Global Warming is Bullsh!t!

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

While you're over there, you could book a hotel room for a week and talk to all of these as well.

The MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change | All Personnel

Sorry I'm late in responding to this. I think you missed my point. I'm not surprised that there are believers in global warming at MIT... that's kind of like being shocked that there are drunks in the bleachers at Fenway. DT had said he wished he could move to a country with a higher level of discourse. I was just pointing out that there was at least one skeptical scientist nearby with whom he could have a good conversation about climate change.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Sorry I'm late in responding to this. I think you missed my point. I'm not surprised that there are believers in global warming at MIT... that's kind of like being shocked that there are drunks in the bleachers at Fenway. DT had said he wished he could move to a country with a higher level of discourse. I was just pointing out that there was at least one skeptical scientist nearby with whom he could have a good conversation about climate change.

to which ronnie pointed out that your scientist skeptic apparently has mutliple personality disorder...

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Sorry I'm late in responding to this. I think you missed my point. I'm not surprised that there are believers in global warming at MIT... that's kind of like being shocked that there are drunks in the bleachers at Fenway. DT had said he wished he could move to a country with a higher level of discourse. I was just pointing out that there was at least one skeptical scientist nearby with whom he could have a good conversation about climate change.

That's fair enough. Lindzen is often trumpeted by the "deniers" (terrible term but I couldn't come up with anything else) as a sort of Excalibur in that he's a smart man at a good institution while ignoring that there are many, many just as qualified at the same institution who disagree with him. Your point about DT's over-the-topness is taken for sure.

[DaddyTorgo]

lol that's me! over-the-top!

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i'm not arguing in circles. i just think that your claim that "big energy is the only one willing to push much in the way of skeptic research" is an issue.

if a cigarette company comes out with a study by a scientist saying that cigarette smoking doesn't cause lung cancer don't we all just point and laugh and say "oh gee...big surprise. no way they would fund a study that undercut their business model?"

it's the exact same thing here. no way some big energy company is going to fund a study saying that global warming is a manmade problem when the solutions to that are going to hurt their bottom line!!

i really like that example actually.

if there isn't skeptic-research by somebody who isn't funded/associated with/whatever "big energy" then in my eyes their research is too biased to be entered into the conversation. it's common sense, and really it's far from an impossible hurdle to surpass.

Big Energy != Big Oil

Exxon, Chevron, Texaco, BP, etc. are all oil companies. None of them own an energy plant (that I am aware of). However, they are Big Oil. Big Oil is interested in selling oil. The thing is, there are so many other items that oil goes into, that they will still be in business for a long time. Also, oil is not the primary source of power in the US, coal is. Now, when cars are factored in, oil moves up in the rankings.

All that said, I don't think there is a single study that shows that smoking is good for you, and outweighs the bad. That is where your strawman differs from the global temperature debate.

Let me ask this, who here can tell me how scientific process works? How you conduct an experiment?

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

... Lindzen is often trumpeted by the "deniers" (terrible term but I couldn't come up with anything else)...

How about "infidels"? "Non-believers"?

Just trying to be helpful.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

if a cigarette company comes out with a study by a scientist saying that cigarette smoking doesn't cause lung cancer don't we all just point and laugh and say "oh gee...big surprise. no way they would fund a study that undercut their business model?"

smoke every day...no cancer here. want more proof than that?

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

smoke every day...no cancer here. want more proof than that?

Are you seriously using only one person as an example of how smoking does not cause cancer?

[CamEdwards]

This, in a nutshell, is why I really can't take the global warming crowd all that seriously (and frankly, why I don't pay as much attention to the issue as I probably should).

San Francisco, Amsterdam Work Toward Sustainability

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and Cisco Chief Globalization Officer Wim Elfrink, along with Amsterdam Mayor Job Cohen, presented the latest developments in the Connected Urban Development (CUD) initiative in Bangalore, India, on Tuesday. They discussed the Urban EcoMap, the newest piece of the CUD program.

The EcoMap is designed to allow citizens to make informed decisions regarding the effect that their actions -- or inactions -- have on their environment. The online application's aim is to help foster healthy competition between cities as they lower their environmental impact.

So the mayor of San Francisco flew to Bangalore, India to put on a presentation with a muckety-muck from Cisco about how citizens can (and presumably should) be more aware of the effect their actions have on the environment.

He flew to Bangalore with the guy from Cisco. They couldn't hold a fucking video conference? According to the carbon footprint calculator I used, Newsom's flight alone had a carbon footprint of nearly 7 tons. It just seems to me that if global warming were such a real concern, the chief proponents of lifestyle change would be... you know... changing their lifestyles.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

This, in a nutshell, is why I really can't take the global warming crowd all that seriously (and frankly, why I don't pay as much attention to the issue as I probably should).

San Francisco, Amsterdam Work Toward Sustainability



So the mayor of San Francisco flew to Bangalore, India to put on a presentation with a muckety-muck from Cisco about how citizens can (and presumably should) be more aware of the effect their actions have on the environment.

He flew to Bangalore with the guy from Cisco. They couldn't hold a fucking video conference? According to the carbon footprint calculator I used, Newsom's flight alone had a carbon footprint of nearly 7 tons. It just seems to me that if global warming were such a real concern, the chief proponents of lifestyle change would be... you know... changing their lifestyles.

I will probably get flamed for this, but it kinda reminds me of Al Gore having a ridiculously expensive electric bill while telling everyone else to turn down their power usage....

FWIW, I am pretty much in the middle on this topic. I believe in the concept of global warming, but have my doubts as to how much is actually our fault. Obviously we should do what we can to lessen our impact on the earth, but a lot of it appears to be media hype and political propaganda. Just my $0.02.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

The Daily Show addresses Climate-gate............

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Wt0ZaXu_CA

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Big Energy != Big Oil

Exxon, Chevron, Texaco, BP, etc. are all oil companies. None of them own an energy plant (that I am aware of). However, they are Big Oil. Big Oil is interested in selling oil. The thing is, there are so many other items that oil goes into, that they will still be in business for a long time. Also, oil is not the primary source of power in the US, coal is. Now, when cars are factored in, oil moves up in the rankings.

All that said, I don't think there is a single study that shows that smoking is good for you, and outweighs the bad. That is where your strawman differs from the global temperature debate.

Let me ask this, who here can tell me how scientific process works? How you conduct an experiment?

but big energy is against global warming research for polluting reasons anyways

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

This, in a nutshell, is why I really can't take the global warming crowd all that seriously (and frankly, why I don't pay as much attention to the issue as I probably should).

San Francisco, Amsterdam Work Toward Sustainability



So the mayor of San Francisco flew to Bangalore, India to put on a presentation with a muckety-muck from Cisco about how citizens can (and presumably should) be more aware of the effect their actions have on the environment.

He flew to Bangalore with the guy from Cisco. They couldn't hold a fucking video conference? According to the carbon footprint calculator I used, Newsom's flight alone had a carbon footprint of nearly 7 tons. It just seems to me that if global warming were such a real concern, the chief proponents of lifestyle change would be... you know... changing their lifestyles.

Jimmy Swaggart was a crook, therefore, God doesn't exist.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Jimmy Swaggart was a crook, therefore, God doesn't exist.

I would say the closer analogy is "Jimmy Swaggart acts like hell doesn't exist, therefore why would I believe him when he says it does?"

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I would say the closer analogy is "Jimmy Swaggart acts like hell doesn't exist, therefore why would I believe him when he says it does?"

Okay, I'll take that. But while the actions of the above may call into question his sincerity, it doesn't have anything to do with global warming. Disbelieving everyone because of the faults of a few that they have no control over is silly.

Would all preachers that talk about hell be discredited because of Swaggart?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Okay, I'll take that. But while the actions of the above may call into question his sincerity, it doesn't have anything to do with global warming. Disbelieving everyone because of the faults of a few that they have no control over is silly.

Would all preachers that talk about hell be discredited because of Swaggart?

Nope. But when more and more preachers act like Swaggart, it's not surprising when fewer people believe in hell. Pretending like it's just a "few" believers of global warming who live jet-setting lives with enormous carbon footprints is like pretending that there've only been a couple of crooked preachers over the past few years.

Keep in mind, the religious argument may work on someone who actually goes to church, but I haven't gone to church looking for spiritual guidance in about 9 years.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Are you seriously using only one person as an example of how smoking does not cause cancer?

"Sarcasm meter to aisle Goth...sarcasm meter to aisle got...thank you."

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Nope. But when more and more preachers act like Swaggart, it's not surprising when fewer people believe in hell. Pretending like it's just a "few" believers of global warming who live jet-setting lives with enormous carbon footprints is like pretending that there've only been a couple of crooked preachers over the past few years.

Keep in mind, the religious argument may work on someone who actually goes to church, but I haven't gone to church looking for spiritual guidance in about 9 years.

The topic doesn't really matter as you can make the same argument about any set of beliefs as there's always a group of people that could be seen as discrediting their argument. I had a scout master that was strict about behavior in camp, but I knew he'd gotten caught with alcohol with my oldest brother when he was a scout. Does that invalidate all discouragement of teen drinking?

There's a tendency on the right to invalidate arguments if the person making them doesn't live like Gahndi. Global warming arguments are a sham because Al Gore has a big house with a lot of lights. Poverty reduction is a sham because Ted Kennedy was rich. Not until the adherents of these beliefs live the lives of paupers can they have credibility, but of course the way the media and political world works the paupers don't get any time to make their arguments. It's a good way to shut out arguments you'd rather not hear.

The jet set guy is likely a d-bag(just because I have that feeling about all of SIlicon Valley CEOs, but flying on an airplane doesn't mean you aren't conserving. As I understand it the main message is to reduce, not eliminate, your carbon footprint. If everyone reduces their footprint by 10%, even if that means Al Gore still has a big house, the collective reduction will be a big change. I think it's fair to ask the biggest users to reduce more than those at the poverty level, but nobody is arguing that carbon use has to be zero for every individual.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

but big energy is against global warming research for polluting reasons anyways

They really aren't. Think about it, if you can market clean energy, that gives you a pretty big advantage in the marketplace. Plus, any technologies you develop you can make money from the licensing of that technology to other companies. Also, any form of clean energy gets you away from fossil fuels, particularly oil. Most of our coal plants burn pretty clean, with scrubbers and other emission reducing technology. You get outside of the US, and that is where the coal plants are bad.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

"Sarcasm meter to aisle Goth...sarcasm meter to aisle got...thank you."

Hard to tell sarcasm sometimes on the internetz....

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

They really aren't. Think about it, if you can market clean energy, that gives you a pretty big advantage in the marketplace. Plus, any technologies you develop you can make money from the licensing of that technology to other companies. Also, any form of clean energy gets you away from fossil fuels, particularly oil. Most of our coal plants burn pretty clean, with scrubbers and other emission reducing technology. You get outside of the US, and that is where the coal plants are bad.

Agreed. People forget far too often how much work has gone into making the U.S. a much cleaner energy producing country. You don't even have to read the captions under these pictures to see just how much worse the situation is in other countries when compared to the U.S. If even one of these scenes occurred in the U.S., it would be national news and there would be a criminal investigation..........

Amazing Pictures, Pollution in China | ChinaHush

[JPhillips]

Having been in China, no pictures I have ever seen of the air quality do justice to the level of pollution. I'd love to live a few years in China, but I'd be terrified to breathe the air long term.

[DaddyTorgo]

yeah....china=icky

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Agreed. People forget far too often how much work has gone into making the U.S. a much cleaner energy producing country. You don't even have to read the captions under these pictures to see just how much worse the situation is in other countries when compared to the U.S. If even one of these scenes occurred in the U.S., it would be national news and there would be a criminal investigation..........

Amazing Pictures, Pollution in China | ChinaHush

Thanks for the pictures, very eye-opening. Of course, they don't care about any of this, China isn't exactly the human rights capital of the planet.

[Warhammer]

Those pictures illustrate a matter I have talked about for a while. We shouldn't be the ones to have the restrictions placed on our economy. We are productive and clean, we need to place the restrictions on developing economies to make them more clean and productive. We don't want to have 20 more Chinas in the developing world.

[JPhillips]

Here's another good story on Chinese pollution.

http://www.searchmagazine.org/May-Ju...ull-china.html

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by cartman

Here is Scientific American's take on the situation.

Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense: Scientific American

Yay, more strawmen! I realize that a large segment of the opposition (extending to prominent people like Inhofe) devolves into people saying it doesn't exist or other similarly idiotic and/or extremely condensed points, but it doesn't mean every article "answering contrarians" needs to lower themselves to that standard. I've never/rarely seen articles or attempts to answer why

1: an increase in temperature of 2-3 degrees celsius would be bad on a global scale when there have been much more massive and rapid temperature swings in the past
2: those in the past occurred and how that relates to AGW today
3: putting caps on OECD countries and not developing ones actually helps at all.

The third is particularly galling when the article chooses to end with a statement like this.

But then again, responsible action on climate change is what the contrarians seem most interested in denying.

Overall, it was an article preaching to true believers and the lcd rather than attempting to constructively approach the scientists like Lomborg that actually are making scientific arguments against them. I've had long conversations with prominent people in that field and they are so used to answering exasperating questions from deniers and winning on their (epochally) small-scale points and talking about "the big picture" they don't ever bother to look at the actual bigger picture.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

First, it's nice to know that people have devolved to "other countries are worse, so we shouldn't do anything." Responsible!

Like I said, Yay, strawmen!

Also, the USA + EU is approximately 34% of all carbon emissions. China is only 20%

Yes, and the US/EU counts for a much larger percentage of output, so if you look at energy efficiency they're not the problem. But it's nice to know that "China shouldn't do anything because other countries+economic groupings are worse."

Also, past massive swings temperature didn't happen when were a massively advanced globalized world with six billion people in it. Ya' know, that little thing.

Yet somehow those primitive cavemen managed to survive and adapt. That little thing.

[cartman]

One of my concerns is that the levels of CO2 we are seeing now equate to the levels seen in the past in the time after a major volcanic eruption. Those levels were naturally brought down over time. But we are keeping those CO2 levels year after year, without a chance for the natural reduction to take place. We really won't know how that will affect things until another major volcanic eruption (or other natural CO2 producing event) takes place.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

We can't force China to do anything. We can _do_ something. Also, we're fucking America. We can do more than survive and adapt. We go in and fix the problem. Yes, it might require sacrifice and more silly stuff like that. That's the price we pay for being responsible.

+1

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

in an* historically freezing era

*(I know it should be a historically, but I can't bring muself to write that. Sorry grammar police.)

Just out of curiousity- why? "An historical" sounds awful to my ears whereas "a historical" sounds right.

I'm just remembering back to grade school: "an" for vowels, consonants for everything else. The only reason we have that freaky "h" issue is that words like "hour" and "honest" have silent h's so the "o" is the first sound you hear (i.e. a vowel) so you get "an hour" or "an honest politician" (oh, who are we kidding- the latter doesn't exist)

SI

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Just out of curiousity- why? "An historical" sounds awful to my ears whereas "a historical" sounds right.

I'm just remembering back to grade school: "an" for vowels, consonants for everything else. The only reason we have that freaky "h" issue is that words like "hour" and "honest" have silent h's so the "o" is the first sound you hear (i.e. a vowel) so you get "an hour" or "an honest politician" (oh, who are we kidding- the latter doesn't exist)

SI

Some people pronounce "historic" and "historical" with a silent 'h'.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

We can't force China to do anything. We can _do_ something. Also, we're fucking America. We can do more than survive and adapt. We go in and fix the problem. Yes, it might require sacrifice and more silly stuff like that. That's the price we pay for being responsible.

This is exactly why we need to figure out what the heck the cause is. Let's say that of the x amount of warming we had, human activity was responsible for .1x, then guess what, I don't think we need to be doing anything. Now if we are talking we're responsible for .5x, then I can see your point a little better.

However, no one has been able to conclusively say that people are responsible for x% of the warming. There have been zero studies that rule out other possibilities.

Let's look at creation. Back in the 20s, a scientist proposed that the universe started as a primeval egg. Someone else proposed a steady state theory. Over time, experiments and observations were made that forced the egg theory to evolve to a point singularity and eventually to the Big Bang Theory. The Steady State Theory died over time due to the observations made about the acceleration of the universe, space, etc., etc.

What we have today are several different discussions. First, that we have had statistically significant warming since 1980. Some say we have, others say we have, but we are on the back side of the curve and temperatures will return to normal, etc. That is one debate. The second debate, is what is causing the change?

The problem I have is that many people assume that the debate is settled. I don't think it is. Without fundamentally proving he first, you cannot prove the second. Think about it, we are talking about a .5 deg. C change in temperature. That is roughly 1 deg. F. That is not statistically significant in the big scheme of things.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Let's look at creation. Back in the 20s, a scientist proposed that the universe started as a primeval egg. Someone else proposed a steady state theory. Over time, experiments and observations were made that forced the egg theory to evolve to a point singularity and eventually to the Big Bang Theory. The Steady State Theory died over time due to the observations made about the acceleration of the universe, space, etc., etc.

[path12]

Some say the "Movies you should like but don't" thread is the most depressing one on the board.

I think it's this one.

[Warhammer]

I should go back and edit that. Meant to end that with, "Now the Big Bang Theory is the accepted theory to describe creation. However, this is based on data and observations we have, a new competitor could come and overthrow it with additional data and observations."

[DaddyTorgo]

what's the harm in doing what we can to reduce global warming no matter what % of it we as human beings are responsible for though? as a species we should thrive to be "carbon-neutral" so that we don't have any effect on the Earth. Now obviously we're never going to get there, but any sort of reductions that we can make we should make.

you're saying we have to know what % we're responsible for conclusively before we can start reducing it? I say why? if we have the tools and the ability to start reducing it now why would we wait? at some point it would become a runaway chain of warming that we couldn't stop...why let it get even one day closer to that out of inaction?

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I should go back and edit that. Meant to end that with, "Now the Big Bang Theory is the accepted theory to describe creation. However, this is based on data and observations we have, a new competitor could come and overthrow it with additional data and observations."

That's the great thing about science. You aren't shoe horned into following impractical, incorrect and illogical dogma regardless of the evidence against it. If something turns out to be false, it's discarded, much like the steady state theory was and aether.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by cartman

One of my concerns is that the levels of CO2 we are seeing now equate to the levels seen in the past in the time after a major volcanic eruption. Those levels were naturally brought down over time. But we are keeping those CO2 levels year after year, without a chance for the natural reduction to take place. We really won't know how that will affect things until another major volcanic eruption (or other natural CO2 producing event) takes place.

Yes, that is one of the actual worries I have, but like you said it's one where we don't know what will happen, or even if it will be a problem. Ceteris paribus I would like the CO2 levels to be lower, but I don't think it's worth the drastic change in lifestyles that would need to occur to eliminate mankinds carbon footprint (and even then it would take 50-100 years to stabilize) based off guesses and potential scenarios.

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Just out of curiousity- why? "An historical" sounds awful to my ears whereas "a historical" sounds right.

I'm just remembering back to grade school: "an" for vowels, consonants for everything else. The only reason we have that freaky "h" issue is that words like "hour" and "honest" have silent h's so the "o" is the first sound you hear (i.e. a vowel) so you get "an hour" or "an honest politician" (oh, who are we kidding- the latter doesn't exist)

Pretty much what sabotai said, except I actually flip back and forth between pronouncing historic with or without an H sound* - I think depending on how fast I am talking at that point, or possibly on whether I am emphasizing historic or the word after it. In my mind I was probably reading that sentence quickly, so "in an (h)istoric era" sounded better than "in a historic era".

*(Or would that be without a H sound )

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

as a species we should thrive to be "carbon-neutral" so that we don't have any effect on the Earth.

Why? What makes an entirely untouched world a better place than one that has been terraformed or altered by humans? I'm not getting into the obvious pollution is bad and should be avoided aspects, but every type of flora and fauna affects the world around them, and I'd rather spend the energy molding it in a good way than by trying to cancel out our effects.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

what's the harm in doing what we can to reduce global warming no matter what % of it we as human beings are responsible for though? as a species we should thrive to be "carbon-neutral" so that we don't have any effect on the Earth. Now obviously we're never going to get there, but any sort of reductions that we can make we should make.

you're saying we have to know what % we're responsible for conclusively before we can start reducing it? I say why? if we have the tools and the ability to start reducing it now why would we wait? at some point it would become a runaway chain of warming that we couldn't stop...why let it get even one day closer to that out of inaction?

How much are you willing to pay for that?

Every biological process that I can think of has one of two bi-products, either CO2 or O2. So guess what, anything we do, will result in a larger CO2 footprint. We raise chickens or cows? More CO2 output. We grow crops, well we need to farm the land, so more CO2 output. We need more energy? Guess what, more CO2 output. And when we die, those little natural critters that eat our body up, produce CO2.

CO2 is not a bad gas. It isn't. We could not live without CO2. The whole premise of the CO2 debate is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, with additional CO2 in the atmosphere we will get warmer. The problem is that we do not understand the processes behind what drives temperature in the atmosphere. We do not know how much CO2 drives climate. We have no clue. If additional CO2 causes warming, why has there not been constant warming since 1750? Why does the start of the industrial revolution coincide with the Little Ice Age? Why if CO2 is so bad, why is global biomass up?

[sabotai]

5 part (slowly ongoing) video series that deals with the science, debate and myths about global climate change. Since he goes after the myths created by both sides, I'm sure everyone find things to like and hate about these.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Let's look at creation. Back in the 20s, a scientist proposed that the universe started as a primeval egg. Someone else proposed a steady state theory. Over time, experiments and observations were made that forced the egg theory to evolve to a point singularity and eventually to the Big Bang Theory. The Steady State Theory died over time due to the observations made about the acceleration of the universe, space, etc., etc.

A better example I like to use for this is food and diet. First, protein was bad for you, so you needed to cut out meat. Then it was discovered that the fat that went with the protein was the real culprit, so you needed to cut out fat. Then they decided that it was really the CARBS everyone was eating with those, so you needed to cut carbs. Then they discovered that it was really bad carbs, and there are also good and bad fats.

Now they've finally come to the conclusion that we just need to eat balanced and in moderation to really be healthy, but the advice to cut back on sweets was probably good.

I feel the same way with global warming. The answer is probably just that we need to be careful about pollution and emissions and all the trash we throw away, but we can't go overboard or people start dying of disease at much higher rates again when we get rid of all the modern conveniences. Instead every time we turn around folks want to cut everything to the bone (83% reduction in carbon emissions? really?).

Burning wood in your fireplace is bad for the environment for crying out loud. How exactly are we supposed to live again? And we can't build nuclear plants, so how do we get our energy? Windmills kill birds, natural gas wells are catching fire under cities, etc.

Carpooling is good. If they can ever work out the logistics for trains and mass transit, I like the concept but we have to figure it out. We have some great recycling programs. Continued work on alternative energy sources. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

A better example I like to use for this is food and diet. First, protein was bad for you, so you needed to cut out meat. Then it was discovered that the fat that went with the protein was the real culprit, so you needed to cut out fat. Then they decided that it was really the CARBS everyone was eating with those, so you needed to cut carbs. Then they discovered that it was really bad carbs, and there are also good and bad fats.

Now they've finally come to the conclusion that we just need to eat balanced and in moderation to really be healthy, but the advice to cut back on sweets was probably good.

That's actually a very good comparison to global warming. The overwhelming majority of health scientists did and still do see red meat as a major cause in heart disease and certain cancers among other diseases. There's only confusion because a small group of scientists said the opposite and had enough confusing research to muddy the waters. Among almost all health professionals there isn't a debate as to whether consuming a lot of red meat has negative health effects.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That's actually a very good comparison to global warming. The overwhelming majority of health scientists did and still do see red meat as a major cause in heart disease and certain cancers among other diseases. There's only confusion because a small group of scientists said the opposite and had enough confusing research to muddy the waters. Among almost all health professionals there isn't a debate as to whether consuming a lot of red meat has negative health effects.

Ah, but back then it wasn't just red meat. It eventually got separated more into lean white meat vs fatty red meat, but for a while it was suggested that you limit even the lean meat intake (small chicken breast, limited amounts of tuna fish, etc). And red meat still has some benefits, notably with iron levels, which yes you can also get from other sources.

[Warhammer]

Agreed. Also in regards to red meat, we should have it as more of a side portion rather than the main course of a meal. But if having a steak is the difference between living to 75 or to 90, I guess I have 15 years of dementia I won't have to worry about.

[sabotai]

The person who made the videos I posted before made one about the hacked emails.

[Marc Vaughan]

I thought that video was very well done to be honest and somewhat scarey regarding how (cough) well researched a lot of media is today.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I thought that video was very well done to be honest and somewhat scarey regarding how (cough) well researched a lot of media is today.

He started off very well but I thought he began to undermine his claim to objectivity in the last video. There is nothing you can't ridicule if you use the pronunciations of the likes of Limbaugh and Beck I don't think that the scientific sceptics would see these guys as their spokesmen. The climate change proponents have their own clowns though I doubt we will see a video ridiculing the environmentalists arguments using them. He does not seem that far committed to balance.

The problem is that the debate has been high-jacked by politicians, a media addicted to sensationalism and scientists who feel they have to shout too loud to have their voices heard. It's almost impossible to know whether opinions are genuinely scientific or the result of distorted or even manufactured data. There is an aura of the disingenuous about every contribution these days and I don't think this guy is completely free from suspicion. He begins well but ends badly.

[gstelmack]

Why I am a skeptic:

- Ice core data clearly shows the earth goes through regular warming / cooling cycles, and that we are currently in the middle of one of the warming cycles. This is the same ice core data used to show the correlation of CO2 and global temperatures. This makes a lot of sense to me.
- The scare here is that CO2 is rising faster and farther than ever before. However it looks like all guesses that this won't correct itself, and/or hit saturation point where it stops affecting temperatures. And climatologists do not have an exactly stellar record of prediction in either the short or the long-teram.
- There is some dispute as to whether or not its ever been this high before. There is agreement its come close, but smoothing in the old data means we don't know for sure if we've hit short-term peaks.
- Circular arguments. We have a short-term (in geological terms) spike in CO2, but when folks point out we've been temperature flat recently we are told "that's too small a sample size". When ice sheets shrink, it's because temperatures are up. When ice sheets expand, it's because the increased temperatures mean more rain. It's like El Nino, where even contradictory trends are easily explained, which just makes me wonder why the opposite isn't just as true.
- Suspect data. Nearly all of this data is guesses based on implied correlations. We only have real, observed data for a very small period of time (see sample size above). We have lots of data that is assumed to be temperature that may also be precipitation (tree-rings, some of the ice core data). Heck, it took them several YEARS to replace an obviously broken thermometer at our local NWS station at RDU (anecdotal, small sample size, I know).
- Politics heavily involved. Lots of folks that would love nothing better than to see the US continue its downward spiral are all for draconian measures that would cost us an arm and a leg. It's on both sides as I realise big energy is not exactly neutral either. But it's hard to cut through all of this down to the actual science, and it means that whenever some possible data is found it's trumpeted all over (from both sides) before it gets accurately peer reviewed. And then the peer reviews themselves are often suspect. Not to mention the hypocrisy of all the folks trumpeting all of these changes barely trying themselves. Carbon offsets has to be one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard for saving the planet. But I will say thanks to the realclimate link, that's been a good read for getting some actual science.
- Every time a trend looks wrong, the models get changed and data re-corrected.

So while I see plenty of research and statistics that guess that we are in deep trouble, the conclusions reached just don't seem proven yet. It all sure LOOKS good, and the underlying DATA is sound, but the correlations between all the data are far from a sure thing, and the cause/effect simply is not proven right now. Especially when solutions for this (beyond the simple "drive less and try to use a bit less energy") aren't necessarily going to help. Burning wood in fireplaces is a bad thing now even.

[Glengoyne]

It's been a while since I visited this page, but.

Gstelmack,
I like your summary. You make a more reasoned statement of your position that I do myself.

I will comment on some of the Lindzen detractors/debunkers. I don't believe that because a professor or scientist consults with industry...any industry... at what would be considered typical consultant rates, should be automatically regarded as "in the pocket of" that industry. That is a bit of guilt by association, that isn't persuasive to me on its face value. What is he consulting on? Does he legitimately possess the skills/information to serve as a consultant/expert on those topics? Are those topics client change or client change research related? I honestly don't know. I'm just stating that I'm not willing to discredit the guy because he has an association with the energy industry. Of course I'm also the guy naive enough to state earlier that I don't perceive the "energy industry" as the enemy of the anthropogenic global warming arguments.

Call me a skeptic, not a denier, or a flat earther. Sure there is a warming trend. I believe that there are too many variables in play to realistically or reliably predict what is going to happen given a change in any of those variables. Nor do I believe we have good enough of an understanding of those variables to draw concrete conclusions from even historical data. I also believe that alarmists, even Al Gore's "An inconvenient Truth" are more likely to be parodied in 50 years by the likes of Mystery Science 3000, than they are to be triumphed as pioneers and visionaries.

Politics plays a huge role in this debate. Just look at who we're respectively disagreeing with in this thread. With some exceptions, it is the same crowd drawn up on either side.