[cherdano]

DrTodd, the article you cite doesn't disagree with global warming happening, and that CO2 increase is helping it. He is just claiming we don't know whether it is caused by human activity, and that it should not contribute to increase in storms etc. The first is a well-respected scientific minority position (the latest IPCC report said human activities are a likely cause of global warming), and the second is a straw-man as far as I am concerned (I have never heard the claim he is disputing except as a casual remark, clearly not marked as scientific consensus).

[Al_U_Card]

So who saw Nova and the report on "global dimming". The reverse effect of atmospheric particulate pollution that has reduced the expected CO2 driven warming by almost half. (Sunlight being blocked has more serious effects on photosynthesis but perhaps will produce fewer skin cancers....who knows?)

[mike777]

Al_U_Card, on Apr 19 2006, 03:14 PM, said:

So who saw Nova and the report on "global dimming". The reverse effect of atmospheric particulate pollution that has reduced the expected CO2 driven warming by almost half. (Sunlight being blocked has more serious effects on photosynthesis but perhaps will produce fewer skin cancers....who knows?)

Watching TV, Nova uses Electricity and creates Greenhouse gases, please stop using Electricity so much.

[joshs]

Really? I always thought that public television is powered by flower power.

[Gerben42]

IMHO, anyone saying that they accept that higher CO2 levels increase the temperature of the Earth but do not think we should decrease the human activity enhanced global warming is just claiming that 1 + 1 is not 2 because he would like it to be something else for political reasons. Get real!

[pbleighton]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/04/25...reut/index.html

[luke warm]

from the article:

"While many of the conference's 500 scientists seem to agree that a warming trend in the tropics is causing more and stronger hurricanes than usual, not all agree that global warming is to blame.

Some, like William Gray, a veteran hurricane researcher at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colorado, attributed the warming to natural cycles.

Gray said he believes salinity buildups and movements with ocean currents cause warming and cooling cycles. He predicted the Caribbean water will continue to warm for another five to 10 years, then start cooling."

so "many" agree, though not all

[david_c]

I don't have an informed opinion on global warming. In fact I find it kind of scary that so many people think they do.

If you want to know about global warming, you will have to go and read the reasearch, and decide whether you agree with the scientists' methodology and (if so) their conclusions.

The information we think we're getting is really the result of a massive screening process: first of all by the individual scientist who wants to illustrate his own theory in the best possible way; then by the wider scientific community which decides which scientists are fashionable; then by the media who pick out whatever they think will appeal to their readers; and now by posters on BBF who pick out the media reports which suit whatever reason they have for posting. I'll bet that the end result of this process bears little relation to the reality.

[pbleighton]

"If you want to know about global warming, you will have to go and read the reasearch, and decide whether you agree with the scientists' methodology and (if so) their conclusions.

The information we think we're getting is really the result of a massive screening process: first of all by the individual scientist who wants to illustrate his own theory in the best possible way; then by the wider scientific community which decides which scientists are fashionable; then by the media who pick out whatever they think will appeal to their readers; and now by posters on BBF who pick out the media reports which suit whatever reason they have for posting. I'll bet that the end result of this process bears little relation to the reality. "

Do you feel this way about nuclear physics, or molecular biology, or...

Peter

[david_c]

pbleighton, on Apr 26 2006, 01:03 PM, said:

Do you feel this way about nuclear physics, or molecular biology, or...

Absolutely yes. If there was an important question about nuclear physics which had scientists divided, I would not take sides without having read the research myself. And then if my lack of background in nuclear physics meant that I couldn't resolve the issue, then I would have to give up and accept that I did not know the answer.

[pbleighton]

"Absolutely yes. If there was an important question about nuclear physics which had scientists divided, I would not take sides without having read the research myself."

What is the level of your scientific training? It must be very advanced. I had college-level physics and math, and I would never presume to second-guess a strong consensus (which is the case, "divided" is accurate but incomplete) in a highly technical field such as climatology or nuclear physics.

One of my best friends is a molecular biologist, and after many conversations with him, I wouldn't do it in that field either.

Peter

[mr1303]

David graduated from the University of Cambridge in mathematics, and is now studying a PhD in Manchester (no doubt he can tell you this from himself).

I must admit I agree with him. David is not trying to overrule the consensus in the scientific community. He he saying that one should not be unduly influenced by information that we hear in the media (and from other sources) due to a screening process, and that the only correct and accurate way to make a view on a topic is to go back and read the research carried out by the scientists themselves.

Case in point:

Deaths on British roads where speed was an factor per annum (I made these up, but I think are in the ballpark):

4000, 3985, 3952, 4025, 4037, 3936, 3742, 3817, 3546, 3275

Speed cameras were introduced in year 3 of these figures (lets say).

At the end of the 10 year study, the scientist produces a report. The tabloid press has a headline:

Speed Cameras Work!! 25% decrease in road traffic deaths due to speeding since speed cameras introduced.

Of course, the real truth is that several years deaths have increased. And there may be many other factors involved such as the driver falling asleep at the wheel, the driver being drunk, or under the influence of drugs etc.

Therefore, we don't get the complete picture.

[pbleighton]

"Therefore, we don't get the complete picture. "

The picture that I get is that there is a strong consensus among the experts in a scientific field on an issue which has enormous public policy implications. This consensus is not yet universal, but it has gone from being a new weird theory to the consensus view in less than 15 years. My points are:

1. Perhaps David is qualified to critique a consensus in climatology - I doubt it, in spite of his impressive mathematical training - climatology is not the same field as mathematics. I don't think many climatologists would be able to effectively peer-review a paper submitted to a mathematical journal. In any case, very few of the rest of us are able to do so. I know I couldn't, and my background in math and science is a lot better than most people, including most of the politicians who are charged with setting and executing environmental policy.
2. This is a public policy issue, not an abstract metaphysical discussion. As a society, we should use the best information available to us, even if it is not perfect, or certain (as is the case - I don't think that the issue is totally settled yet). We should let the scientific consensus guide us.
3. We should also consider the downsides of taking one course of action (assuming global warming is caused to a substantial degree by human behavior, and changing our behavior accordingly), versus the other (doing nothing). If the odds of global warming being caused to a substantial degree by human behavior were only 50%, or 20%, we should still act as if we knew it was absolutely true. The reason is that the downside of inaction is terrible, and the downside of action is that we merely accelerate our weaning away from our dependence on fossil fuels. Since we are burning oil twice as fast as we are discovering it, and looking at the dramatically increasing use of energy in the third world, the actions we should take to combat global warming are mostly things we are going to have to do fairly soon anyway.

Peter

[david_c]

pbleighton, on Apr 26 2006, 02:44 PM, said:

The picture that I get is that there is a strong consensus among the experts in a scientific field on an issue which has enormous public policy implications.  This consensus is not yet universal, but it has gone from being a new weird theory to the consensus view in less than 15 years.

But how do you know there is a consensus? I see some reports in the media which say this, but there are others which say the opposite. This is precisely the sort of thing which I would like to investigate for myself if I was asked to come up with an answer. And maybe I would find that it's true, that there is a genuine consensus, in which case I would go along with it. Though I would still not be entirely happy unless I could understand what was supposed to be wrong with the minority opinion.

And while I certainly don't claim to know anything about climatology, a lot of the controversy seems to be about the interpretation of statistics, which is something that any scientist would be familiar with.

[han]

Although I agree with all that Peter said in his last post, David has a very good point. Many of the people who have written here about this topic at least give the impression that they think they know what they are talking about.. and they probably don't. Of course, if there is an honest climatology expert hidden here, please accept my apology.

But Peter is right that we can't expect to read all the scientific evidence ourselves before it comes to making a decision (whether the decision making is active or by voting or discussing). And we can't just accept what "the scientists" say because they don't agree. What else can we do then rely upon the vast majority of scientists instead?

However:

Quote

I don't think many climatologists would be able to effectively peer-review a paper submitted to a mathematical journal.

While this is true, it may not be the same the other way around. While most climatologists would need years and years of training to just get an idea of what some recent mathematics papers are about, I expect that most of us would be able to understand fairly well what some climatologist paper is about, especially when we get help from an expert.

I'm not claiming that mathematics is "better", or even "harder" than climatology. Not at all, but it isn't the same either.

[pbleighton]

"And maybe I would find that it's true, that there is a genuine consensus,"

A couple of years back I read an account of a climatology conference where the participants were polled on the issue. My (somewhat fuzzy) recollection is that in excess of 80% believed that global warming exists, and that human behavior is a significant contributor to it. Have you read of polls among climatologists with substantially different results?

" in which case I would go along with it."

If you were a legislator, and had to vote on a clump of bills regarding global warming, which meant that you would essentially have to say yes or no to laws which would combat global warming by changing human behavior, what probability that human behavior is a significant contributor to it would convince you to vote for these bills?

Assume that the bills were reasonable, given the assumption.

BTW, I have absolutely no quarrel with any investigation that you would like to make. But how do you propose that our politicians, who typically have little scientific training, decide what to do? This is really the main issue.

Peter

[DrTodd13]

David_c was eloquent in his posts here. Certainly, all this information is greatly filtered by the time it gets to us. The worst filter is the media who have an agenda that they want to push. They could have entitled the article "scientists debate the cause and degree of global warming" but instead they chose to say "the sky is falling." This is the level at which most people stop getting their news. They've heard news story after news story saying it is true so they believe it. They are told of this so-called consensus and so don't investigate it. Really, the masses are the people driving the political process and they have no right to be doing say because they are essentially ignorant. A few of us here may take the time to skim the literature to get a better informed opinion. Those of us with scientific training may spot methodologies and interpretations of statistics that are invalid. There may be things for which a mathematician isn't qualified to speak about in climatology. So, really, you'd need years and years of training in climatology to have a really informed opinion. Personally, I really hate democracy so the idea that we define truth by taking a vote amongst experts is abhorent. Whatever the truth may be, there are a whole range of valid questions that either no one is asking or are asking but aren't getting any press. Most people have their heads in the sand about the issue of running out of oil. Will new fuel technologies be available in time? Given that oil will run out probably by 2050, will we do irreperable harm to the earth during that time period if you believe CO2 is the main problem?

[pbleighton]

"So, really, you'd need years and years of training in climatology to have a really informed opinion."

Agree.

What do you think we should do, if anything, about energy, CO2, etc.?

Peter

[cherdano]

I strongly disagree with the notion that you can't find out yourself about the scientific consensus:
1. Go read the IPCC reports (www.ipcc.ch).
2. Read/watch media you can trust. (Yes I do think that exists.)

Arend

[bid_em_up]

Who would've beleived that the BBO Water Cooler could have this effect:

Today on, http://www.yahoo.com/


Buzz Log - What the world is searching for » More Buzz

Holloway mysteryWith all the twists and turns in the Natalee Holloway case, searchers seek out the truth. More...
Popular News Searches
1. Natalee Holloway
2. Hybrid Vehicles 3. Real Estate Bubble
4. Global Warming