Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Global Warming?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 6>
Author
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Global Warming?
    Posted: 22 July 2009 at 4:04pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

in case you were wondering, peter is currently out looking to find a way to discredit this blogger as his findings shed light on this discussion...
 
 
If he can't find anything, he will go after me again, or just call everyone who disagrees with him, ignorant, uneducated and dumb...
 
Nope.  Just otherwise occupied.  Work does interfere on occasion...
 
And I am pretty sure I don't frequently call people ignorant, uneducated, or dumb - certainly not for disagreeing with me.
 
I call arguments dumb on a regular basis, and I lambast people for intentional ignorance, but beyond that?  Not so much.  I am sure one has slipped out here or there, but it certainly isn't a pattern.  If I am wrong in this, please correct me.  I don't want to be unknowingly engaged in unnecessary ad hominem attacks.

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4785
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 July 2009 at 1:27pm
in case you were wondering, peter is currently out looking to find a way to discredit this blogger as his findings shed light on this discussion...
 
 
If he can't find anything, he will go after me again, or just call everyone who disagrees with him, ignorant, uneducated and dumb...
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4785
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 July 2009 at 1:08pm
Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

  

Not one original thought, not one new piece of data, not one piece of useful anything.  My post was a total piece of crap.
 
 
 
 
Interesting...
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 July 2009 at 12:48pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5117890.shtml

 

 

So the "era" of transparency, actually means, "we look at facts that we like". Then ignore all others, while stifling them...

 
First off, let's not get too carried away with the conspiracy theories here.  The paper (at least as hosted by CEI) is not finished.  We don't know what processes go on - I am not aware of whether the NCEE normally would comment on this type of regulation or not.  "Help help I'm being oppressed" is a common reaction from butthurt narcissists. 
 
And as for transparency - how many other internal EPA reports and comment memos have you seen?  How about DOE reports/memos?  ICE?  DEA?  They are called "internal" for a reason.  Not that they are necessarily secret, but they aren't really meant for general publication.  It is hardly a slam on transparency that this report was not brought to the public eye.
 
 

Quote
Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

but I find the evidence overwhelmingly conclusive.  When scientists shift their debate, I pay attention.  Scientists love nothing more than proving their colleagues wrong - when they stop trying it means that they can't.

 

 
 

Or it means they are being silenced... As my article that I posted clearly points out. As well as my other links that I posted, also pointing out the "blacklisting" of anyone who speaks out against the "global warming religion/ideology".

 
Yes, I know:  "Help help, they are being oppressed."  The scientists that know the TRUTH about global warming are being silenced, right along with the scientists that know the TRUTH about evolution, right?
 
Two thoughts here:  1.  If they are being silenced, it is the worst silencing of all time.  Warming skeptics get FAR more press coverage than supporters.  The press loves a contrarian, and they get published.  Want to sell books?  Write about sunspots, not about CO2.
 
And 2.  This silencing theory goes against everything I know of the scientific community.  Research scientists are not physicians.  Physicians all love to get along - research scientists LOVE to prove each other wrong.  Proving the other guy wrong gets you published, and gets you an academic prize and an endowed chair.  Supporting the status quo gets you a temp teaching job at Southern State U.  Put a bunch of research scientists in a room together and they will start yelling at each other almost immediately.  Ask a researcher what his dream is, and he will tell you that it is to discover something new, to upset the status quo.  That's the whole point of research.  Nobody becomes a researcher just to confirm the work of others.
 
 

 

Quote

Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

  The real problem with CEI is the crap they spout.

But the main reason you should dismiss CEI, of course, is because they spout lies.
 

 
… If you truly were interested in looking at “science” then you would have a problem with gore spouting off about the 2,500 “scientists” that signed off on his “findings”…

 

When they all don’t actually agree…

 

http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_12854537

 

 
Actually, when I finally got around to watching An Inconvenient Truth (I held off for a long time, as I assumed it would be annoying propaganda), I immediately took to the web to look up stuff I had taken notes on.
 
I researched his claims as best I could, and checked his sources.  And that movie, while not perfect, is far more accurate and legitimate than anything CEI has ever come up with.
 
I am also pretty sure that Gore never described 2,500 scientists as having signed off on "his" findings.  Gore is not a scientist and does not pretend to be.
 
As to "consensus."  Important semantic distinction here.  I am NOT suggesting, nor should anybody suggest, that every contributor to the IPCC reports agree 100% with everything in those reports.  That would be silly.  A scientific "consensus" does not mean "everybody agrees completely."  There are always dissenters, on issues big and small.  A consensus instead means that there is a prevailing view on a particular point, agreed by most - perhaps even almost all - to be the best-proven theory.
 
And on that basis I will in fact claim that there is a scientific consensus that (a) global warming is occurring, and (b) it is almost certainly caused primarily by human action, by way of increased net CO2 emissions.
 
Once you step beyond those two points the consensus weakens (as to big points - the consensus will strengthen on a myriad of detail points, of course).  There is significant disagreement about the role of global warming in hurricane formation, for instance, and I think the IPCC reports overstated that position.  And all projections for future change are heavily discussed as well.
 
I will agree that Gore's movie devolved into a bit of hyperbole at points, and elevated some points to "consensus" that probably did not deserve that label, but those were mostly minor issues (like polar bears).  On the big issues, the central causalities, he was pretty much in complete accord with the scientific consensus.
 
Similarly, when I read the IPCC reports, I researched most of the lead writers and read a variety of articles on the main subject areas.
 
So yes, I do apply the same level of scrutiny to "my" side as to opposing views.
 
 
 
Quote Facts are, IPCC is representing government funded sciences, and based on your so called “skepticism” of following the money… Seems like you would be less likely to follow their “biased” science that is now wanting to tax us at a higher rate to pay for supposed “harm” that we caused… Which hasn’t been proven…
 
Really?  What are these "government sciences?"  Because the IPCC reports are nothing more than a compilation and evaluation of the sum of research on the subject.  And that underlying research was conducted by thousands of different scientists over the course of decades/centuries, on every continent, with both private and public funds.
 
That's one heck of a conspiracy.
 
And which "government" exactly is this of which you speak, and why exactly would this "government" want to find for global warming?
 
I'll be happy to follow the money, but you are going to have to be a lot more specific than "Tha Man."
 
 
 
Sorry for superlong post, guys...  not done yet.
 
 
NOW - back to the "suppressed report."  I read it.  And you know what?  If I had written it I would want it suppressed too.  It is basically a random collection of old denier charts and graphs, poorly copied into a "report" with no rhyme or reason.  There is NOTHING NEW in that report that the EPA hasn't heard a thousand times, and big chunks the stuff was copypasta from nutball websites.  Heck, he even cites Fred Singer, he cites blog postings, and he cites Ken Gregory.
 
Not one original thought, not one new piece of data, not one piece of useful anything.  It was a total piece of crap.
 


Edited by Peter Parker - 22 July 2009 at 12:49pm

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
usafpilot07 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
FreeEnterprise's #1 Fan & Potty Mouth

Joined: 31 August 2004
Location: Tokelau
Status: Offline
Points: 4447
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote usafpilot07 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 July 2009 at 11:59am
Personally, I love global warming.  I hate snow, and I live in the mountains, global warming needs to speed it's ass up.  I start off every day the same way;  I wake up in the morning, grab two cans of hairspray, and spray them maliciously into the Ozone layer. 

Sometimes I leave my car running all day out in the drive way too.


Edited by usafpilot07 - 22 July 2009 at 12:00pm
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4785
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 July 2009 at 11:46am
Oh, and don't read this... It will hurt the 2,500 number that is "fact" in our media...
 
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4785
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 July 2009 at 11:42am

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5117890.shtml

 

 

So the "era" of transparency, actually means, "we look at facts that we like". Then ignore all others, while stifling them...

 

I don't bother with "debating" with you peter, as your debates are always the same. I just put out the facts that prove your opinion is so jaded that it is pretty much a religion for you. You have to believe, and anyone who speaks out against it, you claim must be a bumpkin with no intelligence. (really, find a new argument, that one is VERY stale).

 

Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

but I find the evidence overwhelmingly conclusive.  When scientists shift their debate, I pay attention.  Scientists love nothing more than proving their colleagues wrong - when they stop trying it means that they can't.

 

 

 

Or it means they are being silenced... As my article that I posted clearly points out. As well as my other links that I posted, also pointing out the "blacklisting" of anyone who speaks out against the "global warming religion/ideology".

 

 

I also find funny your attacks on other groups, because you don’t like them…

 

Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

  The real problem with CEI is the crap they spout.

But the main reason you should dismiss CEI, of course, is because they spout lies.

 

Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

Funding of any agenda based research from either side of the issue has credibility issues.


Absolutely true, and an extra skeptical read should always be applied when the conclusions align with funders' interests.

But not all interest-funded research is bad - most of it is good.  Scientists as a rule are actually looking for the truth - that's why they became research scientists.

More importantly, we cannot simply lump all claims of science together as "research."  The IPCC reports are scientific research projects.  What the CEI puts out is NOT science of any kind, but pure propaganda.

I will listen to scientists with a contrary view - in fact, I seek them out - regardless of their funding source.  But propaganda is just that.  It is not new knowledge, or even knowledge at all, but intentional spin.

So yes, consider the source of funding, but most of all consider the nature of the information being presented.

 

Nice statements, too bad you don’t follow them… If you truly were interested in looking at “science” then you would have a problem with gore spouting off about the 2,500 “scientists” that signed off on his “findings”…

 

When they all don’t actually agree…

 

http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_12854537

 

I copy pasted the parts of the article that were interesting.

 

Tripp, a member of the IPCC since 2004, is listed as one of 450 IPCC "lead authors"

"It shows what the IPCC touts as a consensus is less than a consensus. Even within that group not everyone is in total agreement,"

He said there is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made. "It well may be, but we're not scientifically there yet."

He also criticized modeling schemes to evaluate global warming, but stopped short of commenting on climate modeling used by the IPCC, saying "I don't have the expertise."

But meteorologist Thomas Reichler did just that. He was involved in a University of Utah study that the IPCC models "are quite accurate and can be valuable tools for those seeking solutions on reversing global warming trends."

Neal Briggs, who farms nearly 300 acres in Syracuse, said he's comfortable that the Farm Bureau presents only one side of the climate debate because "the science behind it isn't sound. From what I've researched, we are not a large contributor to global warming."

 

 

Facts are, IPCC is representing government funded sciences, and based on your so called “skepticism” of following the money… Seems like you would be less likely to follow their “biased” science that is now wanting to tax us at a higher rate to pay for supposed “harm” that we caused… Which hasn’t been proven…

 

They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
Benjichang View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
I pwned Leroy Jenkins!

Joined: 03 January 2004
Location: R'lyeh
Status: Offline
Points: 12518
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Benjichang Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 July 2009 at 10:59am
Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

Ok, that's it.  I am not responding to any more FE posts that consist entirely of links.
 
I need some claim of fact, a statement of theory, an argument - something.  I read your linked article, FE, now tell me your point.
AKA, nearly every post.
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 July 2009 at 10:56am
Ok, that's it.  I am not responding to any more FE posts that consist entirely of links.
 
I need some claim of fact, a statement of theory, an argument - something.  I read your linked article, FE, now tell me your point.

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4785
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 July 2009 at 10:54am
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 July 2009 at 10:47am
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

[false propaganda]
 
Really, FE?  Really?  The Great Global Warming Swindle?  Really? 
 
You must really hate Google.  And Yahoo.  And Bing.  And Lycos.  And the public library. 
 
Seriously - really?

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 July 2009 at 10:38am
Originally posted by Kayback Kayback wrote:



Clean energy works.

Not to mention the power requirements of actually building wind turbines, the damage they do to the fauna and the HAZMAT left over from broken solar pannels.

KBK
 
Yep, clean energy does work.  It works very well.
 
But nobody ever said there was no environmental cost (nobody sane, anyway).  Similarly, nobody would ever compare the environmental cost from the occasional busted gearbox in a windmill to the environmental cost of fossil fuels (nobody sane, anyway).
 
And yes, windmills and solar panels have to be built, and there is a cost to that.  They do in fact not appear spontaneously like manna from heaven.  But neither do coal plants.  Apples to apples, there is no comparison.


Edited by Peter Parker - 22 July 2009 at 10:39am

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 July 2009 at 10:35am
Originally posted by Darur Darur wrote:

Friggin accidental refresh . . .

 
I hate that.  Reminds me of why KRL always typed his posts in Word and copied.

Quote However, I do think that the general public is sliding towards that mindset, and worse I feel they are also taking the view Gore presented to heart: The sky is falling. Historically, panicking people about a threat, even a confirmed one, does nothing to help. Sadly, I think its a little too late to fix that perception.

I didn't mean to insinuate that the science is faulty, its not. We definitely know a great deal more about climate then we did 50 years ago, or even 5 years ago. Historically, however, whenever we think we know a lot about climate, we discover we know very little. I am saying that much much more research needs to be done on the impact of our involvement, and, more importantly, how our entire ecosystem affects climate. Until we understand how the environment works, we can't begin trying to affect climate change. Even cutting back CO2 emissions could have unforeseen results. Some scientists and historians believe that the Little Ice Age in Europe was due to the lack of Greenhouse gases after the plague (other explanations include sunspots and regional climate patterns, a prime example of how little we understand). We need to invest in understanding how each element in an ecosystem affects each other element, how each ecosystem affects another in each Biome, how each Biome affects each other in the Biosphere, and how the Biosphere and Atmosphere and Sun affect climate. We have a huge amount we have yet to learn, and much much more money needs to go into research in these areas.

 
Re-reading your earlier post I see that I went off the deep end a bit.  I agree wholeheartedly with the above.
 

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4785
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 July 2009 at 10:06am
 
 
 
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
Kayback View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Ask me about my Kokido

Joined: 25 July 2002
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 4028
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kayback Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 July 2009 at 2:34am


Clean energy works.

Not to mention the power requirements of actually building wind turbines, the damage they do to the fauna and the HAZMAT left over from broken solar pannels.

KBK
Back to Top
Darur View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Stare directly into my avatar...

Joined: 03 May 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 9174
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Darur Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 July 2009 at 1:53am

Friggin accidental refresh . . .

I'm not going to retype it as well as I originally did, but here it goes:

I think you misunderstood me in a few places.

I'm not accusing you of blaming the right for the current state of things, you're much fairer then I am in that respect :)

However, I do think that the general public is sliding towards that mindset, and worse I feel they are also taking the view Gore presented to heart: The sky is falling. Historically, panicking people about a threat, even a confirmed one, does nothing to help. Sadly, I think its a little too late to fix that perception.

I didn't mean to insinuate that the science is faulty, its not. We definitely know a great deal more about climate then we did 50 years ago, or even 5 years ago. Historically, however, whenever we think we know a lot about climate, we discover we know very little. I am saying that much much more research needs to be done on the impact of our involvement, and, more importantly, how our entire ecosystem affects climate. Until we understand how the environment works, we can't begin trying to affect climate change. Even cutting back CO2 emissions could have unforeseen results. Some scientists and historians believe that the Little Ice Age in Europe was due to the lack of Greenhouse gases after the plague (other explanations include sunspots and regional climate patterns, a prime example of how little we understand). We need to invest in understanding how each element in an ecosystem affects each other element, how each ecosystem affects another in each Biome, how each Biome affects each other in the Biosphere, and how the Biosphere and Atmosphere and Sun affect climate. We have a huge amount we have yet to learn, and much much more money needs to go into research in these areas.

My comment on Crichton was undoubtedly misreading if you haven't read the book. In the end is a chapter where Crichton effectively says what I said above, that we need to really invest in understanding the environment and the impact of climate change before we try to fix it. He certainly takes some creative license with the research, and backs up his views with papers whose conclusions say opposite of his, but he does manage to raise some valid points about policy, and highlight some misconceptions about climate science, albeit creating a few more. I would say on the whole, hes only a smidgen more misleading then AIT, but I'm not suggesting it qualifies as something to cite in a debate.



Edited by Darur - 22 July 2009 at 1:54am
Real Men play Tuba

PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf!
DONT CLICK ME!!1
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 July 2009 at 1:02am
Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

And WTH is a "stance?" 


Written and published by a silent (read, no byline) and collective (using the royal "we,") voice, meant to represent not just the opinions of one writer (If that were so, it would be a column written by a columnist) but rather stating the opinion of the entire staff of the newspaper.

In short, it is declaring the newspaper's stance on something — as an entity.

Even more short = The things on the opinion page with no byline. Where political endorsements and such go.



Edited by agentwhale007 - 22 July 2009 at 1:03am
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 July 2009 at 12:41am
Nice column, Whale.  I pretty much agree.  And WTH is a "stance?"  You reporters are weird.
 
Darur, I thoroughly agree with this:  "The trouble is, climate change was introduced to the general public NOT by scientists, but by political groups.  Al Gore, Greenpeace and everyone else who jumped on the issue instantly made it a political issue," and similar points you made.
 
If I seem to imply that only the far right is guilty of the politicization on this matter, that is not my intent, for it is clearly not the case.  I hear all too many hippies jumping for joy because solar power is going to take down the corporations and bring us closer to the Earth, and BTW we should all eat organic foods and live in communes.  I can certainly see how that could get annoying very fast.
 
That said, I am not sure I agree with your assessment of the state of the science.  I am not a scientist myself (in a meaningful sense of the word), and certainly am not in a position to make substantive arguments on climatology, but I have been able to (painstakingly) confirm something important from Gore's movie:  the consensus.  When science develops and theories grow, there is always a frontier.  Research is always being done up and down the line, with people confirming (or poking holes in) old studies, filling in blanks, and so forth - but there is also the frontier, where the actual debate is ongoing, where the scientists can't really come up with conclusive proof.  And the frontier on climate change is NOT on WHETHER there is global warming, or WHETHER there is significant anthopogenic cause.  That was the frontier 15, 20, 30 years ago.  The frontier now is about the tipping point, about climate projections, about fixes, about required reductions, and so forth. 
 
That does NOT mean that nobody is doing research on WHETHER - it just means that this research doesn't cause the great debates anymore, because all the research keeps coming back with the same results.  Hard to have a lively debate when everybody's results come up the same.
 
And this dynamic (ascertainable through a review of abstracts of climatology articles) is pretty convincing.  Gore may have overstated it a tad in his movie (or not, depending on how you count), but I find the evidence overwhelmingly conclusive.  When scientists shift their debate, I pay attention.  Scientists love nothing more than proving their colleagues wrong - when they stop trying it means that they can't.
 
As for Mr. Crighton - I haven't read State of Fear, but you know it is fiction, right?  And Crighton was never shy about playing fast and loose with science in his novels.  See, for instance, ...  heck, all of them.
 
Not having read this particular book, I can't/won't comment specifically, but I do know that several writers have taken issue with Crighton's presentation of climate science in that book.  Here is a randomly chosen one:  http://www.pewclimate.org/state_of_fear.cfm
 
 


Edited by Peter Parker - 22 July 2009 at 12:42am

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
Darur View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Stare directly into my avatar...

Joined: 03 May 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 9174
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Darur Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 July 2009 at 11:05pm
I really have only skimmed this thread, so what I am saying may already have been said.

To comment on Whale's post, I agree for the most part. I don't like how muddled in politics the issue has become, and I'm just as guilty as most people for being swayed by that.

The trouble is, climate change was introduced to the general public NOT by scientists, but by political groups.  Al Gore, Greenpeace and everyone else who jumped on the issue instantly made it a political issue.  AIT almost directly said the world is screwed by climate change because Gore lost the election.  Republicans didn't help the issue at all by immediately going on the defensive and questioning the science for political, rather then scientific reasons.  What should  have been a presentation of a potential threat to the current climate snowballed into one side yelling the Conservatives are going to burn down the world for money and the Liberals are lying.

The fact of the matter is the science is still not fully understood.  A lot more research needs to be done and more money should be going in climate change research without this political backdrop.  Fortunetely, that seems to be coming along.  Theres renewed interest in research from industry and with proper funding hopefully we can understand the issue better. Frankly I think Michael Chriction made a few good points in "State of Fear" about how we really need to do more research and understand the enviornment and the issue better before policy is made.

Science should never be made political, and it looks like we are finally starting to get out of the rut politics created.
Real Men play Tuba

PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf!
DONT CLICK ME!!1
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 July 2009 at 9:59pm
Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:


And while I will certainly agree that there has been lots of irrational opposition to nukes, this is changing.  More and more, the environmentalists are coming around.



If I recall correctly, Patrick Moore, one of the founding members of GreenPeace, is one of the former-anti now-pro supporters of nuclear as an alternative energy source.
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 6>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.230 seconds.