AAR
Click here for full forums index
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
 
Change
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AAR Forum Index -> The Wild Wild West Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mark



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 1374

PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 4:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I didn't bother to respond to the Mars comments because they are more misuse of science, already covered. THERE IS NATURAL CLIMATE CHANGE ON ALL PLANETS. THE CURRENT MESS ON EARTH IS BEYOND THE NATURAL CHANGES. READ THE REAL SCIENCE, NOT BIASED PIECES. Current atmospheric composition on Earth is unmatched in several hundred thousand or millions of years. This is independent of any Milankovich or other orbital cycles and any natural causes such as volcanism.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
erhea13



Joined: 01 Nov 2008
Posts: 117
Location: So Cal

PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's the deal with global warming. Yes, it is happening (however I live in southern California and go to school in Northern Arizona and our winters sure are getting cold). The simple fact is, global climate change is natural. There has been no conclusive evidence that humans have caused the phenomenon, only that we do not really help it. When is comes down to the issue of greenhouse gasses, the earth itself puts out more than humans could ever generate. When people were raging about CFCs and the O-Zone layer, they didn't quite grasp that one volcano eruption - Mt. Witney I think - pumped out more CFCs than any country could have possibly created.
This entire debate now centers on the issue of alternative energy sources - which makes the argument kind of stupid. Fossil fuels are a limited resource and will run out (speculation on when varies). In the US particularly, we should find a way to get out from under foriegn oil, especially since we have such diverse and abundant alternative sources. It is the best common sense and economic strategy for the long run - I will not dare say that right now is a good time to focus on this when the economy is tanking.
I will say that in the whole debate, anyone who puts forth an interpretation of "data" should be suspect. LisaW is right when she says that we need to follow the money because the source of funding and the personal affiliations of the researcher always influences how data is interpreted and presented.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sandlynn



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 1829
Location: Washington, D.C.

PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 9:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

erhea13 wrote:
Here's the deal with global warming. Yes, it is happening (however I live in southern California and go to school in Northern Arizona and our winters sure are getting cold). The simple fact is, global climate change is natural. There has been no conclusive evidence that humans have caused the phenomenon, only that we do not really help it.


The argument isn't that change never happens, but that change is speeding up incredibly. We are loosing more animals now -- for instance -- than ever before in Earth's history. If you think humans haven't had an impact on Earth's ecological evolution, I don't know what to say to you. The machines we've built, the fuels we've burned, the structures we've built, the crops we grow, the ground we've paved over, the forests we've destroyed.... This goes on and on and on.

Quote:
I will say that in the whole debate, anyone who puts forth an interpretation of "data" should be suspect. LisaW is right when she says that we need to follow the money because the source of funding and the personal affiliations of the researcher always influences how data is interpreted and presented.


I work for "The National Academy of Sciences." I guess I'm suspect.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kelly B



Joined: 19 Apr 2007
Posts: 136

PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 9:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I work for "The National Academy of Sciences." I guess I'm suspect.


Yes, very suspect with your data and your facts and your logic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
erhea13



Joined: 01 Nov 2008
Posts: 117
Location: So Cal

PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 7:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I never said that humans do not have an impact. I do not know, and frankly, I do not care.
I sat through a lecture last semester while a raving "tree hugger" (sorry, I couldn't resist that one) said that the only way to effect positive environmental change is to subvert the corporate power structure. I feel that approach is stupid for the same reaseon I feel the argument about global warming is redundant. It is the economically intelligent thing for major corporations to develop and use clean, renewable energy - that whole limited fossil fuel thing. Thus, if you convince companies to make this sort of change you get less emissions, less environmental impact, and a fairly rapid shift toward these types of policies globally. Ultimately, the best scenario.
There is no reason to harp on the environment when the people making and influencing policy do not really think about things in those terms. The mistake that many environmentlists make is that they fail to fully understand their opponents and present their arguments in a bottom line fashion that speaks more to the wallet than the conscience. I am by no means an environmentalist, but I have seen very little of there arguments that cannot be presented in a bottom line fashion that proves to be economically advantageous in the long run. Hence, I do not care about the little tiny details as long as the best decision is made to balence human nature and lifestyles with the environment.
_________________
"I do not want people to be very agreeable, as it saves me the trouble of liking them a great deal." - Jane Austen
"The person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel, must be intolerably stupid." - Jane Austen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
erhea13



Joined: 01 Nov 2008
Posts: 117
Location: So Cal

PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 7:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kelly B wrote:
Quote:
I work for "The National Academy of Sciences." I guess I'm suspect.


Yes, very suspect with your data and your facts and your logic.


FYI, any data set can be interpreted and presented an infinite number of ways. That's why statistics is commonly known as "how to lie with numbers." In a political science statistics class, I was taught how to manipulate the presentation of data to push my own message. Hell, I was taght in 6th grade how to cut bar graphs to exaggerate the differences in data sets.
Also, logic tends to be in the eye of the beholder. Often, it suffers the same issue as common sense, it's not too common at all.
_________________
"I do not want people to be very agreeable, as it saves me the trouble of liking them a great deal." - Jane Austen
"The person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel, must be intolerably stupid." - Jane Austen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LisaW



Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 173

PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sandlynn wrote:
erhea13 wrote:
Here's the deal with global warming. Yes, it is happening (however I live in southern California and go to school in Northern Arizona and our winters sure are getting cold). The simple fact is, global climate change is natural. There has been no conclusive evidence that humans have caused the phenomenon, only that we do not really help it.


The argument isn't that change never happens, but that change is speeding up incredibly. We are loosing more animals now -- for instance -- than ever before in Earth's history. If you think humans haven't had an impact on Earth's ecological evolution, I don't know what to say to you. The machines we've built, the fuels we've burned, the structures we've built, the crops we grow, the ground we've paved over, the forests we've destroyed.... This goes on and on and on.


First off, faster than what? In the record? Records haven't been kept long enough to say it's happening faster now "than ever." Only "different than previous records." And, well, if you think mankind is the biggest cause of problems to Earth, what do you propose? Killing off all the humans so the earth survives in all its glory? Uh, evolution says if man goes away, something else will come along and take over, doesn't it? And, if you truly feel man and what mankind needs is the problem -- are you offering yourself up as a sacrifice? Somehow I think not ....
_________________
"The White House isn't the place to learn how to deal with international crisis, the balance of power, war and peace, the economic future of the next generation." --- Joe Biden, 1988
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 1374

PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Earth will survive everything humanity is doing (so far). No known current human activity or technology will destroy the whole planet. There is a good chance that failure to change direction from the shortsighted thinking of people who think current technologies can be sustainably used indefinitely will change Earth's climate sufficiently to make it UNSUITABLE FOR HUMAN HABITATION for hundreds or thousands of years. So keep the fossil-fuel mindset long enough and people will BE fossils, not a living species.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
erhea13



Joined: 01 Nov 2008
Posts: 117
Location: So Cal

PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wholeheartedly agree that it is pretty arrogant for us to assume that we could ever destroy the earth before, as George Carlin put it, it "shakes us off like a bad case of fleas."
By the way, all those people harping on the scientific "fact" of melting polar ice and all the poor polar bears should ask how scientists could lose and then find a sheet of ice the size of California.
_________________
"I do not want people to be very agreeable, as it saves me the trouble of liking them a great deal." - Jane Austen
"The person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel, must be intolerably stupid." - Jane Austen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LisaW



Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 173

PostPosted: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote:
I didn't bother to respond to the Mars comments because they are more misuse of science, already covered. THERE IS NATURAL CLIMATE CHANGE ON ALL PLANETS. THE CURRENT MESS ON EARTH IS BEYOND THE NATURAL CHANGES. READ THE REAL SCIENCE, NOT BIASED PIECES. Current atmospheric composition on Earth is unmatched in several hundred thousand or millions of years. This is independent of any Milankovich or other orbital cycles and any natural causes such as volcanism.


Well, yeah, gee, let's ignore anything that calls into question your assertions that man is the sole cause of Global Warming. But, then, weren't we headed for "A New Ice Age" not so long ago? If we could cause an Ice Age in the 70's, why don't we just go back to doing what we were doing then to combat global warming?

Or just admit Planets have weather caused by a whole lot of things -- and man is not the major player.
_________________
"The White House isn't the place to learn how to deal with international crisis, the balance of power, war and peace, the economic future of the next generation." --- Joe Biden, 1988
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 1374

PostPosted: Sun Mar 01, 2009 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you read real science rather than science twisted by sources wanting to keep their status quo, you might get it:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/37590/title/Cooling_climate_‘consensus’_of_1970s_never_was
There is also an excellent Comment page by the author of Doubt Is Their Product on p. 32 of the September 27, 2008 issue of Science News. I don't know if the Comment page is in the online edition.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KarenS



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 870
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

We may not destroy Mother Earth but we sure are making it hard for 8 billion people to live on this planet. We will end up destroying ourselves and most living creatures if we continue on our present path. That's what the scientist are trying to tell us. There's more to it than just changing the climate, we are literally destroying our ability to survive. To borrow a term from the Bible, we are being lousy stewards of our world. Because we believe we are the top dog we think we have the right to decimate everything in our path. We are part of nature not separate.

Our actions have repercussions which will eventually affect our quality of life and our very ability to survive. When we turn arable land into desert where will we grow our food? When we create dead zones in the ocean and kill our ability to harvest food from the seas we will have destroyed another food source. We won't survive as a species if we can't eat.

Mother Earth will survive, but we won't. We're doing it to ourselves and if we aren't smart enough to see it we deserve whatever happens.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LisaW



Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 173

PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 1:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote:
If you read real science rather than science twisted by sources wanting to keep their status quo, you might get it:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/37590/title/Cooling_climate_‘consensus’_of_1970s_never_was
There is also an excellent Comment page by the author of Doubt Is Their Product on p. 32 of the September 27, 2008 issue of Science News. I don't know if the Comment page is in the online edition.



If you wouldn't ignore any scientist (especially the climatologists) who didn't drink the Man Made Global Warming Kool Aid, you might get it:

Quote:

Scientist: Global Warming Evidence, Claims Exaggerated

Wednesday, February 25, 2009


Claims about the allegedly dire effects of global warming may be exaggerated, Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, said during a Thursday lecture at the Rockefeller Center at Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H.

Michaels, who is also a state climatologist and professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, discussed the research published in his new book, "Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know."

"The discussion surrounding global warming has become wildly extreme," he told a packed auditorium. "You either believe it's the end of the world unless we do something about it right now, or you're a denier."

Michaels criticized scientists' widespread acceptance of the computer climate change models, saying that the models have projected higher temperatures than have actually occurred in recent years.

"[There is a] systematic failure of computer models," he said. "What warming there is, is at or below the lower limits of computer models."

Prevalent claims that global warming is occurring at an ever increasing rate are troubling, Michaels said. Charts of recent temperatures show constant, linear warming, he said.

Scientific literature, which Michaels said should present an equal distribution of positive and negative conclusions about climate change trends, is overwhelmingly pessimistic, Michaels said.

This phenomenon can be partially attributed to the "small inbred community" of scientists who peer review global warming research, he said.

There is also evidence that individuals, societies and economies can adapt to warmer temperatures, Michaels said.

Agricultural adaptations may allow corn to grow at higher temperatures, he said, while crops like soybeans and sugar cane thrive in a hotter climate. When heat waves occur with higher and higher frequency, there are fewer deaths during subsequent bouts of high temperature, he added.

Current means of addressing warming may exacerbate the extent of the climate problem, Michaels said. Cap-and-trade systems and energy taxes take money out of the hands of investors and drain capital from companies that could produce innovative technologies, he said.

"I will leave you with one observation: the future belongs to the efficient," he said. "You need capital to reach that future."

As Michaels fielded questions from the audience, arguments broke out among various Dartmouth students.

Matthew Dahlhausen '11, a member of the Environmental Conservation Organization, encouraged student environmentalists to attend the event in a campus-wide e-mail, he said.

Before the lecture began, Dahlhausen handed out sheets criticizing some of Michaels's key points. The handout encouraged audience members to "shake [Michaels] up a bit."

Dahlhausen engaged in a lively debate with Michaels after the formal question-and-answer session, highlighting alternative evidence and theories about climate change.

"[Michaels is] often thought to hold equal ground with climate scientists, but he doesn't," Dahlhausen said. "He's really an outsider."

Michaels's theories are not widely supported, Stephen Schneider, professor of biology and co-director or the Center for Environmental Science and Policy at Stanford University, said in an interview with The Dartmouth.

Schneider compared Michaels and the other climatologists who share his views to the tobacco industry, saying that they seek to alter the trajectory of political and scientific progress.

"It is completely illegitimate for somebody like Pat Michaels to [look at] speculative evidence with competing explanations and say it's not proved," he said. "Science isn't bipolar. Science deals with degrees of truth."

Michaels, in an interview with The Dartmouth after his lecture, acknowledged such criticism, saying, "that's the usual reception I get at universities."

Michaels' visit to campus was sponsored by the College Libertarians and was funded by the Charles G. Koch Foundation and the Rockefeller Center.

Peter Osorio '12, vice executive of the College Libertarians and organizer of the event, said he wanted to bring Michaels to campus to discuss solutions to global warming.

"We need the most efficient means to [solve global warming], which is through free market spending," he said. "Government spending won't help."



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,500327,00.html
_________________
"The White House isn't the place to learn how to deal with international crisis, the balance of power, war and peace, the economic future of the next generation." --- Joe Biden, 1988
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 1374

PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good science is not decided by the loudest voices or nastiest insults. Good science works with the best fit to facts. For anyone not in the ostrich party, the science is clear.
Here is a site of the consensus reached so far despite major watering down by parties with a vested interest in pollution:
http://www.ipcc.ch/
As for claims that the models overestimate warming or that warming is at a constant rate, that has the facts exactly backwards. Warming is happening even faster than predicted even a few years ago. E.g., here is a recent article:
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE51O4ZX20090225
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LisaW



Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 173

PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 1:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And, once again, let's all say it: Follow The Money

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/03/05/bjorn-lomborg-lets-spend-smarter-to-save-the-world/

Bjorn Lomborg: Let’s Spend Smarter to Save the World



Quote:
In the end, Mr. Lomborg did take a glancing shot at Mr. Gore, who will speak later Thursday at the same event. Climate change is an emotional issue “that politicians can cash in on,” Mr. Lomborg said. “They can make all the promises, but somebody else will have to pay for it.”

_________________
"The White House isn't the place to learn how to deal with international crisis, the balance of power, war and peace, the economic future of the next generation." --- Joe Biden, 1988
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AAR Forum Index -> The Wild Wild West Forum All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group