Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[nwdiver]

What do you guys think of this? My in-laws who are anti climate anything just posted this:

30,000 Anti-Global Warming Scientists Cant Be Wrong

Ask them if they would go do an oncologist or a cardiologist if they were concerned they had cancer... they're both medical doctors right? When they answer oncologist ask why a non-climate scientist has any place in a climate science debate. 97% of climate scientists agree with the statement "The earth is warming and humans are MOSTLY responsible." Of the 3% that disagree ZERO have published an alternative theory to the observations.

 

[Robert.Boston]

I testify as an expert in court regularly. The first part of my direct testimony always describes my qualifications, at which point my lawyer formally requests the court to qualify me as an expert in particular narrow areas. If I offer an opinion outside of the areas in which I have been qualified, the opposing counsel will move to strike my statement from the record. I've been in court cases where opinions from a Nobel laureate has been struck as outside his area of qualification (even though it was within the area of economics, and he, a professor of economics at an Ivy League university).

We should similarly discard opinions from people who are opining outside of their area of expertise. Just because someone has a Ph.D., even if it's in physics or some other "hard" science, doesn't mean that they know enough about the subject of climate change to reach an opinion that should inform your opinion. Of course, they're entitled to whatever opinion they might hold, but it should be accorded no weight in the debate.

 

[JRP3]

That does disqualify all of us as well :wink:

 

[Robert.Boston]

That does disqualify all of us as well :wink:

True enough, but I don't think any of us are asking others to believe us because we say so. The best posts in this section provide extensive references to works by experts that can help us reach our own opinions.

And this is the internet, of course, and not a court of law. ;-)

 

[nwdiver]

That does disqualify all of us as well :wink:

Yep... all we(non-climate scientists) can say is "97% of climate scientists agree with AGW" that SHOULD be all that needs to be said...

 

[jerry33]

Yep... all we(non-climate scientists) can say is "97% of climate scientists agree with AGW" that SHOULD be all that needs to be said...

It should be but the problem with science reporting is that the media gives equal weight to both sides causing the public to assume that

1) There is serious disagreement. If you have two talking heads, one saying A and the other saying B it sure sounds like there is disagreement as the larger picture isn't shown so the average person has no context in which to place the report.

2) Science is built on a house of cards. In reality it's very hard to get a scientific theory overturned unless there is very compelling evidence. Most of the time a scientific theory doesn't actually get overturned, it just becomes a part of something larger--like Newtonian gravity vs. Einstein relativity. Our lifestyle today is what it is because of science and engineering.

 

[MarkR]

What do you guys think of this? My in-laws who are anti climate anything just posted this:

30,000 Anti-Global Warming Scientists Cant Be Wrong

Good Grief! No credibility here - look at the source.

The website that posted this is the "Canada Free Press," although I suspect that Canadians have little to do with it because the tag line for the site is "Because without America there is no Free World." Yeah . . . the U.S. has a monopoly on freedom.

It it appears that Canada Free Press is owned or at least closely affiliated with NewsMax, a regular source of right wing disinformation.

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

I think that we have to wait till June when the paper mentioned in the linked article will be published. We will see what are the scientific arguments that they point out to demonstrate that Global Warming is man made only for a percentage of 5-10%. /…

Of course we won’t have to wait. This BS piece in the so called “Canada Free Press” was published Friday, April 30, 2010. So, was there ever a paper in Nature Magazine?

@ggies07

Ask your in-laws who they believe. Someone who claims to have a MS in biology and wrote less than a page making a bunch of claims three and a half years ago, or 97% of the worlds climate experts?

Why do they choose to believe this Fred Dardick?

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Of course we won’t have to wait. This BS piece in the so called “Canada Free Press” was published Friday, April 30, 2010. So, was there ever a paper in Nature Magazine?

You are right. I didn't notice the date. Thought it was a recent article. So where is this paper in Nature Magazine?

 

[MarkR]

Of course we won’t have to wait. This BS piece in the so called “Canada Free Press” was published Friday, April 30, 2010. So, was there ever a paper in Nature Magazine?

I guess they are free to lie . . . maybe a new name . . . "Ultra-Right Wing Dishonest Press"

 

[RichardC]

I would like to suggest to all TMC Members and guests a very interesting Course that is starting on

Coursera.org

Energy, Environment, and Our Future

This course deals with the impact of the burning of fossil fuels on Climate Change and gives possible solutions to this matter.

A shout out to thank you Raffy for pointing this out.

It looks like a great course! There are apparently around 7000 people enrolled - which is great news. It is still not too late to join. There are lots of discussions in process as a part of the course.

Thanks again Raffy.

 

[tigerade]

The website that posted this is the "Canada Free Press," although I suspect that Canadians have little to do with it because the tag line for the site is "Because without America there is no Free World." Yeah . . . the U.S. has a monopoly on freedom.

Lol, I didn't catch that the first time around. Just goes to show you that we aren't dealing with the sharpest tools in the shed.

 

[Doug_G]

What do you guys think of this? My in-laws who are anti climate anything just posted this:

30,000 Anti-Global Warming Scientists Cant Be Wrong

Most of these people simply aren't scientists. Having a bachelor's degree in science doesn't make you a scientist. Having an MD doesn't make you a scientist. Even having a PhD doesn't instantly make you a scientist. If you are actually paid to do science for a living then you're probably a scientist. Plus as Robert pointed out, even if you are a scientist, if climate science is outside your area of expertise, you're not qualified.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

"We're running an experiment to see what the CO2 capacity of our oceans and atmosphere is before earth gets cooked…"

Elon Musk

Good Luck Finding A More Polite Takedown Of Climate Change Deniers

 

[Raffy.Roma]

About the importance of driving pure electric

I would like to report the following picture showing some data concerning gasoline consumption in the USA. From such data it can be understood the importance of driving pure electric.

 

[Kaivball]

"We're running an experiment to see what the CO2 capacity of our oceans and atmosphere is before earth gets cooked…"

Elon Musk

Good Luck Finding A More Polite Takedown Of Climate Change Deniers

What are Elons credentials as a climate scientist? He is no more credible on this than Gore.

And to make it clear, we are CAGW deniers.

The climate has obviously been changing for millions of years, long before us and will do so long after us.
Nobody is arguing that point.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

@Kaivball

If you look at the interview Elon doesn't claim to be a climate scientist. He only starts from the hypothesis not to know if CO2 is destroying the Earth or not. (And while doing this he uses a Socrate philosophical theory because he knows that actually CO2 is affecting negatively Climate on the Earth. In fact Socrate always started his philosphical thought starting from the principle to be aware not to have the knowledge also if he had it). But just in case CO2 were destroying the Earth why taking the risk? also considering that oil is going to finish?
Elon says later or sooner we will get rid of oil. Why not to replace it now rather than later on to avoid any risks?

When you say "we are CAGW deniers" are you using pluralis maiestatis? Because as far as I know in this thread there are only a few CAGW deniers posting and most of the people posting are not deniers.

 

[Canuck]

What are Elons credentials as a climate scientist? He is no more credible on this than Gore.

I hope that if you tell your kid not to smoke, he doesn't say to you "What are your credentials as a doctor?" but if he does you will see how childish your argument is.

The analogy is apt because we went through this with smoking, and like big oil, there were large corporate interests involved, and doctors were bought, even doing commercials for cigarettes, and the tobacco lobby lied to Congress, and people like you extolled the virtues of smoking.

 

[JRP3]

What are Elons credentials as a climate scientist? He is no more credible on this than Gore.

Right, and both of them are taking the same position as the huge majority of climate scientists. So when you agree with the experts you tend to have more credibility. However you miss his main point, which is we can't be 100% sure one way or the other, but the consequences of doing nothing and being wrong are far worse than the consequences of doing something and being wrong. If we move away from fossil fuel use and live a more sustainable and CO2 neutral lifestyle, but it turns out that CO2 from humans does not influence climate, that "mistake" is not only benign it's still has overall positive results. You seem to be under some misguided idea that cleaning up our CO2 output and reducing our fossil fuel consumption is only going to be bad when that is not at all the case. My move to a more sustainable lifestyle has only brought me benefits.

And to make it clear, we are CAGW deniers.

The climate has obviously been changing for millions of years, long before us and will do so long after us.
Nobody is arguing that point.

Right again, and some of those changes have been catastrophic and wiped out most of planetary life. So maybe we should avoid starting a rapid climate change event if we can. Once we get to a runaway methane clathrate melting event it's all over.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Once we get to a runaway methane clathrate melting event it's all over.

This is TRUE. To this concern I highly recommend to all TMC Members and guests to check out this video:

Last Hours - YouTube

Please share this video with all your relatives and friends.