There is a consensus in science on man made climate change. The consensus is clear, it is here, our output of greenhouse gases is having an effect and it is not a problem for the future, it is happening now. There is no disputing that, anybody trying to dispute that are simply just ignoring what climate scientists are saying.

There is some disputing the predictions of the models, i.e. the severity of the consequences are up for discussion. It's a complex system that requires an unbelievable number of variables and requires amazing processing power to compute the results at a reasonable speed. But most scientists agree that wherever it lies on the severity scale, it is in the bad half. This may change as they build more detailed models, but we can't pin our hopes on that being the case, particularly when it does not look like it will.

Where the main dispute lies, and where I disagree with a lot on this issue, are actions and politics taken to overcome the issue of climate change. It is both a scientific issue and a political issue. At the moment I think the government is getting an awful lot wrong and I don't think the scientific community is doing enough to find ways of removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Fine keep up the task of finding alternate green energy sources, but lets try some ideas for getting rid of the CO2. Or lets find something safe we can pump into the air that causes the earth to cool.

All the measures put in place so far by western governments has had no effect in reducing our carbon output. And it is an expensive non-solution to a significant problem.

 

Man made global warming is for the right what the relationship between genes, IQ, crime and race is for the left.

In both cases the scientific evidence is pretty solidly on one side of the issue. Nevertheless, the implications of that evidence is displeasing to the right when we are talking about global warming, and to the left when we are talking about the importance of genetics to the human situation.

The implication of global warming is that we need major restrictions on economic growth, national sovereignty, and private property rights.

The implication of genetics research is that a truly egalitarian society is impossible, and efforts to achieve one will be economically costly.

The difference is that the right does not try to suppress a discussion of global warming. The left tries and to an unfortunate extent succeeds in suppressing a candid discussion of the biological reasons for individual and racial inequality.

 

Global warming might be slowing down.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-climate-slowdown-idUSBRE93F0AJ20130416

Could this be leading to eventual global cooling again? Only speculating but that was the consensus in the 1970's

 

A pew poll from four years ago, indicated that 6% of scientists are republicans. There is no explanation as to why it is as high as 6%.

================================================

Only Six Percent Of Scientists Are Republicans: Pew Poll

First Posted: 08/10/2009 6:12 am EDT Updated: 02/12/2013 11:43 am EST


Republicans , Science , Pew Research , Science GOP , Science Republicans , Scientists GOP , Scientists Snub GOP , Science Polls , Politics News


A new study by the Pew Research Center finds that the GOP is alienating scientists to a startling degree.
Only six percent of America's scientists identify themselves as Republicans; fifty-five percent call themselves Democrats. By comparison, 23 percent of the overall public considers itself Republican, while 35 percent say they're Democrats.
The ideological discrepancies were similar. Nine percent of scientists said they were "conservative" while 52 percent described themselves as "liberal," and 14 percent "very liberal." The corresponding figures for the general public were 37, 20 and 5 percent.
Among the general public, moderates and independents ranked higher than any party or ideology. But among scientists, there were considerably more Democrats (55%) than independents (32%) and Republicans (6%) put together. There were also more liberals (52%) than moderates (35%) and conservatives (9%) combined.
"These results were not a complete surprise," said Scott Keeter, Director of Survey Research at Pew, in an interview with the Huffington Post. He said they can be mostly attributed to "the difference between Democratic and Republican parties with respect to issues."
The wide ideological and partisan gap among scientists may have been exacerbated by the Bush administration, which often disputed broad scientific consensus on topics such as evolution and climate change.
Keeter acknowledged this factor, but said that "many of these disputes probably predate the Bush administration," noting that scientists have favored liberal views in numerous past studies.

Religion also plays a role. Republicans tend to promote the centrality of religion more often than Democrats, and while 95 percent of the public said they believe in "God" or "a higher power," only 51 percent of scientists claimed either.
"Many Republicans, especially the Evangelical wing of the party, are skeptical of evolution, and have argued for the teaching of creationism and intelligent design in school," said Keeter.
The results could merely be a reflection of how scientists see the world, rather than of partisan loyalties. In a series of questions posed, the study found that the answers of scientists were consistently more in line with liberal viewpoints than those of the general public.
"The Republican Party has a number of leaders within it who have challenged the accuracy of scientific findings on issues such as climate change, evolution and stem cell research," Keeter told the Huffington Post.
"It suggests that scientists who are Republicans might feel some dissonance from the party's position on some things that are important to them. And while there are Republicans in the scientist sample, there are really not that many," he said.

 

I have to disagree with the article's conclusions. I contend that if there are fewer conservatives in science it might be because they aren't accepted by scientists as a whole. There's little that's worse than feeling like you're not welcome in the working environment.

 

Since less than 3% of the US population are scientists, why does this poll matter?

 

I have heard some speculation that the Atlantic Ocean deepwater cycle may be causing some perturbaions in the climate. It takes about 60 years for the Atlantic water to flow into the Indian Ocean and back. The cycle started in 1990 and is expected to continue until 2050. The cycle is currently at it's minimum temperature and this could result in minimum temperature rises in the next 30 years.

http://www.nature.com/scitable/know...-circulation-during-the-last-glacial-25858002

This could certainly lead some people down the path of global warming denial or skepticism. They will likely ignore the fact that the greenhouse gase emissions are still on the rise, that positive feedbacks like methane gas release still exist, and that hard data still shows that the amount of arctic ice is declining.

 

The article isn't real clear, but you may want to read it again. It's citing figures from two different studies, and some temps are Celsius others are Fahrenheit. 1.5C is close enough to 2.5F for the studies to be in apparent agreement.

The problems are as follows.
- The polar caps have been melting for AT LEAST the past twenty thousand years. Australia's Great Barrier Reef was above-water islands back then, polar melt leading to rising ocean levels has caused it's present state. That means the caps have been melting long before mankind's industrial revolution, which is the current scapegoat for the effect.
- As several articles earlier in this thread pointed out, polar cap melt has a snowball effect (pun intended). As the caps melt, more light hits the ground and its heat is absorbed, instead of being reflected if it had hit white snow. We know caps have been melting for 20,000+ years, and we know melt will accelerate. This is exactly what we expect, and is exactly what we're seeing.
- The current theory that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (and yes, it is a theory not a proven fact) come from ice core samples. We know, because we can measure it, that during colder weather CO2 levels are lower, and in warmer weather CO2 levels are higher.
This led to the theory that CO2 levels are responsible for the climate change. It also led to an opposing theory (also a theory, neither have been proven or disproven) that temperature is responsible for CO2 levels. Colder weather kills off (or forces into longer hibernations) more animals, and slows or stops the activity of bacteria. Both animals and biodecay are major sources of CO2.
As of right now, we don't know whether CO2 levels are the cause or the effect of temperature fluctuations.

The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster would like to remind us all that correlation does not equal causation.



Can we safely say that global warming has been killing off pirates? Or that having many pirates on the high seas staves off global warming? Or are both flawed theories?

 

It matters since the poll is of the US science population. It is obvious that politics is trying to attack science, otherwise there would be a more even spread between conservative and liberal scientists, as it used to be.

Yes the US scientists are dwindling in their numbers in comparison with China, Japan, South Korea, and India. If this blase attitude toward science continues, the USA will lose its superiority in science and technology.

 

Statistics alone does not prove AGW. The greenhouse warming effect is also factual. There is physics in climate change, not just hand waving.

 

Science and nature don't care what your political or religious leanings are. Science only asks you to leave them out of your scientific thinking, if you can.

 

It is obvious? How so?

You and many others who claim to be men of science, openly admonish people as being ignorant for having religious beliefs. Almost all politicians in the US have religious beliefs, therefore it is the scientist who is attacking the politician.

Politics is not "attacking" scientists, scientists are not communicating with the people in a way that improves their image.

 

I have religious beliefs and believe in God. There are scientists that believe in God. James Clerk Maxell was a devout Christian. Science doesn't care what you believe in as long as your beliefs don't spill over into scientific matters.

 

Physics. Ooooohhhhhh.

What physics, specifically?

You are supposedly a physicist. Sometimes I seriously doubt it. A serious physicist would not use the word as a crutch. He or she would explain succinctly. You are not doing that. You are setting up a straw and attacking it, by making the insinuation that "deniers" are unworthy of a reasoned argument, because faith, religion or some other influence renders them incapable of reason.

Yet nowhere-- nowhere on this 25 page thread-- is there a succinct, rational case for the leap from green house gas warming to anthropogenic climate change, and nowhere on this thread is there a succinct, rational justification for the taxation, gratuitous punitive levies, and other forms of coercion that revenue-starved governments are imposing on people and corporations.

Damn it, if this is science, show it. Show us the science. Anywhere. Not just here, but anywhere at all.

 

My academic back ground is in physics, but I am an engineer by trade. I am also not a climatologist, although I have studied it on a graduate level. Why would I do serious physics on a sex forum? I'm just arguing that scientists are on the side of the truth. Many corporations have bought into climate change. Get with the times baby.



Succinct justification for taxation is not physics.

 

Belief in an unknown is counter to scientific methods.

In countless posts in this forum and hundreds of others, the "scientist" has declared that the belief in a god is a sign of ignorance.

Do you deny that this is the MO of most "scientists"?

How can you expect the scientific breakthroughs to be embraced by the multitudes, if you keep telling them that they are ignorant, or worse insane. Who was it that said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.

 

I think that about half of the scientists I have known are atheists and half are God believers. The reason that a scientist can believe in God is that science has it's limitations. There are still many things cannot be explained and probably never will be explained in spite of all the knowledge we have.

Does belief in God prevent good science? I don't think so. Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, and Albert Einstein all believed in God.

 

Here is an article about the subject of scientist's communications problems with the layman.

http://www.wral.com/alan-alda-wants-scientists-to-cut-out-the-jargon/12397704/

 

Today, only 11% of the Americans polled believe in divine creation, and reject biological evolution, on religious grounds.

Einstein did not believe in a God who answered prayers, he tip toed around the idea of a higher divine power, but embraced the human spirit as being a divine phenomenon.

Big difference here, on one hand the atheist who pans all religion as being incompatible with reality and on the other, scientists who acknowledge a spirituality in people.

 

Yeah, Einstein was not into religion. But Maxwell was very much a devoted christian.