RE: No consensus on global warming

RE: No consensus on global warming (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

seeksfemslave -> RE: No consensus on global warming (9/13/2007 5:14:46 AM)
Plenty of opportunity to speak a foreign language then, unless you went to Eastern Europe. I remember you saying you were "off" for a while bit it seems a long time to me and I miss you and your posts lol

Petronius -> RE: No consensus on global warming (9/13/2007 5:19:14 AM)
We see here another example of a severe problem with social analysis in the U.S.: the propensity for people to themselves present as fact things they're unfamiliar with, particularly when initial claims are masked behind press reports. First, the Hudson Institute, who presented the press release, is one of the most conservative think tanks in the U.S. Second, press releases aren't scientific documents, even when they claim to report scientific documents. Third, the claims are meaningless, especially given the similar propaganda techniques used elsewhere. Science means debate. It means challenge. It means endless corrections in the light of new evidence. The Christian fundamentalists who oppose evolution are quick to claim that new scientific contributions to theories of evolution really represent scientists who challenge it. The neo-Nazis can use any new contribution to the history of WW II to claim that "growing numbers" of historians challenge the existence of the Holocaust. Fourth, there's the fallacy of "user validation" when the ostensible hard data exists only via interpretation by some analyst. This makes it easy to claim that some normal routine scientific contribution to a debate is really a challenge to established orthodoxy. It's even worse when all the selective interpretation is hidden behind broad claims of X or Y number of challenges. And that becomes even more distanced when that material is boiled down to a press release. Stephen Jay Gould pointed out how his theories of how evolution worked were constantly presented -- and dishonestly presented -- by the anti-evolution crowd as new studies by a scientist who challenged Darwin and established scientific orthodoxy. But it never stops people from making personal claims of fact in areas they know essentially nothing about. Similarly, there's another version of the "bandwagon effect" where numbers of people are assembled so that propagandists can point to the number of people assembled. During the last presidential election when large numbers of economists presented critiques of Bush's policies, there was a list of (I believe) "One thousand economists" who supported Bush. The problem was the definition of "economist" used. The list of Bush supporters consisted of people whose ostensible credentials as economists consisted of things like "private economist" and small business owners on the claim that any business person was an "economist."

LadyEllen -> RE: No consensus on global warming (9/13/2007 5:26:00 AM)
It was central Europe, Czech, Slovakia and Hungary so German came in handy, but not as handy as my personal Czech chauffeur who speaks English and Czech! Buts its nice to be missed Seeks, thanks! E

SusanofO -> RE: No consensus on global warming (9/13/2007 5:28:16 AM)
Petronius: I loved your this last post of yours. One of the things I've read I wished I could have said as eloquently myself (I've tried once or twice, on occasion). Thanks for saying it. P.S. No disrespect to anyone intended by my agreement with this post. - Susan

SusanofO -> RE: No consensus on global warming (9/13/2007 5:31:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Petronius We see here another example of a severe problem with social analysis in the U.S.: the propensity for people to themselves present as fact things they're unfamiliar with, particularly when initial claims are masked behind press reports. Regardless of the "data" cited, if people can remember this main point, it might help in discussions, IMO. I am not above citing references I myself favor from the internet BUT, I've found it useful, personally, that: 1) At least I try to find some relatively Objective data to support my point, if I really feel strongly about it, vs. going on and on for pages, citing only my opinion as "evidence" I am "right". It takes what, about 2 minutes (tops) to find a source on the internet to support a point in as objective a way as possible? Plus - 2) I usally try to find as factual and objective a reference as I can, to support a point (neither with a strong "Conservative" or "Liberal" bent, if possible). I am not bragging (really), just saying I agree, and that trying to debate w/folks if they only want to cite what they believe, that is just their opinion only (w/out even attempting to seek any more near(than far) Objective data on a topic), or especially if it's an extreme opinion (to me anyway) - makes topics sometimes frustrating to discuss Although, I am usually more involved in politial threads, than in threads like this one - I definitely do appreciate the general point made, whether it is related to press releases, or just Internet-available "data" in general, related to any topic. In a nutshell: Consider the source. - Susan

Petronius -> RE: No consensus on global warming (9/13/2007 6:17:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO quote: ORIGINAL: Petronius We see here another example of a severe problem with social analysis in the U.S.: the propensity for people to themselves present as fact things they're unfamiliar with, particularly when initial claims are masked behind press reports. Regardless of the "data" cited, if people can remember this main point, it might help in discussions, IMO. I am not above citing references I myself favor from the internet BUT, I've found it useful, personally, that: 1) At least I try to find some relatively Objective data to support my point, if I really feel strongly about it, vs. going on and on for pages, citing only my opinion as "evidence" I am "right". It takes what, about 2 minutes (tops) to find a source on the internet to support a point in as objective a way as possible? Plus - 2) I usally try to find as factual and objective a reference as I can, to support a point (neither with a strong "Conservative" or "Liberal" bent, if possible). I am not bragging (really), just saying I agree, and that trying to debate w/folks if they only want to cite what they believe, that is just their opinion only (w/out even attempting to seek any more near(than far) Objective data on a topic), or especially if it's an extreme opinion (to me anyway) - makes topics sometimes frustrating to discuss Although, I am usually more involved in politial threads, than in threads like this one - I definitely do appreciate the general point made, whether it is related to press releases, or just Internet-available "data" in general, related to any topic. In a nutshell: Consider the source. - Susan The Hudson Institute is not only a "think tank" but the organization that first gave birth to the term. There's nothing in itself good or bad about being a "think tank" but it's not an opinion. Nor is it opinion that the Hudson Institute is deeply conservative. The group was founded by Herman Kahn, a deeply conservative thinker. The current head of the group is, I believe, Herman London, who ran for Governor of New York on the Conservative Party platform. Associates of the Hudson Institute have included Dan Quayle, Pierre S. du Pont, Alexander Haig, Richard Perle, and Scooter Libby. Nor is it opinion that Holocaust Deniers use the particular methodology I described. The Usenet news group "alt.revisionism" is the hotbed for Denial (called "revisionism" by the Deniers) on the net. Nor are my statements about the methodology of the neo-Nazis in this area mere opinion, as shown in the Deborah Lipstadt libel trial, where Holocaust Denier David Irving sued Lipstadt for libel in a British court, had every opportunity to present his evidence, and had the Judge's determination of fact bankrupt him. Nor is it opinion that Stephen Jay Gould presented the views I summarized in his essay "Evolution As Fact and Theory." Nor is it opinion that Gould also wrote in "A Visit to Dayton" that "As in 1925, they [the anti-evolution forces] use the same methods of willful misquotation to impart a 'scientific' patina to creationism. I am now a major victim of these efforts because my views on rapid evolutionary bursts followed by long periods of stasis can be distorted to apparent support for creation by fiat and unchanging persistence of immutable types." I wonder what is worse: that some adults don't know the difference between opinion and fact or that they do, but chose to lie about it for political purposes; that some people experience any discourse with which they disagree as "blathering" or that they don't but dishonestly maintain it for political and propagandistic purposes for stupid people whose support they need. What is her "evidence" to support her point over "blathering?" Does she really think she presented it? Or was it a dishonest claim to shift the discussion. Above all where is her "evidence" that I went on for "pages?" Is she really so removed from reality that she sees a few paragraphs as "pages" or is it just another lie for the not-very-bright crowd.

SusanofO -> RE: No consensus on global warming (9/13/2007 6:32:57 AM)
Petronius: I don't know why you are being so defensive - I was actually agreeing with you, and was trying to be supportive of your point. I apologize if I hurt your feelings. It find it rather disturbing that you took my remarks so personally, instead of in the general context in which they were meant (in reference to message board threads generally) and jumped to this conclusion when I wentt out of my way to state (twice) that I was agreeing with you - because I know that things on the internet are sometimes taken the wrong way, because people have no contact with the person's affect, and sometimes cannot be certain of another's intent, especially if they don't cite their intent in a post. I attempted to cite mine, though, and you apparently chose to ignore it. Perhaps this is also a reason for mis-communication in Internet message board discussion - maybe as much as anyone failing to cite objective evidence to support thier points, as you stated (although I do definitely agree with you about that, as I tried hard to say). I am sorry if I offended you in any way - I genuinely tried to avoid it. Apparently I failed completely. I am bowing out of any further discussion on this thread at all. P.S. I consider myself fairly bright, and also relatively sincere. - Susan

Real0ne -> RE: No consensus on global warming (9/13/2007 6:44:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 That is a nothing but neo-con bull shit. You either know that,and are a liar,or you`ve been duped by the oil industrie`s new PR campaign. You may choose.... Well let me see if i can shed a little lite on the subject: Scientists Sniff Out Cure For Bovine Farting by Warren McLaren, Sydney on 12. 6.05 Business & Politics (news) Scientists cook up cure for cow flatulence Cows belching and breaking wind cause methane pollution but British scientists say they have developed a diet to make pastures smell like roses, almost. "In some experiments we get a 70 per cent decrease (in methane emissions), which is quite staggering," biochemist Dr John Wallace told Reuters. Dr Wallace, the leader of the microbial biochemistry group at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, says the secret to sweeter-smelling cows is a food additive based on fumaric acid, a naturally occurring chemical essential to respiration of animal and vegetable tissues. A 12-month commercial and scientific evaluation of the additive has just begun, but he says if it proves successful it could be a boon to cutting down on greenhouse gas emissions. "In total around 14 per cent of global methane comes from the guts of farm animals - it is worth doing something about," he said. Other big sources of methane are landfills, coalmines, rice paddies and bogs. Scientists in Australia and New Zealand have also been working to develop similar products amid growing concern about greenhouse gas emissions from cattle and sheep. In New Zealand the Government in 2003 proposed a flatulence tax, with methane emitted by farm animals responsible for more than half the country's greenhouse gases. The plan was ultimately withdrawn after widespread protests. "We've had more success than they (scientists in Australia and New Zealand) have. Everyone has been trying different methods - we just got lucky," Wallace said. - Reuters http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/12/scientists_snif.php

Sinergy -> RE: No consensus on global warming (9/13/2007 6:49:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Suzanne, if all the planets are warming up at the same rate how can there be a spike on Earth? Good question, popeye1250. You are the one who posted that all the planets are warming up due to solar cycles at the same rate. Yet we have seen temperature spikes on earth which cannot be attributed to simply an increase in solar heating that date back to the beginning of the industrial revolution. Since you made the initial point about the sun heating things up, please clarify exactly how solar cycles have caused such a significant spike in temperature on earth, whereas NASA has published that all the other planets are within a range that can be accounted for by solar increase in heat. Sinergy

samboct -> RE: No consensus on global warming (9/13/2007 7:30:13 AM)
Asyouwish-nice post- thanks. Good to see another scientist trying to take on the ranks of the spinmeisters. I think it's a job that's too often neglected. SuzanneK hey-wanna do my scientific body? (sorry, couldn't resist[:)]) NG- nitpicking- slang for cigarettes in the 40s was "coffin nails". Like many toxic compounds with big business supporting them, it takes a long time to get science to "prove" something. Slaveboy-the current problems with oil replacement technologies are far less technical, and far more policy/business. About the only replacement technology that doesn't make sense from an energy input is ethanol from corn. (driven by the politics of Archer Daniel Midlands et al.) However, the major hangup is probably in how the economists and accountants deal with the costs of each of these power supply technologies. From my perspective, it's perfectly reasonable to include the costs of the Iraq war in gasoline prices. It's like one of those ridiculous come ons in a car commercial- We'll give you cash back if you sign up for this loan and buy this car NOW! If we wouldn't use so much gasoline, we wouldn't be in Iraq. Nor do economists rarely deal with the true costs of pollution- lots of things seem to slip away. Clean air is not free, nor is clean water, but it's very hard to find those costs explicitly. Sam

SuzanneKneeling -> RE: No consensus on global warming (9/14/2007 9:20:56 AM)
I wish I had more time here, but in case Popeye is still around, here's a quick answer. As I said before, what governs a planet heating up is a very complex system involving many, many variables. Inferring anything about the relationship between our actions here on earth and our climate change from something happening on Mars really is like saying, "clearly the apple trees here in Oregon are dying because of that disease that's attacking the orange groves in Florida". Okay, I suspect that isn't going to move you, because you really really want this to be a simple question, but it's not going to oblige you, sorry. I had to refresh my memory as to what that hoopla was about, so I went to realclimate.org, which is a pretty sane and academically-informed site. I have to warn you that it won't give you cartoonish answers like Rush or some other shock-jock rabblerouser on the radio will, because, well, science generally isn't simple. But here's what they had to say: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192 I'll sum up what they said. Basically the "global warming" on Mars was not global, it was just at the southern pole. And it wasn't a long term trend like we have. It was taken from a 3-year snapshot. Moreover, the warming at the pole was not due to increasing solar radiation but a result of the Martian dust storms of the last few decades calming down somewhat recently (atmospheric dust, such as we get after big volcanic eruptions, generally bring about cooling). So it's useful data to put into a much larger picture about Mars, but not anything you can infer anything from about our solar system (let alone earth) all by itself. Actually there is debate currently about what solar radiation is even doing (on the rise or on the wane), but the evidence seems to be leaning toward it decreasing. Which would just make it all the more impressive that we are managing to warm our planet it that bigger context.

SuzanneKneeling -> RE: No consensus on global warming (9/14/2007 9:44:09 AM)
Petronius you hit on one of my biggest pet peeves. That is the tendency for people who are not versed in a particular field think that their belief about some question in that field somehow effects the reality one iota. Scientific phenomena aren't up for a vote. There is absolute truth (let's not get into esoteric philosophy, not today please), and we discover it by a process of observation and reason. When you're not versed in a subject, it's best to listen to what the observations of experts in the field are. Even if they are not as loud and boistrous as all the other voices. When you form your opinions on scientific questions third- or fourth-hand, you are subjecting yourself to the misinterpretations and biases of everyone in the "operator" game between you and the people who did the observing (the researchers). People, if your goal is to really understand this topic, go to your local library. Virtually all libraries carry Scientific American (which is not peer-reviewed but is extremely faithful to the most recent research - you won't hear anyone attributing a political bias to them), most carry Science (which is peer reviewed - you're reading science straight from the horse's mouth), and a few might even have Nature. Nature and Science are probably the two most prestigious/respected scientific journals around. So go, read the articles on climate change each month. You might not understand 100% of the terms discussed, and you have to be careful to understand the context - many studies are looking at some very specific part of a question and not the whole. But read or skim every climate-related article that comes out for a couple months, and if you've been getting your "science" from late-night AM radio, you will be astonished. Scientists really aren't debating what we are doing to the planet any more. They've moved on to the details. Nailing down the "just how much" and "just how bad" - which are important for understanding better the system that we need to fix.

greyarcher315 -> RE: No consensus on global warming (9/14/2007 9:55:39 AM)
You are right. people need to research these topics and THEN form thier own opinion. Actual studies will be reproducable(at least by those with the training). If no one can reproduce the results, its not valid. Another good place to find a list of works to read on the subject is at the back of the novel "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton. So while you are at the library, check out the back of that book for more refrences.

popeye1250 -> RE: No consensus on global warming (9/14/2007 11:20:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Suzanne, if all the planets are warming up at the same rate how can there be a spike on Earth? Good question, popeye1250. You are the one who posted that all the planets are warming up due to solar cycles at the same rate. Yet we have seen temperature spikes on earth which cannot be attributed to simply an increase in solar heating that date back to the beginning of the industrial revolution. Since you made the initial point about the sun heating things up, please clarify exactly how solar cycles have caused such a significant spike in temperature on earth, whereas NASA has published that all the other planets are within a range that can be accounted for by solar increase in heat. Sinergy Sinergy, the Earth has been warming and cooling ever since our ancesters were pond scum. It's a natural occurrance. The Earth is dynamic not static. Of course there are going to be variations in temperature caused by volcanos, earthquakes etc. I haven't seen any difinitive evidence for man-made global warming, just conjecture. People who "want to believe" in global warming will tell you that "there are 10,000 scientists who say it's so." But, they never mention the 50,000 (or whatever number) scientists who don't believe in that theory. And to further their difficulty they get a useless group like the "U.N." into the mix which does nothing but destroy any credibility they had. And they expect people to listen to them? I have a friend who's a bio chemist at Tufts U. in Boston. I asked him why some scientists "believe" in this stuff. He gave me a one word answer; "Grants." Money. It's not in their "interests" to "not" believe in "Global Warming." He said his field of molecular biology and chemistry isn't "sexy" like the earth sciences are now and that his people have to "fight" for funding whereas the earth science people have a plethora of grants to "choose" from. "Money makes the world go 'round", he told me. He said in his lab they spend a third of their time "writing grant applications" and that the competition is fierce. And, he told me that; "it's not in those scientists "interests" to prove that there's "not" "Global Warming." "What happens then, they close the lab and have to go out looking for a job?" So how are we supposed to get an objective scientific opinion? It's like the argument about "curing" cancer. We cure cancer and then $50 billion a year in research money suddenly comes to a screaching halt? That's hundreds of thousands of people layed off. And again, look who's "involved" in this. The "U.N." Their whole "mission" is to get money out of Western countries. They don't have any "expertise" in science! It's a deliberative body. They can of course pay scientists to come up with "conclusions" that are amenable to their "policies." "Money makes the world go 'round." Any good detective will always ...follow the money! I asked my friend if he saw anything from what he's read about "Global Warming" that would convince him that it were true. Another one word answer; "no."

ocilla -> RE: No consensus on global warming (9/15/2007 6:06:45 PM)
One of the most effect tools we have is not nearly as sexy as renewable energy production. The most accessible path to address climate change is by putting into practice energy efficiency within the built environment. We have technology off the shelf that already exists and is a wash in terms of cost that can reduce the energy consumption within a building by a large margin. The difficulty is in getting the market place to shift process and practice. In past administrations there were as many dollars working to grease the wheels of free market adoption of better technology and practices as there was going to research and development. Under the Bush admin - almost all deployment dollars were shifted to research so that Bust could cut energy efficiency budgets to the Department of Energy and still be able to say in his state of the union address every year that he has increased energy research funding. Our building are rarely even built to the currently mandated energy codes and enforcement is almost non existent. In states like New York and California where the cost of energy has sky rocketed we are seeing the state governments step up to ensure energy security by providing incentives and passing legislation requiring state building to be designed and built to a higher degree of energy efficiency. I think you have completely gotten to the real issue. Do we wait till it is too late to do anything about air quality, water quality and rapid change in climate or do we do what is right in front of us and the smart and profitable thing to so anyhow? For Christ's sake, change your incandescent light bulbs to fluorescent, air seal and insulate your home and you will have made huge strides! quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou I'll be the first here to say that I don't understand global warming completely. I am not a scientist, and mathematics and sciences were the subjects I avoided in school. I got my degrees in history and criminal justice, and I leave science to those smarter than me. I believe it's happening, but my question is what are we supposed to do about it? According to the things I have read, alternative fuels seem like a good idea. But there is the problem in the amount of energy required to produce those fuels. Solar power sounds great, but again it takes a lot of energy and money to make those panels. I've read that factory farming produces a lot of greenhouse gasses, but I am not ready to become a vegan and most people aren't either. What are we supposed to do about 2nd and 3rd world countries like China that are contributing to this? Are we supposed to reduce our production capacity, while poorer countries increase theirs? There is plenty of blame to go around, and most of it lies on our own doorsteps. We all like our cars, we like our air conditioning, and our other conveniences. Yet we bitch loudly and in unison when we have to pay more for them.

ocilla -> RE: No consensus on global warming (9/15/2007 6:15:09 PM)
Chia my favorite imp - here you have gone and made a funny about something that could be a real solution. BIOGAS - is indeed one of the more viable alternative or combined heat and power strategies that is all around us to generate energy. I actually did a study on a diary of 300 cows that had issues with non point source pollution in a bay in Northern California due to the tremendous amounts of waste a cow produces each day. 15 gallons if you are wondering and their manure is only 85% digested so lots of nutrients still present. Anyhow the win win solution (funded by PG & E btw) was to gravity feed the manure using the force of water into ponds with a air tight cap - inoculate the pond with "bug tea" to help eat up the nutrients faster and capture the methane with a digestor and feed the resultant energy back into the power grid. This is big business in the Midwest where the majority of the dairies are.....you saucy boy! quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 That is a nothing but neo-con bull shit. You either know that,and are a liar,or you`ve been duped by the oil industrie`s new PR campaign. You may choose.... Well let me see if i can shed a little lite on the subject: Scientists Sniff Out Cure For Bovine Farting by Warren McLaren, Sydney on 12. 6.05 Business & Politics (news) Scientists cook up cure for cow flatulence Cows belching and breaking wind cause methane pollution but British scientists say they have developed a diet to make pastures smell like roses, almost. "In some experiments we get a 70 per cent decrease (in methane emissions), which is quite staggering," biochemist Dr John Wallace told Reuters. Dr Wallace, the leader of the microbial biochemistry group at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, says the secret to sweeter-smelling cows is a food additive based on fumaric acid, a naturally occurring chemical essential to respiration of animal and vegetable tissues. A 12-month commercial and scientific evaluation of the additive has just begun, but he says if it proves successful it could be a boon to cutting down on greenhouse gas emissions. "In total around 14 per cent of global methane comes from the guts of farm animals - it is worth doing something about," he said. Other big sources of methane are landfills, coalmines, rice paddies and bogs. Scientists in Australia and New Zealand have also been working to develop similar products amid growing concern about greenhouse gas emissions from cattle and sheep. In New Zealand the Government in 2003 proposed a flatulence tax, with methane emitted by farm animals responsible for more than half the country's greenhouse gases. The plan was ultimately withdrawn after widespread protests. "We've had more success than they (scientists in Australia and New Zealand) have. Everyone has been trying different methods - we just got lucky," Wallace said. - Reuters http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/12/scientists_snif.php

SuzanneKneeling -> RE: No consensus on global warming (9/15/2007 11:21:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: greyarcher315 Another good place to find a list of works to read on the subject is at the back of the novel "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton. So while you are at the library, check out the back of that book for more refrences. Oh, please do not bring Michael Chrichton's name into a serious discussion on climate change. The man is a very talented science fiction writer. He has no training in any field related to climatology. He's one of the people most responsible for misinformation on this subject, a hero of the denial crowd.

Sinergy -> RE: No consensus on global warming (9/15/2007 11:26:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Petronius The Christian fundamentalists who oppose evolution are quick to claim that new scientific contributions to theories of evolution really represent scientists who challenge it. Read something on skeptic.com earlier today which said the easiest way to destroy creation science (oxymoron alert) is to ask creationists how the gas they put in their car was formed... Sinergy

SuzanneKneeling -> RE: No consensus on global warming (9/15/2007 11:35:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 I haven't seen any difinitive evidence for man-made global warming, just conjecture. This is because your head is buried in the sand Popeye, and you refuse to go to your public library and start educating yourself. Instead you just keep repeating this broken record about it all being natural variation. There is plenty of "difinitive" evidence in those journals I pointed you to. So of all the fields of science in which peer review gives rival scientists the chance to trounce a fellow researcher (with whom he is competing for grants by the way, as you ironically mention) for getting something wrong, climatology is the one in which there is this rock-solid conspiracy in which all of them consistently back up each other's fabricated data. Tell me more (no, please don't). What is your friend's specialty in biochemistry? Strange that he's hurting so much for grant money, unless his niche is far afield from genetics.

SuzanneKneeling -> RE: No consensus on global warming (9/15/2007 11:41:42 PM)
Wishful thinking Sinergy - they've got a ready delusion for any question you put to them. Oil didn't form under great pressure over millions of years, the Great Father Figure in the Sky simply put it there for our profligate use. And the Devil gave us radioisotope dating, to lead us astray from the teachings of the Book of Genesis.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125