Global warming or not?

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

Please refrain from devolving to the use of insults. Thank you.

pshrynk (Moderator)

As the man with the new truss said; I stand corrected!

[kazbates]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I think you need to ask the scientists that published the studies that.

Kenny, you continually debunk anyone else's opinion that differs from your own but then tell them to go look up their own scientific data or talk to a scientist. That seems a bit unfair to me. If you have scientific data that would support your viewpoint, you should post it; thereby justifying your stance on the issue.

I'll preface my response by saying that I don't know how much of a crisis Global warming actually is, but it's hard to imagine all the things we do to our world has NOT had some effect. Why, with all the incredible advancements in technology and the amazing ingenuity of the human mind, we haven't been able to create a clean viable alternative fuel continual confounds me. The problem with all this is that the misuse of this planet has been occurring for centuries. Granted, things have been exacerbated since the Industrial Revolution, but we have been making some positive changes within the last 50 years. I still remember the advertisement showing a Native American with a tear in his eye as he views the garbage on the side of the road. I know my kids and I would never think to dispose of trash in that way. Small changes, yes, but every little bit helps. There are, of course, greater changes such as solar power, wind power, cleaner auto emissions, etc.

Having said that, though, I do think that "Going Green" has taken on the attributes of a religion as opposed to a cause. Don't get me wrong. I think conservation, recycling, alternative energy sources, etc. are important to the health and well-being of our planet. I have a vested interest in a healthy planet as I do have children. I just feel like I am being indoctrinated into a cult instead of being show a better way to treat the Earth. Taking the fervor and rhetoric down a notch might go a long way toward convincing people to do the right thing for our planet. Jamming an issue down someones throat has rarely been very effective. Education is the key and that starts with the children. Believe me, the educational system here in my county and in the one where I lived previously has thoroughly embraced the three R's (reduce, reuse and recycle).

I also feel that scientists are human and as such have their own agendas. Whether it is to prove or disprove a hypothesis, they are looking for data that work in their favor. That's the nature of the scientific process. It is not out of the realm of possibility to believe that the data they embrace is that which justifies their conclusions. I'm not saying that that is wrong. It is what it is. If I were trying to prove a hypothesis, I would definitely look for data that supported my ideas and perhaps not look quite so hard for data that disproved it. Hey, I'm human! In other words, scientists are not infallible nor do they always act without some type of prejudice. Placing them on a pedestal and expecting them to act at the higher echelon of humanity is naive. Taking their writings as Gospel is also a bit short-sighted.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by kazbates

Kenny, you continually debunk anyone else's opinion that differs from your own but then tell them to go look up their own scientific data or talk to a scientist. That seems a bit unfair to me. If you have scientific data that would support your viewpoint, you should post it; thereby justifying your stance on the issue.
...

No need to. I believe in the scientific method, therefore I believe the published data. The majority of climate scientists agree with it.

I don't need to provide any data to support my viewpoint because it is in agreement with the current theory. It is THE TRUTH. The only way to change it is to disprove it. Various links have been posted by me and others. I've already said all this and I'm not going through it again. Do You understand the scientific method, the processes of science an publication i peer reviewed journals? If you do then you know the burden of proof is NOT on me, but on those who claim it is not true or who claim some other theory holds and better explains the results.

It is not unfair it is how science works.


P.S. Kaz I basically agree with your post otherwise. I said above -- scientists are human with all that entails, but the scientific method and the scientific processes are self correcting. Nothing should every be taken as gospel, scientists are the most skeptical people on Earth. It's the most important aspect of the job. As far as hand-picking your data you could do that once, but the experiment likely could not be independently replicated. And it would certainly not make it past the scrutiny of fellow scientist out to prove you wrong.

[grimo1re]

Originally Posted by Icarusbop

I agree it is happening, I remember lots more snow when I was young.

Yeah, the winters were colder, the summers were hotter, and children still had manners.

Oh wait...this wasn't a thread about psychology was it?

[kennyc]

And it was a five mile barefoot walk to school, uphill both ways.

But we did it, because we had ethics.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by kazbates

Why, with all the incredible advancements in technology and the amazing ingenuity of the human mind, we haven't been able to create a clean viable alternative fuel continual confounds me.

That, unfortunately, is easy to answer: Money. We committed our money and resources to oil and coal, to such an extent that efforts to switch to other forms of energy were easily deflected back to the oil/coal track by the ones holding the purse-strings.

Our governments are literally hogtied by Big Oil and Coal... and worse, they are totally willing and submissive to it. They buy our leaders off with wine, women, mansions and Hummers, and our leaders are more than happy to go along with it. They have been behind every effort to slow, kill or ridicule alternative energies for the past century or so, and in return, the govt has given them subsidies and tax breaks that are lavish compared to those of other industries. Until our leaders have the stones (or the public manages) to lock them out of the chambers long enough to get some honest governing done, that won't change.

That's why we desperately need lobbying reforms, as well as a commitment to put leaders in office who are willing to make the tough choices, which we have to be willing to follow. We have to stop the dirty money trail.

[Icarusbop]

Originally Posted by kennyc

No need to. I believe in the scientific method, therefore I believe the published data. The majority of climate scientists agree with it.

Not so I'm afraid:
Look up the
'Oregon Petition' 19,700 against and
'The Global Warming Petition Project' 31,486 againt
(And they both have quite a number of scientists who have signed up)
Granted, the same scientist may have signed both, but, either of these on it's own has more signatories than the report that was presented at Koyoto, for the agreement (I think it was around 3,300 scientist signatories, but annoyingly cannot find the actual numbers - sorry)

So the commonly stated 'Fact' of ' Most climate scientists agree' is in fact actually not a fact..

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Nothing should every be taken as gospel, scientists are the most skeptical people on Earth. It's the most important aspect of the job.

But scientists have been just as dogmatically close-minded as anyone else in the past.
Planck said that scientific truth doesn't emerge by convincing rational and open-minded fellow scientists; it occurs when it's opponents die, and a new generation take over.

[GeoffC]

Something is happening to our climate....let's leave it to the historians of the 25th Century to decide who or what to blame .....

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

Something is happening to our climate....let's leave it to the historians of the 25th Century to decide who or what to blame .....

Well it wasn't me ... I was nowhere near it!!

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

But scientists have been just as dogmatically close-minded as anyone else in the past.
Planck said that scientific truth doesn't emerge by convincing rational and open-minded fellow scientists; it occurs when it's opponents die, and a new generation take over.

On occasion individual scientists can be the worst! But in the end the community corrects. The body of science is not something that is made up from opinion polls or viewpoint. It it made of of measurable, repeatable replicable facts.

Originally Posted by GeoffC

Something is happening to our climate....let's leave it to the historians of the 25th Century to decide who or what to blame .....

Something is happening, something bad is happening, we may not know exactly why but that should be only more reason to find out and do what we can to make it better. If we wait til the 25th century, it may not come.

And that's okay too I guess because 99% of all species that every lived are now extinct.

We'll just let mother Earth start over and try again. I expect I'll be long gone in even one more century (unless of course Ray is right).

[RedHeadPeter]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

Something is happening to our climate....let's leave it to the historians of the 25th Century to decide who or what to blame .....

What 25th Century?

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by kennyc

The body of science is not something that is made up from opinion polls or viewpoint. It it made of of measurable, repeatable replicable facts.

Is that the case with quantum mechanics (all that probability, string theory, branes etc.)

Also worth remembering that the vast majority (if not all) scientists throughout history have been wrong!

[kazbates]

Originally Posted by kennyc

On occasion individual scientists can be the worst! But in the end the community corrects. The body of science is not something that is made up from opinion polls or viewpoint. It it made of of measurable, repeatable replicable facts.




Something is happening, something bad is happening, we may not know exactly why but that should be only more reason to find out and do what we can to make it better. If we wait til the 25th century, it may not come.

And that's okay too I guess because 99% of all species that every lived are now extinct.

We'll just let mother Earth start over and try again. I expect I'll be long gone in even one more century (unless of course Ray is right).

I'll say again that scientists are not infallible and if the scientific community wanted to push an agenda, it would be incredibly easy for them to band together to support that agenda. I know this sounds incredibly like Conspiracy Theory mumbo-jumbo, but I tend to be cynical about things like this. The recent memo controversy could a case in point. I also tend to agree with the previous poster that brought up grant money as a reason for all the press. Grant money is a huge chimera to people who are woefully under paid. We educators are encouraged to apply for as much grant money as we can get.

I will say this, I'm not altogether opposed to scientists taking this route to open the publics' eyes about climatological changes. Sometimes we do need to be smacked upside the head with a two-by-four to get us to listen. Although, in all honesty I would prefer. . .well, honesty. I'm fairly intelligent and like to draw my own conclusions, whether that conclusion is popular or not. Sometimes, I feel the powers that be think the public is too stupid to think for themselves. I, for one, take great exception to that.

As to the future, can we consider that if the effects are over a long period of time, humankind would adapt to the changing conditions? It seems a bit simplistic of an example but, I lived in South Florida for several years. When we first arrived from the Chicago area, I thought Florida was incredibly hot and humid. Fast forward eight years and I found the climate comfortable. When we moved to the Northern Virginia area, I was constantly complaining about the cold. Now after 6 years, I consider the winters mild compared to the winters of my youth. In other words, my body adapted to the climate of my current habitat. Just something I think about when teaching habitats to third graders.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Is that the case with quantum mechanics (all that probability, string theory, branes etc.)

Also worth remembering that the vast majority (if not all) scientists throughout history have been wrong!

Hee-hee.

Actually yes. That's precisely what the LHC is about -- digging deeper.

I don't know about all scientists being wrong. Darwin certainly was right with the core of his theory as was Madam Curie, Newton (multiple theories), Einstein, etc.

Are they right in everything they say and do. No. Not by a long shot, but the body of science which results is as right as we get. It is the truth as we know it.