Need your advice!!!!

[Tnad]

I am a science student who do no longer believe that global warming & climate change (theory) are results of man activities.

Yeah, i believed it sometimes back but now I am convinced that it is just a propaganda, a way of making money from governments.(but u're not obliged to believe it too!).

My problem is that in order to get marks in exams I am supposed to defend and clearly( if not persuasively) convince the teacher that it is the case.(You know all these chemistry eqns, physics ,essays and whatever is taught about global warming as a result of Co2 emissions ,etc.. when for me I believe otherwise.what should I do?

Thank you!

[insane_alien]

as long as your arguements are well supported and backed then there shouldn't be any issues whatever the viewpoint, thats all they're looking for, that you can back up an arguement in a reasonable manner.

 

just out of curiosity(and to give you some practice) why DO you think its propaganda?

[padren]

One thing that may help is to clearly separate your suspicions for motives or practices from evidence that leads you to those suspicions. You don't need to assert that global warming is a hoax to make governments money, just that the data reflects that the warming models are wrong. You can set the scope of your claims, and if someone says "Why would someone make up wrong numbers?" you can be entirely justified in saying "This analysis does not cover the human motivations, only an analysis of the models." If you "open the door" simply by implying potential motivations, you may be graded on how well you defend how data demonstrates those conclusions too.

 

So in short, be sure to figure out how much you really have to bite off before you commit to chewing it.

 

 

 

For the record, I don't ascribe to your hypothesis, but do wish you the best of luck in demonstrating your case. More scientific(emphasis on scientific) debate on both sides of any issue is always progress.

[ewmon]

One of my bosses told me not too long ago that as long as we used "good science" to reach our decisions at work, he would stand 100% behind our work.

 

I can see the same philosophy applied in academia. I think you would need to state the other causes that result in global warming and the mechanisms for how it comes about. You'd probably need to show as much detail/explanation as the teacher/textbooks show.

 

Here's the crux of why the teacher should accept this philosophy. By refuting or attempting to refute man-made global warming, you will prove your knowledge of it. Whether you accept or believe that knowledge seems inconsequential.

 

It's like learning something like the Russian language. You could learn it, speak it, conjugate its verbs, etc perfectly, but you could say that it's a horrible language, that you don't believe in using it and that you'll never use it outside the classroom -- and the teacher has no technical grounds to give you anything but an A+.

[Tnad]

just out of curiosity(and to give you some practice) why DO you think its propaganda?

 

Well,of course I dont have one answer to that but many or a long one.

 

It's a propaganda bcoz 'it is an idea that is false or exaggerated ,used to gain support from a political leader'; do you thing GW is not fit within that definition? What was the aim of the copenhaguen and all these other meetings about global warming? do you think any leader can maybe say that he is not interested in GW business and still be considered 'normal'( I can't find the right term). any world leader MUST support the idea.Is it the case for other sientific issues? I think of let say leader X decides there will be no more space exploration projects funded by the gov't, no matter the importance, it won't be such an issue except in the scientific community but politically, who cares? It's not a 'MUST support' issue!

 

'"the essence of the Greens’ theory of global warming—has about as much basis in science as Marxism and Freudianism. Global warming, like Marxism, is a political theory of actions, demanding compliance with its rules.

 

Marxism, Freudianism, global warming. These are proof—of which history offers so many examples—that people can be suckers on a grand scale. To their fanatical followers they are a substitute for religion. Global warming, in particular, is a creed, a faith, a dogma that has little to do with science. If people are in need of religion, why don’t they just turn to the genuine article?

 

—Paul Johnson

do you think Paul is absolutely wrong! I don't think so.

 

"Global warming is a topic that sprawls in a thousand directions. There is no such thing as an ‘expert’ on global warming, because no one can master all the relevant subjects. On the subject of climate change everyone is an amateur on many if not most of the relevant topics.”

 

True or not?

I can't tell all the facts WHY, but here are some people, who,in their respective areas and with their respective abilities, have done some studies and researches about the 'untold' side of the issue.

Prof Bob carter(Reaserch prof ,Australia),Willie soon(astrophysicist,harvard). Google them, there are related articles about their assertions. Then u can compare and make your conclusion.(some articles will be against them of course but it's suprising to observe how some people don't want to look at the other side of the issue!why?!!)

 

Again thanx for all the advices .They are welcome.

[timo]

I find it hard to believe that you are asked about the politics of global warming in a science exam. Assuming "science student" means at university then you are either completely misunderstanding scientific education and the skills tested in an exam (understanding the major scientific theories) or you are simply bullshitting us.

If you are still in school then things might be a bit different, but the fact that you are not always asked about your personal opinion but perhaps also about your understanding of the mainstream view still applies - with the additional constraint that I (and probably many of your teachers) believe that you are free to have your opinion but that there's no reason why your opinion should matter. Read your 2nd post in this thread, take a little distance, and then reconsider if someone writing this should really try to argue about global warming scientifically.

 

To be fair, the statements of your 2nd posts were asked for by IA. So my rant about it only applies if that also was your actual way to refute global warming in a science exam. I certainly do not want to attack people for their personal viewpoints/feeling as long as they inhumane or something like that. So: No offense meant, but if that is your way to disagree with global warming then my advice is to leave it out of a science exam/environment and just take the exams as testing your understanding of mainstream belief.

[VedekPako]

Well,of course I dont have one answer to that but many or a long one.

 

It's a propaganda bcoz 'it is an idea that is false or exaggerated ,used to gain support from a political leader'; do you thing GW is not fit within that definition? What was the aim of the copenhaguen and all these other meetings about global warming? do you think any leader can maybe say that he is not interested in GW business and still be considered 'normal'( I can't find the right term). any world leader MUST support the idea.Is it the case for other sientific issues? I think of let say leader X decides there will be no more space exploration projects funded by the gov't, no matter the importance, it won't be such an issue except in the scientific community but politically, who cares? It's not a 'MUST support' issue!

 

'"the essence of the Greens’ theory of global warming—has about as much basis in science as Marxism and Freudianism. Global warming, like Marxism, is a political theory of actions, demanding compliance with its rules.

 

Marxism, Freudianism, global warming. These are proof—of which history offers so many examples—that people can be suckers on a grand scale. To their fanatical followers they are a substitute for religion. Global warming, in particular, is a creed, a faith, a dogma that has little to do with science. If people are in need of religion, why don’t they just turn to the genuine article?

 

—Paul Johnson

do you think Paul is absolutely wrong! I don't think so.

 

"Global warming is a topic that sprawls in a thousand directions. There is no such thing as an ‘expert’ on global warming, because no one can master all the relevant subjects. On the subject of climate change everyone is an amateur on many if not most of the relevant topics.”

 

True or not?

I can't tell all the facts WHY, but here are some people, who,in their respective areas and with their respective abilities, have done some studies and researches about the 'untold' side of the issue.

Prof Bob carter(Reaserch prof ,Australia),Willie soon(astrophysicist,harvard). Google them, there are related articles about their assertions. Then u can compare and make your conclusion.(some articles will be against them of course but it's suprising to observe how some people don't want to look at the other side of the issue!why?!!)

 

Again thanx for all the advices .They are welcome.

 

Your argument is fallacious. Just because it's used by politicians, doesn't negate it. You have to prove that global warming at the hands of man is false; not that it's used politically so therefore it's false.

[insane_alien]

Tnad, all you posted was quotes. in science quotes are crap.

 

where was the science? if this is a science class then you need to back up your opinions WITH SCIENCE

[Tnad]

Allow me to make some clarifications

1.

timo;561392]I find it hard to believe that you are asked about the politics of global warming in a science exam

Of course no! actually the second post was directed to IA; I wanted you to consider the first.thanx.

2.@ VedekPako

True that it is not false because it is used by politician.and I didn't say so. I said it is exaggerated(by some scientist or wrongly explained) in order to gain support from goverments.Thus a propaganda.

3.@IA

I think I either misunderstood your qn or you misunderstood me. You asked why I think it is a propaganda thus I looked at the qn in a political angle and that is how I answered (in politics,quotes are not crap). However even If you re-read my first post, I first said that i do not believe that it is a result of man activities there follows that I believe it is a result of other activities not controlled by man. actually,the political side of the fact doesn't matter when comes to my exams. If you did google the people I mentionned, you should have realised that they are scientists not politicians.their research is Scientific and that is why I referred you to them. They explain it better "scientifically" unless you wanted me to reproduce their works to show why I desagree "scientifically".

 

4. Pliz, consider my first post , that is the problem for which I need the answer. not the explanation of my political views which has nothing to do with my exams.

Thank you!

[insane_alien]

Tnad, i honestly couldn't give a crap who they are or what they do. you did not include any science. you just quoted them (so really, its arguement from authority fallacy). also, from googling them as you suggested, none of them appear to be qualified in a relevant field to say that man made actions aren't causing climate change.

 

you didn't talk about ANY science, no experiments, no theoretical works nothing.

[Tnad]

the sun is the main controller of earth climate. NASA funded study has been carried out to check its influence on actual temperature changes. an increase of 0.05% per decade is observed in solar radiations emitted.Thaugh small,the number can cause significant changes in earth temp per decade.Another experiment by NASA found a sun-climate connection by refering to old nile records and actual situations.Variations in sun's uv cause adjustement in climate pattern called northern annular mode affecting climate in north hemisphere.Which is the actual conditions.It was observed that when solar activity is high condition are drier and wetter when solar activity is low. C02 is a greenhouse gas,C02 is increasing; temp. is increasing; does it necessarly follow that c02 is increasing temp.! In 1940,despite high c02 emissions, temp, decreased. Even now, the temp, keeps increasing and decreasing.The above graph shows relationship between temperature,c02 and solar activity.The c02 curve is ever increasing which is not the case for temperature.However the temp curve has changes not far corresponded to sunspots curve changes.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2485&stc=1&d=1272487244

Below is another graph

 

CO2 increases well below the projected path. The blue region shows the IPCC’s currently-projected range of increases in CO2 concentration; the blue curve beneath this region is NOAA’s deseasonalized global trend; the cyan line is the least-squares linear regression on that trend, equivalent to ~200 ppmv/century.

 

Careful examination of Figure shows that the IPCC’s CO2 projections are exponential curves, so that the IPCC imagines the concentration will reach its projected interval [730, 1040] ppmv by 2100, central projection 836 ppmv. However, the observed trend is entirely below the IPCC’s predicted path. Furthermore, the residuals of the NOAA’s CO2-concentration trend are so close to the fit that the trend may itself be near-linear, in which event, even if humankind takes no action at all to curb CO2 emissions, the concentration by 2100 will be little more than 580 ppmv. Note that the IPCC does not even include its estimates of the CO2 concentration by 2100 in its 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

Climate sensitivity: the effect of CO2 on temperature: At its simplest, the IPCC’s guess is that the effect of changes in CO2 concentration on temperature is logarithmic: i.e. a multiple of the natural logarithm of the proportionate increase in CO2 concentration:

?Ts = c ln(C/C0),

 

where the bracketed term is the proportionate increase. From the fact that the IPCC’s projected temperature change in response to a doubling of CO2 concentration is [2, 4.5] °C, central projection 3.26 °C, we may calculate that the coefficient c in the CO2-change-to-temperature-change equation falls on the interval [2.9, 6.5], central projection 4.7.

 

If, ad argumentum, the IPCC’s central projection of the influence of CO2 on global temperature were correct, and taking today’s CO2 concentration as 385 ppmv, then at our projected 580 ppmv in 2100, we might instantly derive the corresponding increase in mean global surface temperature compared with today, thus –

?Ts = c ln(C/C0) ˜ 4.7 ln(580/385) ˜ 1.9 °C.

 

This value is little more than half the 3.6 °C that would result by 2100 if CO2 concentration were to increase at the IPCC’s central rate, giving 836 ppmv rather than 570 ppmv by 2100.

 

Thanx.

Edited April 28, 2010 by Tnad

[JohnB]

Tnad, you are ignoring feedbacks. These are built into the IPCC models and are what give the extra temp rise in the projections.

 

I would also add that you are being a bit simplistic with respect to the Sun. There is no question that it effects our climate, however the correlation between temps and sunspots dropped off after around 1980 and hence can't be a "driver" of climate. They may be an indicator for something else though. (Thor knows what)

 

You should also not ignore internal forcings of the climate.

 

Considering the "null" hypothosis is also vital.

 

From Climate-Skeptic.

 

 

You will note a good correlation between the recorded temps since 1870 and a simple model using a .388⁰C/Century linear temp rise with a superimposed 60 year alternating cycle.

 

Ignoring the NAO and other major oscillations and just using the PDO cycle superimposed on the linear rise he got this graph.

 

Frankly, I think that the null hypothesis is alive and well.

 

Whichever side you choose to argue for, do so using facts.

[Tnad]

Thank you johnB,

I'll consider that too.