Which of these scenarios seems most likely?

Question

Which of these scenarios seems most likely?

Answer 1

Which of these scenarios seems most likely?

C. of course is the correct answer.

Even if you don't agree why would you not; Reuse and recycle,try to reduce pollution and poisonous emissions, plant trees and reduce your carbon foot print?

Answer 2

D) None of the above. I don't think science is overly capable of determining conclusively what is causing changing weather patterns.



But you don't need to be a genius to understand that pumping out pollution is just clearly bad. It's ruining our air, our water and our food. This whole what's causing global warming is a big distraction in my eyes. I think we should just shut up and focus on the clear negative health effects of pollution and demand companies take accountability

Answer 3

I'll go with C, but add the caveat that none of the current models are sufficiently accurate to make reliable predictions at more than the grossest level.



There seems to be major discrepancies about where the excess energy is actually going and what its final effect will be. It leaves the findings of climate sciences right in the noise, despite the fact that climate is so much easier to get right than weather. That's not a good place to be if you intend to navigate public policy through a maze of self interest and outright denial.



Lets say C, with a deep wish people would look at the error bars on the predictions and look at things from the perspective of risk modelling. Once clear error bars are given we will see how wildly variable the end effects may be. Yes the worst case is dreadful, but it isn't necessarily the most probable outcome. Policy should be based on mitigating risks and developing contingencies for the worst case should it eventuate. True risk is a measurement of likely loss. As I see it there is way too much emotion and too little thinking in public policy to address this coherently.



I add the observation that cross disciplinary sciences are always the areas where science is at its weakest. It doesn't help make a case unless we start to think holistically about how different sciences contribute to knowledge and how to deal with understanding gaps between them.



I say C with the plea that people think about what that actually means rather than entering into a series of knee jerk reactions programmed by political interest and the media. I'm sure my answer here is likely to get hate from both sides of this discussion, but that's how I see things.

Answer 4

C

because i've been a fan of science since the 4th grade and i can spot a phoney fairly easily

(I've read some Tyson, Trefil, Darwin, Hawking, Dawkins and Sagan is a favorite)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU

Answer 5

Follow the money. And decide for yourself.



BTW, it's absurd to use China as an example of a nation trying to go green. They might be "pushing" renewables, but that's only in an effort to diversify in general. It's just another misconception greenies use.



"Coal supplied the vast majority (69%) of China's total energy consumption in 2011. Oil was the second-largest source, accounting for 18% of the country's total energy consumption. While China has made an effort to diversify its energy supplies, hydroelectric sources (6%), natural gas (4%), nuclear power (nearly 1%), and other renewables (1%) accounted for relatively small shares of China's energy consumption."

Answer 6

NGDCs .. Maybe there could be a sustained effort by Control Freak Biggies to reduce Carbon Di Oxide content upon Earth that perhaps could be acting as some kind of a blanket shield to UV radiations too .. Interesting also to note a higher population growth in Low Population Oil Rich Countries with lesser trees under severe Sun light, maybe with lesser elements like trees to consume more CO2 .. Some sayings I've heard also say "Dust in Street is less harmful than the dust in the house" .. But then this is just an observation that need not be related to any facts .. Greenery is nice to see for the eyes and producer of Oxygen .. maybe some balancing acts are performed by Nature too ..

Answer 7

As usual, your list of options does not include my referred answer.



However, A is the least likely and B is the most likely.



Why do I say B is likely:

We have just had the Amberley altercation with the Australian BoM. The BoM now claim that the station "could" have moved, but they don't know and anyway it is secret, so it needs correcting.



We have had New Zealand going to court to try and disprove that they were increasing the wraming in their "official" temperature dataset. How did they get out of that? Well, they claimed that they did not have an official dataset. Note that they did not claim they were not warming it up just that the sceptics had the name wrong. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/nz-niwa-adjustment.png?w=1050



Then we have the various US examples. The 1930s vary in temperature, usually getting cooler as time goes on.

We have the published USHCN adjustments.

Plus various other examples.



So what are we to make of your comment: "(mostly, presumably, very smart people) aren't catching that fact."? Some here deny it but there are now "multiple lines of evidence" as the climatologists would say. Who are the real deniers?



I do not think this is a concerted attempt by scientists to defraud anyone just a bad outbreak of confirmation bias.

Answer 8

Depends on the type of governance the USofA eventually ends up with. If we become a corporatist plutocratic dictatorship, both answers A abd B will be bandied about, and any acknowledgement of C will be classed a felony giving a long prison sentence. If science is not too much derailed from being a peer-reviewed quest for truth and understanding, then C will prevail.

Answer 9

Depend on which alternate universe deniers live on, where laws of physics do no apply

Answer 10

C. Not B, because these are very smart people. The proof of that is to read a few papers. A Nobel prize awaits the maverick who can disprove AGW.



C. Not A, because 1. A few would have retired by now, or changed jobs and gotten rich from an expose'. I know of no case of this happening.

and 2. People do not go in to science to mainly make money, but to pursue the truth. If forced to lie to keep a job, they would leave, sooner or later, and blow the whistle, reason 1, above.. Their pride in their profession requires them to tell the truth. A few could be bought, but someone would blow the whistle on them.

Answer 11

While C is the correct answer, I do like the corollary to B. If B is true, then some scientists have had a God-like ability to know future results and fake current evidence in ways that are always consistent with future experiments. Further, because the "hoax" has been carried on for decades, this group does not age (otherwise if would all fall apart when they died of old age). These are obviously semi-divine beings and the deniers should fall on their knees and worship them. Because of their vast intellect, they should also occupy all of the highest positions in government. If, by mistake, deniers worship me, I won't break the news that I am only human too quickly ;->

Answer 12

There has been a small group who manipulated data, most scientist are just going with the flow, as Upton Sinclair said once it is difficult for man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it.

I do not believe this consensus thing I think there are many scientists who have different opinions on climate change, many believe CO2 causes warming and man emits CO2 but that warming will not be a problem.

Others who have stated AGW will be dangerous now find themselves in the position of losing face if they admit they might have been wrong, others prefer to believe climate models rather than empirical evidence, you yourself an educated intelligent lady refused to admit there was a pause for a long time, then you changed your tune to there is a pause but it is only temporary.

Answer 13

Anti science denialists accept on blind paranoid faith that science is inherently composed, at least in large part, of political conspiracies, in the case of most regulars here apparently starting with the "conspiracy" of the "liberal" teachers who gave them low grades in school science. Their fear and loathing of science is made more laughably inconsistent because of their denial of their Inner Billy.



Most normal people do not suffer from such paranoid delusions, but many are confused by the complexities of climate change and thus persuadable that there are two sides, as in "Math and Non-Math."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QBv2CFTSWU

Answer 14

God controls the weather and promised Noah that he would not destroy the world by flood again. The Bible does say when Christ returns there will be an up tick in drought and famine

Answer 15

A