Global warming collective hysteria can be dangerous. 20 tons is nothing, but imagine that our world leaders would decide to start seeding the oceans with iron on a grand scale. What are the consequences of a worlwide plankton bloom?

Incredible what kind of things they fund - I could have found better use for the money.

Because:
I still haven't seen any empirical evidence that CO_2 is actually creating us a problem. I'm just dying to see this evidence. And I think we need it before we jump into any conclusions (well - it seems we already did). All I have seen until now are actually counter-evidence (the ice-core records and others), making me highly skeptical.

I think it was last year (or the year before that) that the IPCC said that man-made global warming is "almost completely certain" - basing the statement solely on computer models of the climate of the entire planet - not very convincing when considering the computational power available at the moment and the number of unknowns = assumptions in these models.

I think we should focus our efforts more productively.

Are these people insane.....? Let's start fooling around with a system that we don't fully understand. Ingenious. MaxP and BernardP pretty much nailed this one, I don't have much to add, other than this: Doesn't anyone remember the disastrous consequences when we started trying to fool with the ecosystem in Yellowstone National Park? We failed, miserably, and created a decades long crisis for the park, because we have insufficient knowledge of the variables. Sound familiar?

Trying to encourage growth of plankton will cause something way worse. They came up with ways to warm the earth in the 1970's by putting top soil on the north and south poles. Can't we just ship all this environmental nutcases to the moon?

I really don't get why some people absolutely DON'T wanna believe in global warming.

MaxP: "I still haven't seen any empirical evidence that CO_2 is actually creating us a problem"

Well, I don't know you but I know for sure you didn't study science, nor have any scientific background.

I'm gonna give y'all some undeniable facts about global warming, although I wonder, would it change anyone's point of view?

-Trend of Warming Temperatures (much too fast to be natural)
-Very Fast Increasing Carbon Dioxide in Atmosphere
-More Frequent Extreme Weather
-Disappearing Glaciers (who have been around for thousands of years, this is in analogy to the melting Arctic Sea Ice and Antarctic Sea Ice, ofcourse easily discredited theory because of the seasons effect)
-Tropical Diseases Spreading (this happens because bugs that couldn't survive in the cold have a wider living area, this has already been proven here in europe)
-Oceans Warming With Coral Bleaching & Disintegration

there are a lot of consequences, our entire planet showing signs of weakness, we're decades away from a real breakdown, but denying the problem, is asking for bigger problems!!!

Global warming, co2 may cause global warming but we don't know that for sure and there are several site, articles, and scientists that argue with some compelling evidence that co2 is not the cause global warming but don't dismiss that fact that the earth is warming.

this is just one of many sites...
http://joannenova.com.au/wp/global-warming/

Wasn't it back in the 70's when everyone was convinced we were headed into a new ice age because of similar concerns?

ANYWAY... If the cause of global warming is too much C02, then it seem like a better option is to try and fix the cause of the problem and not just put a band-aid on it. Just sounds like a bad idea from a non-scientific observer.

the earth is currently cooling, not warming. Warming may start again soon (because of solar flares and whatnot), but IS NOT HAPPENING NOW. The fact is that we are constantly getting warmer and cooler, different zones are accumulating more or less moisture, but to show that we are warming some .5* is absolutely nothing. According to evolutionary theory the earth use to be a lot hotter, and that it cooled down to the point where it can now sustain life. Does that make this the 'right' temperature? If we were a bit warmer we could have more life on the planet. More CO2 and we could actually grow plants with less water in harsher environments, so are the global warming nutcases against life? So what if over the next 200 years we loose some coast lands, I think we as well as the rest of nature, will adapt to the new coastline. I mean, its not like it will happen overnight. The simple fact is that these scientists are a bunch of old farts (even the young ones) who are afraid of change. They are afraid of the unknown and are pitied. then we more conservative types quietly say 'hey moron, open your eyes' and they say we are being mean. Stick to real science, and believe in the best of intent of those who think differently, and give them some space. No one person will destroy the world unless they are a lawyer who cons the gov't into doing something stupid (and what an impressionable gov't we are about to have in America).
My bet is whether created or evolved, or both the simple fact is that this Earth has a lot of redundant systems to keep things in balance, and if we leave well enough alone then it will repair itself well enough.

I have a phd in theoretical physics - but put that aside and the phrase I used was:

"I still haven't seen any empirical evidence that CO_2 is actually creating us a problem"

Meaning that I haven't seen evidence that CO_2 causes global warming.

In physics all widely accepted models have to fit experimental data, or at least agree to some other theoretical model, which agrees with experiment, in the intersection of their applicability - climate models seem to lack both. I'm unsure if they even work on small scales, let alone scale upwards from there.

Then about the global warming facts you listed:

-Trend of Warming Temperatures (much too fast to be natural)

* Well, one could argue that any human activity is natural as well - we are, in the end, part of the nature itself - not detached from it at all. Aside from that I'm quite certain that there have been more dramatic warming periods before. In fact I remember reading about it.

But more importantly: no cause for the warming mentioned - in the next point you mention carbon dioxide and expect the people to make the connection in their head, without stating it, which is quite typical when no correlation can be justified.

-Very Fast Increasing Carbon Dioxide in Atmosphere

* This is pretty much undeniable fact - but this does not say anything about what that carbon dioxide actually causes.

-More Frequent Extreme Weather
-Disappearing Glaciers (who have been around for thousands of years, this is in analogy to the melting Arctic Sea Ice and Antarctic Sea Ice, ofcourse easily discredited theory because of the seasons effect)
-Tropical Diseases Spreading (this happens because bugs that couldn't survive in the cold have a wider living area, this has already been proven here in europe)
-Oceans Warming With Coral Bleaching & Disintegration

* Yeap, all true, as far as I know, but no mention of what is causing the warming trend of recent years.


I never said I deny the warming trend of recent decades - I'm not at all against the man-made global warming theory in principle, but being a theory about nature, it should not be so difficult to show it to be correct - especially when you can easily measure its outcomes.

All in all it is starting to look more like religion than physics.

I'm a geologist so bear with me. People need to understand that some things are out of our control and ultimately we're not going to be around forever. Adjusting the atmospheric content with a crapload of iron? Where the hell are they going to find enough with China and India about to hit their industrial age and let alone the money to ship it? Investing in solar panels will be alot cheaper, easier, and alot more scientifically sound in approaching the idea curbing CO2 content. Although Lord Xenu's Fe-clad plan will probably...hell, I don't know, Fe? Really? I'm not saying that over the past 150 years the Earth's climate hasn't been impacted by us and we might lose millions or billions of people on the coasts around the world but we have time to adjust our ways. Most of the United States has been under water several times in the last few hundred million years. During the Mesozoic period plants covered nearly every square inch of land. Earth was hot, CO2-rich, and plants and animals loved it. It's natural so let's get prepared. Life and species diversification is hella more abundant in the tropics than the tundra don't you think? I say heat up all that land in Siberia and the Canadian Shield and get people off the coast. Put them in factories making solar panels and killing the newly overpopulated white fluffy seals to feed the poor or whatever. If it's unsustainable it's a waste of time.

The predictable result of algae blooms will be dead zones, because the oxygen will be all used up. Since
this is happening all over the world where fertilizer runoff caused algae blooms and dead zones result, I am very save in predicting this result. In other words, adding iron to the ocean is like adding fertizer runoff.

This website posts a few thoughts on global warming (left column):
http://www.hootervillegazette.com

31,000 scientists have no signed a petition urging the U.S. Government not to ratify the Kyoto agreement:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734

And 650 international scientists have signed a statement that they disagree with the manmade global warming assessment:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/dec/08121803.html

Ariana Huffington explains numerous reasons why Al Gore was wrong about global warming:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harold-ambler/mr-gore-apology-accepted_b_154982.html

Some food for thought!

An awful lot of people here seem to know that this is recipee for a disaster. Yet, the scientists who are going to do this *test* will be the only ones that will have a clue.

It's a proof of concept, people. An attempt to acquire some better knowledge of the consequenses of such actions.

Jezus Christ... Mention GW and everybody goes insane.

>Wasn't it back in the 70's when everyone was convinced we were headed into a new ice age because of similar concerns?

[Yes. Another poster (above) had posted a link to the covers of Time magazine which show that:
http://www.hootervillegazette.com/ -Rick]

You've been mislead. There never was a "GLOBAL COOLING SCARE" in the scientific community and literature. Sure, there was POPULAR MEDIA SCARE because of the nice headlines, but the SCIENCE (you know, that fact-based activity) has always pointed towards warming, as illustrated in this paper:

http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/89/9/pdf/i1520-0477-89-9-1325.pdf

>ANYWAY... If the cause of global warming is too much C02, then it seem like a better option is to try and fix the cause of the problem and not just put a >band-aid on it. Just sounds like a bad idea from a non-scientific observer.

Why should it be mutually exclusive? Preventing future emission will not remove the CO2 that is currently contributing. We may find that a whole series of different methods will be necessary to fixate the already released CO2.

[We may also find that CO2 has little to do with global warming. As your PDF points out, political power is gained by scaring the public. Political realities are not always realities. Well, that's just a thought from the other camp anyway. :) -Rick]

>According to evolutionary theory the earth use to be a lot hotter

Serious science is all about precision, so this is not a good start...

>More CO2 and we could actually grow plants with less water in harsher environments, so are the global warming nutcases against life? So what if over the next 200 years we loose some coast lands, I think we as well as the rest of nature, will adapt to the new coastline. I mean, its not like it will happen overnight. The simple fact is that these scientists are a bunch of old farts (even the young ones) who are afraid of change. They are afraid of the unknown and are pitied. then we more conservative types quietly say 'hey moron, open your eyes' and they say we are being mean.

Oh yeah, it's absolutely no problem if a billion people have to move around, like because for example water supply is changing, or because there isn't enough money to build higher dikes so cities (especially in poor countries) have to move (too bad most big cities are close to water). Sure, we will be able to handle that without trouble. There's more than enough rain forest to move into, isn't there? And we DO have an excess of biodiversity right now. And humanity as a whole has shown in the past that mass migrations will go smoooothly. Especially if we have another 2-3 billion of us. The UN is going to coordinate things perfectly such that everything happens without a glitch. The West will welcome those poor suckers into their arms and we will all share our prosperity. Wars over things like these are something of the past. It's going to be FUN! And converting all those deserts and mountain ranges to fertile soil is also just going to take a couple of decades. (or we can wait until the Earth takes care of it all by itself, say 5-10 thousand years or so).

No, it's a complete mystery why anyone would be worried if global warming is right. We deal with these kind of global changes every day.

But just imagine what would happen if instead we would start investing 1% of GDP in green technologies! God, that would be a DISRUPTIVE DISASTER! The economical catastrophy would be GARGANTUAN!

>Stick to real science, and believe in the best of intent of those who think differently, and give them some space. No one person will destroy the world unless they are a lawyer who cons the gov't into doing something stupid (and what an impressionable gov't we are about to have in America).
My bet is whether created or evolved, or both the simple fact is that this Earth has a lot of redundant systems to keep things in balance, and if we leave well enough alone then it will repair itself well enough.

You worry about the Earth?? The Earth is not the problem. The Earth will take care of its business and will be fine. There's just one little problem: there's a little bit of a timescale difference here. For the earth, 10.000 years is the blink of an eye. For humans, it's eternity. Our civilization isn't equipped to smoothly handle relatively rapid global scale changes. With a little bit of bad luck it could be as if Earth shakes off human civilization (or at least a significant part of it) like a dog shakes off a nasty flee. It doesn't care one bit about us.

The only thing all of us "laymen" are saying is this; You don't mess with things you don't understand. As a species, we know just enough to be very, very dangerous, and not enough to get ourselves out of trouble if we do *really* screw up. We've only got one planet to live on at the moment, and we are perfectly capable messing things up when we're working with as many variables as there are involved with a system as complicated as ecosystem or climate. Attempting to modify the environment is the height of arrogance. Meandmyself, you are certainly right about at least one thing... The Earth can shake us off like a nasty flea, in the blink of an eye.

So, "maxp with the phd" :D .

Let me ask you a question. Here's what your DIRECT COLLEAGUES have to say about GW: (check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...ate_change)


Here you'll find statements by both "The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics" and the "American Physical Society" that "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. .... We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."

These are just two of a great many of scientific societies, including some of the most prestigious worldwide, who subscribe to the concept that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. But I picked out these particular two because we have no reason to assume that these people are (as fellow *physicists*) less or more qualified than you in their opinion.

So why do you think THEY apparently DO find the evidence convincing? Are they dumb or less critical? Are American physicists known for their ideological way of approaching things (they don't care about evidence that contradicts their pet theory), but YOU are somehow the exception? Do the boards of these organizations not represent their members? Is only the "sheepish" part of the scientific population member of these organizations, and is "sheepishness" a guarantee for being wrong? What is it exactly, and can you argue that convincingly?


Or in other words: why should we have more confidence in a small number of dissenting scientists, instead of the clear majority? Although on the face of it it does look like an argument from authority, the particular nature of science makes it harder to dismiss than in the case of politics or literature, for example. A scientific consensus is far less likely to be mislead, than in those other undertakings.



>-Very Fast Increasing Carbon Dioxide in Atmosphere
>* This is pretty much undeniable fact - but this does not say anything about what that carbon dioxide actually causes.

I'm always struck though by the EASE with which the conclusion that human intervention is the most important contribution, is dismissed. I can imagine people DISAGREEING with that conclusion, but the more categorical this dismissal is, the less believable IMO. MAYBE the IPCC report, backed by thousands of scientists, is ultimately wrong. But a report like that can not be total bollocks or as easy to dismiss as some like to think (and as most of the denialists here indicate by their language and self confidence in their opinions, or by their rehashing of counter-arguments that have been beaten to death like a thousand dead horses).

>it should not be so difficult to show it to be correct - especially when you can easily measure its outcomes.
>All in all it is starting to look more like religion than physics.

I don't think you'll find anyone seriously involved in this who claims it's an easy matter, or totally certain beyound any doubt. That doesn't make it a *religion*. The IPCC report talks in terms of "likeliness" of scenarios, and the critique on the report actually comes from both sides: those who think it OVERSTATES the problem, and those who think it actually UNDERSTATES it. Which indicates that the report is probably not extremist, but a good "best guess" if you would like to think about it in those terms.

The inherent uncertainty that undoubtedly still remains at this stage, is what makes it necessary to be very cautious. The LEAST that we can say is that continuous investigation hasn't succeeded in assuring us that everything will be OK eventually. And the climate is likely to be like a huge supertanker: if you're not pro-active, it's by definition too late to change course by the time the threat takes on undeniable proportions. Who wants to take the chance? If you're in a position with responsibility, there isn't much choice beside taking the worst scenario serious and doing your best to try to prevent it. Certainly if that is actually CHEAPER than cleaning up the mess afterwards (economists have written serious reports about this)... Add the fact that there are more than enough other reasons beside GW to change course in certain matters (overpopulation, eventual exhaustion of fossil fuels, pollution...), and it becomes almost foolish to not change direction as soon as possible.

[We may also find that CO2 has little to do with global warming. As your PDF points out, political power is gained by scaring the public. Political realities are not always realities. Well, that's just a thought from the other camp anyway. :) -Rick]

That's why we have scientific consensus as most reliable assessment of reality. There isn't anything better (or *less* ideologically influenced) available, and if you don't like it there's only one way to overturn it, and that is from within science itself. Your gut feeling or ideological idea or anti-establishment feelings or self-interest that goes against it might be ultimately RIGHT 1 time out of 10, but 9 times out of 10 it will be wrong.

[That's the point - there is no consensus. There is the official position, but there are hundreds of scientists who believe differently and have evidence to suggest that while global warming is happening, man's influence is far lower than is being considered.

Someone posted this link the other day. It may be applicable here as well. It's called "The Skeptic's Handbook" and conveys some information which many may be unaware of, including CO2s diminishing affects on the environment as levels increase.
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/

-Rick]

I never really cared for the term..... It's either consensus, or it's science. Science can be proven. Consensus is merely agreement.

Here's a story where a simple problem of cat overpopulation has resulted in something unexpected.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601130&sid=aCFBfGQY.iUU&refer=environment

Rabbit populations are now exploding. A scientific oversight wherein the "solution" to one problem creates another.

From the article after killing feral cats: "Hungry rabbits and rats have caused 40 percent of Macquarie’s native flora to vanish, helping erode island slopes." NICE!

It's what's going to happen here with this experiment as well. The world system is not simple it's amazingly complex.

[That's the point - there is no consensus. There is the official position, but there are hundreds of scientists who believe differently and have evidence to suggest that while global warming is happening, man's influence is far lower than is being considered.]

Someone posted this link the other day. It may be applicable here as well. It's called "The Skeptic's Handbook" and conveys some information which many may be unaware of, including CO2s diminishing affects on the environment as levels increase.
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/

-Rick]

Instead of writing popular books or pdf's that look like children's stories and do an extremely lousy job at hiding their bias, they should follow the scientific process and turn the tide through peer-reviewed research.

Really, that PDF... Allow me to have very little confidence in its neutrality. "Skepticism" is easily adopted as a label (like "Social Democrats" in the 1930's in Germany, lol), and especially so when:

- it reads like nothing more but a "children's hands on guide" to easily *win a debate*, not an honest quest to find out the truth
- not a single word acknowledging that at least SOME data supports the hypothesis. "Too good to be true" enters my mind, and probably not only mine
- sensationalist "tabloid style" headers and fancy truetype fonts and colors, hmm...
- cartoons and selected annotated photographs to ridicule... Yeah, *that's* convincing!

[Okay, then here's what you do: Ignore it. I've also found a website called icecap.us which has a 20-some page DOC file showing that the temperature stations are not installed per government specs. Many of them are close to other objects which would influence their temperature, including A/C units, sides of sun-borne walls, etc. -Rick]

What about the much grander, much larger experiment involving dumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere? For an example of what this can do, investigate the climate on Venus.

I am still amazed at those who regard the safe % of CO2 in our atmosphere as being essentially 100%. Nothing screams 'bias' louder than that as a no-nothing starting point.

Show me one study that shows that current models used by the Man-Made Global Warming crowd are even close to actuality. That is the evidence that is lacking. Even the IPCC - the head MMGW cheerleader - still have to admit that their models don't match up. CO levels lag warming by about 200 years. This doesn't line up with hypotheses posited by the MMGW crowd. A true scientist then has to chance the hypothesis. They won't

But for the doom and gloomers I will repeat my warning about GW. Give me $100 Billion dollars right now or the Earth will turn into a giant fireball in 50 years. I need it quick so send it right away. Sure my models don't entirely correlate with observation, but I won't be able to prove my hypothesis until it's too late!

This is exactly what the MMGW crowd is doing. Now, however, they just turned it into assault and battery of a wonderful ecosystem that is iron deficient for a reason.

Oh, those glaciers. They have been receding for a lot longer than industry has thrived. Why were they receding then? Hmmmmm?

BTW, I have a BS in Biochemistry. Can the MMGW crowd please provide their scientific credentials when posting, as well?

Ok, do people realise that they've carried out 5 of these experiments before? Therefore this experiment is not going to end in disaster and ecosystems suddenly bursting into flames. Whether you agree with it or not, iron fertilization is a valid scientific theory, and the only way to prove its validity or disprove it, is to go out and do the science. Which is the aim of this experiment.

Paul123, you're wasting your time here. What "GW fanboys on TGDaily" think is irrelevant because a) we aren't qualified and we KNOW it (that is also a quality) b) we don't have a spare life to become qualified c) we have no impact, except as boxing bags to keep unambitious GW deniers busy, apparently

If you really think you've got it figured out, you'll have to do like all scientists do and break into the "consensus" with convincing arguments on their territory. Go help the opposition. (seems they need it).

Admittedly, that's a bit harder than what you're doing now, probably, and biochemistry might not be the way to achieve it, with all respect.

A couple of tips: intellectual dishonesty (it might be sloppiness in this case) like equaling this particular group of scientists (criticized by most, as stated in the article) with the entire "MMGW Crowd" is not going to help, and neither will ridicule like "The Day After Tomorrow" nonsense.

BTW, there is an uncanny similarity between evolution-deniers rehashing the same counter arguments time and time again, and GW opposition doing exactly the same. I don't know all that much about climate so I'm not going to waste hours and hours and hours on it, but I'm a bit better informed about evolution and the pattern (like acting as if nobody ever addressed them before) is *very* telling.

You can find the reactions to your "counterarguments" all over the web. Debating them here is futile.

Ok, a lot of Global Warming activists keep saying that the water level is going to rise and millions of people living on the coast will eaither move more inland, or drown.

It's not that I'm dismissing this, I'm just a little confused. Perhaps I'm thinking about this in just a to simple manner though. So help me out here:

How will melting ice caps raise the water levels? For instance, imagine you have a cup of water. If you drop an ice cub into the water, the level will rise, as the ice cube will take up space. Now draw a line to show the current height of the water, then let the cup sit until the cube melts. If you now compare the water level with the previous line, you should see LESS water than the was before, as frozen water expands, then retracts when it melts.

Now obviously this example isn't comparable to our glaciers since the glaciers have ice forming ABOVE the water line, but it seems to me that we need to keep in mind two key facts:

-It's something like 90% ice formations in the oceans are underwater rather than above.
-When ice melts it retracts.

Therfore, 100% of the melting glaciers are actually going to retract space in the water, allowing for the water level to sink. Only 5%-10% of the melted glaciers will actually add to the water in the ocean, after taking into account that the same 5%-10% of water has also retracted.

My understanding from the articles and reports I've read (again, I can't offer any numbers) suggest that when you look at the measurements, we have more of a chance that the water level isgoing to LOWER because the amount the of space the frozen ice occupied after it's original expansion is greater than that of the would-be added space of the thawed (and shrunken) ice above the surface.

Anyways, I'd love to here some of your opinions, as I've always wondered as to the accuracy of this theory.

Sunflash,

you can easily look this up on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...level_rise (at first look, the article seems well referenced)

According to the data, the level has been rising with about 1.8mm/year over the last century, and actually more than 3mm/year over the last decennium. Currently the largest contribution to this actually comes from the *thermal expansion* of the ocean water. Water expands with higher temperature. Only if the melting of ice acellerates, it will start to be the dominating factor.

Historical data proves that the sealevel WILL rise when the icecaps melt, it's not just a calculation. It looks like there is a 100m difference in the sealevel between ice ages. The trick is of course that a lot of ice isn't floating on the ocean (like the Northpole ice), but on land(like the South pole and Greenland, and glaciers). So the contribution of its resulting water is NOT compensated by less water displacement in its ice form.

Anyways, the article gives a good idea about the complexity of this issue.

Sunflash,

you can easily look this up on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...level_rise (at first look, the article seems well referenced)

According to the data, the level has been rising with about 1.8mm/year over the last century, and actually more than 3mm/year over the last decennium. Currently the largest contribution to this actually comes from the *thermal expansion* of the ocean water. Water expands with higher temperature. Only if the melting of ice acellerates, it will start to be the dominating factor.

Historical data proves that the sealevel WILL rise when the icecaps melt, it's not just a calculation. It looks like there is a 100m difference in the sealevel between ice ages. The trick is of course that a lot of ice isn't floating on the ocean (like the Northpole ice), but on land(like the South pole and Greenland, and glaciers). So the contribution of its resulting water is NOT compensated by less water displacement in its ice form.

Anyways, the article gives a good idea about the complexity of this issue.

My disdain for the entire "MMGW" crowd is that it is full of people who have not thought critically and do not have a background in science, yet they always like to question the credentials of those that argue against their stance.

And, comparing Global Warming to Evolution is ridiculous. The two are based on completely different hypothesis. Evolution is also a religious debate. Are you saying the GW is a religious issue?

MMGW does not have consensus among any group of scientists. And if you look at the real consensus you will see that it is now slightly in favor of non-MMGW. There is still a lot of research to be done. I am not saying that we shouldn't continue research. I have a problem spending $BILLIONS on a solution when we don't know if it is the right one or if any solution is even needed. I absolutely oppose solutions such as the one they crazy nut jobs are forcing down our throats. They have the potential to do far worse damage to use than GW has. I only hope that the ecosystem in that area can recover quickly and will not affect any other areas.

If you would like Mainstream Media to make your policy for you, go right ahead. I for one look at an issue in an unbiased, scientific manner and I just haven't seen the evidence for MMGW, yet.

As far as the futility of debate on these boards: does that mean we won't see any more posts from you?

>My disdain for the entire "MMGW" crowd is that it is full of people who have not thought critically and do not have a background in science, yet they >always like to question the credentials of those that argue against their stance.

Funny. That's how the bulk of the "other side" can be described as well. My impression is that their are actually much more "armchair scientists" on THAT side. ;-)


>And, comparing Global Warming to Evolution is ridiculous. The two are based on completely different hypothesis. Evolution is also a religious debate. Are >you saying the GW is a religious issue?

It's not a ridiculous comparison (*of how they are typically being debated*) at all, and of course evolution is *not* a religious debate (some would like to *reduce* it to one, though).

I'll repeat what I meant: I know a thing or two about the evidence for evolution and the debate around it. With that little bit of background information, it's pretty easy to recognise at which totally abysmal level evolution is (typically) "debated" by people with creationist ideas. I have absolutely nowhere near the knowledge when it comes to evaluating anthropogenic global warming, but it does strike me that the (again, *typical*) approach to this debate by people who oppose the idea is highly similar. The main example here being how the same arguments are being regurgitated time after time after time, in such a manner as if it looks that nobody ever thought about those arguments, or addressed them. All this while a simple google search will reveal that they *have* been addressed (which doesn't mean that these reactions themselves can't be criticized, but most of the time it's obvious that people haven't even taken the time to check them out!).

This similarity in how the debate typically unfolds may very well tell us something important...


>MMGW does not have consensus among any group of scientists.

So the list of major scientific organizations subscribing to the central idea (look at a post higher up for an extensive list) is a LIE, you mean? Please answer this question, because it is important.

>And if you look at the real consensus you will see that it is now slightly in favor of non-MMGW.

See my question above. Please provide a *better* way to establish anything resembling a "consensus", than asking major relevant scientific organizations for their position. And if that position has changed, it would be nice to provide evidence for it.

This shouldn't be too hard.

>There is still a lot of research to be done. I am not saying that we shouldn't continue research. I have a problem spending $BILLIONS on a solution when we don't know if it is the right one or if any solution is even needed. I absolutely oppose solutions such as the one they crazy nut jobs are forcing down our throats. They have the potential to do far worse damage to use than GW has. I only hope that the ecosystem in that area can recover quickly and will not affect any other areas.

Why oh why are you CONTINUING to identify the people backing up the IPCC report, with a subgroup like the *criticized* people associated with the experiment in this particular article??? THEY ARE NOT THE SAME, NOR ARE THEY SUPPORTED. This has a lot of "strawmanship" about it. Instead of focussing on the easy false targets, you might want to address my question above.

>If you would like Mainstream Media to make your policy for you, go right ahead. I for one look at an issue in an unbiased, scientific manner and I just haven't seen the evidence for MMGW, yet.

If you mention the name "Gore" and "Inconvenient Truth" next, I'm going to cry. The list of major relevant scientific organizations supporting the central ideas of AGW is about as far from Mainstream Media as one can imagine.

Did you notice that in the link you sent they had made some studies about the consensus issue itself:

Quoting from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Surveys_of_scienti sts_and_scientific_literature

"
STATS, 2007

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence substantiates the occurrence of human-induced greenhouse warming"; and 84% believe global climate change poses a moderate to very great danger.[70][71]
"

So this would seem to indicate that about one in four experts in the field share the skepticism, which is a substantial number when one considers how politically incorrect it seems be a skeptic in this issue (but even if it wasn't I would say that it is a significant amount). Also it has to be pointed out that skepticism itself is an important aspect of the scientific method.

Also a weird point about all this is that in all the statements I have seen endorsing MMGW it is said that there is (clear) evidence that man is causing global warming, but they fail to say what this evidence is - is it so self-evident to the public what this evidence is? Or could it be that the only evidence we have is an average and variation over multiple runs over multiple models simulating the whole climate? And that they know the shortcomings of these models, but hope that statistically the average (and higher moments) over these models give the right expectation values and variations of the variables of the climate. Well, it is not difficult to guess what kind of distribution the set of models created by climatologists obey.

Then about what should we do about global warming:

I think that our money would be best spent by trying to come up with ways how to "cope" with global warming or cooling, because it can be seen in history that both have happened out of natural variations - therefore either can happen, irrespective of what we do and if we would be living in a civilized society, then just perhaps we could survive either without a complete disaster (big wars, mass-starvation and such) - at the moment we are not, we have all those bad things going on all the time.

For example: One of the worst case scenarios - The north-Atlantic Golf stream stops bringing hot weather to Europe so that the population has to start migrating - wouldn't it be nice in this scenario if Africa (for example) was a well-functioning self-sustaining rich continent, ready to help poor Europeans in need, instead of the mess it is now? So maybe we could start this by destroying poverty from Africa (instead of creating more) - at the moment we seem to be more interested in robbing their natural resources and selling them guns than helping them develop.

But no, lets use a couple of billion to pump carbon dioxide underground and to throw all the oceans full of iron - these are sound solutions.

Funny how the radioactive property was considered good for you. Except that years later you'd end up losing teeth and die of excessive exposure to radioactivity.

Future Generations will read upon this and wonder "what were they thinking"

(damned, these things get so long when you try to be precise :) )

Hi maxp,

>Did you notice that in the link you sent they had made some studies about the consensus issue itself:
>[[Quoting from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Surveys_of_scienti sts_and_scientific_literature]]
>...So this would seem to indicate that about one in four experts in the field share the skepticism, which is a substantial number when one considers how politically incorrect it seems be a skeptic in this issue (but even if it wasn't I would say that it is a significant amount). Also it has to be pointed out that skepticism itself is an important aspect of the scientific method.

Right, I don't have a problem with that. "Consensus" ISN'T an absolute concept, it's stretchable. There isn't even a 100% consensus about gravity or plate tectonics or whatever. And it's entirely possible that the consensus will turn around, and then we'll go with that as long as it has happened via the right channels.

But my point is this: what kind of thought process drives *outsiders* (this includes 99% of the people here on TGdaily and probably on Internet forums in general) to prefer following 25% of best informed scientists over 75% of them when it concerns the human component, and often even the 15% against 85% when it concerns whether we're faced with a genuine problem or not? How do they get there? It can't be the data itself, because even for someone with proper qualifications to interprete it, it's a full time job. So John Doe who thinks he's better at interpreting it by spending a couple of hours looking through some graphs, is most probably a case of not knowing enough to understand that he doesn't know enough. SOMEHOW though, they apparently decide to trust the minority more than the majority. Now science as a discipline is the ONE area where the odds are most against being right in that case. Sure it happens sometimes (and those are the exceptions that remain in our collective mind, in hindsight), but because of how science works, it happens much less than in politics or economics or whatever other area.

So what is it? Well, (always talking in general) most of the time it's obvious (from the arguments used, the type of language etc.) that there are other motivations going on. People with an axe to grind against the UN, or All Gore, or governing bodies in general, or intellectuals, or environmentalism, or the scientific approach, or people who just enjoy being antagonistic and going against the tide. Always great when you later turn out to be right, not?

>Also a weird point about all this is that in all the statements I have seen endorsing MMGW it is said that there is (clear) evidence that man is causing global warming, but they fail to say what this evidence is

Oh please... It's a short *position statement*, it's not a scientific paper, ok?

>- is it so self-evident to the public what this evidence is?

What makes you think that it should be easy to explain? Why should there be a smoking gun, that is recognisable as such by the public, especially when being pro-active is not exactly our strong side(just try to look 20 years ahead as a politician when it requires you to ask more money from the people)? Let's also not forget that science doesn't deal with absolute certainty and "truth". Complex issues are always somewhat fuzzy, with both evidence that appears to be for, and some evidence that appears to be against. This is often not how "The Public" deals with this. If "true 100% certainty" is what the public demands before being convinced, then it will never be.

Let me add that I have no problem to admit that this reality is likely to at least skew the "consensus" somewhat towards MMGW. More than in other issues, exactly because there is potentially so much at stake. Let's say, hypothetically, you're 70% certain, with a window of 20% around it. So in all objectivity there is a significant chance that there is a serious problem, but it is also still possible that we might be wrong. What position are you going to adopt towards The Public??? This is one of those issues where there is a lot of tension between accurately communicating facts on the one hand, and responsible risk management on the other hand. The responsibility is *huge*.


>I think that our money would be best spent by trying to come up with ways how to "cope" with global warming or cooling, because it can be seen in history that both have happened out of natural variations - therefore either can happen, irrespective of what we do and if we would be living in a civilized society

That's obviously sensible. But in the current situation it is mainly the *accelerated rate* at which it is presumed to take place, that is the main problem. Natural variations seem to take so much time, that adaptation to it would more or less happen automatically and would not be disruptive.

>For example: One of the worst case scenarios - The north-Atlantic Golf stream stops bringing hot weather to Europe so that the population has to start migrating - wouldn't it be nice in this scenario if Africa (for example) was a well-functioning self-sustaining rich continent, ready to help poor Europeans in need, instead of the mess it is now? So maybe we could start this by destroying poverty from Africa (instead of creating more) - at the moment we seem to be more interested in robbing their natural resources and selling them guns than helping them develop.

All sensible and it would be great if it happens, but a non-sequitur really. And again, how much time would this take (if realistic at all)? If it's hard to coordinate CO2 reduction, then how hard would it be to pump giant amounts of money into something of which the benefits are even *further* in the future?


>But no, lets use a couple of billion to pump carbon dioxide underground and to throw all the oceans full of iron - these are sound solutions.

It gets really really tiresome to see that last example being depicted as a mainstream, already-decided-upon, counter action. Especially when the article is so outspoken about it NOT being such. I just don't get it.

Consensus is political. Scientific Method is, well, scientific.

BTW, there is no consensus on Gravity. We still don't know what it is. We do know what is does in a very limited sense, but not what it is, how it works, or why it does what it does.

That said. Many of your arguments are finger pointing right back at yourself. If you really want to compare MMGW and Evolution, then you have to put the MMGW crowd in with the Creationists. They go with consensus. Most of the population of the world is religious and believes in Creationism. It is a (sorry to all the Creationists out there, but history bears me out) political tool to exert power over the masses. The Roman Catholic Church used it very effectively for Centuries until Martin Luther came along.

MMGW is being used the same way. Those who preach its doctrine are very effective. Their arguments are convincing. They have people in high places (and well respected) on their side. They even have scientific minds echoing their words. But when it comes right down to it, the actual scientific evidence is just not there. They do not publish their truths for all to read, but keep them close so that only a few may interpret their meanings. (Where's Gutenberg when you need him?) But keep those donations flowing. Yeaha!

>Consensus is political. Scientific Method is, well, scientific.

And, until further notice, scientific consensus can reasonably be considered to typically be reducable to that scientific method. What else are you going to do? Pick and choose when it does so, and when it doesn't, just based on your own likes and dislikes? If so, that's your business, but certainly not what we would expect from decision makers. Unless you want to be in the camp of people like former South African president Mbeki, who didn't like the facts about AIDS (like: too damn expensive!!), and chose to join the minority position against that "evil Western conspiracy" who tricked people into believing that HIV causes it.

>BTW, there is no consensus on Gravity. We still don't know what it is. We do know what is does in a very limited sense, but not what it is, how it works, or why it does what it does.

So scientists should keep their mouths shut because they don't have anything sensible to say about gravity anyway? (there's no "consensus", you see...) Or at least you don't *believe* any of them?


>That said. Many of your arguments are finger pointing right back at yourself. If you really want to compare MMGW and Evolution, then you have to put the MMGW crowd in with the Creationists. They go with consensus. Most of the population of the world is religious and believes in Creationism. It is a (sorry to all the Creationists out there, but history bears me out) political tool to exert power over the masses. The Roman Catholic Church used it very effectively for Centuries until Martin Luther came along.

I already explained in more detail in what sense I meant the comparison. Creationists going with consensus? Last time I checked, they simply go with what is written in a Bronze-age book.

And I'm not going with "consensus". I'm going with "consensus in science". If you have a better practical way to assess the value of ideas about the workings of the world around us, please enlighten us. Please do! I'm curious. And please skip the "check out the evidence by yourself" nonsense. You don't that for other sciences either. We are *extremely* far removed from the time of Leonardo da Vinci, when it was still somewhat practically possible to know the ins and outs of all of science and engineering. Without at least *some* (carefully weighed) reliance on authority, you don't get anywhere anymore, really.

>MMGW is being used the same way. Those who preach its doctrine are very effective. Their arguments are convincing. They have people in high places (and well respected) on their side. They even have scientific minds echoing their words.

All goes for the other side as well. The f*cking most powerful government in the world used to fight the idea of MMGW, for God's sake!! Even THEY could in the end no longer maintain their position without starting to look like complete idiots. Should tell you something... (it probably tells YOU that the "MMGW crowd" is more powerful and cunning and unscrupulous than the Neocons, and of course you are free to believe that if you want. I'm sure it's not too difficult to convince yourself)

>But when it comes right down to it, the actual scientific evidence is just not there. They do not publish their truths for all to read, but keep them close so that only a few may interpret their meanings. (Where's Gutenberg when you need him?) But keep those donations flowing. Yeaha!

Tell me, are you the kind who thinks cosmology is all bunk because you can't make sense of the math(like 99% of people with a normal mathematical knowledge and intelligence)? I wouldn't be surprised.

"...more than 200 countries agreed...". Alright guys, who voted twice?

To answer your rather fanatical, almost religious in fervor, rants: ;)

Yes, I do look at everything critically and scientifically. I take nothing for granted. I understand that we have an incomplete understanding of our universe, but I also know that we still understand a lot. If you want my money, show me the proof. Consensus is merely the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. The ad hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is another one popular among the MMGW crowd. I need scientific evidence before I fork over Billions.

I'm not sure what you mean by "cosmology" but I understand our study of the cosmos/universe. I'm an amateur astronomer and keep up on current theories in astrophysics as best as someone with a year of calculus and some physical chemistry can.

What is your background in math and astrophysics? Have you been trained in research using scientific method? You make a lot of attacks that assume that you're speaking with someone with a 2nd grade education. That is not the case.

>To answer your rather fanatical, almost religious in fervor, rants: ;)

Calling it a rant doesn't make it so, and doesn't make the relevant questions disappear. But nice try.

>Yes, I do look at everything critically and scientifically. I take nothing for granted.

Maybe you'd like to think so, but just like everyone else you (have to) rely on authority in some way 95% of the time. You trust the institutes that decide which food additives are safe and in which concentrations. You trust the radiation experts who tell you that mobile phone radiation levels are safe. You trust nuclear engineers who assure you that that new nuclear plant isn't going to explode tomorrow. You trust epidemeologists and virologists when they claim that the next flu vaccine you take will be safe. Should I go on?

You largely take those things for granted, putting your trust in the expertise of the people trained in their fields, and you *know* it. And why? Because you know science has the built-in mechanisms to make sure that it's entirely rational to assume that the scientific consensus has a high probability of being right. Unreliable fringe science doesn't get that far (unless you were in South Africa ;-) )

But then, once in a while, some claim comes along that you don't like for some bizar reason. That's how it starts (unless you systematically check everything, of course). Next, you put your superior intellect into higher gear, magically multiplying your intelligence, insight and overview of a particular field (and the number of hours in your day) and, low and behold!, your intuition was right that the scientific consensus was clearly motivated by a Global Conspiracy in this case!! (or is it Global Stupidity?)

I guess it's a talent...

>I understand that we have an incomplete understanding of our universe, but I also know that we still understand a lot. If you want my money, show me the proof. Consensus is merely the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. The ad hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is another one popular among the MMGW crowd. I need scientific evidence before I fork over Billions. I'm not sure what you mean by "cosmology" but I understand our study of the cosmos/universe. I'm an amateur astronomer and keep up on current theories in astrophysics as best as someone with a year of calculus and some physical chemistry can.

Haha... Sure. But wait: your understanding of the universe is largely argumentum ad populum. Unless you're going to claim you have personally replicated the relevant experiments to test General Relativity in your laboratory, and calculated the current star formation models on your Home Supercomputer. If not, that means the models you're informed about, are the ones that were determined to be the most reliable ones by a small bunch of ivory-tower brainiacs who talk among each other in a language that looks like Chinese to you and me.

Nevertheless you choose to believe the toddler-level simplifications they put out to give us the idea that we also understand what's going on.

>What is your background in math and astrophysics? Have you been trained in research using scientific method? You make a lot of attacks that assume that you're speaking with someone with a 2nd grade education. That is not the case.

I graduated in engineering, but this is utterly and completely irrelevant in this discussion. We're not discussing MMGW, we're discussing your selective dismissal of the scientific consensus in a field that lies completely outside your expertise, one among many *other* fields that *also* lie outside your expertise.

You still haven't given a single convincing argument why such laughable and negligable institutes as the Royal Society (known for their stupidity, for bending over to politics and for their vulnerability to bribing?) have it wrong, and YOU have it right.

So: why do you consider accepting MMGW an argumentum ad populum, but accepting all those other things NOT?

meanandmyself,

Please take a couple of science classes (not engineering, but science).

None of the things you mentioned (food additives, vaccines, even the cell phone thing, which isn't quite the same but see my first sentence), are reached by consensus. They are tested by scientific method. The FDA and USDA have very rigorous testing protocols set up to determine both safety and efficacy. I work in this industry.

The cell phone thing is not regulated, but again a form of media-promoting hysteria, like power line cancer clusters (never any real evidence of this). Details at 11.

I also understand that these testing protocols are constantly under review and not perfect - they are updated when necessary to increase safety and efficacy. However, you have a much better chance of living a healthy life with the vaccines and using food additives from the National Formulary and Food Chemicals Codex, than if you didn't.

Again, back to sentence one. You do not have to personally replicate an experiment for it to be valid via scientific method. A straw man argument at best. You need only review the initial studies and the independent confirmation. Again, not consensus, but study and confirmation according to scientific method. The only reason that only a few do the replication is that it would be a waste of time to do more. Spend your time and money making new discoveries rather than replicating things that have already been validated.

First, there is not a consensus in the scientific community for or against MMGW. Show me the consensus. Just because AL Gore wrote a book about it, does not make it a consensus. There are plenty of climatologists, geologist, ecologists, atmospheric chemists, etc. who have openly come out against the political consensus. Even at the risk of their continued support through grants. What I ask for are the studies that show direct correlation between man's activities and climate change. The studies so far have not shown a statistically significant correlation and many have shown that no correlation exists. There is not enough evidence to justify the spending of $100 Billions for solutions to a problem that has not been defined.

And, I'm surprised that an engineer doesn't know enough math to read the language of cosmologists.

Nobody's probably reading anymore, but anyway...

>Please take a couple of science classes (not engineering, but science).

I take this as meaning that 75% of relevant scientists, and up(see some stats in previous message), should take additional science classes according to you, apparently.

The system must be lousy beyond comprehension to produce such widespread incompetence.

>None of the things you mentioned (food additives, vaccines, even the cell phone thing, which isn't quite the same but see my first sentence), are reached by consensus.

Fail! Eventually they *are*, of course. Research protocols, the results of the research, calculations etc. are either accepted or refused by the relevant peer reviewed magazines and the reviewers. When most of the reviewers think it is bunk, then it will be considered just that: bunk. It's a matter of meaningful consensus among the scientists who review the work. There isn't some magical "Sound Scientific Method Assessment Supercomputer" which we can feed the research into and which gives us a "go" or "no go". Enough scientists (you know, human beings) have to agree that the research is reliable, for it to be considered reliable. We have a word for this: *consensus*.

Mind you: YOU are the one who selectively denies the reliability of this mechanism, not me! It works for food safety, vaccination, electromagnetic radiation safety, but it does NOT work for climatology, evidently. In fact, according to your claims we would have to believe that, in climatology, the process is nothing more but a *travesty*. After all, it is THAT obvious.

>First, there is not a consensus in the scientific community for or against MMGW. Show me the consensus.

I've rubbed it into your face at least 5 times by now, but you refuse to address why it wouldn't be an adequate (or even the *most* relevant) measure of scientific consensus. Instead you choose to introduce some unsubstantiated, wishy-washy, made up fantasy about why the majority of science consists of dumb herd animals, with vested interests (could you please show me where they argue they "should be given billions of dollars", for example?), who refuse to see what is totally obvious to Paul123. Not just "maybe doubtful", but TOTALLY OBVIOUS.

The consensus is right there, in your face, and you only respond by raising the bar a notch higher. Goalpost moving.

>Just because AL Gore wrote a book about it, does not make it a consensus.

Your reading skills... Never mind. Let me put it this way: your inability to simply *drop* this lamest of lame strawman arguments is very telling. I can't imagine that you are NOT doing it on purpose.

>There are plenty of climatologists, geologist, ecologists, atmospheric chemists, etc. who have openly come out against the political consensus.

Political consensus? So the Royal Society, the NSF, and-the-long-list-of-scientific-organizations-which-I'm-not-going-to-bother-to-repeat are POLITICAL organizations? Could you please support that with meaningful arguments? Or else, point out that the relevant scientific organizations are pulling back or at least watering down their position statements on MMGW.

It's not like I won't be convinced by valid and valuable arguments.

>And, I'm surprised that an engineer doesn't know enough math to read the language of cosmologists.

I really love this quote, as it is very informative.

To answer it: there's a lot I don't know enough about. I lack lots of abilities, including the necessary arrogance to honestly believe that I can easily get upto speed with experts in all and everything.

Not everybody has your abilities and talents, Paul123. And not everybody has to enlarge his livingroom once a year to make his ego fit in there.