Cold, hard facts take the heat out of some hot claims

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

There is far more money to be made in linking Global warming to human activity then in denying it. The links to big companies are often thrown out there without just cause to devalue what credible scientists are saying. Eliminate those who are making a profit on the man caused/impending doom side of the equation and you would find very little unbiased research has been done.

Are you serious? There is more profit being made in a single quarter by big oil than there is being made by all of those entites concerned about global warming. Considering our whole economy is pertroleum based, your statement is grossly incorrect. Need you be reminded that several RW think tanks, with ties directly to big oil, have advertised their willingness to pay for any research that supports the position counter to global warming. Eliminate those who are taking their money from the oil companies and there is little to no research to dispute the theory.

What is lost in this discussion is the fact that one side of the debate has a unified voice and theory as to what is happening. The other side has but one unified point, and that is that global warming is NOT a result of CO2 emmissions. None of the dissenting voices can agree on what is causing global warming, and yes it is universally agreed that global warming IS happening, all they can do is disagree with the CO2 theory and promote their own. They disagree with each other and publicly ridicule each other's theories, but they share one thing in common, and that is they feel the CO2 theory is incorrect. What is interesting is that if someone went to 10 doctors about an illness, and got 7 of them to agree on a diagnosis, and then three dissenting opinions, the dissenting opinions would be dismissed. Especially if those three dissenting opinions were not in agreement with each other, and their data did not support each other's claims. Of course those in denial may cling to the hope that one of these three were right, and they really didn't have a disease that may kill them, but that does not make the diagnosis they select as correct. It just means they are in denial.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Are you serious? There is more profit being made in a single quarter by big oil than there is being made by all of those entites concerned about global warming. Considering our whole economy is pertroleum based, your statement is grossly incorrect. Need you be reminded that several RW think tanks, with ties directly to big oil, have advertised their willingness to pay for any research that supports the position counter to global warming. Eliminate those who are taking their money from the oil companies and there is little to no research to dispute the theory.

The Oil companies are at the forefront of research in alternate fuels. Their product is reaching its limits as far as supply goes and because of China and India demand is increasing exponentially. They've already figured out that the price per barrel can only go so high before people just won't be able to afford to buy their product. It's only logical to develop alternative products to sell in the global market place. The likelihood of some cheaper fuel coming along tomorrow that will replace oil is slim to none. But things like ethanol will provide another product to sell consumers. This man-made global warming schlick is just providing them a vehicle to subsidize their research and development. Governments are throwing big money at research. They are also subsidizing the ethanol industry to a large enough extent that the oil companies are still able to make their obscene profits while they retool for alternative fuel sources. The oil companies are not going to lose a penny and stand to make a huge profit. Also, every barrel of oil produced will be sold and burned. We are not going to effect carbon output with what we are doing now. Actually carbon output globally will increase as we turn to alternative fuels. This because the barrel of oil we don't burn will be sold to China or some other place where emission standards are lower if present at all.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

What is lost in this discussion is the fact that one side of the debate has a unified voice and theory as to what is happening. The other side has but one unified point, and that is that global warming is NOT a result of CO2 emissions. None of the dissenting voices can agree on what is causing global warming, and yes it is universally agreed that global warming IS happening, all they can do is disagree with the CO2 theory and promote their own.

What theories? The consensus is that the warming trend is just part of a natural cycle with multiple contributing factors. Most of the articles I've read has been more concerned with correcting false conclusions made by the CO2 crowd. They generally only speak to one so called "proof" of man caused global warming because of their personal area of expertise. For instance: a man who studies icebergs in Greenland isn't going to comment on the cause of hurricane activity. When the leading world scientist on hurricane activity came out to say that he sees no link to a increase in storm activity and global CO2 levels he wasn't trying to promote a new theory. He was just answering a question that arose because of Al Gore and his traveling circus. When a person who studies Ocean currents denies the Al Gore theory on rising sea levels that is all he is speaking to. He doesn't have to address Al Gore's many other fears.

[Burninator]

The biggest problem I see with the global warming debate is that it is happening too much in the wrong places. It is not a public debate, it's a scientific one. We can set up a poll in this thread and vote on whether or not we believe humans are causing it, and it will mean jack squat. We are not experts, we are not the ones to decided the facts of the issue. It would be no different that if we voted and decided that the sky was green. Sure we would believe it was green, but that doesn't change the fact that the sky is blue.

The debate is getting so clouded with other people's unscientific reasoning and agendas that it's polluting the science itself. The politics in global warming are getting out of hand.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Burninator

The biggest problem I see with the global warming debate is that it is happening too much in the wrong places. It is not a public debate, it's a scientific one. We can set up a poll in this thread and vote on whether or not we believe humans are causing it, and it will mean jack squat. We are not experts, we are not the ones to decided the facts of the issue. It would be no different that if we voted and decided that the sky was green. Sure we would believe it was green, but that doesn't change the fact that the sky is blue.

The debate is getting so clouded with other people's unscientific reasoning and agendas that it's polluting the science itself. The politics in global warming are getting out of hand.

I am concerned at the pedestal that scientists are put on. It's like people believe their dedication to science somehow shields men from pride, greed, and plain old human error. There is also a tendency to see human thought and reasoning as somehow inferior if the person doesn't belong to this fraternity. We even had a poster on this thread declare that he studied global warming in university and knows for a fact that is caused by man. One wonders if he studied under a prof who dismissed the notion that human activity was the cause would he then embrace the other position so positively.

I for one am not going to trade my own limited human reasoning in for faith in any man(scientist or not); Nor will I surrender it to mere majority opinion.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I am concerned at the pedestal that scientists are put on. It's like people believe their dedication to science somehow shields men from pride, greed, and plain old human error. There is also a tendency to see human thought and reasoning as somehow inferior if the person doesn't belong to this fraternity. We even had a poster on this thread declare that he studied global warming in university and knows for a fact that is caused by man. One wonders if he studied under a prof who dismissed the notion that human activity was the cause would he then embrace the other position so positively.

I for one am not going to trade my own limited human reasoning in for faith in any man(scientist or not); Nor will I surrender it to mere majority opinion.

hear hear, well said my friend!

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I am concerned at the pedestal that scientists are put on. It's like people believe their dedication to science somehow shields men from pride, greed, and plain old human error. There is also a tendency to see human thought and reasoning as somehow inferior if the person doesn't belong to this fraternity. We even had a poster on this thread declare that he studied global warming in university and knows for a fact that is caused by man. One wonders if he studied under a prof who dismissed the notion that human activity was the cause would he then embrace the other position so positively.

I have more "faith" in science than you do. And you are right, some scientists do fall to pride, greed, and error. But the great thing about science is that, it is not centred around one person, but rather the whole collective. One scientists claiming to know something will have to stand up to the whole community and face criticism and verification of this findings. It would be unlikely that the whole collective would fall to pride, greed and error, a break down of that magnitude would be bad for everything.

I for one am not going to trade my own limited human reasoning in for faith in any man(scientist or not); Nor will I surrender it to mere majority opinion.

There is a difference between being subjective/skeptical and being ignorant/stubborn (not that I am calling you that). You are not putting your "faith" in any man, you are putting "faith" in science. There is a difference.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

What is lost in this discussion is the fact that one side of the debate has a unified voice and theory as to what is happening. The other side has but one unified point, and that is that global warming is NOT a result of CO2 emmissions. None of the dissenting voices can agree on what is causing global warming, and yes it is universally agreed that global warming IS happening, all they can do is disagree with the CO2 theory and promote their own.

I see your point, and to paraphrase how I am reading it; what you are saying is that because the anti-CO2 people have a single theory, then it must be correct. (I realize that is far more general and blunt that how you state it.) But is it not possible that there are several things causing climate change, and that CO2 levels may just be one small piece of the puzzle? What I am saying; as many good scientists will also tell you, that there is more that is unknown about the nature of the universe than what is currently known.

What I object to is (and this isn't pointed at you) people who tell me that I am wrong to question what I hear, because the majority has spoken.

It would be interesting to go forward in time 200 years to see what the actual cause(s) was/were. Who knows, it could be cell phones. (And other sources of radio frequency devices.) It could be the use of nuclear devices. It could just be solar activity; or even extra solar activity.

[Bingo]

Actually Newsweek just got their wrist slapped because they published an article looking at the big money behind "deniers" while ignoring the money going to the "believe" side.

Reporter Eve Conant, who interviewed Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., the ranking member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, was given all the latest data proving conclusively that it is the proponents of man-made global warming fears that enjoy a monumental funding advantage over the skeptics. (A whopping $50 billion to a paltry $19 million for skeptics — yes, that is billion to million — see below. )

That's 2632 to 1!

Now ... to back up. I'm not saying all proponents are on the take or that they're dishonest ... far from it. But this discredit anyone that doubts the science thing by linking them to industry is just goofy.

The basis of Science is to question, rethink, adjust, get more informed, alter your hypothesis and continue to revisit the facts.

Words like "the science is in" is dangerous in that it's capping an ongoing issue that isn't finite in any way shape or form.

If global warming is happening, and I'm certainly not saying it's not, then steps should be taken, but those that are sure of it had better open their minds to the fact that it might not be or they may be complicit in moving important focus and funds away from projects that may do inhabitants of Earth a lot more good then a project that may or may not be needed and may or may not actually help.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I for one am not going to trade my own limited human reasoning in for faith in any man(scientist or not); Nor will I surrender it to mere majority opinion.

So instead of listening to people sho have spent years of study in their fields, you are going to think what you want.

Alright.

Scientists can, and do, make mistakes. But they are making their decisions from a far greater position of knowledge than I will ever have. And if I choose to ignore them and I am right, it won't be because I knew more than them.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by blankall

IF this is true and can be confirmed by more sources, it would be very interesting. Still doesn't explain the rate of glacier/iceberg melting we see in the poles.

We're coming out of an ice age...

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Now ... to back up. I'm not saying all proponents are on the take or that they're dishonest ... far from it. But this discredit anyone that doubts the science thing by linking them to industry is just goofy.

The basis of Science is to question, rethink, adjust, get more informed, alter your hypothesis and continue to revisit the facts.

Words like "the science is in" is dangerous in that it's capping an ongoing issue that isn't finite in any way shape or form.

But what is the reason that one side is getting the vast majority of the funding? They seem to have a valid theory? Political/environmental group influence? Scientific conspiracy? Al Gore? It would also be interesting to find out if the difference between the funding has always been so broad.

There is usually a simple answer. I would tend to favour the reasoning that the theory getting the funding is doing the best work. Best work in that the results are standing up to validation and are working with the other validated theories. I'll draw the parallel between the ever popular evolution versus creation debate. There is a good reason creationist "scientists" are largely ignored by the rest of the scientific community. There is a good reason the funding between the two is drastically separated. Not the best example, but I am sure you see what I am getting at.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

So instead of listening to people sho have spent years of study in their fields, you are going to think what you want.

Alright.

To say that all scientists with years of study in their field support the notion of man caused global warming is dishonest. When Al Gore said that the whole scientific community is on side with his theory he lied. In fact many spoke out because of the claims he popularized. I will continue to listen to both sides and make my own conclusions. The burden of proof should and does rest on the theorist's side.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

We're coming out of an ice age...

I'm going to assume that was joke, otherwise you're making a poor showing of your knowledge of the issue.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

To say that all scientists with years of study in their field support the notion of man caused global warming is dishonest. When Al Gore said that the whole scientific community is on side with his theory he lied. In fact many spoke out because of the claims he popularized. I will continue to listen to both sides and make my own conclusions. The burden of proof should and does rest on the theorist's side.

You point out where I said that, and you may have an argument.

You made a ridiculous blanket statement when you said "I for one am not going to trade my own limited human reasoning in for faith in any man(scientist or not); Nor will I surrender it to mere majority opinion."

You NOT qualify your statement. You broke it out to stand on its own, and I question how you could believe that.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Burninator

But what is the reason that one side is getting the vast majority of the funding? They seem to have a valid theory? Political/environmental group influence? Scientific conspiracy? Al Gore? It would also be interesting to find out if the difference between the funding has always been so broad.

There is usually a simple answer. I would tend to favour the reasoning that the theory getting the funding is doing the best work. Best work in that the results are standing up to validation and are working with the other validated theories. I'll draw the parallel between the ever popular evolution versus creation debate. There is a good reason creationist "scientists" are largely ignored by the rest of the scientific community. There is a good reason the funding between the two is drastically separated. Not the best example, but I am sure you see what I am getting at.

That's a dangerous notion though, and one that falls in with my willies over "the science is in" ....

don't assume there isn't money being made on both sides, and certainly don't assume that all the money against is tainted with industry, but the money on the for side is enveloped in a saintly aura.

Getting green is a good idea, but getting green to the expense of logic can be a dangerous one, and a shame if in ten years this whole thing turns out to be a trend.

I saw a really interesting short that had an economist talking about the cost benefit analysis of all the world's ills. He had a large group of economists break into groups and put a bunch of world issues in order of most effecient to least effecient. In the end the global warming initiatives finished last because their ROI were so sketchy. Things like micro nutrients, solving malaria, etc were at the top of the list. Shame to see fear push funds and attention to only one issue when other issues deserve some spotlight.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I am concerned at the pedestal that scientists are put on. It's like people believe their dedication to science somehow shields men from pride, greed, and plain old human error. There is also a tendency to see human thought and reasoning as somehow inferior if the person doesn't belong to this fraternity.

You've made this mistake before and I am sure will continue to think that way.. but scientists aren't on the pedestal, it's science itself that is on the pedestal. Some scientists can be wrong, on the take, prideful, whatever, but science is open and you can't fake results forever; science corrects itself because new data, observations, predictions are constantly done to test the consensus.

If Gore misrepresented thing, that's a political thing not a scientific thing. That's the problem with the whole global warming "debate" in my mind, is it's completely politicized.

The fact that there is dispute about global warming is a result of lack of understanding the science more fully.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

There is also a tendency to see human thought and reasoning as somehow inferior if the person doesn't belong to this fraternity.

Human reasoning and thought is inferior on certain subjects. Some people are experts, some aren't. Some people went to school for 7 or 8 years and learned about something, some people have a subscription to the Western Standard and a layman's opinion of an extremely complicated subject.

Whose opinion is more valuable? Whose voice is superior?

Forget climate science. What about something else? Maybe airplane buildin'.

You've got two guys. One of them has a PhD in aeronautical engineering from MIT. The other guy has a high school diploma, an internet connection and a loud voice. They both design an airplane. Which one would you fly in?

Or medicine: you've got a polyp on your duodenum and you need some help. Would you go see the guy who got his MD from the UofA, or the radio host who has a communications degree from Carleton?

Some people are experts, others aren't. Human reasoning and thought doesn't change that.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

You point out where I said that, and you may have an argument.

You implied it when you said "So instead of listening to people sho have spent years of study in their fields". You didn't say "some people" or "the majority of people". You said "people" which suggests "all" people with years of experience in there fields.

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

You made a ridiculous blanket statement when you said "I for one am not going to trade my own limited human reasoning in for faith in any man(scientist or not); Nor will I surrender it to mere majority opinion."

You NOT qualify your statement. You broke it out to stand on its own, and I question how you could believe that.

It doesn't need qualifying. Where does not trading my own reasoning for faith in another's or blind trust in a majority opinion get fuzzy. To suggest reasoning for ones self negates listening to arguments for both side is silly. My statement certainly didn't say or imply that.

It seems to me that the CO2 caused global warming side of the debate has been guilty on several occasions of leaving the scientific arguments in favor of untrue generalizations. Suggesting that no reputable scientist disagrees with them or that their motivation somehow is money from oil companies muddies the waters and does nothing for credibility. The fact is there is plenty of dissent and their arguments and studies are relevant.

Science that is reluctant to allow itself to be questioned is not good science. I really see a reluctance in the CO2 crowd to debate. This impression probably is enhanced when they revert to generalizations when questioned. They've(the CO2 crowd) have sounded the alarm and want the world to give them money for research and development and drastically alter our economies because of their theory.

[Cowboy89]

Great post Bingo. I think a large portion of this issue centers around the politics. I find it no coincidence that the loudest voices arguing with the Al Gore crowd are people who have either been known to be activists for a laundry list of other unrelated 'causes' or people who have idological issues with capitalism and western lifestyles. People like Al Gore gain because they feel relivent again after being forgotten for years and those who have always hated Western Civilization support it because it appears to be fuel to support it's demise. Of course none of this has anything to do with the actual science of global warming and all to do with the optics.

The science itself has become peripheral to the debate as evidenced by such comments as: "Even if it turns out that human contribution to the problem is minimal wouldn't it be better safe than sorry?." Easy for rich first world people to make that comment when they'll only have to endure minimal hardships to reduce carbon consumption. Tell the third world they'll have to power their homes with wind generated power and that millions possibly billions of them must die of economic hardship in the name of reducing carbon for a 'better be safe than sorry' policy.

The general public have been duped without adaquate scientific backing as well because they have become sensitive to only the slightest deviations in their local weather and thus blame carbon emitters. Showing clips of 90 year olds stammer incoherently about how much colder it was back in the 20s and 30s hardly qualifies as scientific evidence of anything unless it were to be used in an Alzheimer's drug trial. For all those who don't believe me on this comment tell me how many Grand Prix cars you came across on your last commute. Then count how many on your next commute. You'd be surprised that when you start looking for something you notice it more often, even when it's always been there right under your nose.

For Calgarians that argue that recent mild winters are wildly unusual:http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-41-1322...ic_games/clip9

I'm not really arguing for or against the 'human-made global warming thoery' but rather pointing out that people have taken grains of speculation and ran with it into the endzone. Yes there's also financial motivation for some of the players on the 'denial' side but to fail to admit that those who support it are all altruistic and super intelligent is rather naive. The same burden of proof and transperency should be placed upon them as well. Letting Al Gore off for not 'walking the walk' doesn't make sense while roasting a 'denial' scientist for taking $10,000 from ExxonMobil (Which probably doesn't even cover the cost of custodial service for his lab for a year let alone seriously contribute to his research.)

[Bobblehead]

^^^^^^^^^^^^

That's a pretty big leap, isn't it?

the loudest voices arguing with the Al Gore crowd are people who have either been known to be activists for a laundry list of other unrelated 'causes' or people who have idological issues with capitalism and western lifestyles.

You are painting with a pretty broad brush there.