Jump to content

International Report Cites Global Warming Cause, Effects


Piero

Recommended Posts

That was basically my feeling. When science is first presented in the popular press' date=' one should be very suspicious.[/quote']

 

why?(scratch)

 

 

 

I did not think the article was good. If you're going to quote, don't quote from bloggers. Quote from Nature or some other peer-reviewed journal. Not professor blogger from so and so university.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why?(scratch)

I did not think the article was good. If you're going to quote, don't quote from bloggers. Quote from Nature or some other peer-reviewed journal. Not professor blogger from so and so university.

 

I agree, that why earlier in this thread I referenced the 2001 IPCC Report and "Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nyt artical earlier this week. Digg it

 

it's been dugged.

(laugh)

 

seems like the same article as before?

 

Anyway, in my opinion, i don't really care that Al Gore may have exaggerated global warming. The awareness that he brought is leading many people to take action - all of which is good. Quite frankly, I don't know why there is all this hoopla about his exaggeration. Why not jump on people who don't like genetically modified organisms because they are scared of mutations? Why not criticize those that are against stem cell research based on the fact that they're scared of rogue scientists and embryo farms? THOSE are the exaggerations that should be stopped. Those are the people who hinder science that can make society better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's been dugged.

(laugh)

 

seems like the same article as before?

 

Anyway, in my opinion, i don't really care that Al Gore may have exaggerated global warming. The awareness that he brought is leading many people to take action - all of which is good. Quite frankly, I don't know why there is all this hoopla about his exaggeration. Why not jump on people who don't like genetically modified organisms because they are scared of mutations? Why not criticize those that are against stem cell research based on the fact that they're scared of rogue scientists and embryo farms? THOSE are the exaggerations that should be stopped. Those are the people who hinder science that can make society better.

All exaggerations should be stopped. They ALL hinder the way that science can maximally enhance society. This is true whether the exaggeration emanate from the left, right or middle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All exaggerations should be stopped. They ALL hinder the way that science can maximally enhance society. This is true whether the exaggeration emanate from the left' date=' right or middle.[/quote']

 

If there are no exaggerations then no one would do anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok well I've tried to go through the entire thread but my bad eyesight means that ain't gonna happen but I did want to jump in here as a late comer and offer something I think you guys might find interesting. Hopefully. It's a speech given by Michael Crichton of Jurassic Park fame. He talks about the global warming in the context of politics in science and what really caught my attention is the part of the speech that talks about consensus in science. Please, whatever side of the argument you're on, don't use consensus among scientists as a point of arguement. It's been shown SO many times that consensus is almost meaningless. What's scary is how science has evolved to become entangled in politics. Hell, environmentalism IMO, is almost entirely about politics. Why have the US and Australia not signed on to the Kyoto Accord? Do some research. China and India (two of the biggest emitters of greenhouse gasses) would be completely exempt from having to lower their levels. Ok I'm done.

 

 

Anyway here's the link to the speech

 

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

 

and yes it's really called "Aliens Cause Global Warming"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hrm, very interesting and i will check that out. But in the world there exists false consensus..that's understood. The implications on this particular subject i think, are that the people qualified to agree or not are burdened with that risk. How does any data ever gain merit without some form of consensus? if I'm not mistaken it's a synonym for agreeing. Seems like the only way to get anything done in the world is for more than one person to agree...so I'm not sure i see an alternative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there are no exaggerations then no one would do anything.

 

Statements like this is my problem with the whole environmental movement in the first place, you believe that in order to get anyone to do anything about something that you believe is right its has to be blown up much worse then it is. The problem is the truth comes out eventually and you (not you personally of course) end up looking like an idiot and everyone stops believing anything that you say. You heard of the boy who cried wolf right....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok well I've tried to go through the entire thread but my bad eyesight means that ain't gonna happen but I did want to jump in here as a late comer and offer something I think you guys might find interesting. Hopefully. It's a speech given by Michael Crichton of Jurassic Park fame. He talks about the global warming in the context of politics in science and what really caught my attention is the part of the speech that talks about consensus in science. Please, whatever side of the argument you're on, don't use consensus among scientists as a point of arguement. It's been shown SO many times that consensus is almost meaningless. What's scary is how science has evolved to become entangled in politics. Hell, environmentalism IMO, is almost entirely about politics. Why have the US and Australia not signed on to the Kyoto Accord? Do some research. China and India (two of the biggest emitters of greenhouse gasses) would be completely exempt from having to lower their levels. Ok I'm done.

 

 

Anyway here's the link to the speech

 

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

 

and yes it's really called "Aliens Cause Global Warming"

 

I like Crichton because he first inspired me to think for myself. There is a wealth of information out there. You have but to pluck it from the tree.

 

Jay

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Statements like this is my problem with the whole environmental movement in the first place' date=' you believe that in order to get anyone to do anything about something that you believe is right its has to be blown up much worse then it is. The problem is the truth comes out eventually and you (not you personally of course) end up looking like an idiot and everyone stops believing anything that you say. You heard of the boy who cried wolf right....[/quote']

 

 

Well, please share your idea of what will motivate people if it is not fear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well' date=' please share your idea of what will motivate people if it is not fear.[/quote'] What motivates me is dreaming of a world that could be, not fear of one that I don't want it to be.

 

"You may say that I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will be as one

 

Imagine no possessions

I wonder if you can

No need for greed or hunger

A brotherhood of man

Imagine all the people

Sharing all the world

 

You may say that I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will live as one"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hrm' date=' very interesting and i will check that out. But in the world there exists false consensus..that's understood. The implications on this particular subject though, are that the people qualified to agree or not are burdened with that risk. and how does any data ever gain merit without some form of consensus? remember it's just s synonym for agreeing. it's simply the opposite of disagreement. Seems like the only way to get anything done in the world is for more than one person to agree...so I'm not sure i see an alternative to consensus for giving opinions, data, anything merit.[/quote']

 

 

Hey Piero,

 

I think I understand your point but I would disagree that the only way to get anything done in the world is for more than one person to agree. Some of the greatest discoveries in science have been brought about in the face of almost complete opposition. The point isn't even that a consensus is good or bad it's that it shouldn't be cited as evidence for global warming. Global warming may very well be a real phenomenon and it's not impossible (but it is extremely unlikely IMO) that humans have cause it but science has to come to these conclusions based on facts and logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hrm' date=' very interesting and i will check that out. But in the world there exists false consensus..that's understood. The implications on this particular subject though, are that the people qualified to agree or not are burdened with that risk. and how does any data ever gain merit without some form of consensus? remember it's just s synonym for agreeing. it's simply the opposite of disagreement. Seems like the only way to get anything done in the world is for more than one person to agree...so I'm not sure i see an alternative to consensus for giving opinions, data, anything merit.[/quote']

Lets start with the definition of consensus:

 

a : general agreement : UNANIMITY b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned

2 : group solidarity in sentiment and belief

usage The phrase consensus of opinion, which is not actually redundant (see sense 1a; the sense that takes the phrase is slightly older), has been so often claimed to be a redundancy that many writers avoid it. You are safe in using consensus alone when it is clear you mean consensus of opinion, and most writers in fact do so.

 

What we are really talking about here is a consensus of the opinions of scientists. We are asking scientist to be politicians. Science is not about opinions, it is not about faith, its about data. The problem with the data in the present discussion is that the data is not yet complete enough to completely describe the system that we need to understand. We have pretty good data for the last hundred years or so. Before that our data is very sparse and indirect. In the system we are trying describe we are looking for very small changes. We need to model this system very accurately, we need a precision <1% with an incomplete data set. Therefore the results of these models still remain questionable. As we gain more understanding, and gather more data to input into the models eventually this discussion will move out of the real of opinion and politics back to the realm of science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess whether this is wrong or not...this is where I go... The theories of what is going to happen due to the humans causing the earth to warm and what our future holds is all done by models and predictions, no body knows for sure. I compare it to weather people, they all go through school and the best and most "accurate" models, they still can not predict tomorrows weather with 100% accuracy. So how can scientists pretend to know for sure what will happen years from now...Call this ignorant, call this stupid, call this insane...but this is also where I go with it, whether it is right or wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how can scientists pretend to know for sure what will happen years from now...Call this ignorant' date=' call this stupid, call this insane...but this is also where I go with it, whether it is right or wrong.[/quote']

 

I'd probably settle on 'uninformed'.

Once again though, nobody is claiming to know anything for sure. Unfortunately at this point in any discussion, an inability to move beyond fundamentally incorrect generalizations - points that were addressed on p.01 - exposes a logic system with which I fear I am unable to relate. I wish I knew the answer to bridging that divide, but it's difficult when we share different ideas of what constitutes logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd probably settle on 'uninformed'.

Once again though, nobody is claiming to know anything for sure. Unfortunately at this point in any discussion, an inability to move beyond fundamentally incorrect generalizations - points that were addressed on p.01 - exposes a logic system with which I fear I am unable to relate. I wish I knew the answer to bridging that divide, but it's difficult when we share different ideas of what constitutes logic.

 

I just find it hard to believe graphs and computers that are educated guesses as to how our world is going to fall apart. There was a time when all the greatest minds in engineering with top of the line tools at the time, said the titanic can not be sunk, "she is unsinkable", but yet we see her at the bottom of th ocean. Everything is different on "paper". Again, uninformed, that is ok with me...

 

again this me just thinking, I am claiming that this is good thinking or anything of that sort...just where I go with it, thinking out loud if you will...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just find it hard to believe graphs and computers that are educated guesses as to how our world is going to fall apart. There was a time when all the greatest minds in engineering with top of the line tools at the time, said the titanic can not be sunk, "she is unsinkable", but yet we see her at the bottom of th ocean. Everything is different on "paper". Again, uninformed, that is ok with me...

 

again this me just thinking, I am claiming that this is good thinking or anything of that sort...just where I go with it, thinking out loud if you will...

 

I doubt all the the greatest minds in engineering at that time would of said that "she is unsinkable". It of been possible that the would of agree that she was less likely that most to sink. The problem is that this was exaggerated by those that have vested interests in her commercial success to "she is unsinkable". This exaggeration and bad luck is what took her to the bottom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt all the the greatest minds in engineering at that time would of said that "she is unsinkable". It of been possible that the would of agree that she was less likely that most to sink. The problem is that this was exaggerated by those that have vested interests in her commercial success to "she is unsinkable". This exaggeration and bad luck is what took her to the bottom.

 

Well of course not every engineer in the world was working on that, but do we need to be that literal?

 

You proved my point, that with stuff on paper and people having a vested interest, she was unsinkable and people bought into that...that is my point, depending who you asked she would not sink due to multiple walled "hulls" (I think that is what they were called, I am not a ship expert, but I know what I am thinking in my head (laugh) (nutty) ) but she was made of steel and we all know that steel sinks...So with computer models and vested interest, humans are causing global warming...Again I am not claiming this is science, nor holds any water, but I am just kind of thinking out loud here and explaining why I do not fully relay on a computer generated model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.So how can scientists pretend to know for sure what will happen years from now...Call this ignorant' date=' call this stupid, call this insane...but this is also where I go with it, whether it is right or wrong.[/quote']

 

I've never met a scientist that pretended to know anything. They take the best data they can find, put it in the best model they know how to build, and use that to make an estimation as to what is most likely to happen. How well these models do on predicting the future depends on many factors. If you really are interested on how scientists model such things, I can send you a copy of a paper that I just found, "The impact of natural and anthropogenic forcings on climate and hydrology since 1550", Clim. Dyn. 28, 3-34 (2007).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...