On Global Warming

[OmniNept]

I originally made this post on the Omni forums because the situation presented valuable learning opportunities.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.

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).

 

[57thEnryu]

Shy has a point, these fluctuation of warm and cold have happened since the earth was created. I think we can all agree that climate change (please don't call it global warming) is happening, between the last 2 winters here where it was almost bare, then the record heat waves in Europe, drought across most of the world. But that is not to say that there is only heat and drought, because the atmosphere is warmer so are the oceans, and as a result there is more evaporation and stronger storms. For example Katrina, the winter of 2010 (biggest winter I've ever seen), even the snow they have been getting in England (usually unheard of).

We (the human race) have put a considerable amount into the atmosphere as well, however climate change is NOT caused completely by humans. In fact, most "greenhouse gasses" are released from natural sources (just a quick reference: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html). To say it it a phenomenon created entirely by man and the industrial age is not true. We just piggybacked onto a natural process.

(I did a 3 year project in high-school where climate change was one of the major issues. I went to intentional fair twice so I had to know a lot about it in order the defend my project from just about every judge)

 

[Gheist]

[...]

 

[57thEnryu]

some baby gurgling noises

and there goes the thread

or at least any form of intellectual conversation

 

[OmniNept]

Enryu, I'll try to explain the errors in your thought process without playing the pedantic ass. I may fail, but bear with me.

Your first paragraph states explicitly that climate change "is happening", that Earth's temperatures have fluctuated since its formation, and that global warming is the wrong term. Let's broach the latter point first: global warming is, in fact, the proper term - proper insofar as it's referred to as such by the scientific community. Within scientific journals, global warming refers to the "increase in Earth's average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases"; climate change refers to "a long-term change in the Earth's climate, or of a region on Earth". Climate change can result from global warming, and of course doesn't present only as desertification or other heat-associated processes. Obviously, climate change isn't associated only with global warming, and can result from other factors as well.

In short, you've oversimplified the issue. You thought that the terms were synonymous and that their difference lay only in the loaded language of "global warming". But that's incorrect. If you're interested in further reading, NASA's website has a thorough explanation: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html

What about the sentence's first conclusion - that "climate change is happening"? Well, yes, it is; however, so too is global warming. Global warming, not climate change, was the subject of discussion, and its existence is well-documented by the scientific literature. Again, "No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view [that global warming exists and is largely man-made], though a few organizations hold non-committal positions" (from Wikipedia, but you can find better sources amongst those I listed earlier). Arguing against this position is akin to arguing that cigarettes do not pose a lung cancer risk. And while your high school science fair experience provides you familiarity with the topic, it doesn't grant you expert status.

As for your other assertion - that global warming is not largely man-made - well, the experts disagree with you there too.

...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 . . . 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 . . . 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).

That fact in and of itself should be sufficient to stop further argument, but let's look at the issue conceptually - just in case. You're implying that global warming is not a man-made process, that we've simply sped things up a little, and that these fluctuations are par for the course given the planet's history. Again, the overwhelming majority of experts on this issue disagree with your position (I simply can't state that enough) . . . but we'll ignore that for a moment. Your reasoning is as follows,

"We (the human race) have put a considerable amount into the atmosphere as well, however climate change is NOT caused completely by humans. In fact, most "greenhouse gasses" are released from natural sources (just a quick reference: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html).

Essentially, you're saying that because these gases exist naturally within our atmosphere in large quantities, that humans cannot be the sole cause of global warming.

Here's the problem with your logic: when a system is in equilibrium, relatively slight changes (the slight being arguable in this case) can cause severe and rapid fluctuations. No one is arguing that (most of) these gases didn't exist prior to humanity's "contributions"; in fact, several of them are vital to life. Instead, the science is telling us that humans put too many greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, disturbing the equilibrium (through increased average surface temperature) and resulting in rapid fluctuations (climate change). And of course, the site that you linked supports that position too.

Many greenhouse gases occur naturally in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, and nitrous oxide, while others are synthetic . . . Atmospheric concentrations of both the natural and man-made gases have been rising over the last few centuries due to the industrial revolution. As the global population has increased and our reliance on fossil fuels (such as coal, oil and natural gas) has been firmly solidified, so emissions of these gases have risen. While gases such as carbon dioxide occur naturally in the atmosphere, through our interference with the carbon cycle (through burning forest lands, or mining and burning coal), we artificially move carbon from solid storage to its gaseous state, thereby increasing atmospheric concentrations.

*Edit* Hopefully that didn't come across as too dickish. Now I have to put those thousands of words toward actual papers. Will check in when those are complete.

 

[Propkid]

Enryu plz... Nept is right, even though in the first post he was trying to prove a point to someone who obviously couldn't care less about it.

To chill everyone out and provide some input into the conversation:
http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change.html
Oh and Nept, where do you usually dwell on the Internet? You don't post much here.

 

[WildFire]

Omni forums until he decides to grace us with his presence.

 

[kasityolainen]

Global warming is the Devil's way of making sure homosexuals wear less clothing, thus accelerating the spread of the sinful gay gene through the optic nerves of good, god fearing people. This is I wear special eyewear, which my pastor sold me: Gay-Bans. The Bible is the only source I need.

 

[57thRomance]

Global warming is the Devil's way of making sure homosexuals wear less clothing, thus accelerating the spread of the sinful gay gene through the optic nerves of good, god fearing people. This is I wear special eyewear, which my pastor sold me: Gay-Bans. The Bible is the only source I need.

Way to tie the conversation into something totally irrelevant -_-

 

[Rougey]

Climate change happens, but since the industrial we've accelerated it to a point where it's going to be a serious *dancing* threat.

But China isn't going to stop burning my countries coal any time soon, nor is the rest of the world going to stop buying their exports.

 

[57thEnryu]

Global warming is the Devil's way of making sure homosexuals wear less clothing, thus accelerating the spread of the sinful gay gene through the optic nerves of good, god fearing people. This is I wear special eyewear, which my pastor sold me: Gay-Bans. The Bible is the only source I need.

Why am I not gay yet then?

Actually I take that back, I'll be gay for karnage any day

 

[kasityolainen]

Way to tie the conversation into something totally irrelevant -_-

Perhaps I wanted to start a commentary on how people often treat what they first read or hear as fact against overwhelming consensus on a matter, perhaps I wanted to portray ignorance and bias in an overstated way in order to garner likes on the internet to make my penis swell. Maybe I just wanted an excuse to use 'Gay-Bans' in a discussion, Jebus knows I haven't had enough chances to do so. In the end, who knows! I work in mysterious ways.

 

[moronval]

gay

 

[OmniNept]

Perhaps I wanted to start a commentary on how people often treat what they first read or hear as fact against overwhelming consensus on a matter...

This. Religion isn't irrelevant - not at all. Nor are party lines, patriotism, economic interests, and all the other things related to self-perception/identity and global warming.

The problem is that people are taking positions based on what's most convenient to their self-esteem/sense of belonging. It is difficult to look at evidence that runs contrary to your initial position, whether it ties into religious beliefs, political preferences, or just plain not wanting to appear stupid.

My friend Shy provided a prime example: he refused to acknowledge the overwhelming consensus that global warming is both real and anthropogenic EVEN AFTER THE SOURCE HE CITED DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED HIS CLAIM. He could not have been more wrong. And yet he refused to accept the truth. The moment he was left without rational ground for argument, he tried to pretend he wasn't interested in the first place. A dismissive attitude and passive-aggressive smiley faces replaced his previous desire for discussion. That's a problem!

http://www.wunderground.com/earth-day/2013/closing-the-climate-change-consensus-gap

I don't know whether Enryu's follow-up was another such case, or whether he simply didn't read the original post and its links. Perhaps he learned that he was mistaken; we don't know, though, since he didn't acknowledge it - just made a facetious post (after complaining about Gheist having done the same) and left things there.

This type of behaviour happens all too often, and affects us all. It's a frustrating combination of confirmation bias, insecurity, and plain old denial. Religions are prime breeding grounds for these sorts of reactions, but they're not the only ones. Patriotism and party lines are another massive source - especially in America - as are most other group associations. It's comforting to proceed placidly along your acquired thought processes and opinions, but when done en-masse, it's devastating.

Why do you think people accepted slavery for so long? Went along with racism? Gender inequality? What about religious discrimination? Homophobia? Do you think history's many genocides would've proceeded so smoothly had their perpetrating parties been composed of people prone to critical thought?

Ignorance, prejudices, and the various group think/self-esteem processes that power these atrocities are difficult to overcome. But maybe it's time we started trying.

Don't be afraid to learn that you're wrong.

 

[Gheist]

Sadly I did not have the time to spell out my exact thoughts on 57thEnryu's reply. Yet especially its last part ("but, I know, because... well... high school") screamed for some kind of immediate reaction. Facetious? Well yes. Did it help getting my point across? I guess so. Definitely saved time though.

 

[OmniNept]

Just to clarify, in case there's some confusion: by "Enryu's follow-up" I meant Enryu's post.