The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex

So, why do you find it so hard to believe in this situation?

First of all, it is portray as scientific consensus when it is far from it. There are plenty of brilliant minds that dispute the whole man caused theory.

There have been warming periods in the planets existance at regular intervals that have been far more intense than this, long before we burned one spec of fossil fuel.

I find it not coincidental that there is dramatic warming on Mars during this same time period. This would seem to logically point to solar activity as the main factor.

That's the basic gist of it.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

First of all, it is portray as scientific consensus when it is far from it. There are plenty of brilliant minds that dispute the whole man caused theory.

There have been warming periods in the planets existance at regular intervals that have been far more intense than this, long before we burned one spec of fossil fuel.

I find it not coincidental that there is dramatic warming on Mars during this same time period. This would seem to logically point to solar activity as the main factor.

That's the basic gist of it.

Well now you're changing you're argument. Whether scientific consensus exists is a completely different issue than how reasonable the idea is that small changes in carbon can produce larger changes in climate.

You're also mistaken about the "dramatic" warming on Mars. The southern polar ice cap has decreased in size in recent years but that is a local phenomenon and there is no global evidence of increased temperature. Also, if you're going to put it on the sun, can you point to any increased energy output by the sun? No, you can not.

I know the Mars things has received a big boost recently because of an article that the "anti-consensus" side is eager to trumpet recently published in National Geographic. Here is how you will find such sources quoting the opening paragraph of that article:

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause...

That assumes they are even honest enough to use an ellipses. The full paragraph, with my bolding is:

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

If you're going to blame the sun for warming on Earth and Mars, then where is the warming on all of the other planets (particularly Mercury which is much closer and has no atmosphere to moderate temperature changes? Why isn't the moon warming if the sun in which it basks is emitting more energy?

And there really is a pretty strong consensus among scientists. That isn't to say there aren't detractors. Nor does it mean that the consensus is correct. That said, for the most part detractors are not scientists and have no actual evidence beyond appeals to "common sense" (which is frequently wrong) to support them. And lacking evidence all a person is doing is picking the answer they like best and then going out and finding people who agree that it is the most preferable answer.

For the most part the pro-anthropogenic global warming side has evidence. The anti-anthropogenic global warming side just doesn't like the answer.

[Alex]

It is also interesting that the people now saying "yes it is warming but it isn't caused by man" are generally the people who a decade ago were saying "no, it isn't warming."

I expect as evidence continues to come in that the next step will be "yes, we're contributing to warming but it is a very small amount" followed by "yes we're causing global warming but that actually makes things better."

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Alex

It is also interesting that the people now saying "yes it is warming but it isn't caused by man" are generally the people who a decade ago were saying "no, it isn't warming."

I find the people who now say "we are definately experiencing global warming" but used to say "we need to stop polluting the planet lest we bring on another Ice Age" far more interesting.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

I find the people who now say "we are definately experiencing global warming" but used to say "we need to stop polluting the planet lest we bring on another Ice Age" far more interesting.

Yes, because a Newsweek article overstating early theorizing of some scientists with interesting ideas is the same thing as the overwhelming consensus that the earth is warming and the very strong evidence that humanity is playing a role.

Wrong theories are proposed all of the time, and they generally eventually get superceded as new evidence comes in. But this one in particular is a case of trying to have it both ways. A small minority of scientists today holding putting forward theories out of odds with general acceptable theory and with minimal supporting evidence are held up as evidence of debate and somehow accepted as more solid that then mainstream stuff. Simultaneously you exaggerate the general acceptance of fringe theories from 30 years ago and hold it up as proof of what goofs scientists can be.

Now that we've covered "global warming denial canards" for 100, 200, and 300, would anybody like to try for a Daily Double?

And I left Vancouver because there isn't a good university there. If I could have that local climate back I would in a heartbeat.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Alex

............ followed by "yes we're causing global warming but that actually makes things better."

C'mon, you and Scaeagles both left Vantucky for warmer climes for a reason.