-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
This debate is sadly completely polluted (pun intended).
The pro "people cause global warming" group is so determined to prove they are right that they endorse promoting "worst case scenarios" as likely outcomes, because the end justifies the means. When this gets highlighted however, it only damages their credibility and the original intent that they have.
The anti "people cause global warming" mob are just as bad though. Much of their science is either not looking at the question objectively (i.e. its aiming to prove a point wrong, not to find a truth), or its funded by "whatever" industry to make a point. Again people see through this, and doubt yet again.
Sadly though, we masses also share some of the blame. We buy papers and watch the TV when it says "the world is stuffed" or "lefties are dodgy and know nothing", but we don't care about projects to make minor changes to our lives that may have big impacts on power/fuel savings because we dont care if we dont have to. We only care about water now, because it is having a direct impact on us. We only care about petrol when its around $1.40/lt. As for power, we only care when we have brown-outs due to over use and/or lack of infrastructure.
This whole debate is a joke until we are all prepared to drop our agendas, forget about "winning" the debate, and start looking at what we all need to do to fix whatever problems there are in the best, most efficient, and most economical way.
The pro "people cause global warming" group is so determined to prove they are right that they endorse promoting "worst case scenarios" as likely outcomes, because the end justifies the means. When this gets highlighted however, it only damages their credibility and the original intent that they have.
The anti "people cause global warming" mob are just as bad though. Much of their science is either not looking at the question objectively (i.e. its aiming to prove a point wrong, not to find a truth), or its funded by "whatever" industry to make a point. Again people see through this, and doubt yet again.
Sadly though, we masses also share some of the blame. We buy papers and watch the TV when it says "the world is stuffed" or "lefties are dodgy and know nothing", but we don't care about projects to make minor changes to our lives that may have big impacts on power/fuel savings because we dont care if we dont have to. We only care about water now, because it is having a direct impact on us. We only care about petrol when its around $1.40/lt. As for power, we only care when we have brown-outs due to over use and/or lack of infrastructure.
This whole debate is a joke until we are all prepared to drop our agendas, forget about "winning" the debate, and start looking at what we all need to do to fix whatever problems there are in the best, most efficient, and most economical way.
I don't really see the vast majority of the scientists working in this field doing anything but reporting their findings. Sure people like Gore are trying to use some shock tactics but you can find (IMO) plenty of unprejudiced opinion from knowledgeable people on the subject without looking too hard.
Disco08 said:
Its the way their science is presented though. They know they only get a sound bite with current media, so they run with rubbish like "Luna Park in St.Kilda will be underwater soon". People read it, roll their eyes, and ignore any decent work the people have done.
Credibility is everything in this debate, and stunts to scare people don't encourage it.
Tiger74 said:
Yes, that is a problem of science journalism though, not the science itself. Science press releases and the popular reporting of science are fine arts that require a lot of skill to do well. Unfortunately, it seems that the need for flashy headlines and soundbites often leads to 'over extending' and extravagant claims that aren't supported by the original research. Hence the importance of actually looking at the research papers themselves and looking at the conclusions that the authors come to.
That is the purpose of the IPCC actually......and what conclusions have they come to?
A nice article that discusses the problems with 'deniers' of all colours. (From the Science Avenger blog)
Evolution Denier or Global Warming Denier: You Decide
This is an actual comment made in a debate on one of the above topics, but I've altered the details a bit to focus on the commonalities and make a point about the true nature of the problem here. Can you tell whether this statement was made by an evolution denier or a global warming denier:
"You encourage those that are convinced that XXXXX is a serious threat to 'get involved'. You shouldn't be too surprised that those of us that don't see XXXXX as settled science would do the same. Despite your claim that XXXXX is based on "huge bodies of scientific knowledge", the fact is that XXXXX proponents have little to point to as hard evidence. The rest of the "huge body" consists mainly of speculation. I find it interesting that you characterize evidence that does not support XXXXX as 'misinformation'. We live in an open society where you are free to write books and give talks based on your personal opinion and the facts as you see them. Others, that hold different opinions based on their review of the evidence, share that same right."
Scary huh? See, the problem with denialists isn't the specific topic they are denying. The problem is that they reject the scientific process, and deny the reality of the progress of human knowledge. They put their trust in a discredited source of fact-finding, namely their own perceptions, rather than the tried and true scientific method of falsifiable experimentation, peer review, and replication. They deny the layered aspect of knowledge, where learning occurs in steps, and think that idly musing over an idea while sitting at their favorite barstool they are capable of coming up with an objection to a major scientific theory that hasn't already been considered by hundreds of people who know far more about the subject than they every will. Thus, their inclination to see no reason to do any actual testing of their hypotheses.
They would have you believe that because Einstein's relativity supplanted Newton's laws of motion, or that Piltdown Man was a hoax, that nothing scientists say has any more value than the opinion of the man on the street, who is, not coincidentally, them. How anyone can stand in the middle of this magnificent technological society man has built from, in the final analysis, literally nothing, and claim that we don't know any more than anyone else in history did, is beyond me, but that is the sort of intellectual relativism that lies at the core of denialism.
Evolution Denier or Global Warming Denier: You Decide
This is an actual comment made in a debate on one of the above topics, but I've altered the details a bit to focus on the commonalities and make a point about the true nature of the problem here. Can you tell whether this statement was made by an evolution denier or a global warming denier:
"You encourage those that are convinced that XXXXX is a serious threat to 'get involved'. You shouldn't be too surprised that those of us that don't see XXXXX as settled science would do the same. Despite your claim that XXXXX is based on "huge bodies of scientific knowledge", the fact is that XXXXX proponents have little to point to as hard evidence. The rest of the "huge body" consists mainly of speculation. I find it interesting that you characterize evidence that does not support XXXXX as 'misinformation'. We live in an open society where you are free to write books and give talks based on your personal opinion and the facts as you see them. Others, that hold different opinions based on their review of the evidence, share that same right."
Scary huh? See, the problem with denialists isn't the specific topic they are denying. The problem is that they reject the scientific process, and deny the reality of the progress of human knowledge. They put their trust in a discredited source of fact-finding, namely their own perceptions, rather than the tried and true scientific method of falsifiable experimentation, peer review, and replication. They deny the layered aspect of knowledge, where learning occurs in steps, and think that idly musing over an idea while sitting at their favorite barstool they are capable of coming up with an objection to a major scientific theory that hasn't already been considered by hundreds of people who know far more about the subject than they every will. Thus, their inclination to see no reason to do any actual testing of their hypotheses.
They would have you believe that because Einstein's relativity supplanted Newton's laws of motion, or that Piltdown Man was a hoax, that nothing scientists say has any more value than the opinion of the man on the street, who is, not coincidentally, them. How anyone can stand in the middle of this magnificent technological society man has built from, in the final analysis, literally nothing, and claim that we don't know any more than anyone else in history did, is beyond me, but that is the sort of intellectual relativism that lies at the core of denialism.
Panthera tigris FC said:That is the purpose of the IPCC actually......and what conclusions have they come to?
I actually agree with this a lot. This group has managed to get the scaremongering out of their campaigns (we are talking 15cm water rises now, not 15m), and the public is believing them now.
Asked this a while back on the thread about benefits of global warming, as all we hear are the negatives:
Saw a bit of the 60-Minutes tonight as i was having something to eat....thought I'd post the story on here for people who missed watching it:
Greenlanders welcome global warming
Sunday October 28, 2007
While global warming is usually feared for its catastrophic visions of rising sea levels, droughts and chaotic weather, the people of Greenland are celebrating a boom time as their ice-locked island goes green.
Two and a half million cubic kilometres of Greenland’s ice cap is melting at a rate that is alarming scientists but offering locals new opportunities as the ice caps make way for farming pastures, safer shipping routes and a potential mining windfall.
“You know you are really experiencing global warming here,” reindeer farmer Stefan Magnusson tells reporter Tara Brown. “I think Greenland is one of the few places on the planet where you really see it and where you sense it.”
In the past, locals had to settle for wilting fruit and vegetables flown in from Denmark, but the warmer weather means everything from lettuce to Chinese cabbage is growing in Greenland.
“It’s proving that we’re able to produce much more vegetables here — we can get a better quality and hopefully at a better price as well,” scientist and farmer Kenneth Hoegh tells 60 Minutes.
Greenlanders are also discovering multi billion-dollar deposits of precious metals like vanadium and titanium in their soil — and the warmer weather is making it more economical to mine.
“Yes it’ll be very good for Greenland... extremely good for Greenland,” Stefan Magnusson says, adding that the promise of more tourism to Greenland as it warms is stirring up local excitement, rather than dread.
“I’ll be glad because, uh, sometimes we are a little bit lonely here and so I’ll be happy to receive Australians as visitors,” he laughs.
“I love it here. It’s going to be one of the greatest countries on the planet with this global warming.”
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=311715
Video link here:
http://ninemsn.video.msn.com/v/en-au/v.htm?f=39&g=2BCA8AA8-2C2A-4459-A502-B465CEB8DA02&p=aunews_au60minutes&t=m163&mediaid=111601
Liverpool said:
Saw a bit of the 60-Minutes tonight as i was having something to eat....thought I'd post the story on here for people who missed watching it:
Greenlanders welcome global warming
Sunday October 28, 2007
While global warming is usually feared for its catastrophic visions of rising sea levels, droughts and chaotic weather, the people of Greenland are celebrating a boom time as their ice-locked island goes green.
Two and a half million cubic kilometres of Greenland’s ice cap is melting at a rate that is alarming scientists but offering locals new opportunities as the ice caps make way for farming pastures, safer shipping routes and a potential mining windfall.
“You know you are really experiencing global warming here,” reindeer farmer Stefan Magnusson tells reporter Tara Brown. “I think Greenland is one of the few places on the planet where you really see it and where you sense it.”
In the past, locals had to settle for wilting fruit and vegetables flown in from Denmark, but the warmer weather means everything from lettuce to Chinese cabbage is growing in Greenland.
“It’s proving that we’re able to produce much more vegetables here — we can get a better quality and hopefully at a better price as well,” scientist and farmer Kenneth Hoegh tells 60 Minutes.
Greenlanders are also discovering multi billion-dollar deposits of precious metals like vanadium and titanium in their soil — and the warmer weather is making it more economical to mine.
“Yes it’ll be very good for Greenland... extremely good for Greenland,” Stefan Magnusson says, adding that the promise of more tourism to Greenland as it warms is stirring up local excitement, rather than dread.
“I’ll be glad because, uh, sometimes we are a little bit lonely here and so I’ll be happy to receive Australians as visitors,” he laughs.
“I love it here. It’s going to be one of the greatest countries on the planet with this global warming.”
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=311715
Video link here:
http://ninemsn.video.msn.com/v/en-au/v.htm?f=39&g=2BCA8AA8-2C2A-4459-A502-B465CEB8DA02&p=aunews_au60minutes&t=m163&mediaid=111601
Azza said:
My guess is you cannot. I hear there is a guy up there called Liverpoolsen who is trying to ban all immigration into Greenland as he is terrified of the soon to be idealic Greenland becoming a haven for climate change refugees. Apparently his people have been there for years, and he is furious his taxes will not only be helping dole bludging bong heads, socialists, and the arts, but now foreigners who should just accept their lot and either drown or build an ark.
Add to this, the fact that these "refugees" could be terrorists......it all bodes badly for downtown Greenland.
At the same time though, he still walks down mainstreet of Keryibooork wearing his full ski suit in the middle of summer yelling out "Climate change my %$$#. Its still %$^#(&^ cold here and Al Gore don't know what he is talking about".
For what its worth, he also barracks for a second rate football team that couldn't win a cracker to save itself, but thats slightly off topic. :hihi
i was doing a bit of reading today on the concept of using recylced water for human consumption. It's a pretty thorny issue. if we did drink recycled water it would certainly help with the water shortage. But there might be inherent health risks.
What do others think?
What do others think?
Six Pack said:
Good question. You would hope though given the likes of London and Singapore have been drinking the stuff for a while now, the science on the hormone risks would be worthwhile. I know there is a lot of pro/con science on this issue, but I'm inclined to support it.
On a slight off issue though, why we are not using it in farming though baffles me.
