Home | Community | Message Board


Gaiana.nl
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Amazon Portable Greenhouse

Jump to first unread post. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Gijith]
    #2371304 - 02/23/04 11:39 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

The funding of any scientific research is definitely one of, if not the most, important thing to check when evaluating research.

Have you got any links/sources to scientists who believe human intervention has been preventing an ice age? Thats an interesting theory I havent heard before.


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: GazzBut]
    #2371375 - 02/23/04 12:13 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

GazzBut said:
Have you got any links/sources to scientists who believe human intervention has been preventing an ice age? Thats an interesting theory I havent heard before.




I'll try to dig up some stuff and post it tomorrow evening. I've got a structural geo exam in the morning, so that's eating up my time. It's a real fresh idea, so there's still a lot of conjecture. People have been talking about it for a while, but the first good evidence came this past summer by researchers who I think were working in Antarctica (?). Basically if you look at global temps over the past million years, there are certain patterns. The last glaciation hit its peak around 20,000 - 18,000 years ago. From that point the Earth's temp started to rise at a pretty fast rate. Then, around 10,000 BC (sorry I said "10,000 years ago" last night) there was a drop in temp. The ocean currents in the very Northern Atlantic (they're key) began to cool. Then... it just kinda turned around and began to heat up again (I'll check on the timeframe and try to give a better sense of exactly when this was all happening). Around 10,000 BC you also have a HUGE amount of human activity. For the first time, we're spreading across the globe, coming to the Americas in big numbers. Asia, Australia, Nothern Europe. This was the biggest human expansion in world history. And its safe to say that along with this, came massive agriculture, MASSIVE change to landscpae (less trees), and a noticable bump in CO2 (which is what the aforementioned scientists found). The theory is that it was enough to turn the approaching ice age around.
The one I mentioned hapening 150 years ago (this is a rough number), is a lot less distinct and a lot more controversial. But again you see a cooling pattern. Northern Atlantic cools. Northern Quebec, where the most recent glaciations have all begun, has a sharp drop in temp. But then, once again, global temp turns around and starts to warm up. What you see in the mid 1800s is an exponential rise in coal burning (industry). A little later on, you see massive natural gas burning. All of this spiked the CO2 in the atmosphere. It was slight, but something the climate wasn't accustomed to.
But yeah, I'll try to find the few papers that have been published on this.

Ugh I can't believe I wasted my hundreth post on this!


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleblacksabbathrulz
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/02
Posts: 2,511
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: GazzBut]
    #2371495 - 02/23/04 12:52 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

GazzBut said:
The funding of any scientific research is definitely one of, if not the most, important thing to check when evaluating research.

Have you got any links/sources to scientists who believe human intervention has been preventing an ice age? Thats an interesting theory I havent heard before.



:thumbup: :thumbup: indeed, I just read a paper on grape juice by john folts, and I noticed that it was sponsored by welch's, a simple trip to welch's showed that he was their resident expert, the point of the paper was to demonstrate that grape juice prevented platelet aggregation, I still believe that his data may have been valid regardless of bias.


--------------------
.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Gijith]
    #2371496 - 02/23/04 12:52 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

lol...did you have something special planned for your 100th post? :grin:


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleblacksabbathrulz
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/02
Posts: 2,511
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Gijith]
    #2371655 - 02/23/04 01:30 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Okay, let me start of by saying that there is evidence that the world's temperature is very slightly rising, however I feel that there is no evidence that it can be linked to humans. When I said it was a scam I was specifically referring to environmentalists cashing in on it. I also dont feel that it presents a significant threat(natural causes or mankind), and as Gijith pointed out, it is extremely complex, in fact to complex to predict, so here is why I am skeptical to their being any link between humans and global warming
First off all, I have yet to see anything that properly factors in water as a gas rather than a vapor as far as linking carbon dioxide to temperature change, from a physical stanpoint, if you have increasing temperatures, the equilibrium between carbon dioxide and water will shift, thereby exuding more CO2 into the atmosphere, it merely shows that temperature is rising, not the cause. If you look at the study done by Nicholas Shackleton and Neil Opdyke(quaternary research 1973-yes it is a little outdated,but that doesnt mean its invalid), you see that they determined(as far as determining can go-it was a study) that the average temperature of the earth has only risen 1 degree in the past million years, they feel that we are merely at a pinnacle of temperature oscillation. Here is an interesting article about the so called scientific consensus about global warming http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html
The fact that I see tons of crap published to makes me even more skeptical, I read an article a few years ago from someone touting that the artic shelf had undergone a 36?F increase, and this was on reuters mind you, when I believe that he must have read somewhere that the temperature increased about 2.5?C and equated that to 36?F, there is no proper evidence showing that CO2 emissions are a problem, granted we produce 5-6 billion tons of CO2 a year but the earth produces that approximately 15 fold.


--------------------
.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: EchoVortex]
    #2372096 - 02/23/04 03:22 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Go to Google. Type "17,000 scientist global warming". Click on some of the many links. Read.

And these are just the scientists who feel strongly enough about it to have bothered to sign a petition. There are probably others who aren't into signing petitions.

Are there more than 17,000 who believe manmade climate change is occurring? Source, please.

The thing is, many people speak of the "reality" of manmade climate change as if it is a scientifically established fact. It isn't. When you have 17,100 (and the amount is still growing) scientists not only unconvinced it is a fact, but willing to go on public record with their opinions, it is accurate to say the jury is still out.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Phred]
    #2372202 - 02/23/04 03:43 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

It would really be helpful if they gave a little more info on these "scientists." Who do they work for? Most of them are PhDs, but in what?!? In "science" ? In quantum mechanics? In cell biology? A good number of these people are MDs!!! I have friends in med school, firends who are medical doctors. They don't know the first thing about the concept of global warming. I can guarantee you I'm in a better position to speak on this than 99 percent of MDs. But I would never sign a petition like this. And not because I don't believe it (though I don't), but because there are a very small number of scientists (scientists that devote their lives to the study of this) who would be able to honestly say whether or not "global warming is a lie." Not 17,000.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEdame
gone

Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Phred]
    #2372279 - 02/23/04 03:59 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:


Go to Google. Type "17,000 scientist global warming". Click on some of the many links. Read.

And these are just the scientists who feel strongly enough about it to have bothered to sign a petition. There are probably others who aren't into signing petitions.

Are there more than 17,000 who believe manmade climate change is occurring? Source, please.

The thing is, many people speak of the "reality" of manmade climate change as if it is a scientifically established fact. It isn't. When you have 17,100 (and the amount is still growing) scientists not only unconvinced it is a fact, but willing to go on public record with their opinions, it is accurate to say the jury is still out.

pinky





The study you appear to be citing has been, in my opinion, thoroughly debunked in this article from PR Watch:
http://www.prwatch.org/improp/oism.html

Here is a condensed version with some of the key points (emphasis mine):

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

Headed by Arthur Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research, OISM describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.
....
It published two books, Nuclear War Survival Skills (foreword by H-bomb inventor Edward Teller), which argues that "the dangers from nuclear weapons have been distorted and exaggerated" into "demoralizing myths." Robinson also co-authored another civil defense book titled Fighting Chance: Ten Feet to Survival, in collaboration with Gary North, who like Robinson is a conservative Christian. North is also a prolific author of doomsday books with titles such as None Dare Call It Witchcraft; Conspiracy: A Biblical View; Rapture Fever; and How You Can Profit From the Coming Price Controls.
...
The Oregon Petition, sponsored by the OISM, was circulated in April 1998 in a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper. Authored by OISM's Arthur B. Robinson and three other people, the paper was titled "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" and was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. A cover note from Frederick Seitz, who had served as president of the NAS in the 1960s, added to the impression that Robinson's paper was an official publication of the academy's peer-reviewed journal.

Robinson's paper claimed to show that pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is actually a good thing. "As atmospheric CO2 increases," it stated, "plant growth rates increase. Also, leaves lose less water as CO2 increases, so that plants are able to grow under drier conditions. Animal life, which depends upon plant life for food, increases proportionally." As a result, Robinson concluded, industrial activities can be counted on to encourage greater species biodiversity and a greener planet. "As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere," the paper stated. "This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people. Human activities are believed to be responsible for the rise in CO2 level of the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere and surface, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the CO2 increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution."
...
In reality, neither Robinson's paper nor OISM's petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer.
...
The NAS issued an unusually blunt formal response to the petition drive. "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal," it stated in a news release. "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." In fact, it pointed out, its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."
...
When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology."


--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Gijith]
    #2372295 - 02/23/04 04:02 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

As it happens, I agree with you.

In actual fact, there are very few climatologists on the earth. There are certainly nowhere near 17,000. The climatologists (and solar scientists and to an extent paleogeologists) obviously would be the ones in the best position to assess the data and try to come to a conclusion one way or the other.

The thing is, both sides love to trumpet these grandiose figures of how many agree with their position. This is of course not proof of anything. The number of adherents a particular theory has does not determine a theory's validity.

And climatologists are split on this question. I've seen arguments from climatologists on both sides of the issue. The famous "hockey stick" temperature graph has been discredited, as has the computer model simulation many were relying on, as has the "data" from satellite readings which purportedly showed a temperature increase over the last twenty years. On the other hand, CO2 readings are higher today than they were a century ago, and the increased output from the sun as it goes through its cycles and metacycles has also been established.

As well, it is established fact that the earth's climate is not static over time, and has never been static -- with huge fluctuations occurring long before the emergence of industrial society or even for that matter of Homo sapiens sapiens.

Is climate change occurring? Almost certainly. Are man's activities altering it to any significant degree in one direction or another? The jury is still out.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Edame]
    #2372343 - 02/23/04 04:13 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that many (perhaps even most) of those who signed that petition are not scientifically qualified to pass unbiased scientific judgment on the issue. But there is also no doubt in my mind that the same can be said of many (perhaps even most) of those who have signed petitions on the other side of the issue.

It's not something to be decided by majority vote. The fact remains that many of the arguments advanced in favor of the theory that human activity will significantly alter the rate of global temperature variation over time have been discredited -- from faulty data or insufficient data to faulty computer models to deliberate manipulation of data and unsupportable interpretations. Does this mean that all the arguments claiming this change are false? Nope. But it doesn't lead to a lot of confidence in the remaining claims floating around out there.

My point was not that manmade climate change is not occurring. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. My point was that far too many people accept it as a fact. It is not a fact. At this point in time, it is nothing more than a theory, and an extremely controversial theory at that.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Phred]
    #2372386 - 02/23/04 04:21 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

You seem to have good handle on this, pinky. Are you involved with any organizations or anything?


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Edame]
    #2372392 - 02/23/04 04:22 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

The study you appear to be citing has been, in my opinion, thoroughly debunked in this article from PR Watch:

Nice job edame  :thumbup:


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEdame
gone

Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Phred]
    #2372503 - 02/23/04 04:51 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Echo called you on your claim that there were as many reputable scientists disagreeing with global warming as there were agreeing. You provided this as an answer and called on him to provide a better figure. I was just pointing out that the basis for your answer seems to rest on a completely bogus 'study' that adheres to the same kind of bizarre logic seen at the start of this thread.

To quote an analogy I found on Metafilter:
We drive our cars for most of our lives. In our life time there is a near certain chance we will be involved in some kind of collision. Whether it's tagging a pole at the gas station, or a real high speed catastrophe, the only question is how bad of a collision will you have? If you want to make the assumption that you'll never see worse than hitting something going less than 5 mph that is your choice but are you going to want a car that is only prepared for that eventuality? Will you forgo seat belts, reinforced doors, airbags, crumple zones and every other safety device they've come up with for the worst case scenario? We are faced with the same dilemma now with global climate change


--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.


Edited by Edame (02/23/04 04:51 PM)


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Edame]
    #2372749 - 02/23/04 06:00 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Last year, Exxon Chairman Lee Raymond referred approvingly to a 1998 petition, supposedly signed by 17,000 scientists, which questioned the evidence for global warming. It later emerged that the petition had been circulated by an obscure organisation based in a shed in the backwoods of Oregon and had nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences. Signatories allegedly included authorities on climate change such as Ginger Spice, a British pop star, and the doctors from M.A.S.H, a TV drama series.

In his letter in the February 10 paw on your December 2 cover story "Heating Up," Jay Lehr '57 reveals himself to be among those who have perpetuated an unrelenting seven-year campaign of deception and misinformation aimed at the science of global warming. Lehr is the president of Environmental Education Enterprises, an organization listed as a useful anti-environmentalist resource by such ultraconservative groups as the Heartland Institute of Chicago, and the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire. Lehr cites a petition, circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and allegedly signed by 17,000 "scientists" which urges rejection of the Kyoto treaty. But very few climate scientists were among the signatories, who included Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls, Dr. B.J. Hunnicut of Mash, Michael J. Fox and James Brown, the only apparent criterion for being counted as a "scientist" was a bachelor's degree in any sort of science. As for the Oregon Institute, it is a conservative think tank, not an institution of scientific research. (Its previous work has dealt primarily with advocacy for home schooling and civil defense.)
Recent articles in two of the most scientifically reputable journals, Nature and Science, not only confirm that global warming is a real and present danger, but suggest it may be happening faster than was ever expected.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: blacksabbathrulz]
    #2372894 - 02/23/04 06:37 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

you act as if you are an authority on science



I'm not a scientist nor do I play one on TV.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: EchoVortex]
    #2372897 - 02/23/04 06:40 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Luvdemshrooms's post was a shambles of misrepresentation and sloppy reasoning



So you can back that up with overwhelmingly convincing evidence or will it just be evidence that supports your beliefs?


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleblacksabbathrulz
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/02
Posts: 2,511
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2373289 - 02/23/04 09:01 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

luvdemshrooms said:
Quote:

you act as if you are an authority on science



I'm not a scientist nor do I play one on TV.



I was referring to echovortex in my post :tongue:


--------------------
.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: blacksabbathrulz]
    #2373339 - 02/23/04 09:18 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

OK, but I still stand by my claim.

:wink:


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleblacksabbathrulz
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/02
Posts: 2,511
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2373759 - 02/23/04 11:40 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

I agree with your claim, 100%, even if sources may be biased, that doesnt mean that they are innacurate


--------------------
.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Phred]
    #2374107 - 02/24/04 01:22 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

You're right that it is not a proven fact, but that said there is more evidence in favor of it than against it.

The scientists who believe that man-made climate change is highly likely do not sign petitions. They write articles for peer-reviewed journals.

The following endorse the theory that human activity is bringing about climate change:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The National Academy of Sciences
The US Environmental Protection Agency
The US NOAA
The Union of Concerned Scientists
. . . among others.

I am not aware of any similar, legitimate (unlike the petition you mentioned) scientific bodies that publicly endorse the view that man-made climate change is not a reality. Even Bjorn Lomborg, author of the controversial "The Skeptical Environmentalist" now admits that man-made climate change is a reality, although he has questions about the long-term effectiveness (cost and environmental) of various emissions control proposals.

So your contention that reputable scientific opinion about the reality of man-made climate change is somehow split down the middle or up in the air is not quite accurate. Most reputable scientific opinion accepts man-made climate change as a reality.

What is still up in the air is whether the effects of this are going to be mild, extreme, or catastrophic, whether anything but the most drastic emissions controls will have any noticable effect on outcomes, whether proposed emissions controls will be cost-effective or not, and other such questions that have a direct bearing on what policy measures should be taken in relation to the phenomenon.

Essentially the problem has less to do with the science of the issue (climate science is one of the most complex fields there is--if it is impossible to forecast the weather two days in advance, of course it will be impossible to forecast cllimate change 50 or 100 years in advance with any certainty) and more to do with risk management.

How much of a response is warranted by catastrophic outcomes that have uncertain probabalities?

Some people would argue that if the probability is uncertain, NO response is warranted, especially if the cost is high.

Other people would argue that if a tangible probability exists, a potentially catastrophic outcome demands vigorous prophylactic measures, even expensive ones, because so much is at stake and the cost will be orders of magnitude higher if that outcome becomes a reality.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Amazon Portable Greenhouse

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Good article on global warming.
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
luvdemshrooms 4,319 86 06/10/03 06:56 AM
by Innvertigo
* Global Warming, Facts Challenge Hysteria
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Evolving 4,311 75 05/04/03 10:07 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Global Warming?
( 1 2 all )
luvdemshrooms 2,151 37 07/18/03 08:49 PM
by Innvertigo
* More fantasies about global warming carbonhoots 922 17 11/01/03 04:44 PM
by d33p
* Project for New American Century - global military dominance
( 1 2 all )
enotake2 3,400 30 02/21/04 09:07 PM
by TheOneYouKnow
* Asa "globalization of drug war" Hutchinson MOoKie 2,554 6 05/13/01 06:18 AM
by MokshaMan
* Global Elite-Conspiracy
( 1 2 3 4 all )
TrueBrode 4,970 62 01/17/04 05:53 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Globalization in a nutshell. GernBlanston 569 5 09/18/03 07:47 PM
by GernBlanston

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
12,631 topic views. 1 members, 2 guests and 10 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic ]
Search this thread:
Reliable Spores
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.028 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 15 queries.