Global Temperatures have NOTHING to do with CO2

[CrazyHorse]

HappySqurriel said:

Rath said:
What Happy said is blatantly not true. Many 'real' scientists do believe in anthropogenic climate change and that it will have a catastrophic impact.

I don't see how you can claim that societies such as the Royal Society, which have released statements strongly in support of the findings of the IPCC, do not consist of real scientists. Real scientists do believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

Also I do kind of agree that consensus is a touchy word when used in cases where there is still significant debate and perhaps I shouldn't have used it, how about 'the majority scientific opinion is that anthropogenic climate change is occurring'?

If the peer review process has been twisted by the IPCC it is a bad thing, can you please provide a source other than Prof. Reiter for it though? As well as the top scientists thing?



Also yes I am arguing a point that is not directly related to the OP. I don't see whats wrong with that? Also I don't know a huge amount about the mechanics of climate change which is why I would find it difficult to debate it, I do know that plenty of scientists do have the same opinion as voiced by the IPCC. I only argue about things that I actually know enough about =P.

Talk to geologists, geophysicists, solar physicists or any expert in a hard science related to climate that is dependant of quantifiable evidence (where hand-waving and computer models don’t cut it) and you will find almost no support for man-made global warming leading to catastrophic outcomes.

The problem with "Scientific Organizations" is that science doesn’t happen in committee, so these bodies exist to serve a purpose outside of creating or promoting good science. There have been scientists who were upset by groups like the IPCC because their work was misrepresented to produce misleading and unsupported conclusions, and other scientists who can’t get their peer reviewed and published paper included in their report because it acts as evidence against the conclusions the IPCC wants to make; and being that a large part of science is making a dispassionate evaluation of your hypothesis looking for evidence of whether it is (or is not) supported, ignoring contrary evidence is not scientific.

I personally know nothing about the Royal Society, but many so-called scientific bodies have no scientists in decision making positions. The IPCC (for example) decides what is to be included in their summary for policy makers by bureaucrats, and there are no scientists involved in writing the summary either. On top of that, very few of the scientists who end up working for these organizations has neither the education or experience to speak out authoritatively on subjects like Global Warming; a board made up of 5 experts in fields unrelated to climate is not any more qualified than 5 layman to make conclusive claims about anything. 

 

That's not strictly true. I'm a geologist and I believe there is certainly evidence to suggest that man-made global warming is a possibility. In my department at university many lectures/professors do believe that human induced climate change is real, however, there are many others who do not. I think the biggest common misconception amongst people in regard to scientists in this issue is people thinking we claim to KNOW what will happen. Most scientists I know (and my own opion) acknowledge that there is strong evidence to suggest a correlation between greenhouse gases and temperatures and that therefore there is a real possibility that human emissions will induce warming. The big question which non of us know the answer to is how big the effect will be due to endless feedback mechanisms which we cannot predict. It could range from an inconsequential increase up to several degrees (obviously the media only report the worse case predictions).

 

I completely agree with you about certain "Scientific Organizations" where politics plays a far bigger role than actual science.

 

EDIT: Reading through your post again I think I misunderstood your point of view slightly. As you say, there are probably not a great many scientists who believe in truly catastrophic outcomes but there are certainly those who believe that rather severe outcomes are a possibility. Again that word 'possibility' is probably the most important in this whole debate as no one can accurately predict what will/won't happen.