| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/14/2007 04:20:12 PM · #101 |
| I feel however that even though Global Warming might not be completely real, it is a good idea for all of us to try and use less resources. I agree with those trying to "save the environment", but I do it more for the sake of logic, rather than the fear of killing the planet. |
|
|
|
08/14/2007 04:23:17 PM · #102 |
I used to say, Let the global warming be a global warning. Maybe that we are not very kind to mother earth.
But remember the famous "Y2K". No the world will probably not end in 10 years. (could be 10.5 or 9.8 years, or anytime) I've heard that 2000 was to be something spectacular, with ICBM missile computers getting the "Y2K" problem. People were partying like it's 1999, er it was.
So take pictures of everything while you can show them to anyone, or at least someone.
|
|
|
|
08/14/2007 05:00:58 PM · #103 |
Mayan calendar states 2013 for the age of Fire, and the end of mankind.
Global warming? We are currently going through a warm phase in cylical Earth temperatures. There are many other factors to be considered, El Nino, Sun spots, Solar flares, CO2 emissions, shifts in Gulf Stream, volcanic activity, earthquakes, etc. Many scientists are making a lot of money for their research in all these topics.
What is wrong with Earth? We have abandoned the Old Ways, we no longer respect Mother Earth, we give nothing back, just take all the time.
I don't think all this panicking will make a jot of difference, mankind has laid out his path and it will lead to his ruin. We have destroyed our world, we have stolen and raped her in our greed for wealth and power, now it is time to pay back!
One thing is for sure, no way did we get to Homo Superior!!
|
|
|
|
08/14/2007 05:19:00 PM · #104 |
So, just to see what the "opposition" has in their arsenal, I clicked this link. It's a list of links put together by a radio D.J.. Are you kidding me?
Well, maybe I should give him some credit, so I opened up the first five links that weren't video. Three were written by "nobodies" (ie. there is no entry in Wikipedia) and two were written by Richard Lindzen. Now Richard does have a name for himself and he is a scientist (now we're getting somewhere). Unfortunately he is also known to be a crank who merely loves to poke holes in things without offering anything constructive himself. As an example...
"Lindzen has claimed that the risks of passive smoking are overstated. In 2001, Newsweek journalist Fred Guterl reported, after an interview with Lindzen
He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette."
It is easy to poke holes in things. I do it every day in medicine. We are never going to be 100% certain we know exactly what is going to happen in the future. The fact that you can prove we don't know with 100% certainty what the future holds, however, is not equivalent to saying "you are wrong". The problem is, by the time we know if we are right or not, it will be too late. So one has to ask themselves, is the risk global warming is real and man-made worth doing something about? The world's scientists indicate "yes" while the world's radio D.Js may disagree.
Message edited by author 2007-08-14 17:20:15. |
|
|
|
08/14/2007 05:23:54 PM · #105 |
|
|
|
08/14/2007 06:01:36 PM · #106 |
For your consideration, since Achoo brought him up...
Don't believe the Hype
Climate of Fear
Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT
As far as global warming goes, the earth will warm and cool with or without our help, has been for quite some time. Instead of trying to stop said warming, the more logical idea would be to simply adjust..."evolve", or don't. I'm sure as heck not going to let the likes of Al Gore and all his Hollywood buddies tell me what to think.
{{{RKT nows ducks and runs for cover.}}} |
|
|
|
08/14/2007 06:03:42 PM · #107 |
| Why isn't this in Rant yet? I don't have to see it there... ;) |
|
|
|
08/14/2007 06:08:08 PM · #108 |
Just because it's so much fun needling people, I thought I'd summarize the "con" position for those watching:
1) Al Gore's an idiot
2) The idiot said Florida would be underwater in 2015. Don't ask for a clip of him saying this, we can't provide it.
3) We cannot predict with 100% accuracy what the temperature will be on 32nd St in Miami Beach on March 3rd, 2079. Call me when you can do that.
4) Oh yeah, Al Gore's an idiot. |
|
|
|
08/14/2007 06:51:43 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I opened up the first five links that weren't video. |
Open the first link. It's a video. A long video. I've watched the 1st 30 minutes. Watch it.
|
|
|
|
08/14/2007 06:58:16 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by larryslights:
[quote=DrAchoo] I opened up the first five links that weren't video. |
Didn't you watch Al Gores Video? |
|
|
|
08/14/2007 07:03:04 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Just because it's so much fun needling people, I thought I'd summarize the "con" position for those watching:
1) Al Gore's an idiot
2) The idiot said Florida would be underwater in 2015. Don't ask for a clip of him saying this, we can't provide it.
3) We cannot predict with 100% accuracy what the temperature will be on 32nd St in Miami Beach on March 3rd, 2079. Call me when you can do that.
4) Oh yeah, Al Gore's an idiot. |
You missed a few, but I guess ignoring things you disagree with and being sarcastic makes it much easier to be right. |
|
|
|
08/14/2007 07:12:43 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It is easy to poke holes in things. I do it every day in medicine. We are never going to be 100% certain we know exactly what is going to happen in the future. The fact that you can prove we don't know with 100% certainty what the future holds, however, is not equivalent to saying "you are wrong". |
Then why are those of us who do not stand squarely in the "man made" global warming corner constantly being told that we are wrong? There is plenty of science on the other side that makes it debatable. But Al Gore (who I don't think is a complete idiot, just a pompous hypocrite) tells us that the debate is over.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The problem is, by the time we know if we are right or not, it will be too late. So one has to ask themselves, is the risk global warming is real and man-made worth doing something about? The world's scientists indicate "yes" while the world's radio D.Js may disagree. |
Yeah, I ride public tranportation and turn off unnecessary lights and keep my house a little warmer in the summer and cooler in the winter. Just in case I'm wrong. And I've got no problem with that. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I'm just tired of being unequivically told that I am wrong, before all of the science is done.
Oh, and can someone explain this one to me?:
The Arctic melts, and the seals disappear
Message edited by author 2007-08-14 19:16:56.
|
|
|
|
08/14/2007 07:22:45 PM · #113 |
I'd say it's a matter of liklihood. In medicine, when a study is done and the statistics are run, if the liklihood that the findings between two groups is from chance is less than 5% we call that significant. (In technical terms, if the p-value is <0.05 the findings are significant.)
The IPCC declared the following:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
Most of (>50% of) the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (confidence level >90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.
Now, the way they determine the confidence level is somewhat different than in medical papers, and it isn't 95%, but note that they indicate the scientific community declares a) 100% chance the earth is warming and b) there is a 90% confidence it's mainly caused by man. I just can't see how so many people on this site who have no personal scientific education can simply dismiss a panel of the world's scientists and what they have to say.
I wrote a blog on this phenomenon based on something written by CS Lewis. He called such dismissal "Bulvarism" after a fictitious Professor Bulvar.
Here's the blog:
A Thought on Truth
I spent last week in the Northwest where I grew up. I was able to spend a few days with my parents which is always fun. Over the years our political philosophies have drifted apart and now we are able to have fun and engaging conversations we wouldn't have been able to have before (because we would have agreed). These conversations can involve raised voices, but are always civil and hopefully leave us all the wiser. At one point this weekend I was accused of Bulvarism.
What now?
That's right. Bulvarism. I thought I had better find out what crime I was supposedly committing so I bit.
What's that?
My parents directed me to an essay by CS Lewis with the same title (Found in God in the Dock for those who want to read it themselves). In it I came across a quote which was the key. Lewis had invented a doctor, Dr. Bulvar, who had this to say:
"At that moment there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that
refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is
wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet."
Perhaps an example would be helpful. Those on both sides of the Terry Schaivo case would often accuse the other side of pushing an agenda. They are misguided, the argument would go, because they are ruled by the overriding desire to advance their cause. This desire has made them miss the subtle (or not so subtle) points of this case and thus their view can be ignored.
It doesn't matter which side you mentally inserted into the above paragraph, it is likely still true. Notice that no facts or debate or logic is needed or mentioned. We simply assume they are wrong, then explain why. Once you see the simplicity of this method you immediately see its deviousness. The Truth is shoved to the side as a quaint, but obsolete relic. In the 10 second sound-bite, you do not have time to argue real facts, you have just enough time to say, "My opponent is wrong, and I can see clearly enough to tell you why."
The point of this blog is to encourage us to set out and look at the world with Bulvar-colored glasses. Once we are horrified at how pervasive Bulvarism is in our society, we need to keep the glasses on and look in the mirror. Perhaps I was guilty in that conversation with my parents. Perhaps I am guilty every day. Only when we can agree to listen to each other and be open enough to entertain the possibility that our opponents may have something to say after all; only then will we get somewhere in dealing with society's challenges...
|
|
|
|
08/14/2007 07:25:54 PM · #114 |
What I don't understand is why people turn to politicians, bloggers and talk show hosts to get their scientific information anyway.
I'm posting this link again because you guys REALLY need to take a look at how much glacial melt is going on a across the globe:
Linky
It's funny that while the idiot inhabiting the White House claims that there's not enough evidence for Global Warming, the U.S. and Canada are fighting over rights to the Northwest Passage, which is rapidly becoming navigable thanks to massive melting of Arctic ice and the Navy is requisitioning new ice-breakers to patrol the waters.
Lindzen says that: "Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why."
Here's a NOAA study where about 15 researchers state otherwise:
"Much of the recent Arctic warming took place between 1850 and 1920, most likely due to natural processes, whereas the warming after 1920 is increasingly difficult to ascribe to natural forcing."
Any more links to scientists that doubt that global warming exists?
Message edited by author 2007-08-14 19:28:22. |
|
|
|
08/14/2007 07:43:23 PM · #115 |
I'll say it again. Very few argue that there IS GLOBAL WARMING. The argument is WHAT IS CAUSING IT? Man or Nature? Some say man (Al Gore has his science), others say nature (and they have their science). It is a debate.
Originally posted by chip_k:
It's funny that while the idiot inhabiting the White House claims that there's not enough evidence for Global Warming |
And now who's calling who names?...especially since he has agreed with you for at least three years. (to a degree, excuse the pun)
Message edited by author 2007-08-14 19:46:05.
|
|
|
|
08/14/2007 08:09:01 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by RKT:
Instead of trying to stop said warming, the more logical idea would be to simply adjust..."evolve", or don't. I'm sure as heck not going to let the likes of Al Gore and all his Hollywood buddies tell me what to think. |
Don't worry - evolution will take its course when the fittest of species for the new environment that we create assume dominance. The issue is that the environment that we are creating does not favour humans - so our number will decrease and other species will expand into the environments that we leave.
|
|
|
|
08/14/2007 08:10:28 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by formerlee:
I don't think all this panicking will make a jot of difference, mankind has laid out his path and it will lead to his ruin. We have destroyed our world, we have stolen and raped her in our greed for wealth and power, now it is time to pay back! |
Don't you think that it is even worth trying?
|
|
|
|
08/14/2007 08:18:06 PM · #118 |
Now i've seen everything. The person that dismisses a person because he is just a radio DJ and considers scientists that do not have wiki pages as a "nobodies" so it's okay to dismiss them too is giving us a lecture on Bulverism. I'd have to say, you've set a fine example of it!
And, I know I should not preach about spelling as I have trouble spelling my name, but if I took the time to lecture people on a topic I'd look it up first to make sure I spelled it right.
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism |
|
|
|
08/14/2007 08:21:56 PM · #119 |
Larry:
(I didn't quote because it was such a mess when I tried. ;)
George Bush makes me embarassed to be a Republican. I'm twice as embarassed that I actually VOTED for him. I'm THREE TIMES as embaraassed that I agreed with him when we went to war in Iraq.
I guess I missed the press conference where Bush talked about his "aggressive strategy to develop the best science and technology to address the issue." I tried Googling to see if he's followed up on this pledge at all but all I can find are sources that are likely biased.
I'll watch the video and see what I think ;) It's the first time anyone has been able to give me a link to credible dissenters.
|
|
|
|
08/14/2007 08:51:33 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by Jason_Cross:
Yep, that is what I was thinking. This was the map he was showing at the time if I remember.
Just so everybody knows however I am not trying to bash Al Gore. I admire people that really are trying to be responsible with the materials that they have been given. I have no problem saving energy and driving electric cars, I am a huge supporter of that. However, he is trying to freak people out to make money however, and that is where I think there is something wrong with what he is doing.
Oprah asks "what can we do about this?" and Gore says, "buy the DVD". |
Crud, from that map, my sister, my grandfather, my cousins, they all will be living with me. Luckily, we are right above Lake Okeechobee, whoo... that was a close one! :P
|
|
|
|
08/14/2007 09:47:35 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Now i've seen everything. The person that dismisses a person because he is just a radio DJ and considers scientists that do not have wiki pages as a "nobodies" so it's okay to dismiss them too is giving us a lecture on Bulverism. I'd have to say, you've set a fine example of it!
And, I know I should not preach about spelling as I have trouble spelling my name, but if I took the time to lecture people on a topic I'd look it up first to make sure I spelled it right.
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism |
The two "nobodies" are writers or journalists as far as I can tell, not scientists. The radio DJ is a radio DJ. I don't tell people to ask me about plumbing...
If we were to have a conversation about lighthouses and someone were to listen to us, would it be more reasonable to put more stock in what you say or what I say?
So once and for all let's just cut through this bullshit. Instead of us just saying the other side is wrong, I'd like each of us to say why our side is right. Let's say you were given the assignment "Why I think Global Warming is caused/not caused by man in 250 words. I'll even go first, and anybody with balls enough can follow
My view on Global Warming
Instrumental observations over the past 157 years show that temperatures at the surface have risen globally, with important regional variations. For the global average, warming in the last century has occurred in two phases, from the 1910s to the 1940s (0.35°C), and more strongly from the 1970s to the present (0.55°C). An increasing rate of warming has taken place over the last 25 years, and 11 of the 12 warmest years on record have occurred in the past 12 years. Above the surface, global observations since the late 1950s show that the troposphere (up to about 10 km) has warmed at a slightly greater rate than the surface, while the stratosphere (about 10–30 km) has cooled markedly since 1979. This is in accord with physical expectations and most model results. Confirmation of global warming comes from warming of the oceans, rising sea levels, glaciers melting, sea ice retreating in the Arctic and diminished snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere.
Human activities contribute to climate change by causing changes in Earth̢۪s atmosphere in the amounts of greenhouse gases, aerosols (small particles), and cloudiness. The largest known contribution comes from the burning of fossil fuels, which releases carbon dioxide gas to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases and aerosols affect climate by altering incoming solar radiation and out-going infrared (thermal) radiation that are part of Earth̢۪s energy balance. Changing the atmospheric abundance or properties of these gases and particles can lead to a warming or cooling of the climate system. Since the start of the industrial era (about 1750), the overall effect of human activities on climate has been a warming influence. The human impact on climate during this era greatly exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes, such as solar changes and volcanic eruptions.
The two paragraphs aren't written by myself, but are summary paragraphs from the IPCC statement. Now that doesn't "prove" anything, but it lays out my position. What is the "con" position? I'd also be interested to know how many of the "con" people here have actually watched An Inconvienient Truth?
Message edited by author 2007-08-14 22:04:51.
|
|
|
|
08/14/2007 10:02:02 PM · #122 |
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.
Now 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% presented the argument people are causing warming, and 6% went the other way.
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 2007-08-14 22:04:56.
|
|
|
|
08/14/2007 10:04:13 PM · #123 |
|
|
|
08/14/2007 10:20:57 PM · #124 |
That movie is pretty interesting and raises some really good points.
Of course, they're Bulgarians too and "conveniently" left out some key arguments as well. ;) I'll provide a movie report later ;) |
|
|
|
08/14/2007 10:23:24 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by Jason_Cross:
Al Gore said on Oprah that most of Florida, some of California and much of China will be under water by 2015. Talk about hanging your ass out on a limb. If in 8 years they are not under water he looks like a fool. |
do you really think it took that statement on Oprah or 8 years is needed to make him look like a fool?
MattO
|
|
