Hi everyone. I'm not new to AVF but I'm new to this forum.

I've been reading up on this topic for some time and have been in a couple of other GW forums so I've read a lot of the arguments.

There's something strange about this issue. Is there any other topic in science where there are so many non-scientists (or scientists in other fields) who think they know more than the specialists and are so vociferous about it? Why do so many just "know" they are right and the experts are wrong?

Climate science is complex and has do deal in probabilities rather than certainties but is by no means unique in that respect. There are many other fields involving combinations of theory, observation, and modelling which aren't surrounded by this fog of argument and propaganda. Many of those affect our lives on a daily basis yet you won't find them argued over in the way that GW is.

Consider how much our lives are affected by the application of the theories of economics and the social sciences, epidemilogy, and dietary science, just as examples. Why aren't they argued over in forums like this one?

[johntheexpat]

The simple answer to your question is that those who believe in MMGW advocate, or are going to advocate, major changes in the way we lead our lives* and the anti MMGW either don't want to change (fair enough in some respects) or don't want to pay for the change, or take the cynical view that as Western Governments have mostly signed up to a 'change strategy' it can only be a money spinning operation. As you rightly point out, most science is open to review and debate, being based on theories rather than 100% unarguable fact. (Medicine, economics, particle physics etc all fall into this category, as does climate change). It is also true that the science behind climate change is (as far as I can see) very complex and therefore most of us mere mortals have to take it is an act of faith that the science is correct. And when politicians hijack an 'act of faith' things go somewhat haywire.

* Although some figures quote a financial hit of less than 1% of each nations GNP, I think everyone will agree that is going to be way off the mark and is there only to make the process appear less painful than it will be, before we commit to it.

I agree that this is the reason for all the discussion on GW though on this basis you should read the Stern report on the economics of it all.

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/indepe...view_index.cfm

which basically says that we need to spend some money now ( yes it will be a lot of money) to prevent having to spend a lot more money later when we a, may not have it
b, will be under more pressure from sea level rise and increased temperature with the accordant shift in population to more moderate climates (and you thought immigration was bad now...)

[johntheexpat]

A little off-topic, but I'm hardly the one to talk about immigration, one country's immigrants being another country's emmigrants..

[pjclark1]

Originally Posted by nikyzf

There's something strange about this issue. Is there any other topic in science where there are so many non-scientists (or scientists in other fields) who think they know more than the specialists and are so vociferous about it? Why do so many just "know" they are right and the experts are wrong?

Easily answered,
by many it's not considered a proper science, but more a sociology type of science. The qualifications required to become an expert in the field are very low, and agreeing with the "consensus" and your lecturer is all that is required to obtain a degree. No facts or serious research needed, just repeat the popular opinions. Scientists in other fields generally look down on them. I suspect if the media started thousands of stories on the science of witchcraft it could become just as popular a science (maybe even more so as the naked orgies would be a big pulling point)

Most GW skeptics don't claim to "know" they are right, but just point out the GW alarmists have little or no evidence to support their theorys.

Just to point out
There is no evidence to show current temperature/climate trends are anything other than normal.
There is no evidence to show current sea level change (currently an average rise of 1.42mm per year) is abnormal.

[TheMuffDoctor]

Originally Posted by pjclark1

Scientists in other fields generally look down on them.

Thats one of the things one of my patients (who works in astro physics) said, she called them 2 bob bit Scientists.

Originally Posted by pjclark1

Easily answered,
Just to point out
There is no evidence to show current temperature/climate trends are anything other than normal.
There is no evidence to show current sea level change (currently an average rise of 1.42mm per year) is abnormal.

Humm, I whould have to dispute that last point to start with.
Firstly where are you getting that information from? quoteing facts without sources is not particually helpful in this debate and leads to most common misconceptions.

Secondly
the current rate of sea level rise (since 1992) is around 3mm per year and accelerating see
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Thirdly whilst there might not be any "hard" evidence for the current temperature increase the statistics show that without the influence of humans the likelyhood of the climate doing what it is at the moment is from very small to insignificant, see.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_FAQs.pdf

[pjclark1]

Sorry misterbond, you are now completely off topic.

Originally Posted by pjclark1

Sorry misterbond, you are now completely off topic.

Ok then back on topic: to answer the question; money.

There is a great deal of money invested in the current method of doing things and those with that money want to make sure that they can keep it and keep making it for the future.
There are those with different motives just trying to get the science done.
Then there are those people who interperet these results to their own / socity as they see it's benefit.
What is clouding the issue is that people on both sides are are doing this in order to make the general populace aware of the issue / non-issue depending on your point of view. This leads to confusion generally by many people and then the isssue is clouded even more buy what they say.

Getting down to the facts on an issue involving trillions of dollars over both geological and gererational time scales is always going to be difficult.

Originally Posted by johntheexpat

The simple answer to your question is that those who believe in MMGW advocate, or are going to advocate, major changes in the way we lead our lives* and the anti MMGW either don't want to change (fair enough in some respects) or don't want to pay for the change, or take the cynical view that as Western Governments have mostly signed up to a 'change strategy' it can only be a money spinning operation. As you rightly point out, most science is open to review and debate, being based on theories rather than 100% unarguable fact. (Medicine, economics, particle physics etc all fall into this category, as does climate change). It is also true that the science behind climate change is (as far as I can see) very complex and therefore most of us mere mortals have to take it is an act of faith that the science is correct. And when politicians hijack an 'act of faith' things go somewhat haywire.

But that's true of most science, isn't it? Let's be honest: how many people actually know and understand something as basic as Newton's Laws of Motion?

Don't we take all the other very complex stuff as an 'act of faith' too, unless we are specialists in that field, that is? Don't politicians "hijack" the findings of the other complex sciences, especially when in comes to public health?

Again, why is climate science different?

Originally Posted by pjclark1

Easily answered,
by many it's not considered a proper science, but more a sociology type of science. The qualifications required to become an expert in the field are very low, and agreeing with the "consensus" and your lecturer is all that is required to obtain a degree. No facts or serious research needed, just repeat the popular opinions. Scientists in other fields generally look down on them. I suspect if the media started thousands of stories on the science of witchcraft it could become just as popular a science (maybe even more so as the naked orgies would be a big pulling point)

Most GW skeptics don't claim to "know" they are right, but just point out the GW alarmists have little or no evidence to support their theorys.

Just to point out
There is no evidence to show current temperature/climate trends are anything other than normal.
There is no evidence to show current sea level change (currently an average rise of 1.42mm per year) is abnormal.

You make a number of claims which could easily be made (with equal veracity or falsity) about many other sciences. Why are you not questioning them in the same way? What's special about this one that makes you so sure you are right? Do you really know enough about a very complex subject?

Originally Posted by TheMuffDoctor

Thats one of the things one of my patients (who works in astro physics) said, she called them 2 bob bit Scientists.

She might be qualified to comment, although I'm aware of specialists in many fields who haven't got a ****ing clue about subjects outside their field of expertise, but it misses my point: why do so many think they know better?

[pjclark1]

Originally Posted by nikyzf

You make a number of claims which could easily be made (with equal veracity or falsity) about many other sciences. Why are you not questioning them in the same way? What's special about this one that makes you so sure you are right? Do you really know enough about a very complex subject?

If you want to start a discussion on the validity of "cold dark matter" over "modified Newtonian dynamics" I will be only too happy to question those claims.

It's another subject where many scientists are on the CDM side and few are on the MOND (but at least those on both sides are proper scientists with proper qualifications). But that discussion is not likely to cost me large amounts of money for little proven benefit.

But we are again off topic, you asked why I questioned "scientists" in the climate change arena and I gave you the answer. Poor science, poor qualifications, and therefore poor credibility among the scientific community.

Am I right? ........ as I am still of the opinion "not proven", your question is in error. I am not making claims that climate change due to CO2 emission is either correct or incorrect or relevant. That doesn't mean I am stupid enough to buy a house on the beach though.

[LV426]

If (and I mean if for I am unqualified to comment either way)...if climate change is real, and if it is our virtually unfettered use of fossil fuels that is now the major cause, then we (pretty much all of us) will have to change our behaviour in some way to stop it.

Collectively, we don't want to change our behaviour. We like all the things that consume fossil fuel. A lot.

So - we have a self-interest in the topic; much more so than in many other "sciences" and our self-interest in this case is contrary to what the science would have us believe.

Tha makes it pretty much unique. In most other cases, our self-interest and the science tend to go together so there is no public debate.

In this case, we will seek any justfication we can to avoid the issue, because if we believe the science, we will have to substantially change the way we behave - and we're not going to do it willingly.

[njp]

Originally Posted by pjclark1

by many [climate science] is not considered a proper science, but more a sociology type of science. The qualifications required to become an expert in the field are very low, and agreeing with the "consensus" and your lecturer is all that is required to obtain a degree. No facts or serious research needed, just repeat the popular opinions. Scientists in other fields generally look down on them. I suspect if the media started thousands of stories on the science of witchcraft it could become just as popular a science (maybe even more so as the naked orgies would be a big pulling point

This is of course complete baloney, and is just pjclarke1's latest attempt to create an association in readers' minds between climate science and a bunch of stereotypical woolly environmentalists.

The reality is that climate science is a rigorous field of study bringing together scientists from many disciplines. For example, there are lots of physicists studying climate change - one of the few subjects pjclarke1 has previously expressed any faith in (although he went a bit quiet about that after badgering me to reveal my credentials!). The idea that other scientists "look down on" it is laughable.

Originally Posted by pjclark1

you asked why I questioned "scientists" in the climate change arena and I gave you the answer. Poor science, poor qualifications, and therefore poor credibility among the scientific community.

More lies.

Originally Posted by pjclark1

But we are again off topic, you asked why I questioned "scientists" in the climate change arena and I gave you the answer. Poor science, poor qualifications, and therefore poor credibility among the scientific community.

You make these claims but on what basis? Have you studied the credentials and methods of these scientists in the detail your claim implies? What about scientists in other fields? How do they compare?

Where is your evidence for "poor credibility among the scientific community"?

Am I right? ........ as I am still of the opinion "not proven", your question is in error. I am not making claims that climate change due to CO2 emission is either correct or incorrect or relevant. That doesn't mean I am stupid enough to buy a house on the beach though.

How is my question in error? I'm just trying to find how we (all of us aware of the Global Warming issue) get to where we are now, namely a situation where one science appears to singled out in a way that no other is.

[Corey USA]

Think I have to agree with Lv426.

other reason for being a big deal is that it will impact every single person on this planet. Personally. where Scientist that study wild life and report extinction happening. Which most people don't care for it does NOT effect them on a personal level.

And the fact that climate and the ecosystem are interconnected anything brought up about the ecosystem ties into climate topic. They cannot be dealt with separately. that maybe another reason why it is so big is people are starting to see the effects with there own eyes and remembering how it is different today vs when we were children.

Every single person that has been alive since the 70's and is alive now has seen the changes, if they choose too. Denial is powerful.

In a way everybody is a expert when it comes to the climate if they have been around since the 70's or earlier for much of the most rapid changes have been happening in our life time. The part that we are not experts on is the research into the past before we were able to think for our self. This is the half that we rely on scientist for as well as collecting and organizing information. As we read that info and incorporate it into our knowledge mixed with personal experience we become experts the more we read and question the better we get at it. It is only as good as the info read and studied.
science is not perfect even facts in science is subject to change (for those facts were created by imperfect humans) as we learn more and get a better understanding. we evolve and grow sometimes not always in the right direction thus having to change our behaviors and understanding as Lv426 pointing out.

Science is a fluid process and is subject to change.

Another reason its a big deal especially with those with families is the love they have for there family especially children and grandchildren and what is being left for them when we pass on and that we were told that our current way of life would ensure there care and well being as we passed on. Only problem is now we are being told that our actions is harming there future and that we are 90% responsible. So everybody who cares is in a uproar on wanting to ensure there survival without having to give up there own creature comforts that rely on fossil fuels and such.

misterbond has made a key valid point on why change is not happening. "money" Our current leadership is controlled by those with the most money. they do not want change and thus do there best to create confusion for they understand psychology of humans,which is that most faced with uncertainty will almost always seek old habits for those are certainties to them even if imagined.

Originally Posted by Corey USA

Think I have to agree with Lv426.

other reason for being a big deal is that it will impact every single person on this planet. Personally. where Scientist that study wild life and report extinction happening. Which most people don't care for it does NOT effect them on a personal level.

And the fact that climate and the ecosystem are interconnected anything brought up about the ecosystem ties into climate topic. They cannot be dealt with separately. that maybe another reason why it is so big is people are starting to see the effects with there own eyes and remembering how it is different today vs when we were children.

Every single person that has been alive since the 70's and is alive now has seen the changes, if they choose too. Denial is powerful.

In a way everybody is a expert when it comes to the climate if they have been around since the 70's or earlier for much of the most rapid changes have been happening in our life time. The part that we are not experts on is the research into the past before we were able to think for our self. This is the half that we rely on scientist for as well as collecting and organizing information. As we read that info and incorporate it into our knowledge mixed with personal experience we become experts the more we read and question the better we get at it. It is only as good as the info read and studied.
science is not perfect even facts in science is subject to change (for those facts were created by imperfect humans) as we learn more and get a better understanding. we evolve and grow sometimes not always in the right direction thus having to change our behaviors and understanding as Lv426 pointing out.

Science is a fluid process and is subject to change.

Another reason its a big deal especially with those with families is the love they have for there family especially children and grandchildren and what is being left for them when we pass on and that we were told that our current way of life would ensure there care and well being as we passed on. Only problem is now we are being told that our actions is harming there future and that we are 90% responsible. So everybody who cares is in a uproar on wanting to ensure there survival without having to give up there own creature comforts that rely on fossil fuels and such.

misterbond has made a key valid point on why change is not happening. "money" Our current leadership is controlled by those with the most money. they do not want change and thus do there best to create confusion for they understand psychology of humans,which is that most faced with uncertainty will almost always seek old habits for those are certainties to them even if imagined.

Yes, what Lv426 said made most sense to me too.

What you say makes a lot of sense too, except for the last para. Or are you talking about the current US administration? Europe is pretty much in agreement that action is required whereas the USA has been conspicuous in its refusal to sign up. Even so, that is changing and they now admit there is a problem, except they want to tackle it outside of Kyoto.

[Corey USA]

Originally Posted by nikyzf

Yes, what Lv426 said made most sense to me too.

What you say makes a lot of sense too, except for the last para. Or are you talking about the current US administration? Europe is pretty much in agreement that action is required whereas the USA has been conspicuous in its refusal to sign up. Even so, that is changing and they now admit there is a problem, except they want to tackle it outside of Kyoto.

yep I am and even in the UK especially if Exxon is involved.

The reason USA wants to do it out side so that they can continue to go as close to business as usual. It is pure miss direction and Attempt to confuse people as a delay tactic. They are currently employing big tobacco strategy and big tobacco is still around despite all the proof that it causes cancer and they knew it.

USA administration is under extreme pressure here from petitions and such by people who were apolitical pushed political along with all the other groups already at it. We basically decided we had enough of corruption and abuse.
(I am one of those apolitical turned political and I hate politics and what it stands for but its all we have right now.) Its time to change and be more responsible for our actions and hold ourselves for accountability.

If I am not making sense just ask and I will try to clarify. My head thinks at a higher level than my writing so I often rewrite things to clear it up. Sorry just a brain defect.