Thread: More than 31,000 scientists don't buy it!!

Originally Posted by Nickelking

we all know how we stand and I doubt anything will change.

Yes, and this is the problem with all such conversations! When we look at such issues through the "pane" of emotion instead of common sense and objectivity, we are prevented from arriving at the truth of any such issue, and all that we are left with is "where do I stand and where do you stand " as opposed to "what is truth and what is not"!
The groups and politicians who wish to use the global warming debate to further their purpose know how to emotionalize the issue to such an extent that people like you and I can never come to any agreement on the issue! At some point in time, we as humans have lost the ability to set aside our emotions so that we can see more clearly on such issues and come to a meeting of the minds!
I wish to ask one question. Will anyone answer? Who benefits from a populace that cannot see clearly, that is confused and scared at every turn? I'll give you a hint. It is not the people who benefit, it is the...Nope, not telling as I am sure that I am dealing with an intelligent group!

Originally Posted by JMS

Yes, and this is the problem with all such conversations! When we look at such issues through the "pane" of emotion instead of common sense and objectivity, we are prevented from arriving at the truth of any such issue, and all that we are left with is "where do I stand and where do you stand " as opposed to "what is truth and what is not"!
The groups and politicians who wish to use the global warming debate to further their purpose know how to emotionalize the issue to such an extent that people like you and I can never come to any agreement on the issue! At some point in time, we as humans have lost the ability to set aside our emotions so that we can see more clearly on such issues and come to a meeting of the minds!
I wish to ask one question. Will anyone answer? Who benefits from a populace that cannot see clearly, that is confused and scared at every turn? I'll give you a hint. It is not the people who benefit, it is the...Nope, not telling as I am sure that I am dealing with an intelligent group!

What I find the most ironic thing is that you probably have the "greenest footprint" of almost all of us here. I wish I could live doing as little ecological damage as you.

In my personal opinion I feel it's my duty to have as little impact on the planet as possible, from what I've read and my own intuition I think that increasing carbon dioxide levels is bad, even more so for carbon monoxide and ground level O3. as far as my personal non-college degree level studies have gone I think the fact that we've drastically reduced the levels of oxygen production and increased carbon production has an overall bad effect on the ecosystem as a whole, we're slowly forcing the results of our own daisyworld. Which has resulted as I see it in a slow but slowly moreso inevitable global climate change.

From what I've seen the evidence is quite blatant and as it's readily available I don't think discussing it here will be of any use at this point to convince people one way or another. I do agree with you that it's not the blurry eyed confused populace that benefits from that status, it's the administration that manipulates reports, changes facts and tries to politicize an issue that is near a forgone conclusion.

I am sorry, I realize I'm probably being overpassionate, and I do respect you greatly both for your devotion and for your way of life. But, it seems to me that it has come down to this is where I stand and this is where you stand. None of us on either side has come close to leaning towards the other in quite some time. I've yet to see an objective, peer-reviewed study that claims there is no climate change occurring, but I've read many that claim there is. There is by this point no burden of proof of climate change, but one of cause.

I will grant that there is now and may well never be a proof of cause. But considering the stakes isn't it worth it to try and mitigate the damage?

Edit: All I'd meant to do was explain why I felt we were at a this is where each of us stand point and further discussion is pointless. Sorry for going beyond those bounds, but I won't edit the post as this is where I stand on my side. I continue to check information to the contrary, but have yet to find anything to convince me of something other than stated in this post.

PS; I hope that offer for cheese is still open!

I find it difficult to believe that anyone doesn't really believe that we humans have damaged the Earth's ecosystem since the industrial revolution. People may feel more comfortable denying it or in may cases those that argue against the global warming issues stand to profit from further depletion of the Earth's resources.

Originally Posted by icedog

I find it difficult to believe that anyone doesn't really believe that we humans have damaged the Earth's ecosystem since the industrial revolution. People may feel more comfortable denying it or in may cases those that argue against the global warming issues stand to profit from further depletion of the Earth's resources.

Personally I believe we've had a magnificent effect on it, but as that's practically impossible to prove as we have no accurately recorded data beyond a couple of centuries, I'll concede that point on the condition that they agree we should try and maintain a habitable world for ourselves, some just can't accept that latter point though.

edit: And earlier in this thread I mentioned daisyworld, but didn't remember the exact circumstances of the hypothetical. I still stand by the analogy in that we're figuratively waiting for all the white daisies to die before we admit there's a problem.

After carefully and objectively reviewing the evidence, using all my training as an engineer, I have come to the undeniable conclusion that I really don't care.

There have always been places on the planet who have average temperatures that are too high or too low for humans to comfortably live there. If the hospitable zone shifts a few kilometers north or south, so what.

After all, I'm a Texan and we don't believe in the environment.
/obscure simpsons reference

Since were discussing the weather Definition of relative humidity=the sweat off your brother-in law.............Best Regards Gary

Originally Posted by JohnP

Just wanted to throw in, my younger sister is a scientist, in a different field, should be completing her PhD this year. From what I can tell, most of the researchers right now only have bachelors and perhaps masters degrees, and are working for someone who has the PhD. Often, the work is done in conjunction with a college or university.

To me a bachelor's degree it not a qualification for a scientist. It's got to be at least M.Sc. to count. It is not hard to be a 'lab monkey', push few knobs and get a readout. To properly interpret the data and make valid conclusions you need a lot more, hence a minimum of at least M.Sc. to qualify. If you have medical tests done I assume you wouldn't rely on the opinion of the lab technitian, but rather have a M.D. tell you what do they mean. Not that the lab technitian can't tell when it's a black/white, but usually things are rather complex and you want the training and experience of a qualified person.
Or in the case of a DNA sequencing - the data that a B.Sc. can produce by running a million dollar machines is useless. If you are looking to link a particular gene to a condition, the analysis that needs to be performed on the data requires methods that are beyond the aparatus of a B.Sc. and most M.Sc. degree holders. It requires skills that you get a Ph.D. for.

Originally Posted by JohnP

I think there is much politics behind the global warming scare but not as much science. This, however, we've discussed before.

Yes there's a lot of politics and there is some science. The fact is, if you get down to it and dirty your hands, science may look rather ambiguous, especially to the novice, but over time things do get sorted out. However in our society the politics is the deciding factor, hence the push from both sides to sway the public opinion however way they can.

Hey Gugi, more than 9,000 Of the people who signed the petition earned a PHD!

Originally Posted by JMS

Hey Gugi, more than 9,000 Of the people who signed the petition earned a PHD!

So then by the Gugi standard over two thirds of those signing the petition are charlatans.

I guess now would be a good time to point out that I didn't start this thread to start a debate that would not likely resolve itself, but to point out that global warming and its causes are not written in stone as many of us seem to think it is!