All I see there is an argument for Obamacare.

Well, considering how hard people have been trying to pull this apart so far, their utter failure to do so speaks volumes.

monkey wrote:

Anyway, again, probably about 90% of climate change policy is best practice for running the world anyway.

 
Yes.

monkey wrote:

Meaning debates about the science behind it are completely irrelevant. If it's wrong so what?...

I'm going back to the games section...

dynamiteReady wrote:

I wish the international media would make more of an effort to draw attention to both sides of those stories with a strong scientific bent... Because that would be a fucking valuable service to the world at large.

Whereas I really wish they would stop. There are already far too many media outlets / PR shills that satisfy a sceptic's desires. As it happens, there are very rarely "two sides" to stories with a strong scientific bent. There are the theories that match the evidence, and there are the lies that don't. Climate Science is notoriously complex with myriad factors blended chaotically into no-doubt-not-massively-accurate predicto-models.

However, the empirical measurements that have been made show that humans are warming the planet very quickly, and most of the predicto-models are forecasting serious consequences.

Tell me: what alternative do you posit? This "other side of the science story": who's propagating it? Who, from a serious climate science background, is providing the plausible theories that match the evidence, that would seem to go directly against everything that every other climate scientist is publishing?

You talk about things being rammed down your throat, as if you don't like the taste of them. It's a violent metaphor. Why use that kind of language? Isn't it a case of: "shit guys there's a lot of evidence about this" and you read it, don't like it, and choose to react against it?

As for the Einstein "sudden leap forward" thing... It's merely insulting to other scientists. They all, every one, stand on the shoulders of giants, and build up the knowledge. Yes, some can reach further than others, but it's hardly as if the scientific community at large was hostile to Einstein's ideas, they just said "OK now we need some of those experimental guys to show whether yore right or not". Let us not forget that he was never supportive of the single most successful scientific theory ever devised: quantum theory.

Even stuff like the periodic table, which was laughed out of one conference, gained significant traction well before it was "proven" correct through later observation.

Where was I. Oh yes - "artificial" climate change is happening right now and is most likely to have dire consequences. I'm afraid that recycling some tins is not really going to help now.

Regardless of the view of climate changes scientific accuracy, I see it as pure common sense that we need to develop more sustainable energy and food technologies. It is also extremely short sighted that governments have cut back on space exploration. Not to find ET, but to gather more resources to support the growing population.

First two? Ninety-seven percent!

Philip Stott is a biogeographer. I presume next time you need a second opinion on a medical issue, you'll consult an aerospace engineer.

That's not what wiki claims a biogeographer does.

And where are you getting this '97% of the members of the IPCC' from? Because it sounds greatly like it's being pulled out of thin air, especially considering the fact that the IPCC simply collates all peer-reviewed literature it can get its hands on, the research isn't performed by its members.

He's probably more informed that the likes of Abbott, but less so than actual climate change scientists, who are conducting work in the field.

I wrote:

Philip Stott is a biogeographer. I presume next time you need a second opinion on a medical issue, you'll consult an aerospace engineer.

Yes. A scientist who closely studies the environmental impact on the organisms that inhabit it. Probably one of the first people worth speaking to, actually.

In reply...

Yossarian wrote:

That's not what wiki claims a biogeographer does

Hmm...

about.com wrote:

Biogeography is a branch of geography that studies the past and present distribution of the world's many species. It is usually considered to be a part of physical geography as it often relates to the examination of the physical environment and how it affects species and shaped their distribution across space. As such it studies the world's biomes and taxonomy - the naming of species. In addition, biogeography has strong ties to biology, ecology, evolution studies, climatology, and soil science.

Jesus Christ dynamite. Teach the controversy.

Find a guy in a white coat to tell you lead poisoning isn't a problem.

Fund some scientists to do research on health problems to cloud the fact that smoking is deadly.

Depressing.

No it doesn't. It is the simple result of a meta-study of all papers on climate change over a decade. And followed up by a survey of the authors of any paper on climate change over a decade.

It is that simple.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist - I tend to look for simple explanations for straightforward phenomena.

In response to your quote: it is exactly that type of obfuscatory pseudo-science speak that infuriates me. I'll stop berating you since it's doing neither of us any good, but leave you with this, to try and answer Stott's questions:

1) Climate is changing. In most places it is hotter now than at any point since reliable primary recordings began. This has different effects in different parts of the world due to complex interactions. These differing effects are often used by sceptics as an "aha! it's raining, where's your global warming NOW so-called scientist!" thing. But overall, we're warmer now than for a long time.

2) Humans are influencing this change. The rate of change is unprecedented in ANY available records, barring sudden cataclysmic events such as asteroid hits. So we're influencing, and in a big way.

So far, so easy. Even he doesn't seem to argue these points?

3) This question is very deliberately not like the others, which were simple and unarguable given current evidence base and analysis. Let's break it down.

a) First, he uses the word "predictably". Given afore-mentioned complexity of climate models, I think it is unlikely that anything we do will have locally / micro predictable effects. So this is impossible to answer, but also doesn't seem very relevant.

b) He goes on to mention "one or two" factors out of "thousands". This is an attempt to lessen the importance of greenhouse gas emissions, by reducing them to one or two factors out of thousands. However, increased greenhouse gas emissions are clearly and unequivocally the main factor behind our impact on climate. What are these thousands of other effects, and how much of a role do they play in climate change?

c) He repeats himself next.

d) He then poses a question with a particularly narrow set of conditions, to which the answer is an obvious no. OH NOES HES WONE! But what's this? It turns out that due to the narrowness of the question's conditions, he's actually not asking a useful question! Let's see: at the margin. Does he mean not cutting them by much? Linear predictable change. Well, depends on how far out you look at it, but it's not going to happen that one year of 10% cutting will lead to one year of -1degree and so on. This is obvious, surely, to a child. And again with the "it's too complex for this one factor to make such a difference". But what factor is more important? And complexity does NOT translate to ineffectiveness or lack of change in a predictable manner (i.e.: lowering CO2 = lowering risk of increased temperatures in a complex system is an OK statement, regardless of how complex that system is and how the lowered risk is measured).

The REAL question is: if we reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly, will humans have a significant impact on climate change? The answer to which, agreed with by almost all climate scientists, is a resounding yes.

DR, in a thread that is discussing a scientific subject, quoting empty rhetoric and claiming it as the "healthy sceptic's" position will not go down well.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26250-wind-causing-most-of-temperature-rise-in-northwest-us.html

Why doesn't that autoconvert. Goddamit Peter Hughes

Nevertheless