Anthropogenic Climate Change can be disputed, depending on who is saying what about the human elements.
Even IF humans are later discovered to not be the cause of this recent climate change...if we do undergo a runaway greenhouse effect, we still have to fix the problem. So it is not as though the problem disappears if we can definitively prove that it was man-made.
Also, "climate" analysis and modeling is not the same thing as local weather forecasts.
Well, this actually raises something of a relevant point. For there to be action, I think there needs to be a critical point of public interest, and this conversation between shakya and inamilist is sort of a microcosm for much of the public discourse right now.
What, in your opinion(s), needs to happen for that critical mass to be reached? What isn't the scientific community doing now? Or is the fault elsewhere?
Because lots of us know about the problem in a vague way, but don't know the details of it. Like many, I sort of assumed the truth was somewhere between the two camps and their warnings/denials. I feel like I'm probably in the majority with that approach, because it's not something I can devote a ton of time and intellectual effort to.
And I thought shakya was a hippy...figured he'd be all over saving the planet.
You are correct. That is a logical fallacy known as "argumentum ad populum."
Even among credible studies, two different groups can get the exact opposite answer. That does not necessarily mean that both are wrong, both or right, or only one is wrong. That could simply mean that different methods and/or tools need to be used. I could use an analogy to show how two different studies can give differing results...but that is too much of a complicated of a task and I am too lazy. But, basically, one could use "spoons" and another could use "forks" and conclude that their own chosen utensil is the most scientifically sound for food consumption (bear with me, here). Neither of them could be at fault for their methods but both of them could need a better analysis OR more knowledge with which to study (it could be a psychological phenomena not yet known or understood and they only observe the results due to this lack of understanding).
That's a horrible example but it almost explains what I mean.
thats actually one of the things I liked about the talk
regardless of what one thinks the cause is, so long as we accept that warming is occurring at the rate we measure it at, the danger still exists. The speaker doesn't really harp so much on carbon emissions or things like that, more just, "look, here is the problem"
I would say, the scientific consensus for anthrogenic warming is as I discussed earlier.
I would like to see something on that because I have observed the opposite: the more specific the scientist is to climatology, the more polarized/heated the debate becomes (puns ****in' intended, lol!).
I have not observed this, good sir. I see the opposite. I observe this (this - pop culture is overwhelmingly in support of global warming) ONLY recently. Say...the last 10 years. I am not aware of how it was before that because I was more worried about girls and homework.
Yes, I did see the article you posted.
Unrelated: Is it anthrogenic? I always thought it was anthropogenic.
But, yes, the idea that anthropogenic global warming has to be proven is a red herring. It still does not make the problems go away: it just changes a few variables in the cause.
I'll be the first to admit, I'm not overly well versed in the culture that surrounds climate science, but I get the impression from the talk that climate scientists probably aren't doing enough to prepare or theorize about what might be an alternative that doesn't require the sacrifices to economic things that people assume (rightly or wrongly) are associated with cutting CO2 and stuff like that.
Mainly, I think investment in things like carbon capture technology, solar reflection, etc, is going to be our best bet, but if co2 emissions continue to grow, we will be spending all our efforts simply cleaning the increases on a year to year basis, so major changes to energy infrastructure on a global level are probably necessary, though as mentioned earlier in the thread, this is highly unlikely given how few people even consider this a real issue.
I'm actually sort of stuck on this question myself. This video was actually the first time I had seen so succinctly put the damages to our society we could expect over such a small time-frame. It really spoke to me in a way that other climate stuff really hadn't. But like, I have no idea what to do now. The "girl-friend" suggested like letter writing or other such things, but I'm so cynical about their efficacy...
There are some people in her lab studying how to convince people that this is an issue, but I'm not even sure if widespread popular support would be enough. The financial interests that are served by the current CO2 regime are likely not too interested, and unless it is something people are going to revolt over [re: as if], I can't see why the government would do anything but the bare minimum: Put up a couple windmills and brag about it until the next election cycle.
well, correct in a way, however, appealing to a scientific consensus is different than appealing to popularity.
I'd almost compare it to the way memory works. Memory is very much an "appeal to popularity", only instead of individuals, it is events. You know how a light switch works because of X number of events in the past that tell you how. It is not necessarily true, as maybe you are flicking a switch that operates a fireplace or something else, but it is a pretty decent heuristic that allows us to navigate in a generally consistent universe. I'd look at science closer to this, as a consensus is only formed by repeated and consistent results [events]. A 97% consensus means that the data is probably entirely consistent with what the scientists are saying, meaning there are a large number of events that would, probabilisticly, suggest one thing is true over other things. It doesn't mean it absolutely, but by that type of post modern deconstruction, we can't say for sure that we know how the electronics we are communicating over work.
Regardless of if something produces an absolute truth, there are still things that are more or less likely than one another. Science has fairly definitively proven to be the best access to truth humans have, and this threat is of the magnitude "existential; end of global society", in this instance, there is a fairly strong argument for action, even if we can't know for sure, woooooooo.
I'm pretty sure the paper I'm talking about is Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010.
Maybe that is worded a bit strongly. Climate change, or global warming, really can't be considered part of the popular culture, because close to 50% of Americans don't think it is real/an issue [I can't remember which one it was, but it really doesn't matter for this point].
Not to just throw up the wiki again, but the "media coverage of climate change" is also good:
basically, the media, in some desire to be "objective" [re: not lose readers in the internet age *cough*], presents the very small amount of climate change skeptics as equal to the 97% consensus. For people who legitimately try to gain knowledge of issues for themselves, they are presented with a slanted message, often getting results from oil industry studies presented along side real science, as a "balanced" story.
My point was more about a scientific consensus, especially when it is contrary to the view of a large portion of the public, isn't really a "pop culture" argument
LOL, I was going to say "then shouldn't it be anthropomorphic?" and my spell check accepted it...
so ya, you are right...
well, depending on what you believe about the cause, the policy decisions about CO2 emissions change quite a bit
Different in that a consensus among scientists (these days) is much much more credible than a consensus among the lay. Well, I should rephrase: a scientific consensus from among scientists within that related field is much much more credible than the consensus of the lay.
That still does not establish an absolute truth. It is still "argumentum ad populum" and a logical fallacy.
The real scientific work (if correct, of course) should stand independent of the scientists.
It was a poll conducted against an international pool of climate scientists.
I like this study, better, because it "scales" the question instead of only giving "yes" and "no" answers.
If I were to answer the poll on "is the climate change from the last 100 years in any way anthropogenic?"
I would say yes.
If someone were to ask this question: "Is the climate change from the last 100 years slightly attributable to human actions"? I would also say yes.
But answer on the first one would make me seem much more zealous than my answer to the second one.
This is a conversation you and I have had already.
I still find all of this avenue of argument to be distasteful. There are so many problems with these types of arguments. Such as "confirming your own opinion" and "it's popular to associate a study with climate change and much easier to get funding" which will skew how the science is actually conducted. Is it popular to doubt anthropogenic climate change? Hmmm...among the scientific community? Hell no.
Here is a very comprehensive listing of climate opinion among the people:
See, I was not aware of this. I probably don't pay attention long enough to a news stories to notice the "and here's Bob with a retort to this study on global warming".
But that would probably be more of a problem with how news has to be done rather than a bias. It seems the US media is overwhelmingly supportive of anthropogenic climate change. Maybe they studied Fox News in their study a bit too much? lol
Public opinion, in the US, has swayed up and down over the last 10 years, by significant margins. The people ebb and flow like the tide. I tend to care much more about what climatologists publish in peer reviewed journals than what a poll tells me.
If we find and fix the actual causes of climate change (if we separate out all of the causative elements, scale them in proper ratio, and appropriately mitigate those elements' effects...basically), and it just so happens that human activity is not relevant, then, yes, my point would be legit.
But then there's the argument that climate change is not necessarily bad, as a whole (as long as we do not experience a run-away effect).
But if man is largely responsible for this recent climate change (which I do not believe), then public policy needs to be implemented, now AND severely. This assumes, of course, that a run-away effect will occur.
Here's my opinion on that very topic:
Our public policies should be environmentally friendly. That's it!
This topic has so many elements to it that I could literally talk about each one for a couple of hours. It is just too exhaustive to type about it.
Last edited by dadudemon on Jun 27th, 2012 at 01:20 AM
Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
If people discredit environmentalism by using bogus concepts like 97% of scientist say... then there will be no saving the planet.
How many scientists have to believe in the theory of Relativity before it is true? A: zero. Relativity was proved by direct observation of nature. In other words, no one has to believe in gravity for gravity to work. People who say things like "97% of scientist say" are presenting a pop culture argument, and not a scientific one.
__________________ I play guitar, sing & write songs. Listen to my music HERE, HERE, & HERE
but you understand why 97% of scientists believe it, do you not?
Like, are you really under the impression that climate science, as a collection of theories and observations, is just plain wrong?
like, again, going back to something I asked you before, you believe in the greenhouse effect? that the composition of the atmosphere holds energy from the sun close to the surface of the earth, and that changing that composition may increase or decrease the ability of the atmosphere to do this?
sorry, let me parse it like this:
A) Do you believe in the greenhouse effect?
B) Do you believe carbon is a chemical that increases the greenhouse effect?
C) If yes to A and B, given the rate at which humans are putting carbon into the atmosphere, how does it not produce warming?
really simple, 3 questions, massive piles of science behind them all. Go to it Shaky, show them climate scientists how pop-culture they are, with your super-science-know-how
Last edited by Oliver North on Jun 27th, 2012 at 04:01 PM
you win what? you said 97% was a pop culture argument, so lets talk science
if you are unwilling [incapable] of debating against science, thats fine...
"I don't know the science, wont talk about the science, can't be bothered to look up the science, but I know we can't trust the science or the collective opinion of scientists. This is a totally logical position, I don't look foolish"