Global Warming is Bullsh!t!

[CU Tiger]

Admittedly I have never been fascinated by the whole global warming debate. Based on that, I will spare the board my thoughts and sentiments because they are not nearly as learned and valid as most in this thread. I do however have a simple question limited research has never given me an acceptable answer to.

I will try and frame this properly but in my current state (where is that Ping Me thread0?) I may struggle.

Essentially my question is this, when we talk about historic temperatures(lets say pre 1900 for shits and giggles) we use ice core sampls as I understand it to determine what average tempeatures were at those times. Correct? (If I am wrong here my whole premise is flawed and please enligten me, because I think the other choice is recorded data taken with questionably accuate instruments)

The nature of developing the scale of compaing ice core samples would require us to have a known good value to deduce from, correct? For eample, we know with pretty high precision what tempratures are for the last X years so we look at ice samples use this recent data as our control to determine the impact on the ice cores. Then we can deduce what earlier temperatures were based on these findings.

Again do I have the basic premise? And if so, how are we ensured that time has not altered these values or measurements, that is to say how do we eliminate all environmental factors except temperature change for average temperatures from 400 years ago.

If anyone has the answer or a link to a good explanation I would welcome it....now to the ping thread.

[Warhammer]

Just clarifying, ice cores can tell us what the temperature was like at that location. Now they can also tell us what the atmosphere was like due to entrapped air, etc., etc.

The other item with temperature data is tree cores. Essentially, you take a cross section of a tree and from that you can infer what the temperature was like for an area.

One of the big bones of contention has to do with the use of proxies. For example, records were lacking in North and South America prior to say 1700. So some people, have used tree samples over the time frame they are looking at. If you have a sparse number of cores, you use one as a proxy for a given area. This can give certain samples, a much larger impact in the data model. How this data is used is one of the primary issues with the original Mann paper from back in the 90s. The problem that you have, is all the subsequent work was based on this paper. If this is proven to be crap, then the whole shebang falls apart.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Geologists have had quite a bit to do with reconstructing the ancient earth, shouldn't they have a say? What about meterologists? These guys work with the weather on a daily basis. Shouldn't they have some say as well? After all, climate is just the weather through time. Plus, based upon what they are trying to do, statisticians should have a say in this because all the climate people are doing is attempting to put together a mathematical model.

Sure, lets see what they have to say.

http://stats.org/stories/2008/global..._apr23_08.html

97% believve global temperatures have increased
84% believe this is human-induced

This isn't really a controversy in the scientific community. Just in the media and political circles. Just like evolution and vaccines.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by cartman

70 to 72? Not a big deal
31 to 33? A real big deal

I get that- it's why you see me wanting to err on the side of caution here. But it does always annoy me when I hear the stereotypically moronic "There's no global warming, it's cold here in the winter" or "Let's make it warmer because it's cold here in the winter"- that sort of nonsense

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Its not a matter of what is debatable. Different subject, but let's say the government made a law that someone could not sail off the edge of the map because they would fall off. We know better than you, and it is for your own safety. Columbus would not have rediscovered and opened the New World up for colonization. Yet, the flat earth was based upon accepted fact at the time. People accepted a flat earth for what, 500, 1000 years? Did that make it a fact? No, it was bad science.

There are far too many flaws in the science of global warming. There are too many questions. There are a ton of items I can say, "Well, what if you're wrong?" At what cost do we implement pollution controls? Do we sacrifice our economy for something that isn't settled science?

I can't accept that these are anywhere near congruous examples. The only thing they have in common is that the government says something. I'll hit this a bit better in the next part.

The problem is not if the earth is warming, it is a matter of degrees. We are talking about a 1 deg C on average increase (which is not a good way to measure anyway, but for argument's sake will suffice). Nature is recognized as causing at least .75 deg of this. So we're talking about completely changing everything we've done for .25 deg C? So to be outside the margin of error, our calculations (based on a mathematical model, I might add) have to be accurate to within .25 of a deg. C. I don't think we're there.

Not only that, we are working under the assumption that the climate is a constant. Its not. Should we be working with a baseline of 1980? 1970? What about 1840? Heck, why not 2008? Depending on the year we use as a baseline, we can't come to a consensus. Also, this is assuming that we believe warming is a bad thing. Why is it bad? For nearly every negative to warming temperatures, I can point to something positive.

In the first paragraph, you're coming from a flawed premise of the bold- so you can't make your model and conclusions off of that. I'd need to see numbers that show it's .75/.25.

The second paragraph is the much more interesting one as it's a bit more ethical. If you live in the Seychelles, how is it fair that Europe, the Americas, and Asia get to decide if your island go under? Anyone really sure what the tipping point of carbon in the atmosphere is to trigger a new ice age?

Back to the above, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is being changed by human activity. That can't be denied and I'd even argue that the effects of that are pretty solid, but that's what we're debating so I'll let it be a point up for debate. How is it fair that we are moving the numbers- shouldn't we, as a country, basically "put the earth back the way we found it"? It's particularly egregious if we didn't all agree to make this change and it's just a byproduct of some industries- it should be their responsibility to clean up the mess they make. Again, we don't have jurisdiction over all the world but we all share the atmosphere and the planet- our responsibility should be to clean up our own mess. Similarly, we can't unilaterally make decisions for everyone else.

My family lives in Texas and they have had a particularly warm summer. Not global warming induced, but cyclical season induced most likely. It's been about 5 degrees above normal all summer. This has caused it to be too warm for clouds to form and typically rain-drenched Houston is over 20 inches of rain below average. If temperatures raise across the board by that amount, you're looking at the same problems there.

This goes back to my canned line about people talking about "It's not like we're going to destroy the earth". No, you're right, short of creating some sort of doomsday device where we slam the moon into the earth at high speeds or something, we won't be able to destroy it. But we should strive to be able to get the most from its natural resources and I think warming things up is not the answer there.

SI

[JPhillips]

Are you like the Unabomber?



Sadly, this is a real billboard in a campaign that will also include Charles Manson and Fidel Castro.

[JediKooter]

And Obama from what I've read.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Are you like the Unabomber?



Sadly, this is a real billboard in a campaign that will also include Charles Manson and Fidel Castro.

This is where the Libertarians (with a capital L) lose me. I am in complete agreement with their view that almost every service the federal government tries to provide becomes a colossal wasteland of bureaucratic nonsense. However it doesn't always mean the idea is wrong. They get bogged too much with the 1300's view that religion > science that I thought wasn't really up for debate after the whole Sun/Earth thing. I know not every part of an ideology is going to match with an individual's viewpoints but never really understood why so many ignorant people (on the science issue) choose Republican/Libertarian.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by panerd

This is where the Libertarians (with a capital L) lose me. I am in complete agreement with their view that almost every service the federal government tries to provide becomes a colossal wasteland of bureaucratic nonsense. However it doesn't always mean the idea is wrong. They get bogged too much with the 1300's view that religion > science that I thought wasn't really up for debate after the whole Sun/Earth thing. I know not every part of an ideology is going to match with an individual's viewpoints but never really understood why so many ignorant people (on the science issue) choose Republican/Libertarian.

It's more Profit > Science than religion for them nowadays. This is a group whose previous forays into science included pairing up with the tobacco industry to prove the safety of second hand smoke.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I get that- it's why you see me wanting to err on the side of caution here. But it does always annoy me when I hear the stereotypically moronic "There's no global warming, it's cold here in the winter" or "Let's make it warmer because it's cold here in the winter"- that sort of nonsense

SI

[panerd]

Originally Posted by mckerney

It's more Profit > Science than religion for them nowadays. This is a group whose previous forays into science included pairing up with the tobacco industry to prove the safety of second hand smoke.

I guess I was replying more to JPhillips picture of a billboard from heartland.org than the whole global warming debate. Heartland.org claims to be one of the bigger Libertarian think tanks but goes a little overboard on the Jesus stuff sometimes.

EDIT: I think we are actually on the same side on heartland.org

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Climate landmark as Arctic ice melts to record low - Yahoo! News

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Climate landmark as Arctic ice melts to record low - Yahoo! News

Originally Posted by article

The sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has melted to its smallest point ever

Instead of "ever" I think they mean "since we started measuring" or possibly "in the last few centuries", but definitely not "ever" which is the kind of hyperbole that I really hate in these discussions.

[Warhammer]

Here's an interesting take on it as well.

http://http://wattsupwiththat.com/20...ow/#more-70029

[gstelmack]

So 33 years of data = ever, now I know their definition, thanks.

[molson]

I wonder when it will finally hit us how silly it is worry about stuff like gun control and taxes, when, you know, our planet is dying. I'm not scientologist so maybe I'm wrong, but I have a hunch that we're all going to look pretty stupid in retrospect.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Here's an interesting take on it as well.

http://http://wattsupwiththat.com/20...ow/#more-70029

Holy crap- there was a storm in the arctic with pressure around 964/28.50 earlier in the month? To give an idea, the center of Isaac right now is 976/28.81 so it was basically the equivalent of a low grade hurricane there.

SI

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm not scientologist so maybe I'm wrong, but I have a hunch that we're all going to look pretty stupid in retrospect.

This makes Tom Cruise sad.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by molson

I wonder when it will finally hit us how silly it is worry about stuff like gun control and taxes, when, you know, our planet is dying. I'm not scientologist so maybe I'm wrong, but I have a hunch that we're all going to look pretty stupid in retrospect.

Tom Cruise generally looks stupid in retrospect, especially when he starts talking about science, so you should be glad you're not a scientologist.

I don't think the planet is dying. The biggest immediate problem with increasing temperatures (and the earth has clearly survived far worse) is that we seem to like to build large cities on coastlines. Mostly for artificial reasons.

We already have humanitarian crises throughout the world. There isn't enough water to handle the extraordinary increase in population. Higher temperatures will exacerbate this crisis, but lower temperatures would not solve it under any circumstances.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

This makes Tom Cruise sad.

You know what, I meant to say "scientician". My apologies to Tom Cruise.

[gstelmack]

Poor John Travolta, the forgotten scientologist...

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by molson

You know what, I meant to say "scientician". My apologies to Tom Cruise.

Sorry, it was too good of one to pass up.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Poor John Travolta, the forgotten scientologist...

My original reply was John Travolta, but, figured since he's fairly low key about it, it wouldn't have been as funny.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Instead of "ever" I think they mean "since we started measuring" or possibly "in the last few centuries", but definitely not "ever" which is the kind of hyperbole that I really hate in these discussions.

Yahoo News uses hyperbolic language in their news stories! Shocking!

What bothers me is when people throw the scientific research to the side because some crappy Web site sensationalized a story about it. There's plenty to the story, even if you remove their poor word choices.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I don't think the planet is dying. The biggest immediate problem with increasing temperatures (and the earth has clearly survived far worse) is that we seem to like to build large cities on coastlines. Mostly for artificial reasons.

Its' simplifying it to say that rising coastlines is the biggest problem though. The biggest problem is a whole slew of interconnected changes. Many of them are going to greatly affect human life and commerce. For example up here in New England, Vermont is already seeing the end of their maple syrup production and ski season. I think it's pretty certain that within the next decade or two those things will be gone entirely. That's a pretty big human impact, for a state to have to totally revamp their economy as the ecology changes. Vermont is a tiny state, but those style of changes will be happening all over. Industries will be completely altered, people's way of life and means of earning a living will have to change. Those are big changes that are already happening today.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

'the planet is fine, the people are fucked.' -george carlin (i'm sure someone's already posted the video itt)

i don't know what to believe. but i am fully on board with the, 'don't treat the world like a rental car' concept

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Autumn

What bothers me is when people throw the scientific research to the side because some crappy Web site sensationalized a story about it. There's plenty to the story, even if you remove their poor word choices.

My point was that there is not much data in this particular case, as pointed out later it's exactly 33 years. And even then the data they used was cherry-picked, as other datasets don't show the same result at all.

[JediKooter]

Regardless of if it's man made or going through a natural cycle or a combination of both, changes are happening. Arctic sea ice is just one measurement. There's ice core samples, sea floor samples, tree core samples, etc, that point to, "things are changing". Scientists are not just looking at one thing like Arctic sea ice and making an entire conclusion based on just that.

NTO is right though. The earth doesn't give a shit if humans are here or not.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

i try to look for the profit motive in these things

is there a profit motive in staying the course?
-obv

is there a profit motive to global warming?
-idk. carbon credits and cap & trade smell like sanctions to me. like a stealth method of control. it's also been postulated that it will keep third world countries from industrializing (and thus competing with us for resources)

hard to make sense of it all. it would help if every 'expert' didn't have a fucking agenda

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Autumn

Its' simplifying it to say that rising coastlines is the biggest problem though. The biggest problem is a whole slew of interconnected changes. Many of them are going to greatly affect human life and commerce. For example up here in New England, Vermont is already seeing the end of their maple syrup production and ski season. I think it's pretty certain that within the next decade or two those things will be gone entirely. That's a pretty big human impact, for a state to have to totally revamp their economy as the ecology changes. Vermont is a tiny state, but those style of changes will be happening all over. Industries will be completely altered, people's way of life and means of earning a living will have to change. Those are big changes that are already happening today.

Biggest, but not only. I hope we don't believe that this past winter is the new norm. If that's the case, then we're in for a hell of a ride. Combine the lack of snow with generally higher temperatures and then that heat wave in March that screwed farmers pretty badly.

We had a record-setting July in the north, but August seems a little cooler than usual. maybe that's just wishful thinking because July was so incredibly bad.

Like many have said, when you start attributing tiny sample sizes to global warming, you're in silly season. We need more access to long-term trends. Industrialized Man has only been on this earth for a fraction of its billions of years. It's great that we're learning more about shorter-term temperature trends, but the hijinks that went on with the sampling of tree cores indicates that this is a highly-politicized issue. I don't trust politicians. Too much money at stake. I don't trust the East Anglia group, either.

We seem to be in a time when the temperature is rising, slowly. Is this due to fuel-burning or sunspots or random fluctuations in the earth's orbit? I don't think that science is settled by any means. We need to know more. But the planet is clearly not dying. Unless we set off a lot of nuclear weaponry, which is still a significant danger, we are nowhere near any kind of Armageddon.

[CraigSca]

On a semi-related note US carbon dioxide emissions are at a 20 year low. Unfortunately, China's doing a bang-up job more than making up for our "shortfall".

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Regardless of if it's man made or going through a natural cycle or a combination of both, changes are happening. Arctic sea ice is just one measurement. There's ice core samples, sea floor samples, tree core samples, etc, that point to, "things are changing". Scientists are not just looking at one thing like Arctic sea ice and making an entire conclusion based on just that.

My complaint was about the specific article, not global warming in general, and this article is a great example of why it is hard to trust news stories about science. They take one of many measurements, one that only has comparisons going back maybe 6 years (2007) and on a topic that only has reliable measurements going back 33 years, and trumpet "lowest totals EVAH!" to try and convince us of the need for drastic action. The current global-warming-issue-du-jour is loss of arctic ice (see the IMAX film "To The Arctic" for an example), but the hard science numbers aren't dramatic enough for them, so they cherry-pick the most dramatic thing they can think of to try and "prove" the point.

And folks wonder why I question so much "science" these days. It's "science", it must be right! Except that much of what is trumpeted is not actually real hard science.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

i try to look for the profit motive in these things

is there a profit motive in staying the course?
-obv

is there a profit motive to global warming?
-idk. carbon credits and cap & trade smell like sanctions to me. like a stealth method of control. it's also been postulated that it will keep third world countries from industrializing (and thus competing with us for resources)

hard to make sense of it all. it would help if every 'expert' didn't have a fucking agenda

The carbon credits thing is a joke. Nothing more than trying to lay a guilt trip on people. The profit motive should definitely be applied to what companies have the most to lose if things change to 'cleaner energy' or other technologies. If the current energy companies were smart, they would be trying to corner the market on these new energy technologies to keep themselves rich and relevant.

I just don't know of many rich scientists. Something tells me they are few and far between. The big difference between scientists and conspiracy nuts is, scientists have their work peer reviewed and are called out when things don't add up. Just like anything in life that deals with people, there's always going to be some that are not honest in what they do or what they report.

Take nothing at face value, but, consider the source and references.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

And folks wonder why I question so much "science" these days. It's "science", it must be right! Except that much of what is trumpeted is not actually real hard science.

But people cherry-pick science as well. Look at the vote on GMO labeling in California. We've been eating genetically altered food since hybridization came to being. Are we against disease-resistant/insect-resistant crops as well? I understand the point that you should know what's going into your body, but it's not a black and white issue. If we all went to organic, we wouldn't have enough food, period.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Biggest, but not only. I hope we don't believe that this past winter is the new norm. If that's the case, then we're in for a hell of a ride. Combine the lack of snow with generally higher temperatures and then that heat wave in March that screwed farmers pretty badly.

We had a record-setting July in the north, but August seems a little cooler than usual. maybe that's just wishful thinking because July was so incredibly bad.

Like many have said, when you start attributing tiny sample sizes to global warming, you're in silly season. We need more access to long-term trends. Industrialized Man has only been on this earth for a fraction of its billions of years. It's great that we're learning more about shorter-term temperature trends, but the hijinks that went on with the sampling of tree cores indicates that this is a highly-politicized issue. I don't trust politicians. Too much money at stake. I don't trust the East Anglia group, either.

We seem to be in a time when the temperature is rising, slowly. Is this due to fuel-burning or sunspots or random fluctuations in the earth's orbit? I don't think that science is settled by any means. We need to know more. But the planet is clearly not dying. Unless we set off a lot of nuclear weaponry, which is still a significant danger, we are nowhere near any kind of Armageddon.

What first? Death of planet or FOF board game?

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

The big difference between scientists and conspiracy nuts is, scientists have their work peer reviewed and are called out when things don't add up. Just like anything in life that deals with people, there's always going to be some that are not honest in what they do or what they report.

And we're finding more and more issues of peer reviews that weren't, and dishonest ones getting trumpeted through the media to start some crusade. It's getting harder and harder to find the real science out there.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

My complaint was about the specific article, not global warming in general, and this article is a great example of why it is hard to trust news stories about science. They take one of many measurements, one that only has comparisons going back maybe 6 years (2007) and on a topic that only has reliable measurements going back 33 years, and trumpet "lowest totals EVAH!" to try and convince us of the need for drastic action. The current global-warming-issue-du-jour is loss of arctic ice (see the IMAX film "To The Arctic" for an example), but the hard science numbers aren't dramatic enough for them, so they cherry-pick the most dramatic thing they can think of to try and "prove" the point.

And folks wonder why I question so much "science" these days. It's "science", it must be right! Except that much of what is trumpeted is not actually real hard science.

I wasn't necessarily commenting on your comment, just pointing out that sea ice is just part of the equation.

So, you don't trust science because of how the news does such a piss poor job of reporting on it? Not ragging on you, but, that really doesn't make sense, unless I'm reading it wrong.

The news has NEVER done a good job at reporting on science related issues. From butchering terminology to attributing completely different things to each other. If news reporting on science was given a grade, it would be a Z-. F- is too good of a grade for how poorly they report it. You also have to understand the abysmal lack of fundamental understanding the average American has in regards to scientific-y stuff.

The piss poor reporting and the lack of basic understanding of science are a ugly and unfortunate combination that is ripe for the ignorant to make very misinformed conclusions.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

And we're finding more and more issues of peer reviews that weren't, and dishonest ones getting trumpeted through the media to start some crusade. It's getting harder and harder to find the real science out there.

Do you mean people like the guy in the UK that fudged the data that said vaccinations cause autism? If I remember correctly, his conclusions were questioned, however, he continued on with his charade for years. Then you have idiots like Jenny McCarthy finding it somehow and then spreading it like wildfire. Then there's the emails that supposedly showed conclusive evidence that scientists were lying about global warming. Again, if I remember correctly, excluding their data, the conclusion was still the same, however, it gave good canon fodder to the denialists.

I think a good question to ask is, if you throw out all of that dishonest data, is the conclusion still the same? If not, they need to start over and try again. If it does, well then, there you have it.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Take nothing at face value, but, consider the source and references.

i try not to discount anyone. just because someone's crazy doesn't mean they don't have a point.

i forget the guy's name (some russian philosopher) but he said something like, "we're all at the mercy of the map makers as most of us will never see the world."

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

And we're finding more and more issues of peer reviews that weren't, and dishonest ones getting trumpeted through the media to start some crusade. It's getting harder and harder to find the real science out there.

So what's the answer? This sounds a lot like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Like JK said, I think the source needs to be considered and weighed. I think it's important to include each new data point but I think it's too easy with long term things to say "I think it's all false so we need more data". Even better are those who do that and then don't even believe the new data when it comes out. But I think it's all too easy right now to just lay back and say "well, until there's new data that I like, let's lean back and keep with our scientific understanding from the 50s".

SI

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

The carbon credits thing is a joke. Nothing more than trying to lay a guilt trip on people. The profit motive should definitely be applied to what companies have the most to lose if things change to 'cleaner energy' or other technologies. If the current energy companies were smart, they would be trying to corner the market on these new energy technologies to keep themselves rich and relevant.

Carbon credits may not be the answer, but they're certainly not a joke meant to make people feel bad. They're an established economic strategy, devised by economists who spend their lives studying how businesses and consumers and resources interact. Carbon credits, and similar programs, work specifically to give a value to something that at the moment is only an externality. It makes things like carbon emissions part of a company's bottom line and therefore makes it part of being profitable to choose to limit them.

[sterlingice]

Well, simply put, they're a sin tax

SI

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

So, you don't trust science because of how the news does such a piss poor job of reporting on it? Not ragging on you, but, that really doesn't make sense, unless I'm reading it wrong.

No, I try not to jump to conclusions based on news stories themselves, but rather attempt to have a healthy dose of skepticism and try to look at the data itself when I can. This started with MBBF posting an article about arctic ice hitting a "record" low, then me responding to the statement in the article that it's the lowest ever with "yeah, right". That's my typical reaction until I can dig farther. Then we got a nice article link with a much deeper look that points out not only what I was saying, but that it was a cherry-picked data point, and shows all the other data sets that show the lie in the original statement.

I am heavily skeptical of the global warming "science" because much of the debate goes this way. I believe there is general evidence that the earth is getting warmer, but determining how fast or what is causing it or what the end effects will be seems to get all muddied-up in these editorialized articles, often presented by the heads of various research groups that seem more interested in the politics than in presenting good science.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Biggest, but not only. I hope we don't believe that this past winter is the new norm. If that's the case, then we're in for a hell of a ride. Combine the lack of snow with generally higher temperatures and then that heat wave in March that screwed farmers pretty badly.

We had a record-setting July in the north, but August seems a little cooler than usual. maybe that's just wishful thinking because July was so incredibly bad.

Like many have said, when you start attributing tiny sample sizes to global warming, you're in silly season. We need more access to long-term trends. Industrialized Man has only been on this earth for a fraction of its billions of years. It's great that we're learning more about shorter-term temperature trends, but the hijinks that went on with the sampling of tree cores indicates that this is a highly-politicized issue. I don't trust politicians. Too much money at stake. I don't trust the East Anglia group, either.

We seem to be in a time when the temperature is rising, slowly. Is this due to fuel-burning or sunspots or random fluctuations in the earth's orbit? I don't think that science is settled by any means. We need to know more. But the planet is clearly not dying. Unless we set off a lot of nuclear weaponry, which is still a significant danger, we are nowhere near any kind of Armageddon.

I certainly agree the planet is not dying. But I have seen plenty of definite, non-controversial evidence that the climate has shifted already and is showing no sign of changing that shift. The weather patterns and climate in Massachusetts now resemble those of North Carolina 25 years ago. In another 25 they will probably resemble Florida and there's no reason to think that's not going to happen based on the evidence. Sugarers in Vermont are tapping their syrup a full month earlier than their parents did. This stuff is just plain happening.

I wish the media, and scientists, and everyone discussing the issue would just focus on hard facts of things that are actually happening, and stay away from pondering about the biggest possible long-term implications.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

i try not to discount anyone. just because someone's crazy doesn't mean they don't have a point.

i forget the guy's name (some russian philosopher) but he said something like, "we're all at the mercy of the map makers as most of us will never see the world."

I think you can discount those that have been properly vetted and show that they don't past muster.

For example, holistic medicine has absolutely zero scientific evidence that things like melted candle wax dripping in your ears cures or alleviates what may be ailing someone. For the hardcore believers, no amount of credible, tangible, verifiable evidence is going to change their minds. Just because its proponents scream and yell that it does work, even though it's proven that it is at best a placebo and doesn't cure anything, they don't deserve the wasted air that we breath to argue with them.

We are predisposed by our prejudices and that can sometimes put too much trust in something when we shouldn't and not enough when we should. The only way to combat that is to do the homework. Not a lot of fun, but, does seem like the correct thing to do in those cases. The really hard part to that is to know and realize when you should do it.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Well, simply put, they're a sin tax

SI

I guess you could describe it that way. Or you could describe it as putting a monetary value on the quality of our atmosphere. You don't have to look at carbon credits in isolation. There are many economic programs attempting to find ways to value common natural resources, such as the benefit that large forests provide. If those things aren't given a value, they get clearcut for short-term gains. But in places like Costa Rica where they have put a monetary value on the services the living trees provide, it now is economically feasible for a landowner to hold on to forest instead. Carbon credits is a similar system of giving value to those projects, services, inventions that are removing carbon dioxide from the air, and charging value for those that are producing it.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Autumn

I wish the media, and scientists, and everyone discussing the issue would just focus on hard facts of things that are actually happening, and stay away from pondering about the biggest possible long-term implications.

Agreed.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

i try not to discount anyone. just because someone's crazy doesn't mean they don't have a point.

i forget the guy's name (some russian philosopher) but he said something like, "we're all at the mercy of the map makers as most of us will never see the world."

One of the most interesting parts of my ethics class in college was a section on expertise and the responsibility and power afforded experts in a field. One of the more interesting cases I thought was the simple one of a doctor. You have a preconceived notion of what is wrong with you and go to the doctor for some wacky placebo treatment. Is the doctor ethically responsible to contradict you and risk his livelihood by you leaving or does he cajole you if there is no harm done?

SI

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

No, I try not to jump to conclusions based on news stories themselves, but rather attempt to have a healthy dose of skepticism and try to look at the data itself when I can. This started with MBBF posting an article about arctic ice hitting a "record" low, then me responding to the statement in the article that it's the lowest ever with "yeah, right". That's my typical reaction until I can dig farther. Then we got a nice article link with a much deeper look that points out not only what I was saying, but that it was a cherry-picked data point, and shows all the other data sets that show the lie in the original statement.

I am heavily skeptical of the global warming "science" because much of the debate goes this way. I believe there is general evidence that the earth is getting warmer, but determining how fast or what is causing it or what the end effects will be seems to get all muddied-up in these editorialized articles, often presented by the heads of various research groups that seem more interested in the politics than in presenting good science.

Unfortunately, I'm not able to open the second link, I get the 404 message. I agree with you though. The sensationalism has got to stop. It serves no purpose other than to get people fired up and jump to conclusions or create such an air of apathy that even if true, people won't give a care.

The most distilled information and conclusion I've been able to read is (and I'm paraphrasing here): It's happening due to not just one factor, though humans are partially responsible, and X, Y & Z 'MAY' happen. They (scientists) don't know if some of it is also part of the earth's natural cycle since there are no set intervals to these cycles of warming and cooling. They know when the last several ice ages and warming cycles have happened, but, those cycles aren't the same every time.

I think the 'may' is an important word. It means they aren't 100% sure, but, odds are X, Y & Z will likely happen. When? *shrug*....no idea.

We need honest reports by news organizations that limit or don't use any scare words. Just give us the facts. There was an article today saying that "WE WILL ALL BE VEGETARIANS BY 2050". Really???? Not, "Some researches say we may run out of meat by 2050"? The Hollywood style reporting has just got to stop.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

One of the most interesting parts of my ethics class in college was a section on expertise and the responsibility and power afforded experts in a field. One of the more interesting cases I thought was the simple one of a doctor. You have a preconceived notion of what is wrong with you and go to the doctor for some wacky placebo treatment. Is the doctor ethically responsible to contradict you and risk his livelihood by you leaving or does he cajole you if there is no harm done?

SI

Was there much of a debate about this? Every dilemma in business ethics risks your livelihood. I'd be curious to hear a defense of the doctor not being honest.