[acidbasement]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nibiyabi /img/forum/go_quote.gif By the way, the hypocrisy of this is hilarious. The climatologists (of which there are only about eighty in the US) are the ones putting forth this kind of research that gets ignored by the media. The media are the ones blowing the alarmist horn, bringing in waves of people who are not suited to discuss climate change (e.g., biologists and zoologists) and claiming that they are climatologists because they can give accurate descriptions of what would happen were the Earth to get twenty degrees hotter or whatever.

The IPCC reports are the largest and most comprehensive peer-reviewed scientific documents in the history of the world, which represent a synthesis of the current state of knowledge about climate change. They ring the alarm bell after years of research by the greater climatological community, who are much better informed than any of us posting on this forum. There may only be 80 climatologists in the US as you say (where did you get this number?), but there are many more elsewhere in the world, and together they have crafted a series of documents with whose conclusions a non-climatologist argues at serious risk of earning well-deserved ridicule.

 

[revan]

Wow - I'm happy to see so many views.

I will reiterate that I think debate on this forum is pointless, but I'll tell you why.

There isn't a single individual here that has the credibility to argue the "for" or "against" case of global warming. I don't have the credibility to persuade you (I'm an Accountant), vice versa. Regardless of your current belief, you owe yourself to constantly challenge your beliefs and the credibility of your sources (in the age of The Google this is incredibly easy). Constantly. If you have an opinion, a belief, then you have a responsibility to do this.

The funny thing is how quickly the talk here turned to whether global warming is happening and who is causing it. That really isn't my intention and not the call to action of the video. If you watch the video (and all the others), the guy is asking for an appropriate group of qualified individuals to perform a risk assessment and cost analysis of action v. non-action and all the gradients. This isn't an unreasonable request.

BTW, to one of the earlier posters commenting on my intelligence comment - anyone who has ever played Dungeons and Dragons can tell you there is a difference between intelligence and wisdom....

 

[slwiser]

Quote:

Originally Posted by revan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Wow - I'm happy to see so many views. I will reiterate that I think debate on this forum is pointless, but I'll tell you why. There isn't a single individual here that has the credibility to argue the "for" or "against" case of global warming. I don't have the credibility to persuade you (I'm an Accountant), vice versa. Regardless of your current belief, you owe yourself to constantly challenge your beliefs and the credibility of your sources (in the age of The Google this is incredibly easy). Constantly. If you have an opinion, a belief, then you have a responsibility to do this. The funny thing is how quickly the talk here turned to whether global warming is happening and who is causing it. That really isn't my intention and not the call to action of the video. If you watch the video (and all the others), the guy is asking for an appropriate group of qualified individuals to perform a risk assessment and cost analysis of action v. non-action and all the gradients. This isn't an unreasonable request. BTW, to one of the earlier posters commenting on my intelligence comment - anyone who has ever played Dungeons and Dragons can tell you there is a difference between intelligence and wisdom....

Neither are climatologists that have their hands out for government funds pushing this non-sense credible either.

 

[revan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by slwiser /img/forum/go_quote.gif Neither are climatologists that have their hands out for government funds pushing this non-sense credible either.

It's this kind of throw away, blanket response the effectively marginalizes your contributions to the discussion.

I am extremely interested in determining if the statement has any basis, but how do I determine if that is the case? How do I determine that what you have to say is relevant. Don't forget, this is the internet, your faceless and nameless (as am I). Where did you get your information from that you derived your conclusion? I want to know, so I can research it and see if I can come to the same conclusion as you.

I'm not picking on you or trying to start a flame war. I am holding all information concerning this issue to the same standard. It is too important to me not to. Please read what I am saying consciously, not emotively.

 

[slwiser]

Quote:

Originally Posted by revan /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's this kind of throw away, blanket response the effectively marginalizes your contributions to the discussion. I am extremely interested in determining if the statement has any basis, but how do I determine if that is the case? How do I determine that what you have to say is relevant. Don't forget, this is the internet, your faceless and nameless (as am I). Where did you get your information from that you derived your conclusion? I want to know, so I can research it and see if I can come to the same conclusion as you. I'm not picking on you or trying to start a flame war. I am holding all information concerning this issue to the same standard. It is too important to me not to. Please read what I am saying consciously, not emotively.

I will provide additional information concerning this in a little while...just let me do the looking around. I will edit this post with the updates. The main press does not want alternative information presented so we can read and come to a more balanced understanding of the issues.

One major problem is that any dissension on this issue gets climatologist banded from government programs. This can be supported by what happened to one of the foremost climate scientist who started the Weather Channel. I will follow up on this guy as well and provide a link to this information. See below for this link.

Another tid-bit: The History Channel about three weeks ago had a climate change week. Why would they do this? Well who owns them? A major TV network. Who owns this major network TV company? Well General Electric? Did you know that GE had a company wide Green week the same week of the History channel's climate change week? Follow the money. Glenn Beck - The Real Story - An Inconvenient Segment: NBC Sees Green

When you check these links out, these articles have many follow-on links to study so take the time if you are really interested in this stuff.

This article talks about the Sun cycles over the years and the next one coming as I suggested in one of my earlier posts:
Article: Global Cooling coming American Thinker Blog: Top Russian scientist: global cooling coming

Senate report on global warming link in this article and refers to over 400 scientist who differ on the global warming issue:
American Thinker Blog: Senate Report: No consensus on global warming

22 UN global models flunk:
American Thinker Blog: 22 UN climate models flunk

Weather Channel founder John Coleman says Global Warming is a scam: ICECAP

It is my understanding that Coleman has been kicked out of the national organization that certifies meteorologist. Dissension is not tolerated by these jack-booted thugs.

 

[GlendaleViper]

What really gets me is the resistance often presented by the individual when asked about certain changes they may be willing to make personally for the better of everyone. Certainly home composting, petroleum rationing (many of us do this now just for the savings - no more drive to the end of the road for chips!), replacing tungsten lighting with efficient fluorescents, etc. are all very small things that would collectively add up to a potentially substantial net savings on energy production and consumption, landfills and air quality. Small habitual changes like these come at little or no cost and directly impact your neighbourhoods and cities. Furthermore, these are all things for which many municipalities and indeed goverments offer tax breaks, full out pleas for assistance (hydro, especially in the summer, anyone?) and/or perks (ie: carpool lanes).

I just don't understand the opposition.

 

[slwiser]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlendaleViper /img/forum/go_quote.gif What really gets me is the resistance often presented by the individual when asked about certain changes they may be willing to make personally for the better of everyone. Certainly home composting, petroleum rationing (many of us do this now just for the savings - no more drive to the end of the road for chips!), replacing tungsten lighting with efficient fluorescents, etc. are all very small things that would collectively add up to a potentially substantial net savings on energy production and consumption, landfills and air quality. Small habitual changes like these come at little or no cost and directly impact your neighbourhoods and cities. Furthermore, these are all things for which many municipalities and indeed goverments offer tax breaks, full out pleas for assistance (hydro, especially in the summer, anyone?) and/or perks (ie: carpool lanes). I just don't understand the opposition.

Maybe if it was not because I feel that I am being scammed about it I would take it a little differently. Not only do they want me to personally change my buying habits they want me to have to pay for others who don't or will not have to make the same choices with my taxes. Take the new energy efficient lights that take only 17 watts of power to equal the old 60 watt lights. For me to get same light level I have to leave the new lights on till it warms up long enough to get the light I need. I can't just turn it on and get same light level as the old 60 watt lights. So yes I have purchased many of them but I have find it ironic that they have to remain on all the time awaiting my needs instead of being ready when needed. Many times the solution is no solution at all but someone's attempt at changing my buying habit just to make someone else some money. By the way, being in my 50s my eyes are not as sharp as they used to be so I need more light now than when I was 20. My son goes around turning off all the lights and I just can't see as well as he can.

 

[rsaavedra]

Quote:

Originally Posted by revan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Regardless of your current belief, you owe yourself to constantly challenge your beliefs and the credibility of your sources (in the age of The Google this is incredibly easy).

Kudos Revan for that comment!

 

[GlendaleViper]

Quote:

Originally Posted by slwiser /img/forum/go_quote.gif By the way, being in my 50s my eyes are not as sharp as they used to be so I need more light now than when I was 20. My son goes around turning off all the lights and I just can't see as well as he can.

Yes, but that's a legitimate need. I'm not saying outlaw the tungsten bulb, by any means, but not everyone has a valid excuse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsaavedra /img/forum/go_quote.gif Kudos Revan for that comment!

Double!

 

[acidbasement]

Quote:

Originally Posted by slwiser /img/forum/go_quote.gif Neither are climatologists that have their hands out for government funds pushing this non-sense credible either.

This is pretty weak. You are suggesting that the bloggers you later reference are more credible for climatological analysis than people who have been studying climate systems passionately for decades, and publishing regularly in peer-reviewed journals?

You state that you want a balanced understanding - why would you read blogs for this? Try opening a climatology journal in a university library. There you will find the people who are advancing knowledge in this field, which happens to be way too complex to be accurately distilled into the nice little soundbytes you get in the conventional press, documentaries, and alternative-viewpoint blogs.

Contrary to your outrageous yet commonly voiced suggestion, there is no climatology Mafia that consciously prevents the publication of research that refutes the science of climate change. If such research is not getting past peer-review to be published, it is much more likely because it is simply bad science. It should go without saying that anyone who wants to refute the body of science surrounding climate change in a peer-reviewed climatology journal had better have a damn convincing dataset and analysis, and if they do not, their work should not be published. This is how scientific rigour is maintained and how knowledge is advanced in all fields of science.

 

[slwiser]

Quote:

Originally Posted by acidbasement /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is pretty weak. You are suggesting that the bloggers you later reference are more credible for climatological analysis than people who have been studying climate systems passionately for decades, and publishing regularly in peer-reviewed journals?

I am suggesting that in a closed cast system or union (peer-reviewed journals) you do not necessary get the complete story. I am suggesting that there may be more to it than simple global warming and no other interpretations or explanations. How many of those "over 400" climate experts noted in the Senate report were part of those peer-reviews and were published in the same journals? How many of those weak and poor preforming models were the basis of those "peer-reviewed" articles?

 

[acidbasement]

The complete story is impossible. No climatologist worth his/her weight in salt would claim to fully understand the climate system. It's too complex. There will never be a perfect computer simulation model of the atmosphere-ocean-biosphere system of interactions, that can accurately predict the weather far into the future. However, you will get a much more intelligent (and wise

) discourse about the degree of certainty attached to conclusions about climate change in peer-reviewed journals than you will in blogs and Senate reports (the 400 scientists listed were not even close to being all climatologists, btw).
In this age, we tend to prefer soundbytes to long stories, but the atmosphere is not something that can be explained tidily and quickly by anyone. If you want to argue a side in this issue, you need to get your information from people who study it with more than a passing interest, and that usually means going to the peer-reviewed scientific publications.

 

[nfusion770]

I don't want to argue about this, but I'll just say I agree with slwiser. I get the feeling that in 2 years everyone will "conveniently forget the truth" about their part in perpetuating the big global warming scare.

By the way, our new energy bill outlaws incandescent light bulbs and mandates the use of fluorescent light bulbs. From what I understand this was essentially written by Phillips, GE and Sylvania. I wonder if they have any motive in getting us to replace a 50 cent light bulb with a $4 one? I wonder if they realized that low priced competitors would have been mandated out of business? Have you ever looked at the EPA's suggestion on fluorescent light bulb cleanup? This is progress? Honestly, at this point, I am much more concerned with my 2 year old being around when I break a fluorescent light bulb, than I am about the direct effects of global warming.

Anyway, I hope we proceed with caution, because if they end up being wrong about this it will be much more difficult to remove unnecessary legislation than it was to enact it.

 

[slwiser]

New article just today is interesting:

Christopher Booker's Notebook - Telegraph

A link from the article:

Carole "C.J." Williams -- How the Environmental Extremists Manipulate the Masses

 

[acidbasement]

Yet another journalist/blogger decides to dabble in the "climate debate" and conveniently confuses short-term weather with long-term climate.

I'm almost as opposed to the green lobby writing policy for the government as I am to the oil lobby. Both sides are giving "truth" a serious spin to support their own agendas. I prefer truth to spun manipulations. This is why we should oblige scientists to go into politics - the very fact alone that they don't want to do it would in my mind make them better suited to the job, not to mention that they would be able to tell all the climate change lobbyists on either side of the "debate" to cut the crap. Douglas Adams was right!