Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger New Scientist has an article addressing the 26 most common climate myths: <a href="http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462" target="_blank">http://environment.newscientis t.com/channel/earth/dn11462</a> The article includes links to the relevant studies, when available. There's too much info there to pick any choice quotes, but here's the list of myths and misconceptions: • Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter • We can't do anything about climate change • The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong • Chaotic systems are not predictable • We can't trust computer models of climate • They predicted global cooling in the 1970s • It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal? • It's too cold where I live - warming will be great • Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans • It’s all down to cosmic rays • CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas • The lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming • Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving global warming • The oceans are cooling • The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming • It was warmer during the Medieval period, with vineyards in England • We are simply recovering from the Little Ice Age • Warming will cause an ice age in Europe • Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming • Ice cores show CO2 rising as temperatures fell • Mars and Pluto are warming too • Many leading scientists question climate change • It's all a conspiracy • Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming • Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production • Polar bear numbers are increasing
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Meanwhile, scientists have discovered that areas of Antarctica that were once thought to be "un-meltable" have been melting this year. <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070516/sc_afp/environmentclimatewarmingantarctica_070516023203;_ylt=A0WTUZnwlEtGmoEBlRwTO7gF" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20 070516/sc_afp/environmentclimatewarmingantarctica_070516023203;_ylt=A0WTUZnwlEtGmoEBlRwTO7gF</a>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The estimates in the numbers of people impacted just due to famines in Africa alone range from 75 - 250 million people. Add in the coastal flooding in Southeast Asia, and you add tens of millions more to those impacted.> Thanks for clarifying that it was the Working Group 2 report. I was pretty sure I had not read anything like that in the Working Group 1 report. That said, reading the actual quotes in context doesn't sound quite so alarming.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The scientists of the world have essentially done their own poll. The majority report can be seen in the IPCC.> Well, no. I've pointed out before that that is not how the IPCC works. <So take it up with them. I haven't done that.> No, but you don't have a problem with their posts, apparently. <Actually, that's fortunate.> Yes, it is. It may be that 70% of scientist believe one thing, and 30% believe something else, and it's the 30% that end up being right. So "consensus" is useless in science. What matters is provable fact. And belief in global warming is not a binary function - there's a wide spectrum of ideas as to the cause and the effects.
Originally Posted By jonvn "reading the actual quotes in context doesn't sound quite so alarming." A billion people are going to have to figure out how to get fresh drinking water in south asia. Nah, that's not alarming at all.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <A billion people are going to have to figure out how to get fresh drinking water in south asia.> Or not.
Originally Posted By jonvn Smart reply. Except that the report actually did say that, and so the "or not," as usual, is meaningless. When the Himalayas melt, the water source for 1 billion people in south asia goes away, and they're going to have to figure out how to get more. Good luck to them, I guess. Or not.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<The scientists of the world have essentially done their own poll. The majority report can be seen in the IPCC.>> <Well, no. I've pointed out before that that is not how the IPCC works.> I did simplify a little there. But the IPCC report does represent the view of the majority of climate scientists. <<So take it up with them. I haven't done that.>> <No, but you don't have a problem with their posts, apparently.> I am not required to respond to every post, any more than you were required to respond to every fringe Beau post. <<Actually, that's fortunate.>> <Yes, it is. It may be that 70% of scientist believe one thing, and 30% believe something else, and it's the 30% that end up being right. So "consensus" is useless in science. What matters is provable fact. > Well, that's not exactly how science works. Consensus is not useless. It represents the best knowledge we have now. And science is always fee to examine and re-examine and disprove what was once thought to be true. But it's rare that scientific consensus of the sort we have on climate change (and it's much wider than 70/30 on the basics) turns out to be wrong. "Provable facts" are good to have, but not always necessary to work from. Did Newton have "proof" of gravity? Not really. It was just a theory (technically, still is), but a very useful one and one that others that came after branched off from and expanded upon. And we don't sit around and do nothing because absolultely everything isn't filled in neatly. We go with the best knowledge we have. We learned a lot more about gravitational forces in the course of the Mercury program than we knew when we started, but we didn't sit there and twiddle our thumbs and not start because we didn't know everything to start with. <And belief in global warming is not a binary function - there's a wide spectrum of ideas as to the cause and the effects.> And I've never said otherwise. BUT - it's not, as some would like to imply - a case of equal weight when it comes to the basics: that it is occuring, that human activity is at least partly responsible, and that there will be serious consequences if it continues. On that there is WIDE consensus. How best to deal with it is still being debated, and rightly so.
Originally Posted By jonvn The consensus is so wide now that the only ones "debating" this are fringe elements.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Except that the report actually did say that, and so the "or not," as usual, is meaningless.> The report said "could", not "will".
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <But the IPCC report does represent the view of the majority of climate scientists.> You can repeat that as many times as you want, but it doesn't make it so.
Originally Posted By jonvn Yes, it did say could. That's because there is a chance it might not happen. However, if we do nothing, as you seem to want to do, the it becomes more and more likely.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<But the IPCC report does represent the view of the majority of climate scientists.>? <You can repeat that as many times as you want, but it doesn't make it so.> No, the fact that it's so makes it so.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <However, if we do nothing, as you seem to want to do, the it becomes more and more likely.> I've never said do nothing. We should continue to study the issue, and make improvements whenever they make sense. On a couple of threads now that if, for example, we discover a way to decrease some form of pollution by 50% with a 10% increase in cost, then we should do it. If however, it costs 50% more to decrease some form of pollution by 10%, then perhaps we're better using our resources elsewhere.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <No, the fact that it's so makes it so.> It's not so, as I've shown in the past.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<No, the fact that it's so makes it so.>> <It's not so, as I've shown in the past.> As usual, you've asserted so in the past, but not shown it.
Originally Posted By jonvn "We should continue to study the issue" Yes, until it is too late to do anything, meanwhile scientific consensus has pretty much firmed up. you don't keep studying the same things that have already been settled. that is pointless. The studys are being done, and they point to one basic conclusion. Further studies that repeatedly go over the same road over and over again do nothing. Studies that do continue on which are simply charting the course of what is happening. They just keep reinforcing what we already know. We can keep doing this forever, of course, until we end up with a planet that is uninhabitable. Good choice.
Originally Posted By X5ty1985 " Yes, until it is too late to do anything, meanwhile scientific consensus has pretty much firmed up." Most scinentists do not think man is causing global warming, so I don't get this statement. Yet this deal about consensus is thrown around by a few people anyway. jonvn, do you know what the " hockey stick " model is in relation to global warming? Can you tell me what happened to that " consensus " once it was exposed as a fraud? Thank you.
