News What if AGW is Wrong? Implications & Possible Consequences

  • Thread starter Thread starter Coldcall
  • Start date Start date
Click For 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.
  • #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:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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?
 

Similar threads

What is the Cosmological Natural Selection theory?
  • · Replies 72 ·
3
Replies
72
Views
10K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K