Printable View
"There is plenty of evidence showing that man made pollutants are affecting the environment in a global way.:)"
<!-- / message -->Are you saying that you don't think the environment is being polluted? Surely you've heard of such things as acid rain, mercury poisoning, chemical spills, toxic waste dumps, etc?Quote:
Originally Posted by ControlFreak1
there are just as many groups that dispute your so called evidence, which by the way is only "theory" "computer models" conjecture at best. show me the hard proof and cold hard facts without all the political trash behind it and money hungry groups with hopes and dreams of billions of dollars coming into their coffers.Quote:
Originally Posted by razorgal
Oh ya, a lot of them agree, if they don't cook up some 'evidence' then bye bye funding, have to go get a real job, where they can't look down their noses at everyone and parade around like high minded elitist pretending that they are smarter than all of us dumb bunnies. Know what I mean jelly bean? :)
Ain't talkin' 'bout obvious pollution. Talkin' 'bout the phoney AGW Hoax. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by sffone
Pundits are not a more reliable source for scientific information than scientists.Quote:
Originally Posted by ControlFreak1
However, I do get what you're saying, and every industry has its bad eggs. That doesn't mean that we can just arbitrarily throw out decades of global research because we don't like what it says.
I heard Michael Savage say this evening that "an expert" refuted global warming... but he failed to mention who this person was. Unfortunately, junk science comes from everywhere. But when you have the gross majority of scientists saying that there is a potentially devastating effect on the environment because of what we are putting into it, I'd say we might just err on the side of caution rather than to side with a bunch of right wing pundits, who are hysterical about Obama's bailout plan, but fail to ever mention that the first one came from Bush - and Congress was under high pressure to put it through, under the threat that they would bring down the nation if it didn't pass.
As I've said before, I hate both political parties. I think partisan politics is the worst thing that ever happened to this country.
If there is even the remotest of possibilities that global warming could have a severe and devastating impact on the planet, we need to stop it. Now.
Don't worry. We're not going to spend more money to save the planet than we have on Bush/Cheney's "Northwood's Project" style war so that they could steal oil from the mideast and from Russia (by way of Afghanistan)...
OK, that's the GW in AGW, which very few people deny. I only wish the AGW people would stop defending the "GW" and thinking that somehow establishes the "A".Quote:
Originally Posted by razorgal
Well, if you read the fine print in the IPCC reports you will find it is riddled with disclaimers about the reliability of the evidence and the validity of the conclusions. The summaries that drive most of the AGW hysteria were written by a very few people and have actually been disclaimed by many of the other scientists involved. The leaked emails include dissenting, or at least waffling, statements. Note also that the most influential item in the report was the "hockey stick" chart which has been removed from follow-on IPCC versions. Unfortunately, that didn't get removed from the minds of the people who are ardent believers in AGW.Quote:
It seems to me that there must be some validation, truth, if over 30 national science academies have come together in agreement and with declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming. :)
Rosie
How much of the above is referencing actual scientists rather than political pundits?Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasBob
A large part of science is verifying your results through reproducible test scenarios. We can't really do that with the global climate, so of course there is going to be a disclaimer. Your weatherman gives you a disclaimer when he says that its going to rain... instead of a 100% chance, he'll tell you there's a 70% chance... because the science isn't precise. We don't know exactly how it works so we can't say anything for sure.
We know that global dimming is a reality. We have evidence of that. We know that contrails from airplanes prevent a portion of the sun's rays from reaching the planet. Could it be that global dimming plays a part in the cooling of the earth? It does. We know it does. But we do not know to what extent.
Look, let me just ask this one thing...
Is it really going to kill you to use less energy or cleaner burning/renewable fuels? Seriously? Is it really going to be so bad to use something other than petroleum?... I mean, except for the oil industry...
Did anyone roll over and die when we stopped using unleaded fuel?
Seriously. Consider the risk/rewards of each option. Maybe the science is wrong... but maybe its right. Do you really feel comfortable saying "Fuggit.." based solely on the rantings of lobbyists, politicians and the Limbaugh monologues?
I seriously think that most conservatives are so sold out to the side they're cheerleading for that they forgot to think for themselves every once in a while.
No offense, but it seems like some of you guys haven't even considered the possibilities of sets of scientific data that you don't understand. You're ready to put the entirety of the human race on the line based on what you watch on Hannity and Colmes. Please, snap out of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZMKA
Ok, the last three paragraphs here........could I not turn that around and say the same thing about liberals? To me, it's not about a liberal/conservative debate, it's about the science and how it's interpreted.
It's hard to snap out of it when you read things like this: Copenhagen climate summit: Al Gore condemned over Arctic ice melting prediction - Telegraph. This is nothing other than fear mongering. 80% gone in the next six years? I just don't believe it. I didn't need a right wing outlet to find this and no one pointed to it for me, either. I believe I have a right to question what's happening here when I hear utter nonsense from the one person who stands to gain the most financially from what's daily turning out to be potentially one of the greatest hoaxes of all time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZMKA
I told myself to not reply to this but the "science" is very fragile
on this issue of global w*****g. As someone that worked on some of the
largest computer systems in the world we are not using them
for climate modeling anywhere close to the same degree we
use them for tomorrows weather, chemistry, nuclear science ....
The issue with global warming science is best demonstrated by
our inability to predict weather a couple of days in advance or
the path of a hurricane like Katrina.
The ground truth data sets are too small yet they overwhelm
the largest systems we have.
Consider the obvious hint and clue that weather maps STOP on political
boundaries.
I believe that sea level is rising. But who cares what I think.
I do not believe there is a computer model or scientist that
can tell me why and when it will stop or not or why I think
rightly or wrongly on this issue.
This is IMPORTANT stuff.
The cap and trade folks are like a horse at the end of the
day... headed for the barn to eat. They have no clue that
pulling the plow for an extra hour will keep them fed all
winter. Too many see dollar signs, others see political
advantage. Yet others see social justice.... None of them
can see the underfunded but quality research going on.
Like I said IMPORTANT stuff. We and other nations need to
fund multiple agencies including international efforts to
understand what is going on with our planet.
Look one the web for a summary of the international efforts
to detect tsunami. Global weather change like a tsunami
will sweep over us one way or another in the next fifty years
and we have no global weather system to help predict what changes will
happen when and where.
This is not a FOX news .vs. CNN issue. It is MUCH bigger.
As for leaded fuel -- lead is a poison and we were using it badly....
Absolutely. You're absolutely right. Grant funded science has a very real potential to fudge numbers to keep their funding.Quote:
Originally Posted by CableDawg
That sucks. Because no matter what decision we make at this point, we are taking a risk. I just think the risk of moneys is a more reasonable risk than the risk of compromising the planet.
So, now what? We need to know that there are scientists that we can trust, so we need to have a Federally funded group of professional scientists... or something... I don't know what we should do... but we need to have a group of scientists that is not at risk of losing funding who can give us some unbiased answers.
But in the meantime, what do we do? There are very smart people on both sides of this issue. I'm obviously leaning towards the side that says we could be screwed... planetwise. I just don't think its an issue that we can blow off, and a few people here are very passionate about taking it lightly. As a cautious scientist myself, that makes me uncomfortable... especially because we know that there are sources from both sides that have an agenda. Either side of the coin is benefitting someone... science is not immune, but I think we need to be very cautious.