Is global warming real?

[muddyboots]

dp

Last edited by muddyboots on Tue Oct 02, 2007 12:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.

[muddyboots]

If you don't like the wording of my poll, feel free to make your own.

I also don't write news stories, so occasionally I post ones that I think might be of interest to others. I don't claim to be a credible source of information on this topic. This is a discussion forum- you get what you get!

I am not a climatologist on the cutting edge of my field so there is nothing I can prove or disprove regarding the climate. I claim to have done no original work in this field, have you? I gather information from sources both pro and con. I read and make a decision for myself. I found the subject of this article to be somewhat ironic as it suggests that the same people who claim to be environmentally conscious are themselves contributing to the problem. Sorry if my point was not clear enough in this respect.

I happen to believe the earth is warming (at this moment). I also believe there are causes, but human intervention is not primary among them. When I was a teenager though, there was a great fear that we were heading into a new ice age. The same fear mongers that were running around then, or their disciples, are still with us.

Darwin has never been conclusively proven right or wrong. That is why it is the THEORY of evolution. Many scientists agreed at one time that the earth was flat and later that the universe revolved around the earth. Many widely accepted theories of the past have since been disproven. Just because there is overwhelming evidence doesn't make something so. It is the things you don't know that make the difference!

"No one wants to learn from mistakes, but we cannot learn enough from successes to go beyond the state of the art." -- Henry Petroski

I don't mind your wording. Your grasp of the English language is just fine. Your use of the scientific method wouldn't pass you in a college course You left out about 1/4 of your respondants, or forced us to choose an incorrect answer. as for posting my own polls, I am not much of a pollster, thanks. I just know how to write them to get a proper range of answers so that they actually mean something.

No, I have done no original work in the field. I am an anthropologist, thanks. However, in my field I have had to do a large amount of work on climate change and effect. At the moment I am working at China Lake, on South Range. If that isn't a clear and strong picture of what a change in weather patterns will do, I can't think of a better one. And yet there are those today who simply cannot see what is coming.

As for Darwin, he has in fact been proved BOTH right and wrong. On some marks he hit the nail on the head, while on others he missed by a mile (he had a book describing Gregor Mendel's discoveries sitting unread on his shelf when he published. Darwin actually only collated all the other theories which were building over a period of about a hundred years before his time--by scientists who were afraid of the chruch and conservatives.
That he stood up to conservatives and spoke obvious truths changed the world. And of course conservatives immediately took to misreading and misrepresenting what he wrote almost immediately. Monkeys my hairy butt!
It always makes me smile when someone points out that it is only a theory. Yes, of course it is. It will only ever be a theory. Laws rarely apply to living things, because they are by nature, mutagenic. It's like claiming that last years cars weren't as cool as this years cars. Well... last year they were. The Japanese planes were better than American planes, weren't they? It's a bogus claim. A theory is a fact which may be proven wrong (usually unlikely) or modified (more likely) but is not a hypothesis in the sense that it HAS been tested and generally not found wanted. That it is a theory means it has stood up to most testing. That it isn't a law isn't a negative, it's more a statement of logic. See what I mean?

The theory of evolution is not a debatable thing. facets of it are, such as where we evolved from, or where life began. But those are gaps, not evidence it the theory is bunk.
There is way more than enough information for us to use Darwins theories as an actual rough frame for how we look at and describe the natural world. The only people who refuse to do so, choose to for reasons which have nothing to do with logic or science. That is their right, and in fact they may get more out of believeing an alien planted us in Peru 6,600 years ago. But if they never seem to mind going to the doctor, when almost all of medical science as we know it is built on viral evolution.

Why am I blabbing about evolution and naysayers? Because there is a massive amount of information which states that our little ball of dirt is warming up. And yet, for various reasons, there are people out there who refuse to believe it.
There are no solid (proved) theories about why it is happening, but that it is now seems to be scientifically pretty much proven. The real argument now should be WHY it is happening, and of equal importance, what it will cause. But we can't get to those questions because of the same nattering nabobs of negativity who have reasons based on "other realities" who are preventing it.

[bdk]

Your use of the scientific method wouldn't pass you in a college course You left out about 1/4 of your respondants, or forced us to choose an incorrect answer.

I'll have to inform my engineering professor...

This is multiple choice. Pick the best answer and move to the next question!

[Bill Greenwood]

What does it say about WIX folks that if you combine answer 1 and 3 and the result is that 60% don't believe the view that science generally supports?

[muddyboots]

Your use of the scientific method wouldn't pass you in a college course You left out about 1/4 of your respondants, or forced us to choose an incorrect answer.

I'll have to inform my engineering professor...

This is multiple choice. Pick the best answer and move to the next question!

It's always up to us what we take away from our classes, eh? If I am not mistaken, we're ALL required to take statistics, no? Must have been looking out the window wishing you could be flying at that part.
Besides, engineering isn't science. It's mathmatics and a couple of classes to teach you how to design things so that mechanics bang their knuckles and get annoyed at you.

If none of the answers covers the respondant properly, it obviously isn't a valid poll.
Ergo Ipso Whatso.
You could always leave the last qustion a simple "Peanut Butter and Jelly" I happen to believe it is occuring but that it isn't a human fault, and that we likely can only slow it minimally by taking drastic action. Fraid you haven't left me ANY best answer.

It's not a binary question set, is all I am saying. It is more a fractal.
Is global warming happening? Yes no.
If yes, whose fault is it? Ours Gaea's.
If No go away.
If ours can we change it?
If Gaea's can we change it
If not what do we do?
If we can, must we?
At what cost? What is the limit to our sacrifice in order to "save humanity"
Should I wear the green serge or the blue?
What is serge?

The more questions you ask the more the patterns emerge and you begin to get a real sense of what people want. Instead of everybody cussing and the christians demonizing the atheists and the ateists laughing at the christians. By the way I hope you aren't reading too much into my posts. Picture me in LOL mode-I'm mostly just being goofy. It amazes me that a topic like this can tick people off so much. I mean, how the hell do I know? I dig holes in the ground. And I don't know a single climatologist. What I know I read in journals, and see on TV, just like everybody else. All we can really do is hope that the right people make the right decisions. And may the gods help us if Bill's respondant is the final deciderer.

[bdk]

Judge attacks nine errors in Al Gore's 'alarmist' climate change film

A High Court judge ruled Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth was 'alarmist' and 'exaggerated'

Schools must warn of Gore climate film bias

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23416151-details/Judge+attacks+nine+errors+in+Al+Gore's+'alarmist'+climate+change+film/article.do

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1811

[Bill Greenwood]

One thing I never understood is how belief in global warming is divided along political lines. When it first got to be public knowledge that smoking caused lung cancer, did Democrats believe and Republicans doubt this? Or maybe when the Salk vaccine was found for polio, did only Democrats want it for their kids? Is it just that big business, especially polluters like Exxon tend fear regulation and tend to be Republican?

[bdk]

When it first got to be public knowledge that smoking caused lung cancer, did Democrats believe and Republicans doubt this? Or maybe when the Salk vaccine was found for polio, did only Democrats want it for their kids? Is it just that big business, especially polluters like Exxon tend fear regulation and tend to be Republican?

Do they have Republicans and Democrats in the UK where these articles were written and this court decision was made?

"The debate on global warming is over," unless of course you are in the UK I guess????

Political rant:

I didn't know that Exxon was Republican. How many votes do they get?

In general, big business embraces regulation as a way to force smaller competitors out of the market. Why do you think that the airlines and the phone companies were so against deregulation? Both have sufferered since deregulation. Competition has thrived since then and prices have stabilized or dropped. The pharmaceutical and health care industries fear deregulation. Prices would plummet once the market was opened to fair competition. They create fear up the same way the phone industry predicted the collapse of telephone service and the airlines predicted terrible lapses in safety. Instead we have cell phones, Vonage (internet phones), fractional ownership, Very Light Jets, etc. Without deregulation it is unlikely any of these things would have become a reality in the US.

Newsflash: Republicans don't want their kids to be harmed by pollution/wars/pestilence any more than Democrats do.

[muddyboots]

There you go again, taking things out of context.

David Miliband, who was Environment-Secretary when the school packs were announced, said at the time: 'The debate over the science of climate change is well and truly over.'

But during the three-day hearing, the court heard that the critically-acclaimed film contains a number of inaccuracies, exaggerations and statements about global warming for which there is currently insufficient scientific evidence.

What was meant was that when this began the ENVIRONMENTAL SECRETARY of England agreed with the global warming theory. And now some judge has ruled that there isn't enough evidence. Hmmmm. Whioch one carries more weight? The head of environmentl science, or some judge who has a law degree?

Just because you want to stick your head in the sand doesn't mean it is going away. Me, I'm not having kids until we eradicate all conservatives and go back to swinging from trees and eating roots and nuts. Well, all of you but me, anyway.

[T2 Ernie]

What was meant was that when this began the ENVIRONMENTAL SECRETARY of England agreed with the global warming theory. And now some judge has ruled that there isn't enough evidence. Hmmmm. Whioch one carries more weight? The head of environmentl science, or some judge who has a law degree?

Not to take sides & in the interest of balance, the Environmental Secretary of England is a POLITICAL APPOINTEE whereas the Judge is not...

I'll take (relatively) objective lawyer over political appointee any day.

My personal opinion on this is that:

A - The earth is warming up somewhat
B - The environmental record of the earth indicates that it is normal for the earth to heat up & cool down periodically (ice ages, tropical heat, etc.)
C - The extent of man-made pollutants contributing to this cycle is decidedly unknown
D - Like any major issue, it is driven by political agendas, which are often driven by money
E - Most that believe D above, believe only the conservatives who are in bed with big business have a monetary objective
F - The liberal objective is more control through bigger government which comes in the form of taxation = money

Face it, it's always about money. Very few really give a hoot about the environment itself. Remember, a polititician's #1 objective is to get re-elected. If he feels the masses want to feel better with green agendas, that's what he'll do. If he feels the masses want trickle-down economic incentives based on a healthy business base, that's what he'll do.

I think the whole deal is overstated & like Rush Limbaugh's old statement back during the early-mid '90s: "If the president went to his top military guys & said, 'lets take out our enemies by ruining the ozone layer so they'll all get skin cancer & die,' they'd come back pretty quickly when they figured out they couldn't do it."

[bdk]

Me, I'm not having kids until we eradicate all conservatives and go back to swinging from trees and eating roots and nuts. Well, all of you but me, anyway.

Not much of a voting block with your future offspring then, eh?

[muddyboots]

Fraid not. But I DO have plenty of time to build my ark

[Bill Greenwood]

This still doesn't explain why belief in a scientific question is split so much along political lines? And yes, I think you would find that the top execs at Exxon and most other corps are Republican and support mostly Reps. But that is not the question I raised. Scientific fact: seat belts save lives. I don't recall opposition to seat belts being a conservative talk show topic or a Republican cause.

[T2 Ernie]

Scientific fact: seat belts save lives. I don't recall opposition to seat belts being a conservative talk show topic or a Republican cause.

That can EASILY be reduced to a money issue. Insurance lobbies fought for seat belt laws - they're not interested in your well being, they're interested in not paying out the highest claims - the medical claims.

I think you'll find most opponents to mandatory seat belt laws, while not as vocal & vitriolic as the global warming (probably because they were mainly fought pre-internet), are conservatives who would rather not give up a liberty/choice for a nanny-state feel-good law - hard to stand against safety.

Setting aside the emotional argument that seat belts save lives for the moment, what business does the government have in telling me which choices they're going to make for me? In my perfect libertarian world, the gov't would educate me on the pros/cons of seatbelt usage, show me the data that demonstrates why I'm better off using seat belts, then leave me alone & let me make up my own mind.

I'd be foolish to argue seat belts are worthless. I'd be foolish to even try to argue they don't save lives. But that shouldn't be the argument.

What is not foolish is arguing that I'm sacrificing personal freedom on the altar of public safety which is not the gov't's remit.

...an entirely different can of worms than the global warming issue.

I do maintain that nobody has my safety in mind, rather, insurance lobbies have their bottom line in mind.

[muddyboots]

In my perfect libertarian world, the gov't would educate me on the pros/cons of seatbelt usage, show me the data that demonstrates why I'm better off using seat belts, then leave me alone & let me make up my own mind.

You had me up till there. One of the TWO primary reasons why seat belts are important is that they help lock you into your seat, therebye keeping you in front of the stearing wheel. You know, that round thing you trun to avoid running me over? They're not just concerned about you. Your freedoms are limted when your exercising them endangers my life, eh? My own corollary is: you're welkcome to own a handgun. Walk out onto a street sugar and waving one and you can bet I'm going to make sure you never touch one again

We are struggling with a simliar process today--the idea that a corporation has the same rights we do, as human beings. A corporation should be waaaay down on the teir of "things with rights" and instead they are allowed input into civic and governemnt thought, simply becaus ethey have more money than actual human beings do. As a result, they are able to sway our ideas about things like global warming and seatbelts while having nothing at stake in the decision beyond the chance to make some money.