More on Global Warming...

[TimBikes]

For those not sick of debating the subject, I thought this opinion piece might either raise hackles or bring agreement, depending on your point of view...

Sen. Barbara Boxer of California delivered a speech in the Senate last week in which she linked global warming to the San Diego wildfires, Darfur, the imminent loss of the world's polar bears and even a poor 14-year-old boy who died from "an infection caused after swimming in Lake Havasu," because its water is warmer. Forget arson. Forget genocide. Forget nature. There is no tragedy that cannot be placed at the doorstep of global-warming skeptics...

See link.

[mojo]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Nov 7 2007, 02:34 AM) [snapback]536006[/snapback]</div>

For those not sick of debating the subject, I thought this opinion piece might either raise hackles or bring agreement, depending on your point of view...

Sen. Barbara Boxer of California delivered a speech in the Senate last week in which she linked global warming to the San Diego wildfires, Darfur, the imminent loss of the world's polar bears and even a poor 14-year-old boy who died from "an infection caused after swimming in Lake Havasu," because its water is warmer. Forget arson. Forget genocide. Forget nature. There is no tragedy that cannot be placed at the doorstep of global-warming skeptics...

See link.
[/b]

How does Debra J. Saunders survive writing for a SF paper?
There are unemployed factory workers in the USA who lost their jobs when manufacturing went overseas.Lets innovate and get those unemployed back to work supplying the world with environmental technology.

[TimBikes]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Nov 7 2007, 12:10 AM) [snapback]536018[/snapback]</div>

How does Debra J. Saunders survive writing for a SF paper?
[/b]

LOL. I was wondering that too!

[scargi01]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Nov 7 2007, 01:34 AM) [snapback]536006[/snapback]</div>

For those not sick of debating the subject, I thought this opinion piece might either raise hackles or bring agreement, depending on your point of view...

Sen. Barbara Boxer of California delivered a speech in the Senate last week in which she linked global warming to the San Diego wildfires, Darfur, the imminent loss of the world's polar bears and even a poor 14-year-old boy who died from "an infection caused after swimming in Lake Havasu," because its water is warmer. Forget arson. Forget genocide. Forget nature. There is no tragedy that cannot be placed at the doorstep of global-warming skeptics...

See link.
[/b]

Most telling part of the piece, in my opinion...

"...to the global-warming crowd, it is more important that you believe in global warming than that you curb your emissions. Which doesn't make a lot of sense. If you believe their doomsday predictions, you would think they'd care more about results."

GW has become a "cause celeb" among the liberal left, Hollywood, and extremist environmental groups. All of these people bring huge amounts of baggage with them to the court of public opinion and interest. Politicizing GW by celebrities drowns out publicizing real research and understanding and also makes it easier to dismiss the issue being raised, because these people don’t appear sincere in their concern. They just want to be seen and the issue is secondary.

[F8L]

I think there are many people that do not actually hang out with scientists or action-based people and that is why they feel "all GW avtivists" play lips service and little else.

From my perspective that is not quite true. While there are those who talk the talk and little else, there are others who go through a lot of effort to curb their emissions and those of their workplace. I'm putting together an energy audit for my campus and following the lead example set by CSU Chico, Oberlin College, Santa Monica College, Butte College, Cal Poly etc. Some students are even creating fun little videos to help educate other on energy efficiency. Now it looks like my group will have to make one for our campus as well. lol Here is an example "The Phantom Hunter" corny yes but the girl was pretty cool in person.

The point is, there is a large number os students, faculty, and staff at the college and university level that take this stuff serious for any number of reasons and are working to make changes.

[fshagan]

I'm mostly agnostic on many of the finer points of the issue because I do not have scientific training, and the issues can be very complex. I know the advocates who say there is "consensus" are not really doing a service to the issue, because what I know of the history of science is that there is rarely unanimity in belief among leading scientists. Thinking out of the box and challenging presuppositions is very common for most of these experts, so painting the issue as "resolved" isn't quite right; there are too many instances where you can find a disagreement. Even some of the IPCC members are being quoted as saying certain things being pushed now are not quite right.

A great site that explains in layman's terms, but not so dumbed down that you think Al Gore is talking to you, is http://www.realclimate.org/ ... their mission is to take complicated issues and explain them, and also point out where there is uncertainty. Its an approach I really appreciate.

[F8L]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Nov 7 2007, 08:48 PM) [snapback]536578[/snapback]</div>

I'm mostly agnostic on many of the finer points of the issue because I do not have scientific training, and the issues can be very complex. I know the advocates who say there is "consensus" are not really doing a service to the issue, because what I know of the history of science is that there is rarely unanimity in belief among leading scientists. Thinking out of the box and challenging presuppositions is very common for most of these experts, so painting the issue as "resolved" isn't quite right; there are too many instances where you can find a disagreement. Even some of the IPCC members are being quoted as saying certain things being pushed now are not quite right.

A great site that explains in layman's terms, but not so dumbed down that you think Al Gore is talking to you, is http://www.realclimate.org/ ... their mission is to take complicated issues and explain them, and also point out where there is uncertainty. Its an approach I really appreciate.
[/b]

I completely agree. The only point I'd add is that most scientists do agree that global climate change is occuring and that humans do play a part. It is the percentage of that part that seems to be in some debate and the future effects due to the monumental complexity of the issue. RealClimate is not perfect but it does give the layperson a good view of what scientists actually think and often the stances they take are not as radical as some GW proponents would like you to believe.

[fshagan]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Nov 7 2007, 09:59 PM) [snapback]536601[/snapback]</div>

I completely agree. The only point I'd add is that most scientists do agree that global climate change is occuring and that humans do play a part. It is the percentage of that part that seems to be in some debate and the future effects due to the monumental complexity of the issue. RealClimate is not perfect but it does give the layperson a good view of what scientists actually think and often the stances they take are not as radical as some GW proponents would like you to believe.
[/b]

I can accept the idea that most scientists agree the earth is warming, and that the majority of those believe man made emissions are contributing to it. But where it all breaks down is in the public policy arena. And that's why the careful scientists are good at limiting what they say to their area of expertise. That makes it very hard to get a clear picture if you are trying to do research yourself.

I'll pull an example out of thin air, and I'll probably get the disciplines wrong, but let's think of it as an analogy. Let's say Bob's a guy who studies gasses trapped in bubbles in ice cores, and he does a lot of study of ice core drillings at various places. He has the expertise to say with some certainty that at different periods of time, the atmosphere contained varying levels of "greenhouse gasses", and he will use the formulas out there to convert all those gasses to the equivalent amount of CO2. Bob has a certainty that our atmosphere today has many more of those gasses than 200 years ago. Bob may even have the expertise to know the relationship between temperatures during those times and today's temperatures. Bob can probably say with some high level of certainty that our greenhouse emissions are contributing to warming, and if we stop emitting, we would mitigate the warming.

Is Bob the guy to ask if we suspend sales of all internal combustion engines in an effort to get to the 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (as some reports indicate is needed to stop the trend)? I think Bob would demur on the question. He's an expert on the level of greenhouse gasses, but he's not an expert on public policy.

But it gets even more complicated. Is Bob the guy to ask about the warming of the ocean? Probably not; Bob's the ice core guy, and really can't comment on the ocean warming. He could speculate, but it wouldn't be an authoritative statement; Bob is out of his ice core element on this one. But let's say Bob does spout off on it ... should Bob's opinion on the ocean warming trend be a headline in the paper?

[F8L]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Nov 11 2007, 12:44 AM) [snapback]537942[/snapback]</div>

I can accept the idea that most scientists agree the earth is warming, and that the majority of those believe man made emissions are contributing to it. But where it all breaks down is in the public policy arena. And that's why the careful scientists are good at limiting what they say to their area of expertise. That makes it very hard to get a clear picture if you are trying to do research yourself.

I'll pull an example out of thin air, and I'll probably get the disciplines wrong, but let's think of it as an analogy. Let's say Bob's a guy who studies gasses trapped in bubbles in ice cores, and he does a lot of study of ice core drillings at various places. He has the expertise to say with some certainty that at different periods of time, the atmosphere contained varying levels of "greenhouse gasses", and he will use the formulas out there to convert all those gasses to the equivalent amount of CO2. Bob has a certainty that our atmosphere today has many more of those gasses than 200 years ago. Bob may even have the expertise to know the relationship between temperatures during those times and today's temperatures. Bob can probably say with some high level of certainty that our greenhouse emissions are contributing to warming, and if we stop emitting, we would mitigate the warming.

Is Bob the guy to ask if we suspend sales of all internal combustion engines in an effort to get to the 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (as some reports indicate is needed to stop the trend)? I think Bob would demur on the question. He's an expert on the level of greenhouse gasses, but he's not an expert on public policy.

But it gets even more complicated. Is Bob the guy to ask about the warming of the ocean? Probably not; Bob's the ice core guy, and really can't comment on the ocean warming. He could speculate, but it wouldn't be an authoritative statement; Bob is out of his ice core element on this one. But let's say Bob does spout off on it ... should Bob's opinion on the ocean warming trend be a headline in the paper?
[/b]

I like the analogy and I agree with it for the most part.

Bob, being trained in chemistry can have a decent idea of what is going on in the ocean but would probably know very little in the way of public policy. The really wonderful thing about modern science is the level of collaboration among different disciplines compared to the first 3/4 of the century. Scientists are much more willing to share information among peers. This helps unite the sciences and we all benefit by attaining a better understanding of how the earth's systems work. It is then up to policy makers to work with the scientists to find out the best possible ways to eleminate threats yet maintain a viable economy and healthy nation. Unfortunately big money always comes inbetween such collaborative efforts and biostitutes and think-tanks get involved and muddle the whole thing up. Their contributions serve to confuse the public and the policy makers. This leaves us in a state of inaction, sometimes just long enough for a few people to make an economic killing (mining companies, stock traders, etc.). This goes for think-tanks on both sides of the environmental fence.