Global Warming: Man-made, nature, or politics?

[Caesius]

I am doing a psychology test on global warming for school. I just need people's honest answers.

Edited October 26, 2011 by Caesius

[JohnB]

Caesius, the poll would be better if the option for "both" was there, as that is pretty much the default position.

 

I suspect that others like me will use the "other" to cover this.

[superball]

Is it possible to determine the man made process of Global warming is effecting earth more so, than the natural processes?

 

I think the natural processes out weight the man made processes.

 

Should i say why? or will i violate Al Gore global warming model with hard facts?

 

if you allow me, i will elaborate in my next post.

Edited November 16, 2011 by superball

[iNow]

Is it possible to determine the natural process of Global warming is effecting earth more so the the natural processes?

This doesn't even make sense. I know what you meant to say, but it is somewhat suggestive of your abilities on this topic when you cannot even articulate such a clear and simple point clearly and directly. It is also suggestive of your abilities on this topic when you then follow-up in that same post by suggesting you're somehow arguing against Al Gore and nobody else. That's a big red flag that you're here to make assertions and not to learn or improve.

 

It's okay to ask questions and seek to understand. That is highly encouraged. Your tone suggests, however, that you're not asking questions, but instead preaching from a position of ignorance, and that is strongly discouraged. If you have a question, ask it. If you have something to say, then say it, but be ready when others who have studied this longer than you and who understand it better jump in with corrections and show your points to be false.

 

 

 

I think the natural processes out weight the man made processes.

Natural processes have a larger effect overall, but they cannot explain either the current amount or the current speed with which the average annual global temperatures are rising.

 

Do you enjoy being wrong? If not, then it may be time to adjust your thinking on this topic.

 

 

http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm

 

"What if global warming is just a natural cycle?" This argument is, perhaps, one of the most common raised by the average person, rather than someone who makes a career out of denying climate change. Cyclical variations in climate are well-known to the public; we all studied the ice ages in school. However, climate isn't inherently cyclical.

 

A common misunderstanding of the climate system characterizes it like a pendulum. The planet will warm up to "cancel out" a previous period of cooling, spurred by some internal equilibrium. This view of the climate is incorrect. Internal variability will move energy between the ocean and the atmosphere, causing short-term warming and cooling of the surface in events such as El Nino and La Nina, and longer-term changes when similar cycles operate on decadal scales. However, internal forces do not cause climate change. Appreciable changes in climate are the result of changes in the energy balance of the Earth, which requires "external" forcings, such as changes in solar output, albedo, and atmospheric greenhouse gases. These forcings can be cyclical, as they are in the ice ages, but they can come in different shapes entirely.

 

For this reason, "it's just a natural cycle" is a bit of a cop-out argument. The Earth doesn't warm up because it feels like it. It warms up because something forces it to. Scientists keep track of natural forcings, but the observed warming of the planet over the second half of the 20th century can only be explained by adding in anthropogenic radiative forcings, namely increases in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. <continue reading>

Edited November 16, 2011 by iNow

[superball]

sorry i made a mistake, thanks for catching that.

 

man made processes, vs. natural is what is should read.

 

I have a degree in earth science, I am not the greatest speller.

Edited November 16, 2011 by superball

[iNow]

I have a degree in earth science

You should ask for your money back given your level of understanding on this topic.

[superball]

You should ask for your money back given your level of understanding on this topic.

 

are you a moderator?

 

that comment is very disrespectful.

[iNow]

are you a moderator?

Yes, but not here.

 

that comment is very disrespectful.

I'm sorry, but sometimes the truth hurts.

[superball]

Yes, but not here.

 

 

I'm sorry, but sometimes the truth hurts.

 

Then you have reviewed the forum rules?

 

I am new to the forum, and I am attempting to get a feel for the type of people that post here.

 

That is not a nice way to greet new members.

 

You are in violation of rule one.

[iNow]

That is not a nice way to greet new members.

You should check out the great thread we've got going on right now about the power of ridicule in advance science and smacking down crackpots.

 

Also... I encourage you not to hide behind the rules, especially when you are in violation of 2.10 yourself.

 

An argument could be made for 2.8, but I won't push for it, and would much rather you stop with the canned climate change denial tactics we've seen for years already from others like you.

[mooeypoo]

I'm sorry, but sometimes the truth hurts.

 

!

Moderator Note

You also know better. We all know how articulate you are, iNow. You can engage a new member in a useful conversation (or choose to avoid one altogether). Whatever choice you make, retorting with personal attacks is against our rules.

 

As you mentioned, you're not a moderator. If you think another member is in violation of the rules (especially a new member, which we tend to give benefit of the doubt for), you should use the 'report' button rather than get yourself down to a level where the staff is required to remind everyone about the rules.

[iNow]

Okay, moo. Got it. Good advise. Let me have another go at this, then.

 

 

I have a degree in earth science

Hi superball! Welcome to the forum. My name is iNow. I can see that you have a lot to say, and I'm glad that you're here. We have really never spoken about climate change here, and frankly having someone come in to doubt it is very refreshing. It's something we really don't see enough of, and I can tell early from the few posts against climate change you've made thus far that you are going to be a solid addition to the membership here offering educational posts for all readers. Truly, a breath of fresh air.

 

I do want to help you along in your journey, however, and noticed something in your post. You mention that you have a degree in earth science. That is a supremely interesting field, and I am anxious for you to share everything you've learned here with each of us. You should note, however, that sometimes when you state so curtly what your area of study is without backing up any of your assertions, it can come across as an appeal to authority. That means that you are replacing a quality argument by subtly suggesting that you are an expert on the topic and should not be challenged.

 

Now, I can tell, and I know that's not what you meant to do, but I can see that you're a real class act and that you care about the rules. Since one of the rules here is to avoid using logical fallacies in support of our positions, I thought you might like to watch out for that one.

 

Sound good? This has been a good chat. You're a real good chap, and gee willickers this has been a hoot! I haven't had this much fun since 'ma replaced her Advils with laxatives after that goiter removal surgery she had. I'm deeply sorry if I've stepped over the line here offering such unsolicited advice, though. It's important that I know my place and stay within my small little boundaries. After all, we all hate those comments placed in the red hue by the authority types. Those are downright scary, and sort of keep me up at night with anxiety.

 

Anyhoo... Cheerio, ole' boy. Happy posting!

Edited November 16, 2011 by iNow

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Okay, moo. Got it. Good advise. Let me have another go at this, then.

 

Hi superball! Welcome to the forum. My name is iNow. I can see that you have a lot to say, and I'm glad that you're here. We have really never spoken about climate change here, and frankly having someone come in to doubt it is very refreshing. It's something we really don't see enough of, and I can tell early from the few posts against climate change you've made thus far that you are going to be a solid addition to the membership here offering educational posts for all readers. Truly, a breath of fresh air.

 

I truly do find sarcasm refreshing. It gives me such a wonderful opportunity to return fire.

 

There's some fascinating recent research on this subject, actually. They've discovered a new alternative to personal attacks and biting sarcasm; apparently, the study showed that insulting people just annoys them, and they end up trying to find ways to prove you wrong instead of listening. Their years of empirical data demonstrated that insults just solicited more logical fallacies, rather than convincing anyone.

 

But in a fascinating twist, they found that it's possible to point out flaws in an argument without being a jerk. Apparently you can just say "here's a link to our previous discussion where we discussed this topic, and to some helpful information on why this isn't right" and people go off and follow the links. You can actually tell people they're wrong without telling them they wasted four years on a degree that clearly didn't do any good for whatever mashed potatoes they have for brains.

 

Absolutely fascinating. It's new research, though, so I didn't feel quite safe in using the technique here. I'm used to sarcasm, so I'd rather piss people off than change how I post.

[iNow]

There's some fascinating recent research on this subject, actually.

I encourage you to post it. Citations are good.

 

But in a fascinating twist, they found that it's possible to point out flaws in an argument without being a jerk.

Citation needed.

 

Absolutely fascinating. It's new research, though, so I didn't feel quite safe in using the technique here.

That's fine, but it would help if you could cite the research.

 

 

I'm used to sarcasm, so I'd rather piss people off than change how I post.

I'm okay with that. I'm not looking to change who you are as a person. I accept you for who you are, and what you bring to this community.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

This research demonstrates how people "discount both the source and the content of a challenging message in an effort to protect their existing beliefs" due to a "concern over self-regard", suggesting that attacking their self-worth would only strengthen their attempts to protect their beliefs.

 

This paper explains that "such defensive tendencies are driven, in large part, by a fundamental motivation to protect the perceived worth and integrity of the self" and "that people respond to information in a less defensive and more open-minded manner when their self-worth is buttressed by an affirmation of an alternative source of identity". They go so far as to say:

 

To the extent that information threatens self-worth, or is presented in a manner that threatens self-worth, people may dismiss, deny, or distort it in a fashion that serves to sustain their personal feelings of adaptiveness and integrity. The cost, of course, is that such information, if studied or acted upon, could ultimately increase their adaptiveness.

 

As an example, they present this research:

 

In one study (Cohen et al., 2000), devout opponents and proponents of capital punishment were presented with a persuasive scientific report that contradicted their beliefs about the death penalty’s effectiveness as a deterrent for crime. As in past research (Lord et al., 1979), participants under normal circumstances exhibited a disconfirmation bias. They found flaws in the methodology of the studies reported, they suspected bias on the part of the authors of the report, and they persisted in their attitudes toward capital punishment. By contrast, the responses of participants who received an affirmation of a valued self-identity (by writing about a personally important value, or by being provided with positive feedback on an important skill) proved more favorable. Self-affirmed participants were less critical of the reported research, they suspected less bias on the part of the authors, and they even changed their overall attitudes toward capital punishment in the direction of the report they read. The affirmation freed people from the desire to protect self-worth, and thus enabled them to review the report less defensively.

 

One can see how insult would be counterproductive, particularly against people you believe are already exhibiting confirmation bias.

 

Of course, if you respond by criticizing the studies, I'll just take that as proving the point.

[iNow]

Awesome. The studies are fine, but they don't support your point. They are too general, and your point was too specific, so the conclusion you draw... while likely... is wholly nonsequitur from what you've just presented. Overlapping? Sure. Demonstration of items specific to sarcasm? Not so much. However, there is a trail of materials there, and the case is easy to make, and you'd have no trouble doing it, so I won't belabor the point.

 

Now will you please stop trying to change who I am, recognize that I don't fit your model of a perfect poster, and that your efforts to force me into some rigid box have consistently failed... and will continue to fail... so we can move on?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

My point is primarily about insults, not sarcasm. The sarcasm was simply too tempting to resist.

 

Are you suggesting that you'll continue insulting members, without regard for the counterproductive impact it has on their beliefs and the detrimental effects it has on this forum? You're essentially saying, "Yes, I get angry about people who disagree with my well-tested beliefs, and I take actions to help entrench their disagreement, but I'd really rather not stop."

[iNow]

Are you suggesting that you'll continue insulting members

No. I'm suggesting your lines and conversational boundaries consistently shift, are applied inconsistently, and seem based on little more than arbitrary opinion which itself seems to change based on your mood. I'm suggesting you stop focusing on me and trying to make me out to be some example, because the behaviors for which you're castigating me are rather common across the entire site and you seem to be trying to turn me into some sort of scapegoat.

 

This is off topic, and can perhaps be merged with the other discussion?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

No. I'm suggesting your lines and conversational boundaries consistently shift, are applied inconsistently, and seem based on little more than arbitrary opinion which itself seems to change based on your mood. I'm suggesting you stop focusing on me and trying to make me out to be some example, because the behaviors for which you're castigating me are rather common across the entire site and you seem to be trying to turn me into some sort of scapegoat.

I apologize. It seems I wasn't clear. I'm asking about the meaning of this sentence:

 

Now will you please stop trying to change who I am, recognize that I don't fit your model of a perfect poster, and that your efforts to force me into some rigid box have consistently failed... and will continue to fail... so we can move on?

 

...rather than any other sentence which you have not, to my awareness, posted in this thread.

[JohnB]

iNow, I'd have to argue that this point from SkS is simply wrong.

 

However, climate isn't inherently cyclical.

 

Milankovich cycles govern long term trends and Scafetta has shown (although how correctly I'm not sure) that there are a variety of different length cycles effecting the climate.

 

“Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications”.

 

Eleven frequencies with period between 5 and 100 years closely correspond in the two records.

 

Surely one would have to say that if cycles are identified with periods between 5 and 100,000 years then climate is inherently cyclic. That being the case the rest of John Cooks argument is moot.

 

I would think his argument correct concerning some mythical pendulum and variation about some fantasy normal is correct, but that is not the argument made. Short term cyclic variations on a trend are still cyclic if the long term trend is cyclic itself in nature. His argument would also seem to require a zero response time for feedback mechanisms which is impossible. If feedbacks lag the change in forcing then they will always tend to overshoot the "equilibrium" point because that point is always changing.