Guys,
Please don't take this as my being snotty or anything like that -- but have you guys actually read any of the science behind global warming? The evidence really is quite conclusive. There are literally hundreds of scientific papers that makes the case behind CO2 and global warming. Sure, methane is a contributor, too as well as many other factors. But, all in all, the evidence is very string that it is man-made.
http
/earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalchange/global_warming/03.html
The above link is a good introduction that discusses the facts as we know them. Sure, there is a lot more to learn, but the evidence is there. Denying it won't do us any good.
and neither will blindly beleving manipulated facts
have a read of this http
/blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
i found it quite interesting reading...
How dare you accuse me of blindly following anything? Why even use such a loaded word? Couldn't I accuse you of blindly following the conspiracy theories?!?
Why not rebut scientifically verified facts with other scientifically verified facts? I'll even give you a hint, there are actual blogs out there that cite actual scientific papers that use actual scientific methods to call into question some of the previous results. Take a look at http
/www.worldclimatereport.com/ -- it actually looks at real papers, peer-reviewed and published in top scientific journals -- for papers that at least raise some valid questions.
Nonetheless, there is an order of magnitude more papers that point out the effects of measured warming and uses the best knowledge we have today to attempt to make predictions.
It is my personal opinion that while it is very clear that the Earth is indeed warming, I think that there are some valid questions about how much is caused by human activity. However, there is enough evidence, in my opinion, that we shouldn't be taking stupid risks and ignoring it. There is enough of a chance that it is human-caused that we should be doing everything we can to limit emissions. We know that what we are emitting (CO2 and methane) are indeed greenhouse gases -- so why keep doing it especially as alternatives are available?
------------------
Regarding the emails that were leaked, hacked, etc.: I don't know why anyone should really be surprised that scientists are human, too. It has been true throughout all of history that a lot of science is politically driven, and today there is a fair amount of science that is financially driven.
Back in the 80's, you could predict with around 75-80% accuracy the results of a global warming study just by knowing what research group/foundation/think tank sponsored it. This is no longer true today (I'll come back to this). This is still true today with studies about gun issues. It is very easy to be very cynical about this and say that the researchers only repeat back the answers that they are "paid" to give -- and unfortunately this does happen sometimes. However, it is also very indicative of an issue that is very complicated and when you study only select small slices of the entire problem, it becomes much easier to "cherry-pick" the results by "cherry-picking" the problem statement in the first place. It doesn't always work out the way the funding source wants -- which is why the accuracy is only 75-80%, not 100%. The fact that it is only 75% actually speaks just how honest as a group scientist are because they don't just report only the results that their personal beliefs support.
As I wrote above, it is no longer true that you can predict the result of a global warming study just by looking at the funding source. There is a significantly greater amount of knowledge, significantly improved modeling techniques (and significantly improved computational power to perform those more sophisticated models), significantly more researchers looking into the issue. All three of these combined makes it virtually impossible for all of them to be involved in a giant conspiracy. (Nothing is technically impossible, but extra-extraordinarily unlikely in this case.) I mean, if you had any doubts, you can read the exact methodology that was used to program the computer models, write your own code, and see what the results are. All the information needed to create your own models are out there. No conspiracy can exist when the information is presented out there for anyone to see. And, it is not just the model, but the reasoning behind every single choice of went into the model is also presented in the literature -- with citations showing why the author feels that choice A was better than choice B, etc. They don't just slap these models together over a weekend, they spend years and years developing them to be as accurate as possible. The models they have today can accurately recreate the historical record as we know it, all from just given a starting point. Sure, going forward they may not be perfect, but they give us an idea of what the best predictions are calling for -- and the best predictions aren't good.
Now, again, scientists are people, too. They are going to have disagreements, and yes, sometimes they are going to send petty emails amongst themselves threatening fistfights. Non-scientists do this too. And, if they were really manipulating data, then those scientists will be forever shamed and will never have respect in the community again. Again, non-scientists will sometimes lie at their jobs as well; scientists aren't perfect in any way, shape, or form that they are above these things.
But, the fact that a few scientists did these things, doesn't implicate the entire group. Not every scientist working on global warming wants to punch the skeptics or is manipulating their data or simulations to make the situation seem worse. If every scientist was doing these things, then there would be no such thing as the respect that peer-review engenders, or any award or any meaning to any university research anywhere. The fact that there is so much respect, says that as a whole, scientists are a pretty good bunch. The fact that such revelations are such a shock points how just how rare such activities really are in the community.
So, in the end, I think that it is fair to conclude that the overwhelming majority of the research that is out there is valid. And, in the global warming research, there is quite a lot to be concerned about. Again, there is no absolute certainty (and no physical scientist would ever declare absolute certainty), but there is an awful lot of evidence pointing one way right now. Every one of us is free to choose what we want to believe in, but there is no choice in the way the scientific evidence is pointing right now.
So, again, I think that is it foolish to ignore it and do nothing. In the end, if the case of global warming is overstated, and we do change what we emit into the atmosphere, then so be it. But, if we do nothing, and the case of global warming occurs as predicted or worse, then we lose big time. The safe bet is to do something about it while we still can. I do agree that deliberately overstating the effects or being a doomsayer is taking it too far, but again, why take the risk when we don't necessarily have to? The alternate forms of energy are out there, we just need to actually use them.
Thanks if you've read this entire reply.
