Global Warming Opinion: Scientific, Academic, and Corporate - Page 3

ballz2wallz · 01-10-2008, 11:44 AM

Is this going to come down to a report-by-report comparison of data that either supports or contradicts global warming? This will be a 100-page thread if it is.

WickedLou9 · 01-10-2008, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Good, now go post the 400 scientists that are global warming critics and see what they have to say.

See that's what I don't understand. Have they done any studies? Yes they are scientists. So is Steven Hawking. But Hawking doesn't study global warming. I am sure he has an opinion on it, but what makes him an expert on global warming? He doesn't study it. He studies physics. yes physics is important in the study of climate but Hawking does not study climate so his opinion on the matter is not authoritative. The fact that there is a list of people in the scientific community who don't agree with the consensus is not important without the addition of thier own studies.

ballz2wallz · 01-10-2008, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

See that's what I don't understand. Have they done any studies? Yes they are scientists. So is Steven Hawking. But Hawking doesn't study global warming. I am sure he has an opinion on it, but what makes him an expert on global warming? He doesn't study it. He studies physics. yes physics is important in the study of climate but Hawking does not study climate so his opinion on the matter is not authoritative. The fact that there is a list of people in the scientific community who don't agree with the consensus is not important without the addition of thier own studies.

Yes, I can produce study after study contradicting global warming (throughout 2007 alone) that are reporting in climatology or meteorlogical journals, the same journals that produce the pro-global warming studies.

That's what I think it's pointless to get in this "fight". What would be more interesting is to pick a specific point, for example the results of melting glaciers (if theyr'e in fact melting), the models used to predict the affects of global warming, etc. and debate each point with different articles that have been published with experimental data. But to haphazardly throw article after article around would be such a mess this thread would turn into a clusterfuck.

WickedLou9 · 01-10-2008, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Yes, I can produce study after study contradicting global warming (throughout 2007 alone) that are reporting in climatology or meteorlogical journals, the same journals that produce the pro-global warming studies.

That's what I think it's pointless to get in this "fight". What would be more interesting is to pick a specific point, for example the results of melting glaciers (if theyr'e in fact melting), the models used to predict the affects of global warming, etc. and debate each point with different articles that have been published with experimental data. But to haphazardly throw article after article around would be such a mess this thread would turn into a clusterfuck.

I'm not denying that there are studies which do not agree with the so called 'consensus". My quib was with the list of 400 scientists. My question was why do they matter? The simple fact that they are scientists is not important in my opinion. They need to have expertise directly relating to climate change. The simple fact that someone is a mathematician doesn't make them an expert on climate. They may very well all be experts on climate change, I just have not seen any evidance posted to support that.

ballz2wallz · 01-10-2008, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I'm not denying that there are studies which do not agree with the so called 'consensus". My quib was with the list of 400 scientists. My question was why do they matter? The simple fact that they are scientists is not important in my opinion. They need to have expertise directly relating to climate change. The simple fact that someone is a mathematician doesn't make them an expert on climate. They may very well all be experts on climate change, I just have not seen any evidance posted to support that.

Have you seen direct evidence from the scientists that support the IPCC conclusions or any other organization that supports global warming?

WickedLou9 · 01-10-2008, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Have you seen direct evidence from the scientists that support the IPCC conclusions or any other organization that supports global warming?

I don't care about people's opinions. I care about scientific studies and thier conclusions which is why I keep asking you the same question. Why do you care what these people think? I mean posting a list of 400 names doesn't serve much of a purpose other than to prove the obvious: that there are people who don't think humans are causing any global warming. For the record... the person who is posting list after list of people and oraganizations who agree with the "concensus" view isn't really adding anything to the debate either.

This statement is something that, to me, is more compelling than any list of names.

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Yes I recognize that it's old.

ballz2wallz · 01-10-2008, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I don't care about people's opinions.

I konw. Which is why I've asked you in return if you've seen direct studies from the scientists you believe. I've not seen these 400 scientists' particular studies, but I can find them if they've done them.

I care about scientific studies and thier conclusions which is why I keep asking you the same question. Why do you care what these people think? I mean posting a list of 400 names doesn't serve much of a purpose other than to prove the obvious: that there are people who don't think humans are causing any global warming. For the record... the person who is posting list after list of people and oraganizations who agree with the "concensus" view isn't really adding anything to the debate either.

If there is any particular scientific aspect of global warming that you're curious about, I'm sure I can find studies that dispute the notion of globam warming.

The person that started this thread is unable to realize that endorsement by an organization means nothing but political ammo when it really comes down to it.

thatguyoverthere · 01-11-2008, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by B2W

Good, now go post the 400 scientists that are global warming critics and see what they have to say.

Way to ignore everything that I posted.

You went on and on about these different fields of science and how those fields were relevant to the discussion. I gave you examples from each one of those fields supporting the consensus positions, and three examples of economists (an individual, a group of economists, and a respected financial organization) and apparently they mean nothing at all to you.

You posted that list of 400 scientists, and yet you expect it to mean something to me. Your list of 400 scientists is useless unless you can tell me the percentage of scientists that they represent. My list is relevant because I can tell you exactly how many scientific, academic, and corporate organizations agree, disagree, or are neutral.

This is a challenge that you have been both unable and unwilling to confront.

Your list of 400 pulls scientists from every field of science, so I can only assume that you are pulling that number 400 from all the scientists on the planet.

it that is so, good job, you've just basically proven that there is a consensus, and that out of all scientists in all fields from all around the world, there are only 400 disagree with the consensus.

Originally Posted by B2W

Is this going to come down to a report-by-report comparison of data that either supports or contradicts global warming?
...
Yes, I can produce study after study contradicting global warming (throughout 2007 alone) that are reporting in climatology or meteorlogical journals, the same journals that produce the pro-global warming studies.

Why do you refuse to understand what this thread is about?

It's not about studies, reports, papers, or individual scientists.

It is about organizations of all kinds that have made statements or endorsed statements regarding AGW.

You are claiming that there is not a consensus. You are claiming that most scientists do not agree with the alarmists, and that most scientists are neutral on this subject. You have also acknowledged that is is impossible to quantify the numbers of individual scientists.

I posit that it would be easier to quantify the number of organizations, and that if there was truly significant scientific disagreement, that ratio would be reflected in the number of organizations that agree/disagree/are neutral.

If there is truly a significant amount of disagreement among scientists, that should be reflected in the number of organizations willing to disagree.

If there is truly a significant amount of disagreement among scientists, that disagreement is not reflected in the number of organizations willing to disagree. Why is that? I have asked you this question repeatedly, and you have refused to answer. Do you really need me to ask you again?

It has been three months since I started this thread, and no one has yet been able to challenge those points or the essential accuracy of my conclusions.

Originally Posted by B2W

The person that started this thread is unable to realize that endorsement by an organization means nothing but political ammo when it really comes down to it.

Yes, I agree that it could be considered very potent political ammo against the deniers when one can truthfully state that there is not one single solitary scientific academic, or corporate organization that is willing to say that global warming is not happening, human activity is not significantly contributing, and the risks of inaction are not real.

But this is not about politics, it is about the scientific, academic, and corporate opinion regarding climate change. But, I am now beginning to realize that you will never understand that.

If the deniers had 743 scientific, academic, and corporate organizations willing to back their views, instead of zero, I'm sure that they would use that in their arguments.

thatguyoverthere · 01-11-2008, 11:08 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

For the record... the person who is posting list after list of people and oraganizations who agree with the "concensus" view isn't really adding anything to the debate either.

The debate here on this particular thread is if there is a scientific consensus at all. The deniers say that there is significant uncertainty and disagreement among the scientific community regarding AGW.

If there is, significant uncertainty and disagreement, this ratio is not reflected in the numbers of scientific, academic, and corporate organizations that have expressed opinions on the subject. Why is that?

I think my research is very relevant to the debate on this thread, perhaps even moreso than the Oresekes report, because my research can be checked, verified, or debunked by anyone in the same way that I compiled my list. Everyone here is free to question me or my methods, and to present countering evidence for everyone to see and consider.

ballz2wallz · 01-11-2008, 11:19 AM

thatguyoverthere, what you ask of me is impossible, and I've already told you this. Why you continue to claim that I'm 'ignoring' you, I don't know.

Roonie · 01-11-2008, 11:26 AM

No doubt there is scientific consensus on this issue. There are also a very few scientists who disagree with the consensus which is always healthy. The best list I have found of scientists who were once believers and are now non-believers in man made global warming can be found here. I am only posting this since no one has yet to bring some good sources to the table for scientists speaking out against man made global warming.

an Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming

These scientists actually have some credit to their names (although have not fully researched them yet) instead of the previous nut jobs who are always brought into the conversation who have been backed by oil money or other obvious interests. I believe it is healthy to have differing opinions. There is without a doubt that the few names listed here do not in any way compare to the hundreds of scientists names who have agreed on the issue.

In the end I think it is important to see if we can fix the problem or help it in some way regardless of the cause (man made vs natural cycle). To give up without even trying is weak and a cop out as I would like this place to be a better place for my grand kids. If that means changing behaviors now then I am all for it.

thatguyoverthere · 01-11-2008, 11:46 AM

B2W, you were arguing for the relevance of scientists in non-climate related fields such as economics, yet, when I quoted three economic experts (an individual, a group, and an organization), you ignored everything that they had to say, and simply responded with a challenge for me to re-post the link that you previously posted. IMO, that's not much of a response.

If you honestly believe that economists and scientists from other fields are important and actually have meaningful things to say about climate change, then please look at those links and tell me what you think. For example, when those economists say something like the following:

...There is now no credible scientific doubt that the composition of Earth's atmosphere is changing, that this change is driven in part by the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities, and that this change in atmospheric composition is changing Earth's climate.... The consequences of the climate change can be expected to be disruptive...

I have to wonder if you disagree or agree, and, if so, why or why not? But, you ignored that point.

So, just to make sure...

You believe that there is significant scientific disagreement, but cannot explain to me why that significant disagreement does not show up in the ratio of organizations that agree, disagree, or are neutral?

You believe that some, most, or all of the organizations listed above may profit from global warming hype, but cannot detail how? (ie will Arch Coal profit from global warming alarmism in the same manner that NASDAQ and Sara Lee will? If so, how?)

I'm trying to engage you in discussion and understand your viewpoints. I know that we might not get along, but I'm trying to understand the deniers viewpoints and look at every single scrap of evidence that they might have to present before I draw any final conclusions about this whole issue. I am glad that you participated in the discussion on this thread. I owe you a rep point just for that as well.

thatguyoverthere · 01-11-2008, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by Roonie

No doubt there is scientific consensus on this issue. There are also a very few scientists who disagree with the consensus which is always healthy. The best list I have found of scientists who were once believers and are now non-believers in man made global warming can be found here. I am only posting this since no one has yet to bring some good sources to the table for scientists speaking out against man made global warming.

an Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming

These scientists actually have some credit to their names (although have not fully researched them yet) instead of the previous nut jobs who are always brought into the conversation who have been backed by oil money or other obvious interests. I believe it is healthy to have differing opinions. There is without a doubt that the few names listed here do not in any way compare to the hundreds of scientists names who have agreed on the issue.

In the end I think it is important to see if we can fix the problem or help it in some way regardless of the cause (man made vs natural cycle). To give up without even trying is weak and a cop out as I would like this place to be a better place for my grand kids. If that means changing behaviors now then I am all for it.

Good post. You're doing a better job of presenting the opposing case than some others.

I'll join in too. Here's another one from a skeptic. He doesn't deny the consensus, but is very skeptical about the proper responses to AGW:

Amazon.com: Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming: Books: Bjørn Lomborg

And listening to Michael Crichton opine on the subject in a podcast recently, I just had to laugh that someone so liberal has been so embraced by conservative AGW deniers! His main focus also seems to be on the response, and that we it would be far more effective to give money directly to poor people around the world rather than spend it trying to control AGW.

And let me be clear (perfectly clear?): This thread is intended for a very narrow focus on very specific aspects of this entire topic. I certainly think that research should (and will) continue. I also agree that there should be a healthy debate about the proper responses to global warming. Also, if someone opposes doing something about climate change simply because they are philosophically opposed to government imposing controls and regulations on businesses, I understand and respect that position too.

AVengeance · 01-11-2008, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

I’d like to challenge the global warming deniers to present evidence supporting their claims that there are just as many (or more) groups of experts that agree with the global warming deniers (or that are neutral) as there are scientists that agree with the alarmists.
...deniers:

Truth is not up for majority vote.

WickedLou9 · 01-11-2008, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by AVengeance

Truth is not up for majority vote.

If this specific thread is about people who say that there is no consensus, or majority opinion, then then it is up for a majority vote.

ballz2wallz · 01-11-2008, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

B2W, you were arguing for the relevance of scientists in non-climate related fields such as economics, yet, when I quoted three economic experts (an individual, a group, and an organization), you ignored everything that they had to say, and simply responded with a challenge for me to re-post the link that you previously posted. IMO, that's not much of a response.

I have no doubt that in each area (in this case economics) you will find reports that support global warming. That I am not going to dispute. If, to counter your post, you want reports posted, you'll have to wait til the weekend, as I'm at work and can't post much.

If you honestly believe that economists and scientists from other fields are important and actually have meaningful things to say about climate change, then please look at those links and tell me what you think. For example, when those economists say something like the following:

I have to wonder if you disagree or agree, and, if so, why or why not? But, you ignored that point.

I ignored nothing. You obviously proved my point that other scientists have input with regard to global warming. There's nothing for me to agree or disagree with

So, just to make sure...

You believe that there is significant scientific disagreement, but cannot explain to me why that significant disagreement does not show up in the ratio of organizations that agree, disagree, or are neutral?

I already have explained that. The scientists that disagree are not going to form organizations to say they disagree. Their disagreement is not something that an organization can represent. They disagree on the final conclusions, being that they are yet to be proven. Any actions taken on such conclusions could be misleading. Who needs an organization to show that? Organizations mean nothing, therefore there won't be any, and therefore I won't give you a list of them.

You believe that some, most, or all of the organizations listed above may profit from global warming hype, but cannot detail how? (ie will Arch Coal profit from global warming alarmism in the same manner that NASDAQ and Sara Lee will? If so, how?)

Money.

I'm trying to engage you in discussion and understand your viewpoints. I know that we might not get along, but I'm trying to understand the deniers viewpoints and look at every single scrap of evidence that they might have to present before I draw any final conclusions about this whole issue. I am glad that you participated in the discussion on this thread. I owe you a rep point just for that as well.

I think we get along fine

Every single scrap of evidence will overwhelm this thread and not be easy to sift through. If you pick a particular part of global warming (ie models that predict our death) then I can certainly present to you reports that show why they are faulty. That is not hard. But I refuse to engage in general requests for proof of the contrary.

Kytro · 01-17-2008, 03:55 PM

On this topic it is a shame it is so clouded by politics it becomes hard sort out fact from fiction.

Science does not need consensus to be right, the number of people that back a side is not relevant to how correct it is, nor do the reasons why one supports or opposes the idea matter.