Global Warming - It's Our Fault

[vin*tone]

I saw those. Still, I couldn't help myself.

Thanks to you and others who have made this thread not only informative but also entertaining. Contentious at times, but not disrespectful, especially considering the potential for vicious disagreement on the issue.

vin*tone, in particular, is posting some incredibly useful and well researched information.

I'm thoroughly enjoying this.

Thanks. It's really hard to find good info on this subject - it's so politically charged and people tend to start out with a position then find things that support their belief. I first became interested when my father (who's a conservative) emailed me a document outlining the sceptics case. It looked reasonable and for about 48 hours I was a climate change sceptic. Then I was stuck at home sick for a couple of days and thought I'd look into it further. It was a simple question: How is it that these people came up with vastly different conclusions by using exactly the same data as the scientists who gathered it and analysed it? Surely these institutions have thought of these obvious points? They're not that stupid. Point by point the sceptics case just blew away. Old data was used. Cherry picked data was used . Things that have been clearly established were just ignored. It became clear that what I was reading - even though it was written by a prominent sceptic scientist - was a fabrication.

I guess since then I've been fascinated by this subject - not just the subject matter but the fabrications. Why do they do this? Why does Rupert Murdoch instruct his media (of all sorts globally) to belittle the scientific picture. Why does David Rose make up stories in the Mail Online (UK)? Why do conseratives (in particular) have a tendency to question the scientific community but not question the media that feeds them stories?

 

[LiquidMidnight]

That assumes tenure brings with it honesty or lack of bias.....I would argue the opposite.

While I don't quite follow how tenure suddenly brings lack of honesty and bias (that's actually a rather unintuitive position, because as I said earlier in this thread, tenure is to protect your academic freedom so you can say things that don't tow the intellectual line; it should allow you to be more honest), if we're gonna go down the carrot-and-stick route, tenure is but one milestone in a scholar's career. There are also promotions, which are usually based upon a faculty member's teaching aptitude, community service, and yes, publication and scholarly work. Promotion packets are usually highly scrutinized by Deans and other gatekeepers, and faculty don't go from assistant professorship to full professorship over night. In other words, tenure itself shouldn't degrade an academic's scholarly work because they've all of a sudden "got it made"; there are still a number of other performance-based hoops they have to jump through in their career.

As far as grant money, two thoughts: 1). A lot of research, particularly basic research, does not have grant money attached to it, and 2). While knowing if a particular piece of research has an agenda attached to it is never a bad thing, at the end of the day, the research has to stand on its own merits. Even the hacks at political think tanks churn out a decent publication every now and then. I could design a study that returns results that are sympathetic to a specific ideology or create a program evaluation that favors a specific stakeholder...and my peers are going to be able to rip it apart and criticize it for its methodological flaws. Sure, data can be completely fabricated, but if my work is important enough to gain great interest, people are going to try to replicate my results; when my results can not be replicated, I'm going to be, at the least, criticized for being a poor scientist and at worst, outed as a charlatan.

 

[bkbirge]

As far as fame goes, scientists accept the fact that even the most spectacular career will only make you well known to other scientists and 99% of the public will never hear of you much less remember or care.

Sounds like bass players.

 

[Floyd Eye]

Man, this thread would be so much better if I didn't have to scroll past all those stupid graphs and charts.

 

[Unrepresented]

Man, this thread would be so much better if I didn't have to scroll past all those stupid graphs and charts.

Lol.

Pesky data slowing down a quality opinion.

 

[hbarcat]

Thanks. It's really hard to find good info on this subject - it's so politically charged and people tend to start out with a position then find things that support their belief.

This is true of every controversial issue.

I first became interested when my father (who's a conservative) emailed me a document outlining the sceptics case. It looked reasonable and for about 48 hours I was a climate change sceptic. Then I was stuck at home sick for a couple of days and thought I'd look into it further. It was a simple question: How is it that these people came up with vastly different conclusions by using exactly the same data as the scientists who gathered it and analysed it? Surely these institutions have thought of these obvious points? They're not that stupid. Point by point the sceptics case just blew away. Old data was used. Cherry picked data was used . Things that have been clearly established were just ignored. It became clear that what I was reading - even though it was written by a prominent sceptic scientist - was a fabrication.

I've been interested in science for as long as I can remember, mostly because my father and his brother are both career scientists. I've been particularly interested in environmental science as my father is an environmental engineer and an expert in pollution control and the associated technology. It was natural for me to be concerned about the environment and during the late 80's, when I was a physics student in college, I read as much as I could regarding the science behind ecology, the environment and pollution.

I found the same thing you did. Mountains of information that was obviously biased toward one "side" or the other. I discovered that there were obviously shills in the scientific community who were simply creating propaganda to get people to believe that industry had little to no effect on the environment. The petroleum industry comes to mind.

But I also discovered there were obviously shills in the scientific community who were simply creating propaganda to get people to believe that industry was responsible for all evils great and small, mostly for the purposes of spreading fear for political reasons or to create a climate where lawyers could easily make fortunes by suing certain companies. The "Alar scare" is an example of this - an exaggerated estimate of risk, turning what should be a cause for legitimate concern into a full-blown crisis to cause as much public fear and anger as possible.

I guess since then I've been fascinated by this subject - not just the subject matter but the fabrications. Why do they do this? Why does Rupert Murdoch instruct his media (of all sorts globally) to belittle the scientific picture. Why does David Rose make up stories in the Mail Online (UK)? Why do conseratives (in particular) have a tendency to question the scientific community but not question the media that feeds them stories?

It's obvious to me why they do this. Money and power and self interest. Many people make a living off of the fossil fuel industries (some becoming extremely wealthy) and if a global movement to phase out this source of energy gains momentum, they will find themselves unemployed. This is a powerful motivator.

Yet an objective view of the AGW issue reveals that many of the environmentalists (the most vocal and prominent among them, in particular) are also motivated by money and power and they engage in their fair share of "creative" reporting. There are plenty of people who make their money off of environmental activism and global warming as a crisis is as much of a gold mine for them as new sources of oil are for the petroleum industry. If a global movement to subsidize alternative energy sources gains momentum, many of these people will become extremely wealthy.

It's inevitable that these two powerful special interest groups will be engaged in a propaganda war against each other. That's the exact reason why I'm a critic of some of the methodology of the IPCC and of some of its conclusions. Man-made global warming is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. If those who are best equipped to understand the problem in a scientific way are motivated to fudge the science and exaggerate the magnitude of the problem, however slightly, they will surely ruin the credibility of all climatologists, and indeed, of all scientists. Global warming deniers will be given credibility by default, and then nothing will be done to address the problem.

 

[hbarcat]

Well.... theres a collection of independent studies which give slightly different results.

Thanks for the graphs and info. Could you provide a link to the source so I can read further? The material you posted says it's copyrighted to New Scientist but I don't have enough information to find the original material.

 

[bolophonic]

Man, this thread would be so much better if I didn't have to scroll past all those stupid graphs and charts.

You seem to be having a problem producing any legitimate data to show that the chemical changes caused by polluting the earth's atmosphere can IN NO WAY have an effect on the climate. Do you consider yourself to be anti-environmental?

Thanks. It's really hard to find good info on this subject - it's so politically charged and people tend to start out with a position then find things that support their belief.

Exactly why I refuse to trust the 'belief' of the people who stand to make the most money from the scientists they employ to gather their results.

 

[hbarcat]

You seem to be having a problem producing any legitimate data to show that the chemical changes caused by polluting the earth's atmosphere can IN NO WAY have an effect on the climate. Do you consider yourself to be anti-environmental?

I'm pretty sure his statement was in jest.

 

[bolophonic]

I'm pretty sure his statement was in jest.

I briefly considered that, but... you know.

 

[Solarmist]

Yet an objective view of the AGW issue reveals that many of the environmentalists (the most vocal and prominent among them, in particular) are also motivated by money and power and they engage in their fair share of "creative" reporting. There are plenty of people who make their money off of environmental activism and global warming as a crisis is as much of a gold mine for them as new sources of oil are for the petroleum industry. If a global movement to subsidize alternative energy sources gains momentum, many of these people will become extremely wealthy.

It's inevitable that these two powerful special interest groups will be engaged in a propaganda war against each other. That's the exact reason why I'm a critic of some of the methodology of the IPCC and of some of its conclusions. Man-made global warming is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. If those who are best equipped to understand the problem in a scientific way are motivated to fudge the science and exaggerate the magnitude of the problem, however slightly, they will surely ruin the credibility of all climatologists, and indeed, of all scientists. Global warming deniers will be given credibility by default, and then nothing will be done to address the problem.

You have a objective view of both sides which is sorely needed in this conversation - I enjoy reading your informative, respectful posts. Thank you.


Just so I have this straight - are you saying that science has proven conclusively that man is 100% responsible, and that "the debate is over" (Gore)?

If so - then what should we do? If expensive green energy is only responsible for 2% of the nations power; it's blatantly obvious that we can't stop using cost effective fossil fuels. We as a nation just aren't going to return to the stone age, and even if we did - what about all the rest of the planet's nations that will never comply? The fact is we use fossil fuels because they are the cheapest source for power (at this time).

I've heard one chief scientist from the IPCC say that (to paraphrase) " that if we shut down the entire planet's fossil fuel usage - after even 100 years the temperature difference will be negligable"

So as a planet - what are we do do?

 

[MatticusMania]

Global Warming is a direct result of Baby Boomers attempting to dig to China.

 

[bkbirge]

Global Warming is a direct result of Baby Boomers attempting to dig to China.

Completely nuts when you consider they could have just taken a slow boat. Dang boomers.

 

[96tbird]

Global Warming is a direct result of Baby Boomers attempting to dig to China.

Yeah, too bad the data cadre had to begin logging stats and ruin our carbon party.

 

[macaroni tony]

Global Warming is a direct result of Baby Boomers attempting to dig to China.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

 

[hbarcat]

Just so I have this straight - are you saying that science has proven conclusively that man is 100% responsible, and that "the debate is over" (Gore)?

If so - then what should we do? If expensive green energy is only responsible for 2% of the nations power; it's blatantly obvious that we can't stop using cost effective fossil fuels. We as a nation just aren't going to return to the stone age, and even if we did - what about all the rest of the planet's nations that will never comply? The fact is we use fossil fuels because they are the cheapest source for power (at this time).

I've heard one chief scientist from the IPCC say that (to paraphrase) " that if we shut down the entire planet's fossil fuel usage - after even 100 years the temperature difference will be negligable"

So as a planet - what are we do do?

Please excuse the length of this post, but I think this analogy is helpful to at least consider:


Suppose that a middle aged man is mindful that he's gained some weight over the years and is concerned that it's beginning to have a negative effect on his health. Even though he was athletic and physically fit in his twenties, he knows that he's led a mostly sedentary lifestyle for the past decade and his job and his personal life contains a certain amount of stress. So he consults with a doctor who gives him a physical and explains the results to him.

The doctor tells him his weight is 100 kg (220 lbs) when his ideal weight should be 75 kg (165 lbs). His blood pressure is 140/86 when it should be 120/70. His total cholesterol level is 240 when it should be 150. He further says that numerous other health indicators are similarly high and the patient can read about the details in a comprehensive report.

The doctor then recommends that he immediately quit his job and check into an intensive in-patient rehabilitation program which consists of rigorous daily exercise and powerful prescription medication. He also recommends exploring the possibility of bariatric bypass surgery to combat his obviously uncontrolled appetite.

Even though he has always had a good opinion of most doctors, the man is a little bit skeptical about this diagnosis and recommended treatment and has at least a little bit of suspicion that this doctor may be overreacting, perhaps to enhance his revenue and the revenue to his colleagues in the medical industry.

In your words: "What are we to do?"

I would suggest that getting a second opinion is a good idea as well as doing a bit of independent research.

Let's assume that our middle aged man does seek another opinion and also does some independent research.

He might find out that even though his actual, current weight is exactly what the doctor said it was, his ideal weight is more reasonably between 85-90 kg (about 185-200 lbs). His doctor has apparently exaggerated his extra weight by 2X.

He also might discover that his high blood pressure has also been exaggerated as a man his age might have 130/80 as being normal and healthy. Also, when he examines the details of the report, he finds that while his total cholesterol is high, it's mostly the HDL (good) and is less due to the LDL (bad) cholesterol. Again, his number is correct, but the interpretation is a bit misleading. He finds something similar to be true of his other health indicators in the doctor's report.

So now what are we to do?

Perhaps instead of assuming that his condition is a crisis that requires him to immediately quit his job and check into a clinic, he might consider: 1) changes to his diet with less salty, fatty or high carb content and more vegetables and fruit 2) daily walks along with other moderate exercise a few days a week 3) reducing the amount of stress at work and in his personal life 4) other lifestyle changes that are generally considered to have a positive effect on health

*******************

To bring this back to the realm of global warming, I contend that, just like this fictional doctor's report, the IPCC reports are qualitatively correct while being quantitatively inaccurate by a measured amount.

The IPCC reports are inherently "policy" papers for world leaders (that is their stated purpose) and are being used as a justification by some of these leaders for treating global warming as a world crisis that demands the immediate replacement of fossil fuels with inadequate, alternative energy sources and the transfer of truly enormous amounts of capital to those who've charged themselves with implementing this change.

I would suggest that perhaps a more considered - and less hasty - approach to the problem of global warming is a wiser path. Fossil fuels can be gradually phased out over time as alternative energy sources become technologically feasible and economically practical. Innovative, common sense ideas about conservation and ecological preservation can be undertaken in a measured way, on a voluntary basis by individual nations, without the intervention of an international environmental enforcement organization.

 

[seventhson]

is[/I] their stated purpose) and are being used as a justification by some of these leaders for treating global warming as a world crisis that demands the immediate replacement of fossil fuels with inadequate, alternative energy sources and the transfer of truly enormous amounts of capital to those who've charged themselves with implementing this change.

In Saudia Arabia, oil companies are taxed at 90% of their profits. And they still drill and pump because 10% still makes them gazillionaires. Here in the U.S., the taxpayers give the oil companies tax subsidies.

So you're right, there would be an enormous transfer of capital. From an industry that has, for decades, fleeced the citizens of the U.S...to a new generation of entrepreneurs yet to unfold.

It's not clear to me how the scientists or nations advocating curbing carbon emissions from fossil fuels would profit from this unless they were also shareholders of these new alternative energy companies.

I've heard the talking point about how these scientists live a cush lifestyle from doing GW research. But even if that were true, it's not the same kind of cash that the oil industry trades in. It's laughable that the "follow the money" maxim is used by AGW crew to indict the integrity of scientists doing the research vs. the clear profit motive of those in the oil industry. And the numerous times AGW "scientists" have been exposed as paid shills for them.

And your analogy conveniently sets up the "extreme" doctor to play the role of the GW side. Really?

 

[NWB]

Just so I have this straight - are you saying that science has proven conclusively that man is 100% responsible, and that "the debate is over" (Gore)?

If so - then what should we do? If expensive green energy is only responsible for 2% of the nations power; it's blatantly obvious that we can't stop using cost effective fossil fuels. We as a nation just aren't going to return to the stone age, and even if we did - what about all the rest of the planet's nations that will never comply? The fact is we use fossil fuels because they are the cheapest source for power (at this time).

I've heard one chief scientist from the IPCC say that (to paraphrase) " that if we shut down the entire planet's fossil fuel usage - after even 100 years the temperature difference will be negligable"

So as a planet - what are we do do?

Excuse my lengthy reply here as I'll try to address this as much as I can.

Starting with some basic concepts - mankind has been extracting carbon-based fuels in the form of coal, gas, and oil for approximately 150 years. You can imagine that great quantities of these fuels have been dug up, pumped, and burned over this time period. I think that we can accept the fact that the burning of these fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide into the Earth's atmosphere.

Research into past climates has demonstrated a link between high atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and warmer climate periods. More carbon means a hotter Earth. It's a fact that you can directly measure carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. The measurements have shown steadily increasing concentrations. The preponderance of evidence indicates that our burning of fossil fuels is the source of the increased carbon dioxide. We've effectively transferred stored energy in the form of fossil fuels from the Earth's subsurface to the atmosphere.

The big problem, as you noted, is that fossil fuels form the bedrock of energy for modern industrial civilization and economies. There is no other source of energy that is so concentrated as the fossil fuels that we use. Even most alternative energy sources require fossil fuel inputs.

What should we do you ask? Ideally, we'd all limit our use of fossil fuels to the minimum extent that we can.

You hit on an important note though - each nation doesn't want to give up the economic advantage that it has by limiting its energy use.

In my opinion, we won't voluntarily limit our energy use on a planet-wide scale and the climate will get much hotter with increasing weather-related disasters ranging from extreme wildfires to large hurricanes and droughts. I think it will reach a point where rising sea levels and weather-related disasters will take a significant toll on industrial economies to the point that they can't function any longer. At that stage, a much reduced human population may live in somewhat stone-age conditions.

 

[Tony Flow MMMM]

99% of people know 100% of nothing

 

[Solarmist]

Thanks hbarcat & NWB. As I thought - we should do what we can - as we can without destroying fragile economies.