News What if AGW is Wrong? Implications & Possible Consequences

  • Thread starter Thread starter Coldcall
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the potential fallout if anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is proven incorrect or exaggerated, highlighting fears of a backlash against science and the political ramifications for scientists and politicians. Concerns are raised about labeling skeptics as "denialists," which could hinder open scientific discourse and lead to a purge within the scientific community. The conversation emphasizes the importance of accurate science over consensus, arguing that science should not be dictated by political agendas or groupthink. Participants express a preference for a cautious approach to climate action, advocating for measures that minimize risk regardless of the current consensus on AGW. Ultimately, the debate underscores the complexities of climate science and the societal implications of its findings.
  • #51
xxChrisxx said:
I never said the science was settled, as that has connotations of we know 100% what is happening, which is of course absurd.

Polls of climate scientists who are active in the field all tend to show an agreement that the Earth seems to be warming and that humans are a contributing factor.

There is no consensus as to the extent of our involvement, nor whether there will be a long term impact. I never claimed there was. I merely said it makes sense to take the path of minimal risk.
The petition statement referenced up thread doesn't say very much different from that. Key sentence here: There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, ... is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.. No denial there about a warming trend, nor of some level of human contribution.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
xxChrisxx said:
Get with the times. 2nd gen bio fuels don't require extensive removal of space for crops like 1st gen, as they are made from biomass. Meaning we are extracting fuel from crop waste, it effectively increases the useful yield from current crops. It's still expensive though,.

And how will that undo the damage done in the name of climate? And the damage still to be done for the same reason?
 
  • #53
Andre said:
Okay, given http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64 please provide the list of 2820 experts well qualified in climate science who support AGW.

You are being utterly rediculous now. That is by no means a logical responce.
There have been links showing the 95%+ Agreement on surveys done.

Yet you are saying the point is those are not valid unless Sorry! find severy single one of them and lists their names.
It's clearly not feasible to expect that of him to name ALL scientists.

Andre said:
And how will that undo the damage done in the name of climate? And the damage still to be done for the same reason?

It won't. It's just that you don't need to clear forests with 2nd gen fuels, like you do with 1st gen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #54
xxChrisxx said:
You are being utterly rediculous now. That is by no means a logical responce.
There have been links showing the 95%+ on surveys done.

Yet you are saying the point is those are not valid unless Sorry! find severy single on of them and lists their names.

Hey I provided a list with existing individuals, which is falsifiable, you can go over each and everyone to verify the claim. So what value is that 95% claim if you can't stand behind it?
 
  • #55
Andre said:
Hey I provided a list with existing individuals, which is falsifiable, you can go over each and everyone to verify the claim. So what value is that 95% claim if you can't stand behind it?

We can easily make a list of climate scientits who are proponents of AGW. But to expect someone to come up with a list of EVERY SINGLE one up to a total of 2820 is totally unfeasible and you know it.

It could be done, but it would require a huge amount of time and effort.
 
  • #56
Go ahead and do it.
 
  • #57
Andre said:
Go ahead and do it.

And if I don't I lose?

I need Dave to tell me the logical fallicy right there.

I'll begin making a list, but there is NO WAY I am trying to find 2820 names. I've got a life.
 
  • #58
No you made a statement. I invited you to stand behind it.
 
  • #59
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #60
Andre said:
No you made a statement. I invited you to stand behind it.

A claim that was backed up by links to REAL polls done on REAL climate scientists. Showing an agreement level similar to that stated by Sorry!
 
  • #61
Here are 1700 from the UK today.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/news/latest/uk-science-statement.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #62
You beat me to it Ivan. I've just found that link. Ok let's see. 1120 names to go.
 
  • #63
Andre said:
Okay, given http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64 please provide the list of 2820 experts well qualified in climate science who support AGW.

Well, how about 3,146 experts in given fields relating to climate science?

...3,146 participating scientists were asked two key questions - "Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels?" and, "Has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

About 90 percent of the respondents agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

Doran determined that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement.
All from one poll... where are your numbers concerning climate researchers opinions?EDIT: Ivan also posted another poll... less scientists but HEY!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #65
survey said:
...3,146 participating scientists were asked two key questions - "Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels?" and, "Has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

About 90 percent of the respondents agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.
How much have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels? No response because question not asked.
What percentage has human activity been a factor in changing mean global temperatures? No response because question not asked.

I guess surveying scientists is the the new science.
 
  • #66
xxChrisxx said:
The point is that the link to the peition was used to disprove whether there is a general agreement about agw. Surely it's more relevant to ask someone active in the field of research, if you want the most informed opinion.

In the link I gave it showed that the closer you got to a climate scientist who's last 50% of publications were on the topic of climate change (basically the more informed you were) showed a 97% agreement about warming and contribution of humans.
You seem to be assuming that climate science is so incredibly arcane that only those who are actively engaged in publishing results are capable of reading and understanding those reports. In my opinion, anyone who understands the science and statistics that back up a given paper is qualified to make critical comments about it.
xxChrisxx said:
Asking anyone with a degree is largely pointless, as most would not be informed anough to truly give a decent answer.

You could ask me, I'm educated to masters level in engieering and I have a decent in depth interest in this, and read papers every now and again. I would not consider my opinion informed enough to be included.
 
  • #67
survey said:
Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels?
Even the wording fails to satisfy. Are they asking:
Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800 levels?
or do they have some other meaning?
 
  • #68
Mark44 said:
You seem to be assuming that climate science is so incredibly arcane that only those who are actively engaged in publishing results are capable of reading and understanding those reports. In my opinion, anyone who understands the science and statistics that back up a given paper is qualified to make critical comments about it.

Of course not. Anyone can read and understand something.

But when you want an informed opinion on something, you go to an expert. Basically the less you kow about the subject you are more likely to be wrong.

That 'petition' was just of general people with a degree and should not be held as evidence that there is no generally accepted view amogst climate scientists beucase of it. I'm sure you can find just as many people with a general degree that are proponents of AGW.

However! That 'petition' had less than 12% of people who's degrees are in a relevant subject and are therefore likely to be in active research of the climate (incidentally only 0.01% of the people on the list are climatologists). Other links and polls have show far more climate scientists who are proponents of global warming.

Many of the links shouw that 97% of people actively engaged in climate change research are proponents of AGW.
 
  • #69
Lol Andre, that list of 141 scientists related to climate research... great post!

I went through picking names at random, here is what I get:

Lee C. Gerhard
Gerhard is a retired geologist from the University of Kansas. He has government and industry experience in petroleum exploration
(look back to poll results I've posted)

Zbigniew Jaworowski
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Jaworowski
('nuff said?)

Björn Malmgren- Nothing really on this guy, he's a Marine geologist and a retired prof. I added him to facebook, let's see what he says!

Brian Pratt
Lately I have been trying to understand the dynamics of ancient epeiric seas, that is, deciphering the limestones, dolomites and evaporites found in continental interiors which often differ from facies deposited on continental margins. I also dabble a little with ground-penetrating radar as part of my work on Silurian grainstone shoals which are analogues for some petroleum reservoirs. In recent years I have become particularly interested in detecting evidence for ancient earthquakes and tsunamis recorded by distinctive sedimentary structures and anomalous beds in both carbonate and siliciclastic successions.

I have a feeling I can continue to go through the names posted here but out of 4 only 1 has actually experience in recent climate science, Zbigniew Jaworowski, and he's certified in crackpottery...

If you can go through your list and show to me persons who signed this actually doing research to do with the climate over time or that they have taken an interest in modern climate research however do not agree with it for whichever reasons I'll be interested. So far all I see in this list however is no better than doing a poll on the public... sure these people are experts in their fields, highly educated, but what do they have to do with climate research... even as a hobby or interest?
 
  • #70
jimmysnyder said:
How much have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels? No response because question not asked.
What percentage has human activity been a factor in changing mean global temperatures? No response because question not asked.

I guess surveying scientists is the the new science.

It's quite possible that these question WERE asked, since they asked MANY questions to attempt to weed out any biased answers. The results I've posted however have to do with a specific question from Andre, not you, what you want from the poll has nothing to do with what we were talking about previously.

or do they have some other meaning?
They must have some other meaning! Very witty of you.
 
  • #71
einstein said:
Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!
If the science is against you, form a circle?
 
  • #72
jimmysnyder said:
If the science is against you, form a circle?

Your point?
 
  • #73
Sorry! said:
Lol Andre, that list of 141 scientists related to climate research... great post!

I went through picking names at random, here is what I get:

Lee C. Gerhard
(look back to poll results I've posted)

Zbigniew Jaworowski

('nuff said?)

Björn Malmgren- Nothing really on this guy, he's a Marine geologist and a retired prof. I added him to facebook, let's see what he says!

Brian Pratt


I have a feeling I can continue to go through the names posted here but out of 4 only 1 has actually experience in recent climate science, Zbigniew Jaworowski, and he's certified in crackpottery...

If you can go through your list and show to me persons who signed this actually doing research to do with the climate over time or that they have taken an interest in modern climate research however do not agree with it for whichever reasons I'll be interested. So far all I see in this list however is no better than doing a poll on the public... sure these people are experts in their fields, highly educated, but what do they have to do with climate research... even as a hobby or interest?

Thanks for the most excellent demonstration of http://www.cedu.niu.edu/~fulmer/groupthink.htm

4. Excessive Stereotyping:The group constructs negative sterotypes of rivals outside the group.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #74
jimmysnyder said:
If the science is against you, form a circle?

Which is exactly what the skeptics do. Great quote!

Point being, the science is against the skeptics, not the climate researchers. It has nothing to do with the polls that's just to get their general views on the matter... you are jumping in this thread and making pointless assumptions and accusations...
 
  • #75
Andre said:
Thanks for the most excellent demonstration of http://www.cedu.niu.edu/~fulmer/groupthink.htm

Bahah, likewise Andre. You keep applying the term group think to anything in support of AGW. Must be that YOU'RE groupthinking too!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #76
Sorry! said:
Point being, the science is against the skeptics, not the climate researchers.
How much have temperatures risen since 1800? Science without real-world data is not science.
 
  • #77
jimmysnyder said:
How much have temperatures risen since 1800? Science without real-world data is not science.

We have instrumental data from about 1850 or so. The data clearly shows warming.

The problem is data earlier than this, as it's found through implied means. I can see why some would be skeptical about this.

However lots of science is conducted like this, we say we know what happens something like 0.00000000001 seconds after the big bang, but we've not been there.
 
  • #78
Sorry! said:
Bahah, likewise Andre. You keep applying the term group think to anything in support of AGW. Must be that YOU'RE groupthinking too!

Frankly he's starting to sound a little crask-potish now.

Logical discussion went out of the window when he just started linking incredibly dubious petitions.

Not only that, but wanted to get us to jump through hoops NAMING x gazzilion people who were proponents of AGW.

After we named a few and responded in a logical manner with evidence (and I am still looking to I can complete your little pointless task Andre) the posts have all been conveniently ignored.
 
  • #79
jimmysnyder said:
How much have temperatures risen since 1800? Science without real-world data is not science.

If you want to discuss science go to the Earth sciences forum and I'll discuss that with you there; if Andre wants to question consensus of scientists in the field he'll post that in the politics forum, and I'll discuss that with him here.
 
  • #80
xxChrisxx said:
We have instrumental data from about 1850 or so. The data clearly shows warming.
How much?
 
  • #81
  • #82
I'm sorry if I haven't spelled it out as I should. One scientist (or even astrologist, I hope this doesn't get moved) who can tell us how many degrees warmer it is, is worth more than 141 scientists who agree with the statement that it's getting warmer. That is why I posted the Einstein quote.
 
  • #83
As well Andre, I do not think I have applied excessive stereotypes to rivals of AGW. The people you listed certainly are not rivals of AGW, they just say that they do not believe it... Well other than that Zbigniew Jaworowski guy... he's not only a crackpot in climate research however so I highly doubt this is 'excessive stereotypes to rivals' . In fact I do accept 'rivals' I have read many papers by them and some of them even led me to accept what they were saying is possibly true... most of it however isn't against AGW but some small aspect of it. Try again...

The excessive stereotypes I'm seeing is all in YOUR posts... nearly every thread I've read about AGW that you were involved in comes along with you putting up this rediculous groupthink theory against all climate scientists.
 
  • #84
Sorry! said:
Bahah, likewise Andre. You keep applying the term group think to anything in support of AGW. Must be that YOU'RE groupthinking too!

Please state your case. It feel pretty lonely though, having to see all the look-how-superior-I-am-to-you,-you-miserable-denier posts.
 
  • #85
Andre said:
Please state your case. It feel pretty lonely though, having to see all the look-how-superior-I-am-to-you,-you-miserable-denier posts.

I like how you have shifted burden of proof.

And keep ignoring the fact that we've responded with actual names of scientists who are proponents of global waarming. Jumping through your bloody hoops, when you keep moving the goalposts on the level of evidence needed.
 
  • #86
What percentage human activity?
 
  • #87
jimmysnyder said:
What percentage human activity?

This is where the most disagreements come from but again, if you want to discuss science instead of just attempting to bash climate science in any thread... then head over to the Earth Sciences forum.
 
  • #88
jimmysnyder said:
What percentage human activity?

Well that's the hot debate.
Some say we are nearly the sole cause. Others say we have an insignificant impact.
THIS is where the real debate lies, this and the projected outcomes.
Are we going to be washed away into waterworld, or is nothing going to happen?

We just can't say with any level of certainty.
 
  • #89
xxChrisxx said:
I'm refusing to do any legwork for you as it's easy to find papers on this.
It's not just me. Instead of surveys to turn the public's head, how about legwork.
 
  • #90
jimmysnyder said:
It's not just me. Instead of surveys to turn the public's head, how about legwork.

jimmy... you seem very hardheaded on this matter but here: Andre specifically talked about concensus, that led to the discussion of polls. We are not trying to turn any public heads about this... I personally have already done 'legwork' what have you done?
 
  • #91
Sorry! said:
This is where the most disagreements come from but again, if you want to discuss science instead of just attempting to bash climate science in any thread... then head over to the Earth Sciences forum.
What bash. I have been asking the same question over and over again. I thought that the reason I got no answer is that no one knew. How do you expect me to bash climate science when no one was willing to impart the least bit of it to me so I could bash it?
 
  • #92
jimmysnyder said:
What bash. I have been asking the same question over and over again. I thought that the reason I got no answer is that no one knew. How do you expect me to bash climate science when no one was willing to impart the least bit of it to me so I could bash it?

Jimmy if you are aksing questions this basic (this isn't meant in an insulting way I promise), you are best looking at a scientific magazine. Nature, or New Scientist and such like. From there they will have links to proper scientific papers. Full papers don't usually concern themselves with something this basic.

I'll find a couple of starter threads for you and some papers that you don't have to buy, and link them when I get the chance.
 
  • #93
xxChrisxx said:
Jimmy if you are aksing questions this basic (this isn't meant in an insulting way I promise), you are best looking at a scientific magazine. Nature, or New Scientist and such like. From there they will have links to proper scientific papers. Full papers don't usually concern themselves with something this basic.

I'll find a couple of starter threads for you, and link them when I get the chance.
You will not turn the publics head with articles. You need to tell them "Temperatures have risen x degrees since YYYY a.d., z% of it is due to human activity". If you can't say it, you may as well air-condition your doghouse.
 
  • #94
jimmysnyder said:
You will not turn the publics head with articles. You need to tell them "Temperatures have risen x degrees since YYYY a.d., z% of it is due to human activity". If you can't say it, you may as well air-condition your doghouse.

I thought you were interested in researching this topic further, to answer your questions?
 
  • #95
Andre said:
Please state your case. It feel pretty lonely though, having to see all the look-how-superior-I-am-to-you,-you-miserable-denier posts.

You're slightly irritating now, however I shall respond to this one last request of yours...
1 Illusion of Invulnerability: Members ignore obvious danger, take extreme risk, and are overly optimistic.

2 Collective Rationalization: Members discredit and explain away warning contrary to group thinking.

3 Illusion of Morality: Members believe their decisions are morally correct, ignoring the ethical consequences of their decisions.

4 Excessive Stereotyping:The group constructs negative sterotypes of rivals outside the group.

5 Pressure for Conformity: Members pressure any in the group who express arguments against the group's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, viewing such opposition as disloyalty.

6 Self-Censorship: Members withhold their dissenting views and counter-arguments.

7 Illusion of Unanimity: Members perceive falsely that everyone agrees with the group's decision; silence is seen as consent.

8 Mindguards: Some members appoint themselves to the role of protecting the group from adverse information that might threaten group complacency.

Since you try to apply this directly to myself (even though I am merely responding to your questions... somehow answering what people on these forums would like to know is 'groupthinking'...) I'll try to apply most of them to you:

1 Illusion of Invulnerability: Well this is obviously hard to 'show' but I think if one looks through the Earth Sciences we can clearly see how this fits yourself... overly optimistic

2 Collective Rationalization: I don't even feel the need to pin anyone post you've made to this one... It's clearly visible from where I'm sitting in this thread alone...

3 Illusion of Morality:
some folk, currently labelled as "flat-earthers" or "denialists" (and as crackpots here), agree about the possible mistake.

Personally I agree about science, it's way too late to build in safeties to recover from the shock.
In response to the OP here discussing how science will receive 'backlash' if AGW is without merit. I think this shows that you are trying to morally justify your position.
Problem is not who does it, Astronuc, problem is that it is happening allegdly fighting off global warming. Without it, it would be much tougher to give it a legitimation.
Another post by you showing the 'morality' of the issue.

4 Excessive Stereotyping:
the insistence on consensus is a typical central factor of groupthink.
I absolutely agree that it's paramount to do anything possible to promote a better sustainment of the world but it MUST be based on accurate science, not on runaway scaremongering and groupthink
Thanks for the most excellent demonstration of #4 symptom of groupthink
With all respect, Turbo, maybe you should take note of the phenomenon group think
I can continue but I think the points been made. As well this isn't the only stereotype you have applied to proponents of AGW.

6 Self-Censorship: I can't say this one has been commited by you, since as far as I know, you are not part of a group. However you did admit in one of the threads, the one on the CRU, I believe, that skeptics were engaging in this type of behaviour.

7 Illusion of Unanimity: You continue to go on and on and on about 'there is no concensus'... This fulfills this step doesn't it?So please stop with this pointless 'groupthinking' statement you continously throw around.
 
  • #96
xxChrisxx said:
I thought you were interested in researching this topic further, to answer your questions?
I am not in the least interested in researching. And the general public isn't either. They know that you can tell them the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the earth. And they know that Johnny Carson can tell them how hot it is. So they wonder why you can't tell them how many degrees hotter is now than it was before. It's a number, it kills debate.
 
  • #97
jimmysnyder said:
What bash. I have been asking the same question over and over again. I thought that the reason I got no answer is that no one knew. How do you expect me to bash climate science when no one was willing to impart the least bit of it to me so I could bash it?

I have told you over and over again, if you are truly interested head to the Earth Sciences forums. Instead you sit here assuming that the answers are not known and attack base on that.
 
  • #98
jimmysnyder said:
It's a number, it kills debate.

Since the late 1800's, the global average temperature has increased about 0.7 to 1.4 degrees F (0.4 to 0.8 degrees C).

I would suggest to you that you head on over to the Earth Sciences forum before yet another thread in the politics forum gets locked for involving science.
 
  • #99
jimmysnyder said:
I am not in the least interested in researching. And the general public isn't either. They know that you can tell them the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the earth. And they know that Johnny Carson can tell them how hot it is. So they wonder why you can't tell them how many degrees hotter is now than it was before. It's a number, it kills debate.

The Earth has warmed about 0.8c from 1800 to now.
It's warmed approx 0.5c from 1950.

There is no debate over this ^_^, the sharper rise correlates with larger human output of CO2. So it's a pretty good indicator that we are having an effect, there is no debate over this either.

There IS debate in the scientific community about the EXTENT humans are affecting the global temperature. There is also debate over how much of an effect this will have.However: If people like yourself cannot be bothered to find this information out yourself, and just be told something and believe or dismiss it out of hand because thinking is just too hard. You can all sit in ignorance, makes no odds to me.don't bash stuff you can't be bothered reading up on first.
 
  • #100
xxChrisxx said:
The Earth has warmed about 0.8c from 1800 to now.
It's warmed approx 0.5c from 1950.

There is no debate over this, the sharper rise correlates with larger human output of CO2. So it's a pretty good indicator that we are having an effect.

Man is doing something, but there simply isn't enough data to tell how bad out contibution is. This is why people will not say a number.

Ther IS debate in the scientific community about how much we are affecting the global temperature. There is also debate over how much of an effect this will have.

Somewhat true, the reason the debate over how much humans have effected it has to do mostly with what data we decide to include... I have seen some reports saying as low as 0.28% and others say 5%(from skeptics)... Here is a good article on what's occurring and it's broken down so it's quite easy to understand, even if you don't like the numbers:

Over the last 40 or so years, natural drivers would have caused cooling, and so the warming there has been … is caused by a combination of human drivers and some degree of internal variability. I would judge the maximum amplitude of the internal variability to be roughly 0.1 deg C over that time period, and so given the warming of ~0.5 deg C, I’d say somewhere between 80 to 120% of the warming. Slightly larger range if you want a large range for the internal stuff.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/02/realclimate-gavin-schmidit-what-fraction-of-global-warming-is-due-to-human-causes-vs-natural-causes/

I don't really want to post this here since all the mess that posting data in the politics forums caused before however I feel that jimmy is probably not going to go over to the Earth sciences forum and will post his question, yet again, in here...
 

Similar threads

What is the Cosmological Natural Selection theory?
2
Replies
72
Views
10K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
2
Replies
65
Views
10K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top