Overhype on global warming

[snowsure]

Well, I don't think any good school should teach anything as fact, apart from that things that are actually fact. But for science, children are taught what is believed is true, not what is true. That's how I think it should be anyway. The theory of evolution is regarded by scientists as true, the theory of AGW is also believed by scientists in general to be true.

IMO I do not think that science is taught by giving a series of truths to pupils.

In fact, it is best to tell pupils that it is not true that water boils at 100 deg C, it is just that the best theory with evidence to support it suggests that water boils at 100 deg C. This will continue to be believed until another scientist disproves it and then has his theory adopted by the scientific fraternity.

The scientific method is far, far more than truth. If you want truth, look at Philosophy.

[senior ridge]

Eight Reasons Why ‘Global Warming’ Is a Scam

Written By: Joseph L. Bast

Published In: Heartlander

Publication Date: February 1, 2003

Publisher: The Heartland Institute

"Similar scares orchestrated by radical environmentalists in the past--such as Alar, global cooling, the “population bomb,” and electromagnetic fields--were eventually debunked by scientists and no longer appear in the speeches or platforms of public officials. The New York Times recently endorsed more widespread use of DDT to combat malaria, proving Rachel Carson’s anti-pesticide gospel is no longer sacrosanct even with the liberal elite...............".

The full article is here

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548

[Devonian]

Eight Reasons Why ‘Global Warming’ Is a Scam

Written By: Joseph L. Bast

Published In: Heartlander

Publication Date: February 1, 2003

Publisher: The Heartland Institute

"Similar scares orchestrated by radical environmentalists in the past--such as Alar, global cooling, the “population bomb,” and electromagnetic fields--were eventually debunked by scientists and no longer appear in the speeches or platforms of public officials. The New York Times recently endorsed more widespread use of DDT to combat malaria, proving Rachel Carson’s anti-pesticide gospel is no longer sacrosanct even with the liberal elite...............".

The full article is here

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548

I've just had a look. Some familiar arguments, that Oregon petition rubbish, the old satellites don't show warming one (they do) the 'prove it' argument and a swipe at one of the right's (well, it is the Heartlands Institude - they are off the edge) most hated Rachel Carson.

....Oh, now I get it, it's from 2003...

I'd love it if I were proven (well, shown to be...) wrong, but, sorry, posting out of date neo con political claptrap as science isn't going to win me over :wub:

[The PIT]

Disappointing response - I have respect for scientists but that doesn't mean I have to hang on every word they say. People should be free to believe in what they want to (as long as it is not terrorism or something harmful to others). That process begins at school -inform people but don't indoctrinate them.

I stick by what I say - no need to have a chip on your shoulder.

:wub:

Tamara

Well said Tam.

One thing that clearly is being demonstrated on here is that many posters ignore that Scientific "fact" in recent times changes very rapidly. Look at food for example what's good and bad for you has changed many times in recent times. Each time a new scare comes along or the next reverse I just say the same old thing Eat what you want but do it in moderation. If you look around you'll find plenty of examples. As far as Climate change goes go back thirty years or so and we should be now be in a very cool climate with long snowy winters. Nothing to say in ten years time we'll talking about the next ice age as next big worry.

Media has a lot to blame for this and Politicians pander to the media as it saying the right things gets them votes and more taxes.

As I've said before the climate is changing and getting warmer but the man factor is probably a lot less that been made out. Yes we need to clean the planet up. Look at Bejing. Why should people live where the air burns your throat and makes your eyes run.

[senior ridge]

I've just had a look. Some familiar arguments, that Oregon petition rubbish, the old satellites don't show warming one (they do) the 'prove it' argument and a swipe at one of the right's (well, it is the Heartlands Institude - they are off the edge) most hated Rachel Carson.

....Oh, now I get it, it's from 2003...

I'd love it if I were proven (well, shown to be...) wrong, but, sorry, posting out of date neo con political claptrap as science isn't going to win me over :wub:

Devonian,

Interestingly, you skirted around the abject failure of the prediction/ forecast/ whatever is fashionable/ told to say to get our grant money/ scare story (delete as necessary) of global cooling made in the 70s :wub:

[Devonian]

Devonian,

Interestingly, you skirted around the abject failure of the prediction/ forecast/ whatever is fashionable/ told to say to get our grant money/ scare story (delete as necessary) of global cooling made in the 70s :wub:

Well, I can hardly skirt around something not in the article can I :wub: or do I need the skills of a clairvoyant now :wub:

[laserguy]

And so the debate rages on...to the point where I'm losing interest.

Who's to say that in ten years' time there'll not be a massive campaign afoot to use those 4x4's as much as possible,reopen the pits for the coal and generally produce as much CO2 as possible to try and fend off the coming ice age? Wouldn't surprise me in the least going on the track record of trends,predictions,bandwagons etc,etc. If AGW exists(which I seriously doubt)then all the activists had better pack their bags and go to China and India to preach. Turn the bath taps on full,then try to bale the water out with a thimble before it overflows. That's what any effort here would amount to compared to the input from developing far Eastern countries.

Ever get the feeling you're being taken for a mug? I'm afraid that the vast majority of people are so gullible that if some 'sciency' type came on television saying that we have to curtail sunbathing because it is depriving another part of the world from their share of sunlight,they would believe it! Whether they would act on it is another matter.

[snowsure]

And so the debate rages on...to the point where I'm losing interest.

Who's to say that in ten years' time there'll not be a massive campaign afoot to use those 4x4's as much as possible,reopen the pits for the coal and generally produce as much CO2 as possible to try and fend off the coming ice age? Wouldn't surprise me in the least going on the track record of trends,predictions,bandwagons etc,etc. If AGW exists(which I seriously doubt)then all the activists had better pack their bags and go to China and India to preach. Turn the bath taps on full,then try to bale the water out with a thimble before it overflows. That's what any effort here would amount to compared to the input from developing far Eastern countries.

Ever get the feeling you're being taken for a mug? I'm afraid that the vast majority of people are so gullible that if some 'sciency' type came on television saying that we have to curtail sunbathing because it is depriving another part of the world from their share of sunlight,they would believe it! Whether they would act on it is another matter.

Good words on the whole laserguy!

Until such time as we are asked to use electricity to fend off a coming ice age, I am, from this point forward, not going to use the Internet on a Sunday. In fact, I am going to attempt to use as little electricity as possible every Sunday. I will attempt to not drive on a Sunday.

In fact, anyone who lived before the advent of 24 hour shopping will recognise my actions as those that were once the "norm." Keep Sunday Special could cause a potential 14% reduction in my CO2 omissions. This will perhaps have an impact on the economy as a whole but it will save me money, give me back some time with my family and reduce the impacts of GW.

[HighPressure]

I really don't understand 'DEVs' view on this, our children should be taught the truth if a theory is unproven or not fully supported by the entire scientific community then that is exactly how it should be presented. The furtherment of science only exists because of the questioning of current belief, under 'DEVs' teaching all students would still believe the world to be flat. Any scientific belief must stand the constant test of its theory, any theory which stands the test of time is less likely to be found incorrect but the possibility still remains. However a baby scientific theory such as AGW has a long way to go until it establishes itself as fact or almost fact, it is there to be tested and so it should be. I worry about views that suggest any theory should just be accepted because that's what most scientists believe, in itself this is not a scientific way of thinking?

Someone mentioned the theory of water boiling at 100oC and of course 99% of people believe this to be true, but its not quite is it? They usually forget that water only boils at 100oC under the pressure of one atmosphere I can just imagine the guy on everest getting a luke warm cup of tea and wondering why?

In complete scientific theories normally turn out to be hogwash!

[Devonian]

I really don't understand 'DEVs' view on this, our children should be taught the truth if a theory is unproven or not fully supported by the entire scientific community then that is exactly how it should be presented.

Hang on where have I said anything else?

The furtherment of science only exists because of the questioning of current belief, under 'DEVs' teaching all students would still believe the world to be flat.

That's a gross misrepresentation of what I've said - shame on you

Any scientific belief must stand the constant test of its theory, any theory which stands the test of time is less likely to be found incorrect but the possibility still remains. However a baby scientific theory such as AGW has a long way to go until it establishes itself as fact or almost fact, it is there to be tested and so it should be. I worry about views that suggest any theory should just be accepted because that's what most scientists believe, in itself this is not a scientific way of thinking?

Again, I've said nothing like that. AGW IS (IS!) a theory, so is what Darwin, Agassiz, Wenger, Hawking, Einstein have said.

And so the debate rages on...to the point where I'm losing interest.

Who's to say that in ten years' time there'll not be a massive campaign afoot to use those 4x4's as much as possible,reopen the pits for the coal and generally produce as much CO2 as possible to try and fend off the coming ice age? Wouldn't surprise me in the least going on the track record of trends,predictions,bandwagons etc,etc. If AGW exists(which I seriously doubt)then all the activists had better pack their bags and go to China and India to preach. Turn the bath taps on full,then try to bale the water out with a thimble before it overflows. That's what any effort here would amount to compared to the input from developing far Eastern countries.

Ever get the feeling you're being taken for a mug? I'm afraid that the vast majority of people are so gullible that if some 'sciency' type came on television saying that we have to curtail sunbathing because it is depriving another part of the world from their share of sunlight,they would believe it! Whether they would act on it is another matter.

See you in ten!

Edited August 22, 2007 by Devonian

[laserguy]

See you in ten!

[parmenides3]

And so the debate rages on...to the point where I'm losing interest.

Who's to say that in ten years' time there'll not be a massive campaign afoot to use those 4x4's as much as possible,reopen the pits for the coal and generally produce as much CO2 as possible to try and fend off the coming ice age? Wouldn't surprise me in the least going on the track record of trends,predictions,bandwagons etc,etc. If AGW exists(which I seriously doubt)then all the activists had better pack their bags and go to China and India to preach. Turn the bath taps on full,then try to bale the water out with a thimble before it overflows. That's what any effort here would amount to compared to the input from developing far Eastern countries.

Ever get the feeling you're being taken for a mug? I'm afraid that the vast majority of people are so gullible that if some 'sciency' type came on television saying that we have to curtail sunbathing because it is depriving another part of the world from their share of sunlight,they would believe it! Whether they would act on it is another matter.

laserguy, your loss of interest is explained by your own comment '...if AGW exists, (which I seriously doubt)...'

It is amusing to note that we, who disagree with you, are the 'mugs', though I suppose we can be comforted by knowing that all those scientists are mugs too, and most insurance companies, planning agencies, governments... all of us mugs. But not you; you know better.

Is this just another 'fad', a 'fashion'? 'Fraid not. This problem really does exists and really is important, but I know that nothing is going to persuade you to ask yourself whether it might be the slightest bit possible that your doubts about AGW are wrong. It is normal human nature, as I understand, to be predisposed towards a certain opinion and then defend that opinion. I do it sometimes, too. It is also common for us to be sceptical about science, because so few of us really understand it, or how it works. But, rather than 'turn off' from the debate, which I would point out, isn't a competition with sides, and doesn't need winners and losers, why not instead think about the question: 'Is it possible, at all, that my opinion might be wrong, or misguided?'

I'm sorry if this post sounds harsh, but I get irritated when people insult my intelligence by calling me a mug and gullible. And before you ask whether I could recognise the Truth if it sat up and bit me... my first degree in philosophy might suggest that I can, at least, recognise what truth is.

Regards,

:)P

[Devonian]

I don't think laserguy is calling you a mug personally P3 :o . There is a big difference between a scientist genuinely trying to understand climate and environment matters like yourself and the sort of scientist that is 'preachy' and tries to indoctrinate his or her belief on someone else.

Tamara

'indoctrinate'? What does indoctrination look like - iyo? Can you supply an example or several?

I have to say I can't think of an example.

[Devonian]

:o

That's a feeble response.

You think there is 'indoctrination' then show me an example - if there is lots of it it should be easy. This isn't a trick question, I just want to know what you think 'indoctrination' looks like.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Perhaps you'd believe it if it was the minority view then?

[parmenides3]

I don't think laserguy is calling you a mug persobally P3. There is a big difference between a scientist genuinely trying to understand climate and environment matters and the sort of scientist that is 'preachy' and tries to indoctrinate his or her belief on someone else. I will admit that I would be far more receptive to some of these GW/AGW theorists if they dropped their 'attitude problem' with a chip on the shoulder and stopped trying to convert people to their way of thinking. Some people are afraid/intimidated into not believe them - add that on top of the media agenda and it is no surprise there is so much hype.

Laserguy has gone heavy on the sarcasm and irony but beneath that I'm afraid he does have a point. And it is one that goes right to the heart of the hype. On the basis of what I have said here he is not trying to say he knows everything at all, just venting frustration at the way the message of AGW/GW is rammed down everyone'e throats either via over effusive and overbearing scientists or a cash-in happy media.

Bear in mind there are good un's and bad-un's in every profession. Why should scientists be any different? On this basis some should stop taking criticism of their group so personally. I know plenty of people in the catering trade who I walk into the nearest shop or round the nearest corner when I

Hi, Tamara. laserguy's comment seems clear enough and encompasses anyone who doesn't share his doubts about AGW, so it's aimed at me as well as many other people. At the least it is an insult, and at the worst is arrogant folly. I am sure he doesn't mean to be personal, but he could consider how his comments will be understood by the rest of us.

I'll accept your contention that there are some effusive or overbearing scientists ramming the message down our throats if you can point me to some. I agree entirely about the media, though; I also think that too much hype is not just annoying, it actually makes people want to disagree. Who wants to be told what they should think, after all? As far as good'uns and bad'uns; if your talking about competence, then science is different because the bad'uns don't last very long; they get pushed aside because their work doesn't meet the required standards of rigour or accuracy. Doesn't mean their aren't a lot of 'ordinary' scientists just doing their jobs, but the nature of the beast is substantively different.

All along I have agreed with jethro's original suggestion that there is far too much hype about AGW. But I have also tried to get people to separate the media and the hype from the science, which hardly ever makes the claims the media attributes to it. If you want to understand the big picture, separated from what we are told by the media, you really cannot avoid going to the original sources. If you can't stomach the academic journals (even I get bored with them at times!), then there are several scientists who write entertaining and informative blogs, where a lot of information and understanding can be easily gained.

If you (not you personally, but any 'you') don't believe the media (good!) and don't trust the science (your choice...) the problem is, how do you decide what to believe about AGW? If you (personally and impersonally) are as keen to actually understand the truth, as many others appear to be, then at some point you have to make a decision about where you believe you are most likely to hear the truth, or at least, a fair attempt to seek the truth. If you do not do this, you must in the end depend on your own opinion, and not expect to diverge from that opinion: does this make sense?

So, if you are at least nominally open-minded, which I believe most people on NW are, it comes down to asking who you can trust to be honest about AGW, rather than who you can find who will agree with you or support your existing opinion. As things stand, I have chosen to trust the people who undoubtedly know and understand more about how the world/climate works and how things can change than I do. Most of these people are climate scientists; that is my choice. This doesn't mean that I don't disagree with some things they say, or question some claims, but I do so because I don't fully understand something, rather than because I think there is something wrong with the scientific approach to understanding in itself.

Best wishes,

:)P

[Devonian]

Perhaps you'd believe it if it was the minority view then?

??

Me? Who? What?

[Osbourne One-Nil]

No...Tamara, and all the other sceptics. You just posted as I was replying and got in the way.

[Devonian]

No...Tamara, and all the other sceptics. You just posted as I was replying and got in the way.

Ah ha, now it makes sense.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Don't flatter yourself Tamara, it wasn't aimed just at you.

[Devonian]

I think that we should live in an environmentally friendly way irrespective of AGW or not. Further to that, and on the basis that I am, to be honest, simply much more interested in a much wider basis of things than GW/AGW then I would prefer to take a step back and am happy to wait and see a while.

Opinions can develop further over time and sometimes leaving be with a subject is the best thing to do.

Tamara

I'm still intrigued as to what 'indoctrination' looks like. Not least because you wont say, so perhaps you see me as one of the 'indoctrinators'? That I find troubling

[parmenides3]

I think that we should live in an environmentally friendly way irrespective of AGW or not. Further to that, and on the basis that I am, to be honest, simply much more interested in a much wider basis of things than GW/AGW then I would prefer to take a step back and am happy to wait and see a while.

Opinions can develop further over time and sometimes leaving be with a subject is the best thing to do.

Tamara

Yes, you need not worry

That would be specially designed for me

Tamara

I agree, in part. There is not reason why anyone should not live in a way which is sympathetic to the environment, at least in some respects. As there are many ways of doing this, it means we can all do what we are comfortable with (maybe making a teensy bit extra effort now and again), and feel we are doing something of inherent value.

I don't begrudge you the desire to take a step back, but I will say that this is, perhaps, slightly worrying, on a larger scale. If you happen to be, as you know I am, a person who thinks that AGW is happening and is a problem (at some time in the future), then the option of people stopping action to 'wait and see' is a cause for concern. Isn't this what the USA, China and India are effectively saying? (As well as others).

Metaphors are always difficult, but if I was in a car and someone said 'this road leads over a cliff', I'm not sure whether I'd be entirely comfortable with the driver saying 'Let's wait and see; I'll carry on driving...' I might want to ask him to stop for a minute to check the map, or perhaps slow down, just in case...

Of course, if we aren't heading over a cliff, it won't matter anyway, but would you be willing for your children (for it is they who will pay for our decisions about the climate) to be in such a vehicle? (You might not have children; the question still stands). And if it turns out that the road did actually lead to a cliff, then a lot would have been gained by acting on the information offered, even if we weren't convinced it was right.

I suppose it boils down to what risks you are willing to allow, and what you think is not worth the risk, under the circumstances.

Best wishes,

:)P

[parmenides3]

You, too!

:)P

[laserguy]

Hello P3 and everyone. Please be reassured 100% that I don't for one moment imply that you or anyone else on this forum is a mug. Far,far from it. I would have thought it blatantly obvious that I refer to the percentage of the population who have as much inclination to do a little research of their own and to reach their own conclusion as I have to research the finer points and by-rules of five-a-side football, (ie absolutely none). The point I was making is that the cuurent climate change 'thing' is playing on the fears of the ignorant, the'mugs',if you will. They are led to believe that climate change is due 100% to our CO2 emissions,and that natural influences and processes play no part in it whatsoever. That's the aspect that really winds me up and it needs addressing and investigating AND reporting to the 'masses' with all the vigour that AGW currently has. And this 'habit' of the media (the only exposure the 'masses' get to climate change information) to blame EVERY 'unusual' weather event on AGW is quite frankly nauseating.

I have made it clear on many occasions that I do respect the conclusions other people come to by way of their own research,as I expect them to respect mine however ridiculous they may seem to some. But 99% of the population have had that conclusion imposed on them by the one sided approach of the media. And that,wherever one's opinion lies,is clearly misleading and unacceptable.

[Devonian]

Hello P3 and everyone. Please be reassured 100% that I don't for one moment imply that you or anyone else on this forum is a mug. Far,far from it. I would have thought it blatantly obvious that I refer to the percentage of the population who have as much inclination to do a little research of their own and to reach their own conclusion as I have to research the finer points and by-rules of five-a-side football, (ie absolutely none). The point I was making is that the cuurent climate change 'thing' is playing on the fears of the ignorant, the'mugs',if you will. They are led to believe that climate change is due 100% to our CO2 emissions,and that natural influences and processes play no part in it whatsoever. That's the aspect that really winds me up and it needs addressing and investigating AND reporting to the 'masses' with all the vigour that AGW currently has. And this 'habit' of the media (the only exposure the 'masses' get to climate change information) to blame EVERY 'unusual' weather event on AGW is quite frankly nauseating.

I have made it clear on many occasions that I do respect the conclusions other people come to by way of their own research,as I expect them to respect mine however ridiculous they may seem to some. But 99% of the population have had that conclusion imposed on them by the one sided approach of the media. And that,wherever one's opinion lies,is clearly misleading and unacceptable.

Here we go again. First it's 'indoctrinated' next it's 'imposed' and 'misleading'/'unacceptable'. Also, if there are 'mugs' out there isn't it equally possible they might be being mugged by those who say we're 100% not to blame?????? There are, after all, plenty of sceptics, and some of them are both vocal and influential!

Again, can someone show me an example of pro warming (for the wont of a better term) indoctrination and if not of imposition by someone/group/scientist?

Btw, I respect your conclusion, but, don't expect me to happily be led to a warmed planet - I wont be (don't worry though, I can't make any difference ).