Do we believe scientists on global warming? Are they too all over the place to be believed?

Question

"Isaac Newton had something to say about all this: In his seminal “Principia Mathematica,” he noted that if separate data sets are best explained by one theory or idea, that explanation is most likely the true explanation." READ:http://www.livescience.com/environment/070716_gw_notwrong.html

Hey get this straight, it is NOT my view but more an element for discussion..Please read the link.

Yes Mr Taco, if only so our children can breathe..can you imagine what the UK would be like if they had continued to burn coal as there primary source of fuel...The buildings in Glasgow are still black and the soil in Edinburg actually give an oily stain on clothes.

Answer 1

Well, just today a new refinement on their computer model showed that their predictions they were making were significantly wrong, as to time frame and some of the causal factor's weights. Lot of the dissidents who are suppressed from publication have been saying this for a long time, just not been listened to!

My point all long is when you rely on computer models that are unable to even accept data from the past, let alone calculate it so we can test them in real life situations on known data, you are NOT being scientific, but political.

To those who pull in non-scientists to speak to the validity of the 'science' being used, I see in all cases vested interests in making money off Global Warming. Why should they not say it is right? Makes them money if folks believe. And more money if more folks believe!

On animal extinctions, I have yet to hear anybody explain to me why the polar bears only die now, and did not in the longer warmer periods history tells us happened in the past. Are our Polar bears that are being watched as a monitor not as hardy as the ones in the past hot periods? I have seen NO scientists address this issue of why they did not die out in the MWP. No GW advocates either.

We need to study history, to find out what happened in the past in these matters and why, not consider Global Warming as a brand new thing thing and have a scientific disconnect from the reality of the past;. Or a political one, either.

I am not seeing any comparative studies made, at least not published and reported..

Which leads to another point, someone talked of published papers. I KNOW for a fact that the journals censor what they publish; I got that from a major popular magazine years ago and their policy remains in effect. Science, no matter how good, no matter how true, is censored for publication by, among other things, the perceived personal values system of the writer, and his connections. In other words, is the author "Politically Correct"? If not, sorry, no publication.

It is very easy to make the papers predominantly from one side in today's publishing market!!

Wikopedia is good, but I understand someone can go in and change what it says, also, easily. Am I in error? If I am right, we need to watch for revisions to support a given popular concept! I think the ability to rapidly change files online is a defect compared to published books that are less subject to being "burned" by those who do not find them "Politically Correct" from time to time.

You know, we need people of ALL disciplines involved, not JUST "climatologists", but historians, biologists...all disciplines. For example, who has asked biologists if bulldozing the rainforests to plant oil palms is a good long-term idea? And where is their support for it? Or asked Archaeologists if there is history being obliterated that is important to understand the present and future?

We both have still too much actual dissent, tho much is muffled, and we have too little input from the whole area of science. We cannot JUST look at weather, and especially now we need to back up since even those who relied on their computer models have found admitted errors, and that Nature is not cooperating by endorsing them fully.

I recall that there were a number of scientists and technical people who were pointing out problems in the models being used until now, but were shushed!!

In my Engineering work, I have learned to not make changes in basic designs until I understand the system, have input form many areas, and can make a change that is reversable if it causes problems. Never get stampeded into irrevocable changes before they are tested in the lab, in small scale in the field, and proven valid and beneficial.

And I have had to fight Management (politicians) on things of this nature, occasionally losing and then having the new stuff turn out very badly.

There is an old adage, "Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread." We are fools if we rush in and make massive changes to the Earth's systems until we know both short and long term effects and that our models are correct, by exhaustive testing. And carefully controlled studies.

Who can tell me they have modeled the rape of the Rainforests, and the effects of the monoculture of oil palms replacing the rain forests?? And tested the models in theory and then in small scale? I do not hear of any.

So far, I think Isaac Newton is spinning in his grave as we rush in using really untested computer models, and making massive changes to things where we have a preconceived, possibly political, notion and do not check to be sure all other data does not reveal a flaw.

I know political pressure too; it has kept us out of real Space development, by politicians making short-range decisions for their own benefit rather than making long-term cost/benefits studies and plans for all, and trying them out slowly. So our energy and raw material resources are still out there. And we are running into a Malthusian economic bind of our own making.

I think right now scientists are too politically concerned, for the most part, and too greedy for research monies to do work that ONLY supports GW as it has been politically determined, to really be believed totally. And to base major changes in our world based on their plethora of papers and the concurrence of Big Industry and Big Politics!

Today's revelation of major errors in the computer program and its output materially substantiates my point, I believe.

Who now believes we should tear ahead destroying our society, destroying our rainforests, destroying the under-developed nations, as we have been under the GW aegis and directed by politicians, including the UN. I will bet lots just want to be part of the current fad, and not worry if we overkill the climate.

Politics, not science. And science run by politics is very very dangerous. Read History...it proves that! Inconvenient truths!

Answer 2

I think this is normal when the conclusions are theories based on a combination of data taken today with very old data that may not be as accurate, and other historical data taken from ice core samples. The temperature change is very slow (1 degree every 100 years avg). Just how accurate is analyzing chemically a 10000 year old ice sample? How accurate were the measurements taken in the 1700's? Our national temperature data collection system shows no avg increase in temp. for the last 20-30 years (see co2science.org). My states data collection system shows a slight decrease over the last 30 years.

I personally believe the globe is warming and has been for hundreds of years. I also believe pollution is bad and needs to be reduced. I am not so sure just how much CO2 is good or bad, and whether man can do anything about warming.

Answer 3

The thing is, scientists are not all over the place at all. This was shown by the Oreskes study:

In 2004 an article in Science magazine discussed a study by Prof. Naomi Oreskes in which she surveyed 928 scientific journal articles that matched the search [global climate change] at the ISI Web of Science. Of these, according to Oreskes, 75% agreed with the consensus view (either implicitly or explicitly), 25% took no stand one way or the other, and none rejected the consensus.

http://www.norvig.com/oreskes.html

There is virtually no debate among scientists that humans are the primary cause of the current global warming.

Answer 4

All over the place? Hardly. Let's see. 3,500 experts in the field all over the world say that global warming is real, and that is either caused or exacerbated by man's activities. A couple hundred scientists disagree, many of whom are not even climate experts, and most of those are paid by Exxon and similar corporations that have a financial interest in the subject. In reality, there is no real debate on the issue. The consensus is staggeringly united and in agreement. If not for corporations invested in preventing the truth from getting out there spending millions on false theories and politics, there would be no argument on this whatsoever. We are essentially gambling with the lives of our children just because oil companies want to make a profit. That is pretty sick.

What really gets me is this: if there WAS serious debate on the subject, and we really WEREN'T sure about global warming (which is NOT the case, but for the sake of argument), then wouldn't it STILL make sense to do whatever we can to cut back on greenhouse gases and polluting our environment just in case? This whole debate is like having a gun on the ground with children playing around it and debating whether or not there are bullets in the gun. It is foolish.

Answer 5

One of the greatest challenges in climatic research is that data sets have to be combined, aggregated and normalized (changed slightly to make differing sets of information mean something similar) from multiple sources using multiple means to build a picture... this is a tough way to get a clear picture, and partially explains the lack of unity on what the existing dataset means.
Another problem is that the scientists performing pure research (versus derived research) can't be dedicated to disseminating the results of their work (not enough time to do both!). Politically-active persons with agendas are pirating the data and putting spin on the numbers... irresponsible behavior, right now, comes from the people who are trying to make a living or a name for themselves using preliminary information, not hard numbers.
I write this about 20 times a day... the numbers don't lie, but the people do. Be very careful about believing what you see, on both sides of the issue.

Answer 6

Actually the scientific community is quite united on this. Don't judge from a (very) few noisy skeptics. Proof here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

There's a lot more controversy in fields like "string theory". Or even quantum mechanics or relativity. With regard to global warming, the data is unequivocal. It's mostly caused by man made greenhouse gases.

"The fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate, any scientific program at the meetings, or simply going to talk to scientists. I challenge you, if you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts that support your view - you won't be able to. You can argue whether the consensus is correct, or what it really implies, but you can't credibly argue it doesn't exist."

Dr. James Baker - NOAA

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know -
Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point,You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)
Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command

Benthic_man. Your general point is correct, but the global warming data is not very sensitive to exactly how it's processed. In statistical jargon, the "signal" from man made greenhouse gases is so strong that it always winds up being the main cause.

Answer 7

I think you've answerd your own question.

Climatologists and others involved in the study of global warming use numerous data sets. It's something that is being studied by many groups of people all around the world. The subject is being approached from many angles by diverse groups - ecologists, astronomers, oceanographers, economists etc.

The one thing all these studies have in common is the conclusion (only one organisation out of thousands has come to a different conclusion - the American Association of Petroleum Geoilogists).

By adoptying Newton's principle then the explanation for global warming is almost unequivocal. Mankind.

Answer 8

The head of the IPCC is an engineer who designs rail systems, rather than someone who drives trains. If he majored in a mechanical engineering before specializing in the design of rail systems, then he would have a very good understanding of thermodynamics. And he would be in a unique position to understand how the granddaddy of all heat engines, Earth's atmosphere, works.

Answer 9

Global warming, global warming, global warming.
The Bird Flu, Bird Flu, Bird Flu, Bird Flu. Y2K, Y2K, Y2K, Y2K, Y2K. On and on and on and on. It's just the latest scare tactic. The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof. God will take care of global warming. Just a tiny fraction of a change in the cloud cover and then---no more problem. Of, course, we should be good stewards of what God has given us, but to think that we can make a difference is the height of snobbery!

Answer 10

Scientists who support Anthropomorphic Global Warming are just shills for the IPCC, sucking up over 50 billion in government grants.

Compare that with the "deniers" who have gotten only about 10 million from the oil companies.

You can buy a hell of a lot more scientists for 50 billion than you can for 10 million.

Answer 11

You think they can cover all the variables for a 30 year prediction? They can't even get next week's weather right yet.
More scientists agreed on Y2K than GW and that went well, didn't it.