Further proof of man's contribution to global warming or the precautionary principle?

Question

Is it acceptable to wait until reputable science in this field has reduced the already small uncertainties further or is it long past the time when many more of us accept that the precautionary principle applies?

It is strange Darminator how people rabit on about the sun without doing any research on sources readily available on the net. NASA for example have looked at it and quantified the sun's influence in the present rise in temperatures as being minor. In case anyone raises volcanoes they too have been assessed.

SALMON displays his ignorance of the scientific method in thinking that 'theory' is somehow a key word in differentiating this from other science. All science is about theories, some less certain than others.

amanacalle... 's answer is fatuous. one can arrive at the conclusion that a substance is toxic for example and still have great uncertainty as to what the toxic dose in humans is, as one can only do experiments on animals. Another example of great uncertain of precise parameters which does not negate the necessity to take precautions is corrosion in pipelines.

Response to amancalle....'s reply to my comments: I'll let amancalle..... have the last word other than to say that perhaps he has not considered that use of DDT in third world countries is a balance of risks and to state that the source I have looked has indicated world average temperatures rising inexorably since 1998.

I refer SALMON to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method no mention of proof, just (see last sentence) the search for better theories.

I don't usually do this but in view of my bias I will put this to a vote (if anyone is interested in voting apart from participants, they often are not, particularly when there is so much reading.)

Answer 1

Man is not responsible for the global warming on Mars, which has been linked to the sunspot cycle. The global warming here is very likely caused by the same sunspot activity.

However, we do need to look into what (if anything) we can do about it, and whether it will be neccessary to do anything about it.

Answer 2

Without a doubt, more proof is required. Actually, *any* proof would be a start.

You say that the uncertainties are small. I’m sure you would have said the same thing a month ago, before the IPCC released their latest “Summary for Policymakers” which reduced their estimate of the effects of human activity on the climate by over a third and reduced their prediction of the expected rise in sea levels by 2100 by over half. (http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070201_monckton.pdf )

If their previous report overestimated expected sea level rise by 100%, I’d hardly call that a “small” uncertainty! Frankly, I think that kind of error in their last report demonstrates that they got it completely wrong. And if they got it so wrong last time, what guarantees do we have that they’ve done any better this time?

Let’s be realistic here for a moment; if you were a betting man and a tipster had a record of being 100% wrong, would you make any bets based on his tips?

For me, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If the global warming alarmists are so sure that they know how the climate is going to behave, let them prove it by predicting what it will do in the next ten years. (20 years would be better.) If the climate proceeds to change in exactly (or even close to) the way they predict, then I will accept that they know what they’re talking about and agree to take their advice.

Currently, they have completely failed to do this.

******************************

In response to the Asker’s response to me…

I think the mistake you are making, is that you seem to believe that scientists are infallible. There are a wealth of examples throughout history that demonstrate they are not.

As I am sure you are well aware, Galileo was placed under house arrest for publicly voicing his support for the theory that the Sun, not the Earth, is at the centre of the Solar System. A quick look at your profile reveals that you believe a similar fate should befall anyone who denies a human contribution to climate change. You have suggested it in a question not once, but twice. Personally, I feel that preventing freedom of speech and honest and open debate, is a far greater threat to humanity than global warming ever will be.

You say…

“one can arrive at the conclusion that a substance is toxic…”

Yes, of course you can, but that doesn’t automatically mean that you are correct. If it is established that the scientist drawing that conclusion is 100% wrong, then the substance may well prove to be entirely non-toxic.

A case in point; DDT. It was suggested that it was cancerous. As a precaution it was banned. But they were wrong, it’s actually safe enough to eat. Only last year, after 30 million and more had died from malaria, did the WHO agree to recommend indoor spraying.

So, in the case of DDT, your “precautionary principle” resulted in the deaths of over 30 million people.

The fact is, *not one* of your infallible scientists have accurately predicted how the climate will behave.

Back in 1988, James Hansen predicted what the climate would do by the year 2000. He even hedged his bets by using high, medium and low figures. His guesses were, 0.45°C, 0.3°C and 0.25°C.

The actual observed rise was only 0.06°C. So that was less than one quarter of his lowest guess. There can be no ifs or buts about this. He was *wrong*.

Another example, no one predicted that the global rise in temperature would peak in 1998 and then stop. We’ve had no significant rise in temperature for the last eight years. Why did no one predict that? Now of course, we are getting reports about “Global Dimming” and the “Ocean Notion” to explain away this anomaly, but for me, Occam’s Razor applies here. And the simplest explanation is: they were wrong.

The above examples are de facto proof that no one really has a clue about how a complex and chaotic system like our climate actually works.

Finally, let us not forget two vital facts…

1) The climate of planet Earth has changed in the past, time and again, without any help from mankind at all.

2) The climate has been on an upward trend since 1750 as it began to emerge from the “little ice age”.

The task facing the global warming alarmists is not simply to prove the already agreed fact that the climate is warming, but to prove that it is a) something other than a natural process, and b) that we are having a *significant* effect.

Currently they cannot convincingly demonstrate that they know *how* the climate will behave, let alone *why* it is behaving that way.

Thus, I stand by my “proof of the pudding” statement above. It is up to the alarmists to prove that they “know their stuff” by accurately predicting future climate change, before they can expect the general public to accept their scare-mongering as fact.

Answer 3

I think mans use of fossil fuels is slightly contributing to this so called global warming phenomenal. The earth goes through cycles of heating up and cooling down. At this time the earth is going through warming cycle and mans use of fossil fuels is a cause for concern, but nature will pan out the difference with what every is necessary. So be it the price to pay will be a major change on the lives of us humans.I f we where wiped of the face of the earth tomorrow the sun will still rise and live on earth what ever it may be will continue. I t would be worth noting that the earth has supported many different forms of life for many millions of years, why should the demise of the human race be any more or less important. Face the facts we are at the mercy of what is beyond our control to survive.Mother nature will decide what lives on the face of the planet and what form it may take.

Answer 4

"Small uncertainties"

I disagree, there are vast number of major issues and holes in this Theory (key word) which does not even stand up to the most basic of questions as posed through the "scientific method"

I will not get into the massive list of counter arguments for the impossibility of "man" role in any matters climatological.There are way to many reputable scientists who disagree on this question and until there is more concrete proof I believe that change is unwarranted. and frankly a little over reactionary and "chicken littleish"

In response to your repost;

Science is not all about theories....Science is about theories with a quest for a proof....

Ok I have a theory all $100 are poisonous to everyone but me.. And now no matter what opposing views and data there may be out there does not matter...The potential I am right may exist so everyone should alter their lives immediately!!! And to save everyone from this calamity the whole world should immediately begin sending all $100 bills to me....Any difference???

The major problem I see with the "global warming" community is their nearly fascist hold on this and that anyone who disagrees or sees any difference is a "climate denier" and we are to start reacting to an unproven theory? Making dramatic alterations to our lives now...and the proof be dammed!

All, when we
1) Have no idea if what we are presently doing has any correlation to the theory of mankind induced global warming
2) Have no idea what our alterations could do...
Suppose back in the 70's when we were being told that the impending Ice Age was imminent! Had we had begun to immediately made changes to increase the planets temperature to help offset this impending doom....What would have been the effect of our actions then on the earth now??

Again I will not get into the literally hundreds of flaws in this theory, I will say that reaction without reason is unjustified and potentially dangerous.

Answer 5

I am not expert in this field and therefore wouldn't want to give any facts and figures, however I have been rabbiting on about global warming since I was in high school and did a project on alternative energy sources, around 16 years ago.
All that I need to know to convince me of the effects is to look outside of my window. It's winter and we've had 1 single day of snow here in central Scotland so far. The summer was the best even we've had for many years. Gradually it seems the seasons are merging, warm winters and hot summers. I'd say that was convincing enough for me.

Answer 6

Where is this so called global warming? Is it in the atmosphere, the poles, the ocean or is it in New York City. Even if there is a so called "greenhouse" effect. What is wrong with that? So you have a problem with plants because people eat those. I guess you would just rather watch those poor Africans starve. You meanie!

Answer 7

Better still, use the climate models to predict what the last 50 years would have been like, and they would have predicted runaway greenhouse because of all the coal we were burning. They would have been dead wrong through the 50's 60's and 70's.

Answer 8

I think Global warming is a natural cycle and the politicians are using this as another way to tax the crap out of us again.

Global warming has been going on for millions of years , it goes in cycles .


Did we pollute the atmosphere when the last ice age finished ?

If not then how did it happen ?

Think about it.

Answer 9

"small uncertainties"... HUH?... there is more proof of Global Warming than there is that smoking cigarettes causes cancer... the only people who deny it are the ones hired by the oil companies to debunk the truth and the gullible americans... fewer and fewer of them all the time... believe it.

FACT: Green house gases are the highest now than they have EVER been going back millions of years according to the studies of ice cores in the antartic. The glaciers in the arctic and antarctic haven't begain to melt because it's just a normal cycle... and there is proof that global warming is at a much more rapid pace now than it has EVER been in antiquity when just the normal warming/cooling cycles were at work.

Answer 10

Global warming is clearly not natural. Here's some hard facts, that disprove the assertions made by the global warming deniers.

Lots of data below. For example, from Page 4, changes in solar radiation are 0.12 watts per meter squared, while changes due to man are 1.6 watts per meter squared, more than ten times as much.

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

And this graph of CO2 is very enlightening.

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/mauna_loa_record/mlo_record.html

The little teeth are the natural "carbon cycle". doing its' thing. CO2 goes down a bit in the summer and up a bit in the winter, consistent with plant activity. The large trend upward is us. We're digging up carbon the natural cycle buried over many many years, and burning it real fast.

Volcanoes are insignificant compared to the effects of man:

http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html

Which is why most all scientists agree global warming is real and caused by us.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

"there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen."

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/16620307.htm

"the question of global warming was settled years ago for all but a few holdouts in the scientific community"

Unfortunately, we're kicking nature's butt on this one.

And it's clearly time to start doing something. The people below think so. They are not liberals or environmentalists. They don't get their information from Al Gore (who they probably dislike) they get it from the best scientists in the world. You may not respect all of them, but surely you respect some.

"The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now."

James Rogers, CEO of Charlotte-based Duke Energy.

"The overwhelming majority of atmospheric scientists around the world and our own National Academy of Sciences are in essential agreement on the facts of global warming and the significant contribution of human activity to that trend."

Russell E. Train, Republican, former environmental official under Presidents Nixon and Ford

"We simply must do everything we can in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late. The science is clear. The global warming debate is over."

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican, Governor, California

"Our nation has both an obligation and self-interest in facing head-on the serious environmental, economic and national security threat posed by global warming."

John McCain, Republican, Senator, Arizona

"These technologies will help us become better stewards of the environment - and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change."

President George Bush