Man-Made Climate Change ... take 78

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flame On

Science has never proven anything is a philosophical position that is dangerous for you side. If I can lay you on the other side. That means that by proxy those that refute climate change have also never proven that it isn't occurring and by that I mean being contributed to by man by things such as carbon emissions etc.
Also I'm just as sick as you are, that at every report, article, paper, statement whatever, that comes out being belittled because every scientist isn't on board. What other section of society requires 100% buy in before action? Wars are started with much less approval, public policy, parenting styles, marriage rights. Every issue on earth has detractors but still laws and actions are put into place to move on them with out the approval of all.

First off, I don't have a side.

Secondly, science by definition can not prove things.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

You can look at the abstract for the original study here.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ature06937.pdf

The full text is by subscription only, so unless you're affiliated with a University Library, you probably can't get it. If you're genuinely interested, PM me and I'll email you the pdf.

I can read the journal, and sometimes do. I'll make an effort to get to the library and read it.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

89-it's not blind skepticism because I don't like the conclusions. That's a rather easy way out you took there. Again, you keep referring to scientists. WHICH scientists? What are their fields? Are they truly qualified to be studying this kind of stuff? What do they stand to gain by coming to these conclusions? Grant money? Governmental positions? These are serious and legitimate questions that should be asked about every scientific study, not just gloabal warming studies.

I think planetary climate change is such a vast concept. I don't think there is a study possible that can account for all the variables in play. To compare basic physics and organic chemistry to studies on global warming is laughable at best. Those sciences have been studied on a giant scale for centuries. This has been studied for less than one and on a very, very small scale.

I think the dialogue about it is great and productive. Whether we really are the cause of any climate change...and to what degree...really doesn't matter if we are taking steps to eliminate things that can't be good whether they raise the global temperature or not. The use of fossil fuels has very little positive to offer outside of the energy it generates. Humans should be moving away from that regardless of global warming and I believe we are.

Wouldn't you have to be a scientist in one of the fields in order to refute the legitimacey of their findings? Otherwise it seems that what you're saying is we should take heed of your doubts, over those who are studying in the field.
Also the angle that the scientists are doing this to get grants is far more "easier a way out" than anything elese.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flame On

Wouldn't you have to be a scientist in one of the fields in order to refute the legitimacey of their findings? Otherwise it seems that what you're saying is we should take heed of your doubts, over those who are studying in the field.
Also the angle that the scientists are doing this to get grants is far more "easier a way out" than anything elese.

Wow.

I wasn't refuting anything. I was simply stating that believing the conclusions by reading all the text at the link 89 provided would be foolish. Then went on to complain about the way the media 'releases' this information. I didn't ask anyone to heed my doubts. In fact, I didn't present any doubts. I presented questions....which anyone SHOULD do when reading a scientific study. I also didn't raise the angle of 'scientists doing this to get grants' I simply stated it as something that should be looked at in ANY scientific study.

[MelBridgeman]

Anyone ever heard of the Glacier Girl?
It was a warplane that was ditched on Greenland in 1942.
Attempts were made to relocated it and it wasnt until 1992 that they found it buried under 264 feet of ice...
http://www.airspacemag.com/history-o...tml?c=y&page=1

So is that evidence that greenland glaciers are melting? Should we consider this story when talking about the greenland glaciers melting?

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Wow.

I wasn't refuting anything. I was simply stating that believing the conclusions by reading all the text at the link 89 provided would be foolish. Then went on to complain about the way the media 'releases' this information. I didn't ask anyone to heed my doubts. In fact, I didn't present any doubts. I presented questions....which anyone SHOULD do when reading a scientific study. I also didn't raise the angle of 'scientists doing this to get grants' I simply stated it as something that should be looked at in ANY scientific study.

I don't understand then.
What should be looked at in any scientific study?
And if it's the grant issue or the origin of the funds going into the study, then how is it not "raising the angle" of that?

[Russic]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I think the dialogue about it is great and productive. Whether we really are the cause of any climate change...and to what degree...really doesn't matter if we are taking steps to eliminate things that can't be good whether they raise the global temperature or not. The use of fossil fuels has very little positive to offer outside of the energy it generates. Humans should be moving away from that regardless of global warming and I believe we are.

I'm more on the side of the scientists than the skeptics in this particular argument, but I can't help but agree with this statement.

In my opinion, Science does need to be dumbed down a significant degree for the masses, and in this case it's been a little damaging. The term 'global warming' has really screwed things up to some degree because every time there's a cold day in spring people can say "well I guess that's crap".

Personally I believe that climate change in part due to human interference. How much I'm not really educated enough to say, but I do believe we play some role. Ecosystems do bounce back, but that's not to say they aren't incredibly fragile. One little change in the environment can have incredible consequences down the road. To think that we're doing all that we are doing to no effect is hard for me to believe.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Anyone ever heard of the Glacier Girl?
It was a warplane that was ditched on Greenland in 1942.
Attempts were made to relocated it and it wasnt until 1992 that they found it buried under 264 feet of ice...
http://www.airspacemag.com/history-o...tml?c=y&page=1

So is that evidence that greenland glaciers are melting? Should we consider this story when talking about the greenland glaciers melting?

Ah Mel has cracked it. You'll probably get a nobel prize.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Russic

I'm more on the side of the scientists than the skeptics in this particular argument, but I can't help but agree with this statement.

In my opinion, Science does need to be dumbed down a significant degree for the masses, and in this case it's been a little damaging. The term 'global warming' has really screwed things up to some degree because every time there's a cold day in spring people can say "well I guess that's crap".

Personally I believe that climate change in part due to human interference. How much I'm not really educated enough to say, but I do believe we play some role. Ecosystems do bounce back, but that's not to say they aren't incredibly fragile. One little change in the environment can have incredible consequences down the road. To think that we're doing all that we are doing to no effect is hard for me to believe.

Ya i think that is no brainer...if you look at North America for most of its history and see what humans have done to the landscape in less than 300 years, its pretty clear that humans have an effect on our enviroment. Considering Calgary was once covered in ice, its pretty safe to say that the earth is going through a warming period, but Calgary was also underneath a shallow sea...and that all changed without any interference from this so called intelligent being..things like this are not on a linear scale, it is way more complicated than we can imagine...that is not to say that we arent right, but all this fearmongering, politizing, left vs right just drives my crank....it isnt up to goverments, they have a long history of doing squat, it isnt up to corporations they only exists becaue of each individual and it is up to us to make changes in our life...it really is a matter of power to the people, unfort this is a global issue and we need everyone on board.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Flame On

Ah Mel has cracked it. You'll probably get a nobel prize.

Is that all you have to say? Seriously what does this one story say to you? What is wrong with questioning the glorious now religious like subject of climate change, global warming, global cooling or whatever it is called.

If you wanted reasons as to why some people still ask questions, that was an example, i can go watch Al Gore kids film/autobiography and leave thinking that ice caps in greenland are melting and than find this story, which has no scientific hands on it..and wonder what really is happening

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flame On

I don't understand then.
What should be looked at in any scientific study?
And if it's the grant issue or the origin of the funds going into the study, then how is it not "raising the angle" of that?

It's an issue that should be explored in any study that obtains outside funding. I'm not sure what your beef is here. I didn't accuse these scientists of anything. I'm just saying it is something that should always be asked. I would question anyone who thinks otherwise.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flame On

Ah Mel has cracked it. You'll probably get a nobel prize.

Wow. Nice contribution.

264' ice in 50 years of the 20th century is pretty significant whether your cute little emoticon rolls his eyes or not.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Is that all you have to say? Seriously what does this one story say to you? What is wrong with questioning the glorious now religious like subject of climate change, global warming, global cooling or whatever it is called.

If you wanted reasons has to why some people still ask questions, that was an example, i can go watch Al Gore kids film and leave thinking that ice caps in greenland are melting and than find this story, which has no scientific hands on it..and wonder what really is happening

Just seemed a bit fly by to me.
Lots of people are questioning large sections of the scientific community and their conclusions and you swept in with a a story about a plane that was found in 1992 as if that was all the proof you needed.
I know you didn't say that was all the proof you needed because you didn't say much after you posted the link. I guess you asked some questions (which I have to admit I thought you were asking in a retorical way).
But it's a lot easier to poke holes in arguements and flip the questions around than to show your "side".
And when I say side that's just my opinion. I think you're either one side or the other with this. Unreasonable maybe but I think you either think man made climate change is occuring or you never will be convinced of such.
So. What's your side. Do you just dislike the new religion as you put it and think it's all hog wash?

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Wow. Nice contribution.

264' ice in 50 years of the 20th century is pretty significant whether your cute little emoticon rolls his eyes or not.

That was sort of my point about his post Dis.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Anyone ever heard of the Glacier Girl?
It was a warplane that was ditched on Greenland in 1942.
Attempts were made to relocated it and it wasnt until 1992 that they found it buried under 264 feet of ice...
http://www.airspacemag.com/history-o...tml?c=y&page=1

So is that evidence that greenland glaciers are melting? Should we consider this story when talking about the greenland glaciers melting?

Interesting, but I'd like to know more. Ice can flow quite far over 50 years, so I'm not sure what this find says about the ice pack in Greenland. 15 years have passed in the meantime.

[Bingo]

I think what has a lot of people nervous is the manner in which it is being rolled out.

A hockey example ...

If I'm sitting around in my living room watching hockey with a bunch of buddies and Buddy A says ...

"man that Iginla, best draft pick every by the Flames"

I can respond to this in many ways.

My given choice would be ...

"Actually Dallas drafted him, he was traded to the Flames for Niewendyk"

if Buddy A comes back with ...

"did not, you are full of it, stop overreacting, and purposely making the Flames draft record look bad by making up data that fits your argument"

once again I can go a few ways.

"no seriously dude - I'm getting a beer, you want one? - I have like a fact book that will prove this".

Yet it seems like the global warming crowd would go to ...

"this should not be debated. Those that believe Iginla was drafted should be sileced. The truth is in, there is no need for debate, you are on the payroll of the Kamloops Blazers! We are wasting time talking about draft records during a hockey game. These draft deniers should be uncertified as hockey fans".

If the science is in to the level that they report it to be then they should welcome all debate as a great opportunity to further prove their cause. The insults, and anger to any debate (which is really the whole point of science isn't it) is a little unnerving to me.

And I don't have an opinion either way ... nothing in my education gives me an opinion at all. But something seems a little fishy in this debate.

[Flames89]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Again, you keep referring to scientists. WHICH scientists? What are their fields? Are they truly qualified to be studying this kind of stuff? What do they stand to gain by coming to these conclusions? Grant money? Governmental positions?

Scientists that are FAR more qualified than any of us. As far as a "conspiracy theory" that they are all being influenced by some greater power, then that is another issue all together.

So here is one small facet of the "scientists"

The IPCC is a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Its constituency is made of :

• The governments: the IPCC is open to all member countries of WMO and UNEP. Governments of participate in plenary Sessions of the IPCC where main decisions about the IPCC workprogramme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. They also participate the review of IPCC Reports.
• The scientists: hundreds of scientists all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC as authors, contributors and reviewers.
• The people: as United Nations body, the IPCC work aims at the promotion of the United Nations human development goals"

http://www.ipcc.ch/

Unfortunately I don't have the time to dig up the HUNDREDS of scientists involved in this study to put their qualifications infront of you. I also don't have time to pull the same qualifications from the THOUSANDS of scientists who have agreed on this issue.

Yes, the media says "scientists", because, by nature, a media piece has to be accessible to the common folk. What you want is a monster bibliography with every written word.

Experts and scientists say smoking is bad for you ...

[Flames89]

Originally Posted by Bingo

A hockey example ...

Actually, in this case I think a more apt hockey analogy would be if we saw on TV a reporter say that the Flames drafted Dion Phaneuf. Then there is a press conference, and Sutter (an expert in this area) says "yep, we drafted Dion Phaneuf".

Then your buddy, sitting beside you (also watching the TV), says "I don't believe it. Prove it to me. I don't see Phaneuf wearing a jersey. He isn't on the FlamesRUs webpage yet" ... and you say "the media just reported it, an expert in the field agreed with it" ... even if Strachan comes on and says "this is unconfirmed", most of us will still believe the "credible" expert.

But now I digress and draft day seems just farther away.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flames89

Actually, in this case I think a more apt hockey analogy would be if we saw on TV a reporter say that the Flames drafted Dion Phaneuf. Then there is a press conference, and Sutter (an expert in this area) says "yep, we drafted Dion Phaneuf".

Then your buddy, sitting beside you (also watching the TV), says "I don't believe it. Prove it to me. I don't see Phaneuf wearing a jersey. He isn't on the FlamesRUs webpage yet" ... and you say "the media just reported it, an expert in the field agreed with it" ... even if Strachan comes on and says "this is unconfirmed", most of us will still believe the "credible" expert.

But now I digress and draft day seems just farther away.

I'm thinking your liking your example just further proves the chasm between both sides in this issue to be honest.

I would never suggest any or all of the scientists that believe global warming to be a complete man made tale are wrong. But you completely leave out the personal attacks and push to avoid any debate or disagreement in your depiction - which was clearly an important part of my example.

I think your Sutter thing would be more closely related if Sutter was confirming who he drafted in ten years based a model that Holditch created in their office.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Flames89

Scientists that are FAR more qualified than any of us. As far as a "conspiracy theory" that they are all being influenced by some greater power, then that is another issue all together.

So here is one small facet of the "scientists"



Unfortunately I don't have the time to dig up the HUNDREDS of scientists involved in this study to put their qualifications infront of you. I also don't have time to pull the same qualifications from the THOUSANDS of scientists who have agreed on this issue.

Yes, the media says "scientists", because, by nature, a media piece has to be accessible to the common folk. What you want is a monster bibliography with every written word.

Experts and scientists say smoking is bad for you ...

This is what tobacco did, they found 'experts' to muddy up the debate on whether smoking firstly was bad for you, and later on to convince the public smoking didn't cause cancer.

Ironically many of the same PR firms and people hired by the tobacco lobby in the past to create confusion in the public perception of tobacco is now working to create confusion in the global warming issue.

They don't care about anything other than just making people think that there is a huge debate amongst scientists, when in reality its a vast majority supporting the data/conclusions while the small handful of global warming critics go on CNN playing the 'all the facts are not in' type debate.

I mean don't kid yourselves, there are hundreds of billions of dollars riding on how governments react.

If people over do it, it could be a disaster on its own, if we do nothing and sit around arguing we may reach a tipping point that will devastate us anyhow.

I'm a skeptic by heart, so I take all the science with a grain of salt, but when such an overwhelming majority of various science fields are saying the same thing, I listen carefully.

I just wish the debate was now on: "What do we do next?"

Since obviously we don't want to make drastic immediate changes, we need to start forming some kind of plan to make smarter choices, invest in new technologies and put our brightest minds on finding solutions. Not waste our brightest mind on a debate that in most scientists mind is not a debate anymore.

An example is why does north america have some of the lowest emission standards in the western world?

Collectively with our focus on making the world a cleaner and less polluted place we can reverse our impact while not hurting our economies, jobs, etc..

Surely thats more useful than what we are doing now.