Here is an interesting article outlining the strategy of those who organized the statement.
Climate scientists to fight back at skeptics
It's interesting that the strategies and tactics advocated are not much different than the ones many AGW advocates accuse skeptics of using presumably to raise doubt about the skeptics credibility.
Debate is an interesting affair.
No, the goal is to raise understanding of the science among the public and lawmakers. However, considering the funds available to the anti-science side I doubt if this new effort will have much success.Originally Posted by cypress
Good point, it's primary purpose is propaganda, not debate.No, the goal is to raise understanding of the science among the public and lawmakers.
Bunbury; On another forum referring to the identical link, I posted the following. I'm not sure what relevance it has to your motive here, since there were no comments on the opening post.
From your op link; If there is indeed "uncertainty" associated with scientific conclusions (extremely arguable, what conclusions have been made), then why should actions taken be any less certain as to remedies. Said another way, one point I've consistently made since the 1960's (in vain), is that those actions taken, themselves can be and have been more destructive than the original perceived problem itself. Not only are they suggesting impossible remedies, a total change and overnight (relatively speaking) to the lifestyle of all society, they may be advising on premature evidence including the adverse consequences.We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.
No one is denying the planet has been warming, certainly since the period science told us it was cooling and there is no argument that mans activity, itself is PART of the EVENTS (warming and cooling) or otherwise said part of the environment that naturally controls the weather patterns on planet earth or in fact what's naturally being changed in the atmosphere. The question should be asked, what if the science is wrong and those "risk" if actions are indeed successful and we some how dropped CO2, to levels of 300ppm, when mans influence was about a tenth of what it is today, or less.
'Apples and Oranges'; I can recite you history, give you my understandings of what was and how it developed to what is today and with unlimited evidence and it will be "overwhelmingly accepted" by historians, but necessary all of them, same on most all issues and in particular AGW. What I can't do or can computer models used today or likely ever accurately predict the future. There is not one item under warming/cooling/CO2 Atmospheric Composition/Temperatures/Solar Flares or anything thing else in nature, that has not been before, likely to be again or be in extremes to those probabilities. There are simply too many variables that natural adjustment by nature itself, will follow or correct, mans activity probably the least important. One may very well be the current Iceland Volcano eruption, ongoing today.For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5 billion years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14 billion years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today's organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: There is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.
These are all based on questionable *if's* and all could be argued by a good many skeptical SCIENTIST, in the relative fields. I'm tired of going over these thousands of people that have made their counter points, over and over again or the recorded history of the many political movements that led to a consolidation under AGW.(i) through (v)
One self inflicted argument by the author of the article, among many; "unprecedented in modern times", validating what I've been saying. Al Gore, the modern day self proclaimed spokesperson for all extremist environment movements, buys an Ocean Front Property, on the Pacific where he once predicted would be under water, think by 2010. Somebody, please make sense of this...Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.
On the list of names; How much would you bet these people and those still with NASA in the US are funded (dependent on Government) for their jobs, creditability, purpose, have them because they simply WILL NOT be skeptical of an ongoing political issue?
BunburyWhere is you think, a good share on money for R&D comes from, if not the various Governments? In my mind too much of science theory is already involved in public policy, which in my mind cause more problems than problems solved.No, the goal is to raise understanding of the science among the public and lawmakers. However, considering the funds available to the anti-science side I doubt if this new effort will have much success.
Exxon Mobil are working with top public relations firms and using many of the same tactics and personnel as those employed by Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds to dispute the cigarette-cancer link in the 1990s. Exxon Mobil sought out those willing to question the science behind climate change, providing funding for some of them, their organizations and their studies.
Indeed, and when I went to school to learn arithmetic and spelling, that was propaganda too.Good point, it's primary purpose is propaganda, not debate.No, the goal is to raise understanding of the science among the public and lawmakers.
By the way, as I'm sure some of you know, the Inter Academy Council is to conduct a review of the IPCC, aimed, I believe, mainly at helping to improve its quality control procedures if and where necessary. You can submit comments here:
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/comments.html
May 17th, 2010, 06:52 PM
Sorry mate, there's nowhere close to 700 signatories on that piece of rubbish.
May 18th, 2010, 07:43 AM
As me old mum used ter say, it's the quality wot counts, not 'ow big it is.Sorry mate, there's nowhere close to 700 signatories on that piece of rubbish.
I like this quote...this is the keystone of the pro-AGW argument. I wish they had included a reference to the technological breakthrough that allows scientists to scan a barcode on CO2 molecules, and tell exactly where they came from.(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.
"You" have no credible way of knowing that, and it is speculation. There is no control group..."you" don't even know where we're 'supposed' to be. "You're" guessing... My guess is we're teetering on the brink of the next ice age...but I'm not basing that on politics, or government funding...I'm basing it on the FACT that it's happened almost 20 times in the last 2 million years...when our atmoshpere experiences...the same things we're seeing today.(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth's climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.
It's a pattern...it was a pattern before we were here, and it'll be a pattern after we're gone. We're much smaller than we think. Religion was invented so people can feel that their place on this planet is special, and that they are "bigger" than they really are. See the connection?
Speaking of skeptics, one presumes!
More seriously, human beings may be a miniscule species on the planet, but the amount of sequestered carbon pumped out of the ground and injected into the air easily rivals that of volcanic activity and other geological processes that you would have no difficulty accepting contribute to climate.
Billions of cars, billions of tailpipes, millions of smokestacks, belching fossil fuels constantly, for decades.
Actually we've had pretty much that available for nearly half a century by measure of the carbon isotope ratio, specifically lowering 13C/12C as a by product of burning fossil and living plants compared to the natural ratio. The calculation are also substantiated and completely consistent with estimates of fossil fuels burned for energy and forest areas burned for clearing over the past century and a half. Essentially there's virtually no doubt that most of the increase Co2 is due to human action--it's not only a case where the hypothesis matched the observations very closely, but also there is no other available hypothesis that's even comes close to explaining the increases.I like this quote...this is the keystone of the pro-AGW argument. I wish they had included a reference to the technological breakthrough that allows scientists to scan a barcode on CO2 molecules, and tell exactly where they came from.(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.
LOL...and I will agree that they have an effect...but one that is nearly impossible to gauge accurately.
If by "teetering on the brink" you mean sometime within the next 100,000 years you could be right.
Such as? Give us some details of the things we're experiencing that lead you to "guess" there's an ice age coming.but I'm not basing that on politics, or government funding...I'm basing it on the FACT that it's happened almost 20 times in the last 2 million years...when our atmoshpere experiences...the same things we're seeing today.
Sure:If by "teetering on the brink" you mean sometime within the next 100,000 years you could be right.
Such as? Give us some details of the things we're experiencing that lead you to "guess" there's an ice age coming.but I'm not basing that on politics, or government funding...I'm basing it on the FACT that it's happened almost 20 times in the last 2 million years...when our atmoshpere experiences...the same things we're seeing today.
I showed a graph similar to this to my 7th grade students, and one of them (the 7th grade science subject award winner) said, "So when the graph drops off, there's another ice age?" I said yes, to which he replied, "Looks to me like we're overdue."
I just think we're getting ourselves all worked up over something largely out of our hands. I see all these complex calculations attempting to account for all sorts of variables...when common sense is staring us in the face...which is one reason I love the Einstein quote in my sig line.
You probably should have explained the difference though between past events and what's projects.
Orbital eccentricity of the earth around the sun, and tilt are both approaching minimums and will weaken astronomical forcing for the next 20,000 years or so. The next ice age will be very mild, the cooling gradual and likely completely eclipsed by the green house gas forcing we've already put into the atmosphere for the next several thousand years.
Obvious lie.
I showed a graph similar to this to my 7th grade students, and one of them (the 7th grade science subject award winner) said, "So when the graph drops off, there's another ice age?" I said yes, to which he replied, "Looks to me like we're overdue."
We're talking about American 7th graders...I'm lucky if they know the Earth orbits the sun when I get them at the start of the year.
Who's lying? Me? The graph? You?...to yourself, when you think you have something to add to the conversation? Seriously...You seem to like popping in, throwing a vague fit, then never responding with any substance whatsoever that even indicates you have some measure of information, or what we're even talking about. Dude...if you want to disagree, that's great...that's what science is all about...but make an actual point.Obvious lie.
I showed a graph similar to this to my 7th grade students, and one of them (the 7th grade science subject award winner) said, "So when the graph drops off, there's another ice age?" I said yes, to which he replied, "Looks to me like we're overdue."
Yes, you. The graph does not suggest we are overdue, so your story is quite obviously made up, and most likely intentional propaganda. (Even 7th graders understand that!)
Can you prove you'll die if you jump out of a window? No? So what are you waiting for?
It's been known at least since eighties that CO2 is harmful. Why is it so surprising we are running out of time?
LF; Are you saying at no time in the past, GHG were never as they are today by percentage of what WAS atmosphere or that the simple fact mankind exist, is the problem.The next ice age will be very mild, the cooling gradual and likely completely eclipsed by the green house gas forcing we've already put into the atmosphere for the next several thousand years.
water vapor
carbon dioxide
Atmospheric methane
nitrous oxide
ozone
chlorofluorocarbons
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-...atmosphere.htmEarth has had three atmospheres, each different in chemical composition. The first of Earth's atmospheres, formed when the planet was still very young, was primarily hydrogen and helium. This atmosphere is about 4.57 billion years old, and was short-lived – heat from the molten crust and solar wind dissipated this layer. Hydrogen and helium are not heavy enough to make up a stable atmosphere unless the planet is very massive – these elements are more likely to gain escape velocity during random thermal fluctuations. This is part of the reason why hydrogen and helium are very rare in Earth's atmosphere today.
These events didn't happen overnight and whatever is next won't either. As mentioned on this thread and possibly 5000 others, there are too many variables to conclude anything, especially in my opinion, mankind and it's activity has influenced to any large degree any trend (warming/cooling).
Maybe methane should be reduced or nearly eliminated. We could kill off all the termites and fill in Wetlands. Oh, I forgot we seem to need wetland and DDT would be worse than the termites. But those are older environmental movements which cured other problems, AT A COST*.
http://epa.gov/methane/sources.htmlWetlands. Natural wetlands are responsible for the majority of global methane emissions from natural sources, accounting for about 170 Tg of methane per year (range 105-278 Tg per year)....
Termites. Global emissions of methane due to termites are estimated to be between 2 and 22 Tg per year, making them the second largest natural source of methane emissions.
*http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol3no3/roberts.htmHerein we will show how rapidly malaria is increasing, examine the patterns of resurgent malaria in relationship to the Global Malaria Control Strategy (1), and test the hypothesis that increased malaria is due to decreased spraying of homes with DDT. Also, we will discuss recent actions to ban DDT, the health costs of such a ban, perspectives on DDT use in agriculture versus malaria control, and costs versus benefits of DDT and alternative insecticides.
Twit; Exactly, since science cannot and probably never will be able to predict the future with any certainty, then why jump....Change life styles, maybe bankrupt society and return to the dark ages, socially speaking.Can you prove you'll die if you jump out of a window? No? So what are you waiting for?
For the record, CO2 is not toxic or harmful to life itself, at rates 100 times plus, that's in the Atmosphere, your breathing in that on most any urban road or enclosed building today. We may be running out of time but I'd bet the reason will have nothing to do with CO2 or anything man could possibly prevent.It's been known at least since eighties that CO2 is harmful. Why is it so surprising we are running out of time?
Think about this, PLANTLIFE requires CO2, does 50% better where CO2 levels can be maintained at levels above 1000ppm (Greenhouses) and guess what beside the food you eat or the food animals you eat need, they produce the one thing most complex life on this planet MUST have. Do you know what that might be....?
It's not out of our hands; there is lots we can do, but we're mostly too selfish and lazy to do them.I just think we're getting ourselves all worked up over something largely out of our hands. I see all these complex calculations attempting to account for all sorts of variables...when common sense is staring us in the face
I do complex calculations every day. Perhaps if you made some attempt to understand, if not the calculations themselves, then at least the reasoning behind them, you might gain some respect here. As it is you came in full of sarcasm and ignorance and I have no time for you.
jackson33: You are an idiot...
| « Hybrid and Electric Cars | HOW CAN WE STOP GLOBAL WARMING? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
