[spacefreak]

From this article...

An MIT meteorologist Wednesday dismissed alarmist fears about human induced global warming as nothing more than 'religious beliefs.'

"Do you believe in global warming? That is a religious question. So is the second part: Are you a skeptic or a believer?" said Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Richard Lindzen, in a speech to about 100 people at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

"Essentially if whatever you are told is alleged to be supported by 'all scientists,' you don't have to understand [the issue] anymore. You simply go back to treating it as a matter of religious belief," Lindzen said. His speech was titled, "Climate Alarmism: The Misuse of 'Science'" and was sponsored by the free market George C. Marshall Institute. Lindzen is a professor at MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences.

Once a person becomes a believer of global warming, "you never have to defend this belief except to claim that you are supported by all scientists -- except for a handful of corrupted heretics," Lindzen added.

According to Lindzen, climate "alarmists" have been trying to push the idea that there is scientific consensus on dire climate change.

"With respect to science, the assumption behind the [alarmist] consensus is science is the source of authority and that authority increases with the number of scientists [who agree.] But science is not primarily a source of authority. It is a particularly effective approach of inquiry and analysis. Skepticism is essential to science -- consensus is foreign," Lindzen said.

Alarmist predictions of more hurricanes, the catastrophic rise in sea levels, the melting of the global poles and even the plunge into another ice age are not scientifically supported, Lindzen said.

"It leads to a situation where advocates want us to be afraid, when there is no basis for alarm. In response to the fear, they want us to do what they want," Lindzen said.

Recent reports of a melting polar ice cap were dismissed by Lindzen as an example of the media taking advantage of the public's "scientific illiteracy."

"The thing you have to remember about the Arctic is that it is an extremely variable part of the world," Lindzen said. "Although there is melting going [on] now, there has been a lot of melting that went on in the [19]30s and then there was freezing. So by isolating a section ... they are essentially taking people's ignorance of the past," he added.

Wow. This guy just sticks it to the global warming industry.

[BRussell]

So, if the overwhelming consensus of the scientists who study a particular field is that X is true, it's irrational to say that "X is true?" This kind of post-modern "all belief is relative" seems to be typical of a certain segment of our population. It's the same reasoning that applies to evolution-denial.

Science just a few days ago published a review of the scientific consensus on human-caused global climate change:

Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

[CharlesS]

Looking at some of the top news stories on that site can be revealing. Let's see...

Iraqi President Says His Nation Wants to Vote in January
(CNSNews.com) - Iraq's interim president says he came to Washington to tell the president and the American people that his nation is "very appreciative for all the sacrifices" the U.S. has made on Iraq's behalf.

Commentary: A Misleading Portrait of Iraq's Elections
(CNSNews.com) - Some in the establishment media seem intent on portraying the Bush administration's support for timely Iraqi elections as yet another false example of America 'going it alone' in Iraq. But as CNSNews.com Executive Editor Scott Hogenson points out, these biased reports overlook the growing international consensus concerning Iraq's democratization.

Bush Re-election May Have Helped Gain Release Of Israeli From Egyptian Prison
Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) - President Bush's re-election was one of the factors contributing to the decision of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to free an Israeli Arab convicted of spying from an Egyptian prison, analysts here said on Monday.

Yeah, this site isn't biased at all. They certainly don't do everything they can to make Bush look good.

Unfortunately, however, many people do believe the things that the first article said, which is basically that all the people that have no idea what they're talking about are smarter than the people that have been studying this stuff all their lives, and that we shouldn't trust the scientists who specialize in this stuff but we should trust Rush Limbaugh or whatever other conservative political commentator decides to spout this. Basically, no one cares, as evidenced by our accelerating toward disaster by defiantly buying bigger SUVs and consuming more fossil fuels, stopping only to whine when the price goes up.

Oh well. I guess the thing to do is just to appreciate what we've got, while we still have it.

[olePigeon]

I hope he doesn't have kids.

[MacGorilla]

any religion that worships Baal the fire god is fine with me.

[Ghoser777]

But then there are consortiums of scientists in the field of climatology who write up papers saying that even if we're increasing CO2 counts by a significant level, there's no evidence that this is a bad thing. Remember, it used to be warmer back in the 1500's and the world was actually greener then - more heat isn't necessarially a bad thing! Heck we might even be staving off a long over do ice age that would do more damage than global warming ever would.

Oh yeah, and because I'm not sold on global warming being bad, I must have been bought out by the oil industry, of course.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
I hope he doesn't have kids.

The God fearers usually have larger familes than not.

THERE IS NO PLACE TO GO!!!! WE ARE ALL AROUND!!!!

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The God fearers usually have larger familes than not.

THERE IS NO PLACE TO GO!!!! WE ARE ALL AROUND!!!!

I know. Mankind hit the peak of its evolution some time ago, and the survival of the fittest isn't really working anymore.

That's not to say that it won't kick in again, though, once we screw up this planet enough thanks to you guys.

[mrtew]

My feeling is that the climate is always shifting... getting warmer or getting colder in the bigger picture. So if we really can control the shift, which way would we want it to go... I vote for warmer! Maybe because it's because I'm in Detroit and it's the middle of winter, but I think people would REALLY be freaking out if the theory was that mankind is causing Global Cooling.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
THERE IS NO PLACE TO GO!!!! WE ARE ALL AROUND!!!!

Yeah there is, about 6 feet.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
Yeah there is, about 6 feet.

Most scientist I have spoken with will credit "Global Warming" as an unnatural occurrence but as "natural" in so far as to say it is a cycle, clearly evident from the ice ages forward the earth has gone from cooler to warmer, we are supposedly in a warming cycle and while the pollution, emissions, broken treaties may not help in the "Global Warming" scheme of things, I liken it to Dinosaur farts, the methane was plentiful and did cause some shift but in the long run not enough to abruptly change the environment.

I would worry more about the impact of pollutants on the environment around us, if we do that warming will be a far less significant issue.

To answer the main question, I don't think Global Warming is widely regarded as a catastrophic occurrence in the sense sensationalists would have you believe, and I don't think the vast majority regards it as such either. The ones who do are an easy target however.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by mrtew:
My feeling is that the climate is always shifting... getting warmer or getting colder in the bigger picture. So if we really can control the shift, which way would we want it to go... I vote for warmer! Maybe because it's because I'm in Detroit and it's the middle of winter, but I think people would REALLY be freaking out if the theory was that mankind is causing Global Cooling.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatecha...083419,00.html

[Super Nova]

global warming is obviously a result of the carelessness of the people with power in this country (CEO's, developers, PRESIDENTS).

Pres. Bush (i hate calling him that ) has failed to sign the Kyoto Treaty and has been bull the entire country with his "Clean Air Act" which actually has a negative effect on the environment.....

How has he been able to brainwash so many americans? By using one word: God. That's how he gained most of his southern votes (or below the Bible Belt). In every one of his speeches, he's saying, "god" this and "god" that. ITS ENOUGH. The U.S. needs a president who will focus on an improved spending bill and not one who will focus on sneaking in abortion laws into a spending bill. Many americans think that America is becoming stronger, but in reality, America is on a steep and rapid decline.

SuperNova

[Komisar]

+1 before this thread goes 100% political and i mean 100% real orange

[Scientist]

Originally posted by mrtew:
My feeling is that the climate is always shifting... getting warmer or getting colder in the bigger picture. So if we really can control the shift, which way would we want it to go... I vote for warmer! Maybe because it's because I'm in Detroit and it's the middle of winter, but I think people would REALLY be freaking out if the theory was that mankind is causing Global Cooling.

The problem is that we are changing the climate much quicker than it usually changes naturally. Ecosystems just can't pick up and move over a couple hundred miles to an area with a survivable climate. Human induced global warming is a very bad thing if you species rich ecosystems.

And spacefreak, you are not a scientist. Why do you get so excited about this particular scientific theory? I think the primary reason you reject the idea of global warming is because it conflicts with your capitalist ideology. I have the same problem. I really, really like the polical philosophy behind free market thinking. It is elegant and for the most part it works with a minimum of coercion and centralized infrastructure. But I think you are letting these useful theories brainwash you into believing that they explain more than they do. They are great for understanding human-human interactions, and can even be adapted to some scientific fields. However the climate isn't covered by this theory so I suggest you find a theory that does or give up on the issue. BTW do you have similar objections to all scientific theories or just this one?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Yeah, this site isn't biased at all.

It was coverage of a speech by an MIT professor at the National Press Club in DC.

Do you really think that they used bias in their coverage... like this MIT professor didn't say this stuff in his presentation?

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It was coverage of a speech by an MIT professor at the National Press Club in DC.

Do you really think that they used bias in their coverage... like this MIT professor didn't say this stuff in his presentation?

I think it's pretty clear that this site is very selective about what stores they want to publish. They are also putting quite a bit of spin on the stories they do tell.

Also, have a look at their Letters to the Editor section. How many liberal letters do they print? I didn't notice a single one in a brief skimming. I did notice a lot of letters like "Firearms prohibited = unarmed victims", people complaining about a Muslim TV channel, rants against the UN, saying "War is war" re: marines killing Iraqis, etc.

Yep, really unbiased site.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
I know. Mankind hit the peak of its evolution some time ago, and the survival of the fittest isn't really working anymore.

That's not to say that it won't kick in again, though, once we screw up this planet enough thanks to you guys.

Now, one of the basic questions is: what do we actually do about this global warming thing? Continue to discuss it at an academical level and delegating it to "experts", or actually show some will to change the irrationalities of the current model of ever-expanding economy (at a grassroots level)? And, no, the so-called sustainable development isn't really enough, IMHO...

[Super Nova]

Originally posted by Sven G:


Now, one of the basic questions is: what do we actually do about this global warming thing? Continue to discuss it at an academical level and delegating it to "experts", or actually show some will to change the irrationalities of the current model of ever-expanding economy (at a grassroots level)? And, no, the so-called sustainable development isn't really enough, IMHO...

agreed

SuperNova

[Goldfinger]

Originally posted by Komisar:
+1 before this thread goes 100% political and i mean 100% real orange

Hey, I drink Tropicana every morning.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Sven G:
Now, one of the basic questions is: what do we actually do about this global warming thing? Continue to discuss it at an academical level and delegating it to "experts", or actually show some will to change the irrationalities of the current model of ever-expanding economy (at a grassroots level)? And, no, the so-called sustainable development isn't really enough, IMHO...

And that is a really good question of which I'm not sure of the answer. There are obvious things like looking for alternate energy sources and the like, but I think the only real way to delay disaster is to somehow educate people on what's going on, somehow get them to quit buying huge SUVs when they don't need them, and consequently lower the demand for the huge monstrosities that just get bigger every year (I've seen some of these things on the road that are just unbelievably huge - they make what I used to think of as a huge SUV look like a compact car!).

Unfortunately, given the inherent stupidity of the human race, I doubt this is possible. Our planet will get trashed, and we will be fighting for survival once again. This will probably lead to further evolution of the human race, but in the meantime, it sucks to be us.

[Super Nova]

Originally posted by Goldfinger:
Hey, I drink Tropicana every morning.

Good source of Vitamin C!

SuperNova

[papfe]

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by papfe:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

There is a scientific consensus that our climate is changing. But there is no consensus on whether we are accelerated it or not.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by undotwa:
There is a scientific consensus that our climate is changing. But there is no consensus on whether we are accelerated it or not.

Read the link. There is a scientific consensus on human-caused climate change. (I posted the same link earlier.)

[Super Nova]

I still can't believe that people don't think that we're accelerating global warming....

Wake up!

SuperNova

[papfe]

Originally posted by BRussell:
(I posted the same link earlier.)

Agh! That should teach me to read threads from the beginning before posting

[CreepingDeth]

First, let's go bomb volcanoes.

Of course, we've been monitoring these stats for less than a century. Do these people really believe that they can make judgment on data that is but a small piece of an overall pattern of warming and cooling? Planetary movement, rotation, seasons, tides, sunrises, sunsets, sunspot cycles, etc. Are all cycles and patterns. We do not understand the science, so don't make judgments than hinder economic growth because you jump to conclusions.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
First, let's go bomb volcanoes.

Of course, we've been monitoring these stats for less than a century. Do these people really believe that they can make judgment on data that is but a small piece of an overall pattern of warming and cooling? Planetary movement, rotation, seasons, tides, sunrises, sunsets, sunspot cycles, etc. Are all cycles and patterns. We do not understand the science, so don't make judgments than hinder economic growth because you jump to conclusions.

Just because you do not understand the science does not mean that no one knows the science. There is a scientific consensus that we are causing global warming; if scientists weren't sure, they wouldn't nearly all agree on it.

I mean, duh.

[CreepingDeth]

I assume with such a comment that you completely understand the science. If not, shut up.

Science is almost as political as modern politics. I put as much trust in these people as I do John McCain: Almost none.

[MacGorilla]

mmmmm...biscuits....

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
mmmmm...biscuits....

mmmmmmmm…biscuits…with almonds

[Komisar]

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
First, let's go bomb volcanoes.

Aw man I'm sorry you had to miss out, see me and my friends thought it would be fun to go bomb a volcano (everyone's doing it), and well i guess i put a little to much in the bag we threw in....

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
I assume with such a comment that you completely understand the science. If not, shut up.

Wow, great argument. I'm impressed.

This is almost as good as the argument that if you aren't an astronomer and haven't studied everything about the motions of the planets to completely understand them, then I can just come in and say the earth is the center of the universe without any evidence whatsoever and win by default, and all of a sudden we should all believe that the earth is the center of the universe.

Brilliant reasoning, there.

Science is almost as political as modern politics. I put as much trust in these people as I do John McCain: Almost none.

Yeah, according to Rush!

[CreepingDeth]

Thanks for assuming I listen to talk radio. Brilliant argument.

Since the mid 1800's, the earth has warmed about .5º C (1º F I think)
Earth has experienced more warming between 1000 AD and 1500 AD. I guess the Model T wasn't killing the earth then.

But first, what do you believe is the primary cause of global warming.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Wow. This guy just sticks it to the global warming industry.

He also really sticks it to the religion industry.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
Thanks for assuming I listen to talk radio. Brilliant argument.

Since the mid 1800's, the earth has warmed about .5º C (1º F I think)
Earth has experienced more warming between 1000 AD and 1500 AD. I guess the Model T wasn't killing the earth then.

But first, what do you believe is the primary cause of global warming.

Lessee... a little Google search turns up:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwa...ent/index.html

And that's just the first link. You would find it with the "I'm Feeling Lucky" search in Google.

To me, it seems that when the entire scientific establishment, you know, the guys who have actually studied this stuff for years, nearly all agree that we are accelerating the rate of global warming, then to just brush that off without really knowing simply for economic reasons seems similar to the geniuses that decided to cut costs by not including enough lifeboats on the Titanic because it was "unsinkable." According to the business/economic/marking people, anyway.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I think we already had this discussion.

This article, while again suffering from some press-isms, is fairly interesting. The Amundsen found some pretty interesting stuff.

greg

[mrtew]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
To me, it seems that when the entire scientific establishment, you know, the guys who have actually studied this stuff for years, nearly all agree that we are accelerating the rate of global warming...

I don't even have to read the article for my bull$ite detector to go off when I read crap like that sentence. "The entire scientific establishment"??? Who is THAT??? I'm sure that over 99% of "scientists" know nothing and care nothing about global warming or it's alleged causes. Geez... how stupid of people are you trying to recruit to your religion anyway?

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by mrtew:
I don't even have to read the article for my bull$ite detector to go off when I read crap like that sentence. "The entire scientific establishment"??? Who is THAT??? I'm sure that over 99% of "scientists" know nothing and care nothing about global warming or it's alleged causes. Geez... how stupid of people are you trying to recruit to your religion anyway?

Very well, let me make that more specific.

The entire portion of the scientific establishment that studies this area nearly all agree that humans are accelerating the rate of global warming.

Better?

Now, what was your point? Scientists agree that global warming is real. A bunch of politically motivated individuals occasionally try to claim it isn't. Who is more trustworthy?!

I don't think it is that difficult to figure out what I'm trying to say, as it's quite simple...

[undotwa]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Very well, let me make that more specific.

The entire portion of the scientific establishment that studies this area nearly all agree that humans are accelerating the rate of global warming.

Better?

Now, what was your point? Scientists agree that global warming is real. A bunch of politically motivated individuals occasionally try to claim it isn't. Who is more trustworthy?!

I don't think it is that difficult to figure out what I'm trying to say, as it's quite simple...

I seriously doubt it. Global warming is very real (we have thermometres to prove it), to what extent we contribute to it very debatable. We are in fact exiting out of mini-ice age.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by undotwa:
I seriously doubt it. Global warming is very real (we have thermometres to prove it), to what extent we contribute to it very debatable. We are in fact exiting out of mini-ice age.

Again, read that article in Science. There is a clear scientific consensus. You personally may disagree with all of those experts, but there's high agreement among them.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally posted by undotwa:
I seriously doubt it. Global warming is very real (we have thermometres to prove it), to what extent we contribute to it very debatable. We are in fact exiting out of mini-ice age.

You would be incorrect if you're saying that our contribution to climate change is highly debatable. I'm a biology student with environmental/ecological leanings, and the human impact on climate change is generally taught as an undisputed "fact". There are certainly huge variables that haven't really been studied properly, but for the most part the scientific community seems to be agreement that our impact is resulting in climate change.

One major difference that is key is "climate change" vs. "global warming." Global warming is extremely hard to prove given many of the variables already mentioned in this thread, and our lack of complete knowledge about historical warming patterns.

Most scientists today will focus on climate change instead, where they believe more localized effects can better be studied.

greg

[tie]

Originally posted by Ghoser777:
But then there are consortiums of scientists in the field of climatology who write up papers saying that even if we're increasing CO2 counts by a significant level, there's no evidence that this is a bad thing. Remember, it used to be warmer back in the 1500's and the world was actually greener then - more heat isn't necessarially a bad thing! Heck we might even be staving off a long over do ice age that would do more damage than global warming ever would.

Yeah, who knows?! All the experts think it will be a very bad thing, but they could all be wrong. What the hell, let's take a chance and not do anything to slow our impact on global climate change -- on the off-chance that maybe we'll be staving off a "long over do" ice age. Good plan, Ghoser!

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by tie:
Yeah, who knows?! All the experts think it will be a very bad thing, but they could all be wrong. What the hell, let's take a chance and not do anything to slow our impact on global climate change -- on the off-chance that maybe we'll be staving off a "long over do" ice age. Good plan, Ghoser!

Hell, maybe we'll be better off once the ship hits the iceberg. Who knows?

[undotwa]

Originally posted by ShortcutToMoncton:
You would be incorrect if you're saying that our contribution to climate change is highly debatable. I'm a biology student with environmental/ecological leanings, and the human impact on climate change is generally taught as an undisputed "fact". There are certainly huge variables that haven't really been studied properly, but for the most part the scientific community seems to be agreement that our impact is resulting in climate change.

One major difference that is key is "climate change" vs. "global warming." Global warming is extremely hard to prove given many of the variables already mentioned in this thread, and our lack of complete knowledge about historical warming patterns.

Most scientists today will focus on climate change instead, where they believe more localized effects can better be studied.

greg

What evidence is there that we are actually causing the change? It is far more likely that the change in temperatures is cyclic.

[mrtew]

You still haven't answered how the warming was more pronounced before all the industrialization. Just insisting that we ARE causing global warming over and over again doesn't make it true. Why do you believe it so emphatically? Just because scientists that make their careers out of studying it say so? How many scientists that think it's total hooey are going to go into that field anyway?

[Sherwin]

I've never ever heard a Ferrari owner moaning about global warming. From this I conclude that anyone who does moan about global warming is just upset that they don't own a Ferrari. Simple really.

[Spliffdaddy]

Lots of youngsters in this forum.

Reckon they didn't suffer through the years when 'Global Cooling' was all the rage.

Just goes to show that there is no limit to human idiocy.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by undotwa:
What evidence is there that we are actually causing the change? It is far more likely that the change in temperatures is cyclic.

Haha, I'm going to repeat myself, but here goes: Read the Science article. There is a consensus among researchers in this field that human activities are causing global warming. Maybe they're all wrong. Stranger things have happened. But there it is.