Peer reviewed and global warming

[saganista]

Originally Posted by tnbound2day

It depends on what you define as the argument. If you are referring to the fact that the globe is warming, then yes, almost everyone is in agreement.

Consult any of dozens upon dozens of city-data posts for evidence to the contrary.

Originally Posted by tnbound2day

If you are referring to whether or not man has caused the warming, there is still argument there.

'Caused' is the wrong wording. 'Contributed to' would be better. Otherwise, very little such argument remains, and much of that is rigged.

Originally Posted by tnbound2day

If you are referring to whether or not we can stop emitting CO2 and magically adjust the thermostat for the planet, there is even more debate there.

To my knowledge, no one has suggested that we either can or should stop emitting CO2. So long as there are 6+ billion people on the planet, human activity will continue. The question is whether that activity should be modified in any way so as to reduce or minimize the CO2 (and other) effects of human activity that are leading us down some very dangerous paths.

Originally Posted by tnbound2day

The media's job isn't to decide things for us, it is supposed to present both sides of an argument and let people figure out what they think. AGW has been one of the most clear cut cases ever of the media completely pushing one side of an agenda. I personally think its because of our media's style. Destruction, chaos, disorder, and in general BAD news is their interest. The alarmist view of global warming has all of those traits, so for them it a story that will give them unlimited scaremongering stories if they stick to the alarmist side.

There are not two equal sides to every story. When the disparity between the bases for View-A and View-B becomes so lopsided as to be widely seen as conclusive, failing to report that fact in the interests of some misguided notion of neutrality becomes itself an act of disinformation.

[TXboomerang]

Consult any of dozens upon dozens of city-data posts for evidence to the contrary.

Lol, I wouldn't look to City-data for evidence. As for a lot of the post, many people that say global warming is a hoax are referring to the theory as a whole. I've said global warming is a hoax, but was referring to the entire subject as presented by the MSM and select politicians. Doesn't mean I think every aspect of what they are presenting is incorrect. I even agree with Al Gore on some things about the environment.

'Caused' is the wrong wording. 'Contributed to' would be better. Otherwise, very little such argument remains, and much of that is rigged.

Contributed is a better word. Then the degree of contribution is debatable. Massive, moderate, or minimum contribution? There is a difference.

To my knowledge, no one has suggested that we either can or should stop emitting CO2. So long as there are 6+ billion people on the planet, human activity will continue. The question is whether that activity should be modified in any way so as to reduce or minimize the CO2 (and other) effects of human activity that are leading us down some very dangerous paths.

Yes, that is a question. The debate is not over.

There are not two equal sides to every story. When the disparity between the bases for View-A and View-B becomes so lopsided as to be widely seen as conclusive, failing to report that fact in the interests of some misguided notion of neutrality becomes itself an act of disinformation.

When that disparity is only in the media and not in the general population and remains as such, it is definitely misinformation. The media has constantly pushed a false notion that there are only a couple of people left that don't agree with mainstream AGW theories. So you are right, they are involved in a disinformation campaign.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by tnbound2day

Lol, I wouldn't look to City-data for evidence.

Yet you will later in the post appeal to the 'general population' as qualified arbiters. Are city-data posters not reasonably representative of the general population?

Originally Posted by tnbound2day

Contributed is a better word. Then the degree of contribution is debatable. Massive, moderate, or minimum contribution? There is a difference.

Contributed is a better word because there are on-going non-human processes that are always in the equation. The solution to that equation, however, has shifted rather remarkably of late. If the contributions of human activity are taken to be minimal, then some other non-minimal force must be at work. Perhaps we should seek to identify it.

Originally Posted by tnbound2day

Yes, that is a question. The debate is not over.

The debate over what, if anything, we should do is a political one, not a scientific one. Science can inform policymakers, but not do their jobs for them. There is little left to debate on the scientific side, such that when political debate resorts to stalling tactics relying upon a claim that science itself is as yet undecided, an insincerity has occurred.

Originally Posted by tnbound2day

When that disparity is only in the media and not in the general population and remains as such, it is definitely misinformation.

The general population is close to clueless. The very reason for specialization of study is to create experts who can inform the rest of us of developments in arcane areas that we essentially don't comprehend and don't have the time or inclination to pursue. If we are simply to discard the messages those experts deliver whenever we find them uncomfortable for whatever reason, then we have wasted a lot of time and resources in creating experts to begin with.

Originally Posted by tnbound2day

The media has constantly pushed a false notion that there are only a couple of people left that don't agree with mainstream AGW theories. So you are right, they are involved in a disinformation campaign.

It has been accurately reported that consensus has emerged within the scientific community over many aspects of global warming as a phenomenon and of the role that human activity may be playing within that. The relating as facts of things that actually are facts does not constitute disinformation.

[TheHarvester]

Originally Posted by Rggr

The point is that the scientists are still arguing.

Yes and no. Scientists argue about everything all the time. When I was taking Plant Morphology I made a comment to the professor about how much I enjoyed the peaceful topic of liverworts (a primitive type of plant that resembles certain mosses). I said "Wouldn't it be great if all the world's leaders would study liverworts and lichens?" The professor responded: "You should attend an academic conference where people discuss liverworts. They end up throwing chairs at each other because of their disagreements."

Alas, there will never be full agreement on anything. The whole point of science is that it's a method for inquiring into the nature of things, but it never provides final answers. "Truth" is the province of philosophers, religious texts and mystics. Outside of the realm of mysticism we're stuck with a persistent nagging doubt about everything. Bugger!

[TXboomerang]

Yet you will later in the post appeal to the 'general population' as qualified arbiters. Are city-data posters not reasonably representative of the general population?

Yes the posters are representative of the general population. That does not mean that evidence is posted here. It is a discussion board. A tidbit of evidence is put out here and there on the forums, but are generally surrounded completely by the posters opinions. That is the essence of discussion. Bring up something, say what you think about it. Sometimes discussion has a set agenda to accomplish something. Rarely is that the case on internet forums, they are usually a place to exchange viewpoints.

Contributed is a better word because there are on-going non-human processes that are always in the equation. The solution to that equation, however, has shifted rather remarkably of late. If the contributions of human activity are taken to be minimal, then some other non-minimal force must be at work. Perhaps we should seek to identify it.

There have been many different things identified as forcing factors. Anytime they are identified, a loud chant of "Exxon" type cries come from the alarmist to intentionally try to erase any chances of discussion. That is one reason we have such a polarized climate (pun intended) on the topic.

The debate over what, if anything, we should do is a political one, not a scientific one. Science can inform policymakers, but not do their jobs for them. There is little left to debate on the scientific side, such that when political debate resorts to stalling tactics relying upon a claim that science itself is as yet undecided, an insincerity has occurred.

When policy makers are basing their rhetoric on inaccuracies stated by alarmist that don't even line up with what the IPCC has said, an insincerity truly has occured.

The general population is close to clueless. The very reason for specialization of study is to create experts who can inform the rest of us of developments in arcane areas that we essentially don't comprehend and don't have the time or inclination to pursue. If we are simply to discard the messages those experts deliver whenever we find them uncomfortable for whatever reason, then we have wasted a lot of time and resources in creating experts to begin with.

It is just as wasteful to ignore studies and research that doesn't line up with a political viewpoint. It is also very unscientific for politcs to silence skepticism in science. The very foundation of science is based on skepticism, with the knowledge that anything that can't withstand scrutiny and skepticism is usually flawed. That makes it suspicious to me why instead of discrediting the message, alarmist would rather discredit the messenger. If science is so overwhelming in the favor of one view point, it should be rather effortless to shred any dissenting views in a scientific manner.

It has been accurately reported that consensus has emerged within the scientific community over many aspects of global warming as a phenomenon and of the role that human activity may be playing within that. The relating as facts of things that actually are facts does not constitute disinformation.

Whether or not it has been accurately reported is questionable. Smearing credible science that doesn't line up with the alarmist view is very much a tactic of disinformation.

[TheHarvester]

Originally Posted by tnbound2day

It is... very unscientific for politcs to silence skepticism in science. The very foundation of science is based on skepticism, with the knowledge that anything that can't withstand scrutiny and skepticism is usually flawed. That makes it suspicious to me why instead of discrediting the message, alarmist would rather discredit the messenger. If science is so overwhelming in the favor of one view point, it should be rather effortless to shred any dissenting views in a scientific manner.

Evolution has been accepted without dispute in the scientific world for many decades, yet school boards across the country are still campaigning to undermine the teaching of this well-established theory. If we can't even get people to understand evolution, how can we possibly get them to grasp the concept of global warming? There is less agreement on the latter, so it's easier to find contrarian views even though the overwhelming majority of climate researchers and physicists are in agreement that humans are contributing to atmospheric warming.

But aside from whether we can conclude that we're contributing to warming, the policy implications are numbingly complex --- what, exactly, are we supposed to do about it? This is where I think political advocacy is prematurely sounding alarms. I'm very skeptical of anyone who claims to know what we "should" do. Nobody can prove how changes in our behavior will affect the planet's future. Suppose a supervolcano blows next year and blankets the earth in ash for half a decade. We'll be pretty happy about global warming in such an event because we'll have helped modify the amount of cooling caused by the volcanic eruption. But we can't predict anything like that.

The agreement is on the side of "we are creating atmospheric warming, all else being equal." The problem is that "all else isn't equal." So --- there really isn't an easy way to formulate policy given the inadequate data and predictive models to evaluate policy alternatives.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by tnbound2day

Yes the posters are representative of the general population. That does not mean that evidence is posted here. It is a discussion board. A tidbit of evidence is put out here and there on the forums, but are generally surrounded completely by the posters opinions.

That wasn't the role of the word 'evidence'. Posts here were cited as evidence contrary to the proposition that 'almost everyone' is in agreement as to the fact of global warming.

Originally Posted by tnbound2day

There have been many different things identified as forcing factors. Anytime they are identified, a loud chant of "Exxon" type cries come from the alarmist to intentionally try to erase any chances of discussion. That is one reason we have such a polarized climate (pun intended) on the topic.

It is a simple fact that Exxon has been at least a part of the money behind a variety of bogus 'think tanks' and bogus 'citizens groups' that promulgate bogus science. Exxon has forfeit any credibility out of the gate on this issue. If there were serious evidence and serious science to support the claims of these groups, it would appear in sites and sources other than those that are bought and paid for by Exxon et al. Why is it so consistently necessary for those who would criticize global warming to resort to sites and sources of such questionable independence?

Originally Posted by tnbound2day

When policy makers are basing their rhetoric on inaccuracies stated by alarmist that don't even line up with what the IPCC has said, an insincerity truly has occured.

The IPCC has made its views abundantly clear. If they are a standard for one side, then they are a standard for both. Otherwise, the assertion would require the support of examples to subtantiate it.

Originally Posted by tnbound2day

It is just as wasteful to ignore studies and research that doesn't line up with a political viewpoint. It is also very unscientific for politcs to silence skepticism in science. The very foundation of science is based on skepticism, with the knowledge that anything that can't withstand scrutiny and skepticism is usually flawed.

Skepticism is indeed the essence of science. Consensus, meanwhile, is what you get when the number of valid reasons to be skeptical begins to appoach zero. You might consider that complaints against the so-called 'deniers' are over their validity, not over their skepticism.

Originally Posted by tnbound2day

That makes it suspicious to me why instead of discrediting the message, alarmist would rather discredit the messenger. If science is so overwhelming in the favor of one view point, it should be rather effortless to shred any dissenting views in a scientific manner.

It's a free country. People (and particularly people with money) are not obligated to cease lying even when what they say has already been shown to be false. Science has already effortlessly shredded any semblance of a contrary view. But the contrarians still stick to their task.

Originally Posted by tnbound2day

Whether or not it has been accurately reported is questionable. Smearing credible science that doesn't line up with the alarmist view is very much a tactic of disinformation.

Yes, it is, and that would be a pertinent point if there existed a body of credible science that undermined the conclusions of the IPCC and dozens of other scientific organizations. There does not.

[TXboomerang]

That wasn't the role of the word 'evidence'. Posts here were cited as evidence contrary to the proposition that 'almost everyone' is in agreement as to the fact of global warming.

Can you provide specific examples where people have said that the earth is not warming at all?

It is a simple fact that Exxon has been at least a part of the money behind a variety of bogus 'think tanks' and bogus 'citizens groups' that promulgate bogus science. Exxon has forfeit any credibility out of the gate on this issue. If there were serious evidence and serious science to support the claims of these groups, it would appear in sites and sources other than those that are bought and paid for by Exxon et al. Why is it so consistently necessary for those who would criticize global warming to resort to sites and sources of such questionable independence?

No one has ever proved that the small amount of money Exxon spent in contrast to the massive amounts spend worldwide by governments and other groups was spent with a specific purpose to misinform through bogus science. The tobacco industry is frequently dragged in as a comparison because its the only way to add an element of evil to the discussion since there is no proof that funding was made to deny anything. So any talk of wrongdoing is nothing more than speculation with nothing more than hunches and suspicions as evidence. If that is not the case, please provide PROOF that wrongdoing by EXXON in this matter has taken place.

The IPCC has made its views abundantly clear. If they are a standard for one side, then they are a standard for both. Otherwise, the assertion would require the support of examples to subtantiate it.

The IPCC also changes its views regularly. They made the famous hockey stick disappear, and with no comment. It was their "smoking gun" until it was heavily scrutinized, questioned, and ultimately discreditied, otherwise it would still be around. Global temperature estimates have changed with each report, as have potential sea level rises.

Skepticism is indeed the essence of science. Consensus, meanwhile, is what you get when the number of valid reasons to be skeptical begins to appoach zero. You might consider that complaints against the so-called 'deniers' are over their validity, not over their skepticism.

See post above. Consensus on FACTS doesn't change on a regular basis, otherwise, its laughable to call it a consensus. The word consensus is put forth by politicians and the media far more often than scientist. Remember the "consensus" about WMD's? Wow, consensus is the end of discussion, right?

It's a free country. People (and particularly people with money) are not obligated to cease lying even when what they say has already been shown to be false. Science has already effortlessly shredded any semblance of a contrary view. But the contrarians still stick to their task.

Science has not shredded contrarian views. Alarmist and politicians have verbally shredded things that don't support their view. That is not the same as scientifically shredding.

Yes, it is, and that would be a pertinent point if there existed a body of credible science that undermined the conclusions of the IPCC and dozens of other scientific organizations. There does not.

Why does something need to undermine the IPCC when they change so frequently their conclusions? Seems to me they already undermine themselves.