[Bored chemist]

You will understand that not presenting anything which supports your view is not at all persuasive.

This is a science forum. There are people here who are good at science. By presenting the actual arguments you think/say are out there they could be thrashed through. Those who are wrong would be hammered by those in the know.

Your approach is the same as the religious when I challenge them;

Go and read a vastly long winded thing and go away.....

What do you want me to produce to support my view that you should listen to the people who have studied it?

I want to know why you think there is something to worry us.

That is why YOU think this.

From there we can try to convince each other of our view. But to just pass the buck and avoid doing this means that I will continue to have my view. I think you wish to change my view. To do so will involve putting yourself into the position of possibly being convinced the other way.

Tim, you may remember saying something about the importance of answering question.
Well, it works both ways, as I said
"What do you want me to produce to support my view that you should listen to the people who have studied it?"

I have studied it.

You  have, I hope, studied it.

Can you cite some actual science that says that there is a significant danger of something significant happeneing? Some sort of problem that would justify all the panic? That would do as a start.

But, I asked first, so why do you think there is something to worry about?

this is getting tiresome.
I think there is something to worry about because a whole bunch of people who know about it think there is a problem
And also, while much of the science on which they base that isn't my field, some bits of it are.
Notably the (so called) greenhouse effect.

It's not clear why you think that all the climatologists are wrong.
However, perhaps you would like to answer my question.
"What do you want me to produce to support my view that you should listen to the people who have studied it?"

[Tim the Plumber]

You will understand that not presenting anything which supports your view is not at all persuasive.

This is a science forum. There are people here who are good at science. By presenting the actual arguments you think/say are out there they could be thrashed through. Those who are wrong would be hammered by those in the know.

Your approach is the same as the religious when I challenge them;

Go and read a vastly long winded thing and go away.....

What do you want me to produce to support my view that you should listen to the people who have studied it?

I want to know why you think there is something to worry us.

That is why YOU think this.

From there we can try to convince each other of our view. But to just pass the buck and avoid doing this means that I will continue to have my view. I think you wish to change my view. To do so will involve putting yourself into the position of possibly being convinced the other way.

Tim, you may remember saying something about the importance of answering question.
Well, it works both ways, as I said
"What do you want me to produce to support my view that you should listen to the people who have studied it?"

I have studied it.

You  have, I hope, studied it.

Can you cite some actual science that says that there is a significant danger of something significant happeneing? Some sort of problem that would justify all the panic? That would do as a start.

But, I asked first, so why do you think there is something to worry about?

this is getting tiresome.
I think there is something to worry about because a whole bunch of people who know about it think there is a problem
And also, while much of the science on which they base that isn't my field, some bits of it are.
Notably the (so called) greenhouse effect.

It's not clear why you think that all the climatologists are wrong.
However, perhaps you would like to answer my question.
"What do you want me to produce to support my view that you should listen to the people who have studied it?"

Here is my position;

That the actual science produced by all but a very few, well M.Mann, says that there is nothing to worry about, that temperature increases will not be much, or much in the way of trouble and that there will generally be benefits from a slightly warmer world.

If you want me to think that there is indeed stuff to worry about what is it? And please don't just link to a alarmist blog but actually, in your own words actually say what it is you think is the threat. Otherwise I will have to consider you a sheep, not a thinking person.

[agyejy]

Here is my position;

That the actual science produced by all but a very few, well M.Mann, says that there is nothing to worry about, that temperature increases will not be much, or much in the way of trouble and that there will generally be benefits from a slightly warmer world.

Citation required.

If you want me to think that there is indeed stuff to worry about what is it? And please don't just link to a alarmist blog but actually, in your own words actually say what it is you think is the threat. Otherwise I will have to consider you a sheep, not a thinking person.

That restriction is frankly idiotic. The Bored Chemist is not qualified to make predictions about future climatic changes and thus relies on the work of actual experts. There is no compelling reason for anyone here to paraphrase the work of climate scientists to you. Doing so can only potentially introduce errors and frankly it would take far too much time.

[Bored chemist]

Well, I'm not qualified to speak on most of the issues related to climate change but I think straightforward common sense is enough to undermine Tim's complacency.

Much of the time, farmers in much of the world struggle to grow enough food.
Sometimes the weather is too dry and  sometimes it's too wet for the things they have planted.
That last bit is an important aspect but it's often overlooked.
So we get people saying "so what if it's a bit warmer in the UK- the French do OK and their weather is warmer."
Clearly that's true- but it ignores the fact that the French farmers plant different crops and at different times compared to the UK farmers.

And they can do that because they all know what weather to typically expect.

But the problem is that increased energy input to the Earth's atmosphere will create more extreme weather and make the prediction of " typical" weather much more uncertain.
So the farmers will more often face the problem of having planted the "wrong" crops.
There are similar issues with flooding, drought cold and so on.

Basically, messing with the weather makes it more difficult to feed ourselves.

Obviously there are also issues of property damage and people simply dying from the heat or cold.

To ignore those risks  and pretend that we can maintain "business as usual" is morally bankrupt.


And,once again...
"What do you want me to produce to support my view that you should listen to the people who have studied it?"

[puppypower]

There is a link between CO2 levels and temperature. However, the assumed assumptions, about this link,  appear to be exaggerated, as inferred by the observation that all the computers models are all predicting a temperature change that is too high. The greenhouse is not getting as hot as the assumptions predict. 

The windows of a greenhouse have two sides. However, only one side of the window is included in the assumptions. In the spring, a greenhouse allows the warmth from the sun to become trapped inside the greenhouse. However, say you are using a greenhouse to grow a cool weather plants, like lettuce, in the summer. The windows used in that greenhouse will allow light to pass, but will also help insulate the lettuce from the IR of the summer heat. These use thermal pane windows. 

During summers, thermal pane windows block heat entering into the house, and during winters, heat from inside is prevented from going outside. This helps in saving the energy used to cool and heat the house.

Over 50% of the energy from the sun comes to the earth as IR, which is the wavelength that CO2 blocks. The current assumption only traps the heat from the surface of the earth; spring green house. The assumptions appear to assume these windows are   transparent to the solar IR that drives the heat cycle of the earth. It is assumed impossible to grow lettuce in the summer in their greenhouse. If you use cheap windows, in your greenhouse, you will get what you pay for.

Water is a greenhouse gas and works using the principles of thermal pane windows; two way. Clouds will cause shade from the summer sun, which cools the surface of the earth. While clouds will also trap the heat on the earth's surface, during the night, when the sun is gone. This can prevent frost on crops. CO2 cannot tell the difference between solar IR and earth IR and will block both. Below a useful graph of the solar energy and the earth's surface energy that the two way windows of the greenhouse affect will face.



 
 

[Tim the Plumber]

Here is my position;

That the actual science produced by all but a very few, well M.Mann, says that there is nothing to worry about, that temperature increases will not be much, or much in the way of trouble and that there will generally be benefits from a slightly warmer world.

Citation required.

If you want me to think that there is indeed stuff to worry about what is it? And please don't just link to a alarmist blog but actually, in your own words actually say what it is you think is the threat. Otherwise I will have to consider you a sheep, not a thinking person.

That restriction is frankly idiotic. The Bored Chemist is not qualified to make predictions about future climatic changes and thus relies on the work of actual experts. There is no compelling reason for anyone here to paraphrase the work of climate scientists to you. Doing so can only potentially introduce errors and frankly it would take far too much time.

1, I do not need to have a citation for my own position!!! I can think for myself even if you cannot!

2, Appealing to authority is not, normally, in science, a very convincing way to support an argument.

Given I am asking for BChemist's reasons for believing what he says he does or indeed yours what is wrong with you answering?

It is the same as getting any reply to a question from a Born again Christian. Avoidance, appeal to authority and the go away and read this load of very long winded drivel.

[Tim the Plumber]

Well, I'm not qualified to speak on most of the issues related to climate change but I think straightforward common sense is enough to undermine Tim's complacency.

Much of the time, farmers in much of the world struggle to grow enough food.
Sometimes the weather is too dry and  sometimes it's too wet for the things they have planted.
That last bit is an important aspect but it's often overlooked.
So we get people saying "so what if it's a bit warmer in the UK- the French do OK and their weather is warmer."
Clearly that's true- but it ignores the fact that the French farmers plant different crops and at different times compared to the UK farmers.

And they can do that because they all know what weather to typically expect.

But the problem is that increased energy input to the Earth's atmosphere will create more extreme weather and make the prediction of " typical" weather much more uncertain.
So the farmers will more often face the problem of having planted the "wrong" crops.
There are similar issues with flooding, drought cold and so on.

Basically, messing with the weather makes it more difficult to feed ourselves.

Obviously there are also issues of property damage and people simply dying from the heat or cold.

To ignore those risks  and pretend that we can maintain "business as usual" is morally bankrupt.


And,once again...
"What do you want me to produce to support my view that you should listen to the people who have studied it?"

Thank you for your reply.

I take it you see increased variability of weather as the main problem with climate change.

My reply to this is that so far whilst the models say that a warmer world is a more extreme world there has been no suchh increase in varibility. That infact we have had very unusually stable weather over the last couple of decades.

Further, in the past, before trains etc, there were very often local famines. These very often attracted little attention from the chattering classes, they did not make the news because they were just too common. The main problem was that local shortages could not be made good from regions only a few hundred miles away due to the impossibility of transporting food across such distances.

Today the enriched CO2 atmosphere we have causes greatly increased plant growth and the ability to use the power of fossil fuel to transport our huge surpluses of food all over the world has made acute famine, in the politically stable world, a thing of the past.

Obviously the use of food as fuel causes many millions of deaths per year through increased food prices and acts to maintain the poverty of the world's poor by taking the money they would use to send their children to school. Surely a crime against humanity.

[Tim the Plumber]

What happened to my thread about CO2 making the Earth greener?

[agyejy]

1, I do not need to have a citation for my own position!!! I can think for myself even if you cannot!

2, Appealing to authority is not, normally, in science, a very convincing way to support an argument.

This:

That the actual science produced by all but a very few, well M.Mann, says that there is nothing to worry about

Is a statement of fact which you need to support via citation. Where are the articles, what do they actually say, are there rebuttals, did they even make it into reputable peer reviewed climatology journals?

As for your second point you clearly don't understand what it means to make an appeal to authority:

Also Known as: Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority, Irrelevant Authority, Questionable Authority, Inappropriate Authority, Ad Verecundiam

Description of Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.

From: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Climate Scientists are obviously qualified experts on the climate of the Earth. Therefore making reference to climate scientists to support an argument about climate change is not an appeal to authority by definition.

Given I am asking for BChemist's reasons for believing what he says he does or indeed yours what is wrong with you answering?

The problem lies not with answering but you're ridiculous restrictions on what kind of answers you'll accept.

It is the same as getting any reply to a question from a Born again Christian. Avoidance, appeal to authority and the go away and read this load of very long winded drivel.

Resorting to insults now I see. I guess if you can call me a religious nut I can call you a denier.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

There is a link between CO2 levels and temperature. However, the assumed assumptions, about this link,  appear to be exaggerated, as inferred by the observation that all the computers models are all predicting a temperature change that is too high. The greenhouse is not getting as hot as the assumptions predict. 

The windows of a greenhouse have two sides. However, only one side of the window is included in the assumptions. In the spring, a greenhouse allows the warmth from the sun to become trapped inside the greenhouse. However, say you are using a greenhouse to grow a cool weather plants, like lettuce, in the summer. The windows used in that greenhouse will allow light to pass, but will also help insulate the lettuce from the IR of the summer heat. These use thermal pane windows. 

During summers, thermal pane windows block heat entering into the house, and during winters, heat from inside is prevented from going outside. This helps in saving the energy used to cool and heat the house.

Over 50% of the energy from the sun comes to the earth as IR, which is the wavelength that CO2 blocks. The current assumption only traps the heat from the surface of the earth; spring green house. The assumptions appear to assume these windows are   transparent to the solar IR that drives the heat cycle of the earth. It is assumed impossible to grow lettuce in the summer in their greenhouse. If you use cheap windows, in your greenhouse, you will get what you pay for.

Water is a greenhouse gas and works using the principles of thermal pane windows; two way. Clouds will cause shade from the summer sun, which cools the surface of the earth. While clouds will also trap the heat on the earth's surface, during the night, when the sun is gone. This can prevent frost on crops. CO2 cannot tell the difference between solar IR and earth IR and will block both. Below a useful graph of the solar energy and the earth's surface energy that the two way windows of the greenhouse affect will face.

We've already been over why this is wrong. Please listen so that you can learn and not make sure silly mistakes:

Over 50% of the energy that comes from the sun, that reaches the earth, is in the form of infrared; IR. Since CO2 is sensitive to IR, doesn't that mean the CO2 will also trap heat in space; CO2 will keep some of the solar IR heat out in space?

As an analogy, water is also a very important greenhouse gas.  A cloudy night in the fall will prevent frost, due to the greenhouse affect trapping heat.

If you look at a cloud of water. A cloud can block and reflect solar energy entering the earth, away from the surface. A cloud gives us shade so it feel cooler. Water can also trap heat at night, so there is no frost on cool fall nights.

If we have a dry day, more solar heat will reach the surface, while at night the lower water content in the air allows the heat to escape faster; desert. The greenhouse gas, water, creates a two way affect. I would expect the same of CO2. 

A one way greenhouse assumption of CO2; only traps heat in, could explain why all the computer model predictions are always higher than experimental. They appear to assume CO2 can only trap heat in, but not keep heat out, like water does. If the models are 100-1200% to high in terms of temperature predictions, the trap out affect, appears to be very significant.

The affect should be similar to thermal pane glass. This keeps the heat out in the summer and it also keeps the heat in during the winter. It blocks IR with no direction preferences. It appears the greenhouse affect of CO2 makes use of thermo pane glass.

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/basics/today/greenhouse-effect.html

The most basic of basic things about the greenhouse effect is that visible light from the Sun is absorbed by the surface of the Earth and then reemitted by the surface as infrared light. This is the infrared light that is trapped by clouds and greenhouse gases. No reputable climate scientist would ever make the mistake of assuming that greenhouse gases only absorb IR light coming from the surface.

The reason we call this the greenhouse effect is because this is exactly how greenhouses work. The glass of the greenhouse lets in visible light. The stuff in the greenhouse absorbs the visible light and emits IR light. The IR light is then trapped inside the greenhouse by the glass because the glass is much more reflective to IR than visible light. In short, visible light comes in and is converted to IR light which can't get out.

In short a greenhouse that lets in any direct sunlight will always be at a higher temperature than the area outside of it unless it has some form of air conditioner. Normal houses get around this by shading the windows so direct sunlight doesn't get into the house. Which means less heat is produced through the absorption of visible light.

[Bored chemist]

Well, I'm not qualified to speak on most of the issues related to climate change but I think straightforward common sense is enough to undermine Tim's complacency.

Much of the time, farmers in much of the world struggle to grow enough food.
Sometimes the weather is too dry and  sometimes it's too wet for the things they have planted.
That last bit is an important aspect but it's often overlooked.
So we get people saying "so what if it's a bit warmer in the UK- the French do OK and their weather is warmer."
Clearly that's true- but it ignores the fact that the French farmers plant different crops and at different times compared to the UK farmers.

And they can do that because they all know what weather to typically expect.

But the problem is that increased energy input to the Earth's atmosphere will create more extreme weather and make the prediction of " typical" weather much more uncertain.
So the farmers will more often face the problem of having planted the "wrong" crops.
There are similar issues with flooding, drought cold and so on.

Basically, messing with the weather makes it more difficult to feed ourselves.

Obviously there are also issues of property damage and people simply dying from the heat or cold.

To ignore those risks  and pretend that we can maintain "business as usual" is morally bankrupt.


And,once again...
"What do you want me to produce to support my view that you should listen to the people who have studied it?"

Thank you for your reply.

I take it you see increased variability of weather as the main problem with climate change.
 

Then you need to learn to read.
And,once again...
"What do you want me to produce to support my view that you should listen to the people who have studied it?"

[puppypower]

One problem with science is, science is beholden to others for its resources and funding. There are very few scientists who afford their own resources, so they are beholden to nobody. When one is beholden, truth does not always win out over necessity. One has to weigh the options. For example, a scientist working for a tobacco company will find it necessary to go along with the company line about cigarettes. This is part of being a good company man. In fact, in that company, a consensus of science will form based on the person who writes the checks. The same is true in climate science, which is funded by left wing priorities. One will expect the consensus to follow the money and needs of the deep pockets.

If someone like Trump becomes President of the USA, he may well alter the funding priorities when it comes to climate science. What you all see are many scientists changing their tune, based on the new funding priorities. It is like leaving cigarettes for oil, now oil is the best; new company consensus.

As an example, of mercenary science, which may have well been a trial ballon, consider the science of homosexuality. I am not making any value judgement, I am jus looking at how science is behaving. Today, you will not be able to find any science that does not blow warm air up the skirt of this issue. Any science that does not go along is taboo and will be deemed hate science; instead of denier science used for climate change. This is not how science is supposed to work. One can't come to the truth this way. This assumes truth is important to science.

If what is allowed to be studied and publish is decided for in advance, the layman might get the impression the science is settled. In truth, it is about political pressure and who has the resources; carrot and stick, deciding the consensus in mercenary science. Real science is not about catering to politics, it is about being objective to all the possibilities. This is not easy when science is beholden; carrot and stick. With climate science, the carrot is a lot of funding, while the stick is peer pressure for suggesting an alternative outside the politics.

To me, since it is important for science to come to the truth, I would split the resources in half and give half to each POV; pro and con. Allow both sides to give it their best, so we can come to the truth, independent of political pressure. This would allow career needs to correspond with unspoken hunches, so we can get to the truth.

I commend those who look at science as the search for truth, in nature, and not just a career path or company politics. Many had to work in the underground, at their own peril and expense. This is where we find the truth.

[agyejy]

One problem with science is, science is beholden to others for its resources and funding. There are very few scientists who afford their own resources, so they are beholden to nobody. When one is beholden, truth does not always win out over necessity. One has to weigh the options. For example, a scientist working for a tobacco company will find it necessary to go along with the company line about cigarettes. This is part of being a good company man. In fact, in that company, a consensus of science will form based on the person who writes the checks. The same is true in climate science, which is funded by left wing priorities. One will expect the consensus to follow the money and needs of the deep pockets.

If someone like Trump becomes President of the USA, he may well alter the funding priorities when it comes to climate science. What you all see are many scientists changing their tune, based on the new funding priorities. It is like leaving cigarettes for oil, now oil is the best; new company consensus.

As an example, of mercenary science, which may have well been a trial ballon, consider the science of homosexuality. I am not making any value judgement, I am jus looking at how science is behaving. Today, you will not be able to find any science that does not blow warm air up the skirt of this issue. Any science that does not go along is taboo and will be deemed hate science; instead of denier science used for climate change. This is not how science is supposed to work. One can't come to the truth this way. This assumes truth is important to science.

If what is allowed to be studied and publish is decided for in advance, the layman might get the impression the science is settled. In truth, it is about political pressure and who has the resources; carrot and stick, deciding the consensus in mercenary science. Real science is not about catering to politics, it is about being objective to all the possibilities. This is not easy when science is beholden; carrot and stick. With climate science, the carrot is a lot of funding, while the stick is peer pressure for suggesting an alternative outside the politics.

To me, since it is important for science to come to the truth, I would split the resources in half and give half to each POV; pro and con. Allow both sides to give it their best, so we can come to the truth, independent of political pressure. This would allow career needs to correspond with unspoken hunches, so we can get to the truth.

I commend those who look at science as the search for truth, in nature, and not just a career path or company politics. Many had to work in the underground, at their own peril and expense. This is where we find the truth.

Well you've demonstrated a complete lack of understanding about how government funding of science works in countries that aren't repressive. I'll give you a hint the decisions on most of the scientists and projects that eventually get funded aren't made by any elected official. There are simply too many of them for that to ever be reasonable. Generally agencies with scientific advisory boards are given some money and those agencies decide where the money goes. People get positions in those agencies based mainly on their credentials and conflicts of interest are generally monitored. These agencies are fairly well insulated from any lobbying pressure. Furthermore, there literally was no political pressure behind climate science when it was first established. In fact there was, and continues to be, a large amount of lobbying against it. Furthermore, we're talking about scientists from many different countries. Countries that don't generally get along. Countries that would love nothing more than to one up one another by showing that their opponents have been lying. If global climate change was being falsified by western countries you can bet that China and probably India would be saying so very loudly. Those two countries in particular have absolutely nothing to gain and a very lot to lose going forward. You also seem to have no idea how the peer review process works or how a consensus is reached.

Oh and if you have to say you aren't making a value judgement when making a statement that should be a giant red flag that what you are about to say is potentially prejudiced. If you think you aren't prejudiced but still fell the need to say it then you probably need to reevaluate your position.

[puppypower]

Oh and if you have to say you aren't making a value judgement when making a statement that should be a giant red flag that what you are about to say is potentially prejudiced. If you think you aren't prejudiced but still fell the need to say it then you probably need to reevaluate your position.

Where I said, I was not making a value judgement, was about the issue of homosexuality. However, I was making a value judgment about how certain directions of research, on this topic, have become taboo. Science is supposed to be neutral and willing to look at all sides. This example was to show how political pressure, can influence funding and possible research. This allows one to dictate the preponderance of data, for forming a consensus. Science can only infer based on the hard evidence that is available. One way to trick this system, is by not allowing some data to ever see the light of day; taboo research.

Another politically charged example was stem cell research. In this case, a conservative political view was able to influence the funding to this area of science. The result is the allowed research can only generate a range of possible data, which defaults the consensus, to only a segment of research. Beyond that it become only opinion, since the hard data is lacking. If one was pro-stem cell, since can't show any direct evidence, but may have to skate around, you are a denier to the layman. Common sense is not enough.

Manmade global warming and climate change are even more politically charged and divided. I bet you, I can ask people their political orientation, and infer their position of this subject, and be right 90% of the time. Culture is not that science literate to be so opinionated on climate science.  You will no longer see as much money going into coal, anymore, since the current administration ties coal politically to climate change, making it taboo and a dinosaur. 

I agree with you, that much of science funding is neutral. One reason is, most research is often abstract to the layman and does not impact people's emotions because of media or political analysis. But when any area of science achieves a level of political emotional appeal, this will impact the funding process. Politics can expand funding or cause it to dry up, compared to nonpolitical science, which will stay flat. The emotion used for manmade global warming is fear, which is why it appeals to the layman. This is the strongest emotion and can be used to trigger anyone to make things political.

Another example, common to construction industries, is they may have to do environmental impact studies. This is science that is mandated. There is a subjective element driving an objective endeavor. The government will not fund science to refute the premises of their regulations. That is a valid area of science. If you tried on your own expense, you would need lawyers, who are not scientists to act a middlemen. Real science is supposed to look under all the rocks to come to the truth, unhindered by the subjective areas of study.

Even in the military, certain weapon designs will get more money, for their science and R&D, compared to parallel one's. This is not always based on merit, but often on a quid quo pro system. Many of the people who benefit by this system are scared of Trump being president, since he has threatened to place science priority in the hands of Generals and Admirals, who may quite well see a different set of priorities for the science.

The fear induction, used by the politics of manmade global warming, is not being addressed by sciences of the mind; psychology. This induce fear  is the portal for the layman and climate change science. If you look at terrorism, this is also based on an induced fear. More people will die slipping on a bar of soap in the shower than terrorism in the USA, yet terrorism is given thousand time more funding. The priority of funding, in turn, makes it feel like a larger threat than the bar of soap in terms of the numbers. You would not get anywhere arguing more money is needed of sth science of soap in showers, comparing to terrorism. The politics will never give you that edge. It is not always about science. You are better off going with the terrorism consensus of fear, and maybe diverting a trickle of your funding to soap.

In terms of global warming, each time the model made a prediction, to fuel the fear, and the prediction did not pan out, why isn't the fear downgraded? The fear is needed for the politics of funding. If the fear was downsized, priories might change. What happens instead is a doubly down of the fear, with theatrics like a global summit. The trick of the political optics to make people assume the leaders know something. This is not science, but more like magic.

I am hoping Trump will change priorities by dispelling the fear that has been created. He should keep funding going, but balance it out to both sides of the issue, so a new consensus can form on balance data that can;t be seen as political. One will see the mercenary scientists jumping ship, since it will be OK to do so.

[Bored chemist]

Manmade global warming and climate change are even more politically charged and divided. I bet you, I can ask people their political orientation, and infer their position of this subject, and be right 90% of the time. Culture is not that science literate to be so opinionated on climate science.

Indeed, and the political side that doesn't "believe" in AGW is the one that explicitly opposes teaching critical thinking in schools.
What does that tell you?

If yo were right about the idea that only the "politically supported" science got funding then there  wouldn't be  scienticic reasearch on both sides- but there is.
So your idea is wrong.
But seeing that requires critical thinking...
 And this "To me, since it is important for science to come to the truth, I would split the resources in half and give half to each POV; pro and con. Allow both sides to give it their best, so we can come to the truth, independent of political pressure." is obviously stupid for two reasons.
Firstly, why give 50% to each? If there were two research groups : one believes in unicorns and it trying to save them from extinction, and the other is trying to do the same for giant pandas, would you allocate the same resources to both?

But the bigger problem is what you are proposing to do is fund the antithesis of science.
In true science there are no groups who are "for" or "against" AGW. There are groups trying to find out the truth.
Just fund those and we will actually get an honest answer.

[Tim the Plumber]

Well, I'm not qualified to speak on most of the issues related to climate change but I think straightforward common sense is enough to undermine Tim's complacency.

Much of the time, farmers in much of the world struggle to grow enough food.
Sometimes the weather is too dry and  sometimes it's too wet for the things they have planted.
That last bit is an important aspect but it's often overlooked.
So we get people saying "so what if it's a bit warmer in the UK- the French do OK and their weather is warmer."
Clearly that's true- but it ignores the fact that the French farmers plant different crops and at different times compared to the UK farmers.

And they can do that because they all know what weather to typically expect.

But the problem is that increased energy input to the Earth's atmosphere will create more extreme weather and make the prediction of " typical" weather much more uncertain.
So the farmers will more often face the problem of having planted the "wrong" crops.
There are similar issues with flooding, drought cold and so on.

Basically, messing with the weather makes it more difficult to feed ourselves.

Obviously there are also issues of property damage and people simply dying from the heat or cold.

To ignore those risks  and pretend that we can maintain "business as usual" is morally bankrupt.


And,once again...
"What do you want me to produce to support my view that you should listen to the people who have studied it?"

Thank you for your reply.

I take it you see increased variability of weather as the main problem with climate change.
 

Then you need to learn to read.
And,once again...
"What do you want me to produce to support my view that you should listen to the people who have studied it?"

Crickey this is hard work!

If you don't see extreme weather as the most dangerous thing about AGW what is the big issue, in your view?

I want to understand your view because you want me to change the way I live. You think it is wrong that we use fossil fuel to provide power. That this will cause problems. I am asking you what problems you think it will actually cause and you get extremely evaisive.

Once you have told me what it is you feel is the issue we can look at it but untill then we cannot discuss anything of substance.

I find this situation very common amongst those on the alarmist side. That they will adamantly tell me that we are in a dire situation but when pressed for details of the impending doom they run away. Is it that they actually don't want to look at the numbers but just want something to panic about? That the cult of the dooms day event is more important than any sort of truth?

[Bored chemist]

I see the increased variability as something so obviously bad the the fact that I'm not qualified to discuss it professionally in detail as a non-issue.
However, exactly which bits of it are worst isn't really important, since it's pretty much all bad.

[Tim the Plumber]

I see the increased variability as something so obviously bad the the fact that I'm not qualified to discuss it professionally in detail as a non-issue.
However, exactly which bits of it are worst isn't really important, since it's pretty much all bad.

You are asking me to believe that there is something very bad about this global warming thing but are not at all willing to discuss it's problems.

I do not see a variability that is, so far, less than normal and at most slightly higher than today according to the models that don't work.

The overall effect of a slightly warmer world will definately be a slightly wetter world. I think that is not in question(?). This, combined with the effect upon plant fertility of increased CO2, will, and is, produce a far greener world. Surely this definate benefit is more than the possible negative of a slightly more variable climate?

I would very much like you to reply to the question of what it would take for you to nolonger believe that CO2 realese by humanity was a trouble.

[Bored chemist]

"You are asking me to believe that there is something very bad about this global warming thing but are not at all willing to discuss it's problems. "
It's hard to discuss them when you refuse to accept that they exist.

"I do not see a variability that is, so far, less than normal and at most slightly higher than today according to the models that don't work. "
I can't help what you do, or don't see. But even a few years ago there was enough evidence to fill an hour of television about it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01f893x

"The overall effect of a slightly warmer world will definately be a slightly wetter world. I think that is not in question(?). This, combined with the effect upon plant fertility of increased CO2, will, and is, produce a far greener world. Surely this definate benefit is more than the possible negative of a slightly more variable climate?
"
Not, it's not at all sure.
I already addressed that and you are complacently ignoring it.

" would very much like you to reply to the question of what it would take for you to nolonger believe that CO2 realese by humanity was a trouble."

And I'd very much like you to answer the question I have asked repeatedly.
"What do you want me to produce to support my view that you should listen to the people who have studied it?"

Why do you think you are right and all the experts are wrong?

[jeffreyH]

The problem is the inter-connectedness of everything. What Tim doesn't appreciate is the delicate balance in the natural world. Ecosystems can be devastated by even subtle changes that seem too small to matter. Civilisations can be overturned by such changes.

[puppypower]

Manmade global warming and climate change are even more politically charged and divided. I bet you, I can ask people their political orientation, and infer their position of this subject, and be right 90% of the time. Culture is not that science literate to be so opinionated on climate science.

Indeed, and the political side that doesn't "believe" in AGW is the one that explicitly opposes teaching critical thinking in schools.
What does that tell you?

If yo were right about the idea that only the "politically supported" science got funding then there  wouldn't be  scienticic reasearch on both sides- but there is.
So your idea is wrong.
But seeing that requires critical thinking...
 And this "To me, since it is important for science to come to the truth, I would split the resources in half and give half to each POV; pro and con. Allow both sides to give it their best, so we can come to the truth, independent of political pressure." is obviously stupid for two reasons.
Firstly, why give 50% to each? If there were two research groups : one believes in unicorns and it trying to save them from extinction, and the other is trying to do the same for giant pandas, would you allocate the same resources to both?

But the bigger problem is what you are proposing to do is fund the antithesis of science.
In true science there are no groups who are "for" or "against" AGW. There are groups trying to find out the truth.
Just fund those and we will actually get an honest answer.

I think you have it backward with respect to teaching critical thinking. The left teaches feeling first, not logic first. The result are expensive social problems.

A critical thinker would say that weather and climate change is not something that just appeared in the past 100 years. These things are part of what the earth has done for millions of years. The question I would ask, if we normalize the data gather methods, using the methods we use for weather 1M year ago; tree rings, ice core samples, how would the past compare to the present.

Modern data gathering gives us a second by second picture, which you can't see with tree rings. This will create the illusion that there is more variability today. Has anyone investigated normalizing the data gathering methods to see how well they compare? You can't tell day to day weather and rainbows by tree rings. But you can with photography and satellites.