Exactly Thucydides. That's similar to the point I've been trying to make all along. No one here has reviewed absolutely all the available data and is totally in a position to say one thing or another. The closest we have to that is the scientific consensus. It's not a matter of going to one expert and saying "well dr. Fred Smith told me this!" It's a matter of understanding the entire process as a whole and realizing, if there was good reason to doubt climate change someone would have published it already. orathaic is right. Any scientist who could show that global warming was untrue would stand to benefit enormously. I don't trust any one individual. I trust the process as a whole. Which isn't to say it can't be wrong, but I trust it to provide the best possible answer to the available data. And no one on this forum is going to change that.
Personally I suspect AGW has better evidence than you've been led to believe Thucydides. It's just interests opposed to global warming have been very successful in making the data seem much more shaky than they are.
And in answer to your question, it's because of the overwhelming support for global warming in the scientific community. For all it's flaws, I trust the peer review system better than any other way of gaining knowledge.

"Anyone with a brain and the will to use it has the qualifications to discuss the science of climate change"

"So like 1% of the population? If that?"

and what, 82% of the webdip players (discounting inactives and multis)?

yeah, i trust what i've heard and read.

I haven't specifically studied climate change science, but whenever i do come across an article about it they assume AGW. That is in all the peer-reviewed literature i read the consensus isn't challenged.

Of course that is normal in science, where you'r ejust mentioning in passing something which you aren't specifically researching you don't try to overturn the consensus opinion, scientists only try to challenge things in their specific field...

Still i trust the theory from what i've read about it. No major holes that i'm aware of, and much smarter minds than mine have spent more time actually studying the data.

""Anyone with a brain and the will to use it has the qualifications to discuss the science of climate change"

"So like 1% of the population? If that?"

and what, 82% of the webdip players (discounting inactives and multis)?"

Wasn't saying anything about Webdip players. The people on this site tend to be more intelligent than average.

@orathaic “if water vapour helps the earth's atmosphere insultate itself then increased surface temperature causes increases evapouration at hte surface of the sea (which is about 2/3's of the earth's surface, that's a lot) and this could lead to a positive feedback effect - to some limited higher temperature.“

This claim is made on the basis of a model however, and climate modelling is not a decent science: it always ends up just telling you what you told it in the first place. I am aware of measurements done in direct contradiction to the models.

“@TGM i don't see how economics is linked to science, you can exist in pretty much any economic system and still suffer from climate change (man-made or otherwise) and how that system reacts to climate changes is entirely dependant on what sort of control/regulation/political system it has.

We know there will be some climate changes, our predictions are doing their best, the first scientist to provide definite proof that global warming is wrong will be hailed a hero of the new science and definitely keep his job and grant, i don't see why he would care about all the other climate scientists who would possible lose their grants...

I suppose the social/political/economic/scientific spectrum in America is limited to two party views which general decide what propaganda you believe, and as we're not climate scientists we are all informed by those things rather than our economics actually defining our views on climate science. It is our culture which defines all our views.”

The point was that people’s views on AGW correlate to political viewpoints. I was pointing out that in my case it wasn’t ever thus. As a centrist I was also a sceptic

Also, I’m not in America.

@Thucy
“-The Economist (who, notably, would normally be against this sort of thing on economic grounds but sees the evidence as compelling enough to throw that to the wind... that is VERY significant to me)”

So? They are no more qualified to comment than me

“-My professors. And here I mean my SCIENCE professors. Obviously they are not climatologists... but they KNOW climatologists on the faculty. So when my bio, astronomy, and math profs tell me that there is reason to believe AGW is a threat... I listen.”

Again, on the basis of what? Is it sound evidence they are using to reach their conclusions?

“-More embarrassing perhaps is companies. Here's what I mean: when I see companies like Exxon Mobil running ad campaign about "going green" it makes me realize just how much pressure they're under. Meaning that if they hadn't done that, the droves (literally) of people who think they should be acting would sue them back to the stone age. Thus when I realized just how many people were taking this thing seriously, I began to perk up my ears.”


Which only shows that they are under pressure, not that they actually believe one way or the other. They probably don’t think they’d get away with scepticism

“-And the killing blow was when a group of evangelical preachers did an about face and came out in support of environmentalism, stating that it was a Christian's duty to "be a good steward of God's earth." These are fucking fundamentalists we're talking about. I couldn't say no then.”

I don’t believe evangelicals when they say that God exists, why should I believe them on science?

@Mafia
“Second of all, there's more axes to grind in the world than just "free markets/gov't control" and by your own admission, you've been a skeptic of global warming for a long time. Has your opinion in that time never wavered even as new evidence came to light? If not, that's an important key sign of having an axe to grind.”

I have had doubt and wavering in both directions, yes, and have come to the conclusion that I just cannot say.

"I haven't specifically studied climate change science, but whenever i do come across an article about it they assume AGW. That is in all the peer-reviewed literature i read the consensus isn't challenged. "

Precisely the problem is that organisations such as the IPCC have been perverting the peer review process and passing themselves off as good science.

Ah, well that is a different position than it seemed you were taking. Overall it seemed that you were arguing that Global Warming wasn't true. I still disagree and think that it is, but there's more common ground here than thought.
That said, you just threw out a large portion of climate science based on a superficial misconception.
Of course models aren't perfect, that's why they're models, but using them still tells us more than simply that which we put in.
I'm sorry, but you can't just throw out such a large portion of the available evidence because you don't really like the method, without some precedent or some justified reason from within the scientific community.

Ghostmaker, if you're referring to the so called "Climategate scandal" that was massively overblown with the things said taken way out of context. The IPCC may not be an absolutely perfect scientific body, but it is also not fair to say that their conclusions and their work are wholly without merit. It bears keeping in mind that there is political input to the IPCC, but it's still a significant body of research that cannot simply be discarded.

TGM you said something in response to me earlier in the thread that I didn't quite understand. I wonder if you would explain it me. The conversation went like this:

spyman: "I am skeptical too, but when I consider the balance of probabilities I have come to a different conclusion than you."
TGM: "I think it is impossible to talk of the balance of possibilities"

Now you have suggested in this thread that while you are not a denier as such, but rather a skeptic, that you do not agree with taking action on climate change. Surely this implies that you have assessed the "balance of probabilities" and come to a conclusion - that is no action should be taken. So what did mean when you said "it is impossible to talk of the balance of possibilities".

typo... what did *you mean...

"Ah, well that is a different position than it seemed you were taking. Overall it seemed that you were arguing that Global Warming wasn't true. I still disagree and think that it is, but there's more common ground here than thought."

Indeed, I was making that case, but only because that has become the status quo position.

"Ghostmaker, if you're referring to the so called "Climategate scandal" that was massively overblown with the things said taken way out of context"

I wasn't

"Now you have suggested in this thread that while you are not a denier as such, but rather a skeptic, that you do not agree with taking action on climate change. Surely this implies that you have assessed the "balance of probabilities" and come to a conclusion - that is no action should be taken. So what did mean when you said "it is impossible to talk of the balance of possibilities"."

Nope, it implies that I don't think that there is sound evidence either way on many of the issues I laid out in my first post. In the absence of such sound evidence, it would not be rational to take action on climate change.

There is not enough evidence to know for *certain* that AGW is occurring, but there is *some* evidence, enough to intuit some kind of a probability, from which to make a decision. Everything apart from tautologies or contradictions has some degree of probability, surely. Between denial and belief there is a continuum of probabilities. Your stance lies somewhere on that continuum.
I'll give you an example of some evidence.
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and we are putting more of it into the atmosphere than there otherwise would be. From this we can intuit that there is a possibility that this might make the world warmer. Now this might not be enough evidence to immediately ban all emissions, but it is enough evidence to base some sort of decision on. A first step might be to allocate some money to further research. How many steps we take in the direction of banning emissions, depends on how far down the continuum of probabilities the evidence take us.
So if you do have an opinion about what steps should be taken, even if that means take no action, then you have assessed the balance of probabilities.

"In the absence of such sound evidence, it would not be rational to take action on climate change."

We make decisions on the basis of imperfect information all the time, and this can be perfectly rational. When if I choose flood insurance for my house, I don't know that will flood, but if I think that it might flood, and when I factor in the value of my house, it could be rational to buy the insurance. But if I live somewhere where there is no chance of flooding, perhaps on a hill in the middle of desert, it would not be rational to buy flood insurance.
Choosing to take action on climate change is like buying insurance. Maybe we need it or maybe we don't.

... but the action we choose depends upon how we assess the probabilities.

spyman, the problem is that climate science, largely because of "research" done with government funds, is not properly peer reviewed and does not constitute evidence.

The argument that we can intuit a warming is not enough: the warming has to be significant, and some calculation suggests that it just isn't going to be without additional effects. The argument, "it is a greenhouse gas, therefore it will cause a warming effect to release more" is not sufficient to cause concern, because the effect will be so small. All the CO2 in the atmosphere only causes a warming of about 1 degree. Even doubling it would not cause another 1 degree rise unless there was something else going on. That assertion needs to be justified.

Climate science is a huge multidisciplinary field. The evidence for climate change comes from many different strands over a long period of time. How can you say it is "not properly peer reviewed" - What none of the papers that have contributed in some way to the notion of AGW have been peer reviewed? I am not saying there have never been any irregularities (climategate? I don't really know), but surely it's a bit over the top to dismiss all the evidence as "not properly peer reviewed".
What does this say about the otherwise (apparently) credible scientists who support AGW - they just happen to have overlooked this fact? Or are they all in on it (the conspiracy)?

I am dismissing the IPCC as not peer reviewed. Given how the IPCC has absorbed climate science as though there were no tomorrow, it does present a problem.

The IPCC does not conduct research (as I am sure you know). The strength of the case for AGW does not depend upon the validity of the IPCC.

TGM my point is that I do not pretend to understand the science except only in the most elementary of ways.

Thus I trust people who understand the science and have told me it is real, or the people who know and trust people who understand the science and tell me it is real.

Basically, my argument is from ethos. I trust the Economist because they are sensible and don't get very many things wrong. And I also trust them because they refuse to be politicized into any one camps particular dogma.

I trust my professors because they have PhDs and have devoted their lives to teaching students like me. They are nice people and are very smart so I trust what they say. I also know that they know *and trust* knowledgeable climatologists.

The other two examples are just examples of the fact that I am not the only one thinking this way. Thus my second argument from ethos is that when many people are convinced who would otherwise have no reason to believe, there is something to look at. That combined with testimony from those I trust has led me to believe in it.

Not to mention the fact that I still see no real issue with my Pascal wager-esque thing.

Sure maybe it's not a 25% chance or whatever, but do you really think you want to be on the wrong side of history of this thing? Are you really willing to risk that?

What I mean is.... what if you're wrong? After allll your research and whining about the IPCC... what if you're wrong? How will you feel?

I for one would much rather see ourselves destroying ourselves in the process of doing something proactive, rather than in the process of saying: "Well given the lack of evidence I think----"

I mean... yeah. Given that there IS REASON to believe it is a threat... I don't see what other choice we have.

It's like saying I would rather die trying to save a little boy than sitting on my couch. Even if I would have survived had I done nothing to save the boy. I would rather have tried to do something.

I recommend "The Drunkard's Walk" by Leonard Mlodinow.

In it you'll find a lot of talk about probability and chance. I think you will also realize that it is nearly impossible to predict the future, as indeed you seem already to realize.

However in light of that I think it makes more sense to take preventative measures than to sit idly, or to say "future generations will take care of it with their cool technology."

Imagine if every generation had said that.

"In the absence of such sound evidence, it would not be rational to take action on climate change."

- i disagree, as i've suggested earlier we should research geo-engineering, whether that means warming or cooling the planet it doesn't matter, they would likely use similar techniques.

Better models would be very important before any large-scale testing could occur, and dong something which is reversible would be best (ie NOT dispersing metal particles into the upper atmosphere which will sit there for years and which you can't possibly collect)

"A first step might be to allocate some money to further research."

- i beleive the IPCC was set up in 1988, not for further research but to advise policy makers on the climate science. This was the first step after some climate scientists pushed for policy makers to take heed.


"How many steps we take in the direction of banning emissions, depends on how far down the continuum of probabilities the evidence take us."

- Investing in alternative technologies makes sense anyway.

For any country which doesn't have huge oil resources, energy independance makes sense and becoming a net energy exporter is of benifit - that is finding a way to harvest the natural renewable resources (though there is a carbon cost to building a wind farm, say, humans aren't going to spontaneously reduce their energy demand to finding alternative ways to exploit natural resources makes sense - i imagine wind/wave in Ireland, Scotland, Norway, while countries like Spain, Italy and Greece would be better off with Solar)

"spyman, the problem is that climate science, largely because of "research" done with government funds, is not properly peer reviewed and does not constitute evidence." - why is this the case?

I mean my government funds basic research, but to get a paper published it goes to a peer-reviewed journal. As far as i'm aware there is no special Government published journal. Also Governments tend to try to find easy solutions. (The best for everyone all the time) I can't see a reason for a government to try and bias the research - adapting to the challenges of global warming is much harder than doing nothing and waiting until oil runs out.

"I am dismissing the IPCC as not peer reviewed." - ok yes, it is a document for advising the governments ofthe world. It is not basic research. They are taking advice from all the basic research which is out there. (though i haven't read it so i'm assuming a lot here)

I've wasted too long on this thread given I have a series of very important exams next week. If it is still around later I'll be glad to give a full a proper response to you various comments.

Bah, reply to thread, fail exams, come to Warwick :D

Now there is an arguement that doing something other than acting as a rational economic agent is bad from growth (and hence bad for everyone, as increasing growth leads to increasing standards of living)

Well ignoring for a minute that humans aren't rational agents and the basis of this economic theory is wrong, and the idea that workers are being played off each other to benifits the wealthy more than the poor (class warfare - i would argue that it is NOT better to be living in a slave society even if standards of living were higher for everyone, but that's just personal preference)

-Ignoring all those minor technical issues - Acting as rational self-interested agents can find a local maximum growth rate (that is the sharpest slope for growth) but we are only looking at the local situation in a multi-variable economics enviroment.

There is reason to push people away from the 'optimal' local growth and in an alternative direction - it is like you're climbing a peak, and be adding incentives to develop specific types of technology you bias the market to aim instead for a different peak.

The unbiased market on it's own will get stuck at it's local maximum. So with looking around us (understanding the enviroment) we could reach a local max which would effectively be an evolutionary dead end.

The fact is being stuck in a dead end is worse than slowing growth but moving opening up more possibilities.

Now it is fair to argue that increased growth does allow more possibilities, but as these systems are highly dependant on initial conditions it is MUCH easier to change things if we act sooner.

Now how to best integrate the information which scientists discover into our economic systems?

I'll admit i don't know.

the IPCC is what people setup in 1988.

I would, by the way go further than caliming we should limit CO2 emissions, we should be developing technology to control as much of this complex system as possible. We would also need an international system for running the technology.

This will be hard.

Personally I think that the planet goes the hot/cold periods and always has throughout it's history. I think everyone can agree with that. The real debate if we're altering it's natural movements and he answer maybe, maybe not.

For me the real point is less about Global Warming than the things we can see that affect our daily lives. Global Warming aside our current lifestyles do create hazes over all of our major cities. Rivers, Lakes, Environments and Species are dying all around. To me this is enough to warrant change. I think that when the full effects of this latest catastrophe is felt both environmentally and economically that but side will finally agree that something has got to give.

Orathaic my comments about further research and banning emissions versus taking no action, were just examples, to support my balance of probabilities arguments. Banning emissions outright is not feasible and you're right about more being needed to develop alternative energy sources.