"It's part of a natural cycle"

Yeah this one really bugs me too.  I listen to the EVCast, which is a podcast on electric vehicles.  Every so often they bring up global warming, because that's obviously one motivation for people to switch to EVs.  But the hosts of the show don't know bubkus about the science behind the issue, and they're in the camp of people who believe that the "doomsdayers" can't be right and the deniers can't be right, and the truth has to be somewhere in the middle.  They don't really have any reason for believing this, except that some people just seem to think that on a contentious subject, the truth always lies somewhere in the middle.

Their viewers always take them to task when this comes up, so they've simply stopped discussing the issue.  They had a global warming show once, but it didn't really involve any science, basically just brinigng up the various points made by both sides and making jokes and stuff.

That's where this kind of argument comes from, that there's a nugget of truth to both sides and it's probably both a natural cycle but also accelerated by humans.  But of course this is a very unscientific position.  As those who have studied the issue know, we should be in the midst of a very gradual cooling period according to the Earth's natural cycles, as discussed in the Global Warming Causes Wiki, not a warming period, and certainly not a rapid warming period.

So it does bug me when people make this 'it's natural and accelerated by humans' argument, because they're just trying to find a middle ground, but it's scientifically wrong.  And the 'it's all just natural' is even worse, because there's no truth to that whatsoever. 

As for science teachers, I suspect they're just trying to avoid having to hear from angry parents.  They probably haven't studied the issue in any depth and are taking the least controversial position possible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dana1981 

 

As for science teachers, I suspect they're just trying to avoid having to hear from angry parents.  They probably haven't studied the issue in any depth and are taking the least controversial position possible.

It's really a shame though because of course we should be raising a generation of children who know what's at stake and how to be good stewards of the planet.

My favorite is the cognitively disconnected proposition, often in the same question:  "CO2 isn't a major factor in determining global climate, but the warming from anthropogenic CO2 is preventing an ice age, however the observed warming is part of a natural cycle unrelated to CO2, although CO2 is amplifying that cycle." 

It's science for people who talk in double, triple, and quadruple negatives. 

"it's a natural cycle but humans are accelerating this natural cycle".

Yeah that's a weird one.  It's rather ambiguous to what cycle they are referring to.  If it's the interglacial period, over thousands of years that cycle has produced very slight cooling from the peak, although often we get the argument that it's been warming since the last ice age.  Dropping the word "cycle", an argument that is made is that the warming must be natural since it's been warming since the LIA a few hundred years ago.  Or perhaps humans are slightly enhancing that "natural" warming.  This of course ignores attribution studies.

gcnp58 discusses a dichotomy common to contrarians.  Also very common is the dichotomy of claiming on one hand the global climate is way too complex for scientists to ever understand, yet also claiming with high confidence that human activities have little to no effect.

I believe a significant part of the problem are the idiots from both extremes getting up on their soap boxes and preaching their belief's as science. If not their beliefs then what they heard from a friend who heard from a friend who saw it on rush limbaugh or his green equivalent.

Half or more of what the green bunch provide as an absolute truth is unsupported garbage.

Half  or more of what the deniers provide as an absolute truth is unsupported garbage.

Hopefuly the 'silent majority' (to use an old term from another arena) has enough sense to ignore the fools and make progress.

We rarely end up with decent, intelligent, common sense politicians because they too often come from one extreme or the other.

Another thought - many of the sciences are still in a 'baby' stage. For example - 

Medicine - I expect that in a hundred and a few hundred years people will wonder how we managed to survive 21st century medicine. Though I doubt that many doctors will admit it they are very unaware of how the body works. That knowledge is improving every day and every year.

Weather - How many forecasts are really accurate - certainly not many where I live.

Vitamins, alternate medicine, supplements - all a big ball of wax which is slowly being unravelled.

Psychology - I think this is one step above the witch doctor stage - with a little shopping you can get yes, no and maybe for an answer from a shrink. 

With so little known and so much to learn there is a lot of wiggle room for the extremes to work in and create their own 'known facts' to support most anything they want.

I believe that common sense tells us we can not continue to pollute our world without upsetting natural balances which have developed over millions of years.

I don't know that we have to jump off the bridge.  We do have to find a better way down (preferably one that does not include bunji cords though).

Quote:

Originally Posted by bucket22 

 

gcnp58 discusses a dichotomy common to contrarians.  Also very common is the dichotomy of claiming on one hand the global climate is way too complex for scientists to ever understand, yet also claiming with high confidence that human activities have little to no effect.

Yeah in virtually every argument they make, contrarians end up contradicting themselves.  The planet isn't warming.  Yes it is, but the warming is natural.  Okay maybe we're causing the warming, but it's beneficial.  The temperature record is unreliable, except when it shows a cooling.  Predicting global warming is alarmist, but there's nothing wrong with predicting global cooling.  We don't know what's causing global warming, but it's obviously the Sun or "natural cycles".  And so on and so forth.  They're not logical people.

With Rush Limbaugh leading the way what do you expect? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ 

 

Another thought - many of the sciences are still in a 'baby' stage. For example - 

 

Medicine - I expect that in a hundred and a few hundred years people will wonder how we managed to survive 21st century medicine. Though I doubt that many doctors will admit it they are very unaware of how the body works. That knowledge is improving every day and every year.

 

Weather - How many forecasts are really accurate - certainly not many where I live.

 

Vitamins, alternate medicine, supplements - all a big ball of wax which is slowly being unravelled.

 

Psychology - I think this is one step above the witch doctor stage - with a little shopping you can get yes, no and maybe for an answer from a shrink. 

 

With so little known and so much to learn there is a lot of wiggle room for the extremes to work in and create their own 'known facts' to support most anything they want.

 

I believe that common sense tells us we can not continue to pollute our world without upsetting natural balances which have developed over millions of years.

 

I don't know that we have to jump off the bridge.  We do have to find a better way down (preferably one that does not include bunji cords though).

You are confusing disciplines where the basic operating principles are only vaguely understood (e.g., medicine, where the specific mechanisms of many diseases are unknown) with something like weather prediction, where the basic physics are known but the system itself is highly nonlinear and chaotic, making precise prediction virtually impossible for an arbitrarily long time interval.  The thing climate skeptics do is equate *any* opinion that mankind is affecting global climate with strident extremist views.  However, the balanced viewpoint from experts is that climate is changing, mankind is responsible, and that the most likely consequences will range from highly unpleasant to catastrophic.  But the way you are stating it, you have already framed the debate in the skeptic mindset, where this proposition is not known with reasonable probability to be true.  That, to me, is troubling, because it is skepticism clothed in a thin veneer of reasonableness.  For your opinion to be true, that there is some disconnect between what the middle of the road truth is and what the extremists are saying, then the entire IPCC is a group of extremists, since their synthesis reports provide mainly the assessment I have given above.  I find that proposition to be absurd.  

The shrill "we all must die to save the planet" voices are difficult to take, the "mankind isn't affecting climate" voices are harder still, but your comments are the most insidiously dangerous, for it allows "reasonable" people to rationalize doing nothing.  We do not live in the dark ages where nothing is known, medicine is imperfect to be sure, but we have a fairly good handle on the physics of climate.  There is no reason whatsoever to sit back and assume that the people who do climate physics that are saying this is a huge problem are talking out their asses. 

That brings us to another common myth, that since we don't know everything about climate science, we don't know enough to take action on global warming and climate change.  The obvious flaw here being that we never know everything about any subject, so obviously there is a point where we know enough to warrant taking action.  The climate science experts are telling is that we know more than enough, and that's good enough for me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dawei 

 

And I think this all relates to yet another curious belief many honest people seem to have: that if it is a natural cycle, then by definition it won't be as bad as if it were a man-made one.

 

That's a very good point, and in fact if the warming is natural, to me that's the scarier scenario.

If humans are the main cause of the current warming, then we have a good understanding of the physics and we know roughly how much we need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to get the situation  under control.

If the warming is 'natural', then we have no idea what the heck is going on, because nobody has been able to come up with a plausible alternative physical explanation for the recent warming.  If something else is causing the warming, we have no idea what it is, and we don't understand climate science at all.  Thus there's really no reason to expect that the planet will stop warming, and there's nothing we can do about it.  We could be headed for catastrophic climate change and it's totally out of our hands in this scenario.

I can understand how this appeals to some people, because if it's out of our hands there's nothing we can do and no reason to worry about it.  Some even feel comfort in the feeling that "it's in god's hands".  To me, as a scientist, I would much rather have a physical understanding of what's going on and be able to do something about it.

dawei you forgot judgement day. it chills me when i see the odd post from someone who thinks the world is due to end so soom none of this matters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gerda 

 

dawei you forgot judgement day. it chills me when i see the odd post from someone who thinks the world is due to end so soom none of this matters.

Most judgment dayers are HAPPY about this.  That's what makes such a belief so dangerous.  They look forward to end-times and are more than happy to speed it up.

You all *seriously* need a beer.  Or two.  I do too.  It's Friday, first round is on me. 

I think the deniers were refering to 'natural cycle' of human replication consuming more and more resources as the cause of global warming.  Thanks for the beer.  Whats on tap?

I can't say I tried any of those, so start with Sierra Nevada.  I've been buying one can/bottle of something new each week since August.  The winners so far are St. Peter's (England), Innis&Gunn (Scotland), Ozujsko (Croatia) and Holsten Festbock (Germany).

Yes I am Canadian.  The best local brew is Fort Garry Dark.  No Sam Adams here, but I have heard good reviews. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by gcnp58 

 

You all *seriously* need a beer.  Or two.  I do too.  It's Friday, first round is on me. 

Good idea (forgive me, I live in the most conservative area in the country).  I think I'll have one tonight, as well.

Confusing disciplines? Good handle on climate? - when the weather prediction for tomorrow and three days from now is wrong more often than right. 

 I regard your whole comment as ?? Your "there is no reason whatsoever to sit back" in the last paragraph misrepresents what I wrote - I am not saying that "the people who do climate physics are taalking out their asses" - I am saying there is a lot more to learn! If you don't realize that then it is your problem, not mine.

Guess you are one of the grandstanders - you are "either 100% with us or 100% against us - thanks but no thanks. I have tried to never follow blindly.

I am cetainly not denying climate change. It is guaranteed and it is man made - for a rather crude analogy just say people have been peeing in the pool to long without any remedial action. 

It has been very interesting to watch what's going on in this thread. There seems to be lacking of respect between those "believers" and "deniers""skeptics". It's not nice at all to categorize those who have doubt as deniers and skeptics; it's too negative.

Science without doubt can be as dangerous as cult. It is a requirement to a scientist to have doubt to their beliefs untill those are nearly 100% proven.

Above quote is correct in one way, but on the other hand all current theories and explanations are still hypothesys; it makes the most sense for the time being, and we don't know yet of whole mechanism what is going on. It is probably a truth that man-made emission is one of major causes, but the data and proofs are incomplete.

One good example is that we are still improving global temeperature measuing system - both locations and its measuring method. It is getting better and more accutate, but the amount of data we human accumulated until now is so minute comparing to the history of earth.

I know I am already catagorized in skeptics, but I want to say I have no intention to deny globnal warming and oppose to decreasing man-made green house gases. I am actually marketing devices to decrease those emmissions. Being skeptic (or wanting to know more to be sure) and being against making our living more green are two different issues.

Of course, debating and being rude or inpudent are different too. Encouterig opposing opnions or thoghts is always ery stimulating and interesting, at least to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mota 

 

It has been very interesting to watch what's going on in this thread. There seems to be lacking of respect between those "believers" and "deniers""skeptics". It's not nice at all to categorize those who have doubt as deniers and skeptics; it's too negative.

 

Science without doubt can be as dangerous as cult. It is a requirement to a scientist to have doubt to their beliefs untill those are nearly 100% proven.

 

Above quote is correct in one way, but on the other hand all current theories and explanations are still hypothesys; it makes the most sense for the time being, and we don't know yet of whole mechanism what is going on. It is probably a truth that man-made emission is one of major causes, but the data and proofs are incomplete.

 

One good example is that we are still improving global temeperature measuing system - both locations and its measuring method. It is getting better and more accutate, but the amount of data we human accumulated until now is so minute comparing to the history of earth.

 

I know I am already catagorized in skeptics, but I want to say I have no intention to deny globnal warming and oppose to decreasing man-made green house gases. I am actually marketing devices to decrease those emmissions. Being skeptic (or wanting to know more to be sure) and being against making our living more green are two different issues.

 

Of course, debating and being rude or inpudent are different too. Encouterig opposing opnions or thoghts is always ery stimulating and interesting, at least to me.

 

 

 

I hope all people involved in science, even casually,  are skeptics.  I try to keep that in mind when addressing the different groups on all sides of this issue.  I will frame any questions/comments I have toward very specific groups.  Those who refuse to accept AGW I consider contrarians.  I do not like the implications of the word "denier".  Those who accept AGW are proponents.  I do not like "believers", as it does, like you point out, imply a religion or cult.  Proponents and contrarians alike can and should be skeptics.  Contrarians can be important in forcing you to constantly reevaluate and even defend your position. 

There are believers and deniers who certainly don't help in whatever debate still exists.  I think semantics are very important when discussing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mota 

 

It has been very interesting to watch what's going on in this thread. There seems to be lacking of respect between those "believers" and "deniers""skeptics". It's not nice at all to categorize those who have doubt as deniers and skeptics; it's too negative.

 

{...}

 

Above quote is correct in one way, but on the other hand all current theories and explanations are still hypothesys; it makes the most sense for the time being, and we don't know yet of whole mechanism what is going on. It is probably a truth that man-made emission is one of major causes, but the data and proofs are incomplete. 

Theories are not hypotheses, they are much further advanced.  A hypothesis is sort of like a prediction, whereas a theory is supported by scientific data.

I think one difference between a true skeptic and a "denier", as we put it, is that a skeptic will say "I'm not aware of all the evidence so I'm not convinced yet", whereas a denier will say "the evidence doesn't exist".  One thing that kind of bugs me about people is that they tend to assume that they know all there is to know.  Meaning if they haven't seen enough evidence to convince them that man-made global warming is correct, they tend to assume that the evidence doesn't exist.

That's one reason it's important to defer to the experts.  Climate scientists do believe we have enough evidence to conclude that humans are causing global warming, and they're the ones by far the most familiar with the science.

Thanks for your opinion. As far as I understand, majority of climate scientists do believe it, but there are still some scientists who are not sure about it. We should never forget no one believed Galieo Galiei. As

long as there is a doubt, I think it is rather fair that teachers being in neutral. (Perhaps, how to explain would be a point.)

There are enough evidence to believe human is controbuting to global warming, but the question is if it is really the level that makes major differences. In other words, can we really stop or dramatically slow down global warming by controlling man-made emission?? Aren't we being too extreme to cause unncessary high expense for that? I have been seeing too many things going like pendulum, beginning from extreme to extreme, then gradually settling in the place.

Large percentage of scientists assume and believe so due to the data they have, and pursuing further to find more evidence that will proof it. I agree the word hypothesis wouldn't be appropriate, but I could not think of anything else with my English capability.

Often cases science begins from hypothesis based on some existing data or phenomenon, perhaps plus curiousity . Then they begin finding theory and evidence. A belief is a vital motivation for scientists' pursuance, but it is equaly important to keep eyes peeled and ear opened.