Give it a rest. You knew exactly what the OP meant.

You are starting to sound like Ian Plimer.

this is the bit I don't get -

The vast majority of scientists believe AGW is happening is some form. A much smaller, but significant, group don't.

The ones that believe AGW are saying we have to do something NOW, or it may be too late.

So yes, be sceptical, but also be pragmatic. If I went to a doctor and they said to me "it looks like it might be X" I don't go away and go "oh well, he couldn't prove it so I won't do anything", I go "well what can we do about it just in case?"

Problem is here is that we would have to give up a lot of our lifestyles, which appears there is a significant part of the population who don't want to do that (justifiably, not justifiably, or self-justifiably). Perhaps they are right, perhaps they are not.

Either way a sort of group-think appears to be going on with various groups within each camp.

I don't know - this post is mainly a bit of musing on the topic . . .

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/005889.html

i must look up the actual study mentioned in this article as the scientific split is interesting

be careful that your insults don't sound like a compliment to the receiver!

I'm not sure that analogy works.

Sometimes (with complex matters) it is worth getting a second (or even third) opinion as doctors can and do get things wrong. You then have to go with the one you trust the most or gave the best reasoning.

That these deniers were a fictional construct necessary to frame his argument?

I do not, in fact, think this is correct.

There are some scientists who have been named as "believing" (which is a religious term, by the way, not a scientific one). But I think you'll find that almost no scientist who values their integrity is going to claim that the human influence on global temperatures has been statistically demonstrated at the scientific level. In fact the IPCC themselves say something like: if we don't get greenhouse gas emissions down to 1990 levels by 2050 then there is a 50% chance of catastrophic global warming, or at least that's the quote I keep hearing.

But this depends on two things: Fossil rules not running out by 2050, and a 50% chance, which is a toss of a coin. In effect they are publicly admitting they don't know what will happen. That's what a 50% chance means.

No scientist will say that global warming has been proved to by driven by human greenhouse gas emissions.

No scientist will guarantee that reducing greenhouse gas emissions will affect global temperatures.

No scientist can predict what the sun will do next, and it is the primary factor in our planet's temperature regimen.


I have no objection to reducing pollution, or to converting our society to non-fossil fuels.We need to do both of these things. And if the proposed solutions to this AGW nonsense actually suggested these two things then it wouldn't be so bad. But the "solution" is more tax.

The other, far more dangerous thing is that we spend so much time concentrating on trying to stop global warming, that we forget to prepare for a warmer world. When half of Bangladesh is underwater it will be a bit late to realise that a futile attempt to reduce CO2 was neither going to reduce CO2 nor was it going to reverse global warming.

King Canute did something similar when he ordered the tide not to come in. He ended up to his neck in water. Or so the legend tells us. The same will happen to our world if we continue with this nonsense about reducing greenhouse gases. They will reduce when we run out of fossil fuels, which isn't that far away. In fact, long before we run out we'll be banned from using them. Oil is a strategic resource as well as a domestic resource. Without oil all the Trillion dollar's worth of US military is so much scrap metal.

And anyway, if the human population on this planet reaches 9 billion by 2050, then we will need high CO2 levels and a warmer world. Otherwise we won't be able to grow enough food to feed all those people. At the moment we can't feed six billion.

No, that you answer a question with a question.

It was rhetorical so it's all good.


(Note: I was responding to the 1st line not the 2nd line.)

Funny - I though the King Canute story was that he was proving that even a King couldn't hold back the tide. It was just that the story has been corrupted over the years to be told the way you told it.

In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

The climatologists are most certain that humans play a role in the planet's warming.

Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming.

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/005889.html

Even worse: the Doctor says "I think you have XXXXXX - I cant see the symptoms, and have no proof, but i think you have it, so I am going to perform a lobotomy".

Errrrrr - no thanks Doc, i will take my chances....

and I bet if you went to enough doctors eventually one will tell you you are okay and then you can decide to take their opinion as the one to follow.

Yeah. I was thinking after posting that even when you've made your choice there's still not guarantee that you've made the right decision.

Which neatly leads us onto Financial Experts and the reliability of their predictions

To be fair Iolande:

To parphase George Bernard Shaw: 'If you laid all of the worlds scientists end to end they wouldn’t reach a conclusion”

There are a lot of good scientists who don’t believe in AGW, and a lot who are unconvinced.

What is absent from this comment is the word “think” – these 90% and 85% THINK global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures respectively.

What they don’t say is “I know”, because as yet no on knows.

Not that long ago in our evolution great men thought the world was flat. I care little for what great men think, only what they know....