Well, go ahead, though I suggest the IPCC summary document might be a better place to start for anyone prepared to put in a bit of time to read it properly.Keela wrote: Thank you Hogfish for that very sane and sensible explanation of what science can and cannot tell us.
I may even print it out for some of my students - with your permission of course.
Hmm. The exact amount of warming is obviously open to debate, given that it relies as much on political and social issues as scientific ones, not to mention the large uncertainty surrounding estimates of coal reserves. On the other hand, the climate system is clearly capable of some very drastic changes over short periods of time (just see the palaeoclimate record). Putting CO2 into the atmosphere and raising temperatures, even by a small amount, seems to me like poking a very large dragon with a stick: it could have consequences much greater than the initial provocation. And in general, since the climate has been unusually stable during the Holocene, we are very well adapted to a very specific set of conditions (local temperatures, precipitation). If they change in any way, our agricultural system looks very vulnerable.snow hope wrote: I suppose what gets me the most, is the absolute certainty displayed by some members that AGW is the cause of imminent disaster and 6-10 degrees of warming over the next 100 years...... whereas the likely expectation is probably very different, especially when we take on board the fact that we are likely past Peak Oil and the implications that has for civilisation.
I went to a climate sceptic conference last year. It was an interesting experience. By turns, there was congratulatory applause for people saying "CO2 is not increasing", "CO2 is increasing but it is natural", "CO2 is increasing, man-made, but not doing anything to the climate", "CO2 is increasing, man-made, and changing the climate, but we can't do anything about it". This acceptance and promotion of utterly contradictory "facts" with the sole commonality of supporting inaction seems to me to characterise the vast majority of "sceptical" arguments. I went with the intention of having a good discussion and came away without so much as raising my hand: it is pointless to argue scientifically with the anti-science crowd.emordnilap wrote: Is it worthwhile you dealing with MacG's doubts? Or do you think you've addressed them? (I suspect MacG would think not).
To answer one question though: yes, scientists are normal humans just like everyone else. This can be biologically demonstrated
. On the other hand, incorrect statements, though they do slip through the net of peer review sometimes, are usually picked up fairly soon. If you think that there are any "alarmist" scientists out there deliberately overstating the case in order to get more research council funding, you might consider that anyone with the numerical skills and ethical flexibility to choose to do this could be making a hell of a lot more money in banking and finance, where that combination of qualities is highly valued.
!!
