Top 6 Climate Change Problems

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Scientific consensus only comes after considerable peer reviewing of the available evidence from many different scientists.

There are two problems with this comment:

1. History proves that scientific consensus means nothing when better science comes along a proves it wrong, and

Please NEVER use this argument to denounce science again. It makes you look dumb. Science is DESIGNED to improve upon itself over time. Using that as a fault to discount current science is naive and short sighted. Just like there is a possibility that the science of today could be discarded, just as well it could be built on and added and further confirmed. To use the possibilities of the future to discredit the findings of today is assumptive and useless talk.

2. When scientists, on any side of a problem such as AGW, are funded by people with an agenda or self interest in the outcome, or they have been shown to have purposefully and willingly altered data in order to conform with their goals, or willfully ignore science that points to differing conclusions, these "many different scientists" have opinions and data that either mislead or simply don't mean jack squat. And in that instance, an intelligent individual without access to equipment nor the skills to do these measurements and experiments on their own must weight the raw data (when available), the methods used to obtain the data, and a myriad of other mitigating circumstances and determing for him/herself where the path most likely leads.

Ah yes, the funding agenda argument. I've seen this plenty of times. Yet you fail to realize that America isn't the only entity investing into climate change science. There are many different organizations and governments from all over the world investing in climate change science and they are ALL finding the same conclusions. Yes, fraudulent reports come out due to overzealous scientists trying to make a name for themselves, but that doesn't discredit the whole science. It JUST discredits that particular research. What you are using here is the standard Evolution denial tactic of pretending like because one or two hoaxes exist, that therefore discredits ALL the evidence supporting the idea. It is fallacious and wrong. You need to discredit ALL the evidence individually.

It is obvious that you think it leads to a destination that I don't see--that's fine, as long as we can both admit that climate science is in its relative infancy, and that pretending that there is an appropriate conclusion at this point in the game upon which a "consensus" of scientists can rest their laurels is, at best, premature. At worst, it's willful ignorance.

All science is in its infancy. That doesn't mean I don't support many of the conclusions science has found so far. True many will change over time, but the CORE of what is needed is there. It's the finer details that will change in the future.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Please NEVER use this argument to denounce science again. It makes you look dumb. Science is DESIGNED to improve upon itself over time. Using that as a fault to discount current science is naive and short sighted. Just like there is a possibility that the science of today could be discarded, just as well it could be built on and added and further confirmed. To use the possibilities of the future to discredit the findings of today is assumptive and useless talk.

An argument like that only appears "dumb" to someone unwilling to admit that a "consensus" of scientists who agree on a cause to a change in a field of science that is, for all intents and purposes, in its infancy, is a "consensus" based on incomplete scientific ignorance. And what many are unwilling to admit is that much of it is willful ignorance based on manipulated data and/or faulty data collection that is, at its foundation, unscientifically gathered and presented.

Ah yes, the funding agenda argument. I've seen this plenty of times. Yet you fail to realize that America isn't the only entity investing into climate change science. There are many different organizations and governments from all over the world investing in climate change science and they are ALL finding the same conclusions.

Wrong, but okay. I keep forgetting that repeating "consensus" or the word "all" in all caps makes something a fact in this debate. Silly me, looking dumb again.

Yes, fraudulent reports come out due to overzealous scientists trying to make a name for themselves, but that doesn't discredit the whole science. It JUST discredits that particular research. What you are using here is the standard Evolution denial tactic of pretending like because one or two hoaxes exist, that therefore discredits ALL the evidence supporting the idea. It is fallacious and wrong. You need to discredit ALL the evidence individually.

Well, first off, I've never said the science is discredited, I always maintain that it is the scientists that become discredited. What you're failing to acknowledge is that when scientific research on any subject has a continuing record of being fraudulent and tainted with overzealous scientists, at some point you have to cover it all with a blanket of skepticism--couple that with plenty of research and evidence that counters (or, at least, opens up other possibilities than) the claims of these overzealous, fraudulent scientists, and you have to be a fool not to be skeptical, at the very least of the temperature data and trends that are promoted, or about the extent to which a short-term rise in CO2 acts as the main catalyst to warming. If you can't admit that (and it appears that you either can't, or flat out refuse to), then you're not being honest in this debate, and therefore make every discussion with you a lesson in futility.

All science is in its infancy. That doesn't mean I don't support many of the conclusions science has found so far. True many will change over time, but the CORE of what is needed is there. It's the finer details that will change in the future.

Nah, you can't claim that all science is in its infancy in order to soften the reality that climate science is. Sure, all science makes new discoveries daily, but you can't pretend that it's all in its infancy when some forms have been being studied for millenia (like astronomy). The core of what is needed in climate science is still sorely lacking--you can't get two scientists to agree on the main driving factor of much of climate--sure, many will agree on the overall "consensus" of what's happening, but none seem to agree on all details, and science truly is in the details, whether they be large or small.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

An argument like that only appears "dumb" to someone unwilling to admit that a "consensus" of scientists who agree on a cause to a change in a field of science that is, for all intents and purposes, in its infancy, is a "consensus" based on incomplete scientific ignorance. And what many are unwilling to admit is that much of it is willful ignorance based on manipulated data and/or faulty data collection that is, at its foundation, unscientifically gathered and presented.

Scientific consensus is JUST a consensus based on available evidence. It isn't saying that the idea is set in stone though. All it is saying is that all the scientists agree that this is the best explanation they have with the available evidence.

Wrong, but okay. I keep forgetting that repeating "consensus" or the word "all" in all caps makes something a fact in this debate. Silly me, looking dumb again.

Wrong? Why? You going to explain yourself? Or do you honestly think that one word rebuttals suffice to counter a point made? Please explain how America has a monopoly on climate change research and their funding to find predetermined conclusions trumps all other funding in this field of research. I am all ears.

Well, first off, I've never said the science is discredited, I always maintain that it is the scientists that become discredited. What you're failing to acknowledge is that when scientific research on any subject has a continuing record of being fraudulent and tainted with overzealous scientists, at some point you have to cover it all with a blanket of skepticism--couple that with plenty of research and evidence that counters (or, at least, opens up other possibilities than) the claims of these overzealous, fraudulent scientists, and you have to be a fool not to be skeptical, at the very least of the temperature data and trends that are promoted, or about the extent to which a short-term rise in CO2 acts as the main catalyst to warming. If you can't admit that (and it appears that you either can't, or flat out refuse to), then you're not being honest in this debate, and therefore make every discussion with you a lesson in futility.

It DOESN'T have a continuing record of fraudulent scientists though. That is a lie being pushed by the oil tycoons. Though you are more than welcome to actually post evidence for once that shows me to be wrong.

Nah, you can't claim that all science is in its infancy in order to soften the reality that climate science is. Sure, all science makes new discoveries daily, but you can't pretend that it's all in its infancy when some forms have been being studied for millenia (like astronomy). The core of what is needed in climate science is still sorely lacking--you can't get two scientists to agree on the main driving factor of much of climate--sure, many will agree on the overall "consensus" of what's happening, but none seem to agree on all details, and science truly is in the details, whether they be large or small.

Even astronomy is in its infancy. Actually, ESPECIALLY astronomy. There is so much about the universe and how it works that we haven't even begun to understand. Processes on Earth are just the tip of the iceberg.

Science doesn't work like that. Science builds evidence and explains that evidence. If all the evidence says that it is happening but doesn't say why, that is fine. Scientists have positively discovered a human link to climate change. They may not know exactly what that link is, but it certainly exists and is happening.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Scientific consensus is JUST a consensus based on available evidence. It isn't saying that the idea is set in stone though. All it is saying is that all the scientists agree that this is the best explanation they have with the available evidence.

Therein lies the problem--the way society is today (and even in the not-so-distant past), there crops up a science cult, or basically a religious-type following, of certain sciences that are in their infancy and only based on the available evidence. But, they don't seem to evolve once new (and possibly opposing) scientific evidence emerges as the research expands. Also, you keep saying "all the scientists agree," which many scientists would disagree with.

Wrong? Why? You going to explain yourself? Or do you honestly think that one word rebuttals suffice to counter a point made? Please explain how America has a monopoly on climate change research and their funding to find predetermined conclusions trumps all other funding in this field of research. I am all ears.

Well, it's obvious that you're not all ears, but that's beside the point.

You made a comment that all the organizations and governments around the world who "invest" in CC science agree--they don't. Therefore, you are wrong. So, yes, I thought the one-word response would suffice, because the error was obvious.

It DOESN'T have a continuing record of fraudulent scientists though. That is a lie being pushed by the oil tycoons. Though you are more than welcome to actually post evidence for once that shows me to be wrong.

Whoa, hold on a moment--weren't you implying that bringing up the "funding agenda argument" is a tired old tactic, yet here you are, brining up the "funding agenda argument?" I'm sure I'm more than welcome to post evidence, but if you actually want to learn about it, I suggest that you do your own research into it (it's only a few clicks away). Data is manipulated and falsified year after year. Whether or not it's intentionally done, that's a matter of opinion in most cases, but the data doesn't lie.

Even astronomy is in its infancy. Actually, ESPECIALLY astronomy. There is so much about the universe and how it works that we haven't even begun to understand. Processes on Earth are just the tip of the iceberg.

I was hoping you'd take that bait.

Just like astronomy, you can't take the science as a whole and claim that it is in its infancy--we're far enough out of toddler stage to land people on the moon (nearly 50 years ago, I might add) and spacecraft, probes, and remote-controlled robots on other planets and celestial bodies like comets. I wouldn't call that infancy. Sure, we're in the infancy of research dark matter, or black holes, or the study of extra-solar planetary systems, but we've got plenty of grasp on our own system to be able to do the things that we do, and with amazine accuracy for only being in the infant stages of knowledge.

With climate science, the entirety of the science is relatively new ground as a widespread science, and regardless of your regurgitated (and regurgitated, and regurgitated) claim that there is a consensus, the fact remains that if there is, it's based on the knowledge that an infant would have, and I'm not one to assume that they have it right at this stage. Way too much to learn, and way too many diverging forks in that scientific road that take warming and cooling and CO2 levels into completely different directions as to causes and effects.

Science doesn't work like that. Science builds evidence and explains that evidence. If all the evidence says that it is happening but doesn't say why, that is fine. Scientists have positively discovered a human link to climate change. They may not know exactly what that link is, but it certainly exists and is happening.

I don't deny that at all (well, except that climate science, as politicized and religion-ized as it has become, has ceases existing like real science should). But you forgot one thing--they don't know if it's a main driver, if it has a lasting or even truly measurable effect, or if the Earth is capable of compensating naturally. They can't explain why their models don't reflect reality (and are generally way overstated both on temp rise and the effects), nor to what extent or percentage of that rise is solely based on mankind's contributions. They don't even know what drives the historic warm and cold cycles of the planet...all they can do is measure all the levels associated with them and, if we're being honest, make assumptions about the how and why.

Quite honestly, it's humanistic narcissism to think that our existence on this planet and what we do on it is going to make any sort of lasting impression in the grand scheme of things, or that we have the ability (or duty, for that matter) to try and alter the course of the climate on earth--for preceived good or bad.

I may have said this before, but I keep forgetting--This is always an interesting debate, but I'm done with this one. I'm sure we'll meet again on the next ride on this merr-go-round.

Best Regards.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Therein lies the problem--the way society is today (and even in the not-so-distant past), there crops up a science cult, or basically a religious-type following, of certain sciences that are in their infancy and only based on the available evidence. But, they don't seem to evolve once new (and possibly opposing) scientific evidence emerges as the research expands. Also, you keep saying "all the scientists agree," which many scientists would disagree with.

Ok not ALL scientists agree. I'll give you that, but it's something like 95%+ of them that do. They recognize a trend of human causing climate change. I will concede that sometimes the scientific community can appear monolithic in its opinions, but that is only because it takes time for new information to proliferate and be tested. Ideas don't achieve scientific consensus until they have been thoroughly peer reviewed.

Whoa, hold on a moment--weren't you implying that bringing up the "funding agenda argument" is a tired old tactic, yet here you are, brining up the "funding agenda argument?" I'm sure I'm more than welcome to post evidence, but if you actually want to learn about it, I suggest that you do your own research into it (it's only a few clicks away). Data is manipulated and falsified year after year. Whether or not it's intentionally done, that's a matter of opinion in most cases, but the data doesn't lie.

I'm not making this up:
Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine

Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher

Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree

The evidence is clear. Most scientists agree on climate change and the ones who don't are in the pocket of the oil industry.

I was hoping you'd take that bait.

Just like astronomy, you can't take the science as a whole and claim that it is in its infancy--we're far enough out of toddler stage to land people on the moon (nearly 50 years ago, I might add) and spacecraft, probes, and remote-controlled robots on other planets and celestial bodies like comets. I wouldn't call that infancy. Sure, we're in the infancy of research dark matter, or black holes, or the study of extra-solar planetary systems, but we've got plenty of grasp on our own system to be able to do the things that we do, and with amazine accuracy for only being in the infant stages of knowledge.

And you are giving too much credit to what we've accomplished versus what we've yet to accomplish. Just because we've made all that progress doesn't mean we are out of the infancy stage of that science. Even astronomy within our own Solar System is lacking.

With climate science, the entirety of the science is relatively new ground as a widespread science, and regardless of your regurgitated (and regurgitated, and regurgitated) claim that there is a consensus, the fact remains that if there is, it's based on the knowledge that an infant would have, and I'm not one to assume that they have it right at this stage. Way too much to learn, and way too many diverging forks in that scientific road that take warming and cooling and CO2 levels into completely different directions as to causes and effects.

History of climate change science

Climate science isn't as recent as you seem to think it is. Even the scientific consensus that you seem hellbent on dismissing is 30 years old.

I don't deny that at all (well, except that climate science, as politicized and religion-ized as it has become, has ceases existing like real science should). But you forgot one thing--they don't know if it's a main driver, if it has a lasting or even truly measurable effect, or if the Earth is capable of compensating naturally. They can't explain why their models don't reflect reality (and are generally way overstated both on temp rise and the effects), nor to what extent or percentage of that rise is solely based on mankind's contributions. They don't even know what drives the historic warm and cold cycles of the planet...all they can do is measure all the levels associated with them and, if we're being honest, make assumptions about the how and why.

Don't blame scientists for politicizing science. They just follow the evidence. Politicians and news pundits politicize the science. The reason the claims are outlandish is because of the politicians, NOT the scientists. Please don't conflate the two.

Quite honestly, it's humanistic narcissism to think that our existence on this planet and what we do on it is going to make any sort of lasting impression in the grand scheme of things, or that we have the ability (or duty, for that matter) to try and alter the course of the climate on earth--for preceived good or bad.

I may have said this before, but I keep forgetting--This is always an interesting debate, but I'm done with this one. I'm sure we'll meet again on the next ride on this merr-go-round.

Best Regards.

Much of human thought and desire is narcissistic. Anyone who seriously studies Astronomy can see that. We are VERY insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

Snow levels are falling? Buffalo New York might think differently, also northern Italy.