Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

bob326
Lv 5
bob326 asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 1 decade ago

A little more balanced?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/11/...

Written by Vicky Pope, head of the climate prediction programme at the Hadley Centre. Like most scientists, she believes that the recent warming has been mostly man-made, but that extreme alarmist comments do no good for the cause.

Thoughts?

Update:

Dave

"She starts off on the alarmist foot herself in the article. Taking an iceberg from southern Greenland and showing that it's melting. So what? "

You have a list now, eh?

Anyway, that wasn't part of her article--that was a photo caption that was likely written by someone at the guardian.

And I would hardly call her an outrageous alarmist; more like a mild proponent. Fairly objective I would say.

Update 2:

Dana

"But it remains to be seen whether her examples are indeed cases of simple natural fluctuation."

I would be more inclined to believe Dr. Pope, an actual climate scientist, rather than Joe Romm, a hyperpartisan non-climate-scientist.

Update 3:

"If you believed that every day we continue on this path is further guarantee of global environmental collapse and suffering and death on an unimaginable scale, what would you do?"

I guess this is simply a difference of opinion Dr. Blob. As a scientist, I know that the job of science is to accurately educate and inform the masses. Science has been doing this effectively for hundreds of years. The moment mainstream science resorts to sensationalism and extreme alarmism is the day science loses is objectivity, and thus, loses its usefulness. I for one, hope that day never comes.

I knew some proponents would say "she's missing the forest for the trees", and it appears that to be the case (Blob and the commenters on Romm's blog), but Dr. Pope is speaking as any real scientist should--rejecting extremism from both sides (from some sides more than others).

Update 4:

Personally, I find the issue convincing enough without the sensationalist headlines--I just read scientific papers--and I think most would as well, but the more you try to force them with [inaccurate] messages of doom and gloom, the more they reject it, and the more they distrust science. It is a slippery slope.

Update 5:

"The idea that the predictions of doom and gloom are inaccurate is just plain wrong."

I guess I should have worded that better--I didn't mean they were all inaccurate, but certainly some of the examples brought up by Dr. Pope are.

6 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Not only is Global warming a fact, its just one symptom of a larger problem. I read science and the mainstream news. When you put the two together the conclusion is incontrovertible. When you understand global ecology and the human impact on the world it becomes impossible to deny what is happening right before our eyes.

    We can now see, directly, from 150 years of experience, that our current pattern of resource use and population growth - our very way of life - is destroying the planet. This means fundamental change if we are to have any hope of saving the world from environmental collapse.

    But this is too much of a shock to most people, not because it is not so, but because, to paraphrase Einstein, the first reaction of mediocre minds is violent denial [especially to disconcerting news or evidence].

    But we are going to wait until we have absolute collapse with famine and war before we start to do something about our environmental problems because we have a world full of short-sighted delusional people who would rather live a fantasy than face the truth.

    We know from psychology that if we tell someone they are wrong and punish them they become resentful and begin to work at cross purposes even to the point of spiting themselves.

    We know from global ecology that once events are set in motion, once tipping points are past, the effort to return to stasis can be insurmountable, so foresight and timely action is the key. We have to make judgments and take action when the problems are subtle, before they become overt.

    But we will only act in the face of an immediate threat, not a theoretical one.

    This leaves some people (like me) in a quandary, because we have to gently help and cajole others into realizing what is going on, instead of screaming hell while we are run out of time.

    Ms. Pope is correct, but she misses the bigger question, as many people do, especially even specialist scientists and other intelligent people - she can't see the forest for the trees.

    If you believed that every day we continue on this path is further guarantee of global environmental collapse and suffering and death on an unimaginable scale, what would you do?

    edit:

    I appreciate your thoughtful comments. This is a key issue and I’m struggling for an answer.

    I agree it's up to science to reject extremism from both sides – so that the information is pure and unbiased. Which, as you have pointed out in an entirely neutral and un-sensational way, it loses its usefulness.

    (My extreme version of this statement - Science is more than just “useful”. It’s one of or possibly our most profound institution. It may have catalyzed our accent from the hominids; The Enlightenment and our modern age of science is certainly the driving force behind our current civilization. If science lost its objectivity, it would be corrupted and become an agent of evil. Even more so than it has been already.)

    For those with a scientific bent: truly curious, objective and with at least some raw competence, little embellishment to facts is necessary. I can often draw my own conclusions correctly, as I did when I first saw the Mauna Loa graph when I was 12 or 13. But most people aren’t like this. Really, they aren’t. More than half of us will go unquestioningly in what ever direction we are lead. Reasonable conclusions by scientists, based on trends, likelihood, similar systems, etc. are helpful to the lay person who doesn’t the training and knowledge to dissect the argument. Framing the conclusions between the two outliers should always be included. I always do this and it usually freaks people out, but it is very effective. It immediate rules out the impossible and it places the thing of interest on the continuum of possibilities.

    For instance, the two outliers in the AGW debate are no change or cooling on one end and catastrophic climate change by mid-century on the other. The desired thing is certainty. In the absence of that, the cheapest possible mitigation vs. the risk. Given that a very, very large risk is a real possibility, risk management suggests that a couple percent of GDP for some mitigation in case of a worse-case (and we get large benefits like clean, distributed energy), looked at against the continuum, is really not much in the scheme of things.

    I suggest that science has not done an effective job. This is not entirely the scientists fault, not their forte by definition. By the time business and politics get through with it, the results have been twisted for what ever aim is desired. (I believe in the case of AGW, the dire predictions have actually been toned down by the IPC.)

    This is a major problem. Scientists are subject to economic considerations just like everyone else so they are constrained by the hand that feeds them. But I think it’s more than this. I think the pure scientist is really one who is unable by his nature to see the forest for the trees. It’s a rare person indeed who has gifts in all areas of life. Can someone who devotes a lifetime of study to a single obscure subject also be the champion of what is to become of their discovery?

    I would suggest scientists do take sides. They are in position to best judge, having the best understanding. Will they lose their objectivity? Maybe. Who would be better suited? No one has stepped up to the plate, so far as I can tell, but for a few scientists themselves and some very limited third parties and government agencies with an interest in truth and justice. Everyone else making claims has a vested interest.

    There will always be curious people who stretch the limits of knowledge. There will always be economic interests and others that take advantage of them and their discoveries. Scientists seem to be perpetually naive. But as I said, this goes with their nature. If they could see the forest, they would not see the trees.

    As a lay person who has made a life work of understanding science and the natural world, this is all incredibly frustrating to me. I made a deliberate choice to go into practical applications rather than pure science because I believe we already have all the technology we need to solve our earthly and human problems. The scientists have done their job.

    The ambitious, partially informed promoters have bent it beyond all recognition and given us the power to change things beyond the limits of our wisdom.

    The idea that the predictions of doom and gloom are inaccurate is just plain wrong. They are well within the continuum of the possible. I mean really, it's already happening. Do you deny that scientists are currently dispassionately documenting the dismantling of our earthly ecosystem? What have I been reading in Science, Nature, Scientific American, watching on PBS and BBC all these years? Fiction? No, it's real factual objective science - giving the unvarnished truth.

    I was naïve and quiet. Now I am informed, competent, outraged and outspoken.

    What place has this role in our hierarchy of institutions?

  • 1 decade ago

    Yep I agree with the gist of it. It's true that confusing what may be short-term local fluctuations with long-term climate change is counter-productive. But it remains to be seen whether her examples are indeed cases of simple natural fluctuation.

  • davem
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    She starts off on the alarmist foot herself in the article. Taking an iceberg from southern Greenland and showing that it's melting. So what? Icebergs are formed when glaciers calve, or break apart when they reach the sea. This process has been going on since the end of the last ice age and in no way is an indication of changing climate.

    I disagree with her that that global warming is man-made, and add her to my list of outrageous alarmists with political and financial interests.

  • 1 decade ago

    She's still trying to scare people. The only purpose of fear tactics is to get people to do something they wouldn't ordinarily do. Usually because there is no good reason to do that thing.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    I completely agree that single weather events don't really amount to much as evidence either for, or against, anthropogenic climate change. What matters is the trend.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_A...

    http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600p...

    But that doesn't stop people believing that global warming has mysteriously disappeared simply because it's a cold winter in their part of the world.

  • 1 decade ago

    I think global warming (which is now called Climate Change) is bull crap. It may be going on but its not all man-made. Some of it may be but no ALL of it!

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.