"All Chemists believe global warming is real and man-made"

[Cogman]

So my university chemistry teacher keeps on trying to push the global warming agenda onto the students. Personally, I haven't studied it enough to know one way or another, but I thought that there was some skepticism in the scientific community regarding it.

I post this here and not in P&N because I believe most of you that post here are engineers ect. I don't want this to be a Political debate, just your thoughts on global warming and if it is man made (links would be nice). It would be especially useful if you are a chemist as well.


---
Guys and Gals, lets keep this discussion on the SCIENTIFIC side of the discussion. Provide proof, back it up with something, or just toss out ideas. An idea is not immediately wrong because someone else thought of it, or that the scientific community disagrees with it. We can have thoughtful discussion on the subject without bringing politics into the mix.

This is not a political discussion, so comments like 'Al Gore makes everything up', or 'This is a ploy to put pressure on the oil companies', or such and such is a right (or left) wing conspiracy are not allowed. Take that to P&N.

AnandTech Moderator Evadman

 

[Gannon]

I think global warming has been misrepresented, and the media and others on 'both sides' have done a lot to misinform. Geologists have started taking seriously our effect on our ability to change the earths surface and structure. Biologists have long known we have a huge impact on ecology and weather patterns. To say we don't is to be grossly misinformed, the question is one of ignorance.

Do we understand enough about the behaviours and lifestyles we engage in and its longterm impact?

That is the fundamental question.

I'd say that mankind, from a historical perspective, that Mankind is a bumbler, and it takes long time to get rid of lies and to see through the fog of our own ignorance (Just look at religion for example).

I know two genius's, and one is a fervent 'believer' in global warming and the other one is completely against. If you have genius's disagreeing then you know that somehow someone is missing something.


The fact of the matter is science is prone to religious fervor and all the same stupid mistakes you see in religion, just study the history of science to know this. Most people have only the faintest idea of the history of scientific development, science is not a panacea. Thomas Kuhn and Maxwell planck (famous physicist) were correct in stating that science is filled with people with agenda's.

"A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
--Maxwell Planck

"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: What does happen is that the opponents gradually die out."
--Maxwell Planck

"Anybody who has been seriously engaged is scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.'"
--Maxwell Planck

 

[BrownTown]

No, i can more or less guarentee that not all chemists believe this, and further I don't see how being a chemist makes you an expert in climate science. Sure you can understand that CO2 absorbs radiation at certain wavelengths, but the exact effects on the weather are alot more complicated then just that.

 

[f95toli]

What do you mean by "all"?
An overwhelming majority yes. But obviously not everyone who ever studied chemistry at a university.
This is true regardless of the issue. A while back a geologist created quite a stir when he presented work at a conference (well, a poster) where he claimed that the earth is really only a few thousand years old and was created by God in 7 days.
Now, this is obviously not what most geologists believe and I think it is safe to put him in the crackpot category and just ignore hime, but it does show that you can always find a "scientist" to support whatever claim you make.

This is one problem with the global warming debate, it seems some members of the public believe that this question will ever be settled to the point where ALL scientists say the same thing. But this is never going to happen, when it comes to the climate as well as everything else we have to go with what mainstream science says; which usually means that there is an overwhelming majority of scientist supporting one side of an argument.

 

[PolymerTim]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
No, i can more or less guarentee that not all chemists believe this, and further I don't see how being a chemist makes you an expert in climate science. Sure you can understand that CO2 absorbs radiation at certain wavelengths, but the exact effects on the weather are alot more complicated then just that.

Ditto that!

I'm a chemist and have even paid a bit of attention to the news on global warming and have my own personal leanings. But I'd be fooling myself if I thought a degree in chemistry somehow gave me a better understanding of the publicly available information. I think at best you can say that all scientists (not just chemists) are trained to analyze data and make logical predictions. The next question is, is there enough publicly available information to be relatively certain of the answer.

And as in many cases, I think the answer is never yes or no. I think it is safe to say that at least some of global warming is due to human presence. But how much of it? I don't know the answer to that. I'm not so sure anyone does. We can only make our best estimate.

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: Cogman
So my university chemistry teacher keeps on trying to push the global warming agenda onto the students. Personally, I haven't studied it enough to know one way or another, but I thought that there was some skepticism in the scientific community regarding it.

I post this here and not in P&N because I believe most of you that post here are engineers ect. I don't want this to be a Political debate, just your thoughts on global warming and if it is man made (links would be nice). It would be especially useful if you are a chemist as well.

The way you worded that ("global warming agenda" vs "scientific consensus") makes me think you'd find this series of videos very interesting.

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: CTho9305

Originally posted by: Cogman
So my university chemistry teacher keeps on trying to push the global warming agenda onto the students. Personally, I haven't studied it enough to know one way or another, but I thought that there was some skepticism in the scientific community regarding it.

I post this here and not in P&N because I believe most of you that post here are engineers ect. I don't want this to be a Political debate, just your thoughts on global warming and if it is man made (links would be nice). It would be especially useful if you are a chemist as well.

The way you worded that ("global warming agenda" vs "scientific consensus") makes me think you'd find this series of videos very interesting.

While the wording here is somewhat precarious its not entirely incorrect to note a "global warming agenda", while there is of course the scientific debate and research on this field there is also another layer. The fact is that this "debate" has be so highly politicized that there are deffinitely alot of people who DO have an agenda more than just the truth, and that is true on both sides. While you often here about the billions that certain companies stand to gain by having people not believe in global warming there are other companies who stand to GAIN BILLIONS of dollars by having global warming proven right, and they lobby just as hard in this direction. While I cannot speak to the OPs views on this issue I certainlly do see a "global warming agenda" put forth by many that is not so much to further science but instead their own political or buisness ends. One might not for example in the senate there is a global warming bill with several HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars in money to reduce CO2 emmisions, its silly to think that those who stand to gain these billions are not trying to actively lobby for them. In fact its pretty clear by looking at the bill since the single larget beneficiary is COAL which may seem odd for a bill against global warming, but such is the case with this being as much a political debate as a scientific one.

 

[Nathelion]

Im feel rather sure that global warming is real. I'm reasonably confident that it is, to a significant extent, man made.

I'm not so sure that anything can realistically be done to prevent it.

 

[dkozloski]

The problem is that the latest data indicates that the earth is cooling and not warming. Some tremendous holes have appeared in the warming theory that aren't about to be plugged by any amount of bluster and bloviating. This is all going to die a natural death just like the Y2K fiasco.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: CTho9305

Originally posted by: Cogman
So my university chemistry teacher keeps on trying to push the global warming agenda onto the students. Personally, I haven't studied it enough to know one way or another, but I thought that there was some skepticism in the scientific community regarding it.

I post this here and not in P&N because I believe most of you that post here are engineers ect. I don't want this to be a Political debate, just your thoughts on global warming and if it is man made (links would be nice). It would be especially useful if you are a chemist as well.

The way you worded that ("global warming agenda" vs "scientific consensus") makes me think you'd find this series of videos very interesting.

While the wording here is somewhat precarious its not entirely incorrect to note a "global warming agenda", while there is of course the scientific debate and research on this field there is also another layer. The fact is that this "debate" has be so highly politicized that there are deffinitely alot of people who DO have an agenda more than just the truth, and that is true on both sides. While you often here about the billions that certain companies stand to gain by having people not believe in global warming there are other companies who stand to GAIN BILLIONS of dollars by having global warming proven right, and they lobby just as hard in this direction. While I cannot speak to the OPs views on this issue I certainlly do see a "global warming agenda" put forth by many that is not so much to further science but instead their own political or buisness ends. One might not for example in the senate there is a global warming bill with several HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars in money to reduce CO2 emmisions, its silly to think that those who stand to gain these billions are not trying to actively lobby for them. In fact its pretty clear by looking at the bill since the single larget beneficiary is COAL which may seem odd for a bill against global warming, but such is the case with this being as much a political debate as a scientific one.

You hit the nail on the head. Like I said, I'm not sure either way, I haven't studied it. However I'd be willing to bet that my chem. teacher hasn't either. By agenda I do mean that he tells us that if we use solar panels and drive hybrids that the world will become a better place. All the same time he downplays nuclear power for no real apearant reason other then to say that Uranium deposits are limited.

But thats beside the point. I really do just kind of want to get a feel for what most chemists (and I guess scientists in general) believe or understand about global warming.

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: CTho9305

Originally posted by: Cogman
So my university chemistry teacher keeps on trying to push the global warming agenda onto the students. Personally, I haven't studied it enough to know one way or another, but I thought that there was some skepticism in the scientific community regarding it.

I post this here and not in P&N because I believe most of you that post here are engineers ect. I don't want this to be a Political debate, just your thoughts on global warming and if it is man made (links would be nice). It would be especially useful if you are a chemist as well.

The way you worded that ("global warming agenda" vs "scientific consensus") makes me think you'd find this series of videos very interesting.

While the wording here is somewhat precarious its not entirely incorrect to note a "global warming agenda", while there is of course the scientific debate and research on this field there is also another layer. The fact is that this "debate" has be so highly politicized that there are deffinitely alot of people who DO have an agenda more than just the truth, and that is true on both sides. While you often here about the billions that certain companies stand to gain by having people not believe in global warming there are other companies who stand to GAIN BILLIONS of dollars by having global warming proven right, and they lobby just as hard in this direction. While I cannot speak to the OPs views on this issue I certainlly do see a "global warming agenda" put forth by many that is not so much to further science but instead their own political or buisness ends. One might not for example in the senate there is a global warming bill with several HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars in money to reduce CO2 emmisions, its silly to think that those who stand to gain these billions are not trying to actively lobby for them. In fact its pretty clear by looking at the bill since the single larget beneficiary is COAL which may seem odd for a bill against global warming, but such is the case with this being as much a political debate as a scientific one.

You hit the nail on the head. Like I said, I'm not sure either way, I haven't studied it. However I'd be willing to bet that my chem. teacher hasn't either. By agenda I do mean that he tells us that if we use solar panels and drive hybrids that the world will become a better place. All the same time he downplays nuclear power for no real apearant reason other then to say that Uranium deposits are limited.

But thats beside the point. I really do just kind of want to get a feel for what most chemists (and I guess scientists in general) believe or understand about global warming.

The AAAS ("It is the world's largest general scientific society, with nearly 120,000 individual and institutional members in 2007, and publisher of the well-known scientific journal Science.") states, "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and is a growing threat to society." (source)

Originally posted by: dkozloski
The problem is that the latest data indicates that the earth is cooling and not warming. Some tremendous holes have appeared in the warming theory that aren't about to be plugged by any amount of bluster and bloviating. This is all going to die a natural death just like the Y2K fiasco.

Where'd you hear that? 1? 2? 3? Wikipedia

 

[CycloWizard]

The simple answer is no, not all chemists believe that humans cause climate change.

That said, there is some evidence that what we do has some influence on the environment. The questions that are really important and not widely agreed on at this point are:
1. How much do human contributions matter relative to natural fluctuations and cycles?
2. What will the effects of climate change be (which is independent of whether we and/or nature are actually causing it)?
3. What (if anything) can/should we do to avoid potential catastrophes predicted in #2?

The answers for these three questions seem to dominate the lecture circuit in this area, at least for the ten or so seminars that I've attended on the subject in the last year or so.

 

[f95toli]

Originally posted by: dkozloski
The problem is that the latest data indicates that the earth is cooling and not warming. Some tremendous holes have appeared in the warming theory that aren't about to be plugged by any amount of bluster and bloviating. This is all going to die a natural death just like the Y2K fiasco.

Maybe you are refering to a story that was floating around a while back (Fox, Dailytech etc). However, as it turns out it was just flat out wrong. For whatever reason someone claimed that data from NASA was indicating that the earth cooled by something like 0.6K last year (which in itself would have been quite interesting, that is a HUGE change) but a quick check at the NASA's Goddards Institute website showed that last year was, in fact, one of the hottest on record.

 

[spikespiegal]

First, I want to make it clear that I'm entirely a-political on the entire Global Warming / Climate Change issue. I'm only interested in the hard, scientific data. I'm not going to be lecured by some twank on FOX about Al Gore's agenda, and I'm not going to be lectured by a tenured phD who has too many credentials and not enough accountability. Because you are a 'scientist' who contributes to .ORG sites doesn't mean you have a shield from criticism and scrutiny.

Science is the pursuit of knowledge, not truth.

My biggest problem with Climate Change models is the actual criteria we use to declare 'climate change'. I see constant reports of how some ocean region in the Artic has .5 degree delta over a period of decades, and how it's the fault of American's driving SUVs and no other factor.

First, I wasn't aware the climate on earth was fixed and immune to all physical factors in the universe over time...except for evil American's driving SUVs. Even though with have this huge flaming ball of hydrogen 92million miles away from us that varies in terms of energy released due to convection currents the Earth is magically immune from that cuz' scientists say so. A rise in ocean temps is the cause of American's driving SUVs, and nothing else.

Next, Atmospheric samples taken from solidified Amber during the Jurassic period show a climate gas content radically different than today. Atmospheric pressures at that time were much higher than they were today with CO2 levels much higher as well. The carbon that's central to the controversy today came from fossil fuels that came from organic materials that obsorbed the carbon from the much richer, denser and warmer atmosphere millions of years ago. In fact, the very long term entropic condition of the earth's atmosphere is actually to cool and gradually lose atmospheric pressure because that's what gas does when the only force holding it to the earth is gravity. Fact of physics - look it up. Any ferns' growing on mars?

Last, the climate change that's been observed over the past couple of decades has obviously shown a trend towards warming up. I don't dispute that. However, even though rising ocean levels will cause problems and coral reefs are dealing with lower PH levels because of disolved CO2 other ecosystems on the planet are doing better because their habitats are warming up. Biological ecosystems require warmth and energy - not sub artic conditions to thrive - Another basic fact of biology. Even if the earth is absorbing a bit more thermal energy due to increased CO2 levels the final product on the other end of the scale will likely be an increase in over-all biomass. Mother nature doesn't care if it's inconvenient for some. That's why the earth'e climate is called 'dynamic' and not 'static'.

I'm harldy one to defend the human race when it comes to doing bad things to the environment. However, I'm sick of hearing climatologists trying to convince me that the earth's climate is static and any change detected is the fault of American's driving SUVs when the emprical science hasn't proven exactly how much human produced CO2 is really affecting the climate. We went through the same crap with victorian era science. I'm just glad geologists don't think like climatologists because if they did the Indonesian Tsunami would have been caused by fatter American's disrupting the Earthe' gravitational field.

 

[Veramocor]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The simple answer is no, not all chemists believe that humans cause climate change.

That said, there is some evidence that what we do has some influence on the environment. The questions that are really important and not widely agreed on at this point are:
1. How much do human contributions matter relative to natural fluctuations and cycles?
2. What will the effects of climate change be (which is independent of whether we and/or nature are actually causing it)?
3. What (if anything) can/should we do to avoid potential catastrophes predicted in #2?

The answers for these three questions seem to dominate the lecture circuit in this area, at least for the ten or so seminars that I've attended on the subject in the last year or so.

You shouldn't be answering. As we all know chemical engineers are much better than chemists.

 

[dkozloski]

The upper atmosphere has not been warming at the rate predicted by the "Global Warming" models. The oceans have not been warming at the rate predicted by the "Global Warming" models. The surface warming data fits the the solar activity data much better than it fits the atmospheric co2 data. The temperature of the Earth is driven by solar activity and atmospheric water vapor content. c02 is a very minor player. The whole global warming scenario is being driven by the people that think that somehow the evolution of the Earth can be frozen like a snapshot in time. This is a rediculous fiasco that is going to play out with a lot of scientists with egg on their faces. I'm looking forward to this house of cards collapsing. Think Maunder Minimum. I was around for the Ice Age scare of the 1970s and it was the same type of people hollering the same crap. That dog isn't going to bite me twice. It's a political movement that is reaching religious fervor with about the same amount of hard data to back it up. Every little twitch in the data that backs the theory is ballyhooed in the media while the old line climatologists just roll their eyes.

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: dkozloski
The upper atmosphere has not been warming at the rate predicted by the "Global Warming" models. The oceans have not been warming at the rate predicted by the "Global Warming" models. The surface warming data fits the the solar activity data much better than it fits the atmospheric co2 data. The temperature of the Earth is driven by solar activity and atmospheric water vapor content. c02 is a very minor player. The whole global warming scenario is being driven by the people that think that somehow the evolution of the Earth can be frozen like a snapshot in time. This is a rediculous fiasco that is going to play out with a lot of scientists with egg on their faces. I'm looking forward to this house of cards collapsing. Think Maunder Minimum. I was around for the Ice Age scare of the 1970s and it was the same type of people hollering the same crap. That dog isn't going to bite me twice. It's a political movement that is reaching religious fervor with about the same amount of hard data to back it up. Every little twitch in the data that backs the theory is ballyhooed in the media while the old line climatologists just roll their eyes.

You may find this informative.

Originally posted by: spikespiegal
My biggest problem with Climate Change models is the actual criteria we use to declare 'climate change'. I see constant reports of how some ocean region in the Artic has .5 degree delta over a period of decades, and how it's the fault of American's driving SUVs and no other factor.

First, I wasn't aware the climate on earth was fixed and immune to all physical factors in the universe over time...except for evil American's driving SUVs. Even though with have this huge flaming ball of hydrogen 92million miles away from us that varies in terms of energy released due to convection currents the Earth is magically immune from that cuz' scientists say so. A rise in ocean temps is the cause of American's driving SUVs, and nothing else.

Next, Atmospheric samples taken from solidified Amber during the Jurassic period show a climate gas content radically different than today. Atmospheric pressures at that time were much higher than they were today with CO2 levels much higher as well. The carbon that's central to the controversy today came from fossil fuels that came from organic materials that obsorbed the carbon from the much richer, denser and warmer atmosphere millions of years ago. In fact, the very long term entropic condition of the earth's atmosphere is actually to cool and gradually lose atmospheric pressure because that's what gas does when the only force holding it to the earth is gravity. Fact of physics - look it up. Any ferns' growing on mars?

Not caused by SUVs
Warm in the past too

Last, the climate change that's been observed over the past couple of decades has obviously shown a trend towards warming up. I don't dispute that. However, even though rising ocean levels will cause problems and coral reefs are dealing with lower PH levels because of disolved CO2 other ecosystems on the planet are doing better because their habitats are warming up. Biological ecosystems require warmth and energy - not sub artic conditions to thrive - Another basic fact of biology. Even if the earth is absorbing a bit more thermal energy due to increased CO2 levels the final product on the other end of the scale will likely be an increase in over-all biomass. Mother nature doesn't care if it's inconvenient for some. That's why the earth'e climate is called 'dynamic' and not 'static'.

I think the argument against that would be a "devil you know..." kind of response. We understand how to live in the world the way it is now - we grow have many crops we can grow reliably in various regions of the world; the food chain works out reasonably well for us (e.g. plankton, small fish, big tasty fish); houses in each region are reasonably well adapted for the local climate. Artificially changing the climate faster than it would naturally change puts us at risk of having to deal with more rapid, significant changes in the the world around us. The problem is not that all plants/animals will suffer - the problem is that the ones we like may suffer. I'm sure mosquitoes would love a slightly warmer Earth.

It seems to me that your argument would allow for unlimited overfishing - after all, even though it's bad for the salmon, it's fantastic for the jellyfish population. Change is natural - who's to say salmon is better than jellyfish? In polluted water bodies, it's a similar story - lower-order life takes over, because it tends to adapt faster. As long as you're ok with eating jellyfish and algae, there's nothing to worry about.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: spikespiegal
First, I wasn't aware the climate on earth was fixed and immune to all physical factors in the universe over time...except for evil American's driving SUVs. Even though with have this huge flaming ball of hydrogen 92million miles away from us that varies in terms of energy released due to convection currents the Earth is magically immune from that cuz' scientists say so. A rise in ocean temps is the cause of American's driving SUVs, and nothing else.

Next, Atmospheric samples taken from solidified Amber during the Jurassic period show a climate gas content radically different than today. Atmospheric pressures at that time were much higher than they were today with CO2 levels much higher as well. The carbon that's central to the controversy today came from fossil fuels that came from organic materials that obsorbed the carbon from the much richer, denser and warmer atmosphere millions of years ago. In fact, the very long term entropic condition of the earth's atmosphere is actually to cool and gradually lose atmospheric pressure because that's what gas does when the only force holding it to the earth is gravity. Fact of physics - look it up. Any ferns' growing on mars?

Last, the climate change that's been observed over the past couple of decades has obviously shown a trend towards warming up. I don't dispute that. However, even though rising ocean levels will cause problems and coral reefs are dealing with lower PH levels because of disolved CO2 other ecosystems on the planet are doing better because their habitats are warming up. Biological ecosystems require warmth and energy - not sub artic conditions to thrive - Another basic fact of biology. Even if the earth is absorbing a bit more thermal energy due to increased CO2 levels the final product on the other end of the scale will likely be an increase in over-all biomass. Mother nature doesn't care if it's inconvenient for some. That's why the earth'e climate is called 'dynamic' and not 'static'.

I'm harldy one to defend the human race when it comes to doing bad things to the environment. However, I'm sick of hearing climatologists trying to convince me that the earth's climate is static and any change detected is the fault of American's driving SUVs when the emprical science hasn't proven exactly how much human produced CO2 is really affecting the climate. We went through the same crap with victorian era science. I'm just glad geologists don't think like climatologists because if they did the Indonesian Tsunami would have been caused by fatter American's disrupting the Earthe' gravitational field.

So who exactly are these so-called scientists who claim the climate is static and unaffected by the sun? Since you're 'sick' of hearing from them, links to well qualified climatologists claiming these things should be easy to come by. Care to provide a few?

Also - increase in overall biomass? Have you lost your mind? People are not worried about the total sum of biological material on the earth, they are worried the wellbeing of actual people. People in dry climates, people in coastal cities - those people...

Consider this. Why does it matter what is causing current climate change?...

Say humans are only causing 1% of current climate change. Who cares? If in 100 years the ice melts and the seas rise, as some predict they will, we are going to have to do something about it. Right? Or else just abandon London, New York, Tokyo, etc...

 

[dkozloski]

Most paleontologists agree that in the past when the earth has warmed that mankind thrived. Warmer does not neccessarily mean drier. Vast areas of Russia and Canada may become much more productive. My winter home heating bill won't be a thousand bucks a month. Why do you suppose Greenland was called Greenland and was successfully colonized until the bottom dropped out of the thermometer? Everybody likes to emphasize the negative side of everything because it's hard to raise funds by running around shouting that the sky is going back up where it came from. The odds are better than 50:50 that climate change will be a good thing. Besides that, how much harm is being done by diverting treasure and resources to try to hold back an irresistable force that may be working for us.

 

[Fullmetal Chocobo]

I'd say it is a mathematical impossibility that all of anything would feel a certain way.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: dkozloski
Most paleontologists agree that in the past when the earth has warmed that mankind thrived.

Yes but they didn't have cities then did they...

Warmer does not neccessarily mean drier.

It does in central Africa.

Vast areas of Russia and Canada may become much more productive.

At the expense of other parts of the world - whoop de do...

My winter home heating bill won't be a thousand bucks a month.

No but your summer air conditioning bill could be. Unless you live in northern Europe, which should actually get colder, due to the degradation of the gulf stream.

Why do you suppose Greenland was called Greenland and was successfully colonized until the bottom dropped out of the thermometer?

I read it was called Greenland by an exiled Icelandic noble who named it that way to attract people to move there. Anyway why is that relevant? They didn't have the ability to affect the climate one way or another.

Everybody likes to emphasize the negative side of everything because it's hard to raise funds by running around shouting that the sky is going back up where it came from. The odds are better than 50:50 that climate change will be a good thing.

Referece?

But lets just pretend for a moment that is a real stat backed up by research... do you actually think those are good odds? A 50:50 chance of the world's major cities flooding?

Besides that, how much harm is being done by diverting treasure and resources to try to hold back an irresistable force that may be working for us.

We have two choices:

1 - Live completely in harmony with nature. Affect the ecosystem only very very minimally, let the climate change and shift, and adapt ourselves to it.

2 - Manipulate the environment to suit our needs. Study it, use it, fuck it up, fix it, fuck it up again, etc.

We have already chosen option 2.

 

[Throckmorton]

The "debate" exists in the sphere of politics, and by extension it exists for ordinary people, but not really science. It's like ghosts.

Probably half of Americans believe in ghosts, but there is absolutely no scientific evidence of ghosts.

Same for evolution. 53% of Americans don't believe it's true, yet it is.

I'd imagine that chemists aren't all even concerned with climate change though.

Disclaimer: Ignore all posts misrepresenting the fact that climate has always changed. We know how climate changed in the past, and we know pretty well why. This is why we can and have predicted climate change. Look up the Milankovich cycle.

 

[kylef]

It's impossible to have an intelligent "general" debate on such a huge, controversial subject without political agendas drowning everyone in oversimplifications and opinions stated as facts -- especially when you open debate to every random person who has read the news and formed half an opinion.

The reality is, everyone cares about the environment, and everyone likes polar bears (from a distance, at least); and this makes everyone passionate on the subject. People get excited, and want to share their views, no matter how ignorant or unfounded. Very few have actually studied the science with an open mind when forming their opinions.

And for this I blame the attempt by some to consciously try to popularize the subject by oversimplifying the science and sensationalizing the predictions, without ever mentioning the limitations of our current scientific knowledge and understanding of causality. That isn't science. It's much more like Cargo Cult Science, and it's highly manipulative of "laymen".

From the amount of unexplained observations, missed predictions, and rapid publication of new research in the field, I tend to agree that climate science isn't mature enough to popularize just yet. Climate science in this decade is like atomic science in the 1920's; we think we have models which explain things accurately, but every now and then we make some observations which our models didn't predict, and we are forced to make a new model and try again. Worse, there are competing models which seem to be able to explain the same existing observations but yield different predictions and carry dramatically different implications! We just don't know which one will be accurate in the future, given our current understanding.

And yet, if you listen to the populists, it's all completely understood, and it's time to take action! And this is my principal objection to the GCC movement as it currently exists. Its slogan should be, "Take drastic action now, we'll figure out why later!"

 

[Modelworks]

I think globabl warming is real and that man is making it worse than it would have been naturally.
I don't think its a "kiss your ass goodbye, we're all going to die" type of thing though.
I look at other planets .
Look at planets like venus .
Venus is further from the sun than mercury, but is much hotter due to greenhouse gases, so I know the science is there.

I think its assinine to believe that we can dump tons of junk into the environment and it not have any effect. How much of an effect is teh question.

Politics like to make facts fit their figures and the polar bears are a prime example.
There are 19 different regions where polar bears live.

If I want to make global warming look false I tell you polar bear populations are increasing.

If I want to make globabl warming look true I tell you polar bear populations are shrinking.

Both are true statements.

In those 19 regions, those areas that have melting ice, the polar bear population is shrinking. In the areas where the ice is fine, the population is growing.

They use things like polar bears which 90% of people think north or south pole.

Its like everything in politics, its not what they tell you thats the issue, its what they aren't.

 

[Nathelion]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Its like everything in politics, its not what they tell you thats the issue, its what they aren't.

Quote of the day?