…but if your major focus is the political implications and your concerns of how government is likely to mishandle the proposed solutions, you will probably deny that there are any global warming trends."
I heard this on a radio program where a British journalist was interviewed. I didn’t catch the name. What do you think of his observations and generalizations?
It’s a very accurate observation.
AGW realists focus on the science. We talk about physics, the causes of climate change – natural and anthropogenic, reference peer-reviewed studies, etc.
Deniers rarely discuss science. Most of their arguments are political in nature and based on conspiracy theories. Usually when talking about climate science or scientists it’s to claim the data is manipulated and the scientists are frauds (with no supporting evidence). They obsess about ‘carbon taxes’ and ‘big government’.
I think the British journalist was just pointing out an obvious fact.
OBBBAMAMAMA
References :
I disagree. There are plenty of people in the science community who don’t believe Global Warming is real. However, if they changed it to this then I’d agree for the most part:
"In the U.S., if you’re a democrat, or in any way part of the left, you acknowledge global warming, but if you’re a republican or in any way part of the right, you will probably deny that there are any global warming trends, and are likely to have concerns about how government is likely to mishandle the proposed "solutions".
References :
I personally don’t believe in global warming, and I am more conservative than liberal, HOWEVER unlike most, it’s not because that’s what "my side" believes. I may be more conservative, but I’m NOT A conservative or any part of either side. I just choose to believe what I think has more truth to it.
The author implies people believe in significant AGW ‘if your focus is on science’. The AGW crowd like to flatter themselves that they have science on their side. Perhaps there are a lot of undergraduates and academics with strong left wing political ideas, who happen to also have some knowledge of science. In other sections of society people with scientific knowledge are much more skeptical about significant AGW.
In reality, if a person has left wing political ideas, they are more inclined to believe in significant AGW.
References :
My reaction?
Another typical empty-headed alarmunist ad-hominem that only works to attract more people who don’t really think.
References :
This is clearly true and can be seen on here among the people that believe in AGW and those that don’t. Among the "skeptics" on here there are two (twin brothers) that claim to be scientists: a geologist and a chemist, yet their answers are constantly filled with political references. Not only that, but they refuse to acknowledge the science. The geologist has repeatedly made incorrect assertions about hurricanes, I have given him scientific links that clearly show that he is wrong, but he ignores them. Why? Because he cares about the politics, not the science.
EDIT: Virtually all of DrPhil’s enumerated points are incorrect. It was appropriate of the instructor to attempt to give him a poor grade for a paper with such poor research, and typical that he would go whining to the dean rather than improve his own research skills.
References :
It’s a very accurate observation.
AGW realists focus on the science. We talk about physics, the causes of climate change – natural and anthropogenic, reference peer-reviewed studies, etc.
Deniers rarely discuss science. Most of their arguments are political in nature and based on conspiracy theories. Usually when talking about climate science or scientists it’s to claim the data is manipulated and the scientists are frauds (with no supporting evidence). They obsess about ‘carbon taxes’ and ‘big government’.
I think the British journalist was just pointing out an obvious fact.
References :
First off, I have no doubt that government will mishandle the solutions. There are far too many layers of bureaucracy and far too many career politicians pandering to private interests to allow for expeditious solutions. Unfortunately, unless CO2 reductions can be made to be profitable, government actions are the only choice.
On the other hand, my main focus is science, I’m an M.S. student, who will be beginning a PhD at the beginning of April. I want and look forward to a career in science but I see "acknowledging global warming" as a rather nebulous phrase. Yes I acknowledge the planet is warming and that CO2 emissions from industry are certainly cause for a portion of that warming. I do have serious misgivings about the reported interactions between atmosphere and biosphere as well as a strong confidence in ‘life’ to perform a bit better than projected.
To make a long story short I think the quote is an oversimplification. I can see politics blinding one from recognizing obvious fact, but I don’t think that a connection to science would be cause for one to accept the whole theory and it’s ramifications lock, stock and barrel.
References :
i disagreed because global warming is one of the most common problem…
References :
.
Actually, there might be something to that. In my experience a lot of people who have taken a science degree will state that they believe in AGW. When i ask them why, they say that "that’s what the science says at the moment". When i push them a little on this (what studies, etc) they say that the IPCC or the government scientists say that, so they defer to them (in not so many words).
People who have taken a politics degree or history or similar tend to be much less trusting of government and supra-government sources – for very obvious reasons! They have studied history and know that there are many reasons why most people in the world would believe something which isn’t true and that what is acknowledged wisdom one year, is repudiated and dismissed the next.
At the moment i am reading a study by Fairhead and Leach on "The persistence of the deforestation orthodoxy" in Africa. This shows that as early as 1914 (!) colonial administrators believed that the locals were clearing the forests at an unsustainable rate. This belief was passed on into independence by education and aid groups and still persists, even though long term studies show no real difference. Why would scientists and others think there was deforestation on a massive scale when there wasn’t? They looked at small stands of trees in savannah and assumed that the stands represented "islands" or relics from the original forest, when they were nothing of the sort.
This is not to say that deforestation doesn’t go on of course, but it shows that people with a science background have their shibboleths and paradigms just as much as politics students, philosophy grads or anyone else! I think scepticism on AGW should be a good thing. IF it is real, then scepticism will lead to better, stronger science that will really look at all possibilities. (Oh the irony!)
.
References :
The science part appears to be borne out by the STATS and Doran & Zimmerman polls.
I haven’t seen evidence to support the political part.
References :
I totally disagree with that statement. We are still warming up from a period known as the Little Ice age, we have been keeping records only from the end of this period and we don’t have any good data to create a true mean temperature to compare our current temperatures against. Even NASA choice one of the colder time periods of the 20th Century as their baseline.
References :
Frankly, this seems to me an asinine oversimplification, aimed at undermining the credibility of anyone who doubts the veracity of anthropogenic global warming (ABW).
Simply because one does not have a scientific background does not make an informed opinion any more or any less valid.
The fact is, until a few years ago, I was a firm proponent of the idea that ABW was occurring. However, it must be said, I was even then unconvinced of Man’s culpability. At all times, I distrusted government’s involvement.
Then, because my Political Science curricula demanded I take an Environmental Science course, I was assigned a term paper on Global Warming.
Do you know what I found?
a) No credible information as to rising mean global temperatures. None of them took into account the Mini Ice Age during the Middle Ages.
b) No credible correlation between CO2 emissions and the nonexistent rising mean global temperature.
c) No consideration of global ice age cycles.
d) No consideration of solar activity cycles.
e) No consideration of jet stream or el nino cycles.
f) Faulty predictions based faultier global climate models.
g) Allegations of melting polar ice, when no such thing was the case.
Bottom line up front? No proof of any climate change, and certainly no proof Man’s fault.
I wanted to be proven wrong, and so checked with an instructor friend of mine in the Environmental Sciences department. No problems at all with either my research, my sources, or my conclusions.
And do you know what happened? The my instructor for the class, a tree hugger from way back, tried to flunk me. I ended up going to the dean.
My point is this: Background does not obviate the ability to research any given subject, consult experts, and think critically. The idea that it does is the worst kind of intellectual elitism.
There are zealots on both sides of the argument, but zealotry is not what we need right now. What we need is the science of fact, not the science of truth.
And as of right now, there simply is none.
References :