[Mars]

---
The problem with the climate change debate is the skeptic side is largely populated by people with a barely-literate grasp of high school chemistry and biology, along with a few genuine impartial academics that are mostly trying to poke holes in some parts of the theory rather than address the fairly obvious question:

that is COMPLETELY false.  that's just the image most media would have you believe, because guess whose side they are on?  i know i've put the following statement from a physics professor at my university who actually studies climate physics, rather than manufacture trends from broad sets of data.

"The media claims there is an alliance of scientists who say man made climate change is proven.  Which is true, there IS such a group of 100 or so scientists.  However, there is also a consortium of 30,000 scientists who say that we don't, and with our current very limited understanding of climate physics, can't know that man-made global warming exists.  Anyone who claims climate-change 'fact' has an agenda to sell."

How many papers and labs have you read? How well do you know the science. Like me, you seem to have no legitimate claim to any knowledge of this. Media will say what media will say, I believe, based on previous experience, that the people you're arguing with probably have a lot of real education and have access to more actual documentation than vague claims of media injustice and hearsay testiment of a random university professor.

EDIT:

Also, what evidence do you have that the media is portraying things one way, what sources did your quote site. Do you honestly believe that there are only 100 qualified scientists who believe that humans are causing a significant change to the climate? I have no education to be in this discussion in any other capacity, but I can assure you that the number is much higher, thousands of scientists.

[watsisname]

---
The problem with the climate change debate is the skeptic side is largely populated by people with a barely-literate grasp of high school chemistry and biology, along with a few genuine impartial academics that are mostly trying to poke holes in some parts of the theory rather than address the fairly obvious question:

that is COMPLETELY false.  that's just the image most media would have you believe, because guess whose side they are on?  i know i've put the following statement from a physics professor at my university who actually studies climate physics, rather than manufacture trends from broad sets of data.

"The media claims there is an alliance of scientists who say man made climate change is proven.  Which is true, there IS such a group of 100 or so scientists.  However, there is also a consortium of 30,000 scientists who say that we don't, and with our current very limited understanding of climate physics, can't know that man-made global warming exists.  Anyone who claims climate-change 'fact' has an agenda to sell."

No, sorry, but I do not buy that claim at all.

Can you tell us precisely which consortium of 30,000 scientists you're referring to?

[Nemesis6]

---
The problem with the climate change debate is the skeptic side is largely populated by people with a barely-literate grasp of high school chemistry and biology, along with a few genuine impartial academics that are mostly trying to poke holes in some parts of the theory rather than address the fairly obvious question:

that is COMPLETELY false.  that's just the image most media would have you believe, because guess whose side they are on?  i know i've put the following statement from a physics professor at my university who actually studies climate physics, rather than manufacture trends from broad sets of data.

"The media claims there is an alliance of scientists who say man made climate change is proven.  Which is true, there IS such a group of 100 or so scientists.  However, there is also a consortium of 30,000 scientists who say that we don't, and with our current very limited understanding of climate physics, can't know that man-made global warming exists.  Anyone who claims climate-change 'fact' has an agenda to sell."

No, sorry, but I do not buy that claim at all.

Can you tell us precisely which consortium of 30,000 scientists you're referring to?

I've heard this claim before; I believe it refers to the "Oregon" petition where some global warming deniers started a petition, and it's a mish-mash of about 30.000(sounds about right) of varying professions, from physicists to dentists, opposing global warming. It's a kind of talking point that goes around the anti-science community - Person A claims that the vast majority of scientists agree with the theory of global warming, and denialists respond with this. Turns out pranksters have added fakes to it as well, which is probably why "Geri Halliwell, PhD" was among the scientists for some time until they removed that one. Oh and the person behind it is a right wing nutjob, not that that changes anything on the face of it, I'm just saying. Anyway, anyone who wants to suddenly be a scientist, just sign that petition!

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

[Bobboau]

looks like the Oregon Petition is aimed at the Kyoto Protocol, which is quite a different target from global warming.

[Nemesis6]

looks like the Oregon Petition is aimed at the Kyoto Protocol, which is quite a different target from global warming.

It's not really about the Kyoto Protocol. Rather, denialists use it as a "See? 30,000 scientists say there's no global warming!" token.

[Luis Dias]

There is a difference between "global warming" and "catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of earth's climate", but this kind of science-by-numbers **** is really amazingly just wrong. The IPCC report isn't about a collection of numbers of opinions by the scientists, it's a collection of scientific papers.

[Bobboau]

...

ok, it's aimed at both.

[karajorma]

looks like the Oregon Petition is aimed at the Kyoto Protocol, which is quite a different target from global warming.

I'll see your claim and raise you a "No one who brings up the Oregon Petition as serious proof of anything understands the difference anyway"

[Bobboau]

well I'd never see/heard of it before. so sorry, my reaction was after skimming the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article.

[karajorma]

Not having a go at you, just those who think it's actually worth anything. Anyone who does has about the same understanding of the difference between Kyoto and Global Warming as they do between arse and elbow.

[Goober5000]

Ah, sure, but that's different. Could we at least get back on topic.

If you ask someone for an answer and then complain at them for being off-topic when they supply it again, you won't be taking part in the rest of this debate.

That's unnecessarily harsh.  Meanwhile NGTM1-R made two unsubstantiated drive-by attacks and you didn't say a word to him.

[karajorma]

Not really. I explained to him in PM that he'd basically replied to Joshua and then said "but don't answer me back cause it's off-topic"

That's a pretty underhanded debating tactic. Far worse than drive-by posting.

[Bobboau]

actually it seemed more like asking a question, then realizing that it wasn't relevant.

[Mars]

At which point, he should have wiped out everything he just wrote, or perhaps asked for a split.

[QuantumDelta]

There is a difference between "global warming" and "catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of earth's climate", but this kind of science-by-numbers **** is really amazingly just wrong. The IPCC report isn't about a collection of numbers of opinions by the scientists, it's a collection of scientific papers.

Hmmm? Global warming doesn't have to be to the point of 'catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of Earth's climate" for it to be too bad for us as a specie to survive as we are.
We're already in an unsustainable position, with incredible population growth and ridiculous food consumption.
Any arable land we lose to the effects of climate change /at all/ means we're that much more ****ed.

[Luis Dias]

There is a difference between "global warming" and "catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of earth's climate", but this kind of science-by-numbers **** is really amazingly just wrong. The IPCC report isn't about a collection of numbers of opinions by the scientists, it's a collection of scientific papers.

Hmmm? Global warming doesn't have to be to the point of 'catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of Earth's climate" for it to be too bad for us as a specie to survive as we are.

By definition, it does. Else, it wouldn't be called "catastrophic". Doh!

We're already in an unsustainable position, with incredible population growth and ridiculous food consumption.

Ahhhh ... no.

Any arable land we lose to the effects of climate change /at all/ means we're that much more ****ed.

There will be (obviously) climate winners and losers. In a global warming scenario it is quite likely we would see Russia rising as a major agricultural power in the world. There is not enough evidence to tell us that the total arable land in the world would diminish. Food supplies depend much much more upon human activities than what the climate will dictate in the foresseable future.

[QuantumDelta]

Ahhhh ... no.

What planet do you live on?
If it were not for the fact that a great proportion of humanity lives on a day to day basis not eating the caloric requirement for their bodies every day, we would be fecked.
If everyone ate like an american, or even a western european (who, aren't anywhere near as bad, but are bad enough) then we would require more than two planets the size of earth in terms of eco system to sustain our population BEFORE you throw in living space.

Talk about appropriate matter for my sig.
And do not dissect my posts into sound bytes, it's detestable.

[JCDNWarrior]

I tend to disagree with needing two Earths to feed the population, though I agree that the amount of food being wasted is atrocious and unneeded. If farmers were to be encouraged to produce more staple foods and received more (fertile) soil, instead of being bullied by big agrarian businesses, it would greatly help. Then there's other elements that cause trouble such as Monsanto and their GMO terminator seeds.

Encouraging people to have their own gardens and make sure people are able to have such gardens (by improving zoning) could help a lot as well. A few city ordinances could greatly assist with that as well.

Quite some parts of the planet aren't being used for production or to live on, which does limit the total capacity we're able to use. If such could be expanded in a careful manner without hurting the local ecologies that could sustain another few percentages of the population.

I tend not to expect things to improve much with the current leadership in the world though. Until monopolists and power brokers are kicked out of places of power you can expect food, water and even air to be used as a weapon against people, if not now, then in the future.

I also want to add that we're more likely to see lack of food due to distribution and supply rather than actual production. The moment people start panick buying food because of an imminent crisis, for instance, is when the stores suddenly will be emptied, and that supply cannot keep up.

[Luis Dias]

Ahhhh ... no.

What planet do you live on?
If it were not for the fact that a great proportion of humanity lives on a day to day basis not eating the caloric requirement for their bodies every day, we would be fecked.
If everyone ate like an american, or even a western european (who, aren't anywhere near as bad, but are bad enough) then we would require more than two planets the size of earth in terms of eco system to sustain our population BEFORE you throw in living space.

Talk about appropriate matter for my sig.

Of course, most of what you speak of is just metaphysics disguised as "science" used extensively in greenpeace banners. Mostly the people who are starving right now live on the most fertile land unused in the world, and the reasons for their plight have nothing to do with climate nor with natural limitations, but rather with the political devastation that the continent is going through.

Over population was a big mantra in the seventies, but has been thoroughfully disproven as a malthusian shenanigan by the decades that followed.

[Grizzly]

I tend to disagree with needing two Earths to feed the population, though I agree that the amount of food being wasted is atrocious and unneeded. If farmers were to be encouraged to produce more staple foods and received more (fertile) soil, instead of being bullied by big agrarian businesses, it would greatly help. Then there's other elements that cause trouble such as Monsanto and their GMO terminator seeds.

Encouraging people to have their own gardens and make sure people are able to have such gardens (by improving zoning) could help a lot as well. A few city ordinances could greatly assist with that as well.

Quite some parts of the planet aren't being used for production or to live on, which does limit the total capacity we're able to use. If such could be expanded in a careful manner without hurting the local ecologies that could sustain another few percentages of the population.

I tend not to expect things to improve much with the current leadership in the world though. Until monopolists and power brokers are kicked out of places of power you can expect food, water and even air to be used as a weapon against people, if not now, then in the future.

I also want to add that we're more likely to see lack of food due to distribution and supply rather than actual production. The moment people start panick buying food because of an imminent crisis, for instance, is when the stores suddenly will be emptied, and that supply cannot keep up.

'tis a good suggestion, JCDN, but another large problem of the food problem is the infrastructure: In the case of a humanitarian crisis, the troubles are not in obtaining the food (strangely enough?), but most of the troubles are getting it to the right location. How do you propose we fix that?

Of course, most of what you speak of is just metaphysics disguised as "science" used extensively in greenpeace banners. Mostly the people who are starving right now live on the most fertile land unused in the world, and the reasons for their plight have nothing to do with climate nor with natural limitations, but rather with the political devastation that the continent is going through.

Over population was a big mantra in the seventies, but has been thoroughfully disproven as a malthusian shenanigan by the decades that followed.

Really? The food prices have been rising for a while now. Indeed, some have said that there is a world food problem. If not caused by a massive increase in demand, what would explain the current food shortages?