science works through scepticism and by constantly challenging the widely accepted views. Anyone who tries to dismiss alternate scientific views by claiming it violates the current 'consensus' simply demonstrates that they don't understand science.

My skepticism of Steven Milloy's website comes from his failure to disclose even to the FOX network that he gets paid from Phillip Morris and Exxon for his views. FOX wasn't very happy with Milloy on the second hand smoke issue when it was revealed he was getting paid by Phillip Morris to express those views whenever he appeared in broadcasts.

And so it goes with the rest of the lobbying he does in regards to creationism, smoking, global warming and asbestos.

He is a lobbyist who gets paid for his opposing views.

Even Harper doesn't seem to show skepticism on emissions anymore. He isn't prepared to do much about it but he isn't pulling out of the talks or advocating denial in Canada or abroad. Perhaps the people here who think global warming is a hoax should search for a new political party that will actually support their views.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree the forest fire fighting has been a really big factor. As for the forests dying out in the distant past and then being regrown: I suppose it is possible...but I'm not sure if such evidence exists (I'm really not...maybe there's lots...lol). As far as I understood the subject, the boreal forest has been in existance since the previous ice age. Of course, we know the forest was there in the 1700s. However fossil pollen samples seem to conclude that the forest was thiner overall at the point of glacial retreat. Perhaps that affected the pine beetle to a large degree. As well, the forest seems to have migrated north at the same pace as this glacial retreat; perhaps the pine beetle didn't have such a strong anti-freeze in the distant past.

----------------------------------------------------------------

The rule is, jam tomorrow and jam yesterday - but never jam today.

---Lewis Carroll

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just wait a few years. The "cold-phase" of PDO that prevailed from 1947-77 is kicking in. The coldest is yet to come in your neck of the woods.

Oh swell. Here we were wishing for palm trees.

:lol::lol:

------------------------------------------

Education has failed in a very serious way to convey the most important lesson science can teach: skepticism.

---Dr David Suzuki

Link to post
Share on other sites
My skepticism of Steven Milloy's website comes from his failure to disclose even to the FOX network that he gets paid from Phillip Morris and Exxon for his views. FOX wasn't very happy with Milloy on the second hand smoke issue when it was revealed he was getting paid by Phillip Morris to express those views whenever he appeared in broadcasts.
ROTFL. In my original post i had added the statement:
PM me if you want to join a betting pool and guess the number of posts it takes before someone attempts to dismiss the sources I provided by claiming they are funded by the oil companies.
I took it out because I thought it was a bit cheeky.

In any case, the GW is a huge industry now and there is lots of money to be made peddling low emissions technologies. Many of the GW warming activitists are funded by these commercial interests. Does that automatically mean that thier science is suspect?

He is a lobbyist who gets paid for his opposing views.
All GW advocates get paid to push the idea that GW is a serious problem. Your funding arguments are a rather silly attempt to evade the real issue: that the "science" behind human caused global warming is not nearly as solid as people would like to believe.
Even Harper doesn't seem to show skepticism on emissions anymore.
That does not mean he actually believes it. The GW warming zealots have been largely successful in painting anyone who dares to disagree with them as nutjobs. This means politicians and scientists have to pay lip service to GW in order to have any credibility.

You also missed my most important point: scientific progress comes from scepticism. Skepticism is good and should be embraced by any scientist worthy of the title. Yet we find ourselves in a situation where any attempt to question the 'consensus' is dismissed out of hand. Even if human caused GW is real the treatment of skeptics is a serious concern and that fact alone makes me extremely suspicious.

Incidently, there are many GW skeptics with good scientific credentials. Their arguments are logical, plausible and supported by evidence. It is possible they are wrong but they should be taken seriously. Any thinking person should get nervous when they see scientists acting more and more like religious fanatics.

Edited by Riverwind
Link to post
Share on other sites
As for the forests dying out in the distant past and then being regrown: I suppose it is possible...but I'm not sure if such evidence exists (I'm really not...maybe there's lots...lol).
In the past the boreal forest would have been a patchwork of burned out areas, young and old growth. This would have broken up the beetle's range and made it harder for it to spread. In addition, the dead trees left behind would burn more easily and would likely exterminate large numbers of beetles who were working the living trees nearby (IOW - the beetle infected areas were more likely to burn and thereby solve the problem another way).

It is difficult know for sure but I am pretty sure that if the GW boogyman did not exist the pine beetle problem would be blamed on fire supression.

Edited by Riverwind
Link to post
Share on other sites

One odd thing that was noticed this summer was that the beetle...if present in enough numbers...will go for younger lodgepoles and even other types of conifers. Seems if this becomes a trend the problem could spred across to Alberta and beyond. Of course, man really helps spread this beetle. Especially along transport routes used by logging trucks.

-----------------------------------------------------------

The pedigree of honey does not concern the bee, a clover, anytime, to him, is aristocracy.

---Emily Dickinson

Link to post
Share on other sites

The national post has an excellent series of profiles on distinguished scientists that do not believe that human cause GW is clear and present danger.

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=...0bed2f6&k=0

I recommend it for anyone who is still willing to approach this topic with an open mind.

This story about a hurricaine scientist is appalling:

Then something went horribly wrong. Within days of this last invitation, in October, 2004, you discovered that the IPCC's Kevin Trenberth -- the very person who had invited you -- was participating in a press conference. The title of the press conference perplexed you: "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity." This was some kind of mistake, you were certain. You had not done any work that substantiated this claim. Nobody had.

....

To stop the press conference, or at least stop any misunderstandings that might come out of it, you contacted Dr. Trenberth prior to the media event. You prepared a synopsis for him that brought him up to date on the state of knowledge about hurricane formation. To your amazement, he simply dismissed your concerns. The press conference proceeded.

....

You wanted to right this outrageous wrong, this mockery that was made of your scientific field. You wrote top IPCC officials, imploring: "Where is the science, the refereed publications, that substantiate these pronouncements? What studies are being alluded to that have shown a connection between observed warming trends on the earth and long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity? As far as I know, there are none." But no one in the IPCC leadership showed the slightest concern for the science. The IPCC's overriding preoccupation, it soon sunk in, lay in capitalizing on the publicity opportunity that the hurricane season presented.

....

The assurance didn't come. What did come was the realization that the IPCC was corrupting science. This you could not be a party to. You then resigned, in an open letter to the scientific community laying out your reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Riverwind,

I think that ultimately the world is unable to move forward on this issue because there is no single authority that everyone defers to on such matters.

Global warming wasn't invented out of whole cloth, it was discovered by scientists, presumably without an agenda. After the oil companies became involved, the left smelled a conspiracy and this entire issue became wrapped in the identity politics of the latter 20th century.

That does not mean he actually believes it. The GW warming zealots have been largely successful in painting anyone who dares to disagree with them as nutjobs. This means politicians and scientists have to pay lip service to GW in order to have any credibility.

You also missed my most important point: scientific progress comes from scepticism. Skepticism is good and should be embraced by any scientist worthy of the title. Yet we find ourselves in a situation where any attempt to question the 'consensus' is dismissed out of hand. Even if human caused GW is real the treatment of skeptics is a serious concern and that fact alone makes me extremely suspicious.

Incidently, there are many GW skeptics with good scientific credentials. Their arguments are logical, plausible and supported by evidence. It is possible they are wrong but they should be taken seriously. Any thinking person should get nervous when they see scientists acting more and more like religious fanatics.

Some questions:

Is it valid for 'interested parties' to hire scientists to push their 'point of view' ?

Your points about consensus are understood, but how much skepticism is required to call GW into question ?

When an issue is of global concern, is the normal language of science clear enough to communicate warnings to the masses ? Are scientists justified in lying to wake people up ?

In the current media climate, would the press publicize a well researched paper that decouples the statistical levels of CO2 emissions from temperature rises ? Will Bono hold a rock concert ?

Once again, we find that our systems of communications are instrumental in determining how this issue plays out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ROTFL. In my original post i had added the statement:

I took it out because I thought it was a bit cheeky.

In any case, the GW is a huge industry now and there is lots of money to be made peddling low emissions technologies. Many of the GW warming activitists are funded by these commercial interests. Does that automatically mean that thier science is suspect?

All GW advocates get paid to push the idea that GW is a serious problem. Your funding arguments are a rather silly attempt to evade the real issue: that the "science" behind human caused global warming is not nearly as solid as people would like to believe.

That does not mean he actually believes it. The GW warming zealots have been largely successful in painting anyone who dares to disagree with them as nutjobs. This means politicians and scientists have to pay lip service to GW in order to have any credibility.

You also missed my most important point: scientific progress comes from scepticism. Skepticism is good and should be embraced by any scientist worthy of the title. Yet we find ourselves in a situation where any attempt to question the 'consensus' is dismissed out of hand. Even if human caused GW is real the treatment of skeptics is a serious concern and that fact alone makes me extremely suspicious.

Incidently, there are many GW skeptics with good scientific credentials. Their arguments are logical, plausible and supported by evidence. It is possible they are wrong but they should be taken seriously. Any thinking person should get nervous when they see scientists acting more and more like religious fanatics.

The funding arguments are not silly because you are questioning the impartiality of scientists who you say are being pushed to say global warming is happening. I am questioning your impartial website because it is funded through donations from companies wishing to say global warming is not happening, is no threat or is a hoax.

It is in the interest of those opposed to science to say all science is theoretical and political. Milloy goes about things a few ways. First, he tries to say that the science of evolution, smoking and emissions is contested. Then he posts some research to that effect. That, and in and of itself, is not bad. What is bad is that quite a bit of what he posts has not been through peer reviewed processes. To combat that, Milloy says that peer review is political and cannot be trusted.

In the end, every scientific discovery, no matter how many times it is duplicated in the laboratory or how compelling it is with the bulk of research, becomes just a hazy theory. Milloy is then able to say: It is just a theory that smoking is bad for you. And if it is a theory then government should not be regulating it.

Milloy is a lobbyist. You give him some money and he will say creationism should be taught in schools because evolution is just a hazy theory.

Personally, I'll leave skepticism to actual scientists who publish, subject themselves to the process of peer review and have work that is repeatable in a lab.

Emissions does require more research but like the early work done on smoking, the evidence is compelling that emissions are having an effect on the environment. The bulk of work done denying emissions by people has not been enough to sway the majority of the scientists or governments world-wide.

I don't think you can have it both ways and say Harper is doing something on global warming and that he doesn't really believe in it. It certainly cannot satisfy anyone and should be enough reason for people who really do or don't believe in emissions to seek another political party to support.

Edited by jdobbin
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good posts Riverwind. Now let's talk about the costs of the GW paranoia. We could have diverted these resourves to reducing pollution and toxins and increased pressure to recycle etc.

There is a cost to putting all of these resources on the GW bandwagon. They are the costs of not putting our resources to places that could have really helped our environment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Good posts Riverwind. Now let's talk about the costs of the GW paranoia. We could have diverted these resourves to reducing pollution and toxins and increased pressure to recycle etc.

There is a cost to putting all of these resources on the GW bandwagon. They are the costs of not putting our resources to places that could have really helped our environment.

According to the Junkscience creator Steve Milloy, the pollution and toxins are also just theoretical science. So why do anything about them?

Link to post
Share on other sites
One odd thing that was noticed this summer was that the beetle...if present in enough numbers...will go for younger lodgepoles and even other types of conifers. Seems if this becomes a trend the problem could spred across to Alberta and beyond. Of course, man really helps spread this beetle. Especially along transport routes used by logging trucks.

Drove up home (Cariboo) this summer and was dismayed at the amount of red trees. We need a really long cold snap.

The biggest fear is if we have a very dry summer all those beetle-trees will go up like tinder.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Global warming wasn't invented out of whole cloth, it was discovered by scientists, presumably without an agenda. After the oil companies became involved, the left smelled a conspiracy and this entire issue became wrapped in the identity politics of the latter 20th century.
The global warming is a hypothesis based on data collected. As time goes on people have been able to collect better data and have shown that some important datasets have significant errors in them. Unfortunately, the GW establishment has invested too much in the GW hypothesis and seems to ignore or downplay the significance of the changes to these datasets. Here are some examples of changes to data that should have triggered some second thought on the part of GW advocates.

1) In 1985 the Vostok ice core data suggested that CO2 and temperature rose and fell in lock step with each other. This data strongly suggested a causal relationship between CO2 and temperature. However, in 2003 new high resolution data demonstrated that CO2 levels started to rise 800 years *after* the temperature starts to rise which suggests that CO2 is a result of warming and not a cause. The new data is not disputed by GW advocates and they have been forced to admit that the Vostok ice core data neither supports nor negates their CO2 hypothesis.

2) The famous hockey stick chart that melded data collected from tree rings with data collected from weather stations has been shown to have numerous statistical flaws. This chart was the center piece of earlier IPCC reports, however, the IPCC now downplays the hockey stick but conveniently ignores the fact that much of the current science is based on the assumption that the current temperature rise is rapid and unusual - something that is simply not true.

3) Recent satillite measurements suggest that the ice sheet in antartica is increasing in size and causing sea levels to decrease. GW advocates try to argue that this is not significant because 'it takes 100s of years for climate changes to have an impact on ice sheets'. Unfortunately, that argument cuts both ways because it implies that any large melting ice sheets are responding to climate changes from 100s of years ago and cannot be associated with the recent warming trend.

There are other examples from different sources looking at everything from the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation to global warming on Mars.

None of these examples actually disprove the human caused GW hypothesis but it does demonstrate that it may not be as certain as GW advocates claim. I feel that everyone should be concerned about the way GW advocates are quick to ignore new data that contradicts their hypothesis. In fact, many advocates engage in ad hominum attacks on people raising legimate scientific questions (see jdobbin responses to any post on GW). I find this quite disturbing and have actually undermined my confidence in the human induced GW hypothesis. Play the science not the man (sic).

Another thing to note: if you read through the body of the IPCC report you will find that the facts presented by the skeptics are not disputed. The only thing that is disputed is the significance of the data. For example, the IPCC acknowledges that solar variations are the mostly likely explaination for climate changes in the past but they provide no argument that excludes solar variations as a possible cause of the current warming trend. They argue instead that there is no evidence that the solar variations are causing the current warming trend.

IOW - they take the position that CO2 is guilty until proven innocent and the skeptics take the position that CO2 is innocent until proven guilty. I feel an 'innocent until proven guilty' is the most appropriate onus given the huge amount of resources that could be misallocated trying to 'fix' the CO2 problem. If you want to take a 'better safe than sorry' position then we should focus on adapting to climate change rather than reducing carbon because the ROI for money spent on adaption is much higher. For example, which makes more sense: building a pipeline to bury CO2 in the ground or building a pipeline to carry water to areas affected by a dryer climate?

Edited by Riverwind
Link to post
Share on other sites
According to the Junkscience creator Steve Milloy, the pollution and toxins are also just theoretical science. So why do anything about them?
You might have a point if Steve Milloy was the only person taking this position. He is not. There are many skeptics who look at the problems from different angles.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Riverwind,

The global warming is a hypothesis based on data collected. As time goes on people have been able to collect better data and have shown that some important datasets have significant errors in them. Unfortunately, the GW establishment has invested too much in the GW hypothesis and seems to ignore or downplay the significance of the changes to these datasets. Here are some examples of changes to data that should have triggered some second thought on the part of GW advocates.

1) In 1985 the Vostok ice core data suggested that CO2 and temperature rose and fell in lock step with each other. This data strongly suggested a causal relationship between CO2 and temperature. However, in 2003 new high resolution data demonstrated that CO2 levels started to rise 800 years *after* the temperature starts to rise which suggests that CO2 is a result of warming and not a cause. The new data is not disputed by GW advocates and they have been forced to admit that the Vostok ice core data neither supports nor negates their CO2 hypothesis. The trouble is this data was a critical initial dataset and we likely would not be talking about GW today if the data collected in 1985 has shown the trailing CO2 levels.

2) The famous hockey stick chart that melded data collected from tree rings with data collected from weather stations has been shown to have numerous statistical flaws. This chart was the center piece of earlier IPCC reports, however, the IPCC now downplays the hockey stick but conveniently ignores the fact that much of the current science is based on the assumption that the current temperature rise is rapid and unusual - something that is simply not true.

3) Recent satillite measurements suggest that the ice sheet in antartica is increasing in size and causing sea levels to decrease. GW advocates try to argue that this is not significant because 'it takes 100s of years for climate changes to have an impact on ice sheets'. Unfortunately, that argument cuts both ways because it implies that any large melting ice sheets are responding to climate changes from 100s of years ago and cannot be associated with the recent warming trend.

There are other examples from different sources looking at everything from the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation to global warming on Mars.

None of these examples actually disprove the human caused GW hypothesis but it does demonstrate that it may not be as certain as GW advocates claim. I feel that everyone should be concerned about the way GW advocates are quick to ignore new data that contradicts their hypothesis. In fact, many advocates engage in ad hominum attacks on people raising legimate scientific questions (see jdobbin responses to any post on GW). I find this quite disturbing and have actually undermined my confidence in the human induced GW hypothesis. Play the science not the man (sic).

Another thing to note: if you read through the body of the IPCC report you will find that the facts presented by the skeptics are not disputed. The only thing that is disputed is the significance of the data. For example, the IPCC acknowledges that solar variations are the mostly likely explaination for climate changes in the past but they provide no argument that excludes solar variations as a possible cause of the current warming trend. They argue instead that there is no evidence that the solar variations are causing the current warming trend.

IOW - they take the position that CO2 is guilty until proven innocent and the skeptics take the position that CO2 is innocent until proven guilty. I feel an 'innocent until proven guilty' is the most appropriate onus given the huge amount of resources that could be misallocated trying to 'fix' the CO2 problem. If you want to take a 'better safe than sorry' position then we should focus on adapting to climate change rather than reducing carbon because the ROI for money spent on adaption is much higher. For example, which makes more sense: building a pipeline to bury CO2 in the ground or building a pipeline to carry water to areas affected by a dryer climate?

This post has been edited by Riverwind: Today, 12:51 PM

Thank you for the excellent post.

What you and your opponents are both talking about is flaws in the scientific process.

I accept that everything you have said here may be true.

How would you reform our information system to make some kind of public consensus (not scientific consensus) possible ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
What you and your opponents are both talking about is flaws in the scientific process.
The scientific process is a human process that is only as reliable as the humans involved and many, many scientists have staked their professional reputation on the idea that human caused GW is true. This introduces a source of bias which is more insidious than bias introduced by special interest funding. This also undermines the peer review process because the reviewers have a vested interest in blocking papers that threaten their careers.

There is not much we can do to fix flawed humans but we can acknowledge the bias in the process and we cannot blindly accept that opposing views must be false because they go against the 'scientific concensus'.

We have also all have to realize that it is virtually impossible to produce evidence that would "prove" that CO2 does not cause global warming even though the current intellectual environment seems to expect that level of certainty before it will consider conflicting opinions. A conflicting opinion is worth considering even if it only casts some doubt on the current science.

If the CO2 hypothesis is discredited in the future it will not be a result of the work done by a single sceptic. It will come when the volume of conflicting evidence from different sources becomes too great to ignore. There are many different scientists working with different data that all seem to have results that cast doubt on the CO2 hypothesis. For that reason we must keep an open mind and be prepared for the possibility that what we believe today to be true about CO2 might not be true in the future.

This open mind should influence any public policy decisions and we should work towards goals that serve a useful purpose even if the science is shown to be wrong in the future. For example, reducing energy usage cuts CO2 emissions and is good for the environoment in many other ways. Pumping CO2 into the ground does nothing other than increase the cost of energy.

Edited by Riverwind
Link to post
Share on other sites

If the following group supports Globally Warming it's got to be junk science.

Link: http://www.cpcml.ca/Tmld2007/D37062.htm#1

Snippet: Earth Day 2007

Canada Must Implement the Kyoto Protocol!

Humanize the Natural and Social Environment!

Affirm the Right to Be!

- Statement of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) -

April 22, 2007

Today we honour Mother Earth and pledge to uphold her dignity. In doing so in Canada, we must first pay tribute to the First Nations who are the stewards and protectors of Turtle Island and holders of sovereign rights to this vast land. The First Nations have never relinquished their sovereign rights and bravely continue to defend Turtle Island from the indignities of colonial pillage and ruin. Participants in earth day must first and foremost come

Link to post
Share on other sites
link?

It is on his website but here is quick link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_J._Milloy

air pollution in the U.S. was more of an aesthetic than a public health problem [in 1970]. That is even more the case today."

So, I guess nothing needs to be done about it. It is an aesthetic problem.

Edited by jdobbin
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...