The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Science, politics and climate change > Comments

Science, politics and climate change : Comments

By Michael Rowan, published 30/12/2010

When it comes to climate conservative politicians have declared war on science.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 15
  11. 16
  12. 17
  13. All
popnperish, <<Never mind that 97% of climate scientists think climate change is real and anthropogenic in origin,>>

Can you please point me to anything that supports this assertion?

Thank you.
Posted by spindoc, Thursday, 30 December 2010 5:39:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spindoc,

popnperish can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the reference is to a Jan. 2009 report in the earth science journal Eos.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

Here is a Wikipedia article on the degree of consensus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

What is interesting here is that with the usual sort of scare, such as over fluoridated water, there may be a few maverick scientists leading the charge, but in general, the more people know about the subject, the less likely they are to believe in the scare. The exact opposite is true in the case of AGW. This doesn't prove that the consensus view on AGW has to be right and the mavericks wrong. The issue of positive and negative feedbacks, which is the real bone of contention, is extremely complicated, and even James Hansen talks in terms of probabilities, but dare I suggest that people who have passed stiff examinations in mathematics and physics, and have studied climate on a full-time basis, possibly for decades, are likely to know more about it than Runner. The fact that science is fallible doesn't stop you from getting onto airplanes or taking antibiotics.

It is also interesting that there isn't public controversy about a host of other scientific questions, such as whether the fine structure constant is different in very distant galaxies, whether birds are dinosaurs in the same way that bats are mammals, or whether the Etruscans migrated to Italy from the Near East. Non-scientists or scientists in other fields only seem to get involved when scientific findings, or their policy implications, pose a threat to their financial interests or pet ideology. What grounds are there for thinking that, say, the nuclear scientists and engineers know what they are talking about, but the climatologists are all idiots or involved in some sort of conspiracy? Since the truth isn't decided by what is more profitable or more comfortable to believe, the most rational approach must be to listen to the consensus of experts and rely on the self-correcting nature of science to bring us closer to the truth in the long run.
Posted by Divergence, Thursday, 30 December 2010 6:35:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"It is also interesting that there isn't public controversy about a host of other scientific questions, such as whether the fine structure constant is different in very distant galaxies, whether birds are dinosaurs in the same way that bats are mammals, or whether the Etruscans migrated to Italy from the Near East. Non-scientists or scientists in other fields only seem to get involved when scientific findings, or their policy implications, pose a threat to their financial interests or pet ideology."

Or when the 'facts' put forward by the 'experts' are so egregiously wrong, and the costs of their 'solutions' so staggeringly high, that even a non-expert can see the enormous damage it will do to accept them without critical analysis and review.

Nobody disputes whether birds are dinosaurs because nobody is going to make an ill-informed decision about it which will double their power bills.
Posted by Jon J, Thursday, 30 December 2010 8:04:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Deleted. Flame.]
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Thursday, 30 December 2010 9:38:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think that skeptics are like those who accept the data but have a different interpretation of the outcome.

Otherwise they are denialists.

These can be broken down into various groups-
1. Those who believe AGW is real but that we are powerless to stop it
2. Those who think the planet is warming naturally for some undisclosed reason, but not due to human activity
3. Those who believe that the planet is not warming at all and
4. Those who believe the planet is actually cooling.

The reasons for these views include-
1. Flawed data and/or interpretation
2. A conspiracy by world scientists to ensure the continuing flow of research money to themselves
3. A conspiracy by world governments to levy a whole new range of taxes
3. A conspiracy by the financial world to create a new maket to be exploited and
4. A plot by the Illuminati (or similar) to create a New World Government

In short - anything but the official view.

Despite all these alleged International conspiracies, nobody has broken ranks and no whistleblower has come forward so on balance, which scenario is most likely (than the bleeding obvious)?

If scientists warned us about an asteroid on a collision course with the Earth, I wonder who would take it seriously and who would choose denial?

Perhaps under these circumstances humanity simply deserves whatever is coming its way. Ignorance is apparently now a valid excuse and a choice.
Posted by rache, Friday, 31 December 2010 2:00:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ask yourself. Do you really want the weather to be colder, as in all year round? It’s not cold enough for you? If the crisis was real after 24 years of warnings, we would be talking about it, not debating it’s existence. And besides, world emissions have dropped but CO2 levels still rise. What kind of a mean spirited human being would wish this on their kids anyways? And how is letting the scientists out number the protesters supposed to show commitment. This about unstoppable warming you know. SAVE THE PLANET is the cry of the tyrant and it is dragging environmentalism and progressivism down with it. I can’t keep doing this CO2 needless panic so count me out.
Posted by mememine69, Friday, 31 December 2010 7:19:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 15
  11. 16
  12. 17
  13. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy