The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

[c1ue]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

Apparently you did not read what I said - that it is undisputed that greenhouse gases have the effect of raising temperature. Show me where that physical phenomena is in dispute.

That greenhouse gases raise temperature is not in question - however - the scale is.

If the temperature increase is 0.18 degrees C, that is completely different than the 3 to 5 degrees C (or more) which Hansen, Gore, et al are saying.

As for dispute, read the following - the first for John Coleman's comments on the AGW scientific issues including your temperature one and the second for a history on how AGW has been built into a massive money making machine.

http://media.kusi.com/documents/Comm...+Warming02.pdf

Temperature rose for a century before significant hydrocarbon use. Temperature rose between 1910 and 1940, while hydrocarbon use was almost unchanged. Temperature then fell between 1940 and 1972, while
hydrocarbon use rose by 330%.

The historical record does not contain any report of "global warming" catastrophes, even though temperatures have been higher than they are now during much of the last three millennia.

An increase in CO2 is said to increase the radiative effect of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. But, how and in which direction does the atmosphere respond? Hypotheses about this response differ. Without the water vapor greenhouse effect, the Earth would be about 14 ºC cooler. The radiative contribution of doubling atmospheric CO2 is minor, but this radiative greenhouse effect is treated quite differently by different climate hypotheses. The hypotheses that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has chosen to adopt predicts that the effect of CO2 is amplified by the atmosphere, especially by water vapor, to produce a large temperature increase.

Other hypotheses, predict the opposite—that the atmospheric response will counteract the CO2 increase and result in insignificant changes in global temperature. The experimental evidence favors hypothesis 2. While CO2 has increased substantially, its effect on temperature has been so slight that it has not been experimentally detected.

...

CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a trace element essential to plant growth and a natural product of human breathing and many other normal processes. Yes, it is way up in the atmosphere; but still it is only 37 of every 100,000 atmospheric molecules.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../38574742.html

Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1958 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels.

...

Back in the 1950s, when this was going on, our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution left by the crude internal combustion engines and poorly refined gasoline that powered cars and trucks back then, and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution. As a result a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action.

Government heard that outcry and set new environmental standards. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed, as were new high tech, computer controlled, fuel injection engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer significant polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. New fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced as well.

But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue.

...

Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation's bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meetings.

Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations—a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC). This was not a pure, “climate study” scientific organization, as we have been led to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels.

For that matter, the question I have always asked is this: if the CO2 released due to fossil fuel burning is indeed bad - what happened in the era where the fossil fuels were formed? Unless you are a believer in the abiotic oil theory, the algae which formed the basis for fossil fuels took their CO2 from the atmosphere to start with - as well as there being historical evidence of CO2 levels being much higher in the past.

[we_are_toast]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

As for dispute, read the following - the first for John Coleman's comments on the AGW scientific issues including your temperature one and the second for a history on how AGW has been built into a massive money making machine.

http://media.kusi.com/documents/Comm...+Warming02.pdf



http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../38574742.html



For that matter, the question I have always asked is this: if the CO2 released due to fossil fuel burning is indeed bad - what happened in the era where the fossil fuels were formed? Unless you are a believer in the abiotic oil theory, the algae which formed the basis for fossil fuels took their CO2 from the atmosphere to start with - as well as there being historical evidence of CO2 levels being much higher in the past.

You, and some of the other here have completely missed the point. The issue is not whether there was more CO2 in the past, or if temperatures were higher in the past, the answer to both is yes.

The earth is warming rapidly due to humans burning fossil fuels and introducing additional CO2 into the atmosphere. That's a fact. It is not in dispute by any reasonable people who use the scientific method and who have looked at even a minuscule amount of the data collected.

The issue is, can humanity and other species adjust to the changing weather patterns, rising sea levels, water availability, and ecosystem disruptions that is inevitable with the rapid temperature change, without major suffering? The answer to that is NO. The crop failures, mass migrations, economic upheavals, and inevitable wars, will result in a level of suffering not witnessed by humanity in a long time.

Of course, the denialists don't believe in science as a method of finding the truth about the physical world around us, and instead use magic, or emotions, or some other method to define truth as whatever they want it to be. In this discussion, they love to use the terminology of science to give the appearance of legitimacy to the suduscience they quote from the denialists web sites scattered throughout the web.

Take John Coleman for instance. His denialists claims are quoted on denialist websites throughout the web. Who is John Coleman? John Coleman is the founder of the weather channel and has been a TV weatherman since 1957 when he got a degree in journalism from the University of Illinois. Is he a scientist? Nope! Has he ever published anything in a scientific journal? Nope! Has he presented any data to counter the overwhelming scientific consensus? Nope!

And so it goes. The denialists simply don't believe in science, but they want to sound scientific. They present pretty graphs, quotes from websites, and throw out some numbers in order to give the appearance of a rational argument. But in ALL cases, it can be quickly shown that the graphs are misleading, or the numbers are out of context, or the claims are simply false, which simply begets more misleading graphs, more incorrect numbers, and more false claims.

Whatever method the denialists use to reach their conclusions, be it magic, a ouija board, or messages from the deities, it has nothing to do with confirmed data, or the process of reasoning, or the scientific method. But they shouldn't feel alone, since they've got plenty of company. According to a 1990 Gallup poll 52% of people believe in astrology, 46% in ESP, and 41% that dinosaurs and humans lived together on the earth; and in a more recent AP poll, 19% in witchcraft, 34% in UFO's, 23% say they've seen a ghost, and 5% say they've seen a monster in the closet of their bedroom.

Yep! We sure are heading into a new dark age of unreason.

[we_are_toast]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

May I say that this is very nicely stated.

If I might explore what you've stated in a little more depth.

I fear I will not satisfy you with this, but perhaps we can find some common ground on where to begin.

Don't be afraid, it's only the future of civilization that rests with the discussions at iTulip. ;)

"Science", broadly speaking is knowledge.
The impetus for scientific inquiry is knowledge discovery and by consequence advancing the state of knowledge.
The scientific method is a relatively objective method for engaging in and evaluating the results of scientific inquiry.

Agreed.

If someone has a theory, it's up to that person to demonstrate their theory scientifically, and this means that they should have an experiment(s) that can taken which will either support or disprove elements of the theory.

Let me expand a bit on the meaning of experimentation.
"Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle)."

Another example might be the big bang. We can't experimentally duplicate the birth of a new universe, but we know the theory predicts their should be some background cosmic radiation left over from the big bang. This experiment is being conducted daily by those who failed to buy digital converter boxes for their analog TV's. With a little extra equipment, they might be able to show that a small percentage of the snowflakes on the snowy TV screen they're staring at is actually caused by cosmic background radiation.

And we can experimentally demonstrate that CO2 reradiates IR to cause warming;
"Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere. "
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Reasonable people should not disagree on empirical data, which are facts, but they can disagree, and often widely, on the interpretation of that data. Reasonable people may agree on the facts, e.g., historical global temporal profiles, CO2 levels, and all the rest of the empirical "evidence" used to support the theory, but the meanings and implications of the correlations of that data, and more importantly, the predictive value is really where the question rests IMO.

So here is some empirical data that I think you agree is factual:
1) The atmospheric temperature at the earths surface is rising. (Measured directly)
2) CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising. (Measured directly)
3) CO2 reradiates IR. (Measured directly in Laboratory)
4) Some materials on the earth absorb IR and increase in temperature. (Measured directly)
5) The chemical reaction of burning hydro-carbons has as a product, CO2. (Measured directly in Laboratory)

Burning hydro-carbons -> CO2 to atmosphere -> IR reradiation -> IR absorption -> increase in temperature.

There are plenty of predictive models that predict temperature rise with CO2 rise. The interaction between the hydrosphere, lithosphere, biosphere, and atmosphere is one of the most complex interactions that science has ever tried to model. But for the most part, the models have been in relative agreement, although they've underestimated the speed of the temperature rise.

Perhaps my view is somewhat skewed, being trained as a physicist, the theories and laws of physics that I was exposed to had been the subject of rigorous testing. Papers published, hypotheses came and went depending on whether they could stand the scrutiny of empirical investigation.

I'm sure you're aware of the vast quantity of papers published concerning the theory. Possibly more than any theory in the history of science. And yet not one paper has ever been published that successfully challenges the basic premise of the theory.

Now we live in a world where everything seems to have a "Science" associated with it. Economics, Sociology, Egyptology, etc., and while there may be a substantial body of perceived as well as actual knowledge it each, I would submit, much of this knowledge is not as reliable as the theories of physical science. These sciences are very happy and sometimes bold to announce and promulgate predictions or a theory of understanding (of course, b/c everyone wants predictions and understanding). But the reliability and accuracy of these predictions is what can be questioned.

And the predictions and theories SHOULD be questioned. But they should be questioned in the same manor, using the same scientific methodology, in which the theories are presented. If you question the validity of a presented theory, show your evidence and your logic and let it be scrutinized with the same rigor as the presented theory. So far, with the theory of global warming, the deniers have failed without exception.

Ask a scientist if the sun will rise tomorrow:
The honest will answer "I don't know"
The humble will answer, "God willing"
The arrogant will answer, "Of course, what are you an idiot?"

And the MSM headlines will read; "PREPARE TO MEET YOUR MAKER, WORLD ENDS TONIGHT!".

[vinoveri]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

...
Of course, the denialists don't believe in science as a method of finding the truth about the physical world around us, and instead use magic, or emotions, or some other method to define truth as whatever they want it to be. In this discussion, they love to use the terminology of science to give the appearance of legitimacy to the suduscience they quote from the denialists web sites scattered throughout the web.

Take John Coleman for instance. His denialists claims are quoted on denialist websites throughout the web. Who is John Coleman? John Coleman is the founder of the weather channel and has been a TV weatherman since 1957 when he got a degree in journalism from the University of Illinois. Is he a scientist? Nope! Has he ever published anything in a scientific journal? Nope! Has he presented any data to counter the overwhelming scientific consensus? Nope!

And so it goes. The denialists simply don't believe in science, but they want to sound scientific. They present pretty graphs, quotes from websites, and throw out some numbers in order to give the appearance of a rational argument. But in ALL cases, it can be quickly shown that the graphs are misleading, or the numbers are out of context, or the claims are simply false, which simply begets more misleading graphs, more incorrect numbers, and more false claims.

Whatever method the denialists use to reach their conclusions, be it magic, a ouija board, or messages from the deities, it has nothing to do with confirmed data, or the process of reasoning, or the scientific method. But they shouldn't feel alone, since they've got plenty of company. According to a 1990 Gallup poll 52% of people believe in astrology, 46% in ESP, and 41% that dinosaurs and humans lived together on the earth; and in a more recent AP poll, 19% in witchcraft, 34% in UFO's, 23% say they've seen a ghost, and 5% say they've seen a monster in the closet of their bedroom.

Yep! We sure are heading into a new dark age of unreason.

Nice rant.
I can across 2006 global poll that suggested that >40% of the population strongly believes that global warming is occuring and attributable to human activity; this is about the same % of those who believe humans and dinosaurs co-existed according to your stats. What does this mean? Nothing :p

Difficult to carry on a dialog with this type of reponse I would suggest. It is your position which strikes me as dogmatic. Your reference to those you don't subscribe to your dogmatic view as "denialists" is quite binary (sort of "your with me or against me") and does not lend itself to a good faith dialog in the search for truth.

[radon]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

And so it goes. The denialists simply don't believe in science, but they want to sound scientific. They present pretty graphs, quotes from websites, and throw out some numbers in order to give the appearance of a rational argument. But in ALL cases, it can be quickly shown that the graphs are misleading, or the numbers are out of context, or the claims are simply false, which simply begets more misleading graphs, more incorrect numbers, and more false claims.

This is a big problem, instead of wondering why such a consensus exists among rational experts, they just assume that it is somehow dogmatic. There seems to be a belief that science is some body of facts. Or that rational people won't change their mind when confronted by evidence to the contrary. In this way they confuse it with religion.

Rather than learn about scientific method it is easier, or more entertaining, to believe it is a sort of vast conspiracy.

[we_are_toast]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

Nice rant.

thanks!

I can across 2006 global poll that suggested that >40% of the population strongly believes that global warming is occuring and attributable to human activity; this is about the same % of those who believe humans and dinosaurs co-existed according to your stats. What does this mean? Nothing :p

Difficult to carry on a dialog with this type of reponse I would suggest. It is your position which strikes me as dogmatic. Your reference to those you don't subscribe to your dogmatic view as "denialists" is quite binary (sort of "your with me or against me") and does not lend itself to a good faith dialog in the search for truth.

I suggest the ONLY way to carry on a dialog regarding this matter is to discuss the SCIENCE. The denialists (those who reject the evidence) have presented no science. If you have an alternative method to discuss the matter I would be interested in hearing it.

[Munger]

This is a big problem, instead of wondering why such a consensus exists among rational experts, they just assume that it is somehow dogmatic. There seems to be a belief that science is some body of facts. Or that rational people won't change their mind when confronted by evidence to the contrary. In this way they confuse it with religion.

Rather than learn about scientific method it is easier, or more entertaining, to believe it is a sort of vast conspiracy.

BREAKING NEWS:

People trust scientists but not their conclusions when the science disagrees with their (incorrect) beliefs - (meanwhile educated people agree with scientists).

In recent decades, the US has had an ambiguous relationship with science. In the abstract, scientists are considered trusted, valuable members of society, but when it comes to specific areas of science that the public is uncomfortable with (such as evolution), a sizable fraction of the public is willing to believe that the scientific community is engaged in a nefarious plot to deceive them. That strange gap in perception hasn't gone away, based on results from surveys of scientists and the public performed by the Pew Research Center.

The details of the surveys can be obtained at the Pew website. In short, the public and scientists were given partly overlapping surveys to gauge their perception of specific scientific issues. The scientists were chosen from among the membership of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, with statistical weighting used to adjust for the fact that older members were more likely to respond. Scientists were asked additional questions about the state of funding and research in their fields. The public received a short quiz to test their knowledge of science.

Admiration does not equal agreement

When it comes to the public, there's a clear trend: the more education you have, the better you know science, the more you value it, and the more likely you are to accept the findings of science on controversial subjects. In the US, those with higher levels of education tend to earn more, and some minorities are still underrepresented at higher education levels; as a result, these two demographic items also varied along with education, meaning that wealthier people tended to understand and appreciate science more, etc.

Overall, the public's appreciation is substantial. Eighty-four percent of the public thinks that science has had a positive impact on society, and that number cleared 90 percent among the demographic groups with the best knowledge of it. Well over two-thirds say that investments in science and technology pay off in the long run, and support for continued funding of science remained stable even as economic worries have caused nearly every other funding option to lose support over the last eight years. About 70 percent of the public thinks that scientists have a positive impact on society, behind only teachers and those serving in the military. By way of contrast, only a third of the respondents said this about journalists.

But if scientists are pleased about being admired and trusted, they should be aware that scientific conclusions aren't held in such high regard. Eighty-four percent of scientists consider the case for anthropogenic climate change to be on solid footing, and over 90 percent were either very or somewhat concerned about it (the discrepancy arises from a those scientists who consider the current warming to be driven primarily by natural events). This is especially striking given that geoscientists were the least represented scientific discipline in the survey, and acceptance of anthropogenic climate change is highest among climatologists.

In contrast, only about half of the public are convinced of the scientific community's conclusions, and that drops to only 21 percent among those who self-identify as conservative Republicans. Even among the most liberal fraction of the public, however, the numbers are lower than within the scientific community. One reason for this is that only half of the public believes that the scientific community has itself reached agreement on these matters.

Similar gaps are apparent in other areas. Scientists were nearly unanimous in supporting research involving stem cells and animals, and they want to see mandatory vaccinations; but in every case, the numbers among scientists far outstripped the public's support on these topics. About 70 percent of the scientists wanted to see nuclear facilities being built, presumably as a method of limiting climate change—only half of the public does. The scientific community also rates the completion of the human genome as its most significant achievement in recent decades; that event has barely registered with the public.

If the scientific community were to collectively point a finger, it would likely be directed at the media. Eighty-three percent of scientists rated TV coverage of scientific developments as "only fair" or worse, and three-quarters said that the press fails to distinguish between well-established and tentative results. Newspapers did slightly better but, in general, scientists remain deeply unhappy with the media.

Science, politics, religion

An uneasy relationship between religion and evolutionary science was apparent in the results, but the situation appears to be extremely complex. First, the easy part: 97 percent of the scientific community accepts that species have evolved (some of these ascribe to a form of theistic evolution). In contrast, nearly one-third of the public thinks that species have remained static since their creation.

It would be easy to chalk this up to a conflict between science and religion and, indeed, over half of the public feels there is a conflict between science and religion. But only 36 percent actually said that science conflicts with their own religious beliefs, and evolution and origin of life issues only accounted for half of that total—things like stem cells, abortion, and cloning made up the rest. The presence of a vocal crowd of atheists who say that science is incompatible with religion barely registered, with only four percent of the public agreeing.

But it's clear that there's a tremendous amount of confusion on the topic. Only 60 percent of the public thinks that science has reached a consensus on its acceptance of the evidence for evolution (97 percent of scientists think so) and half of those who think that species haven't evolved say that science doesn't conflict with their religious beliefs. The information gap isn't exclusive to science, either: 27 percent of Catholics think that species haven't evolved, even though their church has deemed evolution theologically acceptable and intellectually compelling.

About the only clear conclusion here is that a substantial fraction of the US public have no idea what's going on in the scientific community.

There's also a large partisan divide when it comes to science. Nearly half of the respondents who described themselves as conservative Republicans felt that private money funds sufficient research, and they were the only group where less than half felt that government-funded research was essential to scientific progress. The scientists, meanwhile, felt that funding from the National Institutes of Health and National Science foundation was critical to science.

That alone might be enough to explain the partisan divide, but there were some indications that the reasons run deeper. Perhaps because of their experience with the NIH and NSF, significantly less than half of scientists think that government-run programs are typically inefficient. Only 20 percent of scientists think businesses will act in the public interest, which is less than the public in general; this may in part be a result of the tendency of pharmaceutical companies pushing questionable research.

In terms of recent events, over 85 percent of the scientific community is aware of accusations that the previous US administration stifled scientific research that ran counter to their desired policies, and the majority of them felt that the accusations were probably true. Less than half of the public was even aware of these accusations.

Given the philosophical differences and the indications of actual antagonism, it's no real surprise that only six percent of scientists self-identify as Republican; given that "independent" levels are similar to the population at large, this means that scientists lean dramatically Democrat. This is ironic, given that Democrats as a whole performed the worst on the test of basic scientific literacy.

The outlines of the survey results are in line with similar studies, although Pew has clearly provided a higher-resolution view of the gap between the public's appreciation for scientists and its understanding of science. What may be new is how large the gap has grown among the Republican constituency, in particular. Political biases tend to be cyclical—the antievolution side in the Scopes trial was represented by a Democratic presidential candidate, after all—but the philosophical differences between the scientific community and the basic principles of the current version of the Republican party may be difficult to bridge.

(ok, so it's not news...)

[vinoveri]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

thanks!
I suggest the ONLY way to carry on a dialog regarding this matter is to discuss the SCIENCE. The denialists (those who reject the evidence) have presented no science. If you have an alternative method to discuss the matter I would be interested in hearing it.

I fear I will not satisfy you with this, but perhaps we can find some common ground on where to begin.

"Science", broadly speaking is knowledge.
The impetus for scientific inquiry is knowledge discovery and by consequence advancing the state of knowledge.
The scientific method is a relatively objective method for engaging in and evaluating the results of scientific inquiry.

If someone has a theory, it's up to that person to demonstrate their theory scientifically, and this means that they should have an experiment(s) that can taken which will either support or disprove elements of the theory.
Reasonable people should not disagree on empirical data, which are facts, but they can disagree, and often widely, on the interpretation of that data. Reasonable people may agree on the facts, e.g., historical global temporal profiles, CO2 levels, and all the rest of the empirical "evidence" used to support the theory, but the meanings and implications of the correlations of that data, and more importantly, the predictive value is really where the question rests IMO.

Perhaps my view is somewhat skewed, being trained as a physicist, the theories and laws of physics that I was exposed to had been the subject of rigorous testing. Papers published, hypotheses came and went depending on whether they could stand the scrutiny of empirical investigation.

Now we live in a world where everything seems to have a "Science" associated with it. Economics, Sociology, Egyptology, etc., and while there may be a substantial body of perceived as well as actual knowledge it each, I would submit, much of this knowledge is not as reliable as the theories of physical science. These sciences are very happy and sometimes bold to announce and promulgate predictions or a theory of understanding (of course, b/c everyone wants predictions and understanding). But the reliability and accuracy of these predictions is what can be questioned.


Ask a scientist if the sun will rise tomorrow:
The honest will answer "I don't know"
The humble will answer, "God willing"
The arrogant will answer, "Of course, what are you an idiot?"

Cheers

[ASH]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

Back in 1492 the leading "scientists" thought the earth was flat. They also thought the sun revolved around the earth. Science has gotten a lot wrong.Climate science is a perfect example.The "truth" is people are using this fear to achieve a political goal that would not otherwise be possible and THAT is the truth.

I don't think you should compare pre-Enlightenment "natural philosophers" with post-Enlightenment scientists, but your point is taken.

I agree that science -- even modern science -- gets a lot of stuff wrong... temporarily. The point of science is to recognize and correct such errors, when experimental evidence disproves a theory. In general, error is greatest and persists for the longest in those branches of science in which direct experimental evidence is either difficult to obtain, or in which the experiment is difficult to control. One example I remember from college is chemical reaction mechanisms. For many years, the physical configuration of atoms during a chemical reaction was a matter of speculation by organic chemists. You could study the structure of the initial reactants and the final products, and you could measure the reaction rate and the height of the potential energy barrier between reactants and products, but the actual transition state existed too briefly to be directly observed. So organic chemists sketched their best guess as to what the reaction mechanism must look like, based upon what went in and what came out, and went on their way. Then we finally invented femto-second laser spectroscopy and were able to observe the reaction mechanism directly (or, at least, measure the energy states of the short-lived activated complex which exists at the moment of interaction, which tells you about its structure). Subsequently some of the reaction mechanisms taught in organic chemistry textbooks changed.

It occurs to me that climate science is one of those fields in which the "experiment" isn't as clean as one would like -- particularly as regards man-made global warming -- so there's greater room for controversy than if we were arguing about a simpler system. Also, it doesn't surprise me that there are a lot of skeptics of man-made climate change to be found in a forum packed with individuals who question economic orthodoxy, the abuse of political authority, and various types of mainstream misinformation. We are a naturally suspicious and contrary bunch.

I am more agnostic about man-made climate change than are the scientists and engineers with whom I went to school; for the most part, they all believe it is both real and significant. The reason I have any doubts myself is that I think the climate models can't possibly be accurate, for more-or-less first principles reasons. That said, I'm not a climatologist, so I'm hesitant to tell another scientist that they're full of shit, when I'm not an expert in their field. (One read through of Gleick's popularization back in high school doesn't make one an expert on nonlinear systems and chaos theory.) But even if the models are wrong (or cannot possibly be accurate enough on a time scale meaningful for development of long-range policy), that doesn't mean they are wrong on the side of over-stating the danger. It just means they are wrong. Meanwhile, the greenhouse mechanism itself is incontrovertibly real, and man-made warming is a physically plausible 2nd or 3rd order perturbation to the climate; the question is whether that perturbation will blow up and upset the apple cart, or be swamped by larger effects.

[wayiwalk]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

When they can accurately model and predict the weather on the sun, I'll start to have some "faith" in their planet earth weather models.

[flintlock]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

The earth is warming rapidly due to humans burning fossil fuels and introducing additional CO2 into the atmosphere. That's a fact. It is not in dispute by any reasonable people who use the scientific method and who have looked at even a minuscule amount of the data collected.

I wasn't aware this was not in dispute, but I can certainly believe it.

[c1ue]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

You, and some of the other here have completely missed the point. The issue is not whether there was more CO2 in the past, or if temperatures were higher in the past, the answer to both is yes.

The earth is warming rapidly due to humans burning fossil fuels and introducing additional CO2 into the atmosphere. That's a fact. It is not in dispute by any reasonable people who use the scientific method and who have looked at even a minuscule amount of the data collected.

Uh, nice try with the assumptive close. Perhaps you failed to read what your precious Hansen scientist Gavin Schmidt said: the existing models are not reliable in predicting long term results and it will take 20 years to know if the present models are correct.

Thus any belief that the earth is warming 'x' degrees due to man's use of fossil fuels and additional CO2 is a hypothesis, not a fact.

The issue is, can humanity and other species adjust to the changing weather patterns, rising sea levels, water availability, and ecosystem disruptions that is inevitable with the rapid temperature change, without major suffering? The answer to that is NO. The crop failures, mass migrations, economic upheavals, and inevitable wars, will result in a level of suffering not witnessed by humanity in a long time.

Again, all assumptions based on imperfect modeling.

Do all changing weather patterns have to do with global warming? NO. There are many examples in history ranging from the failure of the Vinland/Greenland settlements to the Sahara wet/dry, up to the modern desertification in Somalia.

Water availability, rising sea levels, ecosystem disruptions - these things have happened before man and could just as easily happen with man but without involving CO2.

Take John Coleman for instance. His denialists claims are quoted on denialist websites throughout the web. Who is John Coleman? John Coleman is the founder of the weather channel and has been a TV weatherman since 1957 when he got a degree in journalism from the University of Illinois. Is he a scientist?

Let's see - let's attack the person offering the points. Surely there were lots of meteorology programs available in 1957, not to mention computer modeling. And the ones that were offered - surely they are relevant now.

The point which you still fail to see is that Coleman hasn't said that global warming isn't happening, or even that AGW isn't happening. He has clearly identified

a) The financial, organizational, and status gains for those major proponents of AGW in NASA and the UN due to CO2 being a problem
b) That the hypotheses which AGW are based on were created before the facts were available: 1957 for the CO2 = atmospheric warming whereas the global temperatures were dropping until 1972. Seems to me like a hammer seeing all problems as nails.
c) That there are alternate views on the degree of temperature increase and the effect of CO2

But of course apparently because the UN has its stamp on it, IPCC cannot be wrong. Yet Coleman even points out that the IPCC conclusions are not a summary of all of its contributors but rather a small subset (less than 80) editors and that the UN itself is operating on the assumption that global warming will allow it to collect a tax on its members.

Then there's the attack on Coleman's degree. Well, Robert Hansen's degree is astrophysics. What does stellar level phenomena have to do with our specific earth? Is Hansen also predicting weather on other planets? Or are you saying Hansen is the one doing the computer modeling? Because his views don't seem to be shared by those working for him. Not sure what your attempt at a point is.

Were Hansen a real scientist - he would be looking at all of the explanations and verifying/refuting them rather than spending all his time supporting Al Gore and pushing the US government and UN to accelerate carbon policies. Someone who spends so much time and effort on political actions is a politician, not a scientist.

[rjwjr]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

Yes! Let's accept what a writer of fiction says as fact, and let's reject hard science and mountains of supporting data as fiction.

Cute response, but it doesn't change the fact that Crichton appears to be an educated, open-minded interested observer in this debate who was simply looking for the truth of the matter...much like most the rest of us. His points made sense to me and seemed well thought-out and logical. As such, I'm using him as my proxy for my resulting current skepticism.

[radon]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

Cute response, but it doesn't change the fact that Crichton appears to be an educated, open-minded interested observer in this debate who was simply looking for the truth of the matter...much like most the rest of us. His points made sense to me and seemed well thought-out and logical. As such, I'm using him as my proxy for my resulting current skepticism.

My cab driver seemed the same way when I was trying to convince him there was a problem with the housing market. Thank god it was only 25 minutes to the airport.

[radon]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

Thus any belief that the earth is warming 'x' degrees due to man's use of fossil fuels and additional CO2 is a hypothesis

Perhaps you have some data that falsifies this hypotheses, or have found some crucial flaws. You should publish them you'd get a noble prize.

Again, all assumptions based on imperfect modeling.

Do all changing weather patterns have to do with global warming? NO. There are many examples in history ranging from the failure of the Vinland/Greenland settlements to the Sahara wet/dry, up to the modern desertification in Somalia.

Water availability, rising sea levels, ecosystem disruptions - these things have happened before man and could just as easily happen with man but without involving CO2.

You're right, there are many examples of ecosystems collapsing rapidly leading to mass extinctions. We may be in the middle of one now.

Are you arguing that because they have happened in the past it is ok for humans to cause one. Are you somehow oblivious to the suffering it will cause if temperatures increase to levels typical during the Mesozoic.

Let's see - let's attack the person offering the points.

The person who is offering them is not credible.

c) That there are alternate views on the degree of temperature increase and the effect of CO2

Yeah, this subject seems to bring the cranks and crackpots out of the woodwork. There are alternate views on evolution too. This does not mean they are valid.

Unfortunately most don't seem to be able to make a distinction.

Then there's the attack on Coleman's degree. Well, Robert Hansen's degree is astrophysics. What does stellar level phenomena have to do with our specific earth? Is Hansen also predicting weather on other planets? Or are you saying Hansen is the one doing the computer modeling? Because his views don't seem to be shared by those working for him. Not sure what
your attempt at a point is.

This is disingenuous. Having a background in physics and modeling complex systems is a useful skill that transfers directly.

Journalism does not.

Were Hansen a real scientist - he would be looking at all of the explanations and verifying/refuting them rather than spending all his time supporting Al Gore and pushing the US government and UN to accelerate carbon policies. Someone who spends so much time and effort on political actions is a politician, not a scientist.

What about scientists who spend most of their time filing grant applications, teaching, and running their lab. Occasionally they have some time left over to make sure their grad students are spending their time productively.

I guess I've never met a "real" scientist. I'd like to, you know, just out of curiosity.