It doesn't require measurable global warming and allows the failure of actual conditions to replicate climate models to be a moot point.Originally Posted by redfox
While the anthropogenic global warming theory has failed to gain further momentum due to the lack of verifiable warming conditions over the past decade, the blanket "climate change" argument has the potential to achieve the same desired result by attributing virtually any variance to man. It's sort of like plan 'B'.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Americans increasingly doubt global warming: Harris Poll
07/13/2011
A Harris poll on disasters released yesterday shows that fewer Americans than ever believe in global warming: just 44%, down from 75% ten years ago.
Harris tries to see the positive in this, pointing out that:
These numbers do not suggest, however, that a majority now do not believe in global warming—just over one-quarter say they do not believe in it (28%) and the same number say they are not sure. Fittingly, among those who say there have been more natural disasters recently, there is no consensus whether this is a result of global warming or not (38% say it is, 28% say it’s not and 34% are not sure).
But as scientists like to point out in discussions of environmental indices, the trend over time is what matters, and the trend in this instance is clearly negative. The determination to see an American belief in global warming on the basis of this poll is peculiar, to put it politely.
Yes, in theory those who are not sure about the "theory" of global warming could be convinced, could join the plurality who do believe in global warming, and we could see an uptick in support for emisions-restraining measures. But one has to ask what it will take to convince us.
Hot years? Ten of the twelve hottest years ever occured in the last decade, according to NASA.
The melting of mountain glaciers? Glaciers are in retreat worldwide, and will be virtually gone from Glacier National Park by 2030, according to the US Geological Service.
Sea level rise? The rate of SLR has doubled in the last decade.
On the other side of the coin, philosopher Gary Gutting at Notre Dame points out that critics of the "theory" of global warming have a problem -- the experts are in agreement.
There is, moreover, no denying that there is a strong consensus among climate scientists on the existence of A.G.W. — in their view, human activities are warming the planet. There are climate scientists who doubt or deny this claim, but even they show a clear sense of opposing a view that is dominant in their discipline. Nonexpert opponents of A.G.W. usually base their case on various criticisms that a small minority of climate scientists have raised against the consensus view. But nonexperts are in no position to argue against the consensus of scientific experts. As long as they accept the expert authority of the discipline of climate science, they have no basis for supporting the minority position. Critics within the community of climate scientists may have a cogent case against A.G.W., but, given the overall consensus of that community, we nonexperts have no basis for concluding that this is so.
The consensus position was shown graphically here, from Skeptical Science, based on a 2010 accounting of peer-reviewed climate scientists.
Three different surveys, using different methods, all found a remarkably strong consensus on the question -- over 97% of climate scientists believe in global warming.
Yet the American conclusion seems to be: Experts? We don't need no stinking experts!
"Three different surveys, using different methods, all found a remarkably strong consensus on the question -- over 97% of climate scientists believe in global warming.
Yet the American conclusion seems to be: Experts? We don't need no stinking experts!" (zigzagman)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sadly, the fairly large number of willfully ignorant citizens, the "ignorant and proud of it contingent", those determined to take a contrarian view just because, helped along by folks in the employ of the big polluters, or ideologically against any limits on the free market, even if it destroys us, will ensure that too little will be done, too late, and by the time we'd get to say "I told you so" with any finality, we'll all be dead.
When 97% of the world's climate scientists say it is happening, and that it is most likely that our human actions are fueling the greater part of it, and the big oil and coal companies and the scientists they employ, or the politicians who get their campaign funds from those polluters, are lined up on the other side, I know which side common sense leads me to accept. And (hint), it isn't the folks wanting to continue to spew the stuff into the atmosphere for profit....... ;-)
It's not necessary to label everyone who disagrees with you in this way, over and over and over again.
There is a difference between changing climate and man-made climate change. Earth's climate has changed many times over it's existance with or without man's help. The question is, how do you discern which is which? Who do you believe, the "folks in the employ of the big polluters, or ideologically against any limits on the free market" or the folks who are paid to promote the desired result and/or those ideologically against the free market?When 97% of the world's climate scientists say it is happening, and that it is most likely that our human actions are fueling the greater part of it....
I think a healthy dose of skepticism is prudent and doesn't necessarily represent "ignorant citizens", but then I'm not as judgemental as some others.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Well, Alan....you certainly have a right to your opinion, AND your skepticism, but 97% of the world's climate scientists disagree, and I'll go with them.
I also go with the premise that even when we only "suspected" that cigarettes were connected with lung cancer, it behooved us to quit smoking.
And we should also be aware that the exact tactics that were used to muddy the waters, create doubts and prevent consensus regarding cigarettes and their connection to cancer, are now being used by the polluting corporations and those in their pockets to do the same. You can literally substitute "global warming" with "cigarettes" and see the exact arguments........
Carry on.....I'm heading to the pool..... g'nite....
Neither the phrase global warming or climate change are scientific terms; they are shorthand for a significant body of research and theories, which are changing as the research broadens and builds upon itself. The phrase 'climate change' is a more scientifically accurate description of the patterns of weather and climate disruption we're observing, and the science is clear that human activity has a significant impact on climate change. What you call plan B is a growing body of scientific understanding; what you call a theory that "failed to gain momentum" (whatever that means) is how science progresses. It's not a theory popularity contest. Your skepticism of human activities' impacts on climate change is based upon what thinking?
Since our activities are the only things we can control, it's wise, IMHO to apply the Precautionary Principle and make sound, scientifically based choices about our activities to mitigate the exponential shifts in global weather patterns. The intense oscillations we've witnessed in the last few decades are alarming, and very very costly. The insurance industry has been worried for some time about the impacts of loss claims being filed, and were the first big business to look at the science seriously.
I understand that you're a conservative's conservative, Alan, and yet I am astonished that you count yourself among those who deny the science.
My mother in law used to say cigarettes didn't hurt you cause, of course she smoked and she knew plenty of people who smoked who didn't get cancer. She was wrong, of course, and ignorant. (and proud of it too)
It just blows me away how someone can see that 97% of scientist agree on this thing, yet they say, well, it isn't 100% is it. And even then I'm going to believe this politician/TV personality over here cause, you know, HE knows the truth! He said so!
Is it simply the nature of liberals to go out of their way to denigrate their perceived opposition? It sure seems to be for the ones in this community.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
And everyone else is just "willfully ignorant". Thanks, good to know.
By the way, do all of the 97% you mention agree that man is the predominate factor in the warming we saw between 1998 and 2005? Also, since our global CO2 output continues to increase, why did recent warming begin a decline 6 years ago?
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
It's complicated - it really comes down to questioning how much one dynamic factor in a sea of dynamic factors is affecting a climate that changes variably as these factors change. Humans make a measurable impact on the planet - we're still figuring out what that means but our lack of understanding doesn't make it inconsequential.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote