One Reason I Can't Take All the Science on Global Warming Seriously

In summary, the conversation highlights the speaker's skepticism towards the idea of a consensus on global warming and the filtering down of information to the general public. The conversation also touches on the influence of money and politics in the debate, as well as the role of experts in providing answers. Multiple sources are referenced, including articles and forum threads, to provide a diverse perspective on the topic.
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
My largest problem with the topic is the idea of there being an overwhelming consensus on the entirety of the issue.

One only has to attend the environmental talks at the March APS to realize that it isn't so.
 
  • #3
The largest problem, I think, is what happens between the publication stage and the filtering-down-to-the-populace stage.

I've never been to a climate science session at a March Meeting. I should try one at New Orleans - hopefully there's no conflicts.
 
  • #4
Gokul43201 said:
The largest problem, I think, is what happens between the publication stage and the filtering-down-to-the-populace stage.

I've never been to a climate science session at a March Meeting. I should try one at New Orleans - hopefully there's no conflicts.

Oh, you should definitely go to the science policy/popular science type talks if you can swing em. Very interesting and informative about what is being done by whom and where. the discussions during the Q/A part are the best.
 
  • #5
Does it make me a bad person if I was willing to bandwagon with the global warming alarmists if they promised to all get jobs for at least a few months? :smile:
 
  • #6
I always go to engineering professors for my meteorological concerns. :rolleyes:

I wonder how much money is made by telling people what they want to hear: It's all just a liberal conspiracy!

How about this concept: If you want good answers, go to the experts.
 
  • #7
if we're talking about GLOBAL climate change, wouldn't it make sense to be seeing wide-reaching results??
 
  • #8
Ivan Seeking said:
I wonder how much money is made by telling people what they want to hear: It's all just a liberal conspiracy!

I've often asked myself the reverse question. I wonder how much money is made by telling people what they want to hear: The debate is over, global warming is real, we are definitely without a doubt causing it, and if we don't act now there will be very serious hell to pay.

Ivan Seeking said:
How about this concept: If you want good answers, go to the experts.

To be fair, many people have criticized the IPCC for this as well. Members of the IPCC are selected by governments, and many of the members are not scientists. In fact, there are many politicians and beuracrats that reside on the IPCC. Furthermore, not all of the actual scientist members of the IPCC agree with the stuff the IPCC publishes. As you may recall, some scientists were really pissed off because the IPCC was using their names (essentially saying they agreed with the documents) and the scientists asked their names to be removed. The IPCC denied removing their names until they treatened suing.

By the way, here are some "experts" on climate change in a documentary that do not believe the current "concensus" on global warming. These are bright guys also (professors at MIT and Harvard). How come these guys rarely get brought in for debates in the mainstream media? If this was really about science (and not politics) then I think we'd see more discussions and debates, because that's what really happens in science when people are trying to understand real world phenomena and advance the body of knowledge.

http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
That bunch of links from the OP's article (this page) is interesting. Some of them are good, some are bad, some just ridiculous. I thought this one was pretty funny:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20574527-29277,00.html
Dr Colin Butler of Deakin University painted a grim picture of the catastrophic consequence of global warming as communities worldwide competed for scarce resources.

Dr Butler, a senior research fellow in global health, said inequality over access to resources, such
as water and food, bred desperation and resentment, potentially sparking terrorism and war.
Instead of trading, like we do now, we'll suddenly decide war is a better way to distribute resources. This idea makes lots of sense.


http://www.sentienttimes.com/01/dec_jan01/global_warming.html
Overall, US crop productivity is likely to increase over the next few decades, but the gains will not be uniform across the nation. Falling prices and competition are likely to stress some farmers. Pests, droughts and floods could reduce some of the benefits from higher temperatures, precipitation and carbon dioxide, the report predicts.
So increased food production in America is bad because it causes prices to drop. Why can't some of it be sold to those starving people from the terrorism link?

from the same link
Dr. Andrew Dlugolecki, director of general insurance development at CGNU, a top five European life insurer and the United Kingdom's largest insurance group, told delegates attending the international climate change summit in The Hague that the rate of damage caused by changing weather will exceed the world's wealth.
So rather than build stuff to a higher standard, like the japanese do against earthquakes, engineers will just give up and let humanity fail. Sounds about right.


Then there's a http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99627,00.html comedy article. Right at the top it says this
No one knows for sure whether the Earth’s climate is changing appreciably or whether any such change is due to humans. One thing that certainly is heating up, though, is the global warming litigation environment.
To make Fox look even more retarded, the heading is Junk Science. Thank god Fox is there to keep us up to do date with its fair and balanced news.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
In the 70's there was a concern of a new Ice age coming.
 
  • #12
ShawnD said:
That bunch of links from the OP's article (this page) is interesting. Some of them are good, some are bad, some just ridiculous. I thought this one was pretty funny:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20574527-29277,00.html

Instead of trading, like we do now, we'll suddenly decide war is a better way to distribute resources. This idea makes lots of sense.

I'm not sure about your reasoning behind this post. Did you just see that it was from Fox and then decide to create a sensation?

Where does the author claim that war is a better alternative?

All your replies to the links you posted follow a similar (il)logic. there is a large disparity with what you imply the authors are stating and what they actually do.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
The article claimed that global warming would create a shortage of resources (possible) then it claimed this would cause countries to fight with each other over resources. I think that is a silly claim because it has always been true that one country will have things that other countries don't have. The US has more trees than Japan, so will Japan attack the US? Will China attack the USSR to get uranium? Come on, you know that won't happen.
As for the terrorism bit, Ron Paul already threw that out on stage as to why that happened/happens. It was even included in the official 9/11 report, and it had almost nothing to do with scarcity of resources. The author is trying to use the following logic:
terrorism has a lot to do with US involvement in the middle east, the US is in the middle east due to oil which is a scarce resource, global warming causes scarity, therefore global warming causes terrorism.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
ShawnD said:
The article claimed that global warming would create a shortage of resources (possible) then it claimed this would cause countries to fight with each other over resources. I think that is a silly claim because it has always been true that one country will have things that other countries don't have. The US has more trees than Japan, so will Japan attack the US? Will China attack the USSR to get uranium? Come on, you know that won't happen.
/QUOTE]

Wars have always been fought over resources. From watering rights, to pasture, to arable land, all the way to metals and oil.

All the quotes you threw down are correct in their claims.

You then try to assign a strawman argument to each, without even countering the arguments presented, instead appealing to the fallacy of emotion.

And by the way... Ron Paul, Ron Schmaul.
 
  • #15
ShawnD said:
The author is trying to use the following logic:
terrorism has a lot to do with US involvement in the middle east, the US is in the middle east due to oil which is a scarce resource, global warming causes scarity, therefore global warming causes terrorism.

Show me where the author draws that conclusion.
 
  • #16
seycyrus said:
Wars have always been fought over resources. From watering rights, to pasture, to arable land, all the way to metals and oil.

All the quotes you threw down are correct in their claims.

You then try to assign a strawman argument to each, without even countering the arguments presented, instead appealing to the fallacy of emotion.

And by the way... Ron Paul, Ron Schmaul.

That article completely ignores the fact that diplomacy plays a major role in world affairs. Wars were faught over resources, then things started to change towards trade and diplomacy, and now global warming will come in and take us back to rampant imperialism and world conflict? wtf?
Less than 200 years ago, the US invaded Canada in the name of imperialism. Today, scarcity in the US is probably worse than it was 200 years ago, the chance of winning such a war is much higher, and yet an invasion of Canada is less likely. Why do you suppose that is? You can't just say scarcity alone is what drives imperialism.

And feel free to show how Ron Paul was wrong. He said terrorism is a result of interfering in other peoples affairs, which is contrary to the Bush theory of them hating freedom. Yep, other free countries like Australia and Switzerland are both victims of relentless terrorist attacks. Their citizens are in constant fear, and it has gotten so bad that there is a colored alarm system to let everybody know that things are ok. Oh, they're not? Maybe they're just not free enough to attract terrorism.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
seycyrus said:
Show me where the author draws that conclusion.

Exact quotes:

"But, in the event of a massive drought, where food and water became scarce, desperation could breed resentment."

"I know it does sound a bit alarmist but ... I think that you can analyse global terrorism, in part, as a reaction to global inequality.''

"Dr Butler, a senior research fellow in global health, said inequality over access to resources, such
as water and food, bred desperation and resentment, potentially sparking terrorism and war."

Global warming causes inequality --> inequality causes terrorism --> global warming causes terrorism
 
  • #18
ShawnD said:
That article completely ignores the fact that diplomacy plays a major role in world affairs.

No it does not. The article does not pretend to be an exhaustive treatise on global politics.

ShawnD said:
Wars were faught over resources, then things started to change towards trade and diplomacy, and now global warming will come in and take us back to rampant imperialism and world conflict? wtf?

Your words, not mine. I wasn't aware that such blatant strawman making was the norm on this forum.



ShawnD said:
And feel free to show how Ron Paul was wrong. He said terrorism is a result of interfering in other peoples affairs, which is contrary to the Bush theory of them hating freedom. Yep, other free countries like Australia and Switzerland are both victims of relentless terrorist attacks. Their citizens are in constant fear, and it has gotten so bad that there is a colored alarm system to let everybody know that things are ok. Oh, they're not? Maybe they're just not free enough to attract terrorism.

Your blithering creation of one strawman after another is noted.

My mention of Ron Paul was simply to draw attention to the fact that you are a Ron Paul goonie.
 
  • #19
ShawnD said:
Exact quotes:

"But, in the event of a massive drought, where food and water became scarce, desperation could breed resentment."

"I know it does sound a bit alarmist but ... I think that you can analyse global terrorism, in part, as a reaction to global inequality.''

"Dr Butler, a senior research fellow in global health, said inequality over access to resources, such
as water and food, bred desperation and resentment, potentially sparking terrorism and war."

Global warming causes inequality --> inequality causes terrorism --> global warming causes terrorism

Note the phrases "Could", "In part", and "potentially". I have noted the fact that you ignored them, I wonder why?

Which of the following statements do you disagree with?

A) Global warming COULD cause a scarcity of SOME resources.

B) Scarcity of resources CAN cause inequality.

C) Inequality of resources CAN lead to a breeding ground for terrorism.

If you agree with the above, then by your own logic, you are guilty of the doomsday scenario you accused (incorrectly) your source of taking.
 
  • #20
ShawnD said:
Yep, other free countries like Australia and Switzerland are both victims of relentless terrorist attacks. Their citizens are in constant fear, and it has gotten so bad that there is a colored alarm system to let everybody know that things are ok. Oh, they're not? Maybe they're just not free enough to attract terrorism.

You might want to look into the just exactly how terror free those countries you mentioned have been in the past few years, by the way...
 
  • #21
seycyrus said:
Your words, not mine. I wasn't aware that such blatant strawman making was the norm on this forum.
How is that a strawman? The article directly states that scarcity alone, caused by global warming, will lead people to fighting full blown wars over the issue of resources. We already have resource inequality, and yet there are no major wars going on at this time. Let's paint a picture of this
Before global warming (now): we have resource inequality, no major wars, no upcoming wars from the looks of it
After global warming: same resource inequality that was always there, wars, maybe even more wars

What exactly changed between the "before" and "after" scenarios? Both have resource inequality, while one has wars and the other does not. Did the extra temperature make everybody crazy?



My mention of Ron Paul was simply to draw attention to the fact that you are a Ron Paul goonie.
Anything Ron Paul says is immediately wrong because Ron Paul said it.
 
Last edited:
  • #22
Economist said:
By the way, here are some "experts" on climate change in a documentary that do not believe the current "concensus" on global warming. These are bright guys also (professors at MIT and Harvard). How come these guys rarely get brought in for debates in the mainstream media? If this was really about science (and not politics) then I think we'd see more discussions and debates, because that's what really happens in science when people are trying to understand real world phenomena and advance the body of knowledge.

http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle
That documentary is full of distortions and misrepresentations. The producers had to redo the documentary at least twice. Once to cut out several blatant errors, and the second time round, to cut out the entire section involving MIT Prof. Carl Wunch, after he publicly stated that he was completely misrepresented.

http://www.amos.org.au/BAMOS_GGWS_new.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
seycyrus said:
Note the phrases "Could", "In part", and "potentially". I have noted the fact that you ignored them, I wonder why?

Which of the following statements do you disagree with?

A) Global warming COULD cause a scarcity of SOME resources.

B) Scarcity of resources CAN cause inequality.

C) Inequality of resources CAN lead to a breeding ground for terrorism.

If you agree with the above, then by your own logic, you are guilty of the doomsday scenario you accused (incorrectly) your source of taking.

Only hard core republicans think terrorism is even loosely tied to inequality of resources, or inequality of freedom as Bush calls it. The other half of America thinks it's something else, and the rest of the world outside of America thinks that something is called "blowback"

edit: Oh and Arabs have more exportable resources per capita than Americans. By your logic, Americans should be crashing planes into Arab buildings.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
ShawnD said:
How is that a strawman?

A strawman is a blatant misrepresentation of an opponents position in order to shred it to bits, proclaiming a victory.

ShawnD said:
The article directly states that scarcity alone, caused by global warming, will lead people to fighting full blown wars over the issue of resources.

Oh does it?

It's amazing that in all your quotes, you didn't inlcude the one that had the words "...scarcity alone..."

In fact, your quotes are peppered with phrases such as, "could", "might", "potentially' and so on.

You're applying a very creative transformation algorithm to change those words and phrases. Time for sit and spin?

ShawnD said:
We already have resource inequality, and yet there are no major wars going on at this time.?

Oh man, go read a book or two.

ShawnD said:
Let's paint a picture of this
Before global warming (now): we have resource inequality, no major wars, no upcoming wars from the looks of it

I begin to understand our problem. You must be speaking about the current conditions on some other planet. I am referring to planet Earth, third planet from the sun.

ShawnD said:
Anything Ron Paul says is immediately wrong because Ron Paul said it

I have nothing against the distinguished gentleman. You are the one who raised his name. I simply raised the fact that you are a Ron Paul goon.
 
  • #25
ShawnD said:
Only hard core republicans think terrorism is even loosely tied to inequality of resources, or inequality of freedom as Bush calls it.

Buddy get a grip. Time for you to spend some time in the real world. Stop with the strawmen.

You think that there is not even a loose connection of terrorism to inequality of resources?

You don't even know what you're saying, or implying.

ShawnD said:
edit: Oh and Arabs have more exportable resources per capita than Americans. By your logic, Americans should be crashing planes into Arab buildings.

How many times do I have to distance myself from statements that YOU claim that I am making?
 
  • #26
seycyrus said:
It's amazing that in all your quotes, you didn't inlcude the one that had the words "...scarcity alone..."

In fact, your quotes are peppered with phrases such as, "could", "might", "potentially' and so on.
So your defense, roughly paraphrased, is that I'm wrong because the article makes no solid claims in the first place? Having wishy washy terms like could, maybe, might, potentially should lower the validity of the article, if anything. There's a slight chance something might almost maybe happen at some time but we're not sure just yet ^_^

Feel free to tell us about these major wars that are going on right now due to nations fighting over scarcity. The only wars I can find going on right now are dinky little wars that nobdy cares about, here.
The Iraq war is probably the only current example of a large war over scarcity, and even that would be disputed by some people. I don't expect a response to the issue of Iraq since that won't end well no matter what, but I am interesting in hearing about other big wars over resources.

You think that there is not even a loose connection of terrorism to inequality of resources?
Most terrorism exists as a struggle for better government.
Why does the IRA exist? Are Brits so incredibly wealthy that some Irish feel the need to form a terrorist organization and take those resources? Or does it have more to do with those people not liking the way they are controlled by some far away government? French Canada had a group called FLQ that wanted to create a nation that was separate from Canada. PLO in the middle east wants a free Palestinian state. Hamas is a group that wishes to destroy Israel. Al-Qaeda, like Hamas, is also an extremist religious group.
Not everything is about resources.
 
  • #27
ShawnD said:
So your defense, roughly paraphrased, is that I'm wrong because the article makes no solid claims in the first place? Having wishy washy terms like could, maybe, might, potentially should lower the validity of the article, if anything. There's a slight chance something might almost maybe happen at some time but we're not sure just yet ^_^.

Again, the article is not meant to be an exhaustive treatise on geopoliitics. Rather, it is fairly obvious that it is meant as a commentary on what consequences global warming might bring.

I believe that it is fair to say that you agree with my 3 arguments that I gave previously. Therefore by your own logic, YOU are the one who believes that global warming causes terrorism. Why do YOU believe such malarky? It is obvious that you Do in fact believe it, cause I say you do.

That is sarcasm, btw.

ShawnD said:
Feel free to tell us about these major wars that are going on right now due to nations fighting over scarcity.

"Right now" ?? This second, or this minute?

Funny how your statement earlier was "before now".

ShawnD said:
The only wars I can find going on right now are dinky little wars that nobdy cares about, here.

I can't be held accountable for your apathy.

ShawnD said:
Most terrorism exists as a struggle for better government.

You can't honestly believe this...

ShawnD said:
Not everything is about resources.

Governments and political systems were formed as a way to control resources.

I'm done here. Thanks for playing. I might have been tempted to continue for another round, but you have exceeded your strawman limit and show no signs of stopping.
 
  • #28
The entire premise of the OP and the link it contains is not scientific in any way. Ironically many of the sub links tend to support GW.

Grass Grows in Warming Antarctica
Grass flourishes in warmer Antarctic

The Times of London, Dec. 26, 2004

Grass has become established in Antarctica for the first time, showing the continent is warming to temperatures unseen for 10,000 years.

As for the reported scare tactics, if the threat is real is it really a scare tactic? Is the fact that grass is now growing in the Antarctic a scare tactic? Are satellite pictures of the global melting of mountain glaciers a scare tactic?
 
  • #29
edward said:
As for the reported scare tactics, if the threat is real is it really a scare tactic? Is the fact that grass is now growing in the Antarctic a scare tactic? Are satellite pictures of the global melting of mountain glaciers a scare tactic?

The problem is that a lot of these scare stories are not real because they assume nothing ever changes, so the slighest change to any system causes immediate catastrophic failure. Let's take the example of stronger storms. Assuming this is true, what will we do about it? A scare story will say something like "current building designs not capable of withstanding storms that will arise in the next 40 years". That part may be true, but the scare comes from the assumption that building standards never change. If storms get stronger, why not just build stronger buildings? We already do that for earthquakes, so why not wind storms, hail, acid rain, lightning, etc? It's nothing more than fear mongering.

Stating a scientifically supported prediction, such as stronger storms, is good journalism. Taking that prediction then making stupid baseless predictions is not what journalism is about.
 
  • #30
ShawnD said:
Stating a scientifically supported prediction, such as stronger storms, is good journalism. Taking that prediction then making stupid baseless predictions is not what journalism is about.


I agree with that. A lot of journalism has evolved into "gotcha" headlines with little substance.

Regardless, the glaciers are still melting.:eek:
 
  • #31
I can make anything sound silly to if I refuse to distinguish between the cranks and the serious scholars.

Does brushing teeth your teeth prevent cavities or make your teeth visible by spy satellite?
 
  • #32
Gokul43201 said:
That documentary is full of distortions and misrepresentations. The producers had to redo the documentary at least twice. Once to cut out several blatant errors, and the second time round, to cut out the entire section involving MIT Prof. Carl Wunch, after he publicly stated that he was completely misrepresented.

http://www.amos.org.au/BAMOS_GGWS_new.pdf

I'm just saying that there seems to be bright scientists who disagree with all the hype about global warming. And since I am ignorant in the study of environmental science I have choosen not to read to much into the doomsday reports I've heard. It's not that I don't trust scientists in fields I'm ignorant about. But given the current politicized nature of global warming I am skeptical about some things. Specifically, it sounds to me like there's a lot of consensus that the globe is in fact warming (and that humans are for the most part the reason). But the degree to which it is warming and what can realistically be done about it don't seem as agreed upon (particularly the latter). Furthermore, there is a host of trade offs that people fail to mention in the discussion. Such as, what are the costs and benefits of doing something about it? And what are the costs and benefits of doing nothing about it? Also, is the money, time, and effort better spent on other causes?

Essentially, I tend to agree with Don Boudreaux here: http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2007/02/lets_have_less_.html

Especially when he says, "The truth remains that these scientists have no expertise to judge whether government can be trusted with the power and resources to "combat" global warming. Nor can these scientists tell us how a free market likely would deal with global warming's consequences. Contrary to widespread belief, environmental scientists can legitimately say nothing about whether, or how, to respond to global warming."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
I think its a joke that global warming has become a politcal issue.

Lets say that it is emissions from our cars, power plants, etc. that is a major contributor to global warming. Then the government should pump in more money and create more jobs for alternative energy research.

Lets say global warming isn't all that it has been made out to be. Then the government should pump in more money and create more jobs for alternative energy research. Remove our foreign oil dependence and reduce pollution.

Its a win/win either way... except for those selling oil of course. But in the end, it will be good for them too.
 
  • #34
Mororvia said:
I think its a joke that global warming has become a politcal issue.
Yeah because international order, social stability, resource security and economic sustainability are not a concern of governments right? :rolleyes:
Lets say that it is emissions from our cars, power plants, etc. that is a major contributor to global warming. Then the government should pump in more money and create more jobs for alternative energy research.
Where is this money going to come from?
Lets say global warming isn't all that it has been made out to be. Then the government should pump in more money and create more jobs for alternative energy research. Remove our foreign oil dependence and reduce pollution.
While it is noble of you to believe in alternative energy research and "patriotic" of you to believe in "independence", it's an issue of economics here.
Its a win/win either way... except for those selling oil of course. But in the end, it will be good for them too.
As far as I know, multinational (American) corporations are making huge amounts of money from the surge in oil prices as well. Exxon CEO got a 20 million bonus this year. Getting the government to invest in something that loses money will be difficult when corporations have lobbyists and influence. In fact, most people have given up on the government - it's been easier to persuade corporations to "go green" than asking the government to. Though the "green" campaigns should be taken skeptically as products of PR and profits rather than altruism.
 
  • #35
To me, it seems, if I may be a bit tongue-in-check, like the same MO as creationists:

"There is no evidence"
"There is a legitimate scientific controversy"
"It is a political / economical conspiracy"

(I'm not trying to be intentionally provacative).
 

Similar threads

Mathematics Behind Global Currency as a Wealth Inequality Regulation System
    • General Discussion
Replies
26
Views
1K
News Anti-GMO hysteria now most dangerous anti-science movement
    • General Discussion
4
Replies
120
Views
10K
  • Poll
When does a 'stated science' stop being a science?
    • General Discussion
Replies
20
Views
2K
Fluid Dynamics and Global Warming
    • Mechanics
Replies
6
Views
1K
[Philosophy of science] Bias inherent in the Scientific Method itself?
    • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
974
Discussion on the science-literature relationship and more
    • General Discussion
Replies
14
Views
911
Misc. Warming Barrels of Honey With Light
    • DIY Projects
Replies
20
Views
1K
Top 50 Things To Do To Stop Global Warming
    • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
3K
Chemical/Paint Best transparent material that allows infrared to pass through?
    • DIY Projects
Replies
13
Views
2K
News Donald Trump: What Do the Scientists Say?
    • General Discussion
Replies
16
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top