Global Warming - It's Our Fault

[NWB]

If I want to learn about geology, I'll listen to a geologist.

You may want to rethink that if you listen to me for a bit.

 

[vin*tone]

I'm skeptical of alarmists crying "The sky is falling!" when such claims have repeatedly proven empty and unwarranted. Thirty years ago the panic was that the world was cooling, and fear mongers claimed we were headed for another ice age.

Wrong. Scientists were mostly predicting warming in the 70s.

My understanding is that climate is cyclical, and we've been headed for another ice age since the planet emerged from the last one.

We were. Then along came the last 100 years.

The modern warming is an anomaly which does not fit into any natural cycle.

The whole "it's natural" thing is akin to believing in magic. Things occur for a reason. If something warms up it does so because it's taking on more energy than it's losing. It doesn't just oscillate by itself. This whole field is in understanding why.

I've seen my tax dollars given to "green" companies like Solyndra and Evergreen Solar to see those companies squander the money they were given, move the company to China, and then close down completely.

Don't confuse science with politics. fluid dynamics and entropy don't give a hoot about "your tax dollars".

I'm not convinced human contribution to climate is significant, or that despite the arrogance of the Global Warming alarmists, we can make a significant impact to alter climate change, or even that we should. This argument reminds me of the people who want to save all the cute animals from extinction, even though the natural rate of extinction in an undisturbed ecosystem is 1 per decade (Invalid Link Removed) not counting for mass extinctions that happened throughout history without our help.

and yet...

I think climate change is similar. It is something the planet does, and will continue to do long after we're gone. I see people trying to change the climate as arrogant meddlers who in the end will likely do more harm than good. Typical of humanity, we try to change things to suit ourselves rather than simply adapt to the changes.

Whatever change is happening, it's taking place slowly enough for us to adapt our lifestyles to it. I appreciate people suggesting books to read and such, and if you have time to read them, good for you. But, I'm neck deep in things that are impacting my life currently, and rarely have time to read the things I enjoy, let alone some scientists views on what they think will happen 50, 100 or however many years from now.

Based on what I've seen of science fact over the last 30 years, I'm no more convinced that today's dire predictions are accurate than I have been of any other I've seen come and go. Scientists are humans, not gods. They are fallible. They've been wrong enough in the past for me to not be concerned with the current prognosis.

So where are you getting your information from? Blogs? Fox news? You call "alarmists" "arrogant" even though by your own admission you have done very little real research into this.

 

[vin*tone]

That's true, there are lots of educated fools out there. There are a lot more uneducated ones. I wouldn't be too proud of either state.

LOL, that paragraph. So though you admit you don't have the time to devote to getting up to speed on the issues and you also don't currently have the knowledge you nonetheless consider it your duty to voice an opinion and expect that your words be taken with the same seriousness as people who do have time to study the issues and have done so.

Yes, having a degree doesn't protect one from scrutiny. Wearing anti-intellectualism as a badge of honor doesn't protect one from ridicule either.

Well put.

 

[Unrepresented]

But if they disagree with (1st) other scientists, then from the (1st) other scientists view the (1st) other scientists are disagreeing with (2nd) other scientists. (The (2nd) other scientists being the first group) Then we would need to employ general relativity to determine where we are, but we can't trust relativity because (other?) other scientists and all that.

If I'm following; the only trustworthy scientists are those that don't do science and disagree with scientists that do do science?

BAM, (other other) SCIENCED. DON'T WORRY I DON'T USUALLY SCIENCE SO YOU CAN TRUST ME.

Not every mind can deal with the paradox of multiple conflicting truths.

You'll never win an argument using an arsenal of reason, facts, and logic against a position of "because I said so!".

Cripes, I knew I shouldn't have stepped into this thread.

Now I'll never get the hyperbole off my shoes.

But the amount of snark I am being freely opportuned is becoming addictive...

That dog is way more adorable than global warming.

 

[vin*tone]

From what I've read here most of the people who have the time and therefore have studied the matter are themselves in science to one degree or another. That's convenient.

Not my duty, just my opinion. Or must I have certain degrees for that luxury?

You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

 

[ProgRocker]

According to the Forbes article, it's more than 3% of scientists. In fact it's over 40%, according to their information.

 

[vin*tone]

According to the Forbes article, it's more than 3% of scientists. In fact it's over 40%, according to their information.

See here's the thing about calling yourself a "sceptic". You have to be sceptical.

Instead of reading an article in a right wing rag and swallowing it as fact, be sceptical. Click the link. Read it.

In this case the study is a survey of field geologists and engineers working in the Alberta oil industry.

"To answer this question, we consider how climate change is constructed by professional engineers and geoscientists in the province of Alberta, Canada. We begin by describing our research context and the strategic importance of Canadian oil worldwide, to the economy of Canada, and the province of Alberta. We outline the influential role of engineers and geoscientists within this industry, which allows them to affect national and international policy. Then, we describe our research design and methods."

I'm surprised it's not MORE than 45%

 

[NWB]

One important point illustrated by this graph is not so much the absolute change in temperature, but the rate of change. This is significant because of the time that it takes for systems to adapt to different conditions. A slower rate of change allows ecosystems and economic systems to make necessary changes over time. A fast rate of change means serious disruptions.

Also, thank you for these graphs Vin*tone. I'm familiar with some of them, but am seeing new ones that are quite interesting too.

 

[NWB]

See here's the thing about calling yourself a "sceptic". You have to be sceptical.

Instead of reading an article in a right wing rag and swallowing it as fact, be sceptical. Click the link. Read it.

In this case the study is a survey of field geologists and engineers working in the Alberta oil industry.

"To answer this question, we consider how climate change is constructed by professional engineers and geoscientists in the province of Alberta, Canada. We begin by describing our research context and the strategic importance of Canadian oil worldwide, to the economy of Canada, and the province of Alberta. We outline the influential role of engineers and geoscientists within this industry, which allows them to affect national and international policy. Then, we describe our research design and methods."

I'm surprised it's not MORE than 45%

Darn geologists!

They should fire the whole lot of them!

Wait a sec......

 

[Floyd Eye]

Can you imagine if oil companies didn't employ geologists?

 

[NWB]

Can you imagine if oil companies didn't employ geologists?

They'd still have some beer left in the fridge?

 

[vin*tone]

Darn geologists!

They should fire the whole lot of them!

Wait a sec......

I don't have a problem with geologists - or veven their opinions.

I do have a problem with media outlets who portray a survey of oil workers as an unbiased survey of "scientists". This kind of thing happens all the time and readers walk away thinking there is something to this debate after all. It's fabricated.

 

[NWB]

I don't have a problem with geologists - or veven their opinions.

I do have a problem with media outlets who portray a survey of oil workers as an unbiased survey of "scientists". This kind of thing happens all the time and readers walk away thinking there is something to this debate after all. It's fabricated.

As a geologist, I have a lot of problems with my opinions!

I know what you meant and was having some fun with you.

Here in the US, we'd use the term "corporate shill" for what you're describing.

 

[Unrepresented]

As a geologist, I have a lot of problems with my opinions!

I know what you meant and was having some fun with you.

Here in the US, we'd use the term "corporate shill" for what you're describing.

Which ironically enough is exactly what ProgRocker is skeptical about...

 

[NWB]

Which ironically enough is exactly what ProgRocker is skeptical about...

He's skeptical about me being a geologist?

I can post my license if he really wants to know.

 

[Floyd Eye]

I suppose it is your position that there are not geologists and climatologists shilling for the other side?

 

[Floyd Eye]

I believe you're a Geologist and I was serious when I told you I could probably get you a great job as long as you were willing to relocate to Attica Kansas.

 

[fmoore200]

But is anybody an informed skeptic?

 

[NWB]

I believe you're a Geologist and I was serious when I told you I could probably get you a great job as long as you were willing to relocate to Attica Kansas.

I've tossed that idea around a bit at times since the money would likely be pretty good.

Kansas? I thought there was more going on in the N. Dakota and Texas oil patches?

Is it a gas or oil play going on there? Could be both though in some formations.

At any rate, for the time being, I really love living in the Pacific Northwest more than the money I'd make in the current US oil provinces.

 

[Floyd Eye]

I've tossed that idea around a bit at times since the money would likely be pretty good.

Kansas? I thought there was more going on in the N. Dakota and Texas oil patches?

Is it a gas or oil play going on there? Could be both though in some formations.

At any rate, for the time being, I really love living in the Pacific Northwest more than the money I'd make in the current US oil provinces.

It is both, though at the moment primarily natural gas.

I cannot help you in those other states though, my friend is in Attica.