[Hazaanko]

"Doctor, if you keep doing that, the patient may die!"

"I'll wait to see if she does before I believe you!"

Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. Just because nobody can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that we are having no effect, doesn't give us license to act like idiots. The consequences are ia bit steep if the politics override the science, and the science turns out to be right.

Sorry, not willing to trade my children's future for your profit (political or otherwise) today.

Yes... because global warming is going to kill our planet.  Did you go to the same school as those kids in the video?

Then by all means lets prepare for worldwide nuclear destruction, comets destroying our planet, a planet-killing solar flare, a worldwide earth-shifting quake, tsunami, imminent alien invasion, spontaneous mass combustion, biological super-outbreak, zombies, godzilla... etc.

Tell me, Inquisitor, even though all those things are certainly a possibility, why wouldn't we do anything about them, right?  I mean, I REALLY don't want my kids to be eaten by me when I turn out to be a zombie.  http://65.127.124.62/south_asia/4483241.stm.htm

[TrashMan]

Finally, why exactly are we to take the side of 4 scientists in the face of the 3500 in the IPCC?

QFT!

[Hazaanko]

Finally, why exactly are we to take the side of 4 scientists in the face of the 3500 in the IPCC?

#1: because of those 3500, very few are actual scientists

#2: because like the 4, there are many others like them who are not being heard.

[Inquisitor]

Yes... because global warming is going to kill our planet.  Did you go to the same school as those kids in the video?

Wow, you are dense. And obviously unable to read. Touche'

Since you have decided insults are the order of the day, checking out now. Cheers, good luck with your "debate."

[Hazaanko]

Yes... because global warming is going to kill our planet.  Did you go to the same school as those kids in the video?

Wow, you are dense. And obviously unable to read. Touche'

Since you have decided insults are the order of the day, checking out now. Cheers, good luck with your "debate."

When you troll, prepare to be trolled in return.  And note that I made no directed insult, as you yourself have just done.  I was just jesting - no reason to get offended dude.

The point is, people are getting as worked up about the whole thing as those kids in the video.  "We're all going to die because nobody is willing to make a decision."

A personal example.  My grandmother got pretty sick some years back.  The doc checked her out, diagnosed the problem, and gave her some drugs to treat it.  A few years later she wasn't getting any better, and the drugs she was using had some pretty bad side-effects.  Turns out it had been a WRONG DIAGNOSIS.  And she went through those years of torture for nothing.  If the doc had asked just a few more questions and gotten some other opinions, he probably could have given her the right stuff.

Even some of the most extreme global warming alarmists conclude that the threat isn't that great.  If they're right, the temperature will raise a few degrees - something well within the range of what the earth has been doing for millions of years.  Why start panicking SO MUCH about something that we are FORCED to make hasty decisions based upon a few inconclusive theories and when there is a substantial amount of disagreement?  That being said - I refer you to the above linked articles (on page 2)

P.S.  People think this whole thing is made up because evil corporations want to make evil proft from it.  It doesn't matter who wins out the argument, profit will be made from it.  Whether you be oil company, petrolium shareholder, environmental activist, journalist, scientist, or government... there will be profit... so don't make this an argument about who gets what profit.

[IceFire]

"Doctor, if you keep doing that, the patient may die!"

"I'll wait to see if she does before I believe you!"

Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. Just because nobody can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that we are having no effect, doesn't give us license to act like idiots. The consequences are ia bit steep if the politics override the science, and the science turns out to be right.

Sorry, not willing to trade my children's future for your profit (political or otherwise) today.

Yes... because global warming is going to kill our planet.  Did you go to the same school as those kids in the video?

Then by all means lets prepare for worldwide nuclear destruction, comets destroying our planet, a planet-killing solar flare, a worldwide earth-shifting quake, tsunami, imminent alien invasion, spontaneous mass combustion, biological super-outbreak, zombies, godzilla... etc.

Tell me, Inquisitor, even though all those things are certainly a possibility, why wouldn't we do anything about them, right?  I mean, I REALLY don't want my kids to be eaten by me when I turn out to be a zombie.  http://65.127.124.62/south_asia/4483241.stm.htm

Oh I think the planet will out last us...thats the concern

[Kosh]

Finally, why exactly are we to take the side of 4 scientists in the face of the 3500 in the IPCC?

#1: because of those 3500, very few are actual scientists

#2: because like the 4, there are many others like them who are not being heard.

#1: Got any proof of that?

#2: Yes, many unheard scientists such as Philip A. Cooney, the lawyer from the oil and gas industry who was caught editing EPA global warming reports to downplay it's significance, or worse, cover it up.

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/climate-change.html

[Mefustae]

#1: because of those 3500, very few are actual scientists

Kosh brings up a rather good point about this. That's sort of an unsubstantiated statement.

#2: because like the 4, there are many others like them who are not being heard.

Unless it's 3496 others, you haven't really got a leg to stand on!

Anyway, if there's profit to be had either way as you say, then why are you so dead-set against any movement towards decreasing our greenhouse gas output? Like you said, there's profit either way, so economic reasons are out. If you believe we can't warm the planet, you obviously can't believe that curbing our emissions could cool the planet and cause an ice-age. Hmmm, quite a conundrum.

It's all well and good to say you don't agree with the science, but how can you vehemently disagree with making our technology a damn sight greener, something that will undeniably help us a great deal in the future?

[WeatherOp]

Finally, why exactly are we to take the side of 4 scientists in the face of the 3500 in the IPCC?

#1: because of those 3500, very few are actual scientists

#2: because like the 4, there are many others like them who are not being heard.

#1: Got any proof of that?

I may be missing something, but he might be right.

http://www.ipcc.ch/about/faq/IPCC%20Who%20is%20who.pdf

The IPCC Bureau
Members of the IPCC Bureau are normally
elected for the duration of the preparation of an
IPCC Assessment Report (5-6 years). They
should be experts in the field of climate change
and all regions should be represented in the
IPCC Bureau. The Bureau is chaired by the Chair
of the IPCC and is composed of the Co-Chairs of
the three IPCC Working Groups and the Task
Force Bureau on National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories, IPCC Vice-Chairs and Vice-Chairs of
the Working Groups. Presently the IPCC Bureau
has 30 members.

I may be missing something, but as far as I can tell, only 30 work with the IPCC itself, then they basicly choose what other scientists they want to use.

Hundreds of experts from all over the world are
contributing to the preparation of IPCC reports
as authors, contributors and reviewers. They
are selected by the Working Group Bureaux
from nominations received from governments
and participating organisations or identified
directly because of their special expertise
reflected in their publications and works. The
composition of lead author teams for chapters
of IPCC reports shall reflect a range of views,
expertise and geographical representation.

[Bobboau]

I would like to once again point out a flaw in a form of argument that has been used a fair few times. I would like you to pretend that it is 2003 and the US is about to invade Iraq because we knew they had been working on nukes years ago and couldn't prove they weren't doing so now. at the time an argument was used to much effect.

"there are two possibilities, Saddam Husein is makeing nukes or he is not, and there are two posable courses of action, we can take him out of power and rebuild his state into a democracy or we can leave him in power and let him do whatever he wants.
if we are wrong and he is not makeing nukes then the two possibilities are that we don't invade and he keeps his hold on the country indefinitely, or we do invade and liberate his country and give the 25 million inhabitants freedom i the first time in a generation.
but if we are right, there is no option but to invade because if we don't the repercussions are devastating beyond imagine, not cost would be to great to prevent that from happening!"

now look ware we are it turned out the evidence we thought we had for nukes was all either BS or totally inouculs, and the cost is going out of control and might prove more damaging than a full nuclear war.

but the more important point is that the point of this line of argument wasn't to try to convince you based on some cost benefit logic, the point of the argument was to distract you with visions of an apocalyptic disaster so you'd forget about the actual important question. does Saddam have nukes?

I just thought I'd bring that up before someone started talking about 'the children' again.

[Hazaanko]

#1: because of those 3500, very few are actual scientists

Kosh brings up a rather good point about this. That's sort of an unsubstantiated statement.

#2: because like the 4, there are many others like them who are not being heard.

Unless it's 3496 others, you haven't really got a leg to stand on!

Anyway, if there's profit to be had either way as you say, then why are you so dead-set against any movement towards decreasing our greenhouse gas output? Like you said, there's profit either way, so economic reasons are out. If you believe we can't warm the planet, you obviously can't believe that curbing our emissions could cool the planet and cause an ice-age. Hmmm, quite a conundrum.

It's all well and good to say you don't agree with the science, but how can you vehemently disagree with making our technology a damn sight greener, something that will undeniably help us a great deal in the future?

Wow, you all really need to read what I said first and not jump to your own conclusions.  When did I ever say I vehemently disagreed with making our technology a damn sight greener?  In fact, I said I supported it if you'd go back and read my first few posts.

Secondly, if you would have read those other articles I'd linked, and that others have linked, you would already have your answers.

P.S.  Nice find, by the way WeatherOp.  Here's another one:  http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=B35C36A3-802A-23AD-46EC-6880767E7966

[Mefustae]

Wow, you all really need to read what I said first and not jump to your own conclusions.  When did I ever say I vehemently disagreed with making our technology a damn sight greener?  In fact, I said I supported it if you'd go back and read my first few posts.

Okay, my bad. But you still haven't answered why we should take the word of 4 dissenting scientists over many, many more in the IPCC. Nor have you explained who all these masses of people are that are being silenced by the sinister Global Warming lobby.

*Snip*

I'd say that's a pretty bad analogy. Not only is it a loaded question, but the situation is completely different. Let me set it out to mirror the argument for action on Global Warming:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saddam Hussein has got WMDs:

Invade - Hussein's WMDs are shut down,  but the nation destabilizes. Military become stuck in a quagmire and ultimate future of nation in serious question. Chaotic situation becomes breeding-ground for terrorists. This was all predicted by Dick Cheney back in the early 90's, mind you.
 
Don't invade - Nation and entire region remains relatively stable, but in a future conflict Hussein uses his WMDs to kill massive amounts of people.

Saddam Hussein has not got WMDs:

Invade - No WMDs are found an the nation destabilizes. Military become stuck in a quagmire and ultimate future of nation in serious question. Chaotic situation becomes breeding-ground for terrorists.

Don't invade - Nation and region remains relatively stable. Things keep on going as they have, nation could potentially collapse in the future due to sanctions, but nothing concrete.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, when you look at that, it would seem as though the best option to take would be to invade, saving a large amount of people in some future conflict. However, invasion will inevitably lead to a quagmire if you're right or you're wrong, so doing so would be going in with the knowledge that the nation and region would destabilize, the military would be stuck in there, and the place would become a breeding ground for terrorists. Ultimately, there is a 100% chance of a negative end result for invasion, but only a 50% chance for a negative result for not invading.

Add to that the fact that I find it incredulous that you would see the argument for Global Warming in any way similar to the "argument" for Saddam's WMDs. On one hand, we're talking a massive number of nations and governmental bodies - not to mention a majority of the scientific community - agreeing with the conclusion that there is man-made Global Warming. On the other, you've got barely two governments working with information that most know to be false, doing everything they can to derail attempts to find the truth.

Furthermore, it's worth noting that the apocalyptic view is only the very worst-case scenario, and that there are a multitude of far lesser end-games we could see occur. However, the fact remains that the threat of an apocalypse, however fanciful, is far worse than the alternative of the worst-case scenario for making our technology greener and Global Warming not happening.

I just thought I'd bring that up before someone started talking about 'the children' again.

Yes, because worrying about future generations is shortsighted and stupid.

[Hazaanko]

Wow, you all really need to read what I said first and not jump to your own conclusions.  When did I ever say I vehemently disagreed with making our technology a damn sight greener?  In fact, I said I supported it if you'd go back and read my first few posts.

Okay, my bad. But you still haven't answered why we should take the word of 4 dissenting scientists over many, many more in the IPCC. Nor have you explained who all these masses of people are that are being silenced by the sinister Global Warming lobby.

*Snip*

I'd say that's a pretty bad analogy. Not only is it a loaded question, but the situation is completely different. Let me set it out to mirror the argument for action on Global Warming:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saddam Hussein has got WMDs:

Invade - Hussein's WMDs are shut down,  but the nation destabilizes. Military become stuck in a quagmire and ultimate future of nation in serious question. Chaotic situation becomes breeding-ground for terrorists. This was all predicted by Dick Cheney back in the early 90's, mind you.
 
Don't invade - Nation and entire region remains relatively stable, but in a future conflict Hussein uses his WMDs to kill massive amounts of people.

Saddam Hussein has not got WMDs:

Invade - No WMDs are found an the nation destabilizes. Military become stuck in a quagmire and ultimate future of nation in serious question. Chaotic situation becomes breeding-ground for terrorists.

Don't invade - Nation and region remains relatively stable. Things keep on going as they have, nation could potentially collapse in the future due to sanctions, but nothing concrete.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, when you look at that, it would seem as though the best option to take would be to invade, saving a large amount of people in some future conflict. However, invasion will inevitably lead to a quagmire if you're right or you're wrong, so doing so would be going in with the knowledge that the nation and region would destabilize, the military would be stuck in there, and the place would become a breeding ground for terrorists. Ultimately, there is a 100% chance of a negative end result for invasion, but only a 50% chance for a negative result for not invading.

Add to that the fact that I find it incredulous that you would see the argument for Global Warming in any way similar to the "argument" for Saddam's WMDs. On one hand, we're talking a massive number of nations and governmental bodies - not to mention a majority of the scientific community - agreeing with the conclusion that there is man-made Global Warming. On the other, you've got barely two governments working with information that most know to be false, doing everything they can to derail attempts to find the truth.

Furthermore, it's worth noting that the apocalyptic view is only the very worst-case scenario, and that there are a multitude of far lesser end-games we could see occur. However, the fact remains that the threat of an apocalypse, however fanciful, is far worse than the alternative of making our technology greener and Global Warming not happening.

I just thought I'd bring that up before someone started talking about 'the children' again.

Yes, because worrying about future generations is shortsighted and stupid.

The problem with analogies is that they only go so far.  They're not the exact situation, so they really can only be used as a point if all people present agree on the base of the example.  While I can see where Bobbau and Mefustae are coming from, the Iraq situation would be a bad correlation.  I vote to drop it before it becomes a red herring with a will of its own.

Again Mefustae, you have once more missed every single link that I and others have posted.  Really - if you want an answer go click on the link.  Clicky click click click.  Seriously.  Don't argue here unless you're willing to read the evidence that is posted here that you ask for.  Look, I'll even post some of the more pertinent ones -again-

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=B35C36A3-802A-23AD-46EC-6880767E7966
http://www.ipcc.ch/about/faq/IPCC%20Who%20is%20who.pdf
http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21977
http://www.infowars.net/articles/august2007/300807Warming.htm

[Bobboau]

Mefustae, I think you missed my point.

I was attacking a common argumentation style used by many people rather than discussing the situation directly.

[Bobboau]

Hazaanko, since we are on the same "side" for the moment this feels a bit award but, at least those last two links are BS and if you are going to seriously try to argue this stuff you should recognize this. the first one doesn't work and the second one being a direct source from the IPCC could be used for a valid attack on them if they admit to something in it. but I could find 5000 people who could be accurately described as "qualified researchers" who would agree with just about anything I wanted, 500 is nothing and even if it's five billion people it could still be wrong.
the fourth one is just a mess. I really doubt 528 is a decent sample size for climate related papers, 'medical researcher' is hardly the sort of person who should be compiling these sorts of statistics professionally, neutral doesn't mean oppose, it means they were either on some topic completely unrelated or was worded as to not take sides, which scientific papers generally strive for. and once again it seems you are trying to make some sort of broken "everyone else is doing it" argument. if there is wide spread consensus on a subject is irrelevant to whether it's correct or not.
it's no wonder no one wants to read your links if this is there content.

but more importantly, you should make your arguments yourself, not offload them onto "experts" who present you with a fancy sounding statistic. you should look at the data behind what is being discussed and try to make your own conclusions from it, based on what's known and what can be accurately mathematically extrapolated.

[Kosh]

I may be missing something, but he might be right.

http://www.ipcc.ch/about/faq/IPCC%20Who%20is%20who.pdf

So basically what you are saying is that anyone who isn't permenantly on the IPCC is not a scientist? Again, it proves nothing unless you know the backgrounds of all the people.


And considering how he has so quickly dismissed Inquisitor, someone who actually does have real experience doing real research into this, I wouldn't buy his "well they aren't real experts because I said so" arguement.


Infowars is just a conspiracy theory website owned and operated by the same guy who runs prison planet. There was a video on youtube somewhere of him giving a big speech about how everything is a conspiracy by a cabal of one worlders.

[Mefustae]

Mefustae, I think you missed my point.

I was attacking a common argumentation style used by many people rather than discussing the situation directly.

Urgh, didn't read the first sentence of your post!

Ain't my face red, you actually make a good point. Falling back on a purely logical choice, you do sort of miss out on potential variables. However, the argument - as outlined by IceFire - should not be discounted entirely.

1) Global warming is caused by us and we do something
2) Global warming is caused by us and we do nothing
3) Global warming is not caused by us and we do something
4) Global warming is not caused by us and we do nothing

It gives a clear, uncompromising view of the worst case scenarios for every choice, and - using logic - demonstrates the only reasonable avenue of advance. Ultimately, the worst that can happen if we act and nothing happens is far, far less severe than the worst that can happen if we don't act and something does happen. Nobody is saying that Global Warming will definitely, unequivocally result in armageddon, merely that a statistically significant possibility exists that should not go unchecked.

It's all about simple risk management: Do we really want to take the risk just because not everybody agrees? Do we really want to take the risk because we can't be stuffed doing what will eventually be done at some point in the future anyway? Do we really want to take the risk because there's a chance nothing will happen?

[WeatherOp]

I may be missing something, but he might be right.

http://www.ipcc.ch/about/faq/IPCC%20Who%20is%20who.pdf

So basically what you are saying is that anyone who isn't permenantly on the IPCC is not a scientist? Again, it proves nothing unless you know the backgrounds of all the people.

Ehh? Where did I say that? He posted that most IPCC are not scientists and from the looks of it that is correct as only 30 experts work on the main issues for the IPCC directly. Perhaps you should read the second half of my post.

[Kosh]

Again, you just now said that if they don't work for the IPCC directly they must not be scientists (or at least that is what you implied)

Hundreds of experts from all over the world are
contributing to the preparation of IPCC reports
as authors, contributors and reviewers. They
are selected by the Working Group Bureaux
from nominations received from governments
and participating organisations or identified
directly because of their special expertise
reflected in their publications and works.

And yes, I did read the second part of your post.

[Bobboau]

1) Global warming is caused by us and we do something
2) Global warming is caused by us and we do nothing
3) Global warming is not caused by us and we do something
4) Global warming is not caused by us and we do nothing

It gives a clear, uncompromising view of the worst case scenarios for every choice, and - using logic - demonstrates the only reasonable avenue of advance. Ultimately, the worst that can happen if we act and nothing happens is far, far less severe than the worst that can happen if we don't act and something does happen. Nobody is saying that Global Warming will definitely, unequivocally result in armageddon, merely that a statistically significant possibility exists that should not go unchecked.

It's all about simple risk management: Do we really want to take the risk just because not everybody agrees? Do we really want to take the risk because we can't be stuffed doing what will eventually be done at some point in the future anyway? Do we really want to take the risk because there's a chance nothing will happen?

well first of all I take issue with the word 'caused', worsened I could accept for argument, but it is quite clearly established that the earth has been warming quite rapidly for the last ~15 thousand years. there was a bit of a lul that bottomed out in the middle ages, but aside from that it's been getting nothing but hotter in recent history, and not understanding this I believe is a major flaw in most people's understanding of the complexities of this issue.

but no matter how tamely it's phrased the point still is, you are focusing on the consequences of an even when the subject of the discussion is if the event is even happening at all.

now given the youthfulness of climatology (about 30 years old), it's erroneous history (climatologists DID say we were headed for another ice age not TOO long ago), the culture surrounding it (which I think to a much diluted degree can be represented in this very discussion, note how receptive some people are to the possibility global warming as it is presently presented might be wrong ("I won't let you kill my children for your profit"), imagine what it might be like to work in an organisation which was founded to explain, quantify, and provide suggestions about man's effect on global warming. not saying the IPCC are a cabal trying to brainwash everyone, but there is bound to be some pressure, as there is in all cultures, not to rock the boat. [wow I put a lot of text in these parentheses]), the small sample set of years that it is operating on (200 out of four billion), the fact that virtually all the data used to present humanity as the 'cause' of global warming is correlative and not causal, and the unusual extremes that the present time represents (the CO2 levels of earth are currently at a nearly all time low, the temperatures of earth are unusually cold historically), I really don't think that humanity's status as primary factor should be said with such certainty. it's up for debate if we are even a tipping point factor (especially if you factor in that CO2 is actually both a much less effective greenhouse gas than, for example water vapor, as well as less abundant) as far as I'm concerned. even if you accept a major role for human produced GHGs in the current warming trend we might possibly be able to slow it down by a few hundred years, but if you look at the history the earth is definitely going to get a lot hotter sooner or later (probably sooner), our resources would be better spent trying to figure a way to live with higher global temperatures than to try to fight what seems to me an unwinnable battle against nature. focusing solely on the preventative side is definitely a fatal mistake.