...
The real problem, as I see it, is human overpopulation. We've doubled our average lifespan, wiped out diseases that used to control our population and we keep having babies. It's likely that at some point, the bubble will burst and a real correction will take place.

...

yet somehow I get the feeling that you aren't a supporter of giving women free access to contraception and abortion.

I really hope I'm wrong.

You are.

---

Jack

Why do we think we have to save every living thing on this planet? Some are not meant to continue and maybe our time to leave, to make room for something else, will come, too.

I believe we are as much a part of this planet as that bird in the tree. I believe what happens on this planet due to our presence is also part of the natural cycle, because we are here, naturally. Our minds developed naturally and what we do with our minds is part of a natural cycle.

I believe when we (mankind) leave this planet, it will be our own doing and it likely won't be from climate change.

Yet we possess the intelligence to foresee these problems, and we have an amazing ability to adapt to our environment if we choose. We also have an innate will to survive. If there is a problem and we can do something about it, why not at least try? It sure beats sitting around waiting for an inevitable death by our own hand.

Mind you there are days I'd rather watch the whole human race perish! ;-P lol

...
The real problem, as I see it, is human overpopulation. We've doubled our average lifespan, wiped out diseases that used to control our population and we keep having babies. It's likely that at some point, the bubble will burst and a real correction will take place.

...

yet somehow I get the feeling that you aren't a supporter of giving women free access to contraception and abortion.

I really hope I'm wrong.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Does it really matter if we believe or not? According to todays news, two new scientific reports saying the sea levels will rise 10' (first time I heard the predictions of sea level rise, it was 300' then 100'). Slowly over the first 100 years then speeding up. There are lots of qualifiers in the article leading one to think that this might happen if the stars align just right. I have to wonder, so what? A 100 to 200 year change is something that mankind can plan for and deal with. I can't see this as a disaster. Back to my original post, it is a cycle and we have dealt with climate change as long as we have been here. We'll survive until we don't. Just like the critters that went extinct before us, during us and will continue to do so after us.

Why do we think we have to save every living thing on this planet? Some are not meant to continue and maybe our time to leave, to make room for something else, will come, too.

I believe we are as much a part of this planet as that bird in the tree. I believe what happens on this planet due to our presence is also part of the natural cycle, because we are here, naturally. Our minds developed naturally and what we do with our minds is part of a natural cycle.

I believe when we (mankind) leave this planet, it will be our own doing and it likely won't be from climate change.

The real problem, as I see it, is human overpopulation. We've doubled our average lifespan, wiped out diseases that used to control our population and we keep having babies. It's likely that at some point, the bubble will burst and a real correction will take place.

Another cycle will begin.

---

Jack

So the real question should be, why don't these people WANT to believe? Because this is such an obvious case of denial.

It goes back to distrust. Admittedly, science does a very poor job of educating the masses, and there aren't a whole lot of science speakers that can explain it so that everyone understands (that was the joke about Bill Nye the Science Guy in the skit Dullnando linked to - the only speaker for science is someone who has a degree in engineering!).

People hear a dire prediction and that "most scientists agree", and they hear about climate models, and they simply think they're being had. Throw in a big push from Big Oil trying to find any scandal they can ("Climategate"), and you have yourself a perfect condition for resistance to accept the findings.

Then the largest arrogance of humans is thinking we do not have to change to fit the environment anymore.

Reading this thread it really is a mystery to me why people still insist that climate change is not real and not caused by human activity.

Experts who study this and understand how climate works pretty much all agree that it is.

The people who mainly speak out against climate change obviously don't understand the science at all (comments about not being able to predict the weather 5 days in advance show that) and do not come from a science background.

So the real question should be, why don't these people WANT to believe? Because this is such an obvious case of denial.

---

Reality Internet Personality

The overwhelming majority have sided with human-related climate change.

Yep, Push 'it', Push 'it' Real Hard. Analogous to The Church Pushing Fear And/Or Hope, and Here's The Biggie-MAKING YOU PAY. Pay often and FOrever. Only by 'Believing and PAYING will One or All Be Saved.

Sweetness.

Cycles Indeedee. HeeHeeHee 97 to 3.

Didn't realize I was 'pushing' anything. Just stating my views on the subject. There's a reason why I've stayed out of the various climate threads.

But interpret my words as you see fit. Sweetness indeedee fo sho.

97 to 3 hehehe

That is funny; especially with Bill Nye the Science Guy as one of the 97. Although how a mechanical engineer is a weather expert is beyond me. I can't find any peer reviewed papers he has published on the subject.

Finally had a chance to watch it. Indeed it was funny. It was also quite tongue in cheek. The point seemed to be: who cares what the individuals think, what do the experts think? The overwhelming majority have sided with human-related climate change. I tend to agree with the host that, firstly there doesn't have to be a debate about climate change (because there doesn't have to be a debate about everything despite what Fox news pushes), and secondly, it doesn't matter that a few skeptics are wrong just as it doesn't matter that a few Americans are wrong.

97 to 3 hehehe

That is funny; especially with Bill Nye the Science Guy as one of the 97. Although how a mechanical engineer is a weather expert is beyond me. I can't find any peer reviewed papers he has published on the subject.

---

Most of physics, and probably the other sciences, are theories, unless they can be proven mathematically.

Isn't that why most scientists refer to global warming as a theory? A theory can be proven right or wrong, but until it is, it is really just an educated guess.

Most scientists refer to gravity as a theory as well.

...and relativity

Isn't that why most scientists refer to global warming as a theory? A theory can be proven right or wrong, but until it is, it is really just an educated guess.

Most scientists refer to gravity as a theory as well.

---

The 97 Percent All Talked At Once, Drowning Out the 3. ROTFLMAO.

Ah yes, the more there are, the louder their voices, so surely they mustn't be right simply because they agree, right? Suddenly science is about an oppressed minority of scientists unable to out-voice the competition. heh. Talk about FUN KNEE FO SHO.

I also think the distrust comes from another old adage: if it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is. If 97% of the scientists agree, that's a very large percentage. Surely there's not enough skepticism to keep them in check if they all agree, right? Surely, if they agree that much, it's "too good to be true" and therefore the study is probably wrong... right? Except that adage isn't always the best philosophy to use when choosing what to believe in science - though it is frequently used by people like me who are naturally untrusting. ;-) I'm guessing in that regard we are probably alike.

OzzFan, my father, brother, his wife and several cousins are physicians, they believe in the "germ theory" and I accept their education I do not suscribe to faith healing.

Sure, they have education, but would they be considered experts in their field, and do they submit research to peer-reviewed physicians journals expounding their belief in germ theory? Surely educated doesn't mean expert, but I get the point you're driving at. I also know physicians that are good at what they do, yet subscribe to non-mainstream views. Frequently those are the outliers; the 3%. My guess is that 3% has a larger numerical presence in physicians than it does in physicists, meaning the probability of running into a physician with non-mainstream views is greater. ;-)

No my point is that if you use words incorrectly how can anyone understand what you are trying to express.

On a board with many who's first language is not English words have to be given a broad meaning. I was criticized for pointing out that a CPU's cores are not the same as a SETI processor. That was in Number Crunching when the words should be as exact as possible too.

And the person who criticized you was very wrong, you were pointing out a fundamental definition. Words need to have meaning if discourse is to be successful.

And on the other hand, while I accept that laymen may not know the proper usage of the term and it is up to professionals to translate what a laymen is trying to say into technical terms, it would be helpful if people used the proper agreed upon definition to make communication clear - a prerequisite of being successful. An ongoing battle for sure. In that regard, I wouldn't say the person was wrong, and without knowing context I don't know that Batter Up was "criticized" or simply corrected, which people in the know tend to do.

I also think the distrust comes from another old adage: if it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is. If 97% of the scientists agree, that's a very large percentage. Surely there's not enough skepticism to keep them in check if they all agree, right? Surely, if they agree that much, it's "too good to be true" and therefore the study is probably wrong... right? Except that adage isn't always the best philosophy to use when choosing what to believe in science - though it is frequently used by people like me who are naturally untrusting. ;-) I'm guessing in that regard we are probably alike.

OzzFan, my father, brother, his wife and several cousins are physicians, they believe in the "germ theory" and I accept their education I do not suscribe to faith healing.
I am not a skeptic on this subject.
To me on the subject of climate change the evidence is quite compelling. It is changeing faster than we have been able to find in the geologic record. Are we the sole cause, probably not, are we a component, all signs say yes.

---

No my point is that if you use words incorrectly how can anyone understand what you are trying to express.

On a board with many who's first language is not English words have to be given a broad meaning. I was criticized for pointing out that a CPU's cores are not the same as a SETI processor. That was in Number Crunching when the words should be as exact as possible too.

And the person who criticized you was very wrong, you were pointing out a fundamental definition. Words need to have meaning if discourse is to be successful.

---

That's all well and good. I understand everything you have pointed out. My point is that I don't know you or your background. To me, you're just a voice on a forum. Intelligent to be sure. Educated, yep! But so is the other guy. Unless I know the difference, I can't give your opinion any more weight than his.

Agreed. You shouldn't give me any more weight then him unless I can prove myself to be qualified to talk about it. Which is ultimately my point. If you want the correct information, go to a qualified professional, not just some voice on the internet.

As to the computer model, it can only do what the programmer told it to do, regardless of the data input. And programs can be wrong. It happens all the time. Not saying it is, just saying that it could be. I'm also saying scientific studies can be wrong. We all know of some that have been in the past.

Yes, the input data could be wrong. However, the chances of that data being wrong with each passing decade of research becomes slimmer and slimmer. Yes, anyone who studies probabilities and chances knows that there is always a chance. As someone who works very closely with computers, I am qualified to professionally agree with you that programs can be wrong - which is why it is so important to have others check our work. With each successive version, theoretically the software becomes that much better. Not sure I'd want to hinge an argument on computers being wrong though. Our modeling has become quite adept at even sometimes surprising scientists who study data that it isn't purely a matter of putting in data to get what they want to "hear"; the output can sometimes shed light on things they were previously unaware of, which opens all new doors for study.

And yes, studies can be wrong. I'm just not so sure this one is, otherwise there'd be a lot more disagreement in the scientific community; each trying to disprove the other through interpretation of the data. Instead, we have 97% of scientists agreeing that human-induced climate change is real. If a bunch of highly trained CPAs told you that you have a 97% chance to gain a better retirement fund through investing in a specific stock, provide you with the data to back themselves up, and peers confirm the data, you wouldn't pass up the opportunity saying "well, your data could be wrong", would you?

Anyway, that's my perspective. Far different than yours, but from where I stand that's what things look like.

I don't know that it is necessarily different. You have simply come to a different conclusion because of your distrust. Completely understandable. The world has become quite complex and it can be very difficult to understand it all. I'm not a very trusting person by nature myself. I usually think people are trying to take me for a ride due to past experiences. But I'm learning who to trust and why I put my trust into the wrong people previously. That can go a long way to understanding where the distrust from science is coming from.

I also think the distrust comes from another old adage: if it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is. If 97% of the scientists agree, that's a very large percentage. Surely there's not enough skepticism to keep them in check if they all agree, right? Surely, if they agree that much, it's "too good to be true" and therefore the study is probably wrong... right? Except that adage isn't always the best philosophy to use when choosing what to believe in science - though it is frequently used by people like me who are naturally untrusting. ;-) I'm guessing in that regard we are probably alike.