The Most Extra New Super Global Warming Thread

[GhostintheShell]

"millions of scientists united in the conclusion of man-made global warming"

I rest my case your honor! Now who's exaggerating to make a point, surprise its the global warming proponents, again...

You want a "best case" scenario for global warming? Rising temperatures will cause fewer people to die each year. Simply by doing nothing over the next century we can have the net affect of saving people's lives. With every downside there are an equal number of beneficial up-sides, its simply that in the pop culture that GW has become there is no room to extol the possible benefits.

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

"millions of scientists united in the conclusion of man-made

Seriously, that is an outrageous claim. I falsely recalled at the time that the National Academies of Sciences alone represented 2 million individuals worldwide, which is what I was basing my claim from, when in reality it's only 2,000. I wonder if there are even millions of professional scientists in the entire world... So, me saying "millions" is quite an embarrassing exaggeration of a few decimal places. D'oh!

However, regardless of how many people are actually represented by the more than a dozen major scientific organizations,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

the point is still that they all agree on the basics of man-made global warming, and that no scientific organization opposes the theory or the need for action. What about that seems "dog and pony show", biased, or lacking factual support?

You want a "best case" scenario for global warming? Rising temperatures will cause fewer people to die each year. Simply by doing nothing over the next century we can have the net affect of saving peoples' lives. With every downside there are an equal number of beneficial up-sides, its simply that in the pop culture that GW has become there is no room to extol the possible benefits.

What is your source for this best case scenario? Where are your sources for anything that you have claimed? I have never once read anywhere (even in the neo-con blogs that some here consider credible, accountable, hard science) that continued rising temperatures will begin to only affect human populations--in a positive way--by creating a situation where "fewer people die each year"; that doing nothing about pollution over the next century will have the net affect of saving people's lives; or, that with every downside to global warming there are an equal number of up-sides, but "pop culture" blocks them out. That's going to take a lot of explaining or credible sources to not sound like you are just repeating conservative talking-points.

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

the point is still that they all agree on the basics of man-made global warming, and that no scientific organization opposes the theory or the need for action.

Do scientists do that? Do they oppose things that can't be (dis)proven?

Or do they usually try to prove a different theory?

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Do scientists do that? Do they oppose things that can't be (dis)proven?

Or do they usually try to prove a different theory?

I don't understand your questions. Are you referring to the scientific method? I'm not sure what you are getting at.

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

I don't understand your questions. Are you referring to the scientific method? I'm not sure what you are getting at.

I mean, do scientists usually oppose political positions or do they usually try to come up with a theory that is more sound?

[GhostintheShell]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

What is your source for this best case scenario? Where are your sources for anything that you have claimed? I have never once read anywhere (even in the neo-con blogs that some here consider credible, accountable, hard science) that continued rising temperatures will begin to only affect human populations--in a positive way--by creating a situation where "fewer people die each year"; that doing nothing about pollution over the next century will have the net affect of saving people's lives; or, that with every downside to global warming there are an equal number of up-sides, but "pop culture" blocks them out. That's going to take a lot of explaining or credible sources to not sound like you are just repeating conservative talking-points.

Source for this scenario...not "everything I've claimed"...

Cagle, A;Hubbard, R; (2005) Cold Related Mortality in King County, Washington, USA, 1980-2001 Annals of Human Biology, 32(4), p.525-537.

BTW, I was actually referring to the articles you posted as the "dog and pony" show not "that no scientific organization opposes the theory" which in fact is also not true because it is impossible to say that no scientific community opposes anything. Most major scientific communities do in fact agree with what you say but what you fail to mention is that while the "organization" itself supports the theory many many scientists within these organizations do not. What occurs is that surveys are sent out and the average response is calculated to get a general consensus. If that average response is above 51%, a majority based statement can be issued that such and such an organization "supports" the theory or it doesn't. The problem with it is that it sounds like a 100% agreement when in fact it can be anywhere above half of the scientists within these communities that actually support any given theory, the other half can be anywhere from "unsure" to "strongly disagree". The other problem is that we know that surveys are biased towards "positive response". It is also unlikely that a scientist who disagrees with the theory is going to put his name on something that goes against the media machine that GW has become, in many circles it is considered "funding suicide".

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

Most major scientific communities do in fact agree with what you say but what you fail to mention is that while the "organization" itself supports the theory many many scientists within these organizations do not.

Bull-patties! The scientists may disagree on the details (Will there be more or fewer hurricanes? How much has/will GW increase/d the spread of malaria?) but not on the underlying theory.

I'll bet you can't name one member of these organizations who think global warming isn't happening.

bkelly

[Kerostasis]

It is not sufficient to prove that all of these scientists agree the globe is warming. You must show that they agree the globe is warming, and that humans are the primary cause of said warming, and that overall the resultant warmer climate will be a significantly less hospitable climate for humanity to inhabit. And if you think none of these organizations include even a single scientist who disagrees with any of those points, then I'm afraid you're deluding yourself.

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

And if you think none of these organizations include even a single scientist who disagrees with any of those points, then I'm afraid you're deluding yourself.

Great, then it should be easy to provide me with one name.

bkelly

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by bkelly

Great, then it should be easy to provide me with one name.

bkelly

I thought we already discussed that IPCC member that disagrees with the pop-concept of Global Warming?

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

I thought we already discussed that IPCC member that disagrees with the pop-concept of Global Warming?

"Pop-concept"? I'm glad you're keeping an open mind, Cingular.

You're speaking of Paul Reiter, the one who said he needed to threaten a court order to get his name removed from the third IPCC report? He resigned from the IPCC because he felt that the report overstated the current and potential spread of mosquito-borne disease due to global warming, not because global warming is false.

In a memo to the UK Parliament, he describes the conflict:

My colleague and I repeatedly found ourselves at loggerheads with persons who insisted on making authoritative pronouncements, although they had little or no knowledge of our specialty.

But then continues with:

My colleague was a top civil servant. He felt obliged to sit the IPCC project out, and to attempting to force a compromise. In a sense I believe he (we) succeeded. The 2001 report is much more comprehensive, more accurate, and gives a much better perspective of the diseases and their dynamics. The selection of references was biased towards models that predict an increase in range and prevalence of mosquito-borne disease, but there were refreshingly frank statements on the fundamental limitations of such models.

So he doesn't disagree with the IPCC but he doesn't like the computer models they used. He has made it very clear that he believes that resources for fighting mosquito-borne diseases are better used directly than through preventing global warming.


So, I'm still looking for the name of one member of the major scientific organizations to which GlobalWarmin linked that believe man made global warming isn't happening.

bkelly

[Switchcraft]

Originally Posted by bkelly

So, I'm still looking for the name of one member of the major scientific organizations to which GlobalWarmin linked that believe man made global warming isn't happening.

bkelly

Easy. Here is Richard Lindzen's bio and this covers a little of his scientific opinions on the subject, as well as his opinions concerning why more scientitsts who disagree fear to speak up about it. It's a must-read.

[bkelly]

Welcome Switchcraft, it's always good to see new posters.

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

Easy. Here is Richard Lindzen's bio...

I'm not sure why you believe Richard Lindzen qualifies as a denier of global warming. He's quick to point out that there are still unknowns and has expressed a strong distaste at using current climate science as a basis for government policies but he does believe global warming is happening. In his publication "Is there a basis for global warming alarm?" he says:

The reality of the threat of global warming is frequently attested to by reference to a scientific consensus...

<snip> Nevertheless, for the most part I do not personally disagree with the Consensus (though the absence of any quantitative considerations should be disturbing). Indeed, I know of no serious split, and suspect that the claim that there is opposition to this consensus amounts to no more than setting up a straw man to scoff at.


Come on guys, GhostintheShell said that "many many scientists within these organizations" do not agree with the basics of man-made global warming. Can you not give me one name?

bkelly

[Switchcraft]

Originally Posted by bkelly

Welcome Switchcraft, it's always good to see new posters.



I'm not sure why you believe Richard Lindzen qualifies as a denier of global warming.

Way to move the goal. You asked about "man-made" global warming, and I provided you with a name. Now you say he doesn't count because he doesn't deny global warming.

Come on guys, GhostintheShell said that "many many scientists within these organizations" do not agree with the basics of man-made global warming. Can you not give me one name?

And way to put it back. Now you're asking about "man-made" global warming again.

There is a difference, and it is major. And in your last post, that little "snip" you cut out seems pretty major. Here it is for people who did not follow the link:

Given the alarm that surrounds the issue, such statements seem peculiarly inconclusive and irrelevant to the catastrophes cited. To be sure, these references are one-sided. They fail to note that there are many sources of climate change, and that profound climate change occurred many times both before and after man appeared on earth; given the ubiquity of climate change, it is implausible that all change is for the worse. Moreover, the coincidence of increasing CO2 and the small warming over the past century hardly establishes causality.

And on the same page he SPECIFICALLY says that while the some portions of the draft version of the IPCC Third Scientific Assessment weren't "too bad" he questions the honesty of the way it was ultimately presented.

[Kerostasis]

Go out-of-context quoting! I can do that too -- from the same paper you quoted, Bkelly:

At this point, it is doubtful that we are even dealing with a serious problem. If this is correct, then there is no policy addressing this non-problem that would be cost-effective.