<p>He lives in a subduction zone, Where the land is rising. He also lives in an area where more soil is added from Mt. Rainier. </p>
<p>Whether there is global warming or global cooling and what causes the affect can be debated until we actually discover enough facts (if ever) to conclusively say, without a doubt that because X, Y happens. I personally view the problem as risk management. I am going to prepare myself to have a house not in a flood zone, nor in a volcano hazard zone, or tsunami area, or drought prone regions. </p>
<p>Believe what you want, but the geese went north 4 weeks earlier than just a few years ago. And the PNW is enjoying near short sleeve weather.</p>
<p>The problem with stats and observations, is most people don’t know what they mean. I heard reports about how cold it was this year in California and some other places. The funny thing was how the critics phrased it. I.e. This is the coldest California has been in more than 80 years. Ohhhhh; what they don’t tell you is that “more than 80 years” IMPLIES that it has happened before. DOH!!!</p>
<p>I suppose also that geese have NEVER EVER flown north this early EVER in say the last 100 years???</p>
<p>Sorry; but for data to be accurate and relevant, it needs to be sustainable. When someone can say that the average this or average that has been such and such for the last 100 years; BUT the last 7 out of 10 have been marginally different; then we can talk. Everyone freaks about the earth’s temperature rising 0.7 degrees. The problem is; even with ice cores, tree rings, fossils, etc… accurate temperature measurements have only been around for about 100 years. Even with all those fossils and ice cores, the accuracy of the earths temperature 5000-20000 years ago can not be predicted within a 0.7 degree level of accuracy. So the truth is; they don’t know if our temperature has risen 0.7 degrees. Even if it’s risen that much in the last 100 years; that isn’t necessarily significant. It could totally be normal for temperature shifts in 1-4 degrees every few thousand years.</p>
<p>Your oregonian geese left? Ours decided that Seattle is a “chill” place to hang out so they never migrate anywhere. In fact, they became a real nuisance!</p>
<p>according to an old law school saying: if you can’t argue the law, argue the facts; if you can’t argue the facts, argue the law; if you can’t argue the law nor the facts, attack your opponent. </p>
<p>Perhaps that’s what a certain poster learned in his law school education. :)</p>
Sorry, Christcorp, but I consider this form of “argument” to be “tinfoil hat conspiracy” - type of argument and I’ll call it as I see it. I have previously raised the question - in complete sincerity - as to why “skepticism” on this one scientific issue seems to be coming almost exclusively from the political right wing. Why should science be a political issue? But when the anti-science “skeptics” accuse scientists of falsifying the results of their research for political reasons I am offended. All the politicizing of this issue that I see comes not from from the scientists, but from those frustrated than scientists seem to be unable to find evidence to support their opinion.</p>
<p>In my experience as a lawyer the truth actually does win out. In my experience, juries aren’t stupid. But the side which loses - and generally deservedly so - has a tendency to insult the jurors and the legal system as an excuse for their side not prevailing. I find Barron’s “argument” about why so many scientists so inconveniently fail to come to the conclusion he favors to be of the same ilk.</p>
<p>My part of the PNW had the most snow in years and has been very cold most of the winter with a few sun breaks. I hardly consider this high 40’s low 50’s shirtsleeve weather. Now the 78 we had in LV this weekend–that was sweet warmth.</p>
<p>“All the politicizing of this issue that I see comes not from from the scientists, but from those frustrated than scientists seem to be unable to find evidence to support their opinion.”</p>
<p>That, in a nutshell, summarizes your problem. You only “see” what you want to see. Never mind the heavy-handed tactics of the global warming crowd to silence anyone who disagrees. RFK Jr calls them “traitors”. Governors revoke their standing as state climatologists. Other’s calling for Nuremberg style trials of those who dissent. No, you don’t see any of this anti-science activity because it conflicts with your world view.</p>
<p>My opinions on this are not political in nature at all. I do believe that climate changing is happening. I even admit that in the last 100 years the concept that the temperature has risen 0.7 degrees is also plausible. I don’t however buy the argument about temperature change over the last 50,000 years. Science, even the “experts” admit that their theories can not be proven. Even with ice core drillings, tree rings, etc… they don’t know exactly what the temperatures were that far back; let alone within a 0.7 degree margin of error.</p>
<p>Yes, they can determine certain levels of CO2; but that is a natural gas that is all around us naturally. It is in the bogs, permafrost, rain forests, etc… So my opinion is not political. It is based on both sides of the argument and my own research. Could I be wrong? Most certainly. I am willing to admit that. But I see the climate change as a natural transition. Just as we are having a polar shift which is also natural. I just don’t happen to believe that climate change is most significantly happening because of mankind.</p>
<p>And of course, we can play the “Better safe than sorry” card. Maybe; depending on how you look at it. Some will say that we should clean up our impact at all costs. I don’t agree. There is a price on everything. Even when someone says doing such and such will save live and a life is priceless. Sorry, but a human life is not priceless. There is a price and a balance that has to be found. I’ve already mentioned that there’s plenty of reasons to explore other alternative forms of energy instead of fossil fuel. If we did that, as a side bi-product, we would lower the human contribution. Just in case. But to spend and “Waste” all our money and resources on bio-fuels, cleaning, more efficient use of fossil fuels, etc… is a waste of those resources. Band-aids are not the answer when you’ve cut an artery. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, the right answer is not politically correct. People, most of who don’t understand technology, will keep crying about nuclear power. The will complain about birds and wind towers. They will complain about the fish and hydro-electric. My opinions aren’t political, unfortunately many of the global warming / climate change proponents are following a political opinion and agenda.</p>
<p>Personal insults/attacks? Let’s have a brief recap, shall we? </p>
<p>Barron’s posts a thread which he titled “2007-world record DROP in temps” and linked to a website which discusses data which shows that 2007 was the second hottest year in recorded history (after 2005) and I was rude enough to point out that the data in the site he linked to actually contradicted what he had written. </p>
<p>When several posters insisted that there really isn’t a consensus among scientists who had studied the subject I pointed out that of the hundreds of peer reviewed scientific articles on topic, somewhere between 97% and 100% had affirmed, accepted or assumed that the basic global warming theory was essentially correct. Fundingfather linked to a Daily Tech article referencing a “pre-publication” article by an endocrinologist (!) which purported to disprove that - and I had the effrontery to point out that the “pre-publication” article was never published, and what information was known about it indicated that it was bogus. </p>
<p>I was directed to a “conference” of climate contrarians, and was unkind enough to point out that it was hosted by the Heartland Institute, a notorious big business PR front which did (and still does) shill for the tobacco industry and Exxon/Mobil, among others. </p>
<p>When Christcorp crowed that “Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called consensus on man-made global warming” I was rude enough to point out that the alleged “400 prominent scientists” was composed of guys like Joe-Bob the Channel 5 weather guy from Bowling Green, whose “scientific” theory was “God wouldn’t let that happen.” </p>
<p>When Barrons wrote “Don’ start speculating on Arizona beachfront property yet–seas falling–not rising over the longrun.” I took the time to read the article he linked, and after seeing that it actually said that “the projected rate of fall works out at 0.015 centimeters a century – irrelevant when the U.N. Climate Panel estimates that seas will rise by 18-59 cms by 2100 because of global warming stoked by human use of fossil fuels” I (admittedly unkindly) asked Barrons if he ever read the articles he linked to.</p>
<p>So, yeah, I have repeatedly taken posts written by others at face value, and read what they linked to. And when what they wrote turned out to be untrue - objectively, verifiably untrue, I have pointed that out. When the sources of “authority” cited were in fact not legitimate scientists, or, worse yet, proven industry PR fronts, I’ve pointed that out, too. If that’s a personal attack - I guess I’m guilty.</p>
<p>Along the way, I’ve been accused of having a financial interest in climate change (by two different posters in one thread!) Edad said “You won’t budge kluge with any sort of facts or logic.” Scientists who work in climate science have been accused of “changing the data” until it agrees with the theory they have conspired to advance; “deciding to ignore the rapid and large climate changes that have been occurring over the past tens of thousands of years”, “have very little knowledge of the larger weather forces in this world and beyond that impact weather on earth”, and that “the current theories are so popular because they dovetail nicely with the political agenda of many folks, including academics.”</p>
<p>So, yeah. I see the name-calling on this issue coming from the side which accuses hundreds of scientists of being incompetent and dishonest about this area of science for the past thirty years. And when that accusation is couped with a demand to “explain” why the latest pop-science theory trotted out on some website, whether it’s the “water vapor” or “solar fluctuations” or just “it was really cold in my backyard last night” isn’t a real killer, I don’t find a lot to respect. My position hasn’t changed. As I wrote before:
I have yet to see a reasoned response to that explanation of my views.</p>
<p>And no, I have no financial interest in the issue, only the concern of a parent of three young people.</p>
<p>And if they aren’t, I’m sure you can go after the corporations and the political right wing in a big class action lawsuit to correct this “injustice”.</p>
<p>UCBChemEGrad: Huh? Do you think that anything you wrote had anything to do with anything I have posted in this thread? Or did you just pick a right wing soundbite at random?</p>
<p>I’m concerned about my kids as well. Specifically, will they have jobs in a robust economy. Or, will the US and the rest of the industrialized world pursue a course of unilateral economic disarmament attempting to reverse a threat which really doesn’t exist and even if it does will just be shifted to the third world countries who will be more than happy to fill in the void and continue disgorging CO2 (plus all of the other noxious pollutants) into the atmosphere. The net effect of this is no improvements in CO2 emissions, worse regular pollution and fewer jobs in the US. This is definitely NOT a case of “the worst that will happen is that we have a cleaner environment”.</p>
<p>I think my statement - you won’t budge kluge with any sort of facts or logic - is accurate. You have stated your position numerous times: the science is complicated and we must rely on the overwhelming consensus of scientists working in the field (and those scientists who don’t work in the field, but seem compelled to join the consensus). End of discussion.</p>
<p>So, Edad - are you saying that if the overwhelming majority of scientists who have worked in a particular field for decades, and published hundreds of peer reviewed scientific articles agree on a basic theory which explains the data, it is more logical to decide that a handful of contrarians with scant published work are more likely right? When you can’t personally evaluate the science either way? Exactly what are the “facts” or “logic” which you cite in support of your contention? I’m ready to be budged.</p>
<p>Fundingfather, your point is a valid one. I disagree with your conclusion, but (other than the conclusory assertion that the threat “doesn’t exist”) your argument doesn’t rely on assuming that most scientists are either incompetent or dishonest or both, and is capable of reasonable discussion. The question raised a few pages back by (I think) U-U-Dad is also valid: is a warmer world necessarily a worse world? Again, I have an opinion, but a discussion of those concerns isn’t based on science-bashing, it’s a reasonable issue of values and likely behavior of people and nations. My real issue with the “skeptics” is that the contrarian position relies on the sometimes overt, sometimes tacit claim that all those scientists working in global climate studies are either deliberately faking their results, or are simply grossly incompetent. I disagree with that assumption, and find it to be dishonest.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, edad, ad hominem attacks (“Yeah? Well you’re just stubborn!”) are a poor substitute for reasoned arguments.</p>
<p>kluge has provided a convincing argument, namely that for anyone not qualified to actually assess climate change from a scientific perspective (i.e. anyone not a climatologist), the best that can be done is to evaluate the various sides with no pre-existing bias, and with regard to each side’s relative strengths and weaknesses (i.e. there is lots of political pressure on climatologists to conform to the warming consensus; lots of contrarians tend to be oil-industry-financed, etc. etc.).</p>
<p>I fully admit that until a few months ago I was highly skeptical of global warming. The exact argument that kluge is using is what eventually won me over. And, to my knowledge, no person in this thread has yet provided a viable rebuttal to it. barrons tried to post a few articles summarizing findings that he thought would provide an adequate rebuttal to global warming; in each case kluge has rather deftly poked large holes in the article in question, from outright misstatements of the content of the articles, to clear conflicts of interest, climate theories from unqualified scientists, etc. </p>
<p>Each time has has done so, the response has been to routinely make posts obliquely attacking him for debating - not the content of his arguments, because so far there has yet to be a truly robust counterpoint provided - but him. Talking about lawyers, “you won’t budge kluge with any sort of facts or logic”, all that tripe.</p>
<p>So far, the only argument that has not been roundly disproved is that which barrons advanced, namely a conspiracy theory about climate scientists liking global warming because it dovetails with their political leanings. Unfortunately, that kind of argument is generally pretty absurd; even if we consider it likely, barrons has provided absolutely no substantiation of it aside from his own obvious pre-existing bias that assumes those who oppose his point of view are politically motivated, while ignoring the fact that many of those whose views he subscribes to and advances are undeniably financially motivated - including well-known industry lobbyist “science” organizations.</p>
<p>So far, I’m seeing a lot of kluge getting attacked and very little substantive counterpoint to his argument. If that’s all you guys are capable of, I’d suggest taking a look in the mirror before responding with all these ad hominem attacks.</p>
<p>"My real issue with the “skeptics” is that the contrarian position relies on the sometimes overt, sometimes tacit claim that all those scientists working in global climate studies are either deliberately faking their results, or are simply grossly incompetent. "</p>
<p>Which is what you say about any study that refutes one of yours. You accept a study by a history professor but refute a more recent one by a medical doctor and in so doing imply dishonesty or incompetance.</p>
<p>BTW, with respect to your history professor, are you aware that even her study says absolutely nothing about the crux of the issue - whether global warming presents a serious threat to the Earth. Here is what she says about her study:
<p>I am not saying I have some faith in some “contarian position.” I merely stated that your position is clear and no logic or facts will change it. You conclusions are based on the size of the consensus.</p>
<p>Normally, I would agree that a “99%” consensus would leave little room for serious doubt. I don’t believe that is the case the the global warming consensus.</p>
<p>Fundingfather, “serious threat” does not equal “catastrophe”. The “catastrophe” argument is a red herring. And your medical doctor’s alleged study has never been published, which makes it kind of hard to assess. His predecessor - Bennie Peiser - actually identified the 34 articles he claimed disputed the consensus view, only to have it pointed out that the articles he cited either didn’t dispute the consensus or weren’t actually peer-reviewed. The one clearly dissenting view that he found was an opinion piece - not a study - by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. :rolleyes: (Here’s one discussion of Peiser’s 34 articles; there are others floating around the internet, if you’re interested. [Deltoid</a> Peiser’s 34 abstracts](<a href=“http://timlambert.org/2005/05/peiser/]Deltoid”>http://timlambert.org/2005/05/peiser/) )</p>
<p>So, Edad, what do you think is the scale of the consensus of scientists actually currently working in research in global climate studies? 60-40? 51-49? 97-3? Based on numbers of peer reviewed articles, it looks to be about 99-1. Do you have an alternative suggestion?</p>