Too late? Why scientists say we should expect the worst
Moderator: Peak Moderation
Re: Too late? Why scientists say we should expect the worst
If you think that decades of painstaking effort made by thousands of scientists is some kind of collective delusion, that in all that time every scientist just went with the status quo without anyone making a challenge and that you - and you alone - are some kind of academic 'zone of truth' then you are truly in another world.MacG wrote:I'm a scientist and I work among other scientists. What do you base your assessment of "majority" on? Watching TV? Novels? Movies? With all due respect, but you are the deluded one here.Cabrone wrote:So your whole argument is that the vast majority of the worlds scientists are 'deluded'.MacG wrote: It does not matter. Collective delusions are generally not swayed by facts. Read "The Crowd" by Gustave LeBon for some insights.
You on the other hand know 'the truth'.
Priceless.
Never mind though, at least (that well known lover of science) Dubya and his pals sympathize with you (even if they don't 'officially' agree with you).
I suspect that you have spent so many years telling everyone that AGW is wrong that you have dug an entrenched position for yourself and you will never change your fixed mindset, whatever happens now.
My position is that if AGW is proved to be wrong I will be absolutely delighted. However from all the books\science magazines\academic papers\radio\TV that I have read\watched it seems that at the moment the evidence is sadly in favour.
If I thought that sticking my head in the sand would help I'd join you.....
The most complete exposition of a social myth comes when the myth itself is waning (Robert M MacIver 1947)
John B said:
So as an accountant who's dabbled in a bit of computer programming, so has a fairly logical mind, but whose scientific qualifications extend to scraping through a Physics A Level, can I ask a few questions?
1) Is climate change that has the potential to cause disruption to the human way of life happening?
Yes... It always has and always will, both at a global, regional and local level. We are *in* an Ice Age. Glacial and shorter interglacial periods have been cycling like clockwork for millions of years. Very soon (geologically speaking) we are going to tip back into a glacial period - unless human intervention prevents it. 2000 ft of ice will no doubt 'cause disruption to the human way of life'especially in Northern America and Eurasia. On a smaller time scale we are currently on the bounce out of the Little Ice Age (approx. 1550 to 1850) - The Thames no longer freezes over sufficiently to hold ice fairs, and not many curling rinks in Scotland are natural these days. A sport saved by refridgeration in the modern era.
2) If the answer to 1) is yes, is it (or a significant part of it) man made?
A significant part is natural. I've no idea how much is man made. My own opinion, based on research I've read, is humans have had at least a measurable influence on climate for the last 8000 years.
3) If the answer to 1) is yes, can we do anything about it, regardless of who caused it?
No idea, but I doubt it, especially at a political level. People will not voluntarily freeze or give up their cars today in order to lower the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere tomorrow.
4) Is it true that the vast majority of climate scientists believe climate change is happening?
Of course! Climate is not a static system over any time scale. That's evident from the historical, palaeontological and geological records. Hippos were common in the Thames valley only 120,000 years ago. Over the longest time scale the disposition of the continents and oceans due to continental drift has a huge effect on global climate patterns.
5) If the answer to 4) is yes, do the majority believe that a significant part of it is man made?
You'll have to ask them. Whether they'll all give you an honest answer or not is another question.
So as an accountant who's dabbled in a bit of computer programming, so has a fairly logical mind, but whose scientific qualifications extend to scraping through a Physics A Level, can I ask a few questions?
1) Is climate change that has the potential to cause disruption to the human way of life happening?
Yes... It always has and always will, both at a global, regional and local level. We are *in* an Ice Age. Glacial and shorter interglacial periods have been cycling like clockwork for millions of years. Very soon (geologically speaking) we are going to tip back into a glacial period - unless human intervention prevents it. 2000 ft of ice will no doubt 'cause disruption to the human way of life'especially in Northern America and Eurasia. On a smaller time scale we are currently on the bounce out of the Little Ice Age (approx. 1550 to 1850) - The Thames no longer freezes over sufficiently to hold ice fairs, and not many curling rinks in Scotland are natural these days. A sport saved by refridgeration in the modern era.
2) If the answer to 1) is yes, is it (or a significant part of it) man made?
A significant part is natural. I've no idea how much is man made. My own opinion, based on research I've read, is humans have had at least a measurable influence on climate for the last 8000 years.
3) If the answer to 1) is yes, can we do anything about it, regardless of who caused it?
No idea, but I doubt it, especially at a political level. People will not voluntarily freeze or give up their cars today in order to lower the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere tomorrow.
4) Is it true that the vast majority of climate scientists believe climate change is happening?
Of course! Climate is not a static system over any time scale. That's evident from the historical, palaeontological and geological records. Hippos were common in the Thames valley only 120,000 years ago. Over the longest time scale the disposition of the continents and oceans due to continental drift has a huge effect on global climate patterns.
5) If the answer to 4) is yes, do the majority believe that a significant part of it is man made?
You'll have to ask them. Whether they'll all give you an honest answer or not is another question.
Last edited by skeptik on 11 Dec 2008, 11:44, edited 1 time in total.
"When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?"
John Maynard Keynes.
John Maynard Keynes.
Re: Too late? Why scientists say we should expect the worst
You dont have to bang and scream so much, and you dont have to toss George W around. (That particular parrot is dead by the way, and quite useless in an argument).Cabrone wrote:If you think that decades of painstaking effort made by thousands of scientists is some kind of collective delusion, that in all that time every scientist just went with the status quo without anyone making a challenge and that you - and you alone - are some kind of academic 'zone of truth' then you are truly in another world.
Never mind though, at least (that well known lover of science) Dubya and his pals sympathize with you (even if they don't 'officially' agree with you).
I suspect that you have spent so many years telling everyone that AGW is wrong that you have dug an entrenched position for yourself and you will never change your fixed mindset, whatever happens now.
My position is that if AGW is proved to be wrong I will be absolutely delighted. However from all the books\science magazines\academic papers\radio\TV that I have read\watched it seems that at the moment the evidence is sadly in favour.
If I thought that sticking my head in the sand would help I'd join you.....
If you think that "me alone" is skeptic about the IPCC and their "science", then you got things wrong. I'm not alone. The entire thing is rather stupid and it will go away. These things do. Only problem is that the infected hosts can become a little agressive when the delusion start to fade away.
As a pure diversion for entertainment, please explain where the IPCC will find all the oil and gas they put into their models.
It's such a mess...
Yeah, it's such a mess, George Monbiot's article in the Guardian the other day about climate change disinformation was good (shame he isn't very good on some other issues...) and there are some interesting thoughts on it here regarding the Alex Jones school of thought -- they deny climate change and peak oil...clv101 wrote:I suggest those individuals disposed to one contrary view point may be more likely to hold other contrary views.
Re: Too late? Why scientists say we should expect the worst
You say you are a scientist (allegedly) but your fragile ego appears to have entrenched you.MacG wrote:You dont have to bang and scream so much, and you dont have to toss George W around. (That particular parrot is dead by the way, and quite useless in an argument).Cabrone wrote:If you think that decades of painstaking effort made by thousands of scientists is some kind of collective delusion, that in all that time every scientist just went with the status quo without anyone making a challenge and that you - and you alone - are some kind of academic 'zone of truth' then you are truly in another world.
Never mind though, at least (that well known lover of science) Dubya and his pals sympathize with you (even if they don't 'officially' agree with you).
I suspect that you have spent so many years telling everyone that AGW is wrong that you have dug an entrenched position for yourself and you will never change your fixed mindset, whatever happens now.
My position is that if AGW is proved to be wrong I will be absolutely delighted. However from all the books\science magazines\academic papers\radio\TV that I have read\watched it seems that at the moment the evidence is sadly in favour.
If I thought that sticking my head in the sand would help I'd join you.....
If you think that "me alone" is skeptic about the IPCC and their "science", then you got things wrong. I'm not alone. The entire thing is rather stupid and it will go away. These things do. Only problem is that the infected hosts can become a little agressive when the delusion start to fade away.
As a pure diversion for entertainment, please explain where the IPCC will find all the oil and gas they put into their models.
If you are a good scientist then you should be open to the evidence and arguments yet you come across as someone who is totally closed. Maybe I missed it but not once on this BB have you at least acknowledged that there might be an argument to be had.
If AGW is proved to be wrong I will hold my hands up and admit I listened to the wrong science. Will you? Somehow I doubt it.
BTW I'm still waiting for some good arguments from you. Something that will make me think about my world view.
The most complete exposition of a social myth comes when the myth itself is waning (Robert M MacIver 1947)
I was hoping that my 5 questions might be an opportunity for both sides to set out some reasonable and supportable responses that could help to clarify things. So far there have been two pretty clear well thought out responses from different angles of the pro argument, and one rather evasive and flippant response from the anti side.
Not a very scientific survey, but the anti climate change argument doesn't seem to have leg to stand on so far.
I have to admit that I'm firmly in the pro camp, but as Keynes said (pinched from a signature on here!) "when the facts change, I change my opinion", and I've seen nothing so far to persuade me to change my opinion.
Not a very scientific survey, but the anti climate change argument doesn't seem to have leg to stand on so far.
I have to admit that I'm firmly in the pro camp, but as Keynes said (pinched from a signature on here!) "when the facts change, I change my opinion", and I've seen nothing so far to persuade me to change my opinion.
I do think it's important to note that most people on this website and others like it subscribe to one or two of the anti-consensus viewpoints, and quite often wholly support one while attacking another as crazy.
As well as peak oil and climate change, there's also 9/11, chemtrails, intelligent design, one world government and so on.
Most people on this board I think see peak oil & anthropogenic climate change as real & imminent problems, but are antagonistic towards conspiracies like the one-world-govt agenda or US involvement in 9/11, or creationist ideas like intelligent design.
But there's also peak oil believers who are anthropogenic climate change deniers, and vice versa. And evolution-deniers who totally believe the climate change thing, but think peak oil is a scam.
So I think it's important to keep questioning ourselves as to why we believe what we do - because some who agree with us on one topic are clearly insane nutters on other topics!
I often find myself wondering how I'd feel if I was a climate change proponent while the majority on this board felt that the climate change consensus was all bad science (or not science at all), and that every piece of research I tried to use to prove my point was mocked and ridiculed by other peakniks. I'm not sure how I'd deal with that. I certainly wouldn't change my mind.
And then to realise that these same crazy people agree with me on peak oil. Hmm. How to rationalise that?
Of course I'm personally a bit dubious about evolutionary theory, so probably you shouldnt pay too much attention to me on anything else
The problem I face with climate change is that I don't understand the science particularly well - especially the models linking climate drivers to the historical temperature record, and I don't think many other people do either, on both sides of the argument. So it really comes down to whether you trust the vast-majority 'consensus' to be right, and perhaps what you want to be true.
It so happens that I do trust the consensus on climate change, but at the same time I tend to be against it on evolution, because the explanations I hear from scientists like Dawkins don't address the misgivings I feel about the logic they use. I don't *like* being dubious of evolution. I've no religious reason for it. I just dont think the science is convincing.
So I'm not sure how to face up to someone who feels that same way about the consensus on climate science, about which I know even less than I do about evolutionary biology, especially since my bf has worked in climate science and is vehemently scathing of the deniers.
I do think we should bear in mind though that we're all probably in bed with the wackos on one subject or another. If nothing else it should make us a little bit more humble I suppose.
As well as peak oil and climate change, there's also 9/11, chemtrails, intelligent design, one world government and so on.
Most people on this board I think see peak oil & anthropogenic climate change as real & imminent problems, but are antagonistic towards conspiracies like the one-world-govt agenda or US involvement in 9/11, or creationist ideas like intelligent design.
But there's also peak oil believers who are anthropogenic climate change deniers, and vice versa. And evolution-deniers who totally believe the climate change thing, but think peak oil is a scam.
So I think it's important to keep questioning ourselves as to why we believe what we do - because some who agree with us on one topic are clearly insane nutters on other topics!
I often find myself wondering how I'd feel if I was a climate change proponent while the majority on this board felt that the climate change consensus was all bad science (or not science at all), and that every piece of research I tried to use to prove my point was mocked and ridiculed by other peakniks. I'm not sure how I'd deal with that. I certainly wouldn't change my mind.
And then to realise that these same crazy people agree with me on peak oil. Hmm. How to rationalise that?
Of course I'm personally a bit dubious about evolutionary theory, so probably you shouldnt pay too much attention to me on anything else
The problem I face with climate change is that I don't understand the science particularly well - especially the models linking climate drivers to the historical temperature record, and I don't think many other people do either, on both sides of the argument. So it really comes down to whether you trust the vast-majority 'consensus' to be right, and perhaps what you want to be true.
It so happens that I do trust the consensus on climate change, but at the same time I tend to be against it on evolution, because the explanations I hear from scientists like Dawkins don't address the misgivings I feel about the logic they use. I don't *like* being dubious of evolution. I've no religious reason for it. I just dont think the science is convincing.
So I'm not sure how to face up to someone who feels that same way about the consensus on climate science, about which I know even less than I do about evolutionary biology, especially since my bf has worked in climate science and is vehemently scathing of the deniers.
I do think we should bear in mind though that we're all probably in bed with the wackos on one subject or another. If nothing else it should make us a little bit more humble I suppose.
Last edited by RevdTess on 11 Dec 2008, 14:23, edited 1 time in total.
Well it all makes life interesting, doesn't it?!Tess wrote:in bed with the wackos
Andy Hunt
http://greencottage.burysolarclub.net
http://greencottage.burysolarclub.net
Eternal Sunshine wrote: I wouldn't want to worry you with the truth.
. Actually your right, he is a bit wacko Yes, not sure if its on a time scale that will harm me though1) Is climate change that has the potential to cause disruption to the human way of life happening?
No, entirely natural2) If the answer to 1) is yes, is it (or a significant part of it) man made?
We cant stop it, but we can prepare for it.3) If the answer to 1) is yes, can we do anything about it, regardless of who caused it?
I dont think anyone doubts it do they?4) Is it true that the vast majority of climate scientists believe climate change is happening?
Consensus isnt fact. Science is not a democracy. The vast majority of scientists supported conservation of energy, to the point where the poor buggers who disproved it and proved conservation of momentum had their reputations ruined5) If the answer to 4) is yes, do the majority believe that a significant part of it is man made?
There is still no "law of AGW"
I have seen sufficient evidence that leads me to believe the earth has gone from fireball to iceball to scorched rock to iceball to scorched rock many times.
Although I admit, I have no proof of this.
I have seen no evidence that CO2 has any bearing on global temperatures.
I've been told it as fact for close to two decades, but never seen the evidence, never mind proof, from which I conclude there isnt any.
I could be wrong, but I have seen no evidence I am, and yes, I saw "An Inconvenient Truth"
Thats quite different from Peak Oil, which is simply numbers.
We use oil faster than we discover it, therefore at some point we will have to cut our use to the level we discover at.
Doesnt matter if oil is a fossil fuel or a compound formed close to the mantle, we use more than we find, once we deplete our "stores", we can only use what we find.
I'm a realist, not a hippie
The swamp of misinformation and disinformation...
You could add the Big Bang and the banking system to that list I guess...Tess wrote:As well as peak oil and climate change, there's also 9/11, chemtrails, intelligent design, one world government and so on.
Picking ones way thought the swamp of disinformation and misinformation isn't easy and personally my problem is that finding my way through it has proven to be very time consuming, though I think I'm just about at the other side now...
I just read a 2001 lecture which starts:
And it now appears that the denial will last for a long time after the event -- the notice period for most people for Peak Oil and Climate Change will be a negative one...DAVID FLEMING wrote:In 1978 the Ecology Party, now the Green Party, had its office in my flat in Hampstead. I was a member of the team that wrote a pamphlet called The Reckoning, and on the back cover there was a picture by the cartoonist, Peyton, of a large number of circus clowns optimistically balancing on a barrel of oil. We felt there was about a quarter of a century left in which to prepare for the moment when this mad and reckless pyramid collapsed, and the pamphlet proposed a comprehensive reform of energy and industry, of society, of land and culture, beginning straight away, to prepare for a world after oil. What a pity no one took any notice. An irreversible energy shortage is due to break in the near future. It would not be all that damaging if there had been between 25 and 50 years of intensive preparation. In the event, we will be lucky if denial ends in time to give us a notice period of 25 months. It might be as short as 25 days.
http://www.feasta.org/documents/review2/fleming.htm
What needs to be done now are the real preparations for the post-industrial society that we are going to get one way or another...
Eeeek...