Do you have to have an education in science before opening your mouth about global warming?
Answer:
Although I'm not a professional scientist, I have had a number of papers published in scientific journals, including Nature. In my time here on FunQA.com, I have cited dozens of peer-reviewed scientific research to support my positions, and I have seen dozens more cited by others in support of anthropogenic global warming. During that same time, I have seen a grand total of two -- yes two -- peer-reviewed papers cited by global warming skeptics.
It's utterly clear to me where the science lies in this debate, and it should be utterly clear to anyone who reads the relevant literature. And by 'relevant literature' I mean scientific journals, not blogs. The problem is that one side -- the skeptical side -- doesn't take the trouble to read. As Jesus said, there are none so blind as those who will not see.
Environmental Science, Biology, Chemistry and Physics and I suggest, depending on where you live, you make preparations for flood or drought.
If i was to say that I've got a BSc, MSc and on my second doctorate, does that qualify me to open my mouth, or are there more points to fulfil before contributing? You know just wondering..
If someone is going to debate global warming at an advanced level than a degree or a very broad understanding of the subject is essential. There is much more to it than the average person on the street understands and even after 23 years studying and research I'm learning new things every day.
At the same time it's important not to exclude anyone from the debate, this is an issue which affects everybody and as such they have a right to know what's going on and to have their say. All ideas and opinions should be taken on board and those with the expertise should carefully consider them.
To give you an example, one of the primary ideas currently being considered as a mean of combatting global warming came about as the result of a 15 year old schoolgirl doing a science project. Her idea has been taken on board by the relevant experts and is now being researched and developed.
is my BSc Hons good enough?
Science is not about being smart, but being objective. Objectivly the science behind htttp://www.ipcc.ch, is as good as it gets. Few other areas have had as much critical scrutiny.
and Al Gore has a science educatuon, Sheryl Crow I don't know.
"Global warming" debate is not about the science, that is done and proven, but about power, the politics and money. It is about our culture and how we relate to this planet in a way that will support a thriving human civilisation.
http://www.greatturningtimes.org...
Climate change will affect everyone, and every being. Everyone must be engaged in changing from the current industrial destructive growth society,
I'm new to the forum, but I do have substantial coursework in geography, specifically human impacts on the environment (which includes, of course, global warming).
Everyone has a right to state their opinion. We are all living on this Earth. So much information is readily available on the Internet now that you can learn a lot without having done official studies on the subject. Motivation is a good learner. It's like saying that only psychologists have a right to speak about feelings. I do believe that facts provided by science are very valuable in this subject. I also think that facts are just what the people mentioned are providing.
I have a PhD and do research on the effects of global climate change. That said... I don't think that if someone chooses to educate themselves on a topic that they are necessarily less qualified than I am to speak on the issue publicly.
I don't have a degree in religion, but feel confident that I've studied enough on my own to add to an intelligent conversation about the topic. I don't have a degree in culinary arts, but can certainly hold my own in a kitchen.
I agree with you in that if Sheryl Crow and Al Gore are your only sources of information, then you're selling yourself short. But you don't necessarily have to be a scientist to inform yourself enough to speak intelligently.
This is a discussion forum, not a think tank. That's like asking someone to have studied foreign policies before one can voice our fears/concerns about terrorism.
I do see a lot of 'facts' thrown out, usually by anti-believers of GW, and encourage them to just do some on-line research and not just repeat what they've heard some other skeptic say.
The best way to get laymen to become concerned about an issue that affects us all is to speak in laymans' terms.
Any solution to the problem is political, and so everyone has a say. Unfortunately, the problem itself can only be expressed in scientific and technical terms, and the framing of the problem is best left to experts (who will not agree among themselves about all the scientific issues). I think most people will agree on who the relevant experts are. Those who oppose any action on global warming, for whatever reason, are likely to attack these experts and put forward their own. It's a little like medicine: most people get good medical advice from recognized practitioners, while some are deluded by quacks, or, for whatever reason, support quackish ideas. The debate now, I think, has reached a tipping point where the majority of people are persuaded that global warming is a real problem. The solution will involve empowering a democratically-selected group of real experts.
P.S. There are times when scientific evidence is conclusive. There are plenty of things that are so well established in science that they can be taken as true, for all practical purposes. We have not, perhaps, quite gotten to that point on the question of anthropogenic global warming, but the weight of evidence strongly indicates a need for action: the likelihood of the scientific consensus being wrong is small, and there is a strong likelihood of enormous harm if it is correct. The lack of absolute certainty should not be taken as an excuse for inaction. By the time we are sure, we could be in the middle of a mass extinction, including human gigadeaths.
There is so much more global warming information out there in medialand that doesn't come from the Gores and Crows of the world. Each person is entitled to have an opinion and speak; classical debates are for experts., which these two are not. My field of interest is religion and mythology so I suggest we build and ark.
I would have to say that many of my fellow classmates were not very smart and many of my professors were idiots. To understand the nuances of global warming a degree or extended learning would be useful. The problem with degrees is that with it you learn an orthodoxy. Sometimes fresh young minds that aren't cluttered with their gobbledygook are more able to smell the bs. There are some with degrees who are really clueless about what they don't know. When it comes to global warming, there are far more unknowns than knowns. Listening to those pontificating about things they don't know as well as they think and telling others that they need to modify their behavior based on their supposed superior intellect and knowledge gets pretty old fast. It is more a political movement with an inkling of science to camouflage it. It would be a mistake to call it science. Science is the pursuit of facts.
Well I think you have somewhat of a valid point. A lot of people who haven't educated themselves on global warming scientific research refuse to believe that it's caused by humans, and then they'll find some bogus explanation like it's caused by soda pop, and they'll believe it because they don't know any better and then spread the misinformation.
I do have degrees and a career in science, but I don't think you need this kind of background to debate global warming. You do need to do some research, however. The top climate scientists in the world are convinced that humans are the primary cause of global warming, and it always amazes me that the layperson with no science background who's done virtually no research on the issue is convinced that he's right and the experts are wrong.
As for the scientific evidence, it is certainly not inconclusive, and I don't know why you would claim otherwise. Al Gore is just a messenger presenting the scientific evidence. If you look at the IPCC report or papers written by any number of climate scientists, they're the ones who have studied the issue and concluded that global warming is primarily caused by humans. If it's good enough for them I don't understand why it's not good enough for you.
Al who? Sheryl who?
Let's talk science. You'll have to research the links - that's more science.
Peer reviewed scientific data proves conclusively that global warming is real and mostly caused by us:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/ima...
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.
Because of the data, the vast majority of scientists agree about that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/scientific_...
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/fu...
Good sites for more scientific information:
http://profend.com/global-warming/...
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sci...
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"
Well what do you think about that. Many people in this world say that global warming is just a natural occurrence and there is no problem in that. Many people say that Global warming is a big issue that has to be taken care of. Well what you see around the enviorment tell you if global warming is occurring or not. Ask yourself the same question and think. ^!^
I'm not an expert but it's proven scientific fact that there is a hole in the ozone layer above the north pole and ever since it was first studied, it is becoming bigger every year. It's common sense that sunlight that shines through that hole is not filtered by ozone. Although some of the light is reflected back up into the sky, more of it becomes trapped by not reflecting directly back out of the hole it came into. Most of the unfiltered sunlight becomes trapped within the atmosphere as heat.
If you think that the polar icecaps melting away is just myth and propaganda, or just some sort of natural cycle that occurs on a regular basis, when was the last time it happened? Why is environmental ignorance so popular with neocon fundies? Do you hate the planet you live on?
Some bits of the theory are at the most basic level fairly simple and easily understood by average Joe Schmo's like you and me, but some bits are so technical and complicated that we have no choice but to take the scientist's at their word. That's why you'll never hear a theory proponent ever say they know better than scientists about it. Oddly enough, the people doing what you're talking about are the theory's =opponents=, who like to claim that scientists have somehow managed to miss some vital aspect of climate change that completely disproves the theory (they haven't), or are involved in some massive, worldwide conspiracy.
And I most certainly do not have to think the evidence is inconclusive to have an objective mind. I need only be willing to accept new evidence if any is ever produced even if it goes against what I currently believe.
Before you can tell if something, or its implication, is true about Global Warming, or about anything else, you must have a basis on which to base your conclusions.
If not based on science, on what? Music? Feelings? Mommy told me?
You should always have a fundamental principle that you can defend and support, before your views can count.
If you are not sure of yourself, if you have "feelings" or "feel it in your gut", etc., your views do not matter to others and should not matter to you, either.
Well, cg, between you and jim z, I think your question has been answered. Many others start off with the right words, but their bias quickly betrays them.
No, just look at Al Gore
anyone who believes what Al Gore or Sheryl Crow think is an idiot.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: