huskerXman

Why is this relevant?

 

If you call federal funds "pork barrel," does it cease to be currency? I don't get the semantics argument here.

 

(Really...not being snarky or critical or anything. I just don't understand the relevance.)

It isn't, it is nothing but a gotcha game and another reason this country is going to hell. This semantics game is more important than real REAL issues

Well, after seeing this cute little graphic.. everything against man-made global warming must be all lies. Thanks man you graphic changes everything.

The headline smacks of it. And the info is being presented at a conference sponsored by a conservative think-tank with an outspoken agenda. So all that summed together, is what's causing me to discredit it. I discredited the actual information presented (and not the author's op-end conclusions) a lot less before I read up on the conference.

 

I don't know if I've gone in-depth in this thread. I think the consensus regarding anthropomorphic climate change is pretty strong around the world. I think the mass media likes going nuts over little and they are spreading a lot of misconceptions (but what else is new!). I think the answers to the question 'How bad is it?' are not really nailed down because there's a lot of ongoing research. I don't think there is any serious worry in the scientific community about any looming catastrophe. That's just public misconception.

 

However, I think it's entirely wrong and off the mark to take public misconceptions like that and use it to discredit the efforts of the scientific community. Which are always going off in a variety of sometimes disjointed, sometimes competing directions.

 

I did some superficial research on this as a project a few years ago, nothing that would really give me a definitive say-so (other than perhaps a clearer understanding of where the community stands)...but to summarize, what I looked at was glacial melting. And again, this is at a very superficial level. One of the, I guess I'd say aspects of that is there is a sort of time delay, particularly on the massive ice sheets, in their response to climate. In other words, the largest ice sheets' mass balance delta is responding to external factors from maybe thousands, maybe tens of thousands of years ago. Although I think there is data done on smaller segments within those sheets that prove useful (I forget the exact details, hehe...)

 

...and one of the more significant areas of focus, I think, are the smaller ice sheets, where the response times are far more recent and therefore the conclusions drawn, far more meaningful. I'll use the Himalayans as an example. So there's important data there, and for a human connection, one of the more interesting papers I read was regarding soot deposits on one of these smaller glaciers and the effect it was having. There was another study done on a more immediate, local (not global) impact regarding increased water levels in streams and rivers and how they were having a deleterious effect on the local ecology (and human community).

 

...There was also one paper I read that seemed a little careless with regard to conclusions and assumptions made, so I didn't think that was a very good study and threw it out for my paper. Not all science is good.

 

...And another little tidbit since that's all I remember now, bits and pieces...some of the early data collected on, I believe, the Greenland ice sheet, had some really wild and nutty error constraints (+/- percentages that amounted to more than the number itself). So yeah, there are much better modern data-collecting methods now, and I was reading up on some of them, but of course now I don't remember what they're called, dangit.

 

Where I stand on policy, I don't know. I don't really feel quite informed enough to get into that area. If I did this for a living perhaps I could sit on an advisory committee to make recommmendations for what laws or policies or research directions are good, but yeah, that isn't really my interest.

 

Overall, I'd say there's a lot of quite interesting work done in the area, and it's a shame the whole topic has been hijacked into a policy debate largely. I think assumptions are dangerous (such as that one paper I talked about) but the overall consensus is strong, but keep in mind that the conclusions are "No strong conclusions." Largely, a lot of credible work done in the field and yeah, it's pretty cool stuff if you ever want to get into it. Hope that answers your questions.

 

 

Good post...

 

I have this question for you.

 

In your first paragraph, you stated that you discredit this information because it is being put out by a conservative think tank. While I agree that you always need to be skeptical of these issues, do you think the liberal side only gives out factual information?

 

I ask this because I have been involved in several industries in my lifetime that have come under attack by environmental groups. Each time, there is information given to the public by the groups attacking us that is absolutely fabricated BS.

 

From my personal experience, I tend to be extremely skeptical of "scientific" information that is given out by environmental groups. No different than the way you are skeptical of conservative think tanks.

Funding goes both ways that is for sure, BUT, from what I have seen it is grossly in favor of research that shows man-made global warming. Meaning, big money is given to those groups that spout man-made..

http://news.yahoo.co...-020759644.html

What do you think?

They claim it will run 200 miles per charge. I drive roughly 150 miles a day and this would be something i could really see myself buying.. as long as it has some type of heating for winter.

When it is slick I can work from home so it would only be a cold issue for me.

The headline smacks of it. And the info is being presented at a conference sponsored by a conservative think-tank with an outspoken agenda. So all that summed together, is what's causing me to discredit it. I discredited the actual information presented (and not the author's op-end conclusions) a lot less before I read up on the conference.

 

I don't know if I've gone in-depth in this thread. I think the consensus regarding anthropomorphic climate change is pretty strong around the world. I think the mass media likes going nuts over little and they are spreading a lot of misconceptions (but what else is new!). I think the answers to the question 'How bad is it?' are not really nailed down because there's a lot of ongoing research. I don't think there is any serious worry in the scientific community about any looming catastrophe. That's just public misconception.

 

However, I think it's entirely wrong and off the mark to take public misconceptions like that and use it to discredit the efforts of the scientific community. Which are always going off in a variety of sometimes disjointed, sometimes competing directions.

 

I did some superficial research on this as a project a few years ago, nothing that would really give me a definitive say-so (other than perhaps a clearer understanding of where the community stands)...but to summarize, what I looked at was glacial melting. And again, this is at a very superficial level. One of the, I guess I'd say aspects of that is there is a sort of time delay, particularly on the massive ice sheets, in their response to climate. In other words, the largest ice sheets' mass balance delta is responding to external factors from maybe thousands, maybe tens of thousands of years ago. Although I think there is data done on smaller segments within those sheets that prove useful (I forget the exact details, hehe...)

 

...and one of the more significant areas of focus, I think, are the smaller ice sheets, where the response times are far more recent and therefore the conclusions drawn, far more meaningful. I'll use the Himalayans as an example. So there's important data there, and for a human connection, one of the more interesting papers I read was regarding soot deposits on one of these smaller glaciers and the effect it was having. There was another study done on a more immediate, local (not global) impact regarding increased water levels in streams and rivers and how they were having a deleterious effect on the local ecology (and human community).

 

...There was also one paper I read that seemed a little careless with regard to conclusions and assumptions made, so I didn't think that was a very good study and threw it out for my paper. Not all science is good.

 

...And another little tidbit since that's all I remember now, bits and pieces...some of the early data collected on, I believe, the Greenland ice sheet, had some really wild and nutty error constraints (+/- percentages that amounted to more than the number itself). So yeah, there are much better modern data-collecting methods now, and I was reading up on some of them, but of course now I don't remember what they're called, dangit.

 

Where I stand on policy, I don't know. I don't really feel quite informed enough to get into that area. If I did this for a living perhaps I could sit on an advisory committee to make recommmendations for what laws or policies or research directions are good, but yeah, that isn't really my interest.

 

Overall, I'd say there's a lot of quite interesting work done in the area, and it's a shame the whole topic has been hijacked into a policy debate largely. I think assumptions are dangerous (such as that one paper I talked about) but the overall consensus is strong, but keep in mind that the conclusions are "No strong conclusions." Largely, a lot of credible work done in the field and yeah, it's pretty cool stuff if you ever want to get into it. Hope that answers your questions.

Very nice.. let me ask one thing. Don't you think the bold lends validity to the skeptics of the man-made portion of this debate?

nm.. for now

Well, maybe politically is an unfair statement. He's biased and it's plainly evident from the headline. We have been talking about how there's scientific debate over plenty of things within climate research - challenges to current models, ideas, data, so on and so on and so on. This is part of the ever-ongoing process of science and it's the process by which new and better knowledge is acquired about any number of topics.

 

It's great.

 

What's pretty inane is taking this and saying, "HA! Global warming is all lies. My side is right in that debate."

 

He's free to criticize alarmists, who have always been deserving of the criticism...but then he goes on and makes positive conclusions of his own, in that headline, as if to say it's now a settled matter in the opposite direction.

 

I think the best scientists in the world could tell you that the alarmists are taking something and just running with it way beyond where they should. Plenty of people can have very different, reasonable opinions about what sort of policy initiatives should be undertaken in this regard. But too many times you see science abused as a prop, such as in this article, and ongoing research and debates settled by opinion writers.

 

And, by the way, here's a little "simple research" on the sponsors of the Climate Change Conference the article is about:

 

I don't think he even hinted at "it's now a settled matter". To me, it looks like info is being presented that shows the opposite of global warming, thus showing there are serious question about the validity of man made.. WHICH calls into question all the regulations and extra taxes based on something that still is far from being fact.

You might have already said this but what is your take? Do you think it is real? Need more info? and I am talking about man-made global warming, not warming or cooling by itself

.

Also, are you automatically discrediting the info presented because you believe this person is biased?

More conflating alarmism with science.

 

Science I don't think has ever said "This is catastrophic." It's always been moderate, measured study and I'm sure you will find examples to contradict that.

 

This headline from the Op Ed column takes all this guy is touting as far as dispassionate analysis goes and throws it out the window:

 

Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling

 

He's just another politically motivated opinion-writer covering science and spinning it to whatever storyline suits him. It's reactionary to what you might say are the liberal-media alarmists who spin it in the opposite direction.

You claim this person is politically motivated.. How so? I'm not saying it isn't true, just want to know why you think so

http://www.forbes.co...rth-is-cooling/

What you will see are calm, dispassionate presentations by serious, pedigreed scientists discussing and explaining reams of data. In sharp contrast to these climate realists, the climate alarmists have long admitted that they cannot defend their theory that humans are causing catastrophic global warming in public debate. With the conference presentations online, let’s see if the alarmists really do have any response.

 

The Heartland Institute has effectively become the international headquarters of the climate realists, an analog to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It has achieved that status through these international climate conferences, and the publication of its Climate Change Reconsidered volumes, produced in conjunction with the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

 

Those Climate Change Reconsidered volumes are an equivalently thorough scientific rebuttal to the irregular Assessment Reports of the UN’s IPCC. You can ask any advocate of human caused catastrophic global warming what their response is to Climate Change Reconsidered. If they have none, they are not qualified to discuss the issue intelligently.

 

Check out the 20^th century temperature record, and you will find that its up and down pattern does not follow the industrial revolution’s upward march of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), which is the supposed central culprit for man caused global warming (and has been much, much higher in the past). It follows instead the up and down pattern of naturally caused climate cycles.

For example, temperatures dropped steadily from the late 1940s to the late 1970s. The popular press was even talking about a coming ice age. Ice ages have cyclically occurred roughly every 10,000 years, with a new one actually due around now.

 

In the late 1970s, the natural cycles turned warm and temperatures rose until the late 1990s, a trend that political and economic interests have tried to milk mercilessly to their advantage. The incorruptible satellite measured global atmospheric temperatures show less warming during this period than the heavily manipulated land surface temperatures.Central to these natural cycles is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). Every 25 to 30 years the oceans undergo a natural cycle where the colder water below churns to replace the warmer water at the surface, and that affects global temperatures by the fractions of a degree we have seen. The PDO was cold from the late 1940s to the late 1970s, and it was warm from the late 1970s to the late 1990s, similar to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO)

 

In 2000, the UN’s IPCC predicted that global temperatures would rise by 1 degree Celsius by 2010. Was that based on climate science, or political science to scare the public into accepting costly anti-industrial regulations and taxes?

had to include that first line for nebula.

Politics comes into play because Big Business lobbies the American government to prevent curbs on their pollutants. It's not political, it's about money.

 

and when the government pays big money to further and agenda.

 

You said you knew all the ins and outs of this subject, surely you know the amount of funding FOR global warming is incredibly.

 

What agenda does "the government" have? And when you answer that, let's bear in mind that the US agency tasked with monitoring climate change has been around for more than 20 years, through four presidents. And it was founded under a Republican administration.

 

So.... what's this agenda of which you speak so eloquently?

I don't know, I can only guess it is more control.. At no time in history has the government had more control of the people than they do today.. A number of regulations have been put in place, from global warming, that furthers the power grab.

I 100% believe the planet warms and cools.. not a doubt in my mind.

 

EDIT: let me add that you couldn't be more wrong about the bold.. I had a link where scientist for global warming had a few choice words for those that don't believe but I can't find it now.

That's not science, it's rhetoric. A true scientist isn't "for" anything other than proving or disproving hypothesis through fact and data. Sometimes discovering you were wrong can be just as exciting an event for a scientist than discovering you were correct. Whatever link you had won't do either of us any good. I don't want to listen to Al Gore and his emotionally and politically driven mouthpieces nor Republican skewed political/campaign donation influenced rhetoric.

 

I just want research and open minded discourse. Is that so much to ask for #$@%#$@^%$$%^#$$%& sake?

 

(Don't answer the last question. Rhetorical. I already know the answer. And I'm not talking about you. I think you may have jumped the gun in making up your mind, but what the hell. I saw a lot worse flipping through the mug shots on the online Chicago Trib yesterday. Damn.)

I hear ya, BUT, the very scientist that claim man-made global warming is fact are the ones behind the rhetoric. Go figure..

EDIT: I know you say you don't know for sure one way or the other, but it sure seems like you have already made up your mind as well.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=38d98c0a-802a-23ad-48ac-d9f7facb61a7

Global Warming 'A Big Cash Grab'

Meteorologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer, formerly a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center and currently principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, called the Newsweek article part of a “coordinated assault” on skeptics.

“[Newsweek] alleges that a few scientists were offered $10,000 (!) by Big Oil to research and publish evidence against the theory of manmade global warming. Of course, the vast majority of mainstream climate researchers receive between $100,000 to $200,000 from the federal government to do the same, but in support of manmade global warming,” Spencer wrote in an August 15, 2007 blog post. (LINK)

Politics comes into play because Big Business lobbies the American government to prevent curbs on their pollutants. It's not political, it's about money.

and when the government pays big money to further and agenda.

You said you knew all the ins and outs of this subject, surely you know the amount of funding FOR global warming is incredibly.

http://www.politikdi...cane-irene.html

 

See, you're conflating again. The silly media that likes nothing more than to run around waving their arms and screaming, 'OMG!', they aren't scientists, and these efforts aren't taken seriously by scientists. Alarmist claims have always been just that, alarmist.

 

It is pretty foolhardy to attempt to use that to discredit what no scientific body in the world disputes.

Global warming controversy

 

The global warming controversy refers to a variety of disputes, significantly more pronounced in the popular media than in the scientific literature,^[157][158]regarding the nature, causes, and consequences of global warming. The disputed issues include the causes of increased global average air temperature, especially since the mid-20th century, whether this warming trend is unprecedented or within normal climatic variations, whether humankind has contributed significantly to it, and whether the increase is wholly or partially an artifact of poor measurements. Additional disputes concern estimates of climate sensitivity, predictions of additional warming, and what the consequences of global warming will be.

 

In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view,^[159][160] though a few organisations hold non-committal positions.

 

From 1990–1997 in the United States, conservative think tanks mobilized to undermine the legitimacy of global warming as a social problem. They challenged the scientific evidence; argued that global warming will have benefits; and asserted that proposed solutions would do more harm than good.^[161]

 

 

But I'm sure those political think tanks are on the right track.

you are not going to give us a link to the site you grabbed you quite from?

http://www.politikdi...cane-irene.html

 

See, you're conflating again. The silly media that likes nothing more than to run around waving their arms and screaming, 'OMG!', they aren't scientists, and these efforts aren't taken seriously by scientists. Alarmist claims have always been just that, alarmist.

 

It is pretty foolhardy to attempt to use that to discredit what no scientific body in the world disputes.

Global warming controversy

 

The global warming controversy refers to a variety of disputes, significantly more pronounced in the popular media than in the scientific literature,^[157][158]regarding the nature, causes, and consequences of global warming. The disputed issues include the causes of increased global average air temperature, especially since the mid-20th century, whether this warming trend is unprecedented or within normal climatic variations, whether humankind has contributed significantly to it, and whether the increase is wholly or partially an artifact of poor measurements. Additional disputes concern estimates of climate sensitivity, predictions of additional warming, and what the consequences of global warming will be.

 

In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view,^[159][160] though a few organisations hold non-committal positions.

 

From 1990–1997 in the United States, conservative think tanks mobilized to undermine the legitimacy of global warming as a social problem. They challenged the scientific evidence; argued that global warming will have benefits; and asserted that proposed solutions would do more harm than good.^[161]

 

 

But I'm sure those political think tanks are on the right track.

you missed the point of posting that video.

That video is all part of the global crap being pushed down peoples throat.. The rest of that site can be ignored because I didn't pay attention to the rest. The video is what I was interested in.

If I am not mistaken, I remember people worried about a mini ice age when I was a kid, now its global warming, next it will be the poles are going to switch. It is all about research $ and humans predisposition to thinking they know how everything works and how that is creating X that is happening right now.

yep, that was the big "scare" back then.

I will ask again.. when has this ever been an academic issue?

 

So what belief are you using? The one were scientist say man is part of the problem, or the one were scientist says it is more natural event? By the way, were do you think the funding comes from?

It has always been an academic issue for people looking for potential answers based on evidence, not people who want to tell you immediately what the right answer is. The latter, which unless I'm mistaken seems to be where your position germinated, is a political one. Politics has devolved into a realm where zero concessions are made, and all discussions are debated with absolute statements.

 

Science, which is not another word for academia but here I think it applies, is ruled by the scientific method. You have to prove your theories with black and white evidence. So, by nature, scientists aren't typically engaged in preening, screaming matches. They're in muted conversation, comparing data they've compiled, looking for the strongest possible rational statement that can be made based on accumulative research. I very much prefer that strategy.

 

(Ben Franklin, fwiw, was a brilliant man who was entirely self taught. His entire life he constantly tried to identify his weaknesses, and improve in those areas. He specifically eschewed speaking in absolute tones. American politics today would almost certainly disgust him. Maybe not Adams, though )

I 100% believe the planet warms and cools.. not a doubt in my mind.

EDIT: let me add that you couldn't be more wrong about the bold.. I had a link where scientist for global warming had a few choice words for those that don't believe but I can't find it now.

Only if you read conservative tabloids. But come on, you're welcome to elaborate.

http://www.politikdi...cane-irene.html

listen and watch the video...

So... what predated the IPCC? Your contention is that, for no particular reason whatsoever, the UN decided to create a body to study the climate back in 1988? You don't think climate data gathered decades before the IPCC ever existed had anything at all to do with its foundation?

 

Do some basic research on this stuff. It's pretty simple.

No kidding, you should try that.

I am saying the current state of global warming hysteria is driven by politics

So what belief are you using? The one were scientist say man is part of the problem, or the one were scientist says it is more natural event? By the way, were do you think the funding comes from?

 

None, because scientific questions aren't answered by belief, but by evidence. And consensus. You don't use belief to answer these questions, that is so mind-bogglingly wrong I can't begin to fathom how you justify that.

 

Where does the funding come from? I'm guessing big oil

 

Don't conflate the alarmist media portrayal of the issue with the scientific consensus, by the way. My understanding is that anthropomorphic globally warming is a widely accepted phenomenon, but its extent, consequences, and so forth, are both widely misunderstood and subjects of continued study.

 

"How it should affect policy" is a political question, but the topic itself is a scientific one.

Big oil? seriously?

Do a little research and see what side has the most funding.. You might be shocked.

My question to you is when has this ever been an academic issue?

So lemme get this straight. Your implying that congress or the president or... someone... from the government started this whole climate change kerfluffle?

Yes, that is what I am saying (sort of).. What study do you think started this whole thing? IPCC..

This issue is so friggen political that it shouldn't even be considered a scientific study anymore.

BINGO, we have a winner!!!! It was from the beginning

Why is it not one? If you're using your political beliefs to answer a scientific question, you're doing it wrong.

I will ask again.. when has this ever been an academic issue?

So what belief are you using? The one were scientist say man is part of the problem, or the one were scientist says it is more natural event? By the way, were do you think the funding comes from?

Well, there's your problem then.

 

"What are the extents and consequences, if any, of anthropomorphic climate change" is a purely academic question.

My question to you is when has this ever been an academic issue?

When the government started applying regulations based on this "academic" issue, they made it political. The whole study of global warming was nothing more than political.

Because alarmist media articles don't care about science. They just like jumping up and down and screaming, 'OMG!'

 

Remember that this is an academic issue, not a political one. Ask yourself, "Do I have a dog in this fight? Do I want to believe a certain angle as a part of my 'views'?" If so, you're doing it wrong.

 

I wonder if this is not a uniquely American trend.

Since when has this ever been just an academic issue? It has never been an academic issue, it has always been political.