planet in peril...really?
#176
Senior Member
Please, please, stop. You are embarrassing yourself! You and I have both read of the tax returns filed by rich corporations and individuals that needed to be brought in on forklifts. Those efficient accountants you mentioned see to it that by the time the percentages are computed the Federal Government actually finds itself owing the rich!
#177
Senior Member
But again, there is no such thing as a scientific paper with which everyone agrees. Science is not a popularity contest.
#178
Sophomoric Member
Actually, to some extent science is a popularity contest. I'm not referring to the popularity of the scientists, but to the popularity of their data and explanations. GW has already won that contest. We've moved beyond the point of arguing whether it exists. It does exist. The Reality Express has left the station, leaving a few flat-earthers behind on the platform. Bye-bye!
The questions that remain have to do with the severity of warming, how long we have to prepare for it, how we can adapt, and especially how we can reduce GHG emissions in order to reduce the severity of climate change. So, you can either jump on the train or get run over by it. I care no more about deniers of global warming than I care about those who possess scientific evidence that the universe is only 6,666 years old. The best thing to do with crackpots is ignore them. The grownups are talking, so please be quiet.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
#179
Seņor Member
Or does the existence of the Flat Earth Society mean that there is controversy over the general shape of the planet Earth?
I have a graduate degree in Physics from MIT, and I know quite well what my limitations are. I never studied climate science - it wasn't even close to my field, but we did numerical modeling of other things, so the basic techniques that they use are very familiar to me. Nonetheless, the people who have worked in the field for years have intuition and experience that the rest of us simply don't have. They know what the state of the art in the field is, and they can tell us what they believe the applicability and the limitations of the computer models are, and would be much better equip to critically analyze the results that others may publish.
I have an idea. Why don't you read the Douglass paper in its entirety, and write a critique for us. Not just cut-and-paste something from the conclusions, read it, understand it, and explain to us what the strengths and shortcomings of their approach are, and explain to us why that paper is more correct that the tons of others that are out there. Basically to prove to us that a layman's opinion ought to hold just as much weight as someone trained in the field.
You can grasp at straws all you want. There will always be points of disagreement and all that, but as time goes on the models get better, the arguments become more and more convincing, and the rest of the world is moving forward.
#180
Senior Member
Actually, to some extent science is a popularity contest. I'm not referring to the popularity of the scientists, but to the popularity of their data and explanations. GW has already won that contest. We've moved beyond the point of arguing whether it exists. It does exist. The Reality Express has left the station, leaving a few flat-earthers behind on the platform. Bye-bye!
The questions that remain have to do with the severity of warming, how long we have to prepare for it, how we can adapt, and especially how we can reduce GHG emissions in order to reduce the severity of climate change. So, you can either jump on the train or get run over by it. I care no more about deniers of global warming than I care about those who possess scientific evidence that the universe is only 6,666 years old. The best thing to do with crackpots is ignore them. The grownups are talking, so please be quiet.
The questions that remain have to do with the severity of warming, how long we have to prepare for it, how we can adapt, and especially how we can reduce GHG emissions in order to reduce the severity of climate change. So, you can either jump on the train or get run over by it. I care no more about deniers of global warming than I care about those who possess scientific evidence that the universe is only 6,666 years old. The best thing to do with crackpots is ignore them. The grownups are talking, so please be quiet.
#181
Sophomoric Member
One thing that continually zooms by you and yours is the fact that I'm not a "denier". I don't know the truth about global warming, and I don't think the truth is known. I just know religion when I see it, and "global warming" as practiced by the laypeople meets a surprising number of those criteria -- including the "We've got The Truth and you don't" and "Ignore the non-believers; they'll see who's right when they end up in hell" bits.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
#182
Senior Member
Well let me give you an example. Let's say that your doctor tells you that you have lung cancer, and you want a 2nd opinion. So you would suggest that it is entirely valid to call your dentist. He's a doctor, right (DDS = Doctor of Dental Surgery)? His opinion ought to be just as good as any other doctor...
I have an idea. Why don't you read the Douglass paper in its entirety, and write a critique for us. Not just cut-and-paste something from the conclusions, read it, understand it, and explain to us what the strengths and shortcomings of their approach are, and explain to us why that paper is more correct that the tons of others that are out there. Basically to prove to us that a layman's opinion ought to hold just as much weight as someone trained in the field.
Last edited by Six jours; 01-01-08 at 04:53 PM.
#183
Senior Member
I'm ignoring the non-believers.
You're ignoring the data and strongly supported conclusions.
#184
Seņor Member
Like I already said, most of the scientists on both sides of the issue are not climatologists. A corrected version of your example would be "Your dentist, audiologist, and podiatrist all tell you you have brain cancer. Your chiropractor says you don't. Three vs. one; that proves you have brain cancer."
I have an idea too. Why don't you read the Douglass paper in its entirety, and write a critique for us. Not just cut-and-paste something from the conclusions, read it, understand it, and explain to us what the strengths and shortcomings of their approach are, and explain to us why that paper is less correct that the tons of others that are out there. Basically to prove to us that a layman's opinion ought to hold just as much weight as someone trained in the field.
#185
Senior Citizen
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: no
Posts: 1,346
Bikes: yes
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
No, I'm looking at all the data and pointing out that there is disagreement within the scientific community as to the degree, cause, and potential effects of global warming. That this draws the ire of the global warming faithful is another characteristic of a religion.
P.S. Create a yes/no/T/F graph like in the video for those who are selling commodities where the profits are strongly tied to Carbon emissions and post it up.
#186
Seņor Member
The computer models are the ENTIRE basis for the doomsday scenarios that are so hysterically trumpeted in order to bulldoze over any resistance to the GW agenda. They are the centerpiece and substance of GW. In every way that computer models can be tested for accurately reflecting reality, they fail! If you believe that they are simply incidental to the whole GW edifice, you won't mind if we ignore modeling predictions from now on, I suppose!
Dismissing articles out of hand if they are not produced by climatologists is rich! How many of your precious consensus of scientists are climatologists? All of them? Until you only count climatologists in your "consensus" tripe don't be dismissing non-climatologist work categorically.
Blather on about consensus all you want, and define it as you wish. The trouble is, facts are stubborn things, and truth is unaffected by consensus.
Dismissing articles out of hand if they are not produced by climatologists is rich! How many of your precious consensus of scientists are climatologists? All of them? Until you only count climatologists in your "consensus" tripe don't be dismissing non-climatologist work categorically.
Blather on about consensus all you want, and define it as you wish. The trouble is, facts are stubborn things, and truth is unaffected by consensus.
I choose to listen to climatologists because there are so many armchair scientists out there who write all kinds of stuff. Some makes sense, and some of it doesn't, and some is utter nonsense. I don't have time to read and debunk them all, and it isn't my job to try - filtering out the non-climatologists is an easy way to restrict the discussion to things which at least have a chance at making sense.
To start with, we have the retreat of glaciers all over the planet, and the reduction in sea ice in the Arctic. No computer models required, and widely reported. The treatment of ice melting is one area where the computer models don't accurately predict things, and where more work is needed, but it isn't encouraging that the ice is melting far faster than the models would predict.
Secondly, scientists have taken ice cores in the Arctic and Antarctic and using trapped air bubbles, they have measured CO2 concentrations going back hundreds of thousands of years, and they are also able to deduce information about the climate for the same period, and a strong correlation is clearly apparent.
#187
Senior Member
You are the one that believes that this paper is correct and significant, and that non-climatologists are just as qualified as everyone else to analyze these things.
I argue that since climatologists have more experience, that they are most qualified to analyze these things - Roody and I already provided a link to a critique of the paper on www.realclimate.org.
#188
Sophomoric Member
Arguing about the specializations of the scientists studying global warming is a waste of time. Climatologists aren't the only ones with credentials to study in this field. Some of the most important studies (of the ice and sediment core samples) are done by paleontiologists. The original discovery, in the 19th century, that CO2 blocks infrared energy was made by chemists, and chemists are still doing a lot of work in the field. Physicists study radiation and energy balance. Computer scientists help to make the climate models. Meteorologists observe and describe how weather patterns are changed, and also make many of the basic temperature measurements. Oceanographers, geologists, biologists and other specialists are also important.
TV weathermen and the president of the weather channel on icecap.us--not so much.
TV weathermen and the president of the weather channel on icecap.us--not so much.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
#189
Senior Member
To start with, we have the retreat of glaciers all over the planet, and the reduction in sea ice in the Arctic. No computer models required, and widely reported.
And many glaciers are currently advancing, which lends support to the possibility that other factors are at work.
https://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm
As for the ice sheets, many are growing, including the Greenland icecap https://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1485573.htm, and the Antarctic ice sheet. https://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20...uthseaice.html
The treatment of ice melting is one area where the computer models don't accurately predict things, and where more work is needed, but it isn't encouraging that the ice is melting far faster than the models would predict.
Secondly, scientists have taken ice cores in the Arctic and Antarctic and using trapped air bubbles, they have measured CO2 concentrations going back hundreds of thousands of years, and they are also able to deduce information about the climate for the same period, and a strong correlation is clearly apparent.
Regardless, it has been pointed out that as a layperson, I cannot understand the complexities of environmental science. This is undoubtedly true, and is why I reserve judgment on the whole matter. I wonder, though, how my fellow laymen can be so sure of their judgements on the same matter.
#190
Senior Member
TV weathermen and the president of the weather channel on icecap.us--not so much.
It looks as though your argument is that icecap.us is the host I used for the Journal of Climatology paper, and that icecap.us is also host to an op-ed in which the author referenced the founder of the Weather Channel (who also happens to be a meteorologist) and is therefore not a trustworthy source. I hope that I am wrong, as that would be about the silliest argument I have ever seen.
#191
Sophomoric Member
[....]
Regardless, it has been pointed out that as a layperson, I cannot understand the complexities of environmental science. This is undoubtedly true, and is why I reserve judgment on the whole matter. I wonder, though, how my fellow laymen can be so sure of their judgements on the same matter,
Regardless, it has been pointed out that as a layperson, I cannot understand the complexities of environmental science. This is undoubtedly true, and is why I reserve judgment on the whole matter. I wonder, though, how my fellow laymen can be so sure of their judgements on the same matter,
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
#192
Senior Member
You would be well served by your own perceptions and intellect, if you weren't so proud of your inherent skepticism.
If a truck was rolling toward you on your bike, I think you would reserve judgment and just sit there because "it might not hit me after all."
Last edited by Six jours; 01-01-08 at 09:44 PM.
#193
Bikes are good
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 111
Bikes: 2000 Schwinn Moab 1, heavily modified
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
So based on the evidence, what actions would you say are reasonable to take? To ignore the climate change evidence and continue to pollute as we are? Or to heed the warnings of the CC movement and strive to reduce GHG emissions?
If the former, keep in mind that pollution has been proven to cause a great deal of problems not even related to climate change - ground level ozone, acid rain, water supply contamination, and respiratory illnesses to name a few.
#194
Seņor Member
Well you are the one that posted the link. I could only assume that you did so because you felt it to be relevant and correct. If you believed it to be irrelevant or incorrect, it would have saved a lot of time if you had stated that right from the start .
#195
Seņor Member
Arguing about the specializations of the scientists studying global warming is a waste of time. Climatologists aren't the only ones with credentials to study in this field. Some of the most important studies (of the ice and sediment core samples) are done by paleontiologists. The original discovery, in the 19th century, that CO2 blocks infrared energy was made by chemists, and chemists are still doing a lot of work in the field. Physicists study radiation and energy balance. Computer scientists help to make the climate models. Meteorologists observe and describe how weather patterns are changed, and also make many of the basic temperature measurements. Oceanographers, geologists, biologists and other specialists are also important.
TV weathermen and the president of the weather channel on icecap.us--not so much.
TV weathermen and the president of the weather channel on icecap.us--not so much.
Although if you look back far enough, meteorology and climatology were at one point offshoots of Physics (as were any number of other things). Gradually as time has gone one, these have become specializations of their own, with their own academic departments.
As you noted before, these people are unbelievably thick and impervious to any sorts of arguments, and I am starting to see the value in simply ignoring them .
There are many examples throughout science of ideas that are initially controversial, that later become accepted as mainstream as more and more information becomes available, more and more people are convinced. The same is true here as well - now the deniers are reduced to trying to use individual papers to try and insist that there is no consensus.
#196
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Six jours,
I too am skeptical about the global warming movement. It definitely has a bit of zealotry running through it.
As a physician, I've noted over the years many examples of medical "facts" that in a few years turned out to be false. For instance, it was believed that a high fiber diet decreases the risk of colon cancer. It turns out that the latest studies indicate that this is in fact NOT true. Or the whole mega dose vitamin craze...turns out large doses may be harmful (yes, some small and poorly designed studies show otherwise, but the best studies show that some megadose vits can be detrimental to ones health and actually may increase the risk of certain cancers...). My approach to global warming is that we simply don't have enough data to know with a high degree of certainty. That being said, I commute to work 50% of the time on bike in order to stay in shape and to keep the environment as clean as possible
We just don't know yet about global warming and there are many people who have jumped on the global warming bandwagon absolutely convinced that the end is near...
I too am skeptical about the global warming movement. It definitely has a bit of zealotry running through it.
As a physician, I've noted over the years many examples of medical "facts" that in a few years turned out to be false. For instance, it was believed that a high fiber diet decreases the risk of colon cancer. It turns out that the latest studies indicate that this is in fact NOT true. Or the whole mega dose vitamin craze...turns out large doses may be harmful (yes, some small and poorly designed studies show otherwise, but the best studies show that some megadose vits can be detrimental to ones health and actually may increase the risk of certain cancers...). My approach to global warming is that we simply don't have enough data to know with a high degree of certainty. That being said, I commute to work 50% of the time on bike in order to stay in shape and to keep the environment as clean as possible
We just don't know yet about global warming and there are many people who have jumped on the global warming bandwagon absolutely convinced that the end is near...
#197
Sophomoric Member
Six jours,
I too am skeptical about the global warming movement. It definitely has a bit of zealotry running through it.
As a physician, I've noted over the years many examples of medical "facts" that in a few years turned out to be false. For instance, it was believed that a high fiber diet decreases the risk of colon cancer. It turns out that the latest studies indicate that this is in fact NOT true. Or the whole mega dose vitamin craze...turns out large doses may be harmful (yes, some small and poorly designed studies show otherwise, but the best studies show that some megadose vits can be detrimental to ones health and actually may increase the risk of certain cancers...). My approach to global warming is that we simply don't have enough data to know with a high degree of certainty. That being said, I commute to work 50% of the time on bike in order to stay in shape and to keep the environment as clean as possible
We just don't know yet about global warming and there are many people who have jumped on the global warming bandwagon absolutely convinced that the end is near...
I too am skeptical about the global warming movement. It definitely has a bit of zealotry running through it.
As a physician, I've noted over the years many examples of medical "facts" that in a few years turned out to be false. For instance, it was believed that a high fiber diet decreases the risk of colon cancer. It turns out that the latest studies indicate that this is in fact NOT true. Or the whole mega dose vitamin craze...turns out large doses may be harmful (yes, some small and poorly designed studies show otherwise, but the best studies show that some megadose vits can be detrimental to ones health and actually may increase the risk of certain cancers...). My approach to global warming is that we simply don't have enough data to know with a high degree of certainty. That being said, I commute to work 50% of the time on bike in order to stay in shape and to keep the environment as clean as possible
We just don't know yet about global warming and there are many people who have jumped on the global warming bandwagon absolutely convinced that the end is near...
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
#198
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Roody,
Good points.
I have to differ about scientists though. Like it or not we are all humans and as such we are inherently biased in our viewpoints. Scientists included. I used to think that scientists were this group of detached Spock-like individuals from which all things logical emminated. Well, that's just not true. We all, like it or not, have to realize that we all have a world view. And everything that we look at is colored, no matter how hard we try. We all have beliefs and it takes certain a amount of "faith" to "believe" the various theories that trickle down into the consciousness of the general public.
Again, I have no stake in anything petroleum. I just think and know for a fact that scientists can and do have their own personal and political biases that can influence their conclusions. They are often times not as detached as we would like them to be ideally.
Good points.
I have to differ about scientists though. Like it or not we are all humans and as such we are inherently biased in our viewpoints. Scientists included. I used to think that scientists were this group of detached Spock-like individuals from which all things logical emminated. Well, that's just not true. We all, like it or not, have to realize that we all have a world view. And everything that we look at is colored, no matter how hard we try. We all have beliefs and it takes certain a amount of "faith" to "believe" the various theories that trickle down into the consciousness of the general public.
Again, I have no stake in anything petroleum. I just think and know for a fact that scientists can and do have their own personal and political biases that can influence their conclusions. They are often times not as detached as we would like them to be ideally.
#199
Senior Member
Well you are the one that posted the link. I could only assume that you did so because you felt it to be relevant and correct. If you believed it to be irrelevant or incorrect, it would have saved a lot of time if you had stated that right from the start.
For someone who claims to have a higher degree, you sure need to have a lot of stuff explained to you.
#200
Rider
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Matanuska-Susitna Borough, AK
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
5 Posts
We don't know with absolute certainty that Co@ is the cause of climate change, though we know it is very strongly correlated and seems to be the likely suspect. We don't know with complete certainty that stopping GHG emissions will solve the problem.
We do, however, have a lot of research indicating in great detail that the models show that the effects correlated with GHG's are going to collectively bend the world's population over and make them squeal like a pig. We also know that the observed effects appear in a number of cases to be EVEN WORSE THAN THE MODELS.
It is entirely justified to take immediate action NOW, and continuing to research, rather than stand around sitting on our collective thumbs just on the off chance that the majority of research was wrong.
We do, however, have a lot of research indicating in great detail that the models show that the effects correlated with GHG's are going to collectively bend the world's population over and make them squeal like a pig. We also know that the observed effects appear in a number of cases to be EVEN WORSE THAN THE MODELS.
It is entirely justified to take immediate action NOW, and continuing to research, rather than stand around sitting on our collective thumbs just on the off chance that the majority of research was wrong.