Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

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

  1. Dec 3, 2007 #1
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 3, 2007 #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.
     
  4. Dec 3, 2007 #3

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  5. Dec 3, 2007 #4
    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.
     
  6. Dec 3, 2007 #5

    ShawnD

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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:
     
  7. Dec 3, 2007 #6

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  8. Dec 3, 2007 #7
    if we're talking about GLOBAL climate change, wouldn't it make sense to be seeing wide-reaching results??
     
  9. Dec 3, 2007 #8
    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.

    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
     
  10. Dec 4, 2007 #9

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Before this political forum thread descends into who's-got-the-best-science debate allow me to refer to these PF threads on the Earth forum which showed PF at is best (mostly:wink:) on both sides IMO.


    The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

    Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum: filling an ocean?
    How can anyone question man's significant role in global warming?
    Global warming causality
    The great CO2 swindle?
    Global Climate Change and Scientific Proof
    The positive feedback factor of CO2
    Global warming caused by sun?

    And there's much, much more over there.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2007
  11. Dec 4, 2007 #10

    ShawnD

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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:

    terrorism
    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.


    global bankruptcy
    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
    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 Fox News comedy article. Right at the top it says this
    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.
     
  12. Dec 4, 2007 #11
    In the 70's there was a concern of a new Ice age coming.
     
  13. Dec 4, 2007 #12
    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.
     
  14. Dec 4, 2007 #13

    ShawnD

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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: Dec 4, 2007
  15. Dec 4, 2007 #14
     
  16. Dec 4, 2007 #15
    Show me where the author draws that conclusion.
     
  17. Dec 4, 2007 #16

    ShawnD

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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: Dec 4, 2007
  18. Dec 4, 2007 #17

    ShawnD

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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
     
  19. Dec 4, 2007 #18
    No it does not. The article does not pretend to be an exhaustive treatise on global politics.

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



    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.
     
  20. Dec 4, 2007 #19
    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.
     
  21. Dec 4, 2007 #20
    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...
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: One Reason I Can't Take All the Science on Global Warming Seriously
  1. The Global Warming Hoax (Replies: 53)

Loading...