[Agent_Koopa]

What the hell do you think peer review is?  The very essence of science is reaching a consensus, if not on absolutes, on the most likely conclusion.

The very essence of science is challenging the common perception or 'consensus' to further understand. If not, then the world would still be flat.

As stated before, scientists try their hardest to disprove their own theories, then submit it to others for the same. If all these overly critical people think something, then that's got to count for something. The consensus can be wrong at times, granted. But most people on Earth think it revolves around the Sun. The crazy homeless man on your street thinks it revolves around Neptune. Just because he challenges consensus does not mean he's right.

Oh, and I may be wrong here, but from what I recall, apart from a few religions out in the Caribbean, most religions have never thought the world to be flat. There were a few tubes and other odd shapes out there, but very very few believed in totally flat. Just an interesting fact

Edit : Double checked that, basically, most of the Western world has apparently accepted round since about 100 AD.

Actually, that's incorrect. Until the 1000s, the world was commonly thought to be banana-shaped.

[Wild Fragaria]

So migrant birds nesting earlier supports global warming, and Adelie penguins nesting later also supports global warming?  I'm sorry, but that reeks of BS.

So what's your proposed hypothesis other than the easy "BS"?   Climate is one of the key factors affecting bird nesting;  the nesting habits of each bird species have evolved over the ages to be matched to the climate so as to ensure a better offspring survival rate.  Changes in bird nesting are very much reactions forced by the change of climate.

Still wanna stick with "BS"?

[aldo_14]

The very essence of science is challenging the common perception or 'consensus' to further nderstand. If not, then the world would still be flat.

No, the essence of science is understanding.  If science only existed to challenge consensus, then we'd have a flat earth, then round earth, then star-shaped earth, then trapezoid earth........ if science is pointing in one way, then scientists don't disregard it because 'this must be challenged!', they merely keep investigating.  Much like how gravity and evolution are proven (insofar as any theory can be) through continual work and refinement.

[DeepSpace9er]

No, the essence of science is understanding.  If science only existed to challenge consensus, then we'd have a flat earth, then round earth, then star-shaped earth, then trapezoid earth........ if science is pointing in one way, then scientists don't disregard it because 'this must be challenged!', they merely keep investigating.  Much like how gravity and evolution are proven (insofar as any theory can be) through continual work and refinement.

The difference is, that gravity is proven. Jumping out a window will show you that. I think you misunderstood my point. There is very little definite fact in global warming and what affects climate change beyond individual scientific theory. The point i was trying to make was the anyone who challenges this 'consensus' on man-made global warming ie. IPCC report, is demonized and discredited in the scientific community. Wasnt Copernicus demonized for his theory on heliocentrism (when geocentrism was the consensus) which proved to be right?

[Flipside]

Gravity was not proven until Newton did his little demonstration off the top of the Tower of Piza, all everyone thought Gravity was, was a tendency for things to head towards the ground because they were heavy, not because they were physically being pulled there by the Earth. After Newton did his little demonstration and the results were analysed, the consensus was that Newton had hit on something very very important.

Scientists aren't perfect, it took the US Geological society years to accept Tectonics because it hadn't been suggested by a Geologist, that was pretty much purely down to ego by the Geologists, but, once again, scientific consensus won out.

[aldo_14]

No, the essence of science is understanding.  If science only existed to challenge consensus, then we'd have a flat earth, then round earth, then star-shaped earth, then trapezoid earth........ if science is pointing in one way, then scientists don't disregard it because 'this must be challenged!', they merely keep investigating.  Much like how gravity and evolution are proven (insofar as any theory can be) through continual work and refinement.

The difference is, that gravity is proven. Jumping out a window will show you that. I think you misunderstood my point. There is very little definite fact in global warming and what affects climate change beyond individual scientific theory. The point i was trying to make was the anyone who challenges this 'consensus' on man-made global warming ie. IPCC report, is demonized and discredited in the scientific community. Wasnt Copernicus demonized for his theory on heliocentrism (when geocentrism was the consensus) which proved to be right?

I think you misunderstand what science is.  Gravity is not 'things fall'.  It is 'why things fall'.  I'd like you to cite an instance of demonization, though.

[Ghostavo]

Gravity was not proven until Newton did his little demonstration off the top of the Tower of Piza, all everyone thought Gravity was, was a tendency for things to head towards the ground because they were heavy, not because they were physically being pulled there by the Earth. After Newton did his little demonstration and the results were analysed, the consensus was that Newton had hit on something very very important.

Scientists aren't perfect, it took the US Geological society years to accept Tectonics because it hadn't been suggested by a Geologist, that was pretty much purely down to ego by the Geologists, but, once again, scientific consensus won out.

Erm...Surely you are refering to Galileu's experiments with spheres down slopes perhaps? The Tower of Piza stuff is just an urban myth.

Also, the current theory of gravity is not proven. The graviton is still to be found and it's non-union with quantum mechanics means that one of them (if not both) are in a way, wrong.

[aldo_14]

Gravity was not proven until Newton did his little demonstration off the top of the Tower of Piza, all everyone thought Gravity was, was a tendency for things to head towards the ground because they were heavy, not because they were physically being pulled there by the Earth. After Newton did his little demonstration and the results were analysed, the consensus was that Newton had hit on something very very important.

Scientists aren't perfect, it took the US Geological society years to accept Tectonics because it hadn't been suggested by a Geologist, that was pretty much purely down to ego by the Geologists, but, once again, scientific consensus won out.

Erm...Surely you are refering to Galileu's experiments with spheres down slopes perhaps? The Tower of Piza stuff is just an urban myth.

Also, the current theory of gravity is not proven. The graviton is still to be found and it's non-union with quantum mechanics means that one of them (if not both) are in a way, wrong.

It is, however, as close to proven as you can define a scientific theory as being.  Obviously the very nature of science means that no theory is ever marked off as completely known, but you can still say things like evolution, gravity etc are "proven" under that implcit caveat thanks to overwhelming evidence supporting them.

[Flipside]

Erm...Surely you are refering to Galileu's experiments with spheres down slopes perhaps? The Tower of Piza stuff is just an urban myth.

I had a suspicion it was Galileo, but regardless of method, the point still stands, it was done to prove to a body of scientists and thus create a consensus of the behaviour of bodies. And whilst Gravity is far more complex than the original experiments revealed, we would never even have suspected had it not been accepted in the first place.

The important part is that a great many scientific standards have only been accepted once consensus is reached among the scientific community, which usually involves taking the problem apart several times and putting it back together.

[Goober5000]

Which means nothing unless they are qualified in this particular field, and I'm not seeing any evidence that they are. I looked at the petition page and it does not tell you what fields these people are in.

If you had followed both links in that sentence, not just the second, you would have seen a breakdown of the scientists who signed it.  Their names and specialties are both indicated.

Please stop deliberately misinterpreting my statements to create a strawman argument

How is this misinterpretation?  The Earth has warmed in the past; the Earth has cooled in the past.  The Earth was much warmer 1000 years ago than it is today, and no runaway greenhouse effect occured.  What sort of catastrophe are you worried about?

Why isn't it worth erring on the side of caution?

It is always worth erring on the side of caution, if this were a typical scenario.  But it's not -- it's a bunch of political demogogues hijacking science to increase governmental control.  It's a political struggle, not a scientific one.

So what's your proposed hypothesis other than the easy "BS"?

I don't have one, because I'm not a climatologist.  But as I said earlier, I know how to read the arguments of clientologists, and I have a not-too-shabby BS detector.

[Kosh]

I don't have one, because I'm not a climatologist.  But as I said earlier, I know how to read the arguments of clientologists, and I have a not-too-shabby BS detector.

So in other words you don't really know what you are talking about too well, but are going to go with your "intuition"?

If you had followed both links in that sentence, not just the second, you would have seen a breakdown of the scientists who signed it.  Their names and specialties are both indicated.

How do we know these people really are who they say they are?

The Earth was much warmer 1000 years ago than it is today,

Prove it. Show us some evidence from an organization not funded by the oil industry.

It is always worth erring on the side of caution, if this were a typical scenario.  But it's not -- it's a bunch of political demogogues hijacking science to increase governmental control.  It's a political struggle, not a scientific one.

This whole thing is part of an attack on science by the fundies. The real goal of this is to discredit science.

If this were a "political struggle", then why is it that many people in Europe accept global warming? And do you have any evidence that it is just "a bunch of political demogogues hijacking science"?

[Agent_Koopa]

It is always worth erring on the side of caution, if this were a typical scenario.  But it's not -- it's a bunch of political demogogues hijacking science to increase governmental control.  It's a political struggle, not a scientific one.

Governmental control of what? If the goverment accepts global warming, then there is pressure on the oil companies. If politicians use the issue as leverage to get the masses on their side, who cares? That's the same thing they've been doing forever! I think what you're saying is that politicians exaggerate the effects of global warming to get people scared and on their side, and that this exaggeration is totally separate from the scientists. But a vast number of scientists agree with this exaggeration. Some don't. Therein lies the real issue. The only reason that politicians are all over this is because that it's a very hot topic. It's semi-apocalyptic, for heaven's sake!

Al Gore knows that the vast majority of scientists believe global warming is caused by humans. I don't think he simply wanted to help people. Nobody ever simply wants to help people. But, as previously stated, just because it's a hot political topic doesn't mean the issue doesn't exist. The politicians aren't necessarily wrong, just as the scientific consensus doesn't necessarily have to be wrong. Sure, Copernicus challenged the world and got it right. But, for example, S. Warren Carey and a handful of other people thought (and still think) the Earth expanded over time. You believe in plate tectonics, right? S. Warren Carey didn't. S. Warren Carey was a minority. But that doesn't mean he's right.



And Kosh, present some real arguments.

[Goober5000]

Kosh, if you're just going to act like an asshole, you can kindly take it somewhere else.  Consider this a warning.

Governmental control of what? If the goverment accepts global warming, then there is pressure on the oil companies. If politicians use the issue as leverage to get the masses on their side, who cares? That's the same thing they've been doing forever! I think what you're saying is that politicians exaggerate the effects of global warming to get people scared and on their side, and that this exaggeration is totally separate from the scientists. But a vast number of scientists agree with this exaggeration. Some don't. Therein lies the real issue. The only reason that politicians are all over this is because that it's a very hot topic. It's semi-apocalyptic, for heaven's sake!

It's not apocalyptic, though, or even semi-apocalyptic.  We're nowhere near the highest temperature the Earth has experienced.  There is no such thing as an "ethically ideal" temperature anyway.

The problem with global warming is that it's politically correct to say that humans are behind it.  If scientists want to continue to receive government funding, they need to find evidence to support this position.  If they don't find evidence, their funding gets cut off.

The problem is, there's more evidence that humans aren't behind it, but no government want to fund that.  So scientists have to find their funding from somewhere else, or go hungry.

As to why governments are interested in global warming: it's a means of control.  It gives them an excuse to impose taxes (e.g. on pollution) and it allows them to pass regulations and create bureaucracies.

But, as previously stated, just because it's a hot political topic doesn't mean the issue doesn't exist. The politicians aren't necessarily wrong, just as the scientific consensus doesn't necessarily have to be wrong.

Agreed.  But everything I've read suggests strongly that the politicians are making a much bigger deal out of this than they should.  And when I read articles and documents that show significant disagreement between climatologists on what exactly is going on, I get very suspicious of the motives of people who are promoting a single exclusive interpretation.

[Ace]

Actually, that's incorrect. Until the 1000s, the world was commonly thought to be banana-shaped.

Columbus also believed it was shaped like a pear... or breast... with the "Indies" at the teat.

Pretty different from the little kiddie books, eh?

...and we all know that the southern hemisphere is uninhabitable... far too hot. (this part is what educated people debated, as they did know the general shape and size from Greek mathematics and early experiments... and Columbus botched his math saying the world was smaller than it was known to be... let alone the wrong shape...)

[aldo_14]

Please stop deliberately misinterpreting my statements to create a strawman argument

How is this misinterpretation?  The Earth has warmed in the past; the Earth has cooled in the past.  The Earth was much warmer 1000 years ago than it is today, and no runaway greenhouse effect occured.  What sort of catastrophe are you worried about?

I don't see any point explaining myself or the fears global warming entails for the nth time, given that you've clearly been ignoring them thus far.  Quite how you can claim to be a 'bs detector' without even knowing what the risk entailed by global warming is, is beyond me.

Also, you have absolutely no evidence for that 1000 year figure, given that temperature proxies beyond the 1600s or so are known to be unreliable and there is no basis for stating the MWP existed on a scale outside medieval europe.  Strangely, I've pointed this out before - still not reading?

Why isn't it worth erring on the side of caution?

It is always worth erring on the side of caution, if this were a typical scenario.  But it's not -- it's a bunch of political demogogues hijacking science to increase governmental control.  It's a political struggle, not a scientific one.

Yes, because the US administration is sooooooooo interested in strenthening itself by hurting the major party political donors...... oh, wait, the other one. It's always struck me as utterly bizarre to attack global warming as 'political' when the most powerful economic - and hence political - groups in the world are the polluting industries.  We have instances like a former Exxonv lobbyist, now White house aide watering down climate reports, or the White House stifling discussion of the effects of climate change on polar bears, yet somehow we're expected to believe in some bizarre Michael-Chricton wet-dream of massively powerful environmentalists controlling the worlds' governments.

So what's your proposed hypothesis other than the easy "BS"?

I don't have one, because I'm not a climatologist.  But as I said earlier, I know how to read the arguments of clientologists, and I have a not-too-shabby BS detector.

Then why do you quote links from paid & funded industrial lobby - dare I even say political - groups as if they were unbiased science?  To me that's where the BS detector should be going PING PING PING PING, same as it does with other fundamentally biased groups like the Discovery Institute.

[Bobboau]

"...temperature proxies beyond the 1600s or so are known to be unreliable..."

well now your side of the argument can't say the earth is hotter than it's been in a million years.

[aldo_14]

"...temperature proxies beyond the 1600s or so are known to be unreliable..."

well now your side of the argument can't say the earth is hotter than it's been in a million years.

I don't believe it did say that.......  the only claim is that it's hotter than it's ever been in reliable recorded history (i.e. until the proxies become unreliable).

The point is that the proxies used to claim a medieval warm period are simply not suitable for such a claim, because (for example) they are limited to the northern hemisphere.  Things like global climate cycles are, I believe, based on a geological timescale of thousands and millions of years; the methods used for them aren't amenable to such a 'short term' period as, say, 1000 to 1600AD.

Although checking this graph (I know, I know - Wikipedia.  It's sunday, I'm lazy) indicates that we're still in a stage of being hotter than the MWP which, AFAIK, has only even been confirmed as a european phenomenon.

[TrashMan]

The problem with global warming is that it's politically correct to say that humans are behind it.  If scientists want to continue to receive government funding, they need to find evidence to support this position.  If they don't find evidence, their funding gets cut off.

Isn't it the other way around?

The problem is, there's more evidence that humans aren't behind it, but no government want to fund that.  So scientists have to find their funding from somewhere else, or go hungry.

If such evidence exists I havn't seen it yet. I live in a small, clean town (a village by US terms). Or at least I used to. I remeber how it was 20 years ago and how it is now. My parents and grandparents remeber far further back.
And it's getting worse - not only the local pollution, but the climate itself - it's geting more extreeme and unpredictable.

While planetary cycles do exist, only a blind man could fail to see we're speeding it up drasticly.

[DeepSpace9er]

If such evidence exists I havn't seen it yet. I live in a small, clean town (a village by US terms). Or at least I used to. I remeber how it was 20 years ago and how it is now. My parents and grandparents remeber far further back.
And it's getting worse - not only the local pollution, but the climate itself - it's geting more extreeme and unpredictable.

While planetary cycles do exist, only a blind man could fail to see we're speeding it up drasticly.

First part: anecdotal evidence that doesnt hold much for proving the world is warming because it was warm last week at home.

Second part: Calling people blind in not believing in man made global warming is pretty much turning the whole movement into a religion, and that any scientist who disagrees with it is stupid, ignorant, and a 'blasphemer' of the religion.

[Bobboau]

well, my biggest problem with either side claiming to have an answer is it simply is imposable at this point for us to have enough data to make a causality, or for that matter even a strong corelational argument, the earth is 4 billion years old, if humans have been impacting the environment in a significant way it wouldn't have started shooting up until the most recent 50 years, 50/4 billion is not a lot of data. about all we can say for certainty is that the earth is a bit warmer now than it has been on average for the last few thousand years. if you through in all the variables and ice ages and the fact that humans are more productive when the planet is warmer, I find it hard to accept that a strong causal relationship can be shown at this point.