Reply With Quote
Yoni, Snake, AHF, Xray, crook and others will tell you it does not exist. Others will say it does. Somebody will say Kyoto. Others will say "It's a lie to screw the US of A". And the fighting will begin . . .
I just saw this movie and thought it was really good, pretty scary actually.
There were two things that caught my attention a bit more.
1st. Temperature variations are a common thing on earth, we have gone throught several ice ages, the last 20.000 years ago. The problem now is that CO2 meassures are off the chart. Scientist have calculated the temperature and CO2 presence in the air through bubbles trapped in glacials in the last 650.000 years. Today is at least over 50% than anytime in the last 650.000 years and growing fast. So is temperature.
2nd. There is no controversy between scientists that global warming is a real problem. They took a sample of the articles published in peer reviewed publications and the popular press about global warming in the last years. Zero of 900 peer reviewed articles sampled disagreed with the consensus, 50% of the 600 articles in the popular press did.
Has anyone else seen it? any thoughts about it?
Please try to stay in subject, dont turn the thread into a Dems vs Reps dispute or Gore vs Bush.
Yoni, Snake, AHF, Xray, crook and others will tell you it does not exist. Others will say it does. Somebody will say Kyoto. Others will say "It's a lie to screw the US of A". And the fighting will begin . . .
I have not seen the movie, and I know, sadly, very little in regards to global warming. However, the way I see it...you always err on the side of caution.
If you do this, then you will most likely come out on top.
For example:
Scenario 1: We believe in global warming and it is real:
Ok, so we take positive steps to prevent global warming. We put restrictions on companies and they take slight hits for a few years before everything evens back out again. The world is saved, at least for now. Seems like a solid proposition.
Scenario 2: We believe in global warming and it does not exist:
Well, in this scenario we will take the exact same positive steps. Companies will take a slight hit for a few years, but things eventually even out. The world is cleaner and a little more liveable, but we were not truly in danger of destruction. SO...in this situation we lose a tiny bit of money for nothing other than a slightly safer, cleaner environment.
Scenario 3: We do not believe in global warming, and it does not exist:
We do nothing, nothing happens. Life continues exactly as it does today.
Scenario 4: We do not believe in global warming, and it does exist:
This is the kicker. We do nothing in order to save a few bucks and do what is convenient. Worst case - the world ends. Best case - A lot of people die, animals go extinct, and life as we know it is changed forever.
I think that it is indisputable that the last option is, by far the worst, and the first two options offer a little short-term inconvenience, but either save the world or make life better in the future.
I do not need a movie to decide what to do on this topic. It seems readily apparent, at least to myself, that it is always in a states, or individuals, best interest to err on the side of caution, at least when doing so will not lead to problems on par with those that they are trying to counteract.
Last edited by turambar85; 11-12-2006 at 11:20 PM. Reason: Forgot to add something...
People on both sides of the issue seem to take it to the extreme.
I just find it weird how people can argue against reducing emissions in cars and power plants and the likes.
Nobody and I mean nobody, unless they are complete idiots, would argue that car exhaust and exhaust from coal and the likes are good for humans and any living creature. So why not try to get companies to reduce their emissions?
I think the more serious problem is not giant oil or energy companies pumping into the air and poisoning us. They will never be part of the solution, the problem I think is the average every day people in the world who don't give two s about the enviornment and can't see beyond their own two feet to think about more than just themselves.
Agreed, however I would argue that I've been trying to educate this forum on climate change for about the last 6 months in a very balanced and fully referenced manner so people can follow up on the stuff I talk about.
Danyel, I've written a lot about climate change in this forum. Want to know more, search my name, read some of the threads and follow the links. Want to know the history of climate change science in detail, read "The Weathermakers" by Tim Flannery. It is an excellent and very readable account of the development of climate chasnge theory and the evidence which supports it.
I saw it, and thaught that it was pretty scary. However, I found it halarious that Gore used the movie to plug his unfair loss for the whitehouse.
Several professors at my university backed global warming theories... and another group, just as renowned... didn't.
Don't believe the media on this one... or the politicians for that matter.
I call bull . In modern science there is no such thing as a renowned scientist that does not believe in global warming. Patrick J. Michaels believes in it too, he simply gets paid loads of money by certain lobyists to make some noise in the Public arena, his peers would laugh at him, and often do, if he ever attempted to convince them of his findings.
Youre talking to a guy who thinks the world is 6000 years old and will cite other "scientists" who feel the same way.
Good luck.
No one I know doubts we have some global warming. The doubts are what
is causing it? And my doubts are supported by the fact that radicals on
the far left want to tie global warming into punishing (taking money) the
United States and giving it to "so called" developing countries. The
developing countries will be exempt from all restraints. Now you want
to call the extreme, please be my guest. I will gladly accept the the
blame for having doubts. If it is such a serious problem, and must be
solved, then I suggest that all countries have to abide by the
"political" solution.
But we have had this argument several times and I can guarantee one
thing for certain, no one on this board has changed their position that I
am aware of.
RNR cites a work by Tim Flannery. Here are a few remarks about his knowledge from
fellow scientist.
.................................
There are, however, plenty in the academic community loudly unwilling to participate in the beatification of St Timothy. "Just because a guy is well known does not mean he knows what he is talking about," Dr Stephen Wroe, a palaeontologist at the University of Sydney, says. "I've got a fairly cynical view of Tim. He's an opportunist. He knows climate change is a buzzword, but a few months' work does not make him an expert."
Dr Judith Field, an archaeologist at the University of Sydney, doesn't hold back, either: "Tim doesn't let the facts get in the way of a good story. He does a lot of broadbrush stuff, with broad consequences, and some of it is just plain wrong."
And another archaeologist, Jim Allen, of La Trobe University, made the observation a while ago: "I wish I could be as sure of anything as Tim is of everything".
.......................................
Want a link to the whole article:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...203632052.html
My wife is a research Biochemist with a Ph.D.
There are LOTS of grants available to study global warming; funded by environmntal groups and the like. It's an easy way to fund a lab. Get the right results, however, right the RIGHT opinions; and you can keep you funding.
Trust me, when it is in their best interest (when it looks like real restrictions might actually be imposed), research funding from the opposing side will appear, and guess what? Plenty of legitimate scientists will begin to have doubts, published doubts, about global warming and its causes.
It's not the scientist, it's the funding. Unless the funding is coming from an impartial source (and I'm not sure there is one in this particular case; everybody seems to have an agenda); the results need to be questioned.
That being said, I believe lowering consumption of fossil fuels has benefits regardless of its effect on the environment; I'm all for it. Speaking of THAT; Why do we make such a big deal about automobiles and SUV's in this debate. Anybody check out the interstates lately? The semis are ALL over the damned place - starting with their economy would seem to deliver great bang for the buck.
I'm more concerned about magnetic shift.
You see that PBS special?
Damn.
I don't know why I bother, but here we go.
1. Phenomanul - I call bull too. Who are these professors? Climatologists? Economists? Sociologists? I study at one of the best universities in the world (rated 16 in the worldin the latest Times survey), and not one ecologist or climatologist there has any doubt about anthropocentric climate change. Nor do the scientists at the Ivy League universities, Oxford or Cambridge, the EPA, CSIRO, the IPCC, the ACIA, etc etc etc I'm coming to SA and would love to meet your climate skeptic "professors".
But I do agree with you on one thing - do not believe the media or politicians on this matter, LISTEN TO THE SCIENTISTS.
2. Ray - there is a scientific consensus that human beings are causing global warming. To explain very breifly, in last 150 yrs, CO2 in the atmosphere has elevated from 280ppm to 380ppm because we have put that CO2 into the atmosphere. CH4 concentration, which causes 6x the warming of CO2, has elevated 145%. CO2 and CH4 (and other greenhouse gases to a greater or lesser extent) are of the major temperature regulation mechanisms of the planet. This year we are putting in around 14,000,000,000 tons of CO2 into the air. Looking at climate records for the last 10,000yrs (since the last ice age), CO2 levels have naturally oscillated between 200-280ppm. Looking at the climate record for the last 65mil years, increases in CO2 concentration correlate with changes in global temperature. We are doing this and any fool can see it.
"...the far left want to tie global warming into punishing (taking money) the
United States and giving it to "so called" developing countries." Ray, where do you get this ??? This is not about transferring money to developing world - the developing world are not the ones emitting all the CO2. Our countries are. As I've already explained to you a number of times, US 40% world emission, 4% world popn; China+India 18% world emissions, 35% world population.
A cap and trade emission scheme will cap, and slowly reduce, the total CO2 emissions of the world. Under the scheme, those who want to pollute will have to buy certificates to do so from those who do not want to. In all likelihood, this will impact more significantly on developing economies than developed economies because we use cleaner technology and have the ability to adopt cleaner technology more quickly than they do due to our general affluence.
Your statement makes NO SENSE. This is not a big conspiracy t ot take you money away and give it to a Bangladeshi, Ray, stop being so paranoid and come up with an argument that makes sense.
The cost of switching to clean technology will actually stimulate growth within the energy sector as fossil fuel companies invest in and build clean, renewable infrastructure. I predict that renewable energy will be another boom like infotech - energy is a trillion $ industry. This will create jobs and it will create wealth.
There is already talk of what to do after Kyoto, and in fact I'd like to see Kyoto ended NOW. Australia is already talking about this. Kyoto is a symbolic treaty, not an effective one, and what comes after Kyoto has always been the point at which real change will start. We need a global cap and trade scheme encompassing all polluting nations. That WILL happen, it is only a matter of when. There is NO WAY that China and India will be exempt from a global scheme. However, it is OUR RESPONSIBILITY, as the ones who have caused this problem, to implement carbon mitigation in our own economies and trade the technology at a fair price to developing nations. This is not an international problem, it is a HUMAN PROBLEM. Everyone on the planet will be impacted by the consequences, and many already are.
As for Flannery, I cite him not as an eminent climatologist, but as an excellent scientific communicator who brings together the story for the non-scientist. He also fully references his sources so that you can follow up anything of interest. There are many other books out there that tell the story, read them as well.
3. 101A - "There are LOTS of grants available to study global warming; funded by environmntal groups and the like. It's an easy way to fund a lab. Get the right results, however, right the RIGHT opinions; and you can keep you funding.
Trust me, when it is in their best interest (when it looks like real restrictions might actually be imposed), research funding from the opposing side will appear, and guess what? Plenty of legitimate scientists will begin to have doubts, published doubts, about global warming and its causes. "
Firstly, a little thing called peer review ensures that it is difficult to make something up, or twist it to fit your agenda, and get away with it. Other scientist examine your work and you will be found out. So getting "the right results" to satisfy your funders is not nearly so easy as you say. The whole process of scientific advance is about discoving something, and then having a bunch of other people from across the planet test what you've found. That's how we learn how robust our findings are.
Secondly, no, I won't "trust" you because it has been in the best interests of the biggest industry in the world (fossil fuels), to obfuscate and cheat and lie and undermine the science and politics of climate change for decades now, AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY HAVE DONE. The whole point of the current scientific consensus is that many scientists DID HAVE DOUBTS, but they have been erased by the research that has come out in the last few years. , the debate was entirely controlled by the skeptics for the last 2 decades, and finally the scien st have sufficient evidence that the skeptics have to turncoat or risk totally destroying any credibility they will ever have. The skeptics had their time, and now most of them have flip-flopped to the other side, convinced by the weight of scientific evidence. Bjorn Lomberg, who wrote "The Skeptical Environmentalist" in 2000 (or 2001), is the latest to say he was wrong.
There is now no question amongst the world's leading scientists and scientific organisations that climate change is occuring and we are causing it. Why else do you think business leaders and politicians are clamouring to act on it? They are always the last to act because they risk their careers if they get it wrong, but they finally have conclusive evidence from the world's scientists that it's happening so, surprise, surprise, it is now a mainstream issue. There is no way prominent business leaders and politicians would be staking their money and reputations on climate change action if they didn't think the science was an absolute lock. Just look at the insurance industry - they are in the business of risk, and they have been trying to get this onto the agenda for years.
RNR one simple question. Why do the scientist need a
political answer to a scientific question. Third world
nations, China being one in question, according to you
don't pollute. My answer. Horse hockey. If they don't
and we, the US can buy credits from them, then why
must we buy credits from a country not polluting? And
I know I make no sense. Neither do you. And I really
don't give a damn about how great your University is.
It doesn't make you right nor your most learned
opinion. I have as much right to my opinion as you do
and I have questions about your political leanings. As
I am sure you do of mine.
Are you going senile? None of what you said makes sense. Let me ask some other posters here whether I make sense? At least I know my subject.
"Why do the scientist need a political answer to a scientific question." Huh? They don't. The scientists provide the evidence concerning the natural world and how we are affecting it. The politicians, business leaders and general public then act on that information.
"China being one in question, according to you don't pollute." I NEVER said that because it's absurd. Did you read my post above? China + India = 18% world CO2 emissions. China's emissions are a problem, and they are crucial in a global response. However they are still polluting far, far less than the US is right now - 40% of world emissions for only 300mil people!
"If they don't and we, the US can buy credits from them, then why must we buy credits from a country not polluting?" You will not be "buying credits from China"! As I've explained to you about 5 times now, that is not how it works. Let's try again.
Firstly, a global cap and trade scheme is not about nations so much as COMPANIES - nations sign up to be involved, then it is up to the companies to act.
Polluting nations agree to a CAP - that is, a total quan y of CO2 that can be emitted in a given year. The CAP reduces gradually over time to the 2050 target of 60% reduced CO2 emissions.
Tradeable certificates, like bonds, are issued to companies according to agreed emission levels. Those companies that invest in mitigation technologies and thus reduce their CO2 emissions over time can then sell their surplus certificates to other companies who need to buy the right to pollute because they haven't mitigated their CO2 output. This forces companies all over the world to invest in low CO2 technology, which is the entire point of the CO2 market.
If anything, the developed world WILL MAKE MONEY OFF CARBON MITIGATION.
I mentioned my university in responce to Phenomanul, not you.
As for my political leanings, I have none. I couldn't give two s who is running my country for two reasons.
1. both sides of the bipartisan divide are essentially the same - they make populist decisions, not right decisions; and,
2. I'm all about solutions to problems - whoever is providing the best solutions to problems facing me, my country and humanity, gets my vote.
It's so typical of a Republican to call my "colours" into question, just like saying that if you question the war in Iraq you are a traitor. Colours are irrelevent to me. I'm about ISSUES.
And as for your right to an opinion, sure, but it isn't an opinion INFORMED BY FACTS OR LOGICAL ARGUMENTS, so really, I don't carew about your opinion, it is irrelevent to me. Come back at me with facts, or with cogent arguments, then I will give credence to your opinion. Not that you really care what I think anyway, as is your right.
What's PBS?
What's funny is that by your own admission you "read a few chapters of the Bible, and threw it down", and then you turn around and insinuate that someone else is ignorant.
I believe that falls under the category of hypocrisy, does it not?
Which is the more admirable, faith in God of ignorance of God? (rhetorical)
God and his creative powers do not fit into the parameters of human understanding. If you want to understand Him in the least, you need exit the terrestrial and enter the celestial.
And Peer reviewers have money that grows out of which hole in the ground?
Public Television ... NOVA did a thing on magnetic shift a couple of weeks back. Apparently once every quarter of a million years or so, the magnetic pole inverts itself pretty much all at once (literally in a few days). This is preceded by a time with magnetic "north" (which is actually south half the time) weakens and moves around erratically for a number of years (in geologic time). Right now, Earth's magentism is in a period of weakening.
Oh. No - i've seen something like that on Discovery some time ago.
For one, I never actually stated that as a fact... I said we can never truly know if the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old or billions of years old for that matter. There is a difference. Entering your box of preconceived notions about me to make your argument doesn't help your cause.
As for the other, I would venture to say that the majority of said scientists from MIT are either agnostics or full-blown athiests. But that isn't what we're talking about is it? Some of them believe that the factors behind global warming are heavily man-made; others prefer to cite cyclical patterns from our past as proof that this is natural phenomena with only slight influence from the presence of humans. So... calling BS on it won't change what they believe... they've got the credentials to back up their best educated opinion on the matter.
101A - I'm not going to explain peer review to you again for the 15th time. In fact, by alleging that the peer review process is corrupt you are basically calling your wife a charlatan. She's a scientist. She publishes papers. They are peer reviewed. Therefore, does that mean she's saying whatever her funders want her to say in a conspiracy with her colleagues so she can keep her funding? See, you are talking nonsense. I hope your wife reads this thread and puts you in your place.
The point is, the only way that what you and Ray allege, that is that thousands of climate scientists from across the planet are actively engaged in a massive conspiracy to support each other's work so they can keep their funding, makes absolutely no sense. The funding you are talking about comes from hundreds of different sources who would then also have to be in on the conspiracy, and conspiracies only work when they are small. On top of that, there's a million times more money invested in fossil fuels than climate research, so isn't it a little more likely that they are the ones paying for the skeptics and not the other way around? And why haven't their skeptics come up with studies to support their opinions? Because they can't - the science cannot be twisted far enough to support their agenda. In the end, the science speaks the truth.
In other words, you are talking absolute and anyone with half a brain can see it.
Give us specifics. Who are these people, what is their area of speciality? Only specifics will convince me, because the scientists I know are fully away of the natural cyclical patterns, and all of them believe that the current warming event departs from those patterns.
I know over 30 scientists at the ANU, and none of them, NONE OF THEM believe that climate change is not being driven by humans. It's pretty telling when records for this interglacial (that is, the 10,000 years since the last ice age) show that the natural CO2 concentration has oscillated from 200-280ppm during the mini-warming and cooling cycles, and that now we're at 380ppm and climbing rapidly. CO2 conc correlates with temperature change in records dating back over 65million years. Where exactly is the missing link here? We are the ones increasing the atmospheric conc of CO2 beyond its natural boundaries, so how are we then suddenly not responsible for climate change?
The only doubt concerning climate change that I have experienced in the scientists I've discussed it with concerns the accuracy of the predictions made by the models (eg. will 550ppm lead to a 2C or a 3C increase?), and the big unknown - where are the tipping points in the climate system? That, we simply don't know.
As for your statement about the age of the planet, we DO TRULY KNOW that it is not 10,000yrs old. The fossil record, ice cores, oxygen isotope dating, etc. Actually, I think the figure is about 4,000,000,000 years if memory serves correctly, but it is certainly nowhere near 10,000 years... unless you believe that the masses of evidence out there that tell us these things were placed there by a prankster God, and then you're in faith territory, NOT SCIENCE, and that's your business. However, don't pretend that it's science.
Last edited by RuffnReadyOzStyle; 11-14-2006 at 07:10 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
