Argue with me about something.

[Calin Leafshade]

I'm bored at work.

Argue with me about something. If you are a creationist, climate change denier, homeopath, astrologer, flat-earther, geocentrist or conspiracy-theorist you are welcome to argue your case, after which I shall present a rebuttal, after which i might have a drink of apple juice.

[Intense Degree]

Actually I don't think your avatar does look like a girl!

Or if it does then she's not the one for me to be honest.

[arj0n]

Or if it does then she's not the one for me to be honest.

Why not? Just turn of the light 

[Anian]

Why not? Just turn of the light  

Is that what you do?

Argue with me about something. If you are a creationist, climate change denier, homeopath, astrologer, flat-earther, geocentrist or conspiracy-theorist you are welcome to argue your case, after which I shall present a rebuttal, after which i might have a drink of apple juice.

I choose climate change denying for 500, Alex. Not that I think it isn't happening, but I do think that actual planet movement and general process of nature has a lot of effect. But in any case I'm very mad that the world cannot agree on what's happening (or as it were, in what amount the change is happening) and there are so many different numbers running around the infonet. Also there is no negative side to turning to renewable energy resources...well not a lot in any case.
I guess it's like that Springsteen song says - we're all counting on a miracle.

[Calin Leafshade]

Actually I don't think your avatar does look like a girl!

Or if it does then she's not the one for me to be honest.

You wouldn't know what to do with me honey.

I choose climate change denying for 500, Alex. Not that I think it isn't happening, but I do think that actual planet movement and general process of nature has a lot of effect. But in any case I'm very mad that the world cannot agree on what's happening (or as it were, in what amount the change is happening) and there are so many different numbers running around the infonet. Also there is no negative side to turning to renewable energy resources...well not a lot in any case.
I guess it's like that Springsteen song says - we're all counting on a miracle.

A ha! I see your argument and I raise you a rebuttal!

The problem with climate change as a subject is that it is so heavily politicised. The right wing are convinced that its just the left wing trying to tax them (because thats what we do) and the left wing are certain that the right wing just want to avoid negative, short-term economical effects (namely Big Oil)

However, when it come to *scientists* there isnt actually that much (there is some although it's heavily in favour of the proponants rather than the skeptics) debate on the matter. The consensus is that the planet is warming and that the warming is anthropogenic (man-made). The media is guilty of playing up the issue however and often turn stories on climate change into doomsday scenarios. In the actual scientific literature the stories are less dramatic and studies usually come up with something along the lines of "Yup, planet's still getting warmer", which is not exactly newsworthy.

It's certainly true that nature can warm up the planet far more than the levels we are talking about. There have been times when the planet was *far* hotter than it is now but that occurred on a geological timescale which meant that the flora and fauna could adapt slowly to the changes.

Bottom line: Planet's getting warmer, we're doing it, we better stop it within a few decades.

[arj0n]

Why not? Just turn of the light  

Is that what you do?

In Calin's case, I would

[Anian]

A ha! I see your argument and I raise you a rebuttal!

The problem with climate change as a subject is that it is so heavily politicised. The right wing are convinced that its just the left wing trying to tax them (because thats what we do) and the left wing are certain that the right wing just want to avoid negative, short-term economical effects (namely Big Oil)

However, when it come to *scientists* there isnt actually that much (there is some although it's heavily in favour of the proponants rather than the skeptics) debate on the matter. The consensus is that the planet is warming and that the warming is anthropogenic (man-made). The media is guilty of playing up the issue however and often turn stories on climate change into doomsday scenarios. In the actual scientific literature the stories are less dramatic and studies usually come up with something along the lines of "Yup, planet's still getting warmer", which is not exactly newsworthy.

It's certainly true that nature can warm up the planet far more than the levels we are talking about. There have been times when the planet was *far* hotter than it is now but that occurred on a geological timescale which meant that the flora and fauna could adapt slowly to the changes.

Bottom line: Planet's getting warmer, we're doing it, we better stop it within a few decades.

Yeah, but see, scientific consensus is not...well they don't agree that it's so much anthropogenic. And also your argument about faster temperature change is invalid since not only did species die out throughout history (not saying that man has made it's contribution there), there have been a lot of species that didn't adapt even before man, thus the lack of dinosaurs etc.

[Calin Leafshade]

Yeah, but see, scientific consensus is not...well they don't agree that it's so much anthropogenic.

Actually about 95% of scientific papers on climate change written  in the last 40 years or so conclude in the abstract that recent climate change is due to man made gases in the atmosphere. If 95% is not enough to qualify as consensus i'm not sure what is.

And also your argument about faster temperature change is invalid since not only did species die out throughout history (not saying that man has made it's contribution there), there have been a lot of species that didn't adapt even before man, thus the lack of dinosaurs etc.

That's certainly true. Climate change has killed species off before but the issue here is whether or not *this* climate change is man-made and if therefore we can do anything about it and the evidence suggests that it is.

[Anian]

Actually about 95% of scientific papers on climate change written  in the last 40 years or so conclude in the abstract that recent climate change is due to man made gases in the atmosphere. If 95% is not enough to qualify as consensus i'm not sure what is.

Where did you get the number 95 from, besides if took some research from 40 years ago we would be in deep do-do. And even if it is 95%, it is enough for 5% to be right.

Climate change has killed species off before but the issue here is whether or not *this* climate change is man-made and if therefore we can do anything about it and the evidence suggests that it is.

This here is kind of loop logic so I'm not really gonna comment it.

[Igor Hardy]

Yeah, but see, scientific consensus is not...well they don't agree that it's so much anthropogenic.

Actually about 95% of scientific papers on climate change written  in the last 40 years or so conclude in the abstract that recent climate change is due to man made gases in the atmosphere. If 95% is not enough to qualify as consensus i'm not sure what is.

But is there a consensus on the fact that it's really the consensus of 95% scientific papers and not for example of 9,5%?

Sorry, just trying to be annoying, while actually agreeing with your points.

[Calin Leafshade]

Ok well let's get a little more technical about it then.

Obviously it's certainly possible that those 5% could be correct and the consensus is wrong.

Let's start with *facts*. That is things that *all* scientists agree on because they are based on objective data.

1 - The earth is warming up and the warming started when mankind started to kick out CO2
2 - CO2 in the atmosphere does cause the earth to heat up. This is basic physics and well established fact.
3 - levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have be rising. Again this is measurable.

Those things are all facts. So where is the debate?

A few skeptics argue that the changes in Solar radiance have a greater impact on global climate than CO2 and a paper was published to that effect (Friis-Christensen 1991). The paper showed an almost perfect match with solar output and temperature without even considering CO2 in their calculations. However it was later shown that their model diverged in the last 50 years or so after the stats had been adjusted for local climate variations and that the suns output had remained fairly constant in that time and could not account for the recent rise.

Ok but what about the 1000 years previously? The graph still matched up perfectly then without factoring CO2. Why is it an issue now but not then?

The answer is simply that CO2 levels have been pretty much static for the past 1000 years and so havent been a driver of climate change until recently.

The other major objection raised was that it was possible that cosmic rays act as seeds for cloud cover. The more cosmic rays allowed to reach earth, the more clouds can form. However the amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth is related to solar output which we know has remained relatively static for the past 50 years so that hypothesis is also blown out the water.

With regards to the consensus I should also point out that almost (i say almost only in case there is one i dont know about) every climate monitoring body in the world accepts anthropogenic climate change.

Unless you can offer an alternative explanation for the rise in global temperature beyond "its just natural" I'm afraid your argument seems pretty flimsy.

[Tuomas]

It's because all them new wave people keep eating lettuce in stead of good old meat, and all the cows are left around to fart their asses off.

[Khris]

And even if it is 95%, it is enough for 5% to be right.

A conspiracy theorist would argue exactly like that. However we don't need 100% to be justified to hold a position and we can't get to 100% anyway, at least not in the way of "It's 100% sure that A caused B". There is no absolute certainty. We can get really, really close though.

The problem is, given that the 5% are actually right, why do 95% of scientists reach a conclusion not based on reality? There's either a serious flaw in their work (not very likely, given the scrutiny inside the scientific community) or they are part of a massive conspiracy (which they of course aren't).

What I'm saying is that at this point, we are justified to accept what the overwhelming majority of experts in the field tell us, even if it turns out to be wrong at some point in the future.
Reasonable doubt is a good thing, but the key word is "reasonable".

As for the numbers:


(2 unsure, 1 says we don't)

[NickyNyce]

What about this 100,000 year cycle I am hearing about, where every 100,000 years the earth goes through some rough changes in weather. Supposedly it's upon us, has anyone else heard this ?

[Anian]

Let's start with *facts*. That is things that *all* scientists agree on because they are based on objective data.

1 - The earth is warming up and the warming started when mankind started to kick out CO2
2 - CO2 in the atmosphere does cause the earth to heat up. This is basic physics and well established fact.
3 - levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have be rising. Again this is measurable.

Those things are all facts. So where is the debate?
...
Unless you can offer an alternative explanation for the rise in global temperature beyond "its just natural" I'm afraid your argument seems pretty flimsy.

Wait, if I argue that it's natural then my argument is flimsy? Why is that the default stance?
Second, your 3 facts are again not really the debate, nor do they indicate any sort of influence.

Also we run into the problem of me not actually disagreeing with the fact that humans do make an impact, but rather the extent of the influence.
And besides all this, who's to say this is not natural progression, life will go on, even if it's just rats and insects and parasites.

On the statistics, you still haven't explained the source of 95% of the scientists. I mean there's a physics profesor in USA that went on national tv and said that a black hole will open if LHC is started, claiming the odds are 50-50, it will either happen or it won't. On the other hand there's a profesor here who says we'll actually be sorry we haven't pumped out enough co2 into the atmosphere cause we're heading into a new ice age, also a friend who is a dr of marine biology and says the thing about the ice caps is that they never show the winter times on polar caps...and he's actually been to Greenland and the South pole to do research...again, consensus is a difficult thing to really pinpoint, not all scientists have the same credentials. Also on that note you really have to make the stuff seem more horrible than it is to actually start things and worry the right people enough so projects get started and something is actually done about the pollution and the negative influence the humanity has had on the enviroment.

[Calin Leafshade]

Wait, if I argue that it's natural then my argument is flimsy? Why is that the default stance?

Because 'It's natural' isn't an explanation. There must be a force driving the change in global temperatures. If it is natural then what is doing it? It's not the sun because the sun's output hasnt changed. The level of carbon gases in the atmosphere has changed and it's well established that it's humans that made it change.

Second, your 3 facts are again not really the debate, nor do they indicate any sort of influence.

My facts were just for context to show that CO2 is certainly a factor.

Also we run into the problem of me not actually disagreeing with the fact that humans do make an impact, but rather the extent of the influence.

Fine. Show your evidence.

And besides all this, who's to say this is not natural progression, life will go on, even if it's just rats and insects and parasites.

True but I don't see how thats relevant to whether or not humans are causing climate change.

On the statistics, you still haven't explained the source of 95% of the scientists.

Ok here: I'll use Khris' 97% stat instead

The 97% figure comes from two independent studies, each employing different methodologies. One study surveyed all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Another study directly asked earth scientists the following question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" They found 97% of actively publishing climate scientists answered yes (Doran 2009).

Notice that these are "actively publishing climate scientists" not some astrophysicist with shares in BP.

I mean there's a physics profesor in USA that went on national tv and said that a black hole will open if LHC is started, claiming the odds are 50-50, it will either happen or it won't.

You'll notice that he wasn't part of a 97% consensus.

On the other hand there's a profesor here who says we'll actually be sorry we haven't pumped out enough co2 into the atmosphere cause we're heading into a new ice age.

This was a common belief amongst scientists in the 70s. It was thought that pollutants and other aerosols would reflect the suns light and overcome the effects of carbon gases.
It was proven wrong. We moved on.

also a friend who is a dr of marine biology and says the thing about the ice caps is that they never show the winter times on polar caps

Ice caps are used in the media because they are obvious physical signs of change. They arent used by scientists to measure the current temperature of the earth. (although ice cores are used for historic proxy data)

consensus is a difficult thing to really pinpoint, not all scientists have the same credentials.

It's true that scientists don't all have the same credentials. Thats why surveys for scientific consensus are stratified and are only directed at "actively published climate scientists". So when I say that there is a 97% consensus amongst actively publishing climate scientists, thats exactly what i mean.

Also on that note you really have to make the stuff seem more horrible than it is to actually start things and worry the right people enough so projects get started and something is actually done about the pollution and the negative influence the humanity has had on the enviroment.

That's true if you are the IPCC or Al Gore but not if you are climate scientist. You can't fudge data in peer reviewed science. You get caught more or less instantly and your career is basically over. The peer review process is self-normalising because scientists check each others results to make sure they are valid.

[Intense Degree]

Because 'It's natural' isn't an explanation. There must be a force driving the change in global temperatures. If it is natural then what is doing it? It's not the sun because the sun's output hasnt changed. The level of carbon gases in the atmosphere has changed and it's well established that it's humans that made it change.

...but that logic doesn't apply to the origins of the universe itself, of course!

[Khris]

I mean there's a physics profesor in USA that went on national tv and said that a black hole will open if LHC is started, claiming the odds are 50-50, it will either happen or it won't.

Your point being? It was win-win for him; if a black hole had actually opened, he'd be the celebrated guy who was right when all in CERN were wrong (nobody would care that he didn't predict this would happen 100%). No black hole opened, but we will never know if it was a 50-50 chance, so nobody can say that he was wrong.
As far as I'm concerned, he should've shut up.

Wasn't a very very tiny black hole what the CERN guys in fact hoped for anyway? Don't know, just thought I'd heard something to that effect.

Because 'It's natural' isn't an explanation. [...]

...but that logic doesn't apply to the origins of the universe itself, of course!

Your point being? We (human scientists) have already established what caused global warming.
"It's natural" isn't an explanation with regard to "what caused global warming?", just as it isn't an explanation for "what killed JFK?"
Other things, like for instance earthquakes, have natural (as opposed to man-made) causes, just as the universe itself.

[Igor Hardy]

Well, I bet whatever humans will decide to do meaning to improve the situation, their method will only make it even worse for the nature in the long run, so ultimately it's not particularly important who will convince who what to spend money on.

[Intense Degree]

Your point being? We (human scientists) have already established what caused global warming.
"It's natural" isn't an explanation with regard to "what caused global warming?", just as it isn't an explanation for "what killed JFK?"
Other things, like for instance earthquakes, have natural (as opposed to man-made) causes, just as the universe itself.

Obviously, you are correct in terms of JFK, as even conspiracy theorists will accept that it was a bullet, or at least if they do not they deny it in the face of countless witnesses who were there at the time.

However, "it's natural" still is not enough for me for earthquakes or the universe itself. Even the mechanics of tectonic plate shift or the effect of volcanic eruptions do not go far enough (by which I mean they explain what is happening but not why) and I stick with Calin's logical process (although he did not apply it as I am doing and I am not suggesting that he did) to ask what is behind these things bringing about changes such as the origin of the universe. There must be a force doing/having done it.

Current scientific thinking tells us that there has been climate change previously and clearly not influenced by man. Why then can climate change not be natural? (not that I am saying it is in the present case). Because "it's natural" is not enough and there must be a force behind it.