patronizing those who are alarmed by climate change

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(McShemp @ Jun 18 2006, 02:28 PM) [snapback]273127[/snapback]</div>

Yes I do dispute this. That outfit has already been identified as a shill for the oil companies. And after seeing them on tv today I wouldn't believe anybody that said anything that helped their position. They were such obvious slick liars.

And it seems to be in direct contradition to the data presented in the movie and I trust Al Gore, unlike Bush doesn't make up the data to suit his purposes.

However ignoring all that. When somebody proposes that CO2 levels have nothing to do with global warming someone has to do a lot more than just claim the model is wrong. One has to do two things in fact: First you have to prove some other cause for the warming and I see no credible reason to believe the sun has anything to do with this. Sure a warmer sun will make us warmer, I just don't believe it changes that much over the relatively short cycles between ice ages. Going back too far and lots of things were diffrerent here. We once had no recognizable atmosphere at all, at least not a breathable one. So I would look far more at the last two or 3 ice age cycles vs what is happening today, when the only change is likely to be us.

The other issue is the CO2 itself. If you claim it doesn't insulate the planet more than O2, this should be simple to measure in a test tube and prove false. Or you could claim and try to prove that CO2 does contribute but the CO2 mankind releases is negligible. All I have to do is look at the smokestacks at a Pennsylvania coal fired power plant to not believe that part, along with the ozone issue and what a big effect we appear to have had from a miniscule release of freon, probably never .01% of what we release in CO2.

I've also lived through the eras where every single bad effect we've had on the planet or ourselves has been denied by special interests from smoking and cancer, to ddt and cancer deaths from strontium 90 in milk.
Every single time the arguement repeats the same thing: A there is no problem, B if there is a problem that we are causing it is lost in the noise and is negligible. or C there is a problem but we are so dumb we can't fix it and have to live with it. (This latter is the mantra I hear when I hear people say we can't fix our economy nowadays too.)

But suppose I am wrong here and the volcanic or oceanic methane releases are the main cause. I've known about global warming since I was about 5 years old. Long before Al Gore got involved in it. Only thing that has changed over the years is that each year we learn more and find out things are worse than we thought. I saw glaciers vanishing long before I ever read about it in any scientific articles. I remember clearly back to when the nay sayers would claim the sea levels would never rise, and they now have. etc. So I do take these statements with a grain of salt.

But debating mankinds percent contribution is itself irrelevent. Regardless of the cause, it is our job to fix it. Someday we will head into another ice age and we should then work to prevent that too. I have yet to hear anybody claiming the world is getting colder now overall. The rest of the stuff you can debate all you want because it has no effect on what we should be doing. If cutting CO2 levels won't fix it, and it may be too late, we need to find some other things to change too. Just acting like the islanders that worship a volcano and won't evacuate their village when it is about to erupt is pretty damn stupid. When they are all dead it doesn't really matter if they did something to make the volcano erupt or not!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(McShemp @ Jun 18 2006, 11:28 AM) [snapback]273127[/snapback]</div>

Another geologist.

SourceWatch - a project of the Center for Media & Democracy

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(McShemp @ Jun 18 2006, 02:28 PM) [snapback]273127[/snapback]</div>

that's where you go wrong here. you assume... and you know what assumptions do...

the guy's degrees are in GEOLOGY. his position at the university is full professor in GEOLOGY.

looking at his publication record, i'm not seeing a predominance of atmospheric co2 research... to say the least...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Jun 18 2006, 05:06 PM) [snapback]273172[/snapback]</div>

His degrees are in geology. However, this is also from his bio ...

"He is Canadian leader of the International Geological Correlation Program Project IGCP 495 "Quaternary Land-Ocean interactions" and is Principal Investigator of a Canadian Foundation For Climate and Atmospheric Sciences project studying high-resolution Holocene climate records from anoxic fjords and coast lakes in British Columbia."

So he does geology and is the Principal Investigator of a Canadian Foundation For Climate and Atmospheric Sciences project. Considering he's the lead in a government project studying climate change over the last 10,000 years, I'd agree he's not a paleoclimatologist as the article states, but a very, very well-qualified geologist. Oh yeah, it seems the guy teaches a course on climate change too. I suppose (or assume if you like) that fact doesn't matter either, right? He has/had funding from the Canadian govt. to study the climate and atmosphere over the last 10,000 years and you still want to dismiss his claims out of hand, right?

 

Link to refute that the sun is dominantly reponsible for recent gw (but has contributed somewhat in the 'not as recent' past):

http://www.science-spirit.org/archive_cm_d....php?new_id=291

---------------
The following link contains yet more concensus on the issue:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Dec25.html

"Despite recent allegations to the contrary, these statements from the leadership of scientific societies and the IPCC accurately reflect the state of the art in climate science research. The Institute for Scientific Information keeps a database on published scientific articles, which my research assistants and I used to answer that question with respect to global climate change. We read 928 abstracts published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the database with the keywords "global climate change." Seventy-five percent of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view. The remaining 25 percent dealt with other facets of the subject, taking no position on whether current climate change is caused by human activity. None of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. There have been arguments to the contrary, but they are not to be found in scientific literature, which is where scientific debates are properly adjudicated. There, the message is clear and unambiguous."

"So why does it seem as if there is major scientific disagreement? Because a few noisy skeptics -- most of whom are not even scientists -- have generated a lot of chatter in the mass media. At the National Press Club recently, Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Richard Lindzen dismissed the consensus as "religious belief." To be sure, no scientific conclusion can ever be proven, absolutely, but it is no more a "belief" to say that Earth is heating up than it is to say that continents move, that germs cause disease, that DNA carries hereditary information or that quarks are the basic building blocks of subatomic matter. You can always find someone, somewhere, to disagree, but these conclusions represent our best available science, and therefore our best basis for reasoned action.

"The chatter of skeptics is distracting us from the real issue: how best to respond to the threats that global warming presents."

---------------------------
"Aren't other factors responsible for global warming?

Natural and human factors affect the average temperature of our planet. Natural variability in the Earth's climate system can cause changes over decades to centuries. Gradual changes in Earth's orbit around the sun (which in turn change how sunlight hits our planet) are thought to be the key pacemaker for the comings and goings of past ice ages over many millennia.

The sun's energy can also vary slightly over time. Large volcanic eruptions can cool the planet for a few years by spewing out particles that block out some sunlight. Even some of our own pollutants, like the sulfur dioxide released from power plants and heavy industry that contributes to acid rain, have a similar cooling effect.

Depletion of the ozone layer – caused by our release of chlorofluorocarbons – has led to cooling of the upper atmosphere. Scientists think these temporary cooling effects have been masking some of the long-term warming being caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases. Over the 21st century, the ongoing buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is likely to be the most dominant influence on our planet's climate."

http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming....MoreDetail.html
--------------------------
"The document reports that global warming in the first half of the 20th century, estimated at 0.2°C above pre-industrial temperatures, "was likely due to natural climate variation", including increased solar activity.

But the approximate 0.5°C rise over the second half of the century, most pronounced in the last 30 years, can only be explained when factors related to human activity, such as carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, are taken into account."

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6334
-----------------

 

oh, so he got government funding. if you've got a lab, you have to have government funding.

my boss is a prominent neuropsychopharmacologist. however, she's applying for grants on parkinson's disease because she's got an idea from some current work in our lab that she feels deserves attention. does that make her a specialist in parkinson's disease?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Jun 18 2006, 06:11 PM) [snapback]273195[/snapback]</div>

Govt. funding will at least provide a degree of credibility. They give you money to prove theories you adhere to ... you have to show you have some knowledge in the area you're applying for. They don't give you monies if you don't have a clue or the expertise to know what you're doing. What's the win rate ... less than 7 or 8%? One in 15 ... one in 20?

My God (sorry if that offends)! Are you really against your boss getting funding because she has an idea and the understanding and desire to follow through with it? Better, have you had the gall to tell your boss she's not qualified to receive the funding? Wouldn't that be considered living up to your principals?

The example of your boss emphasizes the point that scientists can develop expertise as they progress in their professional careers. You can start out as one thing and grow into another. For example, one can start out as a kick-nice person professor and turn into a brain-dead administrator. The climate "experts" who are suspect are those who never work in the areas they're preaching about now. There are probably many of these experts on both sides. BTW - Sorry again, the "preach" comment was a little preachy.

I can admit that there are two sides to this argument. However, the alarmists side is the one "shouting at the rain." They insist on action now or we're all doomed. However, to sell that idea they need a scientific consensus with an emphasis from people who know climatology and the history of the earth's climate - which they're not close to having. They also need a spokesperson who can make this thing apolitical without being so transparent (e.g., AlGore's sudden change in his modes of travel).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(McShemp @ Jun 18 2006, 09:36 PM) [snapback]273233[/snapback]</div>

they give you money to test the hypothesis you propose. you can't develop a theory until after you test the hypothesis. you have to adhere to the evidence, not theory. they give the money based on how promising your ideas are, your reputation in the field (yes this is a factor) how well you put your ideas together and the literature you cite to back up your plans. and the budget of whatever funding agency you're applying to.

1. chill out, i don't give a &^% about the use of the word god
2. i'm all for my boss applying for these grants and have reviewed more than one app for her
3. what i'm saying is that government funding does *not* require or confer expertise, not implying that you have to be an expert to get the funding- though having a background in the field does help as i mentioned above
3. Wth do you know about my principles- you're assuming again

funny how you contradict yourself here. paragraph one says you have to have experience in the field. paragraph 2 insinuates that i should tell my boss to not apply because she doesn't have experience... and now you're saying we develop expertise as time goes by.

anyway what i'm saying overall is based on this one grant you can't tell whether this guy is just entering the field or if he's been doing this for 20 years. you can't use a government grant to determine whether the guy has credibility or not.

i agree, there are indeed two sides. all great unknown issues have proponents on both sides until the final resolution is determined beyond a doubt. prominent scientists thought that protein was the genetic material for years until the elegant experiment that determined DNA did the job.

at this point there are many more scientists on the side of "global warming exists" than on the side of "global warming is a scam" and there is evidence to back it up as far as i've seen. i'm a biochemist, i don't do the whole climate thing, but the evidence i've seen published in my regular reads like nature and science looks very strong in my non-expert opinion.

i am *very* strongly opposed to any political interference or influence on science. attaching a politician's name to scientific information is only going to instill bias in those preparing and those watching the film based on their political views. no political motivation should be involved in science whatsoever.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Jun 18 2006, 09:33 PM) [snapback]273259[/snapback]</div>

They also give you funding if you've proven you know what you're doing. People with strong track records in their fields can get funding based upon earlier work ... usually their own or work they're associated with. Testing a hypothesis isn't always required to gain funding. I agree that applying for funding doesn't require or confer expertise. However, one has to demonstrate a degree of expertise to acquire and keep the funding.

BTW - Your principles are all over this argument.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Jun 18 2006, 09:33 PM) [snapback]273259[/snapback]</div>

No contradiction on my part. I say you have to exhibit expertise to get funding (especially major funding). I also say expertise outside of an area of study can be developed ... especially in a related field. You're the one saying your boss is trying to get funding outside of her area of study. I asked if you'd mentioned to her that she was outside of her realm. I didn't tell you to tell her; I asked if you had the gall to tell her.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Jun 18 2006, 09:33 PM) [snapback]273259[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, but the guy also teaches a course on climate change - undoubtedly with a tie into the geological side of things. This only adds to his credibility. Yes, yes, yes ... the course could be minimized as a distance-based class or an easy "A" for the jocks to take, or it could be the best thing since sliced bread. I haven't done a survey of former students ... which I'm sure will be required by the alarmists.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Jun 18 2006, 09:33 PM) [snapback]273259[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, and once there was a consensus that the earth was flat. More and more scientists are speaking out against global warming and making their voices heard. The actual cause of the observed global warming is still an unknown; in fact, temperature variations being hotly debated haven't been proven to be outside the natural order of things. I'm still asking for data providing an amount mankind has changed the earth's climate. I don't have it. You don't have it. It doesn't exist because the mechanisms behind it all aren't completely understood. Was it this thread that brought up the 1979 Newsweek cover decalring an impending ice age. That was less that 30 years ago. Thirty years is a big chunk of someone's life, but geologically speaking it's still nothing.

When scientists who work in the field can say they know what's happening and why, then there will be consensus. Until then, the burden of proof is on the alarmists. Unfortunately for them, there are credible scientists in the field who disagree with them and can point out flaws in their arguments.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Jun 18 2006, 09:33 PM) [snapback]273259[/snapback]</div>

At least we can agree on this. However, it was humorous that AlGore's name doesn't appear anywhere on the movie poster. Global warming and AlGore must be synonymous now.

FWIW - How do you feel about Kyoto giving developing nations like China and India a pass? China is going to be the world's biggest polluter in less than a decade and the world will suffer for it. 98% of the countries that signed are behind their taget goals. I believe only two countries (Scandinavian ones maybe) are on track.

 

Horrendous... just as much as the Bush admininstration censoring global warming findings.

Rewriting The Science
Scientist Says Politicians Edit Global Warming Research

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/...in1415985.shtml

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(McShemp @ Jun 18 2006, 11:30 PM) [snapback]273288[/snapback]</div>

(That article, btw, deserves its own thread.)

James Hansen would disagree with you (IE take an alarmist approach). Who is this guy?

"Hansen is arguably the world's leading researcher on global warming. He's the head of NASA's top institute studying the climate."

What are your thoughts on the article I just posted?

Everything I have read suggests that there is a consensus (ref. to the articles galaxee posted)... and the only places where I have read otherwise are neocon mouthpieces such as Canada Free Press. Care to prove me wrong with a scientific reference? Who know maybe someone does find a mechanism that counters the effects of anthropomorhpic-caused/influenced gw as this article suggests:

Mystery Climate Mechanism May Counteract Global Warming
http://www.physorg.com/news3694.html

If memory serves me correctly... I saw a documentary some years back in which a scientist made an experiment with different tanks... one filled with typical air, and other tanks with differing CO2 concentrations. I do not remember the results exactly, but I do know that the more CO2, the higher the temperature of the tank. All were exposed to some kind of lamp.

 

Mcshemp,

I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree... I don't see this debate going anywhere else. I think an alarmist approach is justified... you don't. I think Gore is doing an excellent thing; you have a different take on it.

Clarification:
As for the 1975 article... computers and computer models in that time are obviously going to be less accurate in that time than they are now, and it is for that reason that I don't think one can discredit computer climate models so easily (the epa link I gave specifically addresses computer models of climate change vs weather forecasting). I figure you will bring up other objections (as you have), and that is fine. We have our differing views on the debate, and I don't see them changing.

Again, I do not see any change or good out of continuing the debate... if alarmist predictions are not accurate in ten years, then so may them be. If they turn out right or underestimate the potential change, then so may them be.

Hopefully you agree to disagree... I am not writing this to take up an egotistical stance and get in the last word... just clarifying ahead of time that that is not my intention (oy, I screwed up that sentence!).

 

another "nail"

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GLO...EMPLATE=DEFAULT

 

I think it will be a matter of...if we can convince those in power to do something before it's too late....not is it real.

Earth hottest it's ever been

Now, the government asked for this and they got it. Whether it was the answer they want or not....too bad. I just hope they don't do to this what they did to the report that said there was nothing wrong with education in the U.S. They repressed it. Then they passed NCLB.

"The Earth is running a slight fever from greenhouse gases, after enjoying relatively stable temperatures for 2,000 years. The National Academy of Sciences, after reconstructing global average surface temperatures for the past two millennia, said Thursday the data are "additional supporting evidence ... that human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming."

Other new research showed that global warming produced about half of the extra hurricane-fueled warmth in the North Atlantic in 2005, and natural cycles were a minor factor, according to Kevin Trenberth and Dennis Shea of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a research lab sponsored by the National Science Foundation and universities.

The academy had been asked to report to Congress on how researchers drew conclusions about the Earth's climate going back thousands of years, before data was available from modern scientific instruments. The academy convened a panel of 12 climate experts, chaired by Gerald North, a geosciences professor at Texas A&M University, to look at the "proxy" evidence before then, such as tree rings, corals, marine and lake sediments, ice cores, boreholes and glaciers."

"But it considered the evidence reliable enough to conclude there were sharp spikes in carbon dioxide and methane, the two major "greenhouse" gases blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere, beginning in the 20th century, after remaining fairly level for 12,000 years.

Between 1 A.D. and 1850, volcanic eruptions and solar fluctuations had the biggest effects on climate. But those temperature changes "were much less pronounced than the warming due to greenhouse gas" levels by pollution since the mid-19th century, the panel said."

"The Bush administration has maintained that the threat from global warming is not severe enough to warrant new pollution controls that the White House says would have cost 5 million Americans their jobs."

Does anyone want to comment on those 5 million jobs that might be lost in order to save our lives? Or perhaps losing those jobs for a different reason, like outsourcing for tax breaks, is more justifiable.
_________________
It's not just chocolate...it's a lifestyle.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BjrOi4vF24 :lol:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Dec25.html

"Despite recent allegations to the contrary, these statements from the leadership of scientific societies and the IPCC accurately reflect the state of the art in climate science research. The Institute for Scientific Information keeps a database on published scientific articles, which my research assistants and I used to answer that question with respect to global climate change. We read 928 abstracts published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the database with the keywords "global climate change." Seventy-five percent of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view. The remaining 25 percent dealt with other facets of the subject, taking no position on whether current climate change is caused by human activity. None of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. There have been arguments to the contrary, but they are not to be found in scientific literature, which is where scientific debates are properly adjudicated. There, the message is clear and unambiguous."

Perhaps you weren't aware of this similar analysis that came up with strikingly different findings - i.e., that there was little consensus at all in these articles:
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm