Saw this article today, and thought it was interesting. I also saw the head of the NOAA Hurrican Center say that he didn't believe "Global Warming" was the cause of the increased Hurricane Activity. Instead, it was just cyclical.

Climate of Fear BY RICHARD LINDZEN

You need to read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear".


One claim I see a lot of is that Greenland's glaciers are melting. Maybe they are, but remember, 1200 years ago it was temperate enough there for the Norse to settle, name it "vinland" and grow grapes and dairy cattle. Not sure how man made the glaciers come down, but i guess now that is being corrected.

I do notice the media likes to use the phrase "the fact of global warming" as if it is all one word.

What say our local Greens?

NASA now has more license to publish their speculations and call it "science". I have mentioned before that I was at a NASA Earth Sciences conference where they said they would do whatever it took to get on Page 3 of the Wash Post, like their Space Sciences bretheren (aka Hubble Space Telescope).

I was in a discussion w/ some very rational people on Tue who were getting panicky about global warming. One response is that the Eskimos are now saying they've never seen it like this (nor is there anything in their oral tradition) and a co-worker believes that.

Hello! You haven't heard about the pending lawsuits over global warming? You believe the quotes reported in newspapers? There is plenty of reason NOT to believe those quotes.

Just reading articiles in the newspaper or watch documentarys on tv leads people to believe that if we sign the kyoto treaty or get rid of are suvs, that it will stop global warming and that drastic climate change will never happen. Drastic climate change has happened before and will happen again, so if man is having any effect at all, its to speed up or slow down this climate change. Maybe the super volcano beneath yellow stone will erupt or a meteor will slam into the earth and render all this a mute point. ;-)

OptimisticOwl Wrote:You need to read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear".


One claim I see a lot of is that Greenland's glaciers are melting. Maybe they are, but remember, 1200 years ago it was temperate enough there for the Norse to settle, name it "vinland" and grow grapes and dairy cattle. Not sure how man made the glaciers come down, but i guess now that is being corrected.

I do notice the media likes to use the phrase "the fact of global warming" as if it is all one word.

What say our local Greens?

Well, that test we took a while back made me out to be pretty green. But I worked in the environmental industry for a dozen years and that'll make you a slash-and-burner for sure. ;-)

I really enjoyed State of Fear. Crichton is a good researcher (apologies, off-topic point: I don't think he's quite as good at ending his stories). If you want to get technical, you can say that we're in an ice age right now. We still have significant glaciers and polar ice caps and we've got a bit of a warm period waiting for the next glacial advance. The problem in studying warming, as Crichton pointed out, is statistics. It's very difficult to see a big picture when climate data has existed for such a short period of time. I'm not going to say that warming isn't happening. It might be. On a micro-scale, perhaps you could be even more certain (e.g., over a very short period of time, say just a dozen years). But that's not statistically significant and doesn't imply anything dangerous. The key point to me is not whether it's happening but whether we can do anything about it. It's entirely possible that warming is not at all related to us and Kyoto is the kind of thing that could potentially disrupt the global economy for relatively little gain.

Torch brings up another issue. The science is in danger of being compromised (if it hasn't been already) by scientists who are taking sides and accepting funding from advocates on BOTH sides of the debate.

On the other hand, we all know that oil is a limited resource, that its use causes nasty pollution, and that it's got a highly significant impact on the global economy. I'd be happy to know that our government and major industries were giving more than lip service to alternative sources of energy, including nuclear technology.

Brookes Owl Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:You need to read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear".


One claim I see a lot of is that Greenland's glaciers are melting. Maybe they are, but remember, 1200 years ago it was temperate enough there for the Norse to settle, name it "vinland" and grow grapes and dairy cattle. Not sure how man made the glaciers come down, but i guess now that is being corrected.

I do notice the media likes to use the phrase "the fact of global warming" as if it is all one word.

What say our local Greens?

Well, that test we took a while back made me out to be pretty green. But I worked in the environmental industry for a dozen years and that'll make you a slash-and-burner for sure. ;-)

I really enjoyed State of Fear. Crichton is a good researcher (apologies, off-topic point: I don't think he's quite as good at ending his stories). If you want to get technical, you can say that we're in an ice age right now. We still have significant glaciers and polar ice caps and we've got a bit of a warm period waiting for the next glacial advance. The problem in studying warming, as Crichton pointed out, is statistics. It's very difficult to see a big picture when climate data has existed for such a short period of time. I'm not going to say that warming isn't happening. It might be. On a micro-scale, perhaps you could be even more certain (e.g., over a very short period of time, say just a dozen years). But that's not statistically significant and doesn't imply anything dangerous. The key point to me is not whether it's happening but whether we can do anything about it. It's entirely possible that warming is not at all related to us and Kyoto is the kind of thing that could potentially disrupt the global economy for relatively little gain.

Torch brings up another issue. The science is in danger of being compromised (if it hasn't been already) by scientists who are taking sides and accepting funding from advocates on BOTH sides of the debate.

On the other hand, we all know that oil is a limited resource, that its use causes nasty pollution, and that it's got a highly significant impact on the global economy. I'd be happy to know that our government and major industries were giving more than lip service to alternative sources of energy, including nuclear technology.

I am in agreement with all you say, including the off topic point. And, FWIW, I made my living in the forest products industry for many years, it's just that the forests in question were in Mexico.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:And, FWIW, I made my living in the forest products industry for many years, it's just that the forests in question were in Mexico.

Immigrant worker, huh?

id imagine we wont do anything about all this until new york and san fran are around 10 feet underwater. and i dont care if you think its a man made problem or not (although if you think we can just rape the earth and do whatever the f we want and not have to suffer the consequences, you need to get your head checked), the question is how to solve the problem. but that would require admitting there is a problem.

Brookes Owl Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:And, FWIW, I made my living in the forest products industry for many years, it's just that the forests in question were in Mexico.

Immigrant worker, huh?

I guess so. All work I did in Mexico was done illegally by Mexican law, as I told them I was visiting friends.

OK, there are generally two sides.

One side consists of the majority of scientists that study global warming and they feel it is relatively conclusive that it is an issue and will continue to become one over the course of most of our lifes. If they're wrong, we spend a bunch of money to solve a probelm that may not exist. However, the side effect would be improvement in the environment world-wide.

The other side consists of a pretty small number of researchers who don't disgree that it's happening, they typically just say that the evidence is inconclusive. If they're wrong, we may not address a potential problem until it's too late to control. The side effect would be that we wouldn't be spending money.

IMO, even if it is as "inconclusive" as the small minority suggests, we would still be better off moving towards greener sources of energy. I'd really hate to see everything gete too f'ed up because people are afraid to make a politically unpopular decision.

However, the Kyoto Protocal is fool's gold and fails two address two major issues named India and China. Given my overall opinions on the topic, this may surprise some, but I'm glad we didn't sign it.

One thing that I find amazingly disturbing is that the scientific reports developed through government sources are being edited by lawyers at the White House. There's just no justifiable reason for this other than putting "spin" in the report.

JTiger, I agree there is no harm and possible good in moving toward greener energy sources. My quarrel is with those who say that (1) global warming is a proven fact, and (2), if so, then it is also proven that it is the result of human forces, not natural trends.

I was watching a TV show about a nineteenth centtury expedition to find the Northwest Passage. It failed and all the men died. Reconstruction of the whys and wherefores of that failure include the fact that by sheer bad luck, the expedition hit northern Canada at a time when the ice pack didn't thaw for 5 straight years. If modern global warming scientists had been there then, they would have likely concluded the world was moving into a new Ice Age, because of the effects of burning coal.

I think there is much to be skeptical of on both sides, but only one side is getting the press. I would like to see a more honest and even scientic debate without the political filter. But in the meantime, yes, let's explore alternative and perhaps cleaner energy.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:JTiger, I agree there is no harm and possible good in moving toward greener energy sources. My quarrel is with those who say that (1) global warming is a proven fact, and (2), if so, then it is also proven that it is the result of human forces, not natural trends.

I was watching a TV show about a nineteenth centtury expedition to find the Northwest Passage. It failed and all the men died. Reconstruction of the whys and wherefores of that failure include the fact that by sheer bad luck, the expedition hit northern Canada at a time when the ice pack didn't thaw for 5 straight years. If modern global warming scientists had been there then, they would have likely concluded the world was moving into a new Ice Age, because of the effects of burning coal.

I think there is much to be skeptical of on both sides, but only one side is getting the press. I would like to see a more honest and even scientic debate without the political filter. But in the meantime, yes, let's explore alternative and perhaps cleaner energy.

That is exactly the point of this thread! It wasn't to debate Global Warming, but discuss "Science's" failure to discuss or even allow different "theories".

It think Science's failure is due to political pressure, especially through the Media. If a scientist dares to contradict the "proof" of the "accepted fact", he is labeled an industry stooge and his funding dries up and his academic standing is damaged. If both sides are to discourse, the politcal bias must be removed.

GrayBeard Wrote:..."Science's" failure to discuss or even allow different "theories".

Well, we've been down THAT road enough times.

I don't believe this is science's failure to allow different theories. Both sides of the argument are being made. But I think we have to be concerned that BOTH sides of the debate have been politicized. If advocacy groups are funding the pro and the con arguments, how credible is the science? And OO (can I say that?) makes another great point about how the media can influence the outcome of the debate by picking a favorite.

You can't say simply that those on the side of "inconclusive" are only questioning the existence of global warming. They're also questioning the cause of the condition. These are questions worth exploring because if the fear mongers win (and for the record, I'm not saying the fear mongers are wrong - simply that they are using fear to get their desired result), the drastic Kyoto-type solutions will be economically harsh.

There are plenty of great reasons BESIDES global warming to wean ourselves from fossil fuels and I'd like to see us do this sooner rather than later. Unfortunately, right now only economic incentives are driving this issue.

Brookes Owl Wrote:OO (can I say that?)

Yes, you can. The OO reminds me of owl eyes, as in hOOter's.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:JTiger, I agree there is no harm and possible good in moving toward greener energy sources. My quarrel is with those who say that (1) global warming is a proven fact, and (2), if so, then it is also proven that it is the result of human forces, not natural trends.

I was watching a TV show about a nineteenth centtury expedition to find the Northwest Passage. It failed and all the men died. Reconstruction of the whys and wherefores of that failure include the fact that by sheer bad luck, the expedition hit northern Canada at a time when the ice pack didn't thaw for 5 straight years. If modern global warming scientists had been there then, they would have likely concluded the world was moving into a new Ice Age, because of the effects of burning coal.

I think there is much to be skeptical of on both sides, but only one side is getting the press. I would like to see a more honest and even scientic debate without the political filter. But in the meantime, yes, let's explore alternative and perhaps cleaner energy.

Psssst...wrong Tiger fan! lmfao

Seriously, I don't believe that we, as a nation, can expect to cure all the ills of the industrial revolution overnight; not even with the greeny's beloved Kyoto treaty. I do, however, think it is irresponsible on many fronts to not explore non-oil options and am continuously disappointed that we (again, as a nation) won't bite the bullet in make a very wise investment in our future. Baby steps now can lead to a better future (again, on many fronts).

One side may be getting all the press, but the other side is getting all the policy decisions. Well, almost all, we haven't tapped ANWR yet.

Psssst...wrong Tiger fan! lmfao

Sorry 'bout that. I guess all Tigers look alike to me.

99Tiger Wrote:IMO, even if it is as "inconclusive" as the small minority suggests, we would still be better off moving towards greener sources of energy. I'd really hate to see everything gete too f'ed up because people are afraid to make a politically unpopular decision.

Agree wholeheartedly. And there is much movement in this direction. Is it "late"? Maybe, it's hard to predict technological advances.

Quote:However, the Kyoto Protocal is fool's gold and fails two address two major issues named India and China. Given my overall opinions on the topic, this may surprise some, but I'm glad we didn't sign it.

HOORAY! Someone else who gets it!

Quote:One thing that I find amazingly disturbing is that the scientific reports developed through government sources are being edited by lawyers at the White House. There's just no justifiable reason for this other than putting "spin" in the report.

Valid point. However, I am also concerned that researchers are claiming "intimidation" when pressed for details on their "science". They won't give the details even when funded by the government!

From the link cited at the top. (I didn't even realize it was there)

Quote:So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.

niuhuskie84 Wrote:id imagine we wont do anything about all this until new york and san fran are around 10 feet underwater. and i dont care if you think its a man made problem or not (although if you think we can just rape the earth and do whatever the f we want and not have to suffer the consequences, you need to get your head checked), the question is how to solve the problem. but that would require admitting there is a problem.

Yes, and that requires valid, well-performed science, not the fear-mongering that makes the nightly news, and apparently gives you a feeling of superiority.

DrTorch Wrote:Valid point. However, I am also concerned that researchers are claiming "intimidation" when pressed for details on their "science". They won't give the details even when funded by the government!

I agree that scientists should be more forthcoming with the data from their work and the models they've developed to reach their conclusions. That would start a whole different debate over the assumptions used in developing models. You'll have different scientists claiming that different factors are more important.

However, I do think that developing models that stand up to scrutiny would be a step in the right direction and help move the debate from whether or not it's a problem to analyzing the effects of industrialization into the future and seeing what, if any, actions can be taken to mitigate adverse impacts.