Nova tonight

[dixieflatline]

Nova is doing another episode on global warming tonight at 8 (for most people I think). I know this has been a hotly contested issue on this, and other, boards in the past so I thought I would pass this along. Nova's last episode on this was 4-5 years ago and it was fascinating (to me at least). Anyway, the science has been changing rapidly so if you haven't been reading up on it recently you might want to catch this as Nova almost always does a great job.

[Lathum]

TIME magazine did a nice peace on global warming a few weeks ago.

[Senator]

Nova, Frontline, and American Experience are some of the best stuff on TV.

[AgustusM]

consider me skeptical of both sides of this issue.

I don't know the truth - but I am extremely put off by people who claim EVERYTHING is global warming:

its hot - must be global warming
its rained for 2 months here in northern california - side affect of global warming
hurricanes - global warming
record snow - global warming
dead polar bears - global warming
fat chicks - global warming
etc


I do know:
* that when I was a kid the big scare was the coming ace age
* that EVERYONE is biased based upon their funding and/or personal politics
* the earths climate is cyclical and all of this could be "normal"
* not all scientist agree that it is true (even if Time says they do)
* "Hey, everything is fine" is not news worthy but "we are all gonna die!!!" is.
* I and the vast majority of people don't know the first thing about the science behind it so global warming COULD be real, or it could not be REAL. I don't know and frankly I don't believe anyone else does either.

[QuikSand]

In the modern age of scientific illiteracy, every issue or consequence becomes a "jump ball" between actual experts and people propped up by the agenda-driven to look and sound like experts. I don't claim to know a lot, independently, on this subject, and will look forward to seeing Nova's discussion.

[Lathum]

Anyone that thinks global warming isn't happening is a fool IMHO.

It's a fact that the polar icecaps are melting and the number of hurricanes and the ferocity of them has increased significantly.

[albionmoonlight]

In the modern age of scientific illiteracy, every issue or consequence becomes a "jump ball" between actual experts and people propped up by the agenda-driven to look and sound like experts. I don't claim to know a lot, independently, on this subject, and will look forward to seeing Nova's discussion.I agree. That's getting TiVoed.

I also think that it is interesting how people's prejudices/instincts are revealed by their reaction to the "jump ball"/We don't Know/Experts disagree.

There are people who say that We Don't Know if humans are causing [X Problem], so there is no reason to change policies to stop something that may not be a problem. Then there are people who say that We Don't Know if humans are causing [X Problem], so we should change our policies in order to be on the safe side.

Even the lack of knowledge becomes a justification for political positions these days.

Facts? Meh. I guess that it is nice if they happen to agree with Your Side. But that is certainly a tertiary consideration these days. Much more important to make sure that you can come up with a catchy soundbite and get the talking heads to use it.

[AgustusM]

Anyone that thinks global warming isn't happening is a fool IMHO.

It's a fact that the polar icecaps are melting and the number of hurricanes and the ferocity of them has increased significantly.

It's also a fact that these events have occurred in the past and that the scientific community is still largely split on the subject. You can believe it all you want - but I think it is foolish to take some very simple facts such as polar ice and hurricane patterns (especially considering the past record of these events) and assume something as complex as global warming is the cause.

here are a few fun facts for you:

* Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants. source: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

* In 1997, a survey was conducted by Citizens for a Sound Economy, an organization that lobbies against the adoption of policy measures to slow global warming. It claimed that 36 of America's 48 official state climatologists participated in the survey. The survey questions and responses are available at the Internet Archive . The survey is reported to have found that by a margin of 44% to 17%, state climatologists believe that global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The survey further found that 58% of the climatologists disagreed with then President Clinton's assertion that "the overwhelming balance of evidence and scientific opinion is that it is no longer a theory, but now fact, that global warming is for real", while only 36% agreed with the assertion. source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

of course there are countless "educated" opinions on both sides of the issue - and both sides constantly accuse the other of being biased. Bottom line is the logical conclusion is that this debate is at best unresolved.

[AgustusM]

Also I want to reinterate my position is not that global warming does not exist - my position is the jury is still out and I refuse to follow along the lemming line because the conventional wisdom says it is so.

[Warhammer]

I think that Global Warming does exist, but I think that the causes are wholly natural, and are not due to human activity.

Much of the political wrangling about the issue is due to funding of scientists. I know enough about that industry that too many people stand to gain by not shooting down the human cause and effect in this area.

It also cracks me up that recently, I can't remember where I heard this, but some guy in Europe claimed that even if we stopped all human emissions of a chemical we're screwed because that would reduce cloud formation which would cause more radiation to be absorbed by the surface and increase the global temperature even more. So, we're screwed if we don't stop emissions, but we're screwed if we do? Give me a break.

[sabotai]

In the modern age of scientific illiteracy, every issue or consequence becomes a "jump ball" between actual experts and people propped up by the agenda-driven to look and sound like experts.

And then there are issues where both sides have some of both (actual experts and the agenda-driven sophists). From what I've seen, global warming (or rather, the part that says humans are causing it) is one of those issues. I don't think all of the "actual experts" fall neatly into one side of the debate.

[Grid Iron]

Anyone that thinks global warming isn't happening is a fool IMHO.

Of course it's warming. That's what happens after an ice age (a.k.a. glacial period) changes into an interglacial period (which is what we are in now).

It's going to get hotter over the next 10,000-15,000 years. But make sure you keep your furnace in working order because in 25,000-50,000 years it's gonna be butt-cold.

Science + Politics + Media = Bad Science

For those who are interested, here is a preview of tonight's show:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/

Seems like it will be a balanced show, but I haven't read everything.

[Draft Dodger]

Anyone that thinks global warming isn't happening is a fool IMHO.

It's a fact that the polar icecaps are melting and the number of hurricanes and the ferocity of them has increased significantly.

see, it's this kind of stuff that drives me crazy. The TIME article mentioned above had the same sort of "it's so obvious, dumbass" tone. The worst was some show I caught a few weeks ago on DSC or SCI channel or something similar. It was so one-sided, it was infuriating.

I'm right on board with Agustus (2nd time today, I think). I'm not saying GW doesn't exist necessarily, but I don't think it's a slam dunk that it does (or that it is caused by humans, or that it's a particular bad thing). I personally tend to be split between the idea that gw is more just a case of selective sample size, or that it does exist but Mother Nature has the ability to self-regulate more than we give her credit for (ie melting ice caps to cool us down).

[Glengoyne]

see, it's this kind of stuff that drives me crazy. The TIME article mentioned above had the same sort of "it's so obvious, dumbass" tone. The worst was some show I caught a few weeks ago on DSC or SCI channel or something similar. It was so one-sided, it was infuriating.

I'm right on board with Agustus (2nd time today, I think). I'm not saying GW doesn't exist necessarily, but I don't think it's a slam dunk that it does (or that it is caused by humans, or that it's a particular bad thing). I personally tend to be split between the idea that gw is more just a case of selective sample size, or that it does exist but Mother Nature has the ability to self-regulate more than we give her credit for (ie melting ice caps to cool us down).

What he said. Especially the part about Lathum being infuriating. Okay maybe not especially that.

[Draft Dodger]

ok, am I an idiot? because I can't find this on. The Nova I'm seeing tonight is "Dimming Sun", which seems to be the exact opposite position. I can't find anything on that page to tell me when the "What's Up With the Weather" show is on...

[Kodos]

What channel is NOVA on DirecTV?

[dixieflatline]

Apparently the global warming issue is covered extensively in the "Dimming Sun" episode which is tonight.

edit: While the "What's Up With the Weather" episode was very well done most of the information presented there has been updated. I would no longer suggest it as a good source of information because of that.

[Grid Iron]

After reading the Nova web info now, I'm not so sure the globe is warming.

Interesting stuff.

[Grid Iron]

Alright, this is just stupid.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/dimming.html

So, in 1994 people are saying OMFG GLOBAL WARMING!

Then, in 2004, skeptics say, hey the global temperature has actually gone down since 1994 (or so).

Now, it's OMFG GLOBAL DIMMING!

According to this guy, the earth is cooling because of our pollution ("Global Dimming"), and when we stop polluting, then we're gonna get hit with the catastrophic global warming.

[sterlingice]

Seems like it will be a balanced show, but I haven't read everything.

I'm not saying this is one of those issues, but I'm tired of everyone wanting a balanced view on things. Some things are biased- that's just how they are. It's like saying we need some people from the Flat Earth Society every time there's a cartography show to give a balanced view.

SI

[Grid Iron]

It's like saying we need some people from the Flat Earth Society every time there's a cartography show to give a balanced view.

Well we wouldn't need people from FES if the government would stop the dissemination of computer-generated maps and images of the earth falsely portraying the earth to be round.

[dixieflatline]

Did anyone catch this? Good, Bad, Ugly? Tivo was busy taping House (wife's current favorite show) but it will catch the rerun on saturday.

[Glengoyne]

I'm not saying this is one of those issues, but I'm tired of everyone wanting a balanced view on things. Some things are biased- that's just how they are. It's like saying we need some people from the Flat Earth Society every time there's a cartography show to give a balanced view.

SI

Just the partisan slant for you.

Check!

[Glengoyne]

Anyone watch this? I was watching American Idol or Thief, while recording this.

[QuikSand]

I watched the first half (was puzzled by the "global dimming" topic, too, but I rolled with it) but got distraced by baby issues and need to re-watch later. Interesting, as usual, but not exactly a "let's try to settle the whole global warming debate" if that's what you (like me) thought we were getting.

[Grid Iron]

Anyone watch this?

I saw the whole thing. Very much a "doom and gloom" environmental hysteria piece.

Basically the premise is that the global warming our pollution is causing is even worse than we first believed.

If you believe that humans are causing global warming, then this will (further) solidify your belief.

If you believe that the global warming issue is just hype and hysteria, this show will just aggravate you.

I am in the latter group.

[GMO]

I think that Global Warming does exist, but I think that the causes are wholly natural, and are not due to human activity.

Much of the political wrangling about the issue is due to funding of scientists. I know enough about that industry that too many people stand to gain by not shooting down the human cause and effect in this area.

It also cracks me up that recently, I can't remember where I heard this, but some guy in Europe claimed that even if we stopped all human emissions of a chemical we're screwed because that would reduce cloud formation which would cause more radiation to be absorbed by the surface and increase the global temperature even more. So, we're screwed if we don't stop emissions, but we're screwed if we do? Give me a break.

In the past Climatologists had trouble getting funding for research.
Now, if they mention global warming in their research application, they're more likely to get the research grant approved.
So the scientists are not disinterested, objective bystanders.

Global warming may be occurring. The climate is almost always changing when you look back in time (warmer or cooler, wetter or dryer).

But is human activity a significant cause? For me, it hasn't been proven.

[sterlingice]

Just the partisan slant for you.

Check!
Yes, that's exactly what I said :rolleyes:

My point is just that some things don't have two equally valid sides. In fact, rarely do things balance out and just because it makes for a better horse race to show two views as equally valid, doesn't mean that scientifically or culturally or sociologically that they hold equal weight.

SI

[dixieflatline]

As I have started in other threads, there are two parts to this. First, the earth is clearly warming. This is a fact, there really isn't any arguing it. The second issue, really the main issue, is if humans have played a role in this temperature increase.

I am curious what proof is neccessary for those who don't believe that humans have played a part in global warming? Warhammer, DD, Grid Iron, AgustusM, or anyone else who feels this way, I would greatly appreciate hearing what it would take for you to change you mind (i.e. what proof is required).

I believe that humans have played a part in global warming. I believe this because the computer models that include CO2 accurately predict this temperature increase. Models without CO2 fail to predict this increase but otherwise do a very good job of predicting other, natural, temperature changes. This isn't one or two models, this is many models, and all require proper CO2 modeling to get the right answer. I will completely change my opinion on this if: 1) a model that doesn't include CO2 modeling properly predicts this current temperature increase, or 2) these models fail in their prediction of increased temperature in the coming years. I do understand that trusting these models can be a hard sell, even though other scientists use simulations and modeling all the time in other, non-controversial, fields.

BTW, I would also like to point out that I am not predicting doom and gloom from this temperature increase. In fact no one really know how this temperature increase is going to effect the enviroment. Anyone who tells you doom and gloom is just guessing because proper scientific study really hasn't been done on the issue. Someone mentioned possible increased hurricane actively. This is certainly possible but, right now, nobody can tell you if that is the case or not. I believe that this is a seriously underfunded issue right now. For instance, before rebuilding New Orleans I would like to know if more, larger, hurricanes were on the horizon. If such hurricanes were coming this science would allow us to be fully prepared. Whether you believe humans are causing this increase I see no reason to believe that the temperature will be dropping anytime soon. So, I think studying the effects is a prudent strategy. Unfortuneately, we seem to have been bogged down in trying to answer the question of human involvement in global warming when, really, the potentially more important science is being largely ignored.

[molson]

In the past Climatologists had trouble getting funding for research.
Now, if they mention global warming in their research application, they're more likely to get the research grant approved.
So the scientists are not disinterested, objective bystanders.


This is all true, but I think its quite a leap from these facts, to the necessary implication of your argument - that thousands of scientists are lying and falsifying their research to get grant money.

It amazes me that so many people still cling to the belief that global warming is natural. Some people are apparently waiting for "proof" - as if a beyond a reasonable doubt standard is necessary. I'm not 100% convinced of anything, because there's still a few dissenting scientific voices - but I don't see how anyone can look at the full body of research over the last 20 years, and not think that its more likely than not that global warming is predominantly man-made.

There's potentially so much as stake here. I don't understand how people can be of the opinion, "well, I'm not completely convinced yet, so let's not do anything".

Unfortuneately, we seem to have been bogged down in trying to answer the question of human involvement in global warming when, really, the potentially more important science is being largely ignored.

Good point. This line of argument (natural v. man made) always turns this into a political isssue - and there really shouldn't be any relationship between Democratic/Republican politics and whether we're destroying our planet or not.

[Glengoyne]

As I have started in other threads, there are two parts to this. First, the earth is clearly warming. This is a fact, there really isn't any arguing it. The second issue, really the main issue, is if humans have played a role in this temperature increase.

I am curious what proof is neccessary for those who don't believe that humans have played a part in global warming? Warhammer, DD, Grid Iron, AgustusM, or anyone else who feels this way, I would greatly appreciate hearing what it would take for you to change you mind (i.e. what proof is required).

I believe that humans have played a part in global warming. I believe this because the computer models that include CO2 accurately predict this temperature increase. Models without CO2 fail to predict this increase but otherwise do a very good job of predicting other, natural, temperature changes. This isn't one or two models, this is many models, and all require proper CO2 modeling to get the right answer. I will completely change my opinion on this if: 1) a model that doesn't include CO2 modeling properly predicts this current temperature increase, or 2) these models fail in their prediction of increased temperature in the coming years. I do understand that trusting these models can be a hard sell, even though other scientists use simulations and modeling all the time in other, non-controversial, fields.

BTW, I would also like to point out that I am not predicting doom and gloom from this temperature increase. In fact no one really know how this temperature increase is going to effect the enviroment. Anyone who tells you doom and gloom is just guessing because proper scientific study really hasn't been done on the issue. Someone mentioned possible increased hurricane actively. This is certainly possible but, right now, nobody can tell you if that is the case or not. I believe that this is a seriously underfunded issue right now. For instance, before rebuilding New Orleans I would like to know if more, larger, hurricanes were on the horizon. If such hurricanes were coming this science would allow us to be fully prepared. Whether you believe humans are causing this increase I see no reason to believe that the temperature will be dropping anytime soon. So, I think studying the effects is a prudent strategy. Unfortuneately, we seem to have been bogged down in trying to answer the question of human involvement in global warming when, really, the potentially more important science is being largely ignored.

Here's the deal. The scientists themselves in their very own reports on global warming indicate that there are simply too many variables in play to actually model the phenomenon. So yes. There are models. I could put together a computer model to reflect the effects of CO2 on global warming. The deal is, I know what I want my model to produce. Maniupulating the handful of variables I use to generate the desired result isn't that difficult. I'm not fixing the results...I'm just excluding or including variables that I believe I can or can't predict. I mean if I plug a variable in, and it doesn't give me the desired result, then I must not have a full understanding of that variable. The fact is I haven't proven anything.

The global dimming phenomenon, which I actually put some credence into based on the evidence in the Nova show, is actually a great example of how flawed the computer models have been. These models have been accurately predicting the rise in temperature, and tying it to the rise in CO2 levels, yet they completely excluded this new finding that the amount of Sun reaching the earth has GREATLY diminished over the period of time being evaluated. This is a HUGE variable, and since it was only recently quantified, it was completely left out of the models.

[QuikSand]

...there really shouldn't be any relationship between Democratic/Republican politics and whether we're destroying our planet or not.

Good luck with that.

[Grid Iron]

It amazes me that so many people still cling to the belief that global warming is natural.

Global warming is absolutely a natural occurence. Just as global cooling is a natural occurence. The earth cools into ice ages, then warms up all on its own. This has been happening for millions of years. We are currently in a warming phase following an ice age. The question is whether humans are accelerating the otherwise natural warming.

Over the past 100 years, there has been a warming trend. But "weather satellite observations of the last twenty years show no global warming. In fact, a slight cooling." (Citation (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html))

I am curious what proof is neccessary for those who don't believe that humans have played a part in global warming? Warhammer, DD, Grid Iron, AgustusM, or anyone else who feels this way, I would greatly appreciate hearing what it would take for you to change you mind (i.e. what proof is required).


I'm not sure what proof would be required for me to "believe" humans are causing a measureable increase in global warming. I simply do not believe that we have the technology, or understanding, to draw conclusions about extremely complex weather and climate systems. No current computer model can accurately replicate earth's climate. Otherwise, our weathermen (and women) would never be wrong.

Further, past predictions of scientists about earth's environment have failed miserably, so I am skeptical about buying into the "hysteria." The New York Times (Aug. 14, 1975) reported "many signs" that "Earth may be heading for another ice age." Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned about "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." "Continued rapid cooling of the Earth" (Global Ecology, 1971) could herald "a full-blown 10,000-year ice age" (Science, March 1, 1975). The Christian Science Monitor reported (Aug. 27, 1974) that Nebraska's armadillos were retreating south from the cooling. (the last three sentences were copied from an article by George Will).

[sabotai]

I am curious what proof is neccessary for those who don't believe that humans have played a part in global warming? Warhammer, DD, Grid Iron, AgustusM, or anyone else who feels this way, I would greatly appreciate hearing what it would take for you to change you mind (i.e. what proof is required).

To be honest, this question is impossible to answer. At least for me it is.

To give an example, I was once a firm believer that there was a conspiracy, that reached into the government on some level, to assassinate JFK. Now, I believe Oswald acted alone. What specifically got me to change my view on the JFK assassination? I don't reallt know. At some point, along the way, I read enough and saw enough to finally realize that Oswald acted alone.

I could give off a few things that come to mind as I sit here and look back that got me to change my mind. But there wasn't one thing that changed my mind. And, more importantly, when I did believe in the conspiracy theory, I had no clue what would get me to change my mind.

So I can say that there isn't, can't and shouldn't be just one thing that gets me to change my mind (again) on the humans are causing global warming issue. I'll keep watching and reading about it, and if enough reliable information supporting the claim that humans are, on some level, causing global warming comes to light, I can see myself changing my view (again). But if you are asking what specifically it would take....I have no idea.

[Grid Iron]

This is a great speech by Crichton: http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

The best line, imo, is here:

"Stepping back, I have to say the arrogance of the modelmakers is breathtaking. . . Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future?

Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?"

[dixieflatline]

I'm not sure what proof would be required for me to "believe" humans are causing a measureable increase in global warming. I simply do not believe that we have the technology, or understanding, to draw conclusions about extremely complex weather and climate systems. No current computer model can accurately replicate earth's climate. Otherwise, our weathermen (and women) would never be wrong.


I guess I would take issue with this last point. Here is an example of a computer model and the data run with different parameters:
http://www.esr.org/outreach/climate_change/mans_impact/mod_val.jpg

Here Antropogenic is CO2 model. Notice how well the natural forcing does up until about 1970. Also notice how crappy the CO2 forcing does in the 1925-1975 region. But, when you put them togather you get something that matches the data quite well. This isn't the only model either, many others match the data quite well when CO2 is added. But, to my knowledge, none of the models without CO2 forcing can match the 1970-present data.

As for the Weatherman comment it is like the different between macro and micro economics or sociology. Up close it is really hard to tell what one thing is going to do. When when you back up and look at the group as a whole it is much easier. It is a very similiar thing with predicting tomorrow's weather vs. predicting the global temperature.

Here's the deal. The scientists themselves in their very own reports on global warming indicate that there are simply too many variables in play to actually model the phenomenon. So yes. There are models. I could put together a computer model to reflect the effects of CO2 on global warming. The deal is, I know what I want my model to produce. Maniupulating the handful of variables I use to generate the desired result isn't that difficult. I'm not fixing the results...I'm just excluding or including variables that I believe I can or can't predict. I mean if I plug a variable in, and it doesn't give me the desired result, then I must not have a full understanding of that variable. The fact is I haven't proven anything.

If it were easy to manipulate these models to match the data then someone who doesn't believe that humans are effecting the climate would have done so. Believe me that people have tried, extensively, to create a model that would agree with this current temperature uptick without CO2 modeling. Currently, the only way to explain this uptick is with CO2 modeling. Take that away and you can't match the data. You are correct that tomorrow someone might come up with a model that explains things perfectly using some other variables. If that were to happen I would change my mind on the topic instantly. But until that happens I am lead to believe that CO2 is playing a big role.

Lastly, I just want to say that these models are generally tuned with ice core readings and then run over current times to see if the model matches the data. None of these models are using recent data to tune with. No model that uses recent data should be taken seriously.

[gkb]

* Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants. source: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

Are they modeling the extra 6 billion tons that are from human activity alone? I guess I'm a bit shallow. I don't pay much attention to global warming, I'm not concerned for my children or their children that the Earth will be uninhabitable based on what's going on today. Meh.

[Glengoyne]

...

If it were easy to manipulate these models to match the data then someone who doesn't believe that humans are effecting the climate would have done so. Believe me that people have tried, extensively, to create a model that would agree with this current temperature uptick without CO2 modeling. Currently, the only way to explain this uptick is with CO2 modeling. Take that away and you can't match the data. You are correct that tomorrow someone might come up with a model that explains things perfectly using some other variables. If that were to happen I would change my mind on the topic instantly. But until that happens I am lead to believe that CO2 is playing a big role.

Lastly, I just want to say that these models are generally tuned with ice core readings and then run over current times to see if the model matches the data. None of these models are using recent data to tune with. No model that uses recent data should be taken seriously.

My point is that the scientists themselves have said that there are too many variables in play to forecast or model, let alone to determine that the warming has anthropogenic causes. Too many variables period. I'm describing how some models can be made to reflect reality. Gee when I calculate in this factor for insert global climate variable name here I don't come anywhere close to my predicted results. Oh but if I drop that and factor in insert second global climate variable name here, well then every matches very nicely.

[AgustusM]

Scientists understand global warming about as well as men understand women.

[rkmsuf]

dude the global is warming

[AgustusM]

I thought the most telling of all things in the Nova piece - in the beginning there is one guy in Israel and one gal in Germany who come up with the Global Dimming theory - and they are ridiculed and ignored by the scientific community because their theory essentially contradicts global warming.

so years pass and a few other guys have a theory that shows the pollution is causing the global dimming.

so another guy proposes – that the global dimming is actually protecting us from global warming that would already be MUCH worse!

so now, their theory the one that was ridiculed is now embraced! Funny how they are dead wrong when the theory doesn’t match that of the others, but is dead on when it does.

Also very funny thing about the whole deal is the essential point made is that global dimming which is caused by pollution is mitigating the problem of the green house effect by essentially shielding us from it. So logically should we INCREASE pollution, further increasing the affect of global dimming and thus mitigating ALL of the global warming problem! Somehow they didn’t come to that conclusion, they came to the same conclusion that we should all ride bikes and only eat artichokes or something to that effect.

On a more serious note regarding scientist, funding and conspiracy theories. I would like to say that no I do not believe that essentially good, intelligent people hide away in a room and decide lets pull the wool over the peoples eyes and get in the rich in the process. I do think that it is very much human nature that people find reasons to support the things they already believe. For example there is a guy on here who studies the contrails left by airplane and their affect on the climate and he has been doing this for 15 years!!! What are the chances he is going to come out with a study that says – well I found no correlation between the contrails and the climate, which means my life work has been an enormous waste! Of course he isn’t going to say that he is going to find evidence that supports his theory and ignore that which doesn’t. People in all sorts of professions do this every day. My wife is VP sales of a natural bar company. The spend millions of dollars on analysis that shows that their bar is the number one bar – which it is, when the conditions are right – of course they ignore the data that doesn’t support this theory. Having spent 15 years in IT support of various companies in the grocery business I have seen this activity time and time again. No one puts together a presentation that says “hey I’ve been doing all this research and it turns out my ideas were wrong, you wasted your money paying me to do it and you should fire me as soon as possible”

Finally, I don't care where you stand on the issue - if you watched the Nova piece and only saw the imagery and listened to the music (and didn't listen to the words) it looks like a bad science fiction doom and gloom movie. All the music sounds like Darth Vader is around the corner and the visuals are all intentionally “scary” for example we see this one dust cloud 3 times envelope a tower and city. Of course the cloud, city and cause of this is never discussed. It is absolutely intend to scare people – which is the power that these causes always use. Which by the way I do not think is a tactics only used by the left, I think Bush uses scare tactics as much as anyone else when he attempts to drum up support for his policies.

[dixieflatline]

Wow. I had no idea people had such a bad view of scientists. I could care less what you think about global warming but let me address a few general points you brought up.


On a more serious note regarding scientist, funding and conspiracy theories. I would like to say that no I do not believe that essentially good, intelligent people hide away in a room and decide lets pull the wool over the peoples eyes and get in the rich in the process. I do think that it is very much human nature that people find reasons to support the things they already believe.

I don't think you realize just how hard something like this is to pull off. In science you hypothesis a theory and then test it to see if it matches the data. If it dosn't and you lie and say it did then when the next scientist comes along to try to replicate your results you are completely screwed. If you try to publish your fake results in a journal the peer review is extensive. Sure sometimes you can fool people for a while, see Hwang Woo Suk, but eventually you will be found out.

For example there is a guy on here who studies the contrails left by airplane and their affect on the climate and he has been doing this for 15 years!!! What are the chances he is going to come out with a study that says – well I found no correlation between the contrails and the climate, which means my life work has been an enormous waste! Of course he isn’t going to say that he is going to find evidence that supports his theory and ignore that which doesn’t. People in all sorts of professions do this every day.

I don't think you realize the huge number of studies that find exactly that. My hypothesis was completely wrong and this factor has no barring on the data. In fact most of the time this is the case you just don't hear about these stories. In reality this happens all the time and it doesn't mean that what you were doing wasn't good science it just means your hypothesis was wrong. People say exactly that this in many, many, articles. Again, if you ignore the data that doesn't support your theory eventually it will come out and you will be screwed because in real science people test, retest, and build on past work. Lying just plain doesn't work in the scientific community for long. This may happen in other professions but it is very limited in the scientific community.

My wife is VP sales of a natural bar company. The spend millions of dollars on analysis that shows that their bar is the number one bar – which it is, when the conditions are right – of course they ignore the data that doesn’t support this theory.
This is not science in any way shape or form. Please do not confuse corperate interests with what is going at universities and national labs. They are two completely different things.

Having spent 15 years in IT support of various companies in the grocery business I have seen this activity time and time again. No one puts together a presentation that says “hey I’ve been doing all this research and it turns out my ideas were wrong, you wasted your money paying me to do it and you should fire me as soon as possible”


I think you would be very surprised to see how often exactly this occurs. I'll give you one example from one of the most respected living scientists today, Stephen Hawking. Hawking in his early career backed a theory called the steady state theory which was in competition to the big bang theory. Why have you never heard of the steady state theory? Because it was completely wrong. Every paper he published on it: wrong. Every talk he gave about it: wrong. When the data eventually showed the big bang theory to be correct did Hawking cling to his pet theory? No, he gave it up accepted the theory that currently fits the data and moved on. He wasted years of his life helping develop a theory that got blown to pieces but that didn't stop him from going on and proposing other theories that have since matched data well and now are accepted. Stories like this happen every day you just don't hear about it and real scientists don't just go around ignoring data that doesn't fit with their theory.

[Grid Iron]

. . . the (theory) that was ridiculed is now embraced! Funny how they are dead wrong when the theory doesn’t match that of the others, but is dead on when it does.

Exactly the problem that occurs when science meets public policy and politics.

Great post, by the way, especially about the music and imagery. Made me more skeptical about global warming.

Give me the facts for one side, tell me the opposing view, and let me draw my own conclusions.

I thought the contrail guy's chart was interesting. On Sept. 11, there is a low average temperature. On the three days after 9/11, there is a jump in average temperature. The problem was that they ignored (and kinda covered up) the following days that appeared to show a drop in temperature equal to the rise on the 3 days following 9/11.

In addition, why not show the average temperature increase over the three days separately? It would have been more convincing, and consistent with the contrail theory, if there was a gradual temperature rise over each of the three days. I suspect the reason they grouped it into three days (rather than showing each day) was because there was a spike in temperature on 9/12 or 9/13 with a drop on 9/13 or 9/14, when there shouldn't be under his theory. It would have been perfect to say, "look, each day after 9/11 the average temperature gradually increased. . ." But they didn't do that.

So, what might have been coincidence is presented in a way to fit the contrail theory.

[AgustusM]

dixieflatline

I don't by any mean claim to know the scientific community - my area of expertise is in business.

However I don't buy the fact that all scientist are pure benevolent creatures who only care about the truth.

Someone like Hawking who is already respected and financially set is far more able to be "wrong" and admit it then someguy still trying to make a name for himself and needs the money.

Having said all that I could be dead wrong - I have absolutely NO first hand experience with scientist and the last science course I took was over 25 years ago in college.

However I do think PEOPLE are very similar despite their professions. People who have yet to make it in whatever field they are in tend to take more risks, make less money and have to be more concerned with paying the rent then established professionals.

I also think like in any profession there are good and bad, smart and dense, those who do things for the right reasons, those who do things for money or sex, or whatever you. You can never tell what motivates someone.

My view is that regardless of what the scientist FIND – they are looking at but a snapshot of time relative to our planets history and attempting to make large assumptions from that data. Has the global temperature risen in the last 100 years – I am sure it is possible and that appears to be the conventional wisdom – so I am happy to concede the fact. However isn’t it true that global temperatures have risen and fell in natural cycles for as long back as we have recorded information and so it can be equally true that the rise in temperature is natural and that humans have little to no influence on it. I would say yes, this is possible.

So it is entirely possible that 50 scientists all across the globe measured variable X and all found out it rose by Y %. So it is unbiased and accurate and all that. However it is the conclusion that it is a) global warming and b) entirely the fault of humans, especially those who don’t like Bill Clinton that I have an issue with.

Do I understand the science – absolutely not – which by the way puts me in the vast majority.

However – I have heard the arguments and I always find flaw with the logic that says this IS global warming not that it COULD be global warming.

This NOVA thing is a perfect example:

Initial Theory – The Globe is warming, it is all the humans fault. Global dimming is nonsense.

Wait – actually we changed our mind global warming AND global dimming are the problem.

Perhaps they are, but until they make up their mind and stop changing the theory, pardon me for not taking every theory to be gospel.

[AgustusM]

GridIron

Yeah I wondered about the contrail thing as well. Clearly there was a change on those 3 days - but I think he would have made a much more compelling argument if he would have said:

The change on these 3 days was – 1C

At no other 3 day period in the previous 15 years of the study were they ever higher then .4C or something to that affect.

Instead he said the change on the middle days was – 1C and in the previous before and after days he didn’t say exactly what the change was, just that is chart seemed to indicate it was “lower”

So there are really only 2 options:
1. It didn’t occur to him that an anomaly of 3 days without Jet flight that produces results that can not be replicated in any other 3 day span in 15 years – is very convincing evidence.
2. or there are other 3 day spans that equal the 3 days following 911 which kind of squashes his theory, however if he only compares to the 3 days before and the 3 days after then he can show a differential – so he selects that data rather then the more comprehensive data.

The fact that he only compared the 9 days seemed highly ineffective to me and is exactly the kind of data manipulation I was talking about on the business end. I have seen it done first hand thousands of times.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

I thought the most telling of all things in the Nova piece - in the beginning there is one guy in Israel and one gal in Germany who come up with the Global Dimming theory - and they are ridiculed and ignored by the scientific community because their theory essentially contradicts global warming.

so years pass and a few other guys have a theory that shows the pollution is causing the global dimming.

so another guy proposes – that the global dimming is actually protecting us from global warming that would already be MUCH worse!

so now, their theory the one that was ridiculed is now embraced! Funny how they are dead wrong when the theory doesn’t match that of the others, but is dead on when it does.


So.. how is the not exactly how science is supposed to work? When someone suggests a radical new idea, other scientists are supposed to be skeptical. If a theory has gained credibility over years of research and debate, it should be hard to displace. But the key is that the door is always open to new and better theories. And a new theory may take time to mature, for researchers to figure out whether it has merit, what it means, and where it fits into the scheme. But when it does, science embraces it. That's precisely the point of the whole exercise.