| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/18/2007 02:27:32 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It's VERY professional. |
I Know! As an engineer i know when someone takes 8 pages and uses big words, equations and charts to explain something better explained in a couple sentences I better look close because there is a good chance they are BSing me.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I know as an allergist that my skin tests can have both false positives and false negatives. Instead of just ignoring that, I share the data with my patients and give them my expert assessment on the LIKELIHOOD that they are allergic to a certain allergen. Am I right all the time? No. Is this the best data they have available? Yes. Admitting that there is the potential for bias and error in the data and then addressing possible solutions to these errors is exactly how the scientific community works. |
So shouldn't they tell us their data may or may not be right and rather then try to make laws, simply give us the info and let us make our own decision? In 1975 when they thought there was going to be an ice age, these scientist suggested we cover the ice cap in soot so it would melt. I'm glad people did not assume they were right then.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What your buddy the blogger is presenting is anecdotal evidence. That is, single exposures of data. Sometimes anecdotal evidence can reveal truths (perhaps there really IS a problem with data collection sites), but it is the weakest form of evidence and easily succumbs to more robust data. |
He's not my buddy, and he's doing a far better job auditing the weather recording equipment then the scientists that would rather add a fudge factor then actaully verify they are taking accurate measurements. And "perhaps" he has discoverd a problem? 85% of the sites surveyed don't meet their own standards! That's called a trend and that is when what he is doing is more then anecdotal (he has checked 34% of the stations in the US). And, if you looked at his data, it's pretty damn profesional for just a "blogger".
Message edited by ClubJuggle - Edit to quoted post. |
|
|
|
11/18/2007 02:37:22 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by Patents4u:
On the other hand, those that argue that the data is so flawed as to prevent its accurate analysis have to concede that the statistical model in question could be underreporting the results. Even so, they may well take solace in the uncertainty provided by the argument, which is neither unfounded nor evidence of ignorance as I see it. |
very much agreed. I don't think we can put a lot of weight into the data either way. But hey, I guess not reacting to studies based on tainted data makes me ignorant. I guess we should have painted the ice caps black in the 70's.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2007 02:41:01 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Do you make the scientific community out to be a bunch of morons? |
Yes |
An interesting read. But I do wonder from this quote, "Additionally. for other biases, positive and negative there's the buildings, the windows, the shade trees, the wind sheltering, and the lawn sprinkler. There's also the big parking lot to the southwest, and the Stevenson Screen is at the top of a slope and there's a parking lot downslope." what the blogger would consider as being free from bias. While I hear his point, I think it may be difficult to introduce some standard that all sensors across the globe must meet. |
That's why they put lots of them in lots of different places and then average them out?
|
|
|
|
11/18/2007 02:44:15 AM · #54 |
I believe in global warming, if only to remind us to live sustainably. Recycling and doing all of the things mentioned above simply makes us better citizens.
I also do believe that scientists can be wrong. The texts I used in astronomy to physics are laughable now. However, I also feel that not all scientists are gung ho about global warming, and that many are indeed somewhat skeptical, realizing that only hard data will ultimately have any impact on the argument for or against.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2007 07:59:18 AM · #55 |
Global warming is no longer a scientific issue but a political issue. Scientific funding for scientist supporting the global warming hypothesis is much greater than for scientists who don't support it. Media reports scientific findings that support global warming much more than they report studies that don't support it.
Global warming is just another tool that can shift wealth. (if you don't believe it, look at the proposed "solutions" to global warming)
For me, this is the real test to see if man made global warming is real. There is a simple solution to global warming. We could build a few thousand nuclear plants and be done with carbon based energy sources. This could be done in 5 years. As a side benefit, we wouldn't be giving billions of dollars to radical religious fundamentalists. I'm not saying nuclear energy is perfect, it has it risks. But the risks of nuclear energy don't include the so called risks of global warming (the end of life on earth). So why aren't all you true believers in global warming not screaming for us to go nuclear? I know why. It doesn't fit into your political agenda. I told you global warming was a political issue. |
|
|
|
11/18/2007 08:05:03 AM · #56 |
This is not a subject I have looked at closely, so I am neither a skeptic nor a believer in climate change/global warming.
I have read through the comments here and in other theads about this subject and believe there is a mass hysteria gaining momentum fuelled by 'experts' who are blaming mankind for increases in CO2 emissions and the increasing amounts recorded in the atmosphere.
Governments and 'experts' are quick to jump on any bandwagon that adds funds to their campaigns or research. We see similar daily on the news and in our papers where we are continously being told that certains foods are bad for us, only for this info to be counteracted the next week by new reports stating the 'bad' foods are really good for us. Hype and worldwide reporting means information travels faster, breeding hysteria.
I have noted many comments about possible causes for the increase in CO2, but there has been little mention recently about the continued destruction of the Rain Forests, the lungs of the planet', once considered the greatests threat to our planet, with rising CO2 in the atmosphere as direct result. However, perhaps this is due to economic reasons, and so has no importance, as it could lead to electoral suicide for any politician foolish enough to take action.
I have worked outdoors all my life and can say that I have not noticed any climatic changes, other than normal cyclical variations that one would expect during a lifetime. I drive an average sized car to work each day and for shopping, covering less than three thousand miles a year. I use energy efficient light bulbs in my house, we recycle waste, share bath water, keep heating to a minimum (if it gets colder, it is possible to put on another layer of clothing, rather than turn up the heating), I don't have air con, I don't water my garden or lawn in the summer. So, what else should I be doing??
It is slightly amusing tho, that we are all sitting here, using electricity to argue this cause. Yet, how many have fuel guzzlers parked outside, or even a second car in the drive? How many have the heating/air con turned on due to temperature fluctuations? How many buy new cameras and other consumer goodies, whilst decrying Mankind for global warming? All these modern goods have to be manufactured, creating more Global Warming!
Just my thoughts on the matter:)
Message edited by author 2007-11-18 08:07:04. |
|
|
|
11/18/2007 08:57:07 AM · #57 |
there was a great programme on channel 4.
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvjdeuFfdXw
This is part of it. I am skeptical about us causing it |
|
|
|
11/18/2007 09:14:10 AM · #58 |
I'm curious to know from those who doubt the evidence of global warming if they are "going green" anyway. If not, what do you see as the downside? I've seen taxes and the cost mentioned, but I haven't seen proof of this. We are paying billions of dollars of tax money to support oil and gas exploration. Re-routing all of this tax money towards incentives for green energy costs the taxpayer nothing.
Additionally, the economic benefits of going green have been proven on a small scale- at the business level companies quickly recoup the costs of building more efficient buildings. Fiscal conservatives take note: This means more profits for the business due to lower operating costs, which if you subscribe to the trickle down theory, will be spent on growth or hiring or returned to shareholders where it will be invested again and have a net positive effect on economic growth.
For those that don't think humankind should care about the environment they live in and ignore the warning signs of climate change I suggest reading Collapse! by Jared Diamond. He details the collapse of a number of societies throughout history (as well as some that have survived and flourished) and concludes that those that don't preserve their environment and adapt to changing conditions quickly enough end up wiped out. I found the discussion of the Easter Island society particularly interesting. This society ended up deforesting their entire island and suddenly the wood their society relied on for heat/cooking/shelter was no longer available and the society collapsed. What were they thinking when they cut down the last tree? Did they recognize they had a problem? Or was it motivated by competition- the guy who cut down the last tree had to get it before his neighbor did, and thus heated his house and cooked his food for a couple of extra days before being as destitute as his neighbor. The parallels to today seem pretty clear.
Message edited by author 2007-11-18 09:19:13.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2007 10:48:43 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Scientific funding for scientist supporting the global warming hypothesis is much greater than for scientists who don't support it. |
This statement shows a stunning lack of understanding of how science works.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2007 11:04:00 AM · #60 |
Why do I believe there's a consensus that scientists agree people are causing climate change?
One reason is that a researcher reviewed 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003. She excluded op-ed pieces and other non-peer-reviewed pieces. Of the peer-reviewed articles, 75% agreed with the IPCC view that people were causing climate change. Zero directly disagreed with that point of view.
Now, what does peer review mean? It means that scientists review each others' work to be sure sound experimental principles are followed. Results aren't compared to some political litmus test, but rather tested against the best practices of scientific inquiry.
Imagine you asked 928 doctors whether you should take action to cure some illness, and 696 said yes, while the rest had no opinion, and NONE told you no. Would you take action?
Here's a wikipedia article about it. I'm not by any stretch saying wikipedia is a reliable first source, but this article is very well sourced, so you can follow up as deeply as you'd like. The article discusses a study that claims the first one was flawed, but it included op-ed opinion pieces and used different search criteria. Even so, he found only 35 examples of disagreement.
So let's amend those numbers, ignoring those differences in criteria. You're sick. Of 928 doctors, 696 tell you it's life-threatening, 197 have no opinion, and 35 say there's no problem.
Do you take action? If you really, truly say no, then you and I have very different approaches to our health. But my problem is you're affecting MY health by voting to listen to the 35.
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Media reports scientific findings that support global warming much more than they report studies that don't support it. |
Incorrect. Let's look at a different study, this one on what the media reports. The authors reviewed 636 articles on this subject between 1988 and 2002, also excluding op-ed pieces, letters to the editor, and other non-news.
The results? 53% gave equal weight to the naysayers, 35% emphasizedthe existence of anthropogenic contributions to global warming—as distinct from natural variation—but still presented both sides of
the debate, and 6% presented only one side of the argument.
Journalists feel obligated to quote different sides on anything. Even if there were 10,000 people on one side and 1 on the other, they'd interview that one and give what he said equal weight. This isn't a statement about journalistic bias, but one of how journalists write articles everywhere.
So to sum up.
Scientific articles: 696-35 (at best for the naysayers) say people are causing warming
Major news outlets: 53% gave equal weight to both views.
Why are people confused? I think it's obvious.
When do you decide you have enough information to act? That's a valid point of policy debate, and reasonable people can differ. But whether the planet is warming, and whether people are causing it, is not.
Message edited by author 2007-11-18 11:04:46.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2007 11:43:41 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Scientific funding for scientist supporting the global warming hypothesis is much greater than for scientists who don't support it. |
This statement shows a stunning lack of understanding of how science works. |
But not a stunning lack of understanding for how FUNDING of a good deal of research works, which was his point. It's the same ole' rebuttal - you disagree therefore you fail to understand (now this, even though civil, will probably get edited or deleted like when the prior, less civil version of this argument surfaced in this thread).
A great deal of funding is given to scientists who already have a firm belief in what they seek to "prove". They are humans, not robots, they have opinions and theories. They need funding to gather evidence and research to prove (and/or I presume disprove) their theories in a manner that will withstand peer review. Accordingly, even if their findings are not noticeably biased, they may well have been funded by people on the same side of the agenda. Now reasonable minds can and will differ as to the effect, if any, of that. |
|
|
|
11/18/2007 11:44:11 AM · #62 |
I love Imagineers take,( I am really open minded and a critical thinker but your ideas are stupid and mannish if you don't agree with me) these veiled attacks at opposing "thinkers" is exactly why we tend not to bother with giving the data we have to back the cyclical nature of climate, not just temperature, change. No matter the data we are simply too ignorant to understand their "real" facts AKA the lying Albert Gore and the likes.
That said conservation of resources is always a smart choice, in econimic terms and in quality of life. When you over consume you never win in the long run, that should be the reason for the current "go green" push, but the movement insists on cramming it down our throats with the whole you're destroying the planet nag.
Message edited by author 2007-11-18 11:51:19. |
|
|
|
11/18/2007 11:54:34 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by Patents4u:
A great deal of funding is given to scientists who already have a firm belief in what they seek to "prove". They are humans, not robots, they have opinions and theories. They need funding to gather evidence and research to prove (and/or I presume disprove) their theories in a manner that will withstand peer review. Accordingly, even if their findings are not noticeably biased, they may well have been funded by people on the same side of the agenda. Now reasonable minds can and will differ as to the effect, if any, of that. |
Yes, that's called "hypothesis testing." I seek to find supporting data for a hypothesis, so I seek funding. Whether I actually find data supporting it is another matter. If I do, then I publish it in peer-reviewed journals. If I publish my findings, then others will seek to either confirm or refute them. If they are bogus, they will be refuted in short order. Only after results are confirmed independently, usually several times, do they gain standing as the "best available hypothesis" to explain a phenomenon... and *that* is the way science works.
Results are not always correct, and progress takes place in fits and starts, but progress in uncovering the truth inevitably takes place, even in the face of such difficult impediments as researcher bias.
If science didn't work, we wouldn't be discussing this over a world-wide computer network. |
|
|
|
11/18/2007 12:17:31 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Yes, that's called "hypothesis testing." |
Yep. I agree entirely. My point was not that bias or preconceived ideas render progress impossible, or even that they necessarily are bad. I was merely responding to the original attack which was based on a statement about funding, not the workings/benefits of science itself. |
|
|
|
11/18/2007 12:24:48 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Patents4u:
A great deal of funding is given to scientists who already have a firm belief in what they seek to "prove". They are humans, not robots, they have opinions and theories. They need funding to gather evidence and research to prove (and/or I presume disprove) their theories in a manner that will withstand peer review. Accordingly, even if their findings are not noticeably biased, they may well have been funded by people on the same side of the agenda. Now reasonable minds can and will differ as to the effect, if any, of that. |
Yes, that's called "hypothesis testing." I seek to find supporting data for a hypothesis, so I seek funding. Whether I actually find data supporting it is another matter. If I do, then I publish it in peer-reviewed journals. If I publish my findings, then others will seek to either confirm or refute them. If they are bogus, they will be refuted in short order. Only after results are confirmed independently, usually several times, do they gain standing as the "best available hypothesis" to explain a phenomenon... and *that* is the way science works.
Results are not always correct, and progress takes place in fits and starts, but progress in uncovering the truth inevitably takes place, even in the face of such difficult impediments as researcher bias.
If science didn't work, we wouldn't be discussing this over a world-wide computer network. |
Well that is the way science is supposed to work. Unfortunately science is easily corrupted by money. I have personal experience with this. I errantly prescribed for years estrogen to many of my patients. There was a lot of research saying that this was in their best interest. The consensus of medical professionals was that giving estrogen was the best thing. It went against my judgement, but who can argue with scientific consensus. Turns out that most of this scientific research was funded by drug companies, interested in a certain result. Also turns out that giving estrogen was a bad thing. It took years to disprove the scientific research. Funny thing is, I new in my heart that it was wrong, but I wasn't mature enough at the time to argue with the tainted science.
Global warming is in the same boat. Research is being funded by interest groups. If you don't produce the results that are wanted, you don't get funded. It's a subtle process, but very effective in producing tainted results. Use your head if you want the right answer. My head tells me that the sun is what heats and cools the earth. The sun does vary in intensity, and subsequent climate changes happen because of this. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but only a minor one compared to the major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, H2O. Don't be fooled by politically slanted research. Think. |
|
|
|
11/18/2007 12:31:04 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by Patents4u:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Yes, that's called "hypothesis testing." |
Yep. I agree entirely. My point was not that bias or preconceived ideas render progress impossible, or even that they necessarily are bad. |
Right. But the post I responded to was very clearly asserting that there's something wrong with more funding going to scientists who believe A vs. B. As if somehow the lack of balance in funding is sinister and indicative that the majority is wrong. And THAT'S what shows a lack of understanding of how science works.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2007 12:33:24 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by karmat:
...............do i know what causes it? no, but in this immediate area, there was a surge in paving roads about 15 years ago -- I blame the asphalt. |
:)
|
|
|
|
11/18/2007 12:34:55 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Scientific funding for scientist supporting the global warming hypothesis is much greater than for scientists who don't support it. |
This statement shows a stunning lack of understanding of how science works. |
But a great deal of understanding of how funding works.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2007 12:35:45 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
My head tells me that the sun is what heats and cools the earth. |
Both of our heads are irrelevant, unless we're qualified atmospheric scientists. By all means, we should evaluate what we hear from those folks. But the difference between us is that I don't make statements about climate science without basing them on demonstrated science.
Your story about estrogen is a good example of how science sometimes gets it wrong. But what alternative do you propose? Ignore everything any scientist says because someday the consensus might change?
Again, if 696 doctors tell you you'll die unless you take this pill, 197 have no opinion, and 35 say there's no problem, what do you do?
Message edited by author 2007-11-18 12:54:02.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2007 01:08:46 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by jonejess:
It never ceases to amaze me how arrogant Homosapiens are. |
We're the only animal that fouls its own nest. |
Actually, that's not true. A lot of animals foul their nests pretty badly.
Mike
|
|
|
|
11/18/2007 01:13:04 PM · #71 |
Hey everyone, we're leaving for a lovely 11-hour drive to Atlanta. At least we managed to fit the four of us into our Prius. :)
To the Americans, have a great holiday, and to everyone else, have a great week!
|
|
|
|
11/18/2007 01:27:50 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by AlexSaberi:
there was a great programme on channel 4.
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvjdeuFfdXw
This is part of it. I am skeptical about us causing it |
Actually, that programme was heavily criticised after being found to have presented incomplete statistics to support its argument. I forget the precise details but it was something to do with a graph deliberately stopping at 1980, when recordings after this time strongly supported the argument for global warming.
On the whole it does rather amaze me that people can be obstinate enough to fly in the face of scientific concensus (and then effectively accuse those who don't of naivety) when all we are asked is to start treating our planet with a little respect. |
|
|
|
11/18/2007 01:50:51 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Hey everyone, we're leaving for a lovely 11-hour drive to Atlanta. At least we managed to fit the four of us into our Prius. :) |
And four cases of water in the trunk, I hope ... |
|
|
|
11/18/2007 02:04:48 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by levyj413:
Hey everyone, we're leaving for a lovely 11-hour drive to Atlanta. At least we managed to fit the four of us into our Prius. :) |
And four cases of water in the trunk, I hope ... |
lol..it's a little dry down there. |
|
|
|
11/18/2007 02:51:39 PM · #75 |
74 Posts - citations of primary literature....1
Business as usual. I'm out. |
|
