What more can reputable science do to promote action on Global Warming?

Question

Any thoughts?

Answer 1

I don't think there's much more that science can do to promote action.  The UN already organized the IPCC, which summarized the climate science studies and concluded with extremely high certainty that humans are causing the climate to change rapidly and we need to stop by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.

The scientists have done their job.  They've come to a consensus (which is a difficult task on any scientific subject) and made recommendations.  At this point it's up to the public to demand that we listen to the scientists, and the politiicans to take action.

There are clearly people who will never be convinced that humans are causing the current global warming.  There's nothing scientists can do to change that.  It doesn't matter though, because they're in the minority and their numbers are too small to prevent us from taking the necessary action.

At this point it's up to the people.  If our political leaders are unwilling to take the necessary action, we need to elect leaders who will.  The most scientists can do is continue to study the potential effects of global warming to make sure it hits home that the consequences will be overwhelmingly negative so that we can easily disprove the amateurish "warmer is better" arguments which will become more prevalent as more 'skeptics' inevitably accept that the warming is anthropogenic.

Answer 2

At his keynote address to the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting in 2006, Gore told scientists it was time for them to speak up.  They couldn't remain on the sidelines any longer, that they needed to start explaining to people about the topic, and they needed to let their voices be heard.  His point was that the few and vocal and well-funded professional skeptics had a larger effect on policy than they should based on the known science.  The reason for this was that most scientists are too balanced and equivocating when they do make public statements, and those are too infrequent to boot.  

It is why scientists need to start pointing out the intellectual vacuity of the intellectual position of the skeptics.  Their arguments are like Twinkies, easily eaten because they taste good, but in the long run having no real substance.  Scientists need to start challenging the skeptics to explain precisely what they mean when they say, for example, CO2 cannot affect climate.  Do they mean the radiative forcing from CO2 is not significant (at 1.6 W/m^2 currently, it is a factor of five greater than any other naturally varying forcing, hard to see how something that large couldn't have an effect), do they mean that something is providing an offsetting cooling (there are no known mechanisms that are providing such a cooling, empirical measurements have not identified such mechanisms), or do they mean something else?  

Similarly, you will hear skeptics say "modeling is imprecise."  This is true at face value, but climate models are very good, and getting better.  To say they do not provide any clear indication of the most likely changes coming from anthropogenically driven climate change is nonsense.  

But the problem is that it is impossible to do what Gore says.  You can't argue rationally with skeptics, they are too emotionally invested in the issue.  It comes back to taxation, UN domination, lifestyle, or some other hot-button topic.  So scientists speaking out quickly find it is like punching a Weeble, or whack-a-mole.  No amount of logic, technical evidence, or scientific theory will begin to make a dent in a skeptic's armor.  Furthermore, the explanations are too technical for most people to get, the idea that the mixing ratios for H2O and CO2 are not the same through the atmosphere is subtle, but critical, for understanding how CO2 provides a forcing in the face of so much water vapor at the surface.  Yet most people don't understand the difference, and no matter how you explain it, they just tune it out because it's too complicated and who remembers the difference between the ideal gas law and the Goff-Gratch equation anyway?

There was the case of the professor whose specialty was atmospheric radiative transfer, author of textbooks on the subject, top class in the world, I mean the guy is a pro.  He got tangled up arguing about whether CO2 provided a radiative forcing in the atmosphere with some wingnut on usenet.  This prof made no progress with the guy, because the amateur guy simply didn't understand physics, had these misconceptions that would not budge, and could not accept his ideas were wrong.

The situation is essentially hopeless anyway, but it turns out I like arguing.  Go figure.

Answer 3

we cannot defeat nature, it has happened before and will happen again, it is an arrogance to think that we can control it

Answer 4

I think they should work much harder to better understand the workings of earth's climate before they further arm political entities with the ammo they need to establish public policy.

Answer 5

For starters, "reputable science" can spend a lot more time researching climate with 'clean.... uncorrupted data'.  Until they can actually prove AGW..... they need to simply shut up!!

Answer 6

Start telling the truth, which is - We don't have a clue whether mankind changes anything but it might be prudent to stop adding CO2.

Answer 7

Al Gore, in inconvenient truth, said the problem is not with the scientists as they all agree that action is required and agree that  humans are having a detrimental impact on Earth. The problem lies with how that is communicated to the public.

Papers are 50/50 over the environment because biased lobby groups from the car, oil industry etc are doing their best to muddy the issue with the media.

If Al Gore is right then surely all these scientists who agree need some kind of media training or collaborate to debunk the biased lobby groups findings.

I would also suggest they target their findings better and with simple solutions. Not just at governments but suggesting what the average household can do, how it will benefit the Earth and also sell it on a cost savings benefit.

Answer 8

Prove that man is the cause without using computer models.

Answer 9

Tell radical leftists like Gore to sit down and shut up.

Develop practical solutions which people will actually purchase for the benefits they provide.  For example, I use compact flourescents because I am a miser.  When practical LED bulbs become available I will use them for the same reason - they save me money.  Turning it into a political issue and forcing people to accept solutions just muddies the water.

Build a better solution and people will buy it.  For example, build an electric vehicle which will get me where I am going with less hassle, for less money, and with as much comfort and convenience as I am accustomed to and I will buy it if the price is reasonable.  That's the way real progress gets made - find a problem, develop a solution, and market it.

There are trillions of dollars which could be made in the switchover from a fossil fuel economy (which is self-destructive anyway due to finite fuel reserves) to a sustainable one.  Get the radical activists out of the way and actually solve the problem..

Answer 10

Nothing. the old expression is "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."

If most people simply don't give two s**ts about the planet anyway than nothing will ever promote action. it's over

People are too busy screaming about liberal propaganda and political eco-nazism to do what would basicly be survival.

It's called cutting off your nose to spite your face. people are brainwashed to be so anti-liberal that they'll gladly suck down more poisons just to seem "pro american"

all the thumbs down. Am i wrong? we're not doing anything about global warming or pollution cause people don't care. to most people it's more important to have loads of cash and seem "pro american" rather than have clean air to breath. what else is there?

Answer 11

the growing mistrust in authority, polictical, scientific etc (in a lot of cases justified) has more and more people questioning should we take any action towards global warming and if we did would it make any difference besides wasting our hard earn money.

as it is the media(DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ a very old but true saying) is forcing down our neck the calamities due to the manmade global warming who are getting there info from heavily funded scientific groups that are pro manmade GW.

then on the other hand you have some non funded skeptics saying that it's not manmade but nature doing what it always do. so it would make no difference what we do and we should not be wasting our money and time.

now it's concensus that human is the caused of GW however it's not unamious. with a lot of flaws in computer models and scientists turning skeptic plus a list of infomation giving possible different outcomes being ignore.

yea there is a lot of hype on both sides with different agendas but i'm willing to bet that to answer your question should science promote any action or not, is to give equal funding to both groups to prove there views.

having a one way view will never get people totally convinced however it could be view as being a bit fascist

Answer 12

Any scientist who knows anything about the subject should be honest and admit it is one of mother natures natural cycles and there is nothing we can do about it

Answer 13

Citizens can vote for politicians who actually understand and respect science.

Scientists are trained to devise experiments, analyze data, and develop theories.  They are used to reporting on their findings and then letting others determine what to do about it. They aren't experienced at dealing with political/business powers who hire PR firms and use focus groups.  The Scientists need to quit being so cautious and apolitical.  This declaration by 200 of the worlds top (these guys really are "prominent" climate scientists) is a start:

"Based on current scientific understanding, this requires that global greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced by at least 50% below their 1990 levels by the year 2050. In the long run, greenhouse gas concentrations need to be stabilised at a level well below 450 ppm (parts per million; measured in CO2-equivalent concentration). In order to stay below 2 ºC, global emissions must peak and decline in the next 10 to 15 years, so there is no time to lose."

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index...

Answer 14

Some can take the path of Dr. Hansen and 'embellish' the problems of global warming "to help raise awareness" of the cause.

More doom and gloom, the world is coming to an end might swing over more people.

Become consultants on movies that show how people are going to kill off the planet.

Get more active in politics, support candidates that support you, and who may even slip you $250,000.00 as an "award".

These are some ideas.