we don't seem to have many serious discussions any more, so here's one
i have become more and more aware recently of how public opinion is being thwarted by misinformation in chat sites and blogs, particularly newspaper sites that allow comments
we recently saw that the israeli government has offered students a reduction in fees if they post state propaganda in selected media site - i don't want to get into the israel/palestine thing, this is just to demonstrate how serious this should taken
my big bug bear is global warming, 97% of peer reviewed scientific papers (it is important that you understand what peer reviewed means) support it is happening and that it is, in part, man made, yet only 47% of the general public do, this is due to public perception by campaigns and people like mockton (the lunatic british baronet who has no scientific training, and who's credibility is pathetic as he also claims to be in the house of lords, a lie, won a nobel prize, couldn't make it up, and to have found a cure for aids, loon) i think this is really important as governments do nothing because of this general perception that it is a con
i have been involved in countless discussions where statements are made and facts put up by those who think it is a scam, not once have their facts survived scrutiny, i have countless times posted facts which they have been unable to pull apart
yet still they bang on, say a lie enough and some will believe it, the conspiracy disease of the mind is prevalent
i think this is the whole new battlefront of world views and what action we can make happen, no longer does anyone listen to a protest marches unless there is violence, governments will only do anything if the public tells them, if they see public opinion sway and they may loose power
we see abbott ripping apart the carbon tax, not without it's faults, he is a man who said global warming was crap, we do nothing, do you know that the coal industry alone in australia get 2 billion $ tax breaks a year?
i am quite happy if anyone wants to argue the anti cause here, but i will take no prisoners and have all the information at hand, if you want to do this please use credible facts from reliable sources, be aware that weather is not climate too please
but i am more interested in what anyone thinks of how the internet is the new pr battleground on important issues too
if you care get stuck in, i can supply links to sites so you can arm yourselves with facts to battle the ignorance
Some topics just can't be discussed because there's a small army of politically correct people who will launch a hate campaign via the internet. Doesn't matter what you say. Someone, somewhere will take offence. From global warming to gay rights to boat people to the monarchy. It's often best not to say anything.
But with that said, no matter which side you support, the 97% will have massive egg on their face if the predictions don't come to fruition.
I'll take the doubting side. I switched from being a firm believer a few years ago, following climateGate, my trust was broken. I'm more than happy to have you change my mind back.
I think you are bang on about misinformation, but I think both sides (and I think it's sad there are sides) do it. I also agree with you that the coal industry shouldn't be subsidised, I don't think any established industry should be, including car manufacturers and Alcoa.
First I'll outline what I doubt and why. But firstly, what would the carbon tax achieve apart from sending Australian dollars to places like Slovenia in exchange for credits?
I don't doubt climate change, we have geological evidence of it. I don't doubt humans impact the environment and we may be affecting the climate. I do doubt the amount we are affecting it. I've done a fair bit of reading and put a fair bit of thought into this (though not recently).
Aside from all the scary predictions that have not panned out (think Tim Flannery), this is my major point of doubt:
Temperature allegedly follows atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
* Since 1998 over 26% of all man made CO2 emmissions EVER have been emmitted.
* Since 1998 temperature has pretty much remained level or risen very little (yes I read your link, but I've also read 'warmist' sources that confirm this)
* Yes you can call it cherry picking, but in the grand scheme you can call looking at climate for 100 years cherry picking too.
I haven't read the latest IPCC report yet, but the predictions for adverse effects seem to be going down, ie trending towards the lower end of predictions. My concern is, we are talking about spending all this money to avert something that might not happen, when it could be easier to adapt to any changes.
To be honest - and I respect you Looney as a member of this forum and always look for your contributions - I don't think statements like this help:
:: 97% of peer reviewed scientific papers (it is important that you understand what peer reviewed means) support it is happening and that it is, in part, man made, yet only 47% of the general public do ::
It needs qualification.
* What scientific papers?
* How were the papers compiled to determine support for climate change?
* Was this the recent study that analysed abstracts of the papers?
* How much is 'in part'?
* Do 47% of people believe not believe climate change is happening or AGW is happening?
The theory is based on models (remember the hockey stick?), if the evidence is so cut and dry, where is it? It's not like the MSM haven't been onside with getting the message out, and our educational system.
If you provide evidence, I'll take it onboard, I'm up for an open, respectful debate, I migh learn something.
I think we are putting a lot of money and resources into this, which could be put into environmental issues we can control, like industrial waste, spraying cancer causing poisons, islands of rubbish, pollution, developing countries using practices we would not use any more etc. It's like climate change has become a proxy for all environmental issues and people are like, yep, reduced my carbon footprint, all good now, and forget about everything else.
All I ask is people respect that we have different philosophies that motivate our thinking and decision making. My main motivator is that we should do whatever we need to, to get off this planet and colonise others, I'd rather not wreck the planet, but if we destroy it in the process, so be it, it will recover eventually. That's very long term of course, so we need to maintain some sort of balance, but this means I'm completely opposed to living a simple/anti tech/hippie/one with nature lifestyle.
This is a site not just set up to discuss Climate, but scientific papers from every discipline available.
**Study reveals scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change
16 May 2013 | Source: Environmental Research Letters
A comprehensive analysis of peer-reviewed articles on the topic of global warming and climate change has revealed an overwhelming consensus among scientists that recent warming is human-caused.
The study is the most comprehensive yet and identified 4000 summaries, otherwise known as abstracts, from papers published in the past 21 years that stated a position on the cause of recent global warming – 97 per cent of these endorsed the consensus that we are seeing man-made, or anthropogenic, global warming (AGW)
Led by John Cook at the University of Queensland, the study has been published today, Thursday 16 May, in IOP Publishing’s journal Environmental Research Letters.
The study went one step further, asking the authors of these papers to rate their entire paper using the same criteria. Over 2000 papers were rated and among those that discussed the cause of recent global warming, 97 per cent endorsed the consensus that it is caused by humans.**
This of course is apart from the recent study by intergovernmental organisations - The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) - http://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm
Who are they: Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. IPCC aims to reflect a range of views and expertise. The Secretariat coordinates all the IPCC work and liaises with Governments. It is supported by WMO and UNEP and hosted at WMO headquarters in Geneva.
The conclusion is far too long to detail here but if you iterated take some time on the site
I have heard many say they set out to prove what they thought by twisting facts and figures, I have never had anyone put up any compelling fact or argument as to why they would, what is in it for the Governments involved?
Now sure we can all put up sites with facts, but you have to choose those you feel are backed by science.
The other side for instance put this site up to support their view.
They had survey which many people use, though none of their sources or background information is available.
**The OISM (Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine) who signed a petition against man made Global Warming in 2008. It was signed by 30,000 science graduates, representing 0.3% of all science graduates. More importantly, the OISM list only contains 39 scientists who specialise in climate science. Or 0.0013%.
At this point it’s literally impossible to know if they are actually scientists because the names and degrees on the list cannot be verified by anyone outside the OISM. We can only take the OISM’s word that they’re all real names, that all the degrees are correct, and so on. This does not stand up to the most basic tests of scientific credibility.
If you compare that with the fact that 97% of papers on the subject support Global warming.**
**How were the papers compiled to determine support for climate change?**
That is not how scientific papers are compiled, there is a rigorous analysis of data, then the papers are open to detailed analysis by their peers, both those who believe in GW and those who don't. If there is evidence of miss appropriation of facts they are dismissed and not given any credence. We are talking about reputations, not something any scientist takes lightly.
You can of course think that all of these papers used corrupt methodology with pre-set conclusions, that to me would be just a little bit too much to even consider.
**Do 47% of people believe not believe climate change is happening or AGW is happening?**
Some places cite it at 50%, some at 47% some at 45%.
A survey of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers by our citizen science team at Skeptical Science has found a 97% consensus in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are causing global warming.
Whereas only 45% of the public think that scientists hold this view, mostly because of the words that emanate from people who have no scientific background. This is important as public policy is based more on public perception than facts and holds back Governments taking measures.
A very interesting and valid point, though a not convincing argument to me.
A short quote:
"What’s going on today is understood via study of today’s data and today’s best scientific theories. Reconstructions of past temperatures are about, well, the past. Study of the past can be informative for scientists, but it is not explanatory of the present nor is it predictive of the future. The scientific foundation of global warming theory contains much more than a few tree-rings and the temperature during the Medieval Warm Period."
To jump on an old theory when science is forever changing and sharpening it's conclusions, because that's what real science does.
Best to read what better minds than mine can muster.
Its a similar argument to putting money into education... it is HUGELY worthwhile. We will benefit by having a smarter population who will make better decisions in the future. problem is we won't necessarily see any benefit for years to come - and won't be able to quantify it at all - especially if other countries are doing it as well. Politicians don't get any credit because it isn't a quick fix - all they get is angry people thinking schools education is a waste and the cycle continues.
**Since 1998 over 26% of all man made CO2 emmissions EVER have been emmitted.**
Not sure of your point here, i would though like your sources.
**Since 1998 temperature has pretty much remained level or risen very little (yes I read your link, but I've also read 'warmist' sources that confirm this)**
Weather not climate, 1998 to now is a very short time frame (there is theory that the seas are absorbing the heat but more of that later if you want the information):
Figure from the World Meteorological Organization, marking global average temperatures by decade, clearly shows. Global warming hasn’t stopped at all. What’s actually happening is that the rate of surface warming has slowed somewhat over the past decade or more, probably because more heat has gone into the planet’s oceans. In other words, the excess heat is still here in the Earth system; it’s just not where we typically measure it. “Global warming is alive and well,” climate scientist Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research explained to me last month, “but about 30 percent of the heat is going deeper into the ocean.”
Globally averaged surface temperatures, by decade (includes combined land and sea surface temperatures) World Meteorological Organization
The increase in global ocean heat content from 1955-2010, from Levitus et al., Geophysical Research Letters, 2012. S. Levitus.
**Yes you can call it cherry picking, but in the grand scheme you can call looking at climate for 100 years cherry picking too.**
Covered above i think.
Nature, a well respected magazine, here you find a list of studies and articles on the subject.