MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Wednesday, October 1, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 68.0° F  Overcast
Collapse Photo Bar

97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Bludgeon » Sat May 25, 2013 4:28 pm

If that were the case, it would be interesting. There's not much I'm notttt skeptical of. I suppose everybody has different values, one of my main values is that people who believe things, should nonetheless maintain a healthy store of skepticism, and question themselves often. Darwin's skepticism, for example, is what makes him one of my favorites.

When I hear from warmists, I'm generally not hearing from people who question their faith/beliefs in a serious way on a regular basis, unfortunately. Year by year, their arguments become more simplistic, less comprehensive, more 'consensus' based. Polling may be a science, but science is not polling.

Compare what we know about physics today with what we knew 200 years ago - observe the vast store of contrasting differences; then tell me if you think that, present day consensus aside, you believe those notions are going to be taken any more seriously in the approaching 22nd century, than we take phrenology today.
Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby gargantua » Sat May 25, 2013 4:35 pm

Bludgeon wrote:Compare what we know about physics today with what we knew 200 years ago - observe the vast store of contrasting differences; then tell me if you think that, present day consensus aside, you believe those notions are going to be taken any more seriously in the approaching 22nd century, than we take phrenology today.


I see. If you follow this logic in your own life, it must be very hard for you to make any decisions. After all, if you wait, you'll know more! Wait until tomorrow to play Powerball, because then you'll know what the winning numbers are! I mean, were! Ooops!
gargantua
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4121
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 1:30 pm
Location: Madison

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby rabble » Sat May 25, 2013 4:47 pm

Bludgeon wrote:If that were the case, it would be interesting. There's not much I'm notttt skeptical of.

I'm a little skeptical of that statement.

Another interesting thing is that you chose to respond to my post and not Sno's. Probably because her questions would have required work and thought to answer properly.
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6218
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Bludgeon » Sat May 25, 2013 4:54 pm

rabble wrote:Another interesting thing is that you chose to respond to my post and not Sno's. Probably because her questions would have required work and thought to answer properly.

That is an extraordinarily revealing statement, rabble. I like Snow's posts, I don't always like to use them up right away.
Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Huckleby » Sat May 25, 2013 4:56 pm

The "warmists" are the climate scientists.

Climate science is the land of uncertainty and statistical modeling. Skepticism is built into the tools of their trade. They know perfectly well that their models are by nature incomplete, and they could be wrong.

BTW, if you were told that there was a 10% chance your house could burn down, would you install a sprinkler system to protect it? How about 90%? Sane people don't generally wait until catastrophic events happen before taking action.

Suggesting that scientists lack skepticism is ignorant.
Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6635
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby rabble » Sat May 25, 2013 5:04 pm

Bludgeon wrote:
rabble wrote:Another interesting thing is that you chose to respond to my post and not Sno's. Probably because her questions would have required work and thought to answer properly.

That is an extraordinarily revealing statement, rabble. I like Snow's posts, I don't always like to use them up right away.

What's it reveal? Skepticism? :-)

I really like that ploy. "I'm gonna do it. I just don't feel like doing it NOW. So there."

That reveals a lot.
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6218
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Bludgeon » Sat May 25, 2013 5:22 pm

Huckleby wrote:Climate science is the land of uncertainty and statistical modeling. Skepticism is built into the tools of their trade. They know perfectly well that their models are by nature incomplete, and they could be wrong.

BTW, if you were told that there was a 10% chance your house could burn down, would you install a sprinkler system to protect it? How about 90%? Sane people don't generally wait until catastrophic events happen before taking action.

Suggesting that scientists lack skepticism is ignorant.

They also know their data set is miniascule and their margin for error is through the roof. I'm sure they're reminded daily that statistical modelling in and of itself is not all that much to brag about, much less to make the centerpiece of a theory.

I'm not suggesting that scientiest lack skepticism, I'm suggesting that calling all of them scientists is perhaps a bit generous. I guess Astrology at its very best becomes something of a "piggyback-science" of its own, but I'll take Mistress Cleo's prognostications with a grain of salt.

These people working in this field are being asked to produce definitive evidence of a predetermined conclusion on a continual basis, based on a (very) scant 100 years of carbon emissions, and an even more paltry 100 scant years of diligent temperature records; and the truth is, all their best material is derived from the past fifty years or so. If all their conclusions were not simply gobbled up at face value, we would have to feel sorry for them.

The planet is billions of years old; has been in a condition to sustain life for hundreds of millions of years. We're looking for them to tell us if the world is going to end tomorrow.

If 'just science' was what we were looking to get out of them, their task would be insurmountable. Thankfully for them, it would seem they, like the astrologists and scientologists, are quite ably fulfilling some other human need.
Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Sat May 25, 2013 5:34 pm

Bludgeon wrote:These people working in this field are being asked to produce definitive evidence of a predetermined conclusion on a continual basis, based on a (very) scant 100 years of carbon emissions, and an even more paltry 100 scant years of diligent temperature records; and the truth is, all their best material is derived from the past fifty years or so. If all their conclusions were not simply gobbled up at face value, we would have to feel sorry for them.
This is a nearly complete misrepresentation of the science behind climate change (and btw, when you refer to people with whom you disagree with by a snotty name like "warmists", you erode much of your own credibility on the subject.) It's frankly irrelevant what will happen -- we already know what has happened. Average global temperatures have risen, sea level has risen, permafrost has been lost, and so on. And all in the period of time which you assert is too short to reach any conclusions based on. That's not skepticism, that's denial.

Bludgeon wrote:The planet is billions of years old; has been in a condition to sustain life for hundreds of millions of years. We're looking for them to tell us if the world is going to end tomorrow.
No one who suggests the world is going to end should be taken seriously, I agree. But that's the fringe, not the norm. Responsible scientists merely point out that the environment is changing rapidly, that we are likely the cause, and that this will have consequences. If we pretend it's not happening, we can't reasonably address those consequences. But the consequences are real. To pretend that coastal flooding, to name but one recent example, is not a serious issue is once again denial, not skepticism.

Finally, comparing real science with phrenology or astrology is a pretty piss-poor tactic. If you want to present scientific arguments for why the scientific consensus is misguided, then do so. Your tactic is akin to arguing that since people used to believe in Zeus, evolution isn't happening. That makes no sense, and frankly, I'm certain you know that.
Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 8905
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby bdog » Sat May 25, 2013 6:02 pm

Prof. Wagstaff wrote:Responsible scientists merely point out that the environment is changing rapidly, that we are likely the cause, and that this will have consequences. If we pretend it's not happening, we can't reasonably address those consequences. But the consequences are real. To pretend that coastal flooding, to name but one recent example, is not a serious issue is once again denial, not skepticism.

The study in question showed that 2/3 of the GW studies did not offer an opinion on the cause. Responsible scientists are not jumping to conclusions on what is causing it. And yet people will see headlines like the title of this thread and tell others "yeah yeah 97% of scientists agree!"

Of course there's proof the climate is changing, but this is not a study, it's a campaign.

The news is now covering the reopening of the Jersey shore. Shows a severe lack of common sense. Whether it's man made or natural, better be ready to get your asses kicked again.
bdog
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:26 am

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Bludgeon » Sat May 25, 2013 6:06 pm

Prof. Wagstaff wrote:It's frankly irrelevant what will happen -- we already know what has happened.

But, respectfully, we don't. What are the exact measurements of the polar ice caps dating back the last thousand years? How do global temperatures today compare on a region to region basis, for each season of the year, between now and 500 years ago?
Image
What We Do Know < What We Don't Know. So where is the value in obsessing over minutiae?

Skepticism ^ .
Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Sat May 25, 2013 6:58 pm

bdog wrote:Responsible scientists are not jumping to conclusions on what is causing it.
The cause of rising sea levels is irrelevant to the consequences. I don't care if it's caused by interdimensional boll weevils in tiny submarines, it's still going to result in more and larger storm surges causing increased damage. And if we know that a) sea levels are rising, and b) some of our actions might be accelerating that effect, isn't the wisest course of action to make different choices?

bdog wrote:Of course there's proof the climate is changing
Then doesn't it behoove us to intelligently plan for the consequences of that change? What is the value in waiting until disaster has already struck vs. taking reasonable precautions now?

Bludgeon wrote:What are the exact measurements of the polar ice caps dating back the last thousand years? How do global temperatures today compare on a region to region basis, for each season of the year, between now and 500 years ago?
This is mere distraction, which you are using to bolster your denialism. I don't need to know how tall a tree was 150 years ago to measure its growth in my lifetime. And if there happens to be an electrical powerline some distance above that tree, I don't need to know when that wire was installed to reasonably conclude that if I don't trim the tree, it will likely grow tall enough to get tangled, nor do I need to know whether it grew naturally or was planted by a person. And if it turns out it didn't sprout of its own accord, I don't need to know if its growth is occurring at a strictly natural rate or being bolstered by the bag of Amazing Tree Growth Formula™ which was applied by the fellow who planted it. Sure, I could wait to see if the tree dies before it grows too tall, or procrastinate trimming in the hope that future technology will eliminate the need for the powerline, but hoping that everything ever observed about tree growth since anyone started paying attention is wrong and that actually, trees might begin shrinking soon is probably a fool's bet. So the question is, is it cheaper, easier, and more practical to get out the tree-trimmer today or to do nothing now but possibly have to replace hundreds of electrical appliances destroyed in a future powersurge when the tree and the wire finally duke it out?
Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 8905
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Bludgeon » Sat May 25, 2013 7:58 pm

Respectfully, what's more tenuous is the suggestion that, if it were the only tree in existence since the dawn of time, then our scant hundred years of observation yield material enough to prove wild hypotheses about the tree, when the truth is we don't know much about the condition or the behavior of the tree prior to that time, nor about what we can expect it to do in the very distant future. A reasonable party might respond that some degree of skepticism is in order. If one were to take into account the wide variety of contradictory hypotheses advanced generation to generation by individuals looking at the same type of data, all the better that we should approach bold new predictions with sobriety and doubt.

I'm not saying there's nothing to it. I am saying, it's too bad this science has become popular science; honestly, it's too bad it's become public policy. More likely than not, we're overblowing our ability to impact climate by a very long shot; more likely than not we're giving ourselves credit for a variety of natural phenomena that (time will tell), have nothing to do with us; more than likely, the greatest impact we can ever have on the climate is marginal to the point of negligibility.

Meanwhile, MMGW has been assigned an unhealthy role in the popular imagination; has been taken up by partisan politicians in a way that is disingenuous to the science, and dishonest to the public. We should take the money out of emissions compliance and put it into new energy research: quit trying to stop something, start trying to make something. In the mean time I would not worry a lot about doomsday scenarios better left to the old testament.
Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Huckleby » Sat May 25, 2013 8:00 pm

bdog wrote: The study in question showed that 2/3 of the GW studies did not offer an opinion on the cause.


This is hard work. The initial selection of papers was not "GW studies." The initial selection was for key words like "global warming." Then papers which offered no opinion on AGW were eliminated. The fact that most of the initial batch offered no opinion on AGW is meaningless. Most of those authors are not researching the cause of GW, you can infer nothing about their opinion on AGW, or whether they are qualified to offer an opinion, by the fact that they didn't address the question.

bdog wrote:Responsible scientists are not jumping to conclusions on what is causing it.

I see. Well then there is no purpose in doing a literature survey if, as you claim, the truth lies in what is not published. The scientists who offer an opinion are irresponsible. No point in arguing with such a worldview.
Last edited by Huckleby on Sat May 25, 2013 8:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6635
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby bdog » Sat May 25, 2013 8:02 pm

Prof. Wagstaff wrote:The cause of rising sea levels is irrelevant to the consequences. I don't care if it's caused by interdimensional boll weevils in tiny submarines, it's still going to result in more and larger storm surges causing increased damage. And if we know that a) sea levels are rising, and b) some of our actions might be accelerating that effect, isn't the wisest course of action to make different choices?

Then doesn't it behoove us to intelligently plan for the consequences of that change? What is the value in waiting until disaster has already struck vs. taking reasonable precautions now?


Yes, I agree on both these points. That is why I mentioned the Jersey Shore. It is not intelligent planning to rebuild there due to the larger storm surges.

I think GW probably is man made. I just don't like how this "study" is being sold.
bdog
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:26 am

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby bdog » Sat May 25, 2013 8:09 pm

Huckleby wrote:I see. Well then there is no purpose in doing a literature survey if, as you claim, the truth lies in what is not published. The scientists who offer an opinion are irresponsible. No point in arguing with such a worldview.

I never said anything about truth, that's on you.

I was just throwing "responsible" back at Wags, as if either of us could prove what a responsible scientist looks like.

I think the 97% number is misleading. And I won't even buy that without being able to see the detail study results. And the thing was done by someone with a huge bias! I don't see why you are not more skeptical of it.
bdog
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:26 am

PreviousNext

Return to National Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar