News Science vs. Politics: Tipping Points in Climate Change Communication

[Sorry!]

It's OK to be skeptical, and try to evaluate the research products as well as we can, with the information available to us. It's not OK to accuse groups of people of collusion, fraud, etc, just because you disagree with their findings.

Turbo get with the program my man, it's a discussion of politics in this here forum.

Research is not needed!
Why research information available when you can just make it up!
Science? What are you talking about science has nothing to do with politics! Who told you otherwise?
Of course it's OK to accuse anyone of anything! It's my political view!

You don't like it?? Well it's a good thing my political view doesn't answer to no one other than myself or you might have a point!

 

[DanP]

There is a tremendous amount of opinion floating around here, much of it seemingly based on ideology and not science, and that is disheartening on a science forum, because the only real tools that we have for detecting and measuring and mapping changes in climate are scientific.

Climate change is real. We are losing polar ice, glaciers, and mountain snow-caps. This is not just "weather". Losing such masses of fresh water long-term is indicative of something more than that.

The question before us is a 3-parter, IMO:
1)Is climate change driven by the activities of man?
2)If so, to what extent?
3)If not, are we humans just "along for the ride" in a natural cycle?

I don't believe that the AGW folks have nailed down their argument #1, though the preponderance of evidence seems to rest with them at this time.

Given the complexity of climate and the diffuse nature of pollutants, etc, the answer to #2 may be out of our reach.

It is for certain that the anti-AGW have not made a rational scientific argument for #3, which is interesting. Instead, they have relied on political appeals, nay-saying, and some level of skullduggery to make their case.

Given the stakes involved, you would expect OPEC, refiners, power companies, gas and oil companies to fund climate research on a scale at least equivalent to that at CRU and other research centers to scientifically advance their case that carbon emissions are not causing climate change. Why have they not done so, or have they failed to disprove the IPCC reports and are silent about that failure? Using the model of the tobacco industry, we can see how big businesses can fund "research" -real or not- to publicly refute real science that threatens their bottom line.

It's OK to be skeptical, and try to evaluate the research products as well as we can, with the information available to us. It's not OK to accuse groups of people of collusion, fraud, etc, just because you disagree with their findings.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, but I have to reiterate: Politics is not about science. It's not about being fair, or obey a certain ethical criteria.

I answered once why the companies with high stakes in AGW are not interested in producing climate research. It is much more effective to poor money into lobby groups and lawyers than scientists in this issue. This is not a battle about 'peer review' against 'peer review'. When you are down in the field and play the ball, you simply can't afford to waste time waiting for years and years of research and intellectual battles. This is the luxury only science can afford. You have to choose, act, pray you made the right choices and *DELIVER*.

This is the plain truth. It may be something many people won't like, but this is the world we are living in.

Since this particular sub forum is title "Politics and world affairs", the thread do have it's place. It's not "disheartening" for a science forum, it does damn well fit in this sub-forum.
No-one is trying to substitute science for politics or reversal.

If you found very interesting scientific data to be discussed, maybe you should open a thread in "Earth sciences" forums, and then all of us will be forced to obey the rules of sceince.

 

[skypunter]

Climate change is real. We are losing polar ice, glaciers, and mountain snow-caps. This is not just "weather". Losing such masses of fresh water long-term is indicative of something more than that.

It cracks me up when folks lead off with "climate change is real" as if someone is not aware that climate changes. It's rather insulting and starts you off on the wrong foot with most educated people.

Were you expecting reruns?

 

[DrClapeyron]

Global warming science is used to shield industrial goals. The debate isn't about whether global warming will happen or not, the debate is about how global warming will cause us to change. The fear of change is the common point both political sides are headed for, and that is needed in order to make a compromise.

At the end of the day it boils down to whether you are scared enough to allow change to happen.

 

[Sorry!]

turbo, I'm not really skeptical about climate change per se. the most compelling argument I've seen so far comes from Ruddiman ( i think ), which shows that the Earth was due for slipping into another ice age about the time man developed agriculture. and thus it is methane, not CO2, which is the source of the "problem".

CO2 i see as a proxy for energy usage. energy usage is a proxy for GDPs. and taxation. OPEC has no reason to care because oil use will not go down. new markets will emerge in other nations that aren't willing to sabotage their economies. CO2 usage will not go down. period. it's all really about who gets it, and who profits from it.

Yeah, it was a paper by Ruddiman, quite interesting I thought. It makes sense I'm not sure where I stand on that situation (if ancient farmers would have stalled an impeding ice age...)

It should be made clear though that just because he doesn't think the 'main source' of the original stalling of the ice age was CO2 does not mean he doesn't think that CO2 is a contributing factor to modern day climate change and greenhouse gases. He has another theory about the fall of CO2 levels and how it brought about a cooling period which caused the most current Ice Age. So he obviously does understand CO2 as a greenhouse gas and it's effects on our climate.

 

[Andre]

...3)If not, are we humans just "along for the ride" in a natural cycle?
...
It is for certain that the anti-AGW have not made a rational scientific argument for #3, which is interesting...
.

Why? Throughout the years here I have pointed to several relevant studies. Maybe I should make a compilation in the Earth forum.

 

[Evo]

According to the NYT, the event that Gore canceled was a tickets-only speech for the public promoting his upcoming book. That hardly qualifies as a betrayal of the AGW crowd, and he is making other appearances during the conference. I wouldn't read too much into it.

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/gore-cancels-copenhagen-book-event/

Yes, I see the NY Times says he will now only be talking to a group of attendees at the Bella Center, but has canceled the one open to the public.

 

[Sorry!]

Why? Throughout the years here I have pointed to several relevant studies. Maybe I should make a compilation in the Earth forum.

You can't be trying to say that climate change doesn't exist at all can you?!
Right after skypunter just came out claiming everyone knows the climate changes! hahaha I just found that really comical I don't know why.

In all seriousness I'd be interested if you had the time to post some of those reports in the Earth sciences forum.

 

[turbo]

Yes, I see the NY Times says he will now only be talking to a group of attendees at the Bella Center, but has canceled the one open to the public.

AND he is making other appearances open to the public. Read down a bit farther. That canceled appearance was scheduled for the day when ministerial-level proceedings were to open at the conference. Perhaps he thought it was a bit more important to be available to speak to the ministers of other governments than to the general public... No, that would only make sense. Can't be that!

 

[Evo]

There is a tremendous amount of opinion floating around here, much of it seemingly based on ideology and not science, and that is disheartening on a science forum, because the only real tools that we have for detecting and measuring and mapping changes in climate are scientific.

This is politics, if you want to discuss science, go to the Earth forum. Did you see my warnings about not dragging the thread off topic?

It's OK to be skeptical, and try to evaluate the research products as well as we can, with the information available to us. It's not OK to accuse groups of people of collusion, fraud, etc, just because you disagree with their findings.

I'm glad to hear you say that. Maybe now people will stop calling people derogatory names and accusing them of conspiracies just because they are not in complete agreement with the AGW camp? That would be a definite step in the right direction.

 

[DanP]

You can't be trying to say that climate change doesn't exist at all can you?!
Right after skypunter just came out claiming everyone knows the climate changes! hahaha I just found that really comical I don't know why.

In all seriousness I'd be interested if you had the time to post some of those reports in the Earth sciences forum.

If you found something to be "comical" you should better know why. Andre was pretty much articulate in everything he said.

 

[DanP]

AND he is making other appearances open to the public. Read down a bit farther. That canceled appearance was scheduled for the day when ministerial-level proceedings were to open at the conference. Perhaps he thought it was a bit more important to be available to speak to the ministers of other governments than to the general public... No, that would only make sense. Can't be that!

I guess we will all have to wait for Copenhagen, to see the impact. Its due in several days.

 

[skypunter]

Is politics more about politicians, or the will of the people?
IMHO it's the latter.
In which case, the public comments appearing beneath most articles (regardless of which way they spin) appear to indicate that the vast majority of the public is not convinced that action to stop climate change is adviseable. That's putting it mildly.

 

[Evo]

AND he is making other appearances open to the public. Read down a bit farther. That canceled appearance was scheduled for the day when ministerial-level proceedings were to open at the conference. Perhaps he thought it was a bit more important to be available to speak to the ministers of other governments than to the general public... No, that would only make sense. Can't be that!

Yes, he's there to promote his new book.

 

[skypunter]

Al Gore will not appear in a venue which would allow public question or comment.
Can anyone recall the last time he has?
My recollection is that it was the last time he ran for President, but I could be wrong.
If he were my spokesman he would be fired for not doing his homework.

 

[DanP]

Is politics more about politicians, or the will of the people?
IMHO it's the latter.
In which case, the public comments appearing beneath most articles (regardless of which way they spin) appear to indicate that the vast majority of the public is not convinced that action to stop climate change is adviseable. That's putting it mildly.

It's not that easy. "Your" will is ultimately only expressed as an electoral option. GW is just one of the many facts to be factored in a electoral decision. There are much more mundane and temporally closer factors which may influence your vote. The substance of an elusive and temporally distant threat is way less than the factors which affects your day to day live here and now.

 

[turbo]

This is politics, if you want to discuss science, go to the Earth forum. Did you see my warnings about not dragging the thread off topic?

Maybe I should just stay out of your thread from now on. The whole point of the thread is how politics can be used to derail science, and that's going to be pretty hard to discuss if we can't mention the science that is being discredited and why.

 

[skypunter]

Scientists have made the mistake of jumping into bed with politicitians.
Now they are beginning to feel a burning sensation.

 

[DanP]

Maybe I should just stay out of your thread from now on. The whole point of the thread is how politics can be used to derail science, and that's going to be pretty hard to discuss if we can't mention the science that is being discredited and why.

Please dont. Move it to "Earth" sciences forum, and express you scientific concerns. Ill be happy to stand educated. It would be very ill advised to mix politics with science, for the two of them have very few common grounds.

 

[skypunter]

"It's not that easy. "Your" will is ultimately only expressed as an electoral option."

You are sorely mistaken if you think politicians aren't hearing the voice of the public each and every day.

Have you read the comments beneath these articles?

 

[skypunter]

You can't be trying to say that climate change doesn't exist at all can you?!
Right after skypunter just came out claiming everyone knows the climate changes! hahaha I just found that really comical I don't know why.

Where did he say that climate does not change?

Perhaps you are confusing the term climate change with man-caused climate change.

They are two different things.

Please clarify...

 

[DanP]

"It's not that easy. "Your" will is ultimately only expressed as an electoral option."

You are sorely mistaken if you think politicians aren't hearing the voice of the public each and every day.

Have you read the comments beneath these articles?

Im sure they do. But in the end, the ultimate validation is your vote. They will factor the risks ignoring some of the so called "will of the people" and play a card. It will boil down to whatever else you have been offered in compensation vs. the unpopular decisions. Things are far away from being black and white. Nobody will put out a government on the issue of GW as of today. There are much more temporally closer things to solve. Crisis, middle east, health policy...

 

[Sorry!]

Where did he say that climate does not change?

Perhaps you are confusing the term climate change with man-caused climate change.

They are two different things.

Please clarify...

Yes after re-reading turbos original post I notice now he said anti-AGW not anti-GW. That's my mistake.
-------------------------------
Anyways if you guys think you're discussing in this thread then I might just lose all hope for humanity.

This is more of a senseless 'bash-AGW/CRU/CLIMATE RESEARCH' thread than anything. As soon as evidence is supplied to substantiate the climate scientists it is dismissed. WHY?
Because it's politics? That's a load of crap. All this non-sense being posted with no legitimate sources other than your personal feelings on the situation, which is fine, but why are you trying to argue as if it's facts?

At what skypunter had said, I've already mentioned it, this comes down to PUBLIC opinion on the matter and that will determine the policies all across the board.

 

[Andre]

Okay I will make a climate science compilation tomorrow in Earth science, but I'm asthonished about not mixing science with politics.

Politics is about decision making and chosing a grand strategy for the best possible future prospects. Decision making depends on the best available scientific analysis of the situation and the possible results of political action. Take science out the equation and you're heading nowhere.

 

[DanP]

Anyways if you guys think you're discussing in this thread then I might just lose all hope for humanity.

Rather than loosing hope, adapt.

 

[skypunter]

Im sure they do. But in the end, the ultimate validation is your vote. They will factor the risks ignoring some of the so called "will of the people" and play a card. It will boil down to whatever else you have been offered in compensation vs. the unpopular decisions. Things are far away from being black and white. Nobody will put out a government on the issue of GW as of today. There are much more temporally closer things to solve. Crisis, middle east, health policy...

Obama rearranged his schedule too.
You can bet they are both watching this very closely, buying time and looking for ways to back out if more information surfaces before departure.
If the CRU file release is only a teaser and more files surface, this summit will be a CO2 free event.
If they both get the flu or something, we will all know what has happened.

 

[Sorry!]

Okay I will make a climate science compilation tomorrow in Earth science, but I'm asthonished about not mixing science with politics.

Politics is about decision making and chosing a grand strategy for the best possible future prospects. Decision making depends on the best available scientific analysis of the situation and the possible results of political action. Take science out the equation and you're heading nowhere.

Thanks Andre.

I agree with you completely. Just don't say it too loudly, the others might hear.

 

[DanP]

Take science out the equation and you're heading nowhere.

Its not about taking science out. Its about not mixing and confusing politics and science. Science it's certainly of factor. But is a far cry from expecting political decisions from the sole basis of science.

 

[skypunter]

Rather than loosing hope, adapt.

Here's a change in the local climate.
Perhaps we can discuss how Einstein and Oppenheimer dealt with politicians.
In their day, the world really was in the balance.

 

[DanP]

Here's a change in the local climate.
Perhaps we can discuss how Einstein and Oppenheimer dealt with politicians.
In their day, the world really was in the balance.

Do you really believe either of those two *BRILLIANT SCIENTISTS* had anything to say ? Let's spell it: "HIROSHIMA" , "NAGASAKI"