Well maybe not a public majority. But intelligent design loses to evolution because many more scientists are convinced by evolutionary arguments than they are by the non-existent scientific basis of intelligent design.
I respectfully disagree, Melee. Concerning the validity of a claim, consensus is irrelevant.
"Intelligent Design loses to evolution" because there is a fact-based reality and those of us who choose to focus on and respect facts must come to this conlcusion. Evolution is a good theory regardless of how many people see it as such.
Anthropogenic catastrophic global warming theory, on the other hand, does not enjoy nearly as exalted a status as evolution. Because it hasn't earned that status.
The challenge before advocates of this theory is to demonstrate that in addition to those climate changes which would happen naturally, human activity influences the climate to such an extent (primarily by our carbon emissions and deforestation) that a climate crisis will result that would not otherwise occur. Therefore, humans must change their behavior in ways that can be (have been) calculated to avert otherwise inevitable climate-based disasters.
This theory is not evidence-based. It is, in fact, a model-driven forecast. There are certainly correlations between anthropogenic carbon emissions and global warming, but the extent of causality is a subject of significant dispute among respected scientists. Reading the Wikipedia entry on global warming is instructive. There are many competing theories, many variables that merit further study. A reasonable human being can look at this issue and surmise that it is significantly unsettled. The proposition that human beings are producing global warming that will result in a "climate crisis" is an assertion, not a verified scientific theory.
Same deal here. We're convinced. You can chose a fact-based reality, and have your policy guided by science, or you can carry on in faith-based reality and have policy guided by corporations. Its up to you America.
This is a false dichotomy. I can choose a fact-based reality, somehow manage neither to demonize nor disregard the impact of industrial/governmental pollution, and consider that public policies set by governments may not be the best way to address social and environmental problems.
Of course, global climate change is a historical reality. Its nonsensical to say 'I believe the climate changes'. We can show that. Are you instead trying to say 'I believe there is warming?'. The factors of influence you list are a very few of the major complicating influences actually at work in any sophisticated model of change. This isn't easy to model - it just isn't, and its not going to be. There are too many feedback cycles, both positive (ie: increase warming) and negative, and a bunch of unknowns.
But we have been crunching what data we have through supercomputers for nearly 50 years now. The models are getting better and better. For example, the 1980s model by Hansen et al. accurately predicted a significant amount of change over the past 20 something years - including accounting for major volcanic eruptions (1).
As complex as they are, there are no models in existence that account for the complexity of the actual climate. And, for the record, models are not a basis for data. Anyone who has played SimCity knows this. Models are, themselves, only as good as the data we put into them, which data are significantly determinative of their output. "Because a model* said so..." is not a basis for a scientific conclusion.
*Unless the model is, you know, really cute and persuasive. :lol:
I'm not sure what 'conclusive' science you would like to show you that warming might be a net negative for human beings.
Well, the Earth warmed throughout the 20th century. During that time, most human problems were a direct and indirect result of violent governments. Exceptional loss of life due to statist regimes aside, it was a century that saw per capita improvements on virtually every major category: longevity, health, productivity, and wealth increased measurably all over the world.
Even though the Earth warmed by approximately 0.6 degrees Celsius, people at the end of the century were living longer, healthier lives with more leisure time and more real income than their counterparts 100 years prior.
As temperatures rise, sea levels might also rise. Okay, maybe that's not a big deal - sea level rises are hard to predict accurately, and are very long term. But here's a taste of some of the rest of it. Water: rainfall patterns are shifting, in some areas quite dramatically (talk to Australia sometime). This means areas that have been the 'breadbaskets' of the world are no longer necessarily going to be able to rely on rainfall to grow crops. Drinking water resevoirs are in places that also can predict their rainfall - when that stops, drinking water supplies to major metropolitan areas decline. Weeds and Disease: These are together because they're much the same - shifting climates mean expansions of species such as poison ivy, ragweed, mosquitos. More serious agricultural pests as well. Mosquitos are already on the move in many places, warming allows them to expand upwards, for instance. If you've ever been in a malarial area, you'll know the cities and towns are often in the hills, away from the mosquitos - no more. West Nile and NYC anyone? And for the rest, well - some understanding of ecology would probably help. Humans are actually still part of the environment, no matter how urban and electronic your life might be. Changes to the flora and fauna outside of our cities will affect us as well.
No amount of reducing anthropogenic carbon emissions is going to relieve us from responsibility for adapting to a climate that, as a brute fact of reality, is going to change continually in ways that will require us to adapt. Shall we look to government or entrepreneurs for inspiration?
One question worth considering is: should humans attempt to slow global warming by reducing their emissions *without any guarantee that doing so will produce desirable results*? Here's another question: Do we really believe that humans can set and maintain a temperature range on this planet that will be optimal for human civilization to thrive? Another question we might consider is this: In what ways can and should human beings maximize their adaptability to climate change... to change in general?
On a separate note, with all due respect, in light of the problems facing humanity today and our scarce resources, we have to prioritize. People are suffering and dying all over the world because men with guns are forcing them to lead lives without access to food, capital, the rule of law, private property, economic opportunities... and we're talking about the poison ivy, mosquitoes, rainfall patterns in decades to come.... here's where I'm coming from.
Where people are starving today, they should be able to buy Perrier, prosciutto, and pumpernickel, but they can't. Why? No protection of individual liberty. No opportunities to create wealth. No electricity or running water. Having seen these situations with my own eyes, I can tell you, global warming is an overweighted priority in the developed world because only there do they have the luxury of contemplating the future inconveniences of changing weather patterns and warmer temperatures.
And then there's the ethical arguments - is it okay for us to drive even more of the world's species to extinction?
The absence of private property is, in fact, a primary enabler of pollution (the commons is abused because there is no proprietor who cares about ensuring that it is protected... just look at Steinway Street, and then look at your apartment). Another thing that markets have the potential to do is make it so that people who value animals can pay to preserve them for our viewing pleasure, to study them, etc.
Finally, we can show on any scale you like (geological history, recorded history) that CO2 (the major anthropogenic greenouse gas, although methane and water vapour are also important) is linked to changes in temperature. We can even measure about how much CO2 has been around at various times, including post-industrial revolution vs. geological history. And guess what? every time there's a ton of it around, the earth gets warmer. That's simple enough for everyone to understand.
It makes sense that all other factors being equal, more CO2 in the atmosphere results in a warmer average global temperature. Understood.
Fact 2: we've put a whole lot of CO2 out there - and yes it is significant. Whaddya think is going to happen? can you add two and two? And what the hell is the problem with cutting down on what we're putting out there? I really don't get why this is so hard to do. Change technologies - we do it all the time. Government incentives rather than regulation, if you're really that concerned about it (and America always seems to be - but the rest of the world gets along just fine without this attitude). We could actually end up growing the economy quite significantly! let's have some foward thinking and innovation! isnt that what this country is supposed to be great for? let's go!!
More CO2 makes the Earth warmer. Humans are responsible for approximately ... actually, how much of all the CO2 in our atmosphere are we responsible for? Why is it so hard to track down numbers on this stuff? I find so many contradictory sources, so many data points that are based on studies between different years and in different places and use different methodologies....
You've got to be fricking kidding me. 5 years? 2 years? That's absolutely impossible and sheer nonsense but see given reference for accurate predictions over a 20 year time span. That's pretty damn close to your demand. We're doing this science. We've been doing it for 30 years. Just because now is the moment that its good enough to take to the politicians and say okay, now ACT doesn't mean that we haven't fricking thought about this. To turn around and say 'oh but its not good enough because you didn't predict that on Jan 12, 2007 the temperature would be 35 degrees' is the most insane s___ I've heard in a while (and I routinely deal with creationists).
I'm not asking that you predict the weather on a specific day, but if your model predicts a global average temperature change in exact degree ranges over the course of a century, you should be able to describe the phenomenon in terms that make sense between now and then. In other words, we have a temperature snapshot of the starting year and your model predicts a temperature snapshot of the final year (2100). What can we reasonably expect to happen in between? The temperature will climb, then fall, then climb, then fall.... and presumably during all of this time your model is accounting for solar radiation, clouds, volcanos, water vapor, anthropogenic emissions, and human innovation, too, right? Because we're not going to be doing in 50 years what we're doing now. The invention of X, the widespread adoption of the Y technique.... how is human innovation accounted for? Discovery? Social change? Or would you propose measures to render the human component of your predictive model as static as possible... and what would that come at the expense of?
And then at the end, the average temperature increase for the century will be... you are fricking kidding me, right? Yours is not a faith-based reality?
You're proposing that we spend how many trillions in the hope of making your future come true? No better use of that treasure than perhaps a degree or so Celsius... maybe?
I also take umbrage at this implied notion that scientists simply give the answers their funding agencies want. Firstly, there are many and varied sources of funding, secondly the ONLY situations in which any of that has been shown to be going on is where agencies such as NASA are gagging their own climate scientists at the behest of this current administration. In fact, they've done it again just recently - now no one on their payroll is allowed to mention polar bears ffs.
Take all the umbrage you want, it's free. Scientists, priests, politicians, strippers, you, me.... we all respond to incentives. On an individual basis, some of us are certainly more decent and respectful than others, some of us care more about not endorsing public policies based on coercion than others, some of us might conform a finding to the expectations of a grantor, others might focus on some data and not others because they want to put food on on the table. See public choice theory.
Scientists conduct double blind clinical studies of drugs to avoid confirmation bias. I see nothing uncouth about promoting the same approach to evaluating global warming studies/models.
I sincerely hope that more resources will be devoted to important human endeavors over which reasonable control over the outcomes is possible.
Topic: Global warming, I need an answer (Read 11447 times)
