Human-influenced Global Climate Change?

Believe in Human-influenced Global Climate Change?
How to decide?

Think of some general question for which scientists are seeking a solution.

Assume the principal motivation for the scientists is to come up with the right answer & be recognized for good scientific work.

Assume the scientists don't have a hidden agenda (e.g., political, monetary, religious...) for falsifying their results.

Since you're willing to make these assumptions with no factual basis, then why not just go ahead and assume that you're correct and skip all those inconvenient dissenting opinions? After all, in science there's no room for reasoned dissent when it gets in the way of grants and funding.

Scientific studies concluded that global climate change is real and most likely human-influenced, but corporations that would have to spend $ to reduce their carbon footprints dispute the studies.

Interestingly enough, the earth has been warmer in the past; it has been cooler in the past; it has warmed more quickly and it has cooled more quickly in the past as well. The wolrd's climate is constantly undergoing change (only a fool would expect climate not to change) and it is unclear whether or not warmer is better or worse than colder. On top of that some of the climate 'experts' who are preaching AGW now were predicting that we were on the cusp of a new ice-age a few years ago. That makes me feel a lot better about their findings.

There is also not one study out there that hasn't had to discard 'inconvenient' data points or 'force' the data to fit their model.

Even if GW is AGW, we need to investigate, model and fully understand the impacts of any proposed solutions before we implement them. If we bet the farm (and the world's economies) on a solution and its wrong, it will be too late to fix it.

. If we bet the farm (and the world's economies) on a solution and its wrong, it will be too late to fix it.

If we dawdle around, it will be too late,also.

Since you're willing to make these assumptions with no factual basis, then why not just go ahead and assume that you're correct and skip all those inconvenient dissenting opinions?.

FBB, I don't think your response/criticism is fair.

The standard way to structure Any argument is to posit premises & then reason logically to a conclusion.

If the logic is faulty, or any of the premises are shown to be false, then the conclusion is not valid.

Here's my argument restated:
Premises
(1) the scientific community (SC) is motivated primarily by finding truth, while
(2) the corporate community (CC) is motivated primarily by profits
(3) the SC knows more about science than the CC community
(4) the SC finds that Anthropic Global Climate Change (AGCC) is likely true
(5) the CC refutes the truth of AGCC
(6) if AGCC is widely accepted, the CC will have to spend $ to reduce its carbon footprint.
Conclusion
The SC is more likely to be right than the CC about AGCC

If you want to refute the logic or truth of the premises, please do--tell me which premises you object to & why. But it's not fair to just dismiss the premises out of hand & to suggest that I've assumed away the problem.

FBB, I don't think your response/criticism is fair.

The standard way to structure Any argument is to posit premises & then reason logically to a conclusion.

If the logic is faulty, or any of the premises are shown to be false, then the conclusion is not valid.

Here's my argument restated:
Premises
(1) the scientific community (SC) is motivated primarily by finding truth, while
(2) the corporate community (CC) is motivated primarily by profits
(3) the SC knows more about science than the CC community
(4) the SC finds that Anthropic Global Climate Change (AGCC) is likely true
(5) the CC refutes the truth of AGCC
(6) if AGCC is widely accepted, the CC will have to spend $ to reduce its carbon footprint.
Conclusion
The SC is more likely to be right than the CC about AGCC

If you want to refute the logic or truth of the premises, please do--tell me which premises you object to & why. But it's not fair to just dismiss the premises out of hand & to suggest that I've assumed away the problem.

First, let's discuss truth. If it hasn't been proven, in a totally objective, repeatable fashion, it isn't truth, its theory. Anytime something that hasn't been objectively proven is considered 'truth', it moves from the realm of science and into the realm of religion. (Which is a pretty apt description of the AGW crowd's approach to dissenters.)

Second, I find it interesting that anyone who disagrees with this 'truth' isn't a scientist, they are 'corporate' (again, this is feeling a lot like a religion.) I'm sure that would surprise the university/agency/government researchers who dispute the current conclusions or methodologies. (Like this paper that totally dismantles the math in Mann's hockey stick: "study on temperature proxy reconstructions " by researchers from Northwestern and U of Penn. I'm sure that they would be amazed to find out that they aren't 'scientists' interested in the 'truth' and are, instead 'corporate'.)

The basic problem with your premises is that they carefully constructed, after the fact to support your conclusion.

That approach just doesn't sound that much like science or 'truth' to me. A 'scientist' would expect each assumption to be carefully validated. This seems a lot more like the approach that a philosopher or theologian would take to prove the existence of their god or some philosophical point.

FBB said a few things earlier that may or may not be true. The temperatures on the earth may or may not have risen or fallen faster in previous eras. This is a little bit irrelevent to the main, core arguement that mankind is contributing to global climate change.
Go to this link, read it, and decide for yourself.

World carbon dioxide levels highest for 650,000 years, says US report | Environment | The Guardian

The levels of carbon dioxide are the highest they have been in 650,000 years. This isn't a theory. It is observable data. The levels are 40% higher than the beginning of the industrial revolution. Again, this isn't a theory. This is observable data. What's your conclusion?

FBB,

Again, I think you're being unfair.
You've twisted my position & accused me of assuming the answer.

I never claimed to have ?the truth? re AWG, nor that the scientific community's consensus re AWG was ?the truth.?
I never claimed that ?anyone who disagrees [with the scientists' consensus] isn't a scientist...?.

My premises are not ?carefully constructed, after the fact to support [my] conclusion.?
BUT, even if they were, if a set of undisputed premises leads logically to a conclusion, then the conclusion is valid.

The conclusion of my argument is not ?strong;? I readily admit that the scientific consensus could be wrong?I simply argue that it's unlikely to be wrong.

FBB, I'm not trying to beat you in an argument.
I'm simply trying to point out that
while a scientist shouldn't really care whether his research shows AGW or not,
that most of those who argue against AWG are not scientists AND have a financial stake in the answer.

Thus, if we can't decide the science ourselves, we should at least be suspicious of those who have a financial stake in the outcome.

[

Thus, if we can't decide the science ourselves, we should at least be suspicious of those who have a financial stake in the outcome.[/QUOTE]

I agree with your analysis of this subject. Well said, and well explained.

If we dawdle around, it will be too late,also.

Says who? That's exactly the point. What's going to happen when global cooling comes around in 10 years? Will the man-made gobal warming nutjobs finally quiet down or will this be another reason to create a global tax?

When man-made global warming is proven erroneous how will they refund everyone for their paid carbon credits?

This is all a hoax in an effort to tax everyone and create a global governance.

Says who? That's exactly the point. What's going to happen when global cooling comes around in 10 years? Will the man-made gobal warming nutjobs finally quiet down or will this be another reason to create a global tax?

When man-made global warming is proven erroneous how will they refund everyone for their paid carbon credits?

This is all a hoax in an effort to tax everyone and create a global governance.

Why do you think it's a hoax? The laboratory that first started taking sensor readings of the levels of CO2 started in 1958. They, merely, started accumulating the data. That's what scientists do. About a decade ago, other people (scientists) looked at the data and said, from this data, we think this is what is going on, and this is what, most likely, will happen. If you have data that refutes this, let's hear about it. Otherwise, why do you think it's a hoax?

FBB,


Thus, if we can't decide the science ourselves, we should at least be suspicious of those who have a financial stake in the outcome.

This is your most flawed position.

Why would anyone believe that scientists don't have a financial stake in the research that they do? It take money to finance research. Researchers need income to live as well.

For the most part, researchers follow the money, whether they are government, educational or private. There are huge amounts of government and private research dollars available for people who are working to prove the AGW position.

On what basis do you believe that the researchers accepting those funds are not motivated by money?

FBB,

Again, I think you're being unfair.
You've twisted my position & accused me of assuming the answer.

I never claimed to have ?the truth? re AWG, nor that the scientific community's consensus re AWG was ?the truth.?
I never claimed that ?anyone who disagrees [with the scientists' consensus] isn't a scientist...?.

I disagree.

You strongly imply that only 'scientists' are interested in the 'truth; and that 'scientists' have all agreed about AGW by your use of the widely abused term 'scientfic consensus'.

This is actually a meaningless term manufactured by the Pro AGW community. There are literally thousands of scientists in the US and abroad who strongly disagree (Global Warming Petition Project is just one example.) There are just as many highly credentialed and experienced researchers who disagree that there is a proven linkage between human activity and global climate change as purport to believe it.

By building this misleading concept into your basic assumptions, your implication is that if you don't agree with the so-called scientific consensus then you aren't a scientist, you are corporate.

I'm not twisting your position. I'm reading it.

I'm also not saying that there is or isn't AGW. I believe we ought to do real, unbiased, scientific research and work until we can absolutely proves it one way or the other before we set out to destroy economies and redistribute the world's wealth through carbon credits and carbon taxes, neither of which is a particularly scientific answer to a scientific problem.

This is your most flawed position.

Why would anyone believe that scientists don't have a financial stake in the research that they do? It take money to finance research. Researchers need income to live as well.

For the most part, researchers follow the money, whether they are government, educational or private. There are huge amounts of government and private research dollars available for people who are working to prove the AGW position.

On what basis do you believe that the researchers accepting those funds are not motivated by money?

OK, FBB, I see your point--& it's a good one:

If a scientist's research $ comes from a source with a stake in the outcome, we should be suspicious.

If the research $ for studying AGW comes from (e.g.) the oil, coal, or auto industries, or (e.g.) from Green Peace or the Sierra Club, we should be suspicious of the study results.

If we're trying to understand what to decide about AGW by looking at study/research results, our first question should be "where did the research $ come from?"

Only if the research $ does not seem to be from a source w/ a stake in the outcome, should we then look at & possibly accept the study results.

I have been under the impression that the overwhelming majority of climate studies so far have found AWG to be highly likely. I admit I have not looked at the sources of research $ for these studies or for those in the minority that find AWG to be unlikely.

Have you looked into this area enough to say that the minority position studies are less tainted (& therefore more objective) than the majority position studies?

OK, FBB, I see your point--& it's a good one:

If a scientist's research $ comes from a source with a stake in the outcome, we should be suspicious.

If the research $ for studying AGW comes from (e.g.) the oil, coal, or auto industries, or (e.g.) from Green Peace or the Sierra Club, we should be suspicious of the study results.

If we're trying to understand what to decide about AGW by looking at study/research results, our first question should be "where did the research $ come from?"

Only if the research $ does not seem to be from a source w/ a stake in the outcome, should we then look at & possibly accept the study results.

I have been under the impression that the overwhelming majority of climate studies so far have found AWG to be highly likely. I admit I have not looked at the sources of research $ for these studies or for those in the minority that find AWG to be unlikely.

Have you looked into this area enough to say that the minority position studies are less tainted (& therefore more objective) than the majority position studies?

I believe that there is a lot of taint on both sides. I also believe that there are serious scientists on both sides who are pursuing the science. John Christy (state climatologist of AL and professor) comes to mind.

Hence my concern that we really don't know what the real causes are.

You can be sure there is some funding coming from people who will be negatively impacted by findings. (Although I am not totally sure that includes the oil companies. We have a long term need for oil for plastics, resins, etc... I think in the future that our descendants will scratch their heads and say "Can you believe that they used something as valuable as oil or coal or NG as a fuel. They actually burned it?")

You can also be sure that there is serious funding coming from people who have positioned themselves to gain money and/or power from things like carbon taxes or credit exchanges. (Another aside: Energy taxes don't penalize businesses. They pass the costs along to their customers. Energy taxes ultimately turn out to be regressive taxes impacting lower income folks the worst.)

Another problem is that these are not studies that can be done solely by 'climatologists'. The statistics rebuttal of Mann that I posted earlier shows how badiy people who are not extensively trained in stats can mess up statistical analysis. Consider this. The data sources for temperature change vary wildly in accuracy, yet somehow these scientists can take data with precision variances measured in muiltiple degrees and make predictions from that are far more precise. It doesn't work that way.

The whole CC debate has become religious and monetary. There are plenty of cases of selective peer review (ie: don't let non-believers participate in the process.) That really isn't the scientific way.

Until the process becomes more openly scientific and less religious/political we aren't really going to know what's real and what's manufactured.

You strongly imply that only 'scientists' are interested in the 'truth; and that 'scientists' have all agreed about AGW by your use of the widely abused term 'scientfic consensus'.

By building this misleading concept [scientific consensus] into your basic assumptions, your implication is that if you don't agree with the so-called scientific consensus then you aren't a scientist, you are corporate.

FBB,

You say:

You strongly imply that only 'scientists' are interested in the 'truth

I did not strongly imply this?you just strongly (but incorrectly) inferred it.

What I did say was:
1) the scientific community (SC) is motivated primarily by finding truth, while?
(2) the corporate community (CC) is motivated primarily by profits
(3) the SC knows more about science than the CC community

The word ?primarily? should not be read to mean ?exclusively.?
The word "motivated" should not be read to mean "interested."

You say:

You strongly imply that...'scientists' have all agreed about AGW by your use of the widely abused term 'scientfic consensus'.

I did not strongly imply this?you just strongly (but incorrectly) inferred it.

?Consensus? means ?general agreement,? not unanimous agreement.

You say:

By building this misleading concept [scientific consensus] into your basic assumptions, your implication is that if you don't agree with the so-called scientific consensus then you aren't a scientist, you are corporate.

I didn't say that?you just incorrectly inferred it.

What I did say was
(3) the SC knows more about science than the CC community

FBB,

Again, I think you're being unfair.
You've twisted my position & accused me of assuming the answer.

I never claimed to have ?the truth? re AWG, nor that the scientific community's consensus re AWG was ?the truth.?
I never claimed that ?anyone who disagrees [with the scientists' consensus] isn't a scientist...?.

My premises are not ?carefully constructed, after the fact to support [my] conclusion.?
BUT, even if they were, if a set of undisputed premises leads logically to a conclusion, then the conclusion is valid.

The conclusion of my argument is not ?strong;? I readily admit that the scientific consensus could be wrong?I simply argue that it's unlikely to be wrong.

FBB, I'm not trying to beat you in an argument.
I'm simply trying to point out that
while a scientist shouldn't really care whether his research shows AGW or not,
that most of those who argue against AWG are not scientists AND have a financial stake in the answer.

Thus, if we can't decide the science ourselves, we should at least be suspicious of those who have a financial stake in the outcome.

I would never generically disparage all federally funded research by claiming it's all biased. (My sister is a federally funded researcher who does basic science and I know she's not biased in any way shape or form, she simply seeks answers.) A lot of good, basic scientific building blocks comes out of basic research that would never come out of the private sector. But recent revelations about the scientific global warming community indicate there may be bias in their research oriented around promoting a certain political agenda, and worse, possibly trying to milk governments of funds to do research.

This is a contentious issue, we should take things slow and let the scientific community sort things all the way out. The world is not going to end tomorrow despite what some scientists would have you believe. We certainly shouldn't be doing anything rash in the middle of what appears to be the second great depression.