it's official - global warming is real

[1veedo]

Global warming is one of the most well-understood natural phenomenons on the face of the planet. We know more about the climate then we do many other areas of science. It is also one of the oldest fields of science, going back before relativity and quantum mechanics. Climate science is just as sound as evolution or any other field of science.

 

I think it's funny that the three most disputed areas of science, outside of science itself, are actually three of the most well-supported and agreed upon areas of science: global warming, evolution, and the big bang. All three are extraordinarily well supported by both the evidence and the scientists themselves yet people seem to have problems with them.

 

Science editor-in-cheif Donald Kennedy even observed, "Consensus as strong as the one that has developed around this topic is rare in science." ("An unfortunate U-turn on carbon," Science, vol. 291, p. 2515.)

 

If you want to attack science, attack it at a weak place. The Creationists wedge tactic would have worked much better had they picked something like string theory instead of evolution.

[GutZ]

If it's correct then there is no need to defend it....

[ecoli]

If it's correct then there is no need to defend it....

 

I think, more accurately, the science should be able to defend itself.

 

Of course, we run into trouble when people who don't know anything about science try and attack it.

 

I think this helps keep the subject honest, though. The research continues because the scientists keep having to make better and better arguments that show that humans are contributing to global warming. Meanwhile, they have to get better at talking to the public.

 

Where we run into trouble, IMO, is when politicians start championing various causes for their own purposes.

[thechronic]

I believe gib65 is referring to the 3rd annual IPCC report, which stated that global warming is occuring and that humans are the primary cause.

 

the report was authored by over 2000 climate scientists. I would say that settles the debate.

 

I gues you've never heard of the petition signed by 17,000 scientists saying there is insufficient evidence to conclude global warming is caused by man. So 2,000 scientists really isn't anything.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

There's a difference between "scientists" and "climate scientists."

 

Numbers don't mean anything, in any case. Evidence does.

[ecoli]

I gues you've never heard of the petition signed by 17,000 scientists saying there is insufficient evidence to conclude global warming is caused by man. So 2,000 scientists really isn't anything.

 

Dont fall for the "bandwagon" fallacy.

[thechronic]

Dont fall for the "bandwagon" fallacy.

 

I'm just pointing out the absurdity of holding any validity or faith in the IPCC report.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

That "absurdity" is based on the bandwagon fallacy. It's the evidence that matters.

[Spyman]

So all you'd need is a handful of these guys, and given enough time and the means to go up into the atmosphere, they could probably clean up a lot of our pollution. No?

Well, I think the main argument is that they would have to start from scratch and compete with organisms that have billions of years of evolution in advance or have to fight entropy when synthesizing their necessary building blocks.

 

And would the atmosphere really be cleaner and better if filled with nanites instead of CO2 ?

 

What will happen to people who accidentaly inhale some of the nanites ?

 

Grey goo refers to a hypothetical end-of-the-world scenario involving molecular nanotechnology in which out-of-control self-replicating robots consume all living matter on Earth while building more of themselves (a scenario known as ecophagy).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_goo

 

( Sorry for going of topic of GW ! )

[Dak]

I'm just pointing out the absurdity of holding any validity or faith in the IPCC report.

 

theres a difference between scientists, scientists, scientists who operate in the relevent field, and science.

 

By certain criteria -- which are the criteria that the petition used, if it's the one i'm thinking of -- I am a scientists, as i hold a BSc.

 

however, this doesn't particularly qualify me to give any particularly reliable interpretations of data, and it certainly doesn't indicate that i'm competent enough to actually have looked properly at all the data before giving an opinion.

 

scientists (as in PhD holders) are generally more reliable, but theres no guarantee that someone with a PhD in genetics will neccesarily understand all the concepts required to give an accurate opinion on global warming, tho you can at least expect that they'll be aware of this (tho not allways)

 

scientists who operate in the relevent field (climate scientists in this case) are the most reliable, but ther'll allways be dissenters.

 

science is the reliable one -- the results of peer-review and consensus opinion (even if there are a few dissenters).

 

scientists like me can, tbh, **** off in matters such as this.

 

scientists and climate scientists occasionally disagree with the consensus. it's probably worth taking their points into consideration (which is what the mechanism that resulted in consensus has done, btw)

 

but, at the end of the day, the scientific consensus is what is reported accurately by the IPCC report, and if you're going to accept anything, scientific consensus is your best bet.

 

1vedo's right, people treat this like evolution: like evolution, many people don't want it to be true, so they're prepared to accept anything to justify believing that it's not true, including but not limited to logical fallicies, ignoring science and scientific consensus, and the good old fashioned sticking your fingers in your ears and going 'la-la-la-la-la'.

[gib65]

I gues you've never heard of the petition signed by 17,000 scientists saying there is insufficient evidence to conclude global warming is caused by man. So 2,000 scientists really isn't anything.

 

This contradicts this:

 

Global warming is one of the most well-understood natural phenomenons on the face of the planet. We know more about the climate then we do many other areas of science. It is also one of the oldest fields of science, going back before relativity and quantum mechanics. Climate science is just as sound as evolution or any other field of science.

 

I think it's funny that the three most disputed areas of science, outside of science itself, are actually three of the most well-supported and agreed upon areas of science: global warming, evolution, and the big bang. All three are extraordinarily well supported by both the evidence and the scientists themselves yet people seem to have problems with them.

 

So my guess is either those 17,000 scientists were screened out of a much larger pool of scientists, the majority of which agreed that GW is caused by man, or, like Dak said, those scientists don't know s**t about GW.

 

BTW, when was that study conducted?