As to the OP: The obvious reason you should believe that AGW is happening, is that the vast majority of scientific specialists in the field agree it is.
What is argued here has no bearing on what the vast majority of scientists agree on. It’s not a simple question, it’s a complex question that requires a lot of knowledge to assess. The people with that knowledge are vastly in agreement. What some unqualified dudes on a message board, without any particular ability, think they see as holes in the research is meaningless.
The research is peer-reviewed and overwhelming. Might it be wrong? I’m not qualified to say. But the experts, the real experts, think they aren’t. So why not believe the 98% in agreement, rather than the 2% with reservations?
And it is just like I said to others before: just click on the blue links to get to the reviewed papers after quoting what they are, but I guess that is too hard for some.
And once again, I would think you will find that it is the contrarians who would scream louder at that.
Nope.
If you looked at my blog I already linked to Skeptical Science. I’m not really interested in links to material I’m already familiar with. Keep in mind that John Cook is not a scientist and what you are reading is a layman’s interpretation on climate science.
Actually my favorite link is an article that explains the math on global warming. If you understand the actual math, you know more about global warming than 99% of the general public and practically all of Congress. If you don’t understand the math, you are at the mercy of other people’s opinion on the topic.
Because science is not democratic. Before new theories are proven, the majority of scientists will be wrong.
Pick a link. I’m not going to read all that. If you have a case you could summarize it and point to a single paper offering some proof. Do that and I’ll start looking at your other links. I’m the skeptic here, you have to show me.
And that is ok, it was the main reason I picked it specially for this tread, remember, the OP is looking for layman level information. (and once one chooses the advanced tab there are even more links to the science If one wants to go further than the layman’s level)
I assume that even a layman should be able to follow basic algebra. When it comes to science you need to understand some math or admit that you don’t have an informed opinion on the topic. The is nothing in Dr. Nelson’s article that requires anything I didn’t learn in high school.
If you don’t learn some math, then you aren’t going to learn anything. All you are going to learn is how to parrot other people’s opinion.
Sorry, “Anonymous reviewer on Amazon” has no bearing if you can’t at least verify his claims. His sciencey claims are there to show his opinion is good and we should be listening to him. It is one guy with a claim and absolutely no proof at all; zero, zilch, nada.
Unless of course “Anonymous reviewer on Amazon” #1 criticizing “Anonymous reviewer on Amazon”#2 is proof of anything.
For all we know “Anonymous reviewer on Amazon”#1 hasn’t actually read the book.
And “Anonymous reviewer on Amazon” #2 isn’t “discouraging others from reading information”, he says, and I quote him"*There are a lot of books on Amazon which will explain the truth behind the issue. I don’t expect this to be one of them. So if you want to be preached to by the converted, go ahead and read this. *". He doesnt think the author is unbiased and say it’s not worth reading it. It’s not a conspiracy to hide the truth, it’s not a book-burning: It’s two anonymous blokes on a webpage.
It has no scientific value, non at all; it is useless, it’s a sign of desperation that you have to resort to that.
Reading comprehension again, I already mention that there was no science in the example, only to show how other layman are seeing this, and as the polls show I’m glad many still agree with the scientists even after all the efforts made here and elsewhere to disparage the experts.
Excellent link. I’ve stolen it by the way.
I loved, in particular, in the part called “How long will it take to double CO2 levels?” when he show the same chart stating a 290 and 0 and how it changes the perception.
And yeah, high school math (if you were paying attention) excepy maybe for "linear extrapolation. That’s first-semester-in-college statistics.
Of course there is no science, nobody said that. “Your” commenter claims “As a professional ecological restorationist who works with scientific data to predict ecological succession”, those are the sciencey claims i was refering to.
It’s not “(an)other layman …seeing this” it’s a comment on another comment which doesn’t even say what you claim, it’s not a relfection on anything else.
Again, just at a simple glance there is already a flaw, the claim was there that says that CO2 emissions could not increase as much as assumed, the real data has shown otherwise, it really needs an update.
No. It’s like saying “my neighbour once heard a guy who didn’t beleive in AGW and said that an Inconvenient Truth was shit and he hoped his cinema would stop showing it” and making it more than anecdote, and anecdote was all you posted one guy dissing one guy.
Unless you literally mean that the addition of this one anonymous guy’s comment is a boost for your metaphorical book-burning scenario. It’d be really sad.
What OP needs to remember is that one “side of the debate” is largely composed of scientists interested in truth. The other side is driven in part by greedy corporations. Truth-seeking scientists, by their nature, are likely to use unemotional diction and phrases (“according to consensus models”, “given these assumptions”) that may seem to be equivocating. The other side is happy to resort to any lie or distortion.
OP, are you asking the truth-telling scientists to use bombastic language and distortions like their opponents do?
I’m not particularly ignorant about the physical sciences, but I can’t personally verify the science I read. Heck, I couldn’t even explain chemically why CO2 is a greenhouse gas and N2 isn’t. (I could Google for an answer, but why would I want or need to?)
At least two deniers have emphasized to me that CO2 is “only 0.04% of the atmosphere by volume – a rare, and thus unimportant, trace chemical.” How could anyone who thinks the “rarity” of CO2 is an important factoid have an intelligent view on climate change? Do they really think all the fuss is about a misplaced decimal point on the CO2 figure? :smack:
This is the key point. I’m not afraid to contradict “established wisdom” if I think my opinions are worthwhile, but most of the argumentation one hears laymen making against scientists is laughably ignorant.
GIGObuster was not citing the “anonymous guy” on a matter of science, just showing an opinion.
But you are correct, Ají de Gallina, that understanding who you’re citing is important. That’s why I was surprised to see in another thread:
This was the only link I clicked in that thread; I thought a “dropped minus sign” might be something I could understand and save GIGO a click.
(BTW, Kudos to GIGO whose patience in these threads is inspiring!)
The screed you link to, Ají de Gallina, reduces my confidence in your arguments. Right off we see a cartoon poking fun at Al Gore. May I ask you, Ají, whether seeing such a cartoon enhances or diminishes your confidence in the site? Although seeing the cartoon “told me what I needed to know”, I did browse the rest of the page and discovered the fatuous blogwriter and his self-important writing just makes an (easily testable) guess about data. Are you suggesting, Ají, that scientists need to respond to every guess, however inane, put forth by an obviously ignorant layman? (I did see the blogger claimed to have won a Best Science Blog award :smack: )
:smack: