What percentage of this section really knows what they're talking about?

Question

Most of the questions I see are either alarmist responses to the issue based on misinformation (ie "When all the glaciers melt are we gonna flood???!!! Should I move to Nebraska so I don't drown?") or trolls trying to incite anger from environmentalists.

Answer 1

Makes you wonder what kind of education people are getting, doesn't it?


I think there are about 15% - 20% of the folks who know what they are talking about or at least have done some investigation to form a fact based opinion, either pro or con.

Personally, I'm less concerned with Global Warming than I am with Global Pollution, being that a small part of Global Warming is just a part of Global Pollution.

The good news is that if people get excited and motivated about 'stopping' Global Warming, they will be cutting down on pollution in general, which is the important thing.

So, I'm more than happy to write about Global Warming, even though it's a 300 year trend and we MIGHT be acellerating it, because the pollution levels of our water supply, air quality and food resources are definetly something we can change and make better.

Even if they all think they are just fighting Global Warming.

Answer 2

I believe that the issue is so complicated than its almost impossible to say who is right and who is wrong. Climates has always been the most ellusive phenomenon known to man (excepted for the human brain). I have done a lot of researchs about those phenomenons, and when I was thinking to be on something, I was falling on something new that could cancel my theory, or rendering it much more complex.

To give you an idea, I was thinking that the thermohaline belt would eventually come to an end due to fresh water melting from the ice caps, but I did find out a few days ago, that the hydrothermal vents around the world and especially the ones discovered at Gikkel ridge (underneath the Artic ice), was in higher than normal activity, and was increasing the amount of salt in the ocean... This alone could avoid the thermohaline belt from disolving, or even shorten its nothern path... Which could mean that the ice caps could melt indefinitly, IF the increase in salinity of the ocean is confirmed. Also, it look more likely that our global warming is in fact a telluric warming, meaning that our ocean are cook from beneath and not from the sunrays... But still so many things to take into accounts...
So, this issue is far from being closed, and will still take more studies to REALLY know what happen, until then, almost everybody can bet on the outcomes... Every opinions are valid in such case... But humans are definitly not behind the phenomenon that we are currently experiencing.

Answer 3

I agree alot of trolls and alarmist in here. No I don't know how many know what they are talking about. From the answer I have seen they give only half the answer, go somewhere else, or as you said incite anger.

Good luck on finding out. I do believe some people know the answer. We just have to pick the correct one sorta like multiple choice.

Answer 4

It's frightening when you think about it. We have folks here with (claimed) graduate level science education who don't play things straight. That is, they make an argument that they KNOW they can't possibly make as a scientist. We have folks that can use wikipedia or run a search engine, or worse yet, regurge off of a biased "talking points" site (eg, gristmill), acting as if that somehow makes them an expert.

And yes, we do have more than a few who try to polarize things in the opposite direction. Some of it is just shaking the wasps' nest, but some of it is also done to draw attention to the fact that the debate is NOT over, regardless of what is often claimed.

Like you, I'd like to see an honest approach to the science, and a reprioritization of our efforts to better the environment. I believe that the Anti-GW reflex is a Frankenstein created by GW hyperbole. But I could be wrong...

Answer 5

Yes you are correct there is a lot of noise surrounding the issue of Anthropogenic Warming.(A.W.) The Earth's climate is constantly in flux it's the nature of Climate dynamics the argument is to what extent has man caused the latest round of changes and scientists look at the data and foment theories. These theories really heavily On computer modeling.

The quality of the land based temp. data Used to make the case for A.W. is questionable at best...A consensus is not a substitute for a proven event. The probabilistic modeling used to predict climate changes are scenarios and only as good as the parameters & defined variables in these models.

Case in point. The Sun: pro A.W. camp claims to have accounted for Sun's effect by measuring Radiant Output. They totally exclude on these models, the strength of the Sun's Magnetic Field which impacts on the ability of cosmic rays interacting with the Earth's upper atmosphere ionizing particles resulting in cloud generation.

Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere which according to the same models that predict A.W., predict that this portion of the atmosphere is where warming trends will first establish themselves. Don't support the theory. These comprehensive satellite global readings have been compiled for over 23 years now and, no sustained warming trend has been noted. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with other data from weather balloons.

Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error. Here is a web site that documents the problem with the quality of the land station data. http://www.surfacestations.org/

The fact that A.W. Group-Think alarmists wish to railroad society into spending Trillions, just the Carbon offsets alone is projected to exceed $2 trillion by 2012, that's a lot of money that is beter spent on meaningful environmental mitigation. Sequestering trillions on Faux Environmentalism is irresponsible and endangers 3rd world development, lives & global security worldwide.

Answer 6

One of the best ways to tell is to read a number of responses for one of the responders that you want to check..

Look for the answers where the responder has gone into detail and check any sources that are cited. Look the sources up and read them for yourself to see if you agree with the interpretation of the responder.

Also consider, is the source that is cited a credible source for that issue. In general a source from a peer reviewed scientific journal that is widely used in the scientific community is a credible source.

This also indicates that the responder at least has the knowledge to recognize a credible source and is willing to make the effort to review material that is not always readily available to the general public.

If the responder only relies on sources from the popular media, that often indicates that the responder does not have the knowledge of how or where to find peer reviewed scientific literature.

A mix of peer reviewed sources and popular media will generally be ok, as long as the responder uses peer reviewed media where it is appropriate..

If you have expertise in the area you can generally tell from the answers how much or how little expertise the person who answered the question has.

Also, if you do not have a great deal of expertise in the area, find someone who you know does have expertise in that area and ask them to review a few of the responses.

This will help you sort out the people who know what they are talking about from the people who do not know what they are talking about.

Answer 7

This is a quote from a Question on GW: "Global warming changes our planets climate. It will make longer winters and shorter summers. The change will effect our crops and animal life. Some will be destroyed."
This is hard to understand. The inclination of the earth's rotation with respect to the orbit plane around the sun defines the seasons, the seasons have nothing to do with global warming. Both, the summer and winter will be warmer.

The 10 warmest years since record-keeping began in 1880 have all occured since 1990, and six of the seven warmest years have occurred since 2001. The world is about one degree Fahrenheit warmer than it was a century ago.
Or, about a tenth of a decree every 10 years.
Some scientists claim it is a fraction less than a tenth, others a little more but, they all agree the planiet is warming up.

Sea level rose from 4 to 8 inches around the globe in the last century, up from 2 inches per century avarage in the previous 18,000 years. Want more...

Analysis of 143 studies of plant and animal species found that 80 percent changed as would be expected with rising temperatures, such as migrating towards the poles or to higher elevations. Want more...

One kind of fly migrated to California from the South, with a virus that is destroying tomato plants and crops. Want more...

Greenland ice is melting at the rate of 57 cubic miles per year, twice the rate it was computed a few years ago.

With the exception of you and me, the rest is not credible.

Answer 8

It seems as though the only ones that know what they are talking about is you and me then, and some days I wonder about you.

Just for a moment let's say that there really isn't global warming and it really is just a normal fluctuation of the global temperatures, as apposed to the science. Wouldn't it still be better to use alternate fuels that pollute less, or not at all? Wouldn't it be better to not plug up the rivers and streams with sludge and waste?

The whole argument over whether or not there is global warming is sophomoric at best. A clean planet is better that a polluted place to live.

Answer 9

If people were interested in listening to the people who know what they are talking about, they would read Science magazine. But we live in an age where everyone's opinion seems to count as much as anyone else's, and most people think they can believe whatever they want.

But in answer to your question, in general hardly anyone knows what they are talking about. Including me. But that doesn't seem to stop people from giving opinions, does it?

Answer 10

I would venture to guess about 5% if we're lucky. The rest are mindless wanderers with nothing better to do than exactly what you said. Hopefully we have the sense to know the difference.