Silence of Dissent
 

Death threats don't seem very scientific.

Attempts to discredit skepticism concerning man-made global warming are rampant even in our own forum. It wasn't long ago that Arainach even posted a comic that likened denial of man-made global warming to Flat Earth Theory. The extreme politicization of this issue and the demonisation of its dissenters is positively revolting.

There's been a lot of talk about why Man-Made Global Warming may be bunk, and they're perhaps no better represented than in the recent British documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, which I would encourage everyone reading this thread to take the 80 minutes necessary to watch.

In light of these reports, is it ok to politically demonize Global Warming dissenters?

While I don't have the time to watch that documentary, I don't believe that global warming is a lie at all.
Granted, there have been reports that I've seen of global warming and carbon dioxide levels increasing naturally in the past. Many times it occurred before mankind even existed.

But as far as it being wrong to "politically demonize Global Warming dissenters" I'd have to say "no".
I'm not saying that sending death threats is a fine thing to do; but with more and more evidence agreeing that it IS a problem I can only identify the people in the "anti-green movement" as ostriches with their heads in the sand, blind to the world around them.

As far as it being a man-made problem: that's still up in the air now isn't it?

Of course it is, which is why the terminology is so confusing. There's no denying that global warming exists since we're still coming out of an ice age. When referring to Global Warming, in caps, what we're really referring to is the politicized anti-Global Warming movement, namely that global warming is mostly man-made and will kill us.

The documentary doesn't seek to disprove that global warming exists, but that Global Warming lobbies and green movements are spreading lies and half-truths to further political agendas that have no real basis in hard science.

There's a recent interview with Patrick Moore on Penn & Teller's radio show. Patrick Moore was one of the co-founders of Greenpeace, and you should really hear it. It's long as Hell, but none of it is filler, and it's at least something you can play in the background.

I've found lots of people tend to intertwine the global warming issue with rising carbon dioxide levels and feel that if one exists then the other must as well. As I said in another thread, it's a lot like how people can't recognize the independence of abiogenesis and evolution. =/

Recently there was an article on the National Geographic website that had one scientist comparing the global warming taking place on Mars to the global warming of Earth. Most scientists just dismiss this as a coincidence.


So what else is new?

Yeah, I too find it hilarious how some folks buy into CO2 being the sole bringer of evil. For starters, it's one of the *least* altering greenhouse gases. If you'd want to try pointing fingers, it'd have to be at water vapor.

If the increase of one gas in the atmosphere altered climate as predicted, we'd have weather prediction down-pat. Fear-mongering and propaganda is essentially the best way to put it. I talked to a number of folks in my department and my feathers got into a ruffle over something...

This one fella (in my department and major whose personality is almost a carbon copy of mine) actually *believes* in global warming. I find this horribly strange given that we've had largely the same educational background. When I started talking facts to him, he started spouting off word-for-word lines from a documentary he watched. He's got a freakishly perfect memory and was pretty much reciting part of the script from this Global Warming show he saw on Discovery channel =p I debunked almost all the points he brought up then tied it off with how everyone has their aims, and this is just the politicizing of science. I told him that even the famous Discovery Channel wasn't unbiased. He refused to believe this and got quite angry with me.

Then a person in the department who I always deemed as very intelligent chimed in. He started talking about usage of lead-based paint and how it somehow correlated to temperature climbs. I remember talking to him about six months prior about global warming (he's about ten years older, and seems very knowledgeable in comparison to myself at times) and he mentioned that he didn't have a viewpoint. But lo and behold, after having his "eyes opened" by the "Inconvenient Truth" movie, he magically has a stance.

Many folks are cementing their views off of a recent news article or two, but this global warming debate, both scientific and politically, has been an interest of mine for almost eight years now. I've read so many works, seen unsullied experiment data-sets, etc that I can say with confidence that I am cemented on my stance with this topic. I have yet to be thoroughly thrashed in a debate on the topic, and I've had chats with PhD holders on the subject. One in particular who I worked with for a while (as an undergrad assistant) agreed with me but published the exact opposite. Why? Well, he wouldn't get grant money otherwise.

Shortly thereafter, I worked under a professor who analyzed aerosol particles and production of clouds. He took a stance on global warming at a meteorological conference and lost funding. In addition to this, after Tom DeLay (who championed 75% of our grants) got in trouble, we lost 3/4 of our funding. It was "more interesting" to focus it all on global warming. My professor that I worked under is a younger fellow who has the same view as myself on the topic. I had to quit shortly thereafter (I saw myself as a bit of a leech, since we had to sit on our hands most of the time with money-flows now gone), but I hear he is still sticking his head above ground-level and not budging on his stance.

What you see going on right here is a prime example of what some call "sheeples". It's one thing when you get into politics... Everyone is different. We all have our viewpoints. But when you pick a side in a scientific debate and don't know shit about it other than what you've been spoon-fed by "Discovery Channel", it's an insult to anyone who has taken the topic into serious concern... And someone who saw a special on CBS has the nerve to tell me I'm wrong, based on their minute exposure on the subject, delivered by a biased source. It really curls my graw.

You have two sides throwing data at eachother, just like a normal scientific debate. There's ultimately a right and a wrong side... But there are underlying problems, such as how this Man-Made Global Warming has caused a huge job market niche. It's incredibly popular and has made jobs in a number of areas. If you could just come out and ultimately debunk Man-Made Global Warming, then you'd put a shitload of people out of work. As a result, scientists of credible standing that oppose it are threatened and censored. Those who like their job stability keep their heads down and go with the flow.

Brady -- I'll have to give that film a look at some later date. It's rare that I get to see a film talking about the dirty politics behind this topic.

It rarely talks about dirty politics so much as it spends a lot of time debunking the "evidence" in favor of man-made global warming. About 1/4th of it concerns the actual politicizing, and the last 1/8th has some very poignant commentary on Africa and how we're screwing them.

(also there's that Patrick Moore interview I'm sure you'll enjoy)

I don't know much about Global Warming myself, but from post reading and what I have already heard myself it seems to me like it science vs. the economy/politics. I figure people want to fight it because it calls for major changes in the way that we all live as a people on earth. We wont be able to move forward as fast with the resources that we already use because of the way that it effects the environment.

I think that it is also intensified by the industrialization of China. They are moving forward so fast that some of their rivers have become toxic. In addition, it seems to collide with the efforts of the Kyoto Pact (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...tm?POE=NEWISVA)
which tries to limit the amount of toxics used by countries. Apparently the U.S. did not agree to it because it called for us to significantly lower our emissions.

We didn't agree because the Kyoto Treaty seemed to exist just to cripple the US' economy and production sector. It would've approached China with kid-gloves since it deemed it as a "developing nation", if I'm recalling right. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Anyhow, ~80% of China's energy is from coal. If you want to nail someone for CO2 levels (even though I don't see it as a linear contributor to warming), go after China. Their local pollution and the like is very obvious. Plus, I'm sure that Japan's current pollution troubles are somewhat overcroppings from China.

Ha. Didn't it used to be the other way, with climate change being treated with immense skepticism, media play-down, and governments sidling research into the background. Guess biases have blown the opposite way now. "Hilarious."

I'll have to watch that doubting video. Global warming has always bothered me. The two sides talk past each other with such hyberbole you can't tell straight. You have oil-funded cronies purposely manufacturing dissent for the sake of dissent, ala the tobacco company playback, often by way of typoes or proven-wrong "evidence." Pitted againstthem are the super-wacko environmental groups, who are prone to having you believe nuclear plants will create godzilla-sized monstrosities when in reality they release less radiation than consuming a banana.

Still, I mean, we've got all of these coalitions of scientists largely agreeing to the same thing, we've got record-breaking weather patterns starting, we have all of these models developed different ways that all need the "CO2 assumption" to work...what is really required to say "it's a go?" What more would it take for sufficient evidence? Given the way that climate change can potentially build on itself, seems at least worth picking the low-hanging fruit ala CAFE standards and other measues that could improve our national security too.

Instead, you have idiots hoping oil companies will magically eat their profits and fix everything and "stop being mean," like it's entirely the fault of a few bad suits or that industry should fix everything.

Sigh. I hate this. I hate not knowing for sure if it's an issue, and I hate addressing it by tacking "oh btw this reduces CO2" onto green-washed political subsidies that won't do anything one way or the other.

The reality of the situation is that you can't do anything. The environment is going to change whether we like it or not, and unless we suddenly invent a Weather Machine, nothing will stop this.

It's only a matter of time before all that Methane in Siberia is unleashed. Then hoo-boy, get out them breezy shorts.

Well, there's the off-chance that if temperatures continue to climb, the peat bogs could dry out before the methane escapes into the atmosphere. If that happens, the Methane (CH4) will oxidize into CO2 and leave water in its stead.

CH4 + 2*O2 => 2*H20 (water) + CO2

Otherwise, the doom-sayers will say "mankind is at fault" and the masses will agree with the statement. Damn Clathrate gun hypothesis. But there was an article I saw a while back that had some interesting facts. Maybe the Methane burps are an effect and not a cause, hmm?

Linky.

I still like to think that the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are way too small in amount to affect the temperature like folks say. Methane in itself only has a life in the atmosphere of around 9-10 years. It undergoes a reaction with hydroxyl radical, and across this time, is broken down to CO2 and H2O. Sure, those still affect the atmosphere, but not nearly as powerfully. But hey, that's my opinion.

In other news, the world is doomed!

This is why non-science writers need to stop writing about science. Burning how much fossil fuels for how long releases 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by which volcanoes for what period of time?

I lol'd.

Edit:: Just noticed a typo in there, too. Bolded for emphasis.

I had wanted to make a post before about the way the documentary Brady posted essentially did the same thing as An Inconvenient Truth with somewhat vague graphs to imply that the information was more highly correlated, but I ended up thinking better of it.

At first glance I was taken aback by the argument for sunspots and the relatively small amount of CO2 from humans versus natural forces, but it turns out a lot of that has been embellished.

While reading an article on slashdot one of the comments mentioned this refutation of the BBC film. It turns out that the director is also known for misleading his interviewees and "creatively editing" a lot of their comments, which has one of the people involved, Professor Carl Wunsch, crying foul. (Comment 109 on that link).

I suppose I'm on the fence about it right now, but something sticks with me from my Professional Speaking class. My professor relayed the theory that most people don't want to be convinced. He said that when you use a narrative, however, it can act like a kind of back door, letting you into people's lives without their realizing it.

I just thought it was relevant in the midst of the "World is Ending" and "You've Been Swindled" face-off. One thing in the documentary is true: it has become a highly politicized issue.