| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/02/2007 03:51:54 PM · #251 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The scientist (part of the IPCC) I heard on the radio today said that current greenhouse gas levels would cause the warming trend to continue for another 20 years, and that the lag-time in ocean warming would continue to produce effects for another 20 or so years after that -- not "centuries." However, given that we won't be reducing CO2 emmissions for a while, the eventual effects probably will last many decades if not centuries. |
I was just taking "centuries" off the AP article I read this morning.
Scientists from 113 countries issued a landmark report Friday saying they have little doubt that recent global warming has been caused by man, and predicting that hotter temperatures and rises in sea level will “continue for centuries” no matter how much humans control their carbon emissions.
But I will readily admit that I've done very little reading in the Global Warming area. I have, however, just finished Chris Mooney's The Republican War on Science, it was a fascinating read about the interplay of science, politics and religion in the modern Republican Party. He devotes a chapter to the "players" in the current climate change debate. (The book also covers stem cell research, the (poorly supported) abortion-cancer link, ID creationism and sex education, etc.)
|
|
|
|
02/02/2007 04:55:08 PM · #252 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I can't remember where I heard the quote, but I think the term a 'right wing American think tank' should be replaced with a 'right-wing American belief tank' in this case. |
I find it interesting that if you do a Google search for "right wing think tank" you get around 83,000 hits, but "left wing think tank" only yields around 15,000 hits. Similarly "conservative think tank" yields around 283,000 hits, but "liberal think tank" yields only around 65,000 hits.
I'm trying to figure out whether those numbers mean that there are actually more think tanks that lean to the right, or whether they mean that those who mention think tanks deem it important to label those that lean to the right moreso than those that lean to the left - which can only be construed as indicating bias on the part of the authors. I tend to believe the latter, myself. |
|
|
|
02/02/2007 05:01:49 PM · #253 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I'm trying to figure out whether those numbers mean that there are actually more think tanks that lean to the right, or whether they mean that those who mention think tanks deem it important to label those that lean to the right moreso than those that lean to the left - which can only be construed as indicating bias on the part of the authors. I tend to believe the latter, myself. |
It wouldn't have anything to do with the relative levels of funding, or that those "hits" are based on cross-linked references, would it?
I think there are more "conservative" than "liberal" think tanks, and that they are better-funded, and probably cross-link to each other more efficiently -- we know how much better-organized the "right" is in this country.
"Can only be construed ..." you accept no possibility of any other explanation then? That's an unusually unsupportable and imprecise wording coming from you ... |
|
|
|
02/02/2007 05:09:31 PM · #254 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I'm trying to figure out whether those numbers mean that there are actually more think tanks that lean to the right, or whether they mean that those who mention think tanks deem it important to label those that lean to the right moreso than those that lean to the left - which can only be construed as indicating bias on the part of the authors. I tend to believe the latter, myself. |
The former seems to be born out by the reality though. Mind you plain old 'think tank' on its own gets about 8.8 million hits, so I suspect the appearance of bias is less relevant in general, if it is only 2.5% of the references.
Numbers from a no doubt equally biased source at FAIR
Message edited by author 2007-02-02 17:13:01.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2007 10:46:50 PM · #255 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
I'm trying to figure out whether those numbers mean that there are actually more think tanks that lean to the right, or whether they mean that those who mention think tanks deem it important to label those that lean to the right moreso than those that lean to the left - which can only be construed as indicating bias on the part of the authors. I tend to believe the latter, myself. |
"Can only be construed ..." you accept no possibility of any other explanation then? That's an unusually unsupportable and imprecise wording coming from you ... |
Paul, please notice that the introduction to the phrase "can only be construed as..." begins with the word WHICH. The word WITCH refers back, logically, to the immediately preceding phrase which begins with "OR whether...". Thus, the connection ought to be clear: if the WHETHER phrase is true, then the "WHICH" phrase is applicable. If the WHETHER phrase is not true, then the WHICH phrase is not applicable.
And no, I accept no other explanation if the WHETHER phrase is true. |
|
|
|
02/02/2007 10:57:55 PM · #256 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by RonB:
I'm trying to figure out whether those numbers mean that there are actually more think tanks that lean to the right, or whether they mean that those who mention think tanks deem it important to label those that lean to the right moreso than those that lean to the left - which can only be construed as indicating bias on the part of the authors. I tend to believe the latter, myself. |
The former seems to be born out by the reality though. Mind you plain old 'think tank' on its own gets about 8.8 million hits, so I suspect the appearance of bias is less relevant in general, if it is only 2.5% of the references.
Numbers from a no doubt equally biased source at FAIR |
If one were to accept the statistics provided in the article you linked to , then right-leaning think tanks represent 53% of the think tanks referenced by the surveyed articles. If so, then what explanation would there be that 78% of labeled think tanks are labeled as right-leaning? Shouldn't it be just 53% to be fair? |
|
|
|
02/02/2007 11:15:13 PM · #257 |
Originally posted by RonB:
... what explanation would there be that 78% of labeled think tanks are labeled as right-leaning? Shouldn't it be just 53% to be fair? |
Maybe they have more links on more pages leading to other "conservative" think tanks?
An analysis of "Google links" has little scientific or statistical basis for drawing significant conclusions because of the way they are gathered and calculated. Just put links to all the other organizations at the bottom of every web page and you can skew those stats all over the place.
What I'd rather see is a list of how many think tanks (of each kind) that there are, and how much money they spend -- the number of links to them seems pretty interesting but irrelevant.
A search for "Global warming is true" returns 5,490,000 hits.
"Global warming is false" returns "only" 2,840,000 hits, so, by a 2:1 margin, I guess global warming is established as a "tue" fact, right? |
|
|
|
02/02/2007 11:38:49 PM · #258 |
Geez, this is not the first comment I wanted to see from the federal government...
From The Los Angeles Times:
Bush administration officials played down the United States' contribution to global warming.
"We are a small contributor when you look at the rest of the world," U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman said in a Friday teleconference.
The U.S. is the single largest contributor to global warming, producing about one-quarter of the world's carbon dioxide emissions and using one-quarter of the world's crude oil.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2007 11:40:54 PM · #259 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
... what explanation would there be that 78% of labeled think tanks are labeled as right-leaning? Shouldn't it be just 53% to be fair? |
Maybe they have more links on more pages leading to other "conservative" think tanks? |
I hardly think that a conservative think tank would use the 'conservative' or 'right wing' label when including a link to another conservative or right wing think tank. If you could find just one that does, I will give your argument more consideration.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
An analysis of "Google links" has little scientific or statistical basis for drawing significant conclusions because of the way they are gathered and calculated. Just put links to all the other organizations at the bottom of every web page and you can skew those stats all over the place. |
Yes, you can. It's called GoogleBombing. But why would anyone want to put in labels like that if they really wanted to drive web-surfers to conservative or right wing think tanks? a) They would deter liberals from following the links, and b) they would cause the information to be considered "biased" before they could even present it.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
What I'd rather see is a list of how many think tanks (of each kind) that there are, and how much money they spend -- the number of links to them seems pretty interesting but irrelevant.
A search for "Global warming is true" returns 5,490,000 hits.
"Global warming is false" returns "only" 2,840,000 hits, so, by a 2:1 margin, I guess global warming is established as a "tue" fact, right? |
Not any more so than establishing that 78% of all think tanks lean to the right. The only "truth" that can be garnered from your exercise is that there are more hits on "Global warming is true" than on "Global warming is false". It says nothing about the credibility of the content of those web pages.
In my think tank label post, I didn't infer anything about the credibility of whether the labels that were applied were accurate or not, just that they occurred with the frequency I stated. |
|
|
|
02/02/2007 11:50:37 PM · #260 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
A search for "Global warming is true" returns 5,490,000 hits.
"Global warming is false" returns "only" 2,840,000 hits, so, by a 2:1 margin, I guess global warming is established as a "tue" fact, right? |
Not any more so than establishing that 78% of all think tanks lean to the right. The only "truth" that can be garnered from your exercise is that there are more hits on "Global warming is true" than on "Global warming is false". It says nothing about the credibility of the content of those web pages.
In my think tank label post, I didn't infer anything about the credibility of whether the labels that were applied were accurate or not, just that they occurred with the frequency I stated. |
Exactly my point -- just your statistic "proves" nothing more than the number of times Google finds a particular phrase, saying nothing about whether it is true or even relevant. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 03:46:28 PM · #261 |
As a point of interest, I have just returned from the ski slopes of Chamonix in the French alps. I had to ski around bare patches of earth, compared to 2-3 metres last year. My instructor told me that there has been a noticeable reduction in snow in the last 10 years, and this year is the by far. In 1968-9, they had 26 metres of snow!!
Anecdotal evidence I know, but a sad indicator of what may be to come.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 03:56:37 PM · #262 |
New York's governor declared a disaster in Oswego County, where five straight days of lake-effect squalls have dumped nearly 100 inches of snow, and even more snow was forecast through the weekend.
More than a week of bitter cold and slippery roads have contributed to at least 20 deaths across the northern quarter of the nation — five in Ohio, four in Illinois, four in Indiana, two in Kentucky, two in Michigan, and one each in Wisconsin, New York and Maryland, authorities said.
Just a couple of additional anecdotes to add to the mix. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 04:09:58 PM · #263 |
Originally posted by RonB:
New York's governor declared a disaster in Oswego County, where five straight days of lake-effect squalls have dumped nearly 100 inches of snow, and even more snow was forecast through the weekend.
More than a week of bitter cold and slippery roads have contributed to at least 20 deaths across the northern quarter of the nation — five in Ohio, four in Illinois, four in Indiana, two in Kentucky, two in Michigan, and one each in Wisconsin, New York and Maryland, authorities said.
Just a couple of additional anecdotes to add to the mix. |
wow - that is a lot. More reason to be concerned about the risk of changing weather patterns.
Sometimes I have to kick myself to remember the disproportionate power of the anecdote - weather patterns are chaotic and it is important to focus on trends, not events. However, as examples of what we might see more often, they are a useful reminder.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 07:38:37 PM · #264 |
The reason for the extreme lake effect is the unseasonably warm early winter.
The lakes didn't freeze as they would normally and when the frigid arctic air finally made its way south the unfrozen lakes provided ample fuel for some crazy lake effect dumping.
Now, too bad there isn't 5000 feet of vertical in upstate NY! |
|
|
|
02/13/2007 10:02:13 AM · #265 |
Britain's coastline
"Britain's coast has been evolving for tens of thousands of years, with some landmarks now submerged. Occasionally the process works the other way and the sea retreats, leaving former ports stuck miles inland."
edit to add quote
Message edited by author 2007-02-13 10:03:33.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2007 11:36:39 AM · #266 |
In case everyone's been in a cave the last month or so...
UN 2007 Climate Change Report
An excerpt for the sceptics to fixate on the meaning of the word "likely".
"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very
likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations12. This is an
advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely
to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”. Discernible human influences now
extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures,
temperature extremes and wind patterns."
Message edited by author 2007-02-14 14:54:50. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 12:28:54 PM · #267 |
"The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?"
The inclement weather? A massive winter storm.
"Snow and ice closed both Dulles and Reagan National Airports in Washington D.C. late last night...Up to a tenth of an inch of ice accumulation had been reported in northern Virginia early Wednesday morning. Power outages resulted from a quarter-inch of icing in Appomattox, Va. From 0.75 to 1.25" of ice accumulation plagued Floyd County, Va."
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 02:07:31 PM · #268 |
Weren't cattle being blamed alot for the greenhouse gases, not too long ago?
Good thing that all those settlers in the 1800's had the foresight to shoot the 300 million buffalo running wild in the US. Just think how HOT it would be now with that extra 200 years of them farting up the ozone.
And just how cold did it get after they shot them all? And how long before our human endeavors starting increasing that temperature and emissions?
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 02:25:08 PM · #269 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Weren't cattle being blamed alot for the greenhouse gases, not too long ago?
Good thing that all those settlers in the 1800's had the foresight to shoot the 300 million buffalo running wild in the US. Just think how HOT it would be now with that extra 200 years of them farting up the ozone. |
Cattle in feedlots (due to humans wanting cheap beef) produce more greenhouse gases (methane) because their waste products are not distributed widely and subject to natural degradation/composting as they would be with buffalo roaming freely on the range, and because the cattle's unnatural grain-based diet likely produces more gas than a diet of grasses.
Also, I've never seen a comparison of the gasseous output of buffalo (or, technically, American Bison) and cattle, but it's certainly possible the latter make more.
Some cattle ranches are able to recover enough methane from their herd's waste to generate all the electricity they need to run the ranch -- that can't exactly be an insignificant amount.
Ozone has little to do with the issue of global warming anyway -- I don't know why that red herring is thrown into the mix here. Depletion of the ozone layer due to production/release of chlorofluorocarbons (e.g. Freon) will lead to an increase in UV radiation (and subsequently skin cancers), but probably won't significantly affect global temperatures.
Message edited by author 2007-02-14 14:28:33. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 02:39:38 PM · #270 |
ALL the waste products ARE distributed over a wide area. Why they invented manure spreaders, so as they can spread it into all the cropland. But that is just my experience growing up on a farm, by a dairy, and a feedlot. But remember, I am just a Hick.
Most buffalo, today, are fed pretty much the same as cattle, because they are coralled.
By the way, not all cattle for food come from feedlots. They are usually, bred, born, and raised to a certain age somewhere else (someone's BIG ranch) sold and bought by a large company and then go to a feedlot (usually less than a few months in alot of cases). But, again, that is just my experience growing up on a farm, by a dairy, and a feedlot. But remember, I am just a Hick.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 02:49:12 PM · #271 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I've never seen a comparison of the gasseous output of buffalo (or, technically, American Bison) and cattle |
I've been considering applying for a federal grant to do this study.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 02:50:28 PM · #272 |
| I think cattle ranching has changed a bit from when you grew up. I've driven by the Harris Ranch facility on I-5 in California, and there are cattle, acres of manure-impregnated slop, feeding racks, and not much else (well, except the odor which carries a few miles down the highway). |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 02:52:03 PM · #273 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I've never seen a comparison of the gasseous output of buffalo (or, technically, American Bison) and cattle |
I've been considering applying for a federal grant to do this study. |
Senator Proxmire would've been proud! |
|
|
|
02/15/2007 07:24:09 AM · #274 |
As a further point of interest, in case there is any remaining doubt following the assertions made by the OP, even Exxon has admitted the existence of global warming caused by carbon dioxide levels.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2007 08:47:56 AM · #275 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
As a further point of interest, in case there is any remaining doubt following the assertions made by the OP, even Exxon has admitted the existence of global warming caused by carbon dioxide levels. |
Not really. Your statement is only true only up to the point just before the word "caused".
While the Chairman did say that the climate is warming, and he did say that CO2 levels are rising, he did NOT say or imply that there was a cause/effect between CO2 levels and global warming - even though you mis-characterized him as having done so.
FWIW, here is a link to Tillerson's remarks as posted on the Exxon Mobil Website. Find the cause/effect admission in it, if you can. |
|
