Peter Doran- "I would like to remove my name from the list of scientists who dispute global warming.

In a recent post I stated that it didn't bother me much that there were still deniers... it was only a thought... the more I read the research and what the scientists say, the more frustrated and flat out PISSED at the corporate idiots trying to subvert science for their monetary benefit of some 0.0000000001% of the population. I am at my f**king wit's end trying to get my friends to watch either Al Gore's documentary or the Discovery Channel one... they all f**king backed out... everyone wants to live their life as if their's no tomorrow and with no consequences. It's a disposable economy... and the attitude is ingrained in many (the obesity problem and how it's taxing our health care system comes to mind). I ended up going to Al Gore's film ALONE because my friends just want to live their life free from any damn consequences... just keep on partying and let the good times roll. Right now I so wish I didn't live Coal Country... f**k all these idiots trying to subvert science!!!!!! Sorry for the cursing... I am beyond frustrated right now.

 

It's a mad world, Mirza. Your anger shows how deeply you care.

 

The downside is that 0.000000000000000000000001% of the population will be making less money... despite the fact that the green revolution can create new jobs.

 

The problem is that we're (well, they're) treating the earth as if it's a disposable too.

And by the time we reach the point where there can be no denial....it may be too late. We may just have disposed of the Earth....with no place left to go. (What will we answer when God asks us why we killed his plants and animals. It's not like he didn't warn us.)

Again...it's short term profits over long term......extinction?

I can only hope that the ICE car and oil/coal based industry will go the way of beaver hats.

Beavers were hunted until almost extinction. What finally saved them? Beaver fur hats went out of style. There was no more market for the pelts. So trappers stopped trapping them. (Unfortunately, nothing saved the passenger pidgeon. You'd think we would have learned that lesson.)

I can only hope that technology will solve the problem (insert miracle here) and profits will shift to the new markets.

I really like polar bears. I don't want to see them become extinct. Or those poor sea birds either.

 

I think I'll call my view "less cynical".

From what I read, there are very few scientists who dispute that the earth is warming, but there are a few who don't know if man's actions have anything to do with it. The few who are really out there denying it outright do get funding from energy companies, I'm told, but that just makes sense too. All scientists want funding to continue their research, so they mate up with money interests that support them. That doesn't mean they are "bought", because unless they are independently wealthy, every scientist needs funding. If they can publish papers, have them peer reviewed and found to be with merit, then their views have to be considered no matter the funding source.

As a non-scientist, I have to look at what the "smart guys" think, and see if it makes sense. I usually agree with the majority consensus if I think the smart guys have it right (and usually, they do). Every now and then a new guy comes along and we disagree with him at first, then he proves his case, and we all have to admit he was right. That's how science works.

In the political realm, where the oil company ads and the movies like "An Inconvenient Truth" are, there are polarized positions that will be held even in the face of overwhelming proof because often they are not fighting about the issue itself, but something else entirely. In the political realm in this debate there is a battle going on between those that want nationalization and control of industry and those that want a more Laissez-faire system (commies versus capitalists). On the social front, there are those that want to preserve the status quo and those that desire to see the culture denigrated. On the economic front, there are those that want to take advantage of selling new technologies at higher margins versus those that want to continue selling commodity items at high volume. People tend to work toward what they perceive as their best interest, and we can't really blame them. We can recognize the incentive without assigning vile motives to them.

It does strike me that perhaps the answer to global warming is to bring back hydroflourocarbons and destry the ozone layer ... but I'm sure Professor Doran might object to that conclusion from his article.

 

I understand what you're saying fshagan... but it's our world and it's our only planet... most of the energy/oil companies do not have this view... and those that say they do generally don't follow up with action. If you look at what's at stake, you'll see why I have no sympathy for the industry. It is because of this that I feel change is needed (as to some of the societal effects you mentioned).

-------
An interesting scientific look at the ozone issue and its effect on climate change in the Antarctic:

"Ozone hole causes mixed Antarctic message"
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2249

 

I think that the problem, sometimes, is a fundamental disconnect in the way that scientists talk vs. the way that the rest of the world talks. Often, people bring up the point that several scientists aren't convinced that humans cause global warming. However, if you were to go ask those scientists what they thought was the most likely cause, I'd be willing to bet that most of them would say that it was humans. It's just that, in science, the threshold for "proof" is much higher than in "real life."

Let me just give an example from my field (Astronomy). Most people (scientist or not) know about black holes. As an astronomer, it's one of the most popular areas of discussion when I talk to people at public astronomy events (I'm in charge of public observing nights at the local observatory). The evidence for black holes is pretty overwhelming and convincing. Basically, in several cases, you can see things moving really fast around some mass, but there's no observed light emmitted from the region of that "mass." There have been several attempts to try to explain this mass by some other explanation and all of them had failed. The evidence is really strong that black holes exist. However, I have a collegue who was trying to publish an article and the referee for the article insisted that they be called "Dynamically Confirmed Black Hole Candidates."

My point is just that, when scientific results are interpreted by the "real world," often the standard scientific skeptism is misinterpreted as some sort of disbelief in the general theory. This is what appears to have happened in Doran's case, anyway.

I'll also point out that if we enact major pollution controls and we're not causing global warming, the economy takes a financial hit (no one really knows how big). However, if we don't enact the pollution controls and we are causing global warming, the consequences are much more severe.

 

Thanks for the scientific insights.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Betelgeuse @ Jul 29 2006, 09:19 AM) [snapback]294265[/snapback]</div>

As in Al Gore's film... weigh what's at stake... you have some pretty gold bars at one side of the balance, and the Earth on the other. It's going to require change, something a lot of people aren't really accustomed to and are willing to make all kinds of excuses to avoid acting on. Obviously, I don't have a lot of faith in the personal responsibility of individuals. A democracy works at its very best when its citizens are informed and responsible... and that's not where things seem to be.

 

Re: Peter Doran- "I would like to remove my name from the list of scientists who dispute global warm

Hot/Cold, Hot/Cold, Hot/Cold, make up your mind.....