Global Warming?

[landscaper]

Three points that should be noted:

1. The Wall Street Journal is almost completely against environmentalism and in particular, the concept of climate change. Just a little bias.

2. The author is not a climatologist, which you felt should be the yardstick by which those experts who comment on "global warming" are judged. His climatological work centred on agribusiness, and by his standards, "global warming" is a good thing, because it means a longer growing season.

3. The Cato Institute is an organization of pseudo-civil libertarians (think Ayn Rand) who have in the past, accepted large donations from the corporate sector, such as the tobacco industry and lobby and then have had their public statements mirror those of their benefactors. In addition, their "expertise" is limited, at best and is entirely based on the idea that humans and business should do whatever they want, with no market controls or legislation.

Some of their work is actually quite good. Other stuff, unfortunately, borders on fanaticism and lobbying-for-hire.

Again we argue that the reoported information is biased because of who is reporting it.

I did not say that the info was correct I said it was interesting on several levels.

Arguing that information is not usable because it comes from a source that does not agree with your argument does not make a lot of sense.

Did you by any chance look at the arial photos of Greenland from the 40s-50s you can actually see what the author is talking about it brings up some questions regarding the melt rate of the greenland ice pack. Another question to be considered that is all

 

[Garrett]

My big problem is junk science, ie; not properly or completly researched. And yes I have spoken and coresponded with climatologists both in and out of Canada regarding climate predictions. The concensus actually pretty much universal is we don not hnow how to model climate change.

How is what you are doing not in the realm of "junk science". You have no credentials in the field. I have no idea what correspondence you talk of, but I know people who feel they are qualified to discuss string theory because they saw a special on Nova. Isn't what you are doing just pushing more junk science... especially when you push lousy sources that make statistical predictions with no grounds in anything other than intuition?

 

[Moraff]

Don't you think the scientists funded by green-thinking people have just as much chance at being biased as those funded by the other side?

And for the poster who said that the climate change theories must be right since 90% of the scientists were on that side I offer this.... at one point in time Gallileo was considered a crackpot by about 99% of scientists and look how that turned out.

 

[Garrett]

And for the poster who said that the climate change theories must be right since 90% of the scientists were on that side I offer this.... at one point in time Gallileo was considered a crackpot by about 99% of scientists and look how that turned out.

Well, Galileo may be a bad example. The Catholic church imprisoned him, banned his writings, and I believe it was only Pope John Paul in the 1990's who conceded they were wrong about this! Not really an environment where scientists can openly debate and proclaim "truth", especially when truth was to be decided by the Catholic church.

How does this apply today? There is little doubt billions are on the line and big business wants to maintain the status quo (or improve it... by turning China into a car culture).

 

[landscaper]

How is what you are doing not in the realm of "junk science". You have no credentials in the field. I have no idea what correspondence you talk of, but I know people who feel they are qualified to discuss string theory because they saw a special on Nova. Isn't what you are doing just pushing more junk science... especially when you push lousy sources that make statistical predictions with no grounds in anything other than intuition?[/QUOTE


Just wondering how do you qualify sources as junk sources when you apparentley have not looked at the reports they are producing.

Yes as a matter of fact I can discuss string theory and quantum mechanics if you really want to.

The statement "especially when you push lousy sources that make statistical pedictions with no grounds in anything other than intuition"

is this not what you are doing by arguing that the stories I referenced are not credible because of the source or the sources percieved biases?

 

[shakenbake]

What are your credentials as a scientist to state this? People think they can have an opinion on this subject because everyone experiences weather. Usually their opinions are about as valid as if they were to discuss advanced mathematics (I briefly worked in predictive climate models for a government agency, and it was all based on mathematics).

But, are the models, that are represented by the mathematics, valid models that adequately describe the natural phenomena? Scientists can write all the complex equations they want. But, if the models that attempt to describe the naturally occurring phenomena are wrong or lacking, the mathematical analyses are worthless. And, yes, I have been a qualified scientist who has had a background in mathematical modelling.

 

[Moraff]

Well, Galileo may be a bad example. The Catholic church imprisoned him, banned his writings, and I believe it was only Pope John Paul in the 1990's who conceded they were wrong about this! Not really an environment where scientists can openly debate and proclaim "truth", especially when truth was to be decided by the Catholic church.

How does this apply today? There is little doubt billions are on the line and big business wants to maintain the status quo (or improve it... by turning China into a car culture).

Perhaps there are better examples, all I was inferring was that just cause the many believe something doesn't mean that it is true.

Sure billions are on the line for big business, but also for all the people who want to sell "green" stuff too.

I'm not against reducing the impact we have, but we can't force our manfacturers to be green while allowing other countries to pollute at will to produce products cheaper than our greener manufacturers can.

 

[shakenbake]

I'm not against reducing the impact we have, but we can't force our manfacturers to be green while allowing other countries to pollute at will to produce products cheaper than our greener manufacturers can.

Exactly. And that is one of the many things wrong with the political world, today. Pollution is pollution and it harms us all, no matter where it comes from. Moreover, whatever happened to the concept of a 'Level Playing Field'?

 

[Garrett]

Just wondering how do you qualify sources as junk sources when you apparentley have not looked at the reports they are producing.

Yes as a matter of fact I can discuss string theory and quantum mechanics if you really want to.

The statement "especially when you push lousy sources that make statistical pedictions with no grounds in anything other than intuition"

is this not what you are doing by arguing that the stories I referenced are not credible because of the source or the sources percieved biases?

I can qualify your sources as junk as I read the original article you used and it is, in fact, junk. It is not even debatable.

As for whether I am doing the same thing... at a basic level, I am not citing statistics or conclusions. You provided a dubious source under the guise of credibility. Go read the original article you posted. It provides stats based on intuition independent of facts. It is exactly what you say you are against: junk science.

I think questioning this stuff is good. I think we also both hate junk science. I think where we disagree is I think you are using junk science as the basis for discussion

 

[onehunglow]

Uhhh really? I'm sure it's on the History Channel weekly. What you're talking about is generally well documented, well understood, and not controversial.

When there are more than a dozen possible theories to explain the massive fluctuations in temperature in the earths recent history, i can't agree with your comment. All this has been very interesting to read.

 

[onehunglow]

Not at the hyper-accelerated rate that we are currently experiencing. But periods of extreme volcanic activity were thought to play a part in it, along with the "asteroids/meteors" explanation that I am not 100% sold on.

Geologists can confirm both of these events.

Agreed.

Something quite interesting is how some geologists have discovered huge impact craters, determined the possible results of these impacts, dated the impact and then tied that date to a climatic event. Very interesting stuff.