Does anyone else notice this problem with discussion about climate change?

Question

People do not seem to understand the qualifications of a theory, fact or hypothesis. they do not understand how to identify a reputable source (and for the record anything from a blog is not reputable nor is al gore ). There also seems to be massive confusion about what a 'scientific consensus' or peer-reviewed means and the workings of the scientific community. As someone in the scientific community, i believe that if people understood these things the vast majority would change their opinons on the climate change subject matter

Answer 1

i agree - the media has turned global warming into ratings - it's really a disservice.

Answer 2

I would hope a lot of people would change their minds too.  Unfortunately a lot of people are attracted to lightweight sources, sources which reinforce their prejudices and conspiracy theories.  They do not realise the immense amount of detailed, careful, rigorous and quantitative study which is going on.

Answer 3

In this case the old saying should be reversed.  Don't hate the message because you hate the messenger.  He's a nobel winner anyway.  Who cares what the idiots say.  Most of them believe Bush too.  He's going to protect us all ya know?  They were all being brainwashed by the media and terrorist alerts while he was destroying the country.  Thank goodness the dems came in power in congress or there would be nobody to blame.

Answer 4

"All English speaking people have now a 'confusing system of simplifications......................

Answer 5

Well put. Consensus is not science and we can go back to the n***s who had a scientific consensus that the ARIAN RACE was the dominant race. I use this as an extreme because it seems the most popular name to call someone you disagree with.

When politicians use an issue to raise taxes or gain power everyone should be weary.  Al Gore is making millions with this argument yet lives in a huge house, rides everywhere in private planes and yes owns large SUVs so does he really live by what he preaches? NO so why should we?

Climate Change is a fact and the climate has changed many times during the earths history.  The seas has risen and fallen many times and the proof of that is in the Grand Caynon where ancient sea creatures are found rather their fossils are and I am sure we were not here when that happened.

I am also confused when I learned as kid that CO2 was absorbed by plants which they then released oxygen back into the air so isn't CO2 essentually plant food? Which one is correct? Glasciers have also expanded and receeded many times as evidence in the land being carved by them and the repositioning of huge rocks so why is everyone panicking when glasciers start to melt in the summer time.  I thought the northern current carried warm water from the Carribean to the North Pole and this makes England inhabitable and at the same time causing Ice Burgs to break off from the north pole but then how can CO2 melt all of this Ice. I must be confused or told the wrong thing. Finally I thought the Sun provided light and heat for the Earth so I gues the Sun is to blame for everything now or am I still wong or what I was told wrong? I am going with the sun and not man causing climate change sorry.

Answer 6

It really is sad when they try to convince people that "the debate is over" and any further understanding of how the climate works is unnecessary if it doesn't support the popular point of view.

Answer 7

But you would not hazard a guess in which direction most of the changes would occur?

One caution I would offer. If you consider yourself people, you should be careful about using the statement 'People do not understand'. It appears to include you.

Next, you did nothing to enlighten anyone about the things you say people do not understand, other than to list them.

Do your part to inform rather than bemoan the lack of information.

Answer 8

You're right,there are some very unconvincing arguments put forth in the effort to somehow discredit the scientific consensus on AGW. They obviously do not know how stupid they appear when they say the things they do. Most of it is just trolls trying to get a angry response from someone that understands AGW. Sort of like the grade school bullies that always teased the smarter kids.

I find that peoples religious beliefs are used to bolster their arguments. The whole myth that it's just a 'natural' cycle is code for God is doing it. Funny thing about real scientific knowledge, once you learn,and understand something,it's very difficult to go back to being ignorant!

Answer 9

I attended the Focus the Nation at Sierra College on 1-31-08. The event was the 2% Solution, a 2% reduction over 40 years to solve GW. Oil is a nonrenewable resource and we are running out-but not soon - $30 Gal for gas. The 2% Solution is ok for the USA for a 10 year plan to cut 20%. But over those 10 years, we have to be building renewable energy and about that time, we can cut an additional 20%. This should get us from importing any oil. We must have a pollution surcharge where we pay the real price (health effects, GW and cleanup) for oil, NG, coal, cigarettes, Cooling Towers, Cars, trains and airplanes. Humans have to put some of this nonrenewable into renewable energy like small hydro-electric dams, concentrating solar power plants, wind and wave machines, nuks, and geothermal. With the peak of oil in the 1970’s, peak NG in the 1990’s, having mined cheep coal, the peak of ocean fishing in the 1980’s, humans must stop procrastinating and make real changes to keep earth sustainable including in the energy debate, finance and regulation.

Many of mankind’s advancements cause earth surface to warm, destroy the ozone layer, kill off endanger species, heat cities, and in some way cause more destruction.  Blacktop and buildings (roads, roofs and parking lots-heat cities), deforestation, duststorms (which increase hurricanes and cyclones and cause lung diseases), fires (cause pollution, mud slides, and deforestation), refrigerants (like CFC's), solvents (including benzene destroy the ozone layer raising skin cancer rates) and plastics; cars, airplanes, ships and most electricity production (causes pollution including raised CO2 levels and increased lung and other diseases); these human problems we must fix to keep life on earth sustainable! Humans have destroyed half of the wetlands, cut down nearly half of the rain forest, and advance on the earths grasslands while advancing desertification which increases duststorms.

The result is:  change is on the way, we just do not know what changes. Look beyond the hype, beyond the weather, beyond a quarterly report and beyond today. President Bush has made a choice of energy (ethanol) over food and feeding the starving people around the world; this is a choice China has rejected.

Over the next 90 years carbon dioxide is projected to skyrocket as human’s burn more fossil fuels. The problem is, the oil will be gone in 30 years at present rates of consumption and projected increases. We have to come up with what will take its place. Again we have to cleanup our mess. One of the big problems we have is at some time Yellowstone will blow its top again, as the magma move closer to the surface, creating a nuk winter. After that we will not have to worry about the destruction of the ozone layer.

But with that we must understand we have never seen what is now happening before. CO2 has never lead to temperature change, but temperature change has led to increases in CO2. The models have to be made as we go along with little evidence! But again adding a small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere enlarges the earths sun collection causing warming; increase water in the atmosphere and it forms clouds cooling earth but sometimes causing flooding. Even natural events are warming earth and causing destruction. The sun has an increased magnetic field causing increases in earthquakes (more destruction), volcanoes (wow, great destruction), and sun spots. Lighting produces ozone near the surface (raising air pollution levels). The USA Mayor's have taken a stand and I believe are on the right track, we can have control and can have economic growth. The sun is available to produce energy, bring light to buildings and makes most of human’s fresh water. Composting is the answer to desertification. New dams are the answer to fresh water storage, energy and cooling earth by evaporation, we need many small ones all over (California needs 100 by 2012 and has not even started).

That is why I founded CoolingEarth.org, a geoengineering web sight where you can learn more about earth, the atmosphere, and how to sustain life on earth’s surface.

Answer 10

Yes, but if the AGW fanatics used the scientific method, how would they push their agenda? Really, having an actual debate about AGW is unheard of. This might expose the entire myth to the general public, and we know how bad that would be.

Answer 11

Yes, I agree.  Remember that the big companies have millions of dollars to spend on PR, so they can manipulate the media to their benefit.

Answer 12

It is pretty obvious that your so called reputable sources are mainly trying to prove the existence of AGW, rather than researching with an open mind.  

How does the process of a consensus differ from what occurs in churches or religious organisations.  Consensus does not require proof.  

If you want to convince someone with a healthy level of skepticism that climatologists have developed an accurate model of the worlds climate, you need to predict something before it happens (thus far, the IPCC has failed to do that).

Answer 13

I really don't think that this particular issue is one that requires scientific data to look either back or forward. It is interesting for scientists to look back and necessary for them to look forward. Looking forward with even our best scientific tools does not assure an accurate prediction. Things change, tools that worked may no longer be the best tools. Statistics can be used to amplify whatever view the statistician chooses to describe or exaggerate.  

One reason there are so many hard nosed views on this issue is total ignorance, another reason is due to fear that global warming is truly very serious and that not fixing it will be extremely dangerous. Yet another reason is that attempting to fix this problem/no problem will be expensive and many folks don't think the problem warrants spending so much money.

Whether or not we are absolutely certain that global warming is natural or caused, it is clear that we are causing extreme damage to Earth at a rate that is only going to get much worse very soon. The rest of the world is starting to use the same resources and produce the same pollution at a pace that will soon become burdensome to everyone. What will we do about garbage that has floated across the ocean to our beaches? What will we do when one of those countries has nuclear power plants and dumps their wastes in the ocean or has a meltdown and spews radioactive gas into the atmosphere? Will we scold them? The problems are serious and it does not seem worth arguing over whether or not global warming is important. The Earth is not an endless garbage pit.