Why would you call Global Warming Junk Science

[Dagny]

This thread has gotten very interesting.
Canadian Dominion, everyone here, and pretty much all credible scientists believe that global warming is occurring (and has occurred throughout history and will continue to occur along with global cooling). climate change is also a fact, a fact that has existed for as long as the Earth has existed as a planet.
The contentious issue is whether or not human activity can cause climate change, and I would argue no, due to the wealth of scientific research available on the subject. You seem to be only interested in listening to governmental authorities' versions of the facts. What about the fact that governments have told us that things like cigarettes and thalidomide were fine for us (just as a small example)?
Governmental scientists are commissioned to do specific research and their findings are often altered to suit politics...or certain academics are chosen due to their views.

Please answer the following question: If climate change is human-caused, why has it been occurring forever (in human-understood notions of forever)?

[stratochief]

I'm a geologist and have worked in and out of paleontology for the last 20 odd years. So I'm a 'scientist'

Is global warming real or not? Darn if i know but I do know that most of the so-called science is indeed 'junk science'.

A few years ago a survey was circulated in our department. There were questions on climate change...emissions, etc. There were 8 of us surveyed and all in paleontology. Sounds nice BUT 'our opinions'? None of us work in climatology...all have to listen to the weather forecast to know if it's going to rain...'our opinions'? why would our opinion carry weight one way or the other?

I can tell you all about the intricate relationship of certain past lifeforms but I wouldn't know which end of a climate chart on global warming is 'up'. But sure enough, I keep reading these statiastics about 'x' number of scientists agree that global warming is due to ...and blah, blah, blah. How the heck do these scientists know anything? I sure don't and my colleagues don't.

The point being that there's a lot of 'bad' science in the whole debate over global warming and its causes. The only opinions I respect are those that have a lot of qualifying words like 'maybe' and 'perhaps' and 'possibly', etc. Anyone who claims to know 'the Truth' is an ideologue and not using science. There's just too many variables and too many unknowns. As long as opinions are offered as opinions, that's fine but when they are couched as 'science' then it's definitely junk science.

[thirdEye]

I'm a geologist and have worked in and out of paleontology for the last 20 odd years. So I'm a 'scientist'

Is global warming real or not? Darn if i know but I do know that most of the so-called science is indeed 'junk science'.

A few years ago a survey was circulated in our department. There were questions on climate change...emissions, etc. There were 8 of us surveyed and all in paleontology. Sounds nice BUT 'our opinions'? None of us work in climatology...all have to listen to the weather forecast to know if it's going to rain...'our opinions'? why would our opinion carry weight one way or the other?

I can tell you all about the intricate relationship of certain past lifeforms but I wouldn't know which end of a climate chart on global warming is 'up'. But sure enough, I keep reading these statiastics about 'x' number of scientists agree that global warming is due to ...and blah, blah, blah. How the heck do these scientists know anything? I sure don't and my colleagues don't.

The point being that there's a lot of 'bad' science in the whole debate over global warming and its causes. The only opinions I respect are those that have a lot of qualifying words like 'maybe' and 'perhaps' and 'possibly', etc. Anyone who claims to know 'the Truth' is an ideologue and not using science. There's just too many variables and too many unknowns. As long as opinions are offered as opinions, that's fine but when they are couched as 'science' then it's definitely junk science.

Good post. Thanks for the input.

David Suzuki is a good example of what you are talking about. Most Canadians will believe anything that he has to say on any topic, just because he is the official CBC pimp for politically correct views. The fact is he is a biologist, so I'm not sure where he comes by his climate expertise.

I read somewhere once that the so-called "consensus" of thousands upon thousands of scientists includes scientists from almost every discipline, who were probably asked for their opinion just like you were.

[SpiralTunnel]

Good post. Thanks for the input.

David Suzuki is a good example of what you are talking about. Most Canadians will believe anything that he has to say on any topic, just because he is the official CBC pimp for politically correct views. The fact is he is a biologist, so I'm not sure where he comes by his climate expertise.

I read somewhere once that the so-called "consensus" of thousands upon thousands of scientists includes scientists from almost every discipline, who were probably asked for their opinion just like you were.

Yes, good post stratochief.

As for David Spudooki, he is one of the best examples of the worst kind of scientists; those that mold their "science" to fit a desired goal. Biologists, particularly wildlife biologists, are the worst.

eg.
Wildlife biologists tell you that each grizzly bear needs 10 square kilometers of habitat; we must stop intruding in their territory.

The same wildlife biologists tell you we must stop summer use at the Lake Louise ski hill because there are 5 or more grizzly bears living there all summer long. The ski hill is great grizzly bear habitat and human use is going to interfere with them. (LL ski hill is only a couple of square kilometers by the way)

When somebody proposes to build a ski hill on Mt. Shark (outside the national park) the same wildlife biologists are all there to fight it because Mt. Shark is "great grizzly bear habitat".

Well what is it; ski hills are great grizzly bear habitat or left natural is great grizzly bear habitat?

[stratochief]

I 'used' to admire David Suzuki in my younger days. Like Carl Sagan and Steven Jay Gould he popularized science. Especially like Gould, Suzuki's 'stretching' of the truth was more to stir the pot and get folks thinking.

On global warming, however, he crossed that no-man's land from science into advocacy. Science, as any first year student knows, is about methodology. Evidence can't be cherry picked to prove a theory and any theory has to be based on all evidence.

The global warming 'science' is anything but science. It may be educated speculation or opinion but that's about it. Anyone in the sciences should be open to alternative evidence but unfortunately a political correctness has set in. The 'dire predictions' are meaningless. It's like trying to do arithmetic: if I say add 5 to a number between 6 and 7 and then divide by 2 or 3 and times that by 4 or 6..the result is..'meaningless'. It's like a house of cards. Every step is influenced by the previous step and an incorrect figure along the way makes any result a sham. Will the world's temperature rise by 1 degree or 5 degrees over the next century? The number given would be meaningless in any scientific methodology because no one knows what variables to enter into the equation.

Back to Suzuki. He's a classic case of a guy who 'got the religion' and whatever religion he's got has knocked him off the scientific path. If nothing else he's a good warning to the rest of us not to get too self-righteous in pushing a version of the truth.

[thirdEye]

It's like trying to do arithmetic: if I say add 5 to a number between 6 and 7 and then divide by 2 or 3 and times that by 4 or 6..the result is..'meaningless'.

That's along the lines of Michael Crichton's explanation of the Drake Equation used as the basis for SETI. He spoke of that in a lecture he gave at Caltech.

It's worth the read. Here is the link again, just in case you missed it:

http://www.crichton-official.com/speech ... ote04.html

[stratochief]

Third Eye, thanks for the reference. I looked it over quickly and printed it out. Now I have some bedtime reading. I especially got a kick out of how the 'skeptic' (what real science is all about) has been marginalized to the sidelines.

There's an element of the Boy Who Cried Wolf in environmental issues. Real challenges might come along and the credibility of the scientific community might just have the media and public rolling their eyes when some type of action might be necessary. I can hear it now 'First they said the world was cooling and then they said it was warming and now they say ...(but it could be true).

[thirdEye]

Global warning?
Controversy heats up in the scientific community

http://magazine.carleton.ca/2005_Spring/1535.htm

[kowalski]

Today I did'nt drive to work nor did I cook anything or turn on any lights. But thats OK because it counts as carbon credits. When can we cash theese in.

[thirdEye]

Today I did'nt drive to work nor did I cook anything or turn on any lights. But thats OK because it counts as carbon credits. When can we cash theese in.

But did you breath?

[kowalski]

Yes but not very much because I did nothing.

[thirdEye]

Yes but not very much because I did nothing.

Just the way Chairman Mo wants it. You would make him proud.

[CanadianDominion]

This thread has gotten very interesting.
Canadian Dominion, everyone here, and pretty much all credible scientists believe that global warming is occurring (and has occurred throughout history and will continue to occur along with global cooling). climate change is also a fact, a fact that has existed for as long as the Earth has existed as a planet.
The contentious issue is whether or not human activity can cause climate change, and I would argue no, due to the wealth of scientific research available on the subject. You seem to be only interested in listening to governmental authorities' versions of the facts. What about the fact that governments have told us that things like cigarettes and thalidomide were fine for us (just as a small example)?
Governmental scientists are commissioned to do specific research and their findings are often altered to suit politics...or certain academics are chosen due to their views.

Please answer the following question: If climate change is human-caused, why has it been occurring forever (in human-understood notions of forever)?

I understand you have little faith in government bodies,

What do they have to gain by aknowledging that human activity effects the earth? So the government is lying... ahh, logical debate...

however, in the past 100 years carbon dioxide levels have been on a steep increase that is almost exponential as we consume more and more fossil fuel,
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarmi ... imate.html

Please answer the following question: If climate change is human-caused, why has it been occurring forever (in human-understood notions of forever)?

Because after event which ended the dinosaurs the earths climate has been going through series of ice ages, now there usually happen over the span of thousands of years, now the problem with this man-made climate change which can be attributed to greenhouse gas from our fossil fuel consumption and urban land use, we are doing what was taking thousands of years, only a few hundred, this might not be a problem, now people are saying, well the green house gas helps plants grow; this is true, however to cause the melting of the earths glacial deposits is not a good idea if over 80% of the worlds population lives at sea level. So regardless, of human activity; glaciers are melting, the earths climate is getting warmer, and the sea levels are likely to rise as a result. Should we wait for new york to be under an water by an abnormally high tide?

These sorta things could be why the Gov't has taken interest in the subject, wouldn't you think? Not to mention the idea of deserts becoming grasslands and forests deserts, that might cause some global friction eh?

I don't think it is even remotely logical to believe the most respectable governments have a hidden agenda to aknowledge man-made pollution as a cause of global climate change.

[Smaug]

I understand you have little faith in government bodies,

What do they have to gain by aknowledging that human activity effects the earth? So the government is lying... ahh, logical debate...

What they have to gain is two fold. One gain is the ability to manouver public opinion, allowing them to justify bringing in carbon taxes that will hurt one region of the country much, much more than the others. The second thing they will be able to do is "buy" carbon credits from foreign governments which must use the cash for clean energy development .... and thus the money will siphoned right back to the business interests that support the Liberal party.

It is a collosal scam. Might as well just get Albertas energy companies to write a cheque directly to Quebecs Powercorp.

[CanadianDominion]

I understand you have little faith in government bodies,

What do they have to gain by aknowledging that human activity effects the earth? So the government is lying... ahh, logical debate...

What they have to gain is two fold. One gain is the ability to manouver public opinion, allowing them to justify bringing in carbon taxes that will hurt one region of the country much, much more than the others. The second thing they will be able to do is "buy" carbon credits from foreign governments which must use the cash for clean energy development .... and thus the money will siphoned right back to the business interests that support the Liberal party.

It is a collosal scam. Might as well just get Albertas energy companies to write a cheque directly to Quebecs Powercorp.

It's a stretch but this might all play out correctly for canada... but I am talking about the USA... Why are they on board, and Britain

Bush is close with the oil industry, which would not want to have oil restrictions, not to mention the tax credits are simply lost income for the US, and the US doesn't want Koyoto, sooo... I'm waiting thats all.