"what makes a scientific discussion become overwhelmed by politics."
I would say, when some people have a high investment in the issue, mainly money. The best parallel must be tobacco versus lung disease. It seems clear that the tobacco companies put a lot of money into politicising that one.
Removing lead from gasoline was much esier, no-ones livlihood was threatened, just a minor additive and some engine re-design. Electric cars are more likely to be politicised.
I was only taught one type of science, the Popperian refutable variety. AGW science doesn't only depend on well-established physical principles but it can also predict approximate outcomes (and can therefore be refuted).
I guess most people believe global warming was 'discovered' in the 70s or 80s, some people even think it is something to do with Al Gore!!Of course nothing could be more ludicrous.
As far back as 1827 Jean-Baptiste Fourier first suggested that greenhouse gases kept the earth warmer, which was confirmed by John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius later on that century. In 1938 an Engineer, Guy Stewart Callendar predicted that doubling the concentration of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning would lead to a global increase of 2°C, with the poles warming more. This was a remarkable prophesy, since it is on course to what we observe today! Calendar's predictions were later confirmed by several more detailed studies in the 1970s, including an elite group of ex-military physicist's dubbed the 'Jason's'. This was well before modern climate science, supercomputers and the IPCC. (PS at this point I would recommend you don't push 'ice age prediction' myths).
Now it's true climate science doesn't predict outcomes to the umpteenth decimal point as in highly controlled experiments.It is more analogous to predicting the temperature of the following summer 6 months earlier.Hence we can be reasonably sure it will be warmer in summer not only because of experience, but because of well- understood physical phenomena. What else would you expect if the solar insolation is so much higher. However, because of the complex motion of the atmosphere and oceans it is still quite a challenge to predict with accuracy how much.Hence, no-one would ever seriously contend that summer would be no warmer than winter (across the US for example) yet that is precisely what the so called 'sceptics' try and convince us! To them a 'warmer summer' is just a theory!
Calling out Jon for not doing due diligence before posting is not insulting him. He made a series of unsupported allegations. Where're his citations? If there's a problem with climate science, it appears to be in the "skeptic" community.
If there's a "follow the money" lesson, it's that the corporate interests have far more of than the academic community, as there was with regards to the connection between smoking and cance, for example from the fossil fuel industry. If there is any agenda pushing global warming, it is from Wall Street, not the scientists. Their research is open for all to see and verify.
Heck, he can get involved directly in the science. You too can help the discussion by posting valid scientific research that supports your "skepticism".
I have posed this question quite a few times in various venues, and have not even had much of a response. First, cansider that the majority of the heat experienced in our climate here on earth comes from the sun. Take that as a "given". Next, consider that this is a quite large quantity of heat energy arriving constantly. I believe that we can agree that there is indeed a lot of it arriving. Now for the question: Is anybody able to measure and determine if possibly the quantity of energy given off by the sun has increased by perhaps 0.01%? I pose this question because the most recent sunspot cycle is delayed a fair amount more than the most recent prior cycles, which says that something is a bit different this time. To make this situation even more interesting, I think that research has shown that the sun's output drops a bit during a cycle, and increases during the minimum number of sunspots intervals.
From my experience in industry I know that measuring any quantity to a resolution of 0.01% is quite an accomplishment, even more of an accomplishment if the measurement must be made indirectly. Then consider an interesting editorial comment that I think I saw in Design News a while back: "Global Warming Causes CO2".
Is it possible that the data is right but the conclusions are incorrect? That has happened before, and confusing a result with a cause has happened quite a few times. I would really be interested in reading comments from anybody who is familiar with the measuring of our solar energy input, and determining jus how much is arriving every day.
Cassiopeia, what you must remember is that there are really two types of science.On can be proven via repeatable experiments.This would include fields like solid state physics, particle physics, and chemistryThe other cannot.This includes fields like cosmology, anthropology, paleontology, and climatology.
If you are interested in the history of science, there is a celebrated case where the major scientific minds of the age thought they had it all figured out.The has a consensus.Then, one theorist came up with a new approach that changed everything.The case of course was Einstein's theories of the black body radiation and special relativity.This turned even the "hard" science on its head.Einstein's theories were accepted, though, because detailed experiments could be done (and redone).Yet, we are always questioning even the those theories, at least on the margin.You see, in physics you have a principle called the correspondence principle.A new theory should agree with an existing theory in a regime where the existing theory (if it is successful) works.Thus, quantum mechanics "corresponds" with classical physics at the scales where the later worked well.
The field of climatology is not one of those.As a lay person, if that is what you are, you should always question what you know and are being told.Physics professors love to tell freshmen that we could find out this is all bull**** tomorrow.They don't expect that to happen, but it could.So to ascribe any "doubts" about a scientific pronouncement to some sort of cabal of contrarian scientists and conservative think tanks or private corporations is to ignore history.
This has been a very intersting discussion. I have been involved in debating controversial issues over the years and it always ends up the same. If you do not agree with the "consensus" then there is something wrong with either your science, or you as a person. The subject does not matter.
For the global warming issue, both sides agree that we are currently in a warming trend, one does not need to have a degree in any particular discipline to see that. The question is why. The bigger questions is, why is it NOT okay to ask why. Conscensus is not achieved because 80+ percent of scientists and engineeers arrive at a particular conclusion by studing the data, it is arrived at because a few scientist or engineers told the rest of them this is how it is. Someone way back in the beginning of this thread made a comment about a theory being called a fact. When that happens, it simply means that we have stopped doing science and engineering, and started to believe the preacher with blind faith. There is nothing wrong with faith, as long as it is no blind.
Although plastics make up only about 11% of all US municipal solid waste, many are actually more energy-dense than coal. Converting these non-recycled plastics into energy with existing technologies could reduce US coal consumption, as well as boost domestic energy reserves, says a new study.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.