OmniNept
Actionaut
I originally made this post on the Omni forums because the situation presented valuable learning opportunities. Figured it's worth sharing here as well. Word of warning, though - it's lengthy.
Nept said:Had this discussion with an American friend today.
A few things to note:
1) As far as the scientific community is concerned, there is no debate over the existence of global warming and its human cause. The experts on climate change have reached consensus such that there is no significant scientific body that disagrees .
2) The global warming "debate" to which Shy is referring occurs not within scientific circles, but within public opinion - American public opinion, specifically.
3) Never say "cite your sources" to someone able to cite their sources.
4) Never cite a source without reading it. Shy cited wikipedia as support for his position, failing to realize the article's point. As stated in the first paragraph, " In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.[2][3][4] No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view,[5] though a few organizations hold non-committal positions.[6] Disputes over the key scientific facts of global warming are now more prevalent in the popular media than in the scientific literature, where such issues are treated as resolved, and more in the United States than globally."
5) Debate in the public opinion sphere is especially encouraged in the United States because the reality runs against economic interests. Source? "On one side of this debate can be found virtually all of the relevant climate scientists in the world, demonstrating a degree of consensus that most social scientists [such as the economists directing your fiscal policies] can only dream about. On the other side are a much smaller number of contrarians scientists and their allies - but also the ability to invoke SCAMs [Scientific Certaintity Argumentation Methods]. The net result, at least up to the time when this article was completed, was that the small number of climate skeptics, backed by outspoken politicians (see, for example, Inhofe 2005; Pegg 2003), have generally carried the day in U.S. policy debates - doing so largely by constructing the belief that, extensive formal assessments of the available evidence notwithstanding, the science is "uncertain" (Borenstein 2003)" (Freudenburg, Gramling, & Davidson, 2008).
-Note: bracketed comments are my own
6) Beware confirmation bias: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
and,
7) DON'T BE SO STUPID AS TO REJECT OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE TO PROTECT YOUR GODDAMNED EGO
SHY BORG says
I thought Mitt was scary the first time he Ran.
I was actually oogling Huckabee for a while the first round and then Ron Paul this last time.
Doesn't seem like I can pick a winner.
Nept says
I take issue with anyone denying global warming
or trying to treat it as a belief
or as an unverifiable issue
SHY BORG says
There's a ton of proof on either side of that fence.
Nept says
when every major scientific institute
in the world
has cast their vote on its existence
there's really not
there's a handful of contrarians, none of whom have weight in the scientific community
SHY BORG says
If you're going to get into this with me, I suggest you site your sources.
cite
Nept says
sec
SHY BORG says
lol
You can also look at geologic history and as a whole, we're actually on the decline. And noone is denying "climate change", but what the actual casuse is too.
I'm not all too sure that was english, but you might understand what I was trying to say.
Nept says
hmm
don't think I can drag and drop journal articles
SHY BORG says
Bah.. just stick with what we all know: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
Nept says
here
I'll just copy paste a few relevant sections and citations
although I doubt you've the access required to actually look them up
unless you're subscribing to journal providers
SHY BORG says
You must be democrat, BTW.
or is mor appropriate?
Nept says
I'm canadian
SHY BORG says
lol
Nept says
our conservatives are more liberal than your democrats
also, you should read your sources before you cite them as support
because even the wiki article supports my view
In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.[2][3][4] No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view,[5] though a few organizations hold non-committal positions.[6] Disputes over the key scientific
facts of global warming are now more prevalent in the popular media than in the scientific literature, where such issues are treated as resolved, and more in the United States than globally
SHY BORG says
I never was providing it as support for an argument. As I wasn't trying to get into it. You did. I just said if you're going to start urguing, I want to see sources.
So I provided some generic crap.
Nept says
essentially, even wikipedia's stating that the debate's largely public
or rather, in the public opinion domain
and largely centred in the states
SHY BORG says
I'm too busy working to debate such issues.
Nept says
well, I can understand that
but you have to admit
that's pretty damning
. In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.[2][3][4] No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view,[5] though a few organizations hold non-committal positions.
but here, I'll paste in some info from a few literature reviews
and provide the citations
in case you want to review them later
break time reading, I suppose
SHY BORG says
hehe.. OK
Nept says
As spelled out perhaps most clearly by McCright and Dunlap (2003), the
challenges to scientific consensus on global warming are particularly impressive:
The traditional focus of work on “the second face of power” (Bachrach
and Baratz 1970) involves keeping an issue off the agenda and out of public
consciousness (see also Crenson 1971; Stone 1980).
By contrast, global warming provides a case where industry interests have needed to attack some of the most prestigious scientific organizations in the world—doing so after the issue had already gained a place on the agenda—and doing so with such effectiveness that “policy-making ground to a halt” (McCright and Dunlap 2003:349).
well, this is the most significant piece
if I can get it to copy
SHY BORG says
But, just so you knwo where I stand (not that I calim any great education on the matter)... I dont' deny there is a change happenign in the climate that is observable within our record keeping. But, I do beleive that climate change is on ongoing thing and will always be going on on our planet. Whether or not we have have as major of an impact on it as we think we might is definitely debatable.
Nept says
I'm not an expert on climate change
my education's in psychology
however, I do trust expert opinion on this matter
and expert opinion on this matter is largely undivided
there's no major scientific body that disagrees with the notion that global warming is a) real
and b) primarily caused by human activity
SHY BORG says
Point heard and understood!
Nept says
I can't copy/paste this, so I'm just going to type the damn thing out and email you the source article with its references
"An impressive array of scientific bodies have by now formally concluded that global warming is "real" and caused largely by humans; perhaps the most intensive assessments have been provided by the international scientific panel known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - an effort involving more than 2000 of the world's best-respected climate scientists, from more than 100
countries. That Panel's overall assessments (see, for example, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 1995, 2001, 2007) conclude that global warming is real and anthropogenic, with global concentrations of carbon dioxide having reached the highest levels to be seen on this planet in at least 420, 000 years, and possible 20,000,000 years. The IPCC assessments are also backed by the most
prestigious of national scientific bodies, including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (2005) and the British Royal Society."
and this part is especially important
"When Congressional opponents of regulation tried to undercut the legitimacy of the most recent summary from the IPCC by seeking additional, independent assessments from the National Academy of Sciences, what they received instead were additional confirmation of the international consensus (see, for example, National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council 2001; National Academy of Sciences
/National Research Council 2001; National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council 2005; see also the more detailed analysis by Fisher 2004).