Deku said:I'm not skeptical of climate change, but global warming is too specific an issue given every sane scientist admit we dont understand climate models well enough to even be sure what will happen.
But the impact of human activitiy on the climate is indisputable.
I live in a country where the right wing is to the left of the democrats in the USA, so I'm not very accustomed to the Republican view. Anyway, I apoligize for misinforming, this is something one of my science teachers on the university actually told.Crayon Shinchan said:In response to your Volcanos can put out more emissions than every nation combined.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=20070907134037AA6C8g9
Not by a long shot. That kind of shit is the disinformation put out by these Republican agenda fuckwits.
Blader5489 said:No shit global warming is exaggerated. It's hardly the immediate threat that people would have you believe.
vas_a_morir said:It IS exaggerated guys. Doesn't mean it's not real, just exaggerated.
gohepcat said:I honestly think this is a result of the massive proliferation of information in the last 15 years. The internet especially.
There are people in this thread speaking about climate change as if they are authorities on it. Everyone is suddenly an expert, and any fuckwit with a webcam who sounds even slightly eloquent can influence a world of people who have no ability to filter bad information from good.
I'm in the unique position in that I'm friends with some plant biologists. These people spent years of their life studying. Most of them hold PHDs, and I'm making more money than them as a systems admin. These are some of the most non-political people I know. Half of them aren't even "green" (One drives a truck). But they are all stupefied by this type of stuff.
When I want to know about science I ask scientists. When I want to know about history I ask people who have studied it.
If the vast majority of scientists say that climate change is happening, and it's directly related to human activity, then I believe them. Why wouldn't I?
Was that the year that "An Inconvenient Truth" was released?KevinCow said:What's with the point in '04? Was there something that happened in '04 that I'm forgetting that converted a large number of people?
Wii said:Climate Change is real (and part of the natural cycle)
Global Warming is fearmongering crap to justify carbon taxes
But we still need to cut emissions and harmful activities since it's bad for the biosphere.
I have never heard any grant proposals saying that they will find this or find that. Scientists make hypotheses hoping to gain an insight into a topic but ultimately they receive the money irrelevant of the final findings. To suggest that scientists receive their money dependant on them purely proving or disproving a subject is incorrect.Vinci said:And before anyone attacks me, I'm not suggesting that all these scientists are lying or that they're all greedy fucks. But experts ordinarily will exaggerate the meaning of data based on wherever they receive their money. If they're paid to disprove 'global warming' or the 'human impact on climate change,' they'll showcase the data in that light. If someone gets paid, either by grants or their ability to publish a book, on the subject - then yes, it's going to be OMG THE WORST THING EVER.
Anilones said:I have never heard any grant proposals saying that they will find this or find that. Scientists make hypotheses hoping to gain an insight into a topic but ultimately they receive the money irrelevant of the final findings. To suggest that scientists receive their money dependant on them purely proving or disproving a subject is incorrect.
So you are under the impression that every environmental scientist out there who is providing evidence for anthropogenic climate change is doing this purely for monetary gain?Vinci said:Absolutely, but they definitely keep getting money if what they find and display to the world is an ongoing problem and especially if it's controversial or startling. If it's either of those, if it's 'the end of the world!,' they get a hell of a lot more money.
I think I perceive science as a business. That's the difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying.
Anilones said:So you are under the impression that every environmental scientist out there who is providing evidence for anthropogenic climate change is doing this purely for monetary gain?
Firstly, if this is true I feel very sorry that this is your outlook on the world.
Secondly, scientists, if they wanted only money, would immediately move into industry rather than academia as the financial gain is vastly greater.
Anilones said:Walking back from work I realised that if an environmental scientist wanted notoriety, fame and money for their work they would only need to find and prove one thing: that humans are not having an effect on climate change. If they were to show this then publishing in Nature or Science would never be a problem, they would receive funding without question and a Nobel Prize would be a certainty. The simple fact that this has not been shown, and the opposite is being found, indicates that this is not the correct scientific effect.
AbortedWalrusFetus said:A lot of the problem of believing what scientists say is that this is too broad a field of study. The amount of elements that effect global climate are enormous and are effected by almost every imaginable condition. Sciences from Astronomy to Botany all have contributing factors to what happens with the global climate.
And that is just the factors EFFECTING global climate. When you add in trying to predict what will occur in the future based on models of global climate you probably double the number of fields that are required to have a full understanding of how to even formulate the model, adding Statisticians, Computer Scientists, Engineer, and all sorts of other intellectual pursuits to the mix. The fact of the matter is that trying to create these models is too herculean an effort for mankind to achieve in a short amount of time. The problem is that when these studies are done they're done by a small group of highly specialized scientists trying to prove THEIR hypothesis. You combine that with a confirmation bias that has been caused by all of the recent hype surrounding the issue and it's hard to even begin to believe that their conclusions can be sound given that any certain group has had nowhere near the qualifications to accurately account for all factors.
As a computer scientist I spend a good amount of time in college studying how to write modeling software, and even wrote some basic ones of my own. I am personally all too aware of the pitfalls that exist in my field alone--ones that even knowing them we constantly fall into--to believe that the study that has been done up to this point can be accurate.
In short, I do feel that global warming is exaggerated, and it's exaggerated because people feel it needs to be for initiatives to be created to counteract it. The problem with this is that when you sensationalize something, especially something that we cannot yet fully understand, you take the focus away from issues that actually can be solved and that we DO know about; things that are in fact true. Issues like water pollution, desertification, poor agricultural practices, world health issues and any number of things. You know what's more scary to me than global warming? The fact that thousands of square miles of land is turned into desert every year by poor farming practices that we have all of the scientific knowhow, resources, and money to prevent, but we don't. Meanwhile, we write treaties so that people can panhandle their "carbon credits" around to fix a problem that may not even be significant.
Jonm1010 said:Why is it always the conclusion we should draw from the argument of complexities and models is that the problem is exaggerated? Isnt there just as much room to say the problem is underestimated and could be far worse or severe than anticipated given current technology and understanding?
I mean, maybe its just me, but it seems to be a pretty large leap to jump from identifying climate change as complex and not full proof in terms of modeling to drawing the conclusion that it means everything must be being over-exaggerated.
Jonm1010 said:Why is it always the conclusion we should draw from the argument of complexities and models is that the problem is exaggerated? Isnt there just as much room to say the problem is underestimated and could be far worse or severe than anticipated given current technology and understanding?
I mean, maybe its just me, but it seems to be a pretty large leap to jump from identifying climate change as complex and not full proof in terms of modeling to drawing the conclusion that it means everything must be being over-exaggerated.
needlesmcgirk said:So you're making the claim that you're an IDIOT if you believe that the media exaggerates global warming. Very objective.
But again, why is the conclusion you draw that it is exaggerated to one extreme and instead isnt being under estimated? Given the same broad argument you just poised I could equally draw the conclusion that it is potentially severely underestimated in terms of impact.AbortedWalrusFetus said:I didn't mean to say that the conclusion that should be drawn because the problem is complex is that it is exaggerated. To me they are two divergent issues. The problem is exaggerated based on other factors such as its portrayal, the political stances taken on it, the policies that have been enacted, climate history, and other factors. I didn't make the separation of the two clear enough in my post. The point I was making was two fold--it's too complex a problem to understand currently, and it's also exaggerated in terms of potential impact, especially given how little we know about it.
Jonm1010 said:But again, why is the conclusion you draw that it is exaggerated to one extreme and instead isnt being under estimated? Given the same broad argument you just poised I could equally draw the conclusion that it is potentially severely underestimated in terms of impact.