Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by licker

Jim-

You do realize that one can appreciate a change in the climate while disagreeing about the cause correct?

The issue, though not explicitly stated always, is with the notion of anthropomorphic GW, not GW, which as anyone who can read a chart can see that the temperature rose over some decades, and for the last decade has seemingly leveled off.

First, to address your second point: Again, we have had 2 similar troughs in the past 150 years that we have detailed figures. A 10 year trough, in the geological time scales we are working with, does not in any way indicate that this trend is "over". We are still in a 1000 year+ warming trend, and this is consistent, over this timeframe.

Second, to your first point: I don't think you read my previous posts. I don't completely agree with the causes, at least, not as valid reasoning for humanity to approach the issue with clear intent. The fact is, if global temperatures were to shift down OR up by about 5°, the human race with less than 7 billion people on the planet, will be greatly imperiled. Regardless if you think that any given country or region could persist through such calamity, I can only assure you that it's psychotic not to entertain the notion that eventually the famines and wars would lead to nuclear aggression = the end of the world as we know it.

If we agree the phenomenon exists, then the -causes- become academic curiosity. What matters is the human species rising to meet this problem head on, because we will have to find ways to deal with a little turbulence here or there, if we want to survive for longer than a quarter million years.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by licker

Anyway, I propose we settle this on the field of battle!

You can take whatever heat loving nation you like and I will play some cold loving nation, then we'll see just who's got the right of it!

But wait, I thought you were the heat lover, and he wanted things colder?

[MaxWilson]

Originally Posted by Omnirizon

What you are pointing out here is what actually makes global warming theory so amazing from within the scientific community. *snip*
What makes this even more amazing is that science is actually moving in opposition to state interests in extending global warming.

You're right, that is kind of weird, and there probably is more to it than Kuhnianisms. I can think of a couple more factors that might be contributing: one is that there are state actors (Maldive islands) who actually have an incentive to push the fear of warming-driven disaster scenarios (which requires warming). More importantly, there's an unexplained datum, which is the warming trend of the last century. Ignatz Semmelweiss' problem was that he could show a causative link empirically (basic hygiene reduces iatrogenic childbed fever dramatically), but he had no theory to explain the causation. Only after germ theory was invented did his data gain widespread credibility. In theory science is about understanding the universe, which sometimes means understanding that you don't understand it; in practice people like to have explanations even if they're wrong. The GCMs climatologists use aren't high-quality models, but they can be tweaked to explain away the puzzling recent warming trend. Acknowledging the actual uncertainty in the system is too difficult, especially if that threatens your livelihood. Better to keep on studying and publishing on GCMs, even if they don't correspond to reality.

Feynman says scientific honesty is much harder than regular honesty. It takes a certain amount of brutality to say to yourself that the field you're studying really isn't going anywhere, in which case you'll probably leave. Therefore, it makes sense to pay attention to cross-disciplinary debates. Here's a link to an issue of APS Physics featuring debate on global change: http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newslet...0807/index.cfm.

-Max

[llamabeast]

Dammit, licker missed my post again. Seems I'm doomed never to find an answer for that one.

[Poopsi]

If we agree the phenomenon exists, then the -causes- become academic curiosity.

Not really. The causes of a phenomenom are important when determining how to tackle with it.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by Poopsi

Not really. The causes of a phenomenom are important when determining how to tackle with it.

I meant within the framework of this particular debate. Since we don't agree on the causes, then we just have to live with that, and begin to act before we fully understand.

[licker]

Originally Posted by llamabeast

Dammit, licker missed my post again. Seems I'm doomed never to find an answer for that one.

Yes, sorry, I sort of addressed it elsewhere, and so did Max(?), but I'll try to do better.

I have seen first hand funding being denied or removed if the proposed research would seem likely to be at odds with some other agenda (usually non scientific). As I commented somewhere, in the case of GW this is true from both sides of the specturm, and is something I find personally abhorrent.

Further the direct funding issue with the notion of paradigms Omni and others are discussing and when you look at where the funding is coming from, you often have to couch your proposal in friendly terms to the organization handing out the money (think IPCC here, also oil companies, though they have 'come around' lately anyway and are really no longer a factor in this debate).

So if you are interested in doing climate research, and you have publicly been critical of the GW theories as pushed by the IPCC, you are less likely to receive funding for basically any research in that area. At least funding from organizations whom support the IPCC, so there is some impetus to accept the popular theory and just run with it.

Most good scientists do not invest their research with the politics of the day, but some do, and some are pressured to (I have seen this from DHS...).

So does that address your question? You can call it peer pressure if you like, but the field of climate science is (or was) a fairly small and insular one, and as such the breaking of the GW paradigm is very difficult to do internally.

I meant within the framework of this particular debate. Since we don't agree on the causes, then we just have to live with that, and begin to act before we fully understand.

I disagree. Acting before we understand the causes is just as likely to do ill as it is to do good. Look at DDT as a clear example where acting before all relevant information was in place as a case in point. (and yes, DDT is 'bad' but the alternative, malaria, is worse).

I agree that we need to be looking at mitigation and adaptation technologies though, but those are beside the point of whether the temperature is going up or down.

[llamabeast]

Okay, I think I understand. Essentially you feel it's peer pressure. That's not entirely unreasonable. There have been strong but wildly incorrect scientific movements in the past.

Of course, until fairly recently peer pressure acted strongly in the other direction - it took some decades to get climate change widely accepted. I suppose probably you're of the opinion that at that stage the evidence was on their side, but now more recently the evidence has swung the other way (against climate change), but inertia and peer pressure have made it difficult to accept the change and so people persist in believing in man-made climate change despite the evidence against them. Is that about right? If not I'm still a bit lost.

In case it wasn't clear before, I'm personally strongly in the climate-change-is-serious-and-we-have-to-take-action camp, but this particular aspect of the beliefs of the "other side" has always somewhat mystified me and I'm glad to have it clarified somewhat.

Incidentally, have you come across Project Steve? I've recently been involved in organising a group of comedians to go to the Edinburgh Fringe next year. The stand-in name I suggested for the project while we were getting organised was "Steve", and it's now stuck, such that we're going to Edinburgh as "Project Steve Productions" (it's going to be an improvised comedy show, you should come!). I was startled to discover that Project Steve was also apparently a project to show that there are more respected scientists called Steve who believe in man-made climate change than there are respected scientists (of any name) who disbelieve in it. Note this is just what my (well-informed) friend told me while we were swimming this morning, so I could have got it wrong.

[llamabeast]

Also, thanks for your response. For someone with infuriating views you're very coherent! (teasing)

[Tichy]

Hi Llamabeast: The Project Steve thing isn't about climate change. It's evolution.

Here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve