Do "skeptics" understand that the science will never be that simple because the climate is too complex? It will never be something that Rush Limbaugh can condense into 5 minutes, or even 5 hours. Those "Climategate" emails were fragments taken out of context from a much larger set of data. You can't dumb-down this topic like a win/lose football score.
In other words, aside from bodies on Main Street USA tomorrow morning, how can scientists convince Fox News junkies that a looming problem, with worst-case scenarios decades away, is something to be concerned about right now?
With older "hoaxes" like man-made ozone depletion and acid rain, it was relatively easy to fix the problem with technology (newer refrigerants and smokestack scrubbers). It was done without major shifts in economy activity and deniers eventually backed off. Oil and coal however, are too embedded in the economy for us to phase out CO2 emissions without bringing Dittoheads on board. They tend to drive the biggest vehicles, for one thing.
It seems there would have to be a single event, like thousands of dead Americans from a single heat-wave, to thaw conservative minds. That might not even convince them, since they keep ignoring melting polar/glacial ice and harping on cool days in Tyler TX or Al Gore's personal escapades.
How does science combat polls that show half of Americans still believe in Biblical Creation, while claiming to be all about "sound science" when disturbing evidence cramps their style?
You people know who you are. What EXACTLY is needed to convince you of the validity of slow-moving environmental dangers? Simpler language? Larger fonts? Drowned corpses in your own front yard? What will it take?What evidence WOULD be considered proof of AGW, or any slow-moving environmental problem?Global Warming science is quite simple to formulate... The more grant money the government gives, the warmer it's going to get.What evidence WOULD be considered proof of AGW, or any slow-moving environmental problem?
Thanks, Creationist flat-earther community for picking the most useless, simple-minded answer to my question. The more scientific evidence you give to a Dittohead, the more they ignore it.
Report Abuse
What evidence WOULD be considered proof of AGW, or any slow-moving environmental problem?I only need one thing to convince me that global warming is man-made: Predictions that are outside the statistical margin of error, from the man-made global warming side that consistently come to pass. They've failed this simple test of science by a gigantic margin.What evidence WOULD be considered proof of AGW, or any slow-moving environmental problem?Properly gathered evidence would be a good start.What evidence WOULD be considered proof of AGW, or any slow-moving environmental problem?First although by what you wrote you may not be capable I would prefer collegent Masters level.
1. Documentation of ALL data
2. Documentation of Analytical methodology
3. Documentation and programming code used for scientific modeling
4. Functional Computer models that can ACCURATELY predict if a coming summer/winter will be warmer of colder than average.
5. Same as #4 but able to make a reasonably accurate prediction 4, 5 and even 10 years out.
6. Documented evidence that said predictions in #'s 4 and 5 were made and published then documented evidence that said predictions were reasonably accurate.
7. Be prepared to defend yourself and your idea against critical questions as any college student has to defend a Masters Thesis.
Document, document, document.
Achieve all of this and I will begin to believe that the alarmists know what they are talking about.
Steve (wasn't the pic attached to a different name before) is as close as you're going to get.
in essence, there's nothing he would believe.
clearly it is getting warmer. Glaciers are melting rather dramatically.
http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/repeatphoto/do鈥?/a> Glacier National Park repeat photography.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.
http://co2now.org/
http://www.thedailygreen.com/cm/thedaily鈥?/a>
CO2 clearly does cause warming.
http://www.rkm.com.au/ANIMATIONS/carbon-鈥?/a> %26lt;== here's the physics.
and water and CO2 interact with different wavelengths of infrared energy.
http://www.rsc.org/images/CA1_tcm18-1379鈥?/a> %26lt;== Word doc. Page 6 shows where H2O and CO2 intercept different wavelengths
we do have all of the pieces to the puzzle.
but people will continue to put their fingers in their ears and deny the obvious.What evidence WOULD be considered proof of AGW, or any slow-moving environmental problem?
Hello A and welcome to this section of Answers, good that you鈥檙e bringing more intellectual ability to the debate.
You鈥檝e raised a lot of issues there, I鈥檒l go through some and give my perspective鈥?br>
%26lt;%26lt; How could scientists present evidence for anthropogenic global warming in a way that convinces those who resist the very concept of man-made environmental problems? %26gt;%26gt;
I guess people fall into six generic categories when it comes to anthropogenic global warming (AGW):
鈥?Outright believers simply accept it鈥檚 happening without question.
鈥?Skeptical believers accept it鈥檚 happening but question the hows and whys.
鈥?The undecided are open to persuasion either way.
鈥?Skeptics generally go against the AGW theory but are responsive to evidence.
鈥?Deniers simply deny it鈥檚 happening irrespective of anything.
鈥?And the unaware don鈥檛 know about it, or not enough to make a decision.
An exchange of ideas is possible with all but the deniers, as such it is a pointless exercise trying to educate them as they are not willing to learn and will unconditionally reject anything that goes against their preconceived notions. This is a characteristic that is observed in several regulars on Answers as I鈥檓 sure you鈥檙e already aware.
Take for example the claim that volcanoes dwarf humanity鈥檚 contribution to global warming. 306 questions have been asked in this section concerning volcanoes and in total the claim must have been refuted at least 1000 times. Here is just one such example from earlier today http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;鈥?/a> and the full list of volcano questions http://answers.yahoo.com/search/search_r鈥?/a>
Despite the fact that the deniers make such a claim they have never provided any evidence to support it. Given the number of time鈥檚 it鈥檚 been conclusively proven to be a fallacy you would think that any sensible person would have got the message. Not so the deniers who I guarantee will keep on making this same old claim again and again and again.
%26lt;%26lt; Do "skeptics" understand that the science will never be that simple because the climate is too complex? %26gt;%26gt;
No, they have managed to convince themselves that they are sufficiently well versed in the subject of climatology to arrive at informed conclusions. In reality nothing could be further from the truth and this is witnessed in the astonishing number of errors they make at even the most fundamental level. Many of them can鈥檛 even distinguish between weather and climate.
The true skeptics, and this includes all scientists, will continue to question the issue of climate change as this is one of the best ways of expanding our comprehension of a staggeringly complex subject and greatly enhances our understanding.
%26lt;%26lt; how can scientists convince Fox News junkies that a looming problem, with worst-case scenarios decades away, is something to be concerned about right now? %26gt;%26gt;
The issue of climate change needs to be kept in context. The 鈥榳orst-case scenarios鈥?are unlikely to happen and often what鈥檚 depicted in the media isn鈥檛 actually representative of the scientific findings. It doesn鈥檛 help when the media are reporting runaway global warming, inundation of coastal cities, rapidly rising temperatures and portraying these in a sensationalistic manner implying such event could happen quickly with little warning.
You鈥檙e quite right that this is an issue that we need to be concerned about. Unless we physically intervene with the climates of Earth then we have already released enough greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to affect the climate for the next 85 years. This is a situation that can only possibly get worse the longer we delay taking real action.
Personally I don鈥檛 think we need to convince the Fox News junkies. They are very vocal but are small in number. It鈥檚 at governmental levels where policies are going to be implemented and change brought about.
%26lt;%26lt; With older "hoaxes" like man-made ozone depletion and acid rain, it was relatively easy to fix the problem with technology (newer refrigerants and smokestack scrubbers). %26gt;%26gt;
Global warming is the fourth instance of human activities having a potentially disastrous effect upon the climate. In all previous cases the scientists accurately identified the problem, diagnosed it and proposed the solutions. Action was taken and the problems were averted or significantly reduced.
In each instance the authorities simply got on with it and did what was needed to resolve the issue. If they would do the same with climate change the problem could be addressed.
However, one major difference is that the solutions to the climate change issue are much more far reaching, they鈥檙e infinitely more costly and without the implementation of a geoengineering scheme it means we鈥檙e all going to have to admit to being a part of the problem and will have to make adaptations. And many people don鈥檛 like this notion, they would much prefer to continue as they always have.
Instead of facing up to the problem, some people are taking the easy way out by pretending the problem doesn鈥檛 exist. This enables them to absolve themselves of all responsibilities and ignore the consequences of their actions.
%26lt;%26lt; It seems there would have to be a single event, like thousands of dead Americans from a single heat-wave, to thaw conservative minds. %26gt;%26gt;
I don鈥檛 think that would be enough to convince many people, especially not the deniers. In 2003 a heatwave in Europe killed in excess of 30,000 people and this is just one instance of a rapidly increasing number of heatwaves. Whilst it may have convinced some people it did little to change the mindset of the deniers.
%26lt;%26lt; What EXACTLY is needed to convince you of the validity of slow-moving environmental dangers? Simpler language? Larger fonts? Drowned corpses in your own front yard? What will it take? %26gt;%26gt;
More than anything it will take time. The number of deniers and skeptics is diminishing all the time, in years to come there will be virtually none left.
It鈥檚 very similar to when the dangers of smoking were first announced. For decades there were people who denied that smoking was harmless and in the end it鈥檚 now more or less universally accepted as a hazard. Many of the arguments used by the tobacco deniers are exactly the same ones being used by today鈥檚 climate change deniers
In summing up I鈥檇 suggest that the deniers are of little consequence. They鈥檙e a closed group, small in number and are more concerned about convincing themselves that climate change isn鈥檛 happening than anything else.
Humans have collapsed numerous societies down through the ages using over population and environmental destruction on the local level, they/we never learned a thing from it. Humans are basically to stupid to notice and no amount or type of evidence is going to get them to change their behavior. Religion and politics are scams out right parasitic attacks and yet people still flock to their banners babbling programed slogans like robots. Enjoy the mass random death ride the human race is on, worrying will just make you sick and hinder your chances of surviving the splash.What evidence WOULD be considered proof of AGW, or any slow-moving environmental problem?
Because of the simple concept, seeing is believing. And they cannot see the numbers that says we are responsible. If I were to go out and see a lake, I cannot understand how one can of oil can pollute that lake. It would appear impossible. And yet it is totally possible and proven.
They have not seen any other form of environmental damage that is conclusively caused by man, so how can they believe the numbers when their eyes say something else?
"You people know who you are. What EXACTLY is needed to convince you of the validity of slow-moving environmental dangers? Simpler language? Larger fonts? Drowned corpses in your own front yard? What will it take?"
A decent photo of Big Foot would be a good start.
You just answered your own question, the climate is way too complex currently to know for sure man's role. What it will take is for scientists to spend more time trying to understand the complex make up and not focus on one aspect of the climate. Then again, most AGW believers are very narrow minded and are only focused on the minor greenhouse gases even though water vapor has more then doubled in the last 150 years.
I will more likely believe when the climate scientists allow their data to be independently verified and their tests are repeated by independent skeptical scientists to proof their results. In science, it is not considered true until it can be repeated. Even the models used can't repeat the same results twice in a row.
your question assumes an answer that is not there.
Proof is proof. there has been none on GW. temps measured in a changing environment (ie city) does not prove planet wide changes
computer models are not proof. rhetoric like the world was never warmer, when we have measured periods that were warmer, for instance 5000 years ago the climate was significantly warmer... the fact that we cannot accurately forecast either weather or climate, that we know the climate is cyclical in nature, constantly changing in nature.... Find the proof, 1 that climate is changing, 2 that the changes have to do with the activities of man
In science, there are NO proofs. There is theory and observation / experimentation. Nature decides what makes sense.
To waste effort on removing other's rights to be wrong, is wasted effort. They see you as being exactly the same way.
Just walk the talk. The denyers only have importance if you give them importance.
No comments:
Post a Comment