60 Leading Scientists: Kyoto is Pointless, human impact impossible to distinguish

[Fake Boris]

@ mrt

[Cort Haus]

As for consensus, I find it hard to believe that there is a consensus supporting all of Agathon's views, some of which I might even agree with.

[Elok]

WTF? You think the rest of us agree with Agathon? Now you're really out of touch with reality.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


I'm neither right-wing, nor a moron, nor are many eco-sceptics. There's actually a genuine difference of scientific opinion here.

No there's not.

There's a minority of scientists, who, motivated by various reasons, choose to deny what's actually happening.

It's perfectly possible to just deny deny deny, and that is what the sceptics do. There is a point at which such denial becomes unreasonable, and that point was reached long ago. Science does not deal in certainties, so it is always possible to be sceptical, but there is a practical point when such scepticism becomes anti-science.

People like Lomborg are sophists. They pursue celebrity by trying to paint themselves as rebels standing up against the liberal conspiracy.

No reasonable person denies that the climate is changing. Even during my short life it has been noticeable. Some people want to claim that this is a natural phenomenon, after all, the earth has warmed and cooled before. However, they have no proof that this is what is actually happening.

The opposition, on the other hand, have an explanation for why it is happening, and the killer is that, given this explanation, and the current increase in temperatures, it would seem quite a coincidence that these things are happening at the same time.

Which is more probable? That the earth is rapidly warming due to natural processes at this point in time (which is a reasonably rare phenomenon), or that it is rapidly warming due to to human activity, which has increased in proportion to the recent warming?

Take a similar example: if you are travelling through the desert and you come across a large group of people from all nations in a big group, is it more likely that they have a reason to be there, or that they just randomly happened upon each other? The principle is the same with global warming.

It would seem a pretty remarkable coincidence that the earth is warming just as we are doing a lot of stuff that we have good reason to think would make it do so. Again, which is the more likely explanation.

[Agathon]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=86

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Agathon


No there's not.

There's a minority of scientists, who, motivated by various reasons, choose to deny what's actually happening.

It's perfectly possible to just deny deny deny, and that is what the sceptics do. There is a point at which such denial becomes unreasonable, and that point was reached long ago. Science does not deal in certainties, so it is always possible to be sceptical, but there is a practical point when such scepticism becomes anti-science.

People like Lomborg are sophists. They pursue celebrity by trying to paint themselves as rebels standing up against the liberal conspiracy.

No reasonable person denies that the climate is changing. Even during my short life it has been noticeable. Some people want to claim that this is a natural phenomenon, after all, the earth has warmed and cooled before. However, they have no proof that this is what is actually happening.

The opposition, on the other hand, have an explanation for why it is happening, and the killer is that, given this explanation, and the current increase in temperatures, it would seem quite a coincidence that these things are happening at the same time.

Which is more probable? That the earth is rapidly warming due to natural processes at this point in time (which is a reasonably rare phenomenon), or that it is rapidly warming due to to human activity, which has increased in proportion to the recent warming?

Take a similar example: if you are travelling through the desert and you come across a large group of people from all nations in a big group, is it more likely that they have a reason to be there, or that they just randomly happened upon each other? The principle is the same with global warming.

It would seem a pretty remarkable coincidence that the earth is warming just as we are doing a lot of stuff that we have good reason to think would make it do so. Again, which is the more likely explanation.

But it could still be a coincidence. Your use of George W. Bush logic in that you believe it, therefore it must be true, and all evidence must somehow support your belief even it doesn't just isn't going to convince some of us.

There's just not enough factual evidence to prove it conclusively.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb


But it could still be a coincidence. Your use of George W. Bush logic in that you believe it, therefore it must be true, and all evidence must somehow support your belief even it doesn't just isn't going to convince some of us.

There's just not enough factual evidence to prove it conclusively.

That's what science is like. Scientific theories are always open to refutation.

You are right: it could still be coincidence. But which is more likely? It is always rational to believe the more likely explanation when we lack certainty.

Your call.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by MRT144
1 guy in seattle thinks PA is a closet homo! CONCENSUS!

Make that a 1 guy in Seattle and 1 guy in the Atlanta area thinks PA is a closet homo!

EVEN MORE CONSENSUS!!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
As for DDT - The banning of DDT has killed countless souls- lost to malaria. 100 people die from mosquito bites every 20 minutes.

Malaria can be cured cheaply without using a pesticide that messes up the environment.

Of course, there are also about 10 billion other ways of killing mosquitos or keep them from biting in the first place.

Ask a wrong question and get a wrong answer.

Originally posted by Cort Haus
DDT is not hazardous to humans or the environment. Tests conducted by Dr Philip Butler, director of the Fish and Wildlife Service's Sabine Island Research Laboratory, found that '92 per cent of DDT and its metabolites disappear' from the environment after 38 days. And humans have nothing to worry about when it comes to small exposures to DDT.

I ran a search on the Internet and found no such results on credible souces. You know, the Fish and Wildlife Service's own website and such?

I found some references, but they are all the same, and none of them have any scientific credibility.

Wikipedia would be a much better place for information.

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Rachel Carson, holier-than-thou author of Silent Spring, which caused the DDT scare and subsequent banning, has more blood on her hands than your average mass-murdering despot.

Rachel Carson for banning DDT singlehandedly.

[notyoueither]

Isn't the problem with Kyoto that it doesn't really address the problem?

Western Europe was on the road to reduced emmmissions anyway due to changing economies and government taxation policies.

The East bloc was getting there simply because their industries have all declined over the benchmark levels.

The rapidly industrialising aren't covered.

That leaves very few places where making Kyoto will mean anything, yes?

[notyoueither]

It's like we're overpopulated, so the solution is to have 2 or 4 people out of 100 have their tubes tied.

Great feel good measure if you're in the 96. Not so hot if you are the targeted 4.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Malaria can be cured cheaply without using a pesticide that messes up the environment.

Of course, there are also about 10 billion other ways of killing mosquitos or keep them from biting in the first place.

Ask a wrong question and get a wrong answer.



I ran a search on the Internet and found no such results on credible souces. You know, the Fish and Wildlife Service's own website and such?

I found some references, but they are all the same, and none of them have any scientific credibility.

Wikipedia would be a much better place for information.



Rachel Carson for banning DDT singlehandedly.

Still more evidence than you presented for your claims.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
There's just not enough factual evidence to prove it conclusively.

Wrong, there's more than enough evidence to support how people are contributing to global warming. The problem is the right wingnuts refuse to accept reality and keep demanding more of the same studies just so they don't have to do anything.

[Berzerker]

I dont understand the hand-wringing, sea levels rise a bit and people have to vacate large coastal cities that'll be partially flooded. But vast stretches of land in the northern hemisphere may become arable. Whats the alternative? An ice sheet covering 1000s of sq miles, including Boston, NYC, Moscow, all of Scandinavia? Look at a map, getting warmer aint a bad thing...

Astronomers have identified an inter-glacial period lasting 28,000 years with orbital characteristics similar to today. This was about 400,000 years ago and if the comparison is valid we could have another 14,000 years before the ice returns. I hope we've figured out how to prevent the ice from returning by then, but it sure would be ironic if human pollution was the culprit.

Ice ages/advances result from a variety of factors, but climatologists recognise cooler summers in the higher latitudes as a "requirement" (my word). The changing axial tilt of the Earth - 21.5 to 24.5 - directly effects summer temps, and when the Earth is near the lower angle of 21.5 degrees the higher latitudes cool. Combine an axial tilt of 21.5 degrees with an increase in orbital eccentricity (elliptical as opposed to circular) and the precession of the equinox so that summer in the northern latitude occurs when the Earth is at its most distant, and cooler summers are a result. We're at about 23.5 degrees now and heading for the 21.5 boundary.

Take a peek at what Europe was like during the mini-ice age from 1350-1800, not a pleasant environment. And apparently a small change in solar output did that combined with greater volcanic activity (on average 5 x more).

[JellyBean]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
There's just not enough factual evidence to prove it conclusively.

And there won't be, whether it's true or not. The universe is inherently messy, and you can never get absolute proof of anything. Or absolute disproof, for that matter.

Whether it is worthwhile reducing greenhouse gas emissions depends on the probability, based on the observed evidence, that doing so will avert global warming. I've explained earlier why there is a morass of disinformation on both sides of the issue. Here's my recommendation for sorting out the useful information:

Ignore announcements, such as the one in this thread, that 'More than Z climatologists believe that global warming is/isn't real!'. You can find Z folklorists willing to state that the tooth fairy is real, if you offer them enough money. This is the easiest way to be misled by special interest groups, and will probably result in you simply believing whichever one gets to you first.

Instead, try to understand the arguments, and check them against third-party sources. Carbon dioxide is supposed to be transparent to incoming visible light, and opaque to outgoing infrared light? Look up the physical properties in a textbook, and check them! And check enough to satisfy yourself that solar radiation peaks in the visible band, and the Earth's reradiated heat peaks in the infrared - or that it doesn't. Don't trust me - I could be lying to you!

Most of this 'debate' as it goes on in public, it seems to me, is a matter of each side announcing popular support for their position, and lazy journalists simply quoting these reports verbatim. If the journalists won't do their job, you'll have to do it for them - or just admit that you haven't looked it up in enough detail to have a firm opinion on the subject.