Financial Times - American Cities of the Future

[chris08876]

How can you trust the credibility of it when it's less than 1/10 of 1% of all the papers published on the topic?

There's close to 9000-10000 scientists who published papers relating to the topic, and one disagrees.

This is just denial at its best. We have to base our judgement on tangible, scientific evidence.

Its the same type of argument that you are making like the people who think god created mountains and rivers. But when you present them with facts, they blatantly ignore it. Some get offended.

[skyscraper]

Originally Posted by chris08876

How can you trust the credibility of it when it's less than 1/10 of 1% of all the papers published on the topic?

There's close to 9000-10000 scientists who published papers relating to the topic, and one disagrees.

This is just denial at its best. We have to base our judgement on tangible, scientific evidence.

Its the same type of argument that you are making like the people who think god created mountains and rivers. But when you present them with facts, they blatantly ignore it. Some get offended.

I doubt that anyone's opinion has ever been changed by a message board post, but I'll just say the following things:
- there are more than .1% of all papers on the topic that do not agree with global warming, certainly on anthropogenic global warming
- in your analogy between the time of religious influence on science and the current day, the overwhelming majority of people used to believe that the earth was created in 7 days, etc., just as the vast majority of people today believe in global warming because it is the authority (the church, the media, political groups, whatever) that say so and want to squelch debate on it. It is those in the minority who were armed with the facts and were courageous enough to stand up to the authorities and be proven right. Even if it's a minority of one, the truth is the truth, so said Ghandi.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by Reverberation

And so do I. I understand that the climate changes, and that pollution can feasibly affect that, along with volcanoes and solar activity. You know i'm a weather junkie too. In fact I pay such close attention to the weather that I have started to notice that, according to some sources ANYTHING is evidence of climate change. Severe Thunderstorm? Climate change causes more extreme weather. Drier than average summer? Climate change. Wetter than average following summer? Climate change. 3 days below freezing when the average is 5? Climate change. 7 days the following winter? Climate change. Late season cold front? Holy shit..... That is the epitome of "unfalsifiable claims" that Molson was talking about. The whole "scientific consensus" thing ultimately marginalizes research on broader issues pertaining to climate variability and change and has limited our options. In short, again, more people would be receptive and interested in the cause if it didn't become a textbook left wing political witch hunt.

But most people that I have encountered who claim that mankind is warming the earth and that to solve it we need to start charging people for creating a byproduct of life never have an argument beyond 1) an appeal to authority, and 2) STFU. Science can prove that pollution affects climate, but can't prove the exact outcome of mean temperature without also predicting seismic and solar events. I'm always interested in hearing about weather and learning about how the earth is changing but leftists control this topic now, and i'm not pure enough in my leftist credentials to engage in this (at least on the internet) without being called stupid, corrupt, evil, hateful, and whatever else they say to get people who disagree to shut up.

Since I'm actually in the field myself, I will tell you that I haven't been hearing all these claims you mention, at least from fellow atmospheric and climate scientists, the ones who actually know what they're talking about. In fact, climate scientists have been cautioning the public not to jump to conclusions based on a hot summer, or episodes of severe weather, etc. However, Fox News and Rush frequently put these words in the mouths of scientists simply to inflame their followers. It's what Fox and Rush do best: mislead.

On the other hand, it is absolutely true that every time there is a cold winter over a fraction of the earth, the deniers use that as PROOF that there is no climate change or global warming. Fox, Rush, and Republican politicians play that game constantly. They want the logic to work when it supports their political agenda, but not when it doesn't. And that logic doesn't work either way.

Your average American, whether a denier or not, doesn't know that the word "global" doesn't mean it's warmer everywhere. It just means warmer based on long term temporal averages and averages covering the planet. It's really pretty simple.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by chris08876

^^^^

You have to look at the general consensus of scientists. There will always be those that are rogue, and will falsify information, but when most agree that global warming and its implications on the climate are real, then that's something that should be taken to heart.

Unfortunately in this day in age, especially with politics, everybody's a scientist.

An independent panel looked at the climate studies and did not find falsification of data. It does happen in some cases, most notably lately in forensic labs.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by skyscraper

if those few papers are correct and the 1000s that support global warming are wrong, then yes. and the only way to determine who is right is by the science. you mentioned that science was corrupted by religion, which is true. but it is still being corrupted by political agendas from both sides.
science is not a democracy. and science is not determined by consensus. in fact, the essence of science is skepticism, not consensus.

There is no evidence that climate change science (the part supporting man-made climate change) is corrupted by any political agenda.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by skyscraper

I doubt that anyone's opinion has ever been changed by a message board post, but I'll just say the following things:
- there are more than .1% of all papers on the topic that do not agree with global warming, certainly on anthropogenic global warming
- in your analogy between the time of religious influence on science and the current day, the overwhelming majority of people used to believe that the earth was created in 7 days, etc., just as the vast majority of people today believe in global warming because it is the authority (the church, the media, political groups, whatever) that say so and want to squelch debate on it. It is those in the minority who were armed with the facts and were courageous enough to stand up to the authorities and be proven right. Even if it's a minority of one, the truth is the truth, so said Ghandi.

You're always welcome to prepare your own scientific, peer reviewed paper disputing the scientists and their body of evidence, and then present it at the many conferences and workshops on the subject.

[mhays]

This is why we need education, and not just memorization but something about context. This, plus a media that's allowed to lie, is why we get the Reverberations and so on.