Environment problems

Quote:

---

On the balance of scientifc evidence I have read I simply cannot bring myself to follow the herd. If there was not such a hysterical push based of so many untruths and exaggerations I might be more apt to be a little more sympathetic. But my Bull S*** radar goes off when I see people making ridiculous claims about AGW.

---

This is the bit I'm interested in. Again, I want to know how a casual reader of published scientific information can determine whether or not it is BS without an in-depth understanding of the subject?

It also seems to me that taking this line of "if there weren't so many ridiculous claims being made, I'd be more inclined to believe it" is illogical. Does the fact that so many people rave on about how wonderful Shane Warne was as a bowler change the fact that he was, indeed, one of the best bowlers of all time? People dislike him in part because of the hype, but it does not change the fact that you'd want him on your team.

How do other people's opinions or the way they express them change the facts, and so therefore why does it influence your own thinking? It's the same with Big Shed's comment concerning Al Gore. I find it strange, that's all. Do you make your mind up about a thing based on the hype or strong criticism of others, or do you make up your own mind?

Do you believe that there is a consensus amongst scientists that there is a global warming problem and that it is caused by man? You don't have to believe that they are right, but do you accept that this is the case? Do you accept that you, despite all your reading on the subject, might have it wrong?

Have a look here for a summary of the scientific opinions on the subject.

Boy I'm getting done with this!

There are 2 parts to the comment you highlight.

1)Scientific evidence.
2)Defence of the evidence.

The pro AGW scientific evidence is a theory only not proven facts. For me to agree to this theory based on the scientific evidence I need to form an opinion as to the validity of the theory.

2) Many of those who defend the theory do so by making outlandish claims that the qualify with words such as, can, might, may, could. If the claim is made in a positive tone it is pre-qualified with, "if this happens, then...... might happen"
Claims like, the Artic ice will be gone in 5 years. Polar bears will be extinct, sea levels will rise by 100m (Flannery), houses falling into the swan river, on and on and on they go, without a shred of proof. Most of these claims made by NON SCIENTIST simply to validate what can only be descibed as a scientific theory.

Now why does a scientific theory need all that hype to back it up?

The true scientific assessments of damage casused by AGW are nothing like the claims being made by non scientific people.

Therefore if you cut away the hype and simply look at the actual scientific facts from both sides you can quite reasonably form an opinion such as mine.

The very fact these outlandish claims are made begs you to investigate the facts.
For this reason alone I started to try and form an opinion based on facts not hype.

No i don't believe there is a consensus amongst scientist. That is also hyped up. Simply because so many scientist are comming out and saying so.
And no I dont need to name them, use google.
No I don't believe anyone has the ability to claim that they are right although they are entiltled to their opinion. Science is not done by consensus Science is based on fact, and theories are open to challange until facts are produced to either prove or disprove it.

So no I do not believe that despite all my reading that I might have it wrong. I stand by to change my opinion if and when the scientific evidence and facts are definite and not beat up by lobbyist.

Until then I will remain open minded and continue to read up on the subject. If I find a defining piece of literature that changes my mind this blog will be the first to know.

guys.

I have to say well done on this thread. It has been the best read for a long time :2tsup:

Yes it has been a good debate!

Quote:

---

No i don't believe there is a consensus amongst scientist.

---

But there is a consensus amongst scientists working for or within the organisations listed at that link. In as much as there ever is a consensus amongst scientists, we have it. It's not hype. Hype is "the sea levels will rise by 100m. Millions of people will lose their homes. The world economy will collapse". These are worst case scenarios. It's good practice in risk management to consider the worst case. Doesn't mean you believe it will happen. You assign a probability to it and then base your actions on that. Do you accept there is a probability, no matter how slight, that the things scientists are warning us about might actually occur?

Quote:

---

no I do not believe that despite all my reading that I might have it wrong

---

Quote:

---

Until then I will remain open minded

---

How can you say you are open minded and still be convinced you can't be wrong? If you are open minded you must concede that you could be wrong, otherwise your mind is closed.

Quote:

---

Most of these claims made by NON SCIENTIST simply to validate what can only be descibed as a scientific theory.

---

Why would you pay any attention to non-scientists making such claims?

What I'm suggesting is that you don't have the necessary background to interpret the scientific evidence (neither do I). You form your opinion based on your own preconceptions. This goes to the very nature of belief.

If these guys are right, and no-one, not you nor I nor Big Shed nor anyone else, can say that they are not right, then we have a big problem on our hands. I think it needs to be considered as a real possibility, not dismissed out of hand because of the hard line nutters who cling to it, or because some of the proponents are hypocrites.

Quote:

---

Boy I'm getting done with this!

---

Fell free to taper off any time you like, I'm an argumentative sod and I'll bang on all day. I wont hold it against you and I'll still respect your advice elsewhere on the forum :)

Hmm I don't need to lay an egg to know one is bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

Nor am I going to get into a prove this prove that argument, everything I have mentioned can be found on the web. I don't propose to be an expert on anything to do with AGW.

---

And that is why you got slammed.....make a statement - back it up :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

Hmm I don't need to lay an egg to know one is bad.

---

No but you would need to know something about poultry to know why the chicken stopped laying them.

I believe that for the want of further evidence that my opinion is the right one to have. That does not mean that my opinion is correct, it means that I believe it to be.

Having an open mind means that I am open to change MY opinion if and when the facts are presented to alter it.

This means that I am open to assess both sides of the subject and not discard information for the sake that my mind is made up.

Science is simply not decided by consensus irespective of how many agree, it only takes one scientist to discover an irrefutable fact to blow any consensus out of the water. While ever there is no clear cut scientific fact to back up a theory backed by consensus it is open to be blown out of the water.

Consensus is in itself open to so many interpretations and false claims. Therefore I am very comfortable to devalue this claim in my assesment (which afterall is irrelevant, my assesment that is)

I don't need to back up any statement I make afterall it is just my opinion. You can easily validate my statement if you wish. I don't consider myself slammed either LOL.

I guess I'm just as stubborn SilentC :)

I'll agree with Rod on one thing. There is a lot of Hype that has been thrown into the argument. I think it has been thrown into both sides though, Rod.

I think where people come unstuck with this whole debate, is that they are looking for facts to believe in, that will convince them one way or another. The problem is that by the time the facts are in, it will be too late. Think of the sea-level rise. All we have are theories about how much it will rise. The only facts we have are historical.

Personally, I've watched a lot of people get shouted down about man's impact on this planet for about the last 40 years. No-one wants to believe it, I know I don't. But, the signs are there, and scientific people are lining up very strongly on the side that says man is impacting the planet, and we better do something about it.

Regardless of what I might believe, I really don't think arguing against these scientific theories is a good plan. One of the facts we do have, is that a very significant proportion of the world's scientists studying climate have put their collective hands up and said "it's happening" If there is the slightest chance that they are right, then we should be actively doing something about it. Now.

woodbe.

When I was in High school, back in the 80's, we were taught, "The Atomic Theory"....yes thats right. Despite our use of atomic weapons and nuclear reactors, it was still a theory.

How does something go from "Theorys" to "Rules" ???
I guess you have to convince a lot people...............

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

And no I dont need to name them, use google.


So no I do not believe that despite all my reading that I might have it wrong. I stand by to change my opinion if and when the scientific evidence and facts are definite and not beat up by lobbyist.

---

But if you've done all this reading then you must know where it is?.

At least help a poor fella out and give us a link, a name, a hunch?

Hell, once we've read it we might agree with you :2tsup:.

Apart from my gut feeling that all the carbon in the atmosphere is not good for us (and I cant prove it so its worth little) I base my conclusions that we should do something from this site;

http://www.ipcc.ch/

cheers

dazzler

It's science. Everything is a theory until a better theory is found. There are no absolutes, like those we deal with in everyday life.

We can dismiss the theories as just theories, and we'd be correct. What we cannot do is dismiss them as wrong unless we can disprove the theory or present another theory that is a better fit to the data.

Of course, dismissing a theory because it's just a theory might not be so smart when the bulk of the worlds scientific community reckon there is a good chance that the theory in question fits the data, and may well be right.

Reminds me of a story about a some codger called Nero. Maybe he thought that 'Rome burning' was 'just a theory'

woodbe.

Quote:

---

While ever there is no clear cut scientific fact to back up a theory backed by consensus it is open to be blown out of the water.

---

Exactly! Thank you for making my point so eloquently. So the theory you support is that the global warming evidence we are seeing today is caused by natural processes, not by man, and that there is nothing we can do about it. Until you have conclusive proof, it remains a theory. So you have chosen this theory on the basis of your preconceptions of the truth, because there is no conclusive evidence for you to do it any other way. On the balance of probability, you believe it is most likely that global warming is a natural phenomenon, therefore you accept those arguments which support this belief and reject those which do not.

Quote:

---

I believe that for the want of further evidence that my opinion is the right one to have. That does not mean that my opinion is correct, it means that I believe it to be.

---

You said "I do not believe that despite all my reading that I might have it wrong". This is different to what you have just said. You are now saying that you believe your opinion to be the right one to have given the available evidence (as assessed by you as a lay person), but you are not asserting that your opinion is correct. So reading between the lines, you concede that it is possible you are wrong. There is a probability, no matter how small (in your view), that global warming is going to be a major problem. Will you concede that much?

Here's another question: assuming you (or the scientists you follow) are right, and global warming is just part of a natural cycle, not influenced by man and not able to be altered by our actions in any way. So this natural process is taking place beyond our control and it might affect our well being. Do you think there's anything we could do in advance to prepare for it, or should we just put our faith in God or mother nature to work it all out in the end? Is your proposed strategy to just carry on as we are, or do you think it's worth taking some steps to alleviate the problem?

BTW, the reason I am arguing this point with you is because that's exactly how I felt about it 6 months ago. I remember saying to my wife "I've heard that global warming is supposedly caused by man now. What a load of bollocks - climate change is just part of the natural cycle". She nodded her head in agreement. But then after a bit of reading and thinking, I realised that is not a supportable point of view because a) I know bugger all about the natural cycles of the planet and b) scientists who do are saying that it might be caused by man and c) because it was hard for me to accept that things wont just carry on as they have been all of my life. Once you leave your baggage at the door, it becomes easier to accept the range of possibilities. I still have my private optimistic views and I hope that things aren't going to get as bad as some think - but I'm now less adamant about it and I accept that there is a distinct possibility that things might take a turn for the worst in my lifetime.