Climate Change Is A Pro-life Issue

[Dr_Asik]

I live in Canada and in 2004 I voted for the Conservatist party, because that party was the least favorable to abortion and I used much of the same reasoning some have developed here - abortion is about killing babies so it dwarfs all other issues etc. That party has ruled uninterrupted until today, and has accomplished absolutely nothing to fight abortion. Canada is still one of the only countries that has no restrictions on abortion whatsoever (with like Vietnam and perhaps another one).

 

Meanwhile, this government has cut funds to scientific research and public education and done everything it could to weaken our democratic institutions. It has renounced on Kyoto and massively supported Alberta's oil sands industry. Needless to say, I have changed my stance since then. Seeing as there's no serious pro-life party in my country, I now vote in accordance to other criteria. One of these is climate change and environmental preservation.

 

I'm surprised at the willfullness to dismiss scientific consensus coming from some members of this community. What do you think when reading Wikipedia on the topic? Do you assume it's simply dead wrong in each and every article related to the topic, including all the sources it cites (which includes a vast number of national and international authorities), or do you have more credible sources? Perhaps you should consider editing Wikipedia if you have access to better information.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_mitigation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avoiding_dangerous_climate_change

 

Edited June 4, 2014 by Dr_Asik

[Socrates]

http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php

[Dr_Asik]

Seems highly questionable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition#Credentials_and_authenticity , http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html?view=print ), and doesn't change the fact that

 

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from [the conclusions of the IPCC]; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,^[10] which in 2007^[11] updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.^[12] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

 

Edited June 5, 2014 by Dr_Asik

[Perigrina]

Given the amount of pressure on scientists to conform to the "party line" on climate change, I can not give much weight to the positions of science organizations.  I do not know enough to figure this out on my own, but I do trust the bodies responsible for giving me information about it.  It is extremely difficult to determine the truth of an issue that has become this politicized.  I do not have enough certainty to base voting decisions on candidates' stands on this issue.

[Dr_Asik]

Given the amount of pressure on scientists to conform to the "party line" on climate change, I can not give much weight to the positions of science organizations.

It's very strange then, that this "party line" happens to be the same in all countries, irrelevant of their different economic and political interests.

 

Really, the reason you can't invoke the phantom of some global conspiracy in which all scientific bodies of national or international standing would be involved, is that their conclusions are based on the scientific method; their reasoning and data are open for everyone to review and criticize. There's a very straightforward explanation as to why there is consensus on anthropic global warming, and that's because there's no good alternative theory.

 

It would be a sad state of affairs if we couldn't take political decisions on matters that depend on the scientific community to investigate, simply because the fact that they get politicized causes the public to doubt the credibility of science. We would be condemned to inaction on the gravest matters, and no doubt looked upon as fools by the following generations who would have to deal with the consequences of our inaction.
 

Edited June 6, 2014 by Dr_Asik

[Didacus]

hummm...

 

There a no concensus as to the theory of global warming in the scientific communities, and there are plenty of scientific theories explaining the efffects that are observed through factors outside of human cause.

 

LOL - did you know in the 60s the fear was global cooling?

[Dr_Asik]

There a no concensus as to the theory of global warming in the scientific communities, and there are plenty of scientific theories explaining the efffects that are observed through factors outside of human cause.

 

Well that's just not true. Or perhaps you should consider editing Wikipedia then, which states:

 

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

 

In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.^{[2][3][4][5][6]} No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view,^[7] though a few organizations hold non-committal positions.^[8] Disputes over the key scientific facts of global warming are now more prevalent in the popular media than in the scientific literature, where such issues are treated as resolved, and more in the United States than globally.^[9][10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

 

Climate change denial is a set of organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons.^[1][2] Typically, these attempts take the rhetorical form of legitimate scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that debate.^[3][4]Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates and free market think tanks, often in the United States.^{[5][6][7][8][9]} Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of denialism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

 

Here is a list of 200 scientific organisations around the world who hold that climate change is caused by human activity:

http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

 

Here is a recent independent study of nearly 12000 climate research article abstracts which finds:

Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

 

NASA also has a detailed article explaining the current scientific consensus:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

 

Can you really just scoff at that, in all intellectual honesty?

Edited June 6, 2014 by Dr_Asik

[Kateri89]

Well that's just not true. Or perhaps you should consider editing Wikipedia then, which states:




Here is a list of 200 scientific organisations around the world who hold that climate change is caused by human activity:
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

Here is a recent independent study of nearly 12000 climate research article abstracts which finds:

NASA also has a detailed article explaining the current scientific consensus:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Can you really just scoff at that, in all intellectual honesty?

I have to ask, why are you such an avid reader of Wikipedia? The mere fact that you're recommending people edit the info on there if they have better info shows that you know the site is subject to misinformation. By all means, believe in climate change but please use a better source to back up your claims.

[Dr_Asik]

I have to ask, why are you such an avid reader of Wikipedia? The mere fact that you're recommending people edit the info on there if they have better info shows that you know the site is subject to misinformation. By all means, believe in climate change but please use a better source to back up your claims.

Because it's usually quite accurate especially on topics that are reviewed by many eyes. Global warming would be a good example where Wikipedia is unlikely to contain major errors because so many people review and update these articles every day. Note that I've also cited 3 other sources.

 

[Winchester]

What makes a study "independent"?

[Dr_Asik]

What makes a study "independent"?

I mean independent from the IPCC or other major climatology associations.

[Winchester]

I mean independent from the IPCC or other major climatology associations.

So it's a word meant to automatically bestow legitimacy on a work that most people will not read, and that most who read will not understand.

[Dr_Asik]

So it's a word meant to automatically bestow legitimacy on a work that most people will not read, and that most who read will not understand.

I don't know how you managed to get that impression. It's true that there's different ways in which research can be considered "independent": it may mean privately funded, or directed by an individual with no ties to a particular think tank or governement, etc. The study that I referred to as "independent" was done by 9 researchers from different universities of different countries. Also see:

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/abstract

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

Edited June 7, 2014 by Dr_Asik

[Winchester]

I don't know how you managed to get that impression. It's true that there's different ways in which research can be considered "independent": it may mean privately funded, or directed by an individual with no ties to a particular think tank or governement, etc. The study that I referred to as "independent" was done by 9 researchers from different universities of different countries. Also see:

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/abstract

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

I get that impression because it's a fact. It's a buzzword.

 

The idea that universities, which are massive beneficiaries of the state, which will use climate change to obtain even more power, are in any way "independent" is beyond laughable. It's insane.

 

Anthropogenice climate change will be hijacked by the state with the cooperation of the intelligentsia as yet another means of increasing power. Which created the situation in the first place.

[Dr_Asik]

I get that impression because it's a fact. It's a buzzword.

 

The idea that universities, which are massive beneficiaries of the state, which will use climate change to obtain even more power, are in any way "independent" is beyond laughable. It's insane.

 

If all researchers of all universities of all countries around the world were simply pawns of their respective states put there to influence the public through appearances of scientific credibility, then it's very strange that all these researchers end up agreeing and corroborating each other's results, despite different countries having widely different political interests especially in regards to energy and carbon emissions. I mean, we would expect that their findings would closely align with their state's particular interests.

 

It's also incredibly bizarre that despite all their "science" amounting to a thin veil to influence the public and politicians, universities manage to produce a lot of useful innovations that end up really working. It's almost as if they were doing real independent research!

Edited June 8, 2014 by Dr_Asik