<p>Actually, not all ulcers are caused by H. pylori. Mine is not. It was most likely caused by overuse of Advil, and yes, coffee, alcohol etc are irritants. (which causes a never ending battle with myself over how much i can get away with.)</p>
<p>And, it was accepted until better information came along, not doubted because the known preponderance of facts didn’t fit the desired political goals.</p>
<p>That’s how theory should work.</p>
<p>The entire theory that a high fat diet high in protein and low in carbs will lead to much higher cholesterol. For years it was diet dogma. Now–not so much. </p>
<p>The causes of heart disease were thought to be based on factors like diet and stress. Now the cause may be viral for many if not most people.</p>
<p>And if you think enviros and their friends will not use any excuse to stop growth and development you have not lived through the Spotted Owl and your average Seattle planning meeting. That’s politics too my friend.</p>
<p>“Scientific fact is not dependent on a vote or consensus. Too bad we can’t define the endpoint of the global warming debate and takes bets.”</p>
<p>ah…but you can!!</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266021,00.html[/url]”>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266021,00.html</a></p>
<p>Actually, edad and Barrons, both of you are making the exact opposite point you think you are. In each case the “consensus” you refer to was a “common sense” belief, not one rooted in experimental science - that the earth is static in edad’s plate tectonics example, and diet’s connection to cholesteral in Barrons’. In each case scientific study advanced new knowledge. The new theories were resisted, ridiculed, and fought by the defenders of the status quo. But their scientific force eventually won over the skeptics in their respective fields. Plate tectonics was the global warming of the early 20th century, not the status quo belief that prevailed before, edad. </p>
<p>I know Barrons wants to believe that global warming theory was crafted to advance a political agenda, but that kind of science gets knocked down pretty quickly. That’s the cool thing about science - falsifiable hypotheses get falsified. Global warming theory just keeps getting more and more confirming data, more consistent studies. As I’ve said before, there’s a fortune waiting for the scientist who can disprove the CO2-warming link. It still hasn’t been done.</p>
<p>Link yes–causation??? Most agree that CO2 is higher when temps are higher but proving causation is an entirely different thing. This entire field has not been around long enough for the counter forces to mount their studies. We are still in the old food pyramid stage. It took at least 30 years to overturn that.</p>
<p>Kluge, there is a link between warmer temps and CO2 levels. There is a hypothesis that one caused the other. What there is not, yet, is proof of the hypothesis. You’re kidding yourself if you don’t think there is plenty of political ax-grinding on both sides of this discussion. If there wasn’t so much political hay to be made, in my correct opinion, this would be like the tectonics debates – primarily restricted to scientific journals and symposia until the old guard died of old age and the new guard took over in the mid-60s. You’ve read Thomas Kuhn, right?</p>
<p>Actually, Washdad, the debate in the scientific journals has been won. The only scientific issues left are the exact extent of our impact on climate change, and the consequences of that change. It’s the political old guard which has been leading the PR battle. Barrons - this debate started 30 years ago. There’s been every resource in the world available to come up with a valid countervailing theory to explain observed phenomena which were first denied, and which now are too obvious to ignore. Again, you’re throwing up “common sense” advice dispensed in the past as your standard. “Common sense” isn’t the basis of global warming theory - it’s science - observation, hypothesis, test, attempt to disprove, etc.</p>
<p>Kluge, I fail to understand your distinction between common sense and scientific consensus. Plate tectonics was not a theory which was debated in the political arena. There was almost no mention of this theory in the popular press until very late. This theory was suppressed for decades due to a scientific consensus. I fail to understand how the scientific consensus was related to common sense. I would agree that the proponents of the greenhouse global warming theory faced some tough opposition. If you believe in the truth of the theory, that proves that a scientific consensus can be wrong. Nor is every new theory suppressed by a consensus. Some new ideas fall into the Ah-Ha category and are rapidly accepted. </p>
<p>It seems clear that global warming is occurring and that CO2 has increased as well. The consensus seems to be that there is a 90% probability of a causal relationship. In spite of the consensus, the science for the causal relationship seems very thin. I certainly don’t buy it just because someone says “Ah-Ha” due to different computer simulations with similar predictions. Where is the science that allows us to understand the past rapid and large changes in global temperatures? We do know those changes were not due to human production of CO2. Thirty years ago many thought that man’s activities would result in global cooling, then we thought global warming and now we think rapid global warming. Sorry, none of it has the ring of truth. Let us not confuse the facts supporting global warming with the hypothesis about a greenhouse gas cause.</p>
<p>
Actually, this isn’t true. Outside of a single alarmist and exaggerated article in Newsweek magazine, few really “thought” this. There was a lot of nascent scientific research going on regarding global climate change, with long-term cooling (hundreds or thousands of years in the making) being one of the possibilities being studied, but there was far from a consensus among scientists that we were on the brink of an ice age (although it’s a stock throwaway line of the global warming “skeptics” that this was “believed by scientists”, which has been repeated on this site before.)
There’s an interesting article about this in Wikipedia: <a href=“Global cooling - Wikipedia”>Global cooling - Wikipedia;
<p>I understand global warming theory the same way I understand the mechanics of a nuclear bomb. I understand the theory, have a vague understanding of the engineering issues – but that’s it. If I hadn’t seen pictures of nuclear explosions I wouldn’t be “sure” that they worked. I suspect that most among us are in about the same position regarding anthropogenic climate change - which means that our opinions regarding how 'thin" the evidence is is not really very qualified, and will tend to be based more on what we want to think is true than what the state of the evidence actually is. That’s why I’m not going to argue with you about how “thick” or “thin” the evidence is - I doubt that either of us are qualified to assess that. This is one of those cases where I feel the rational course is to trust the consensus of those who are so qualified. Yes - they might be wrong. But they’re probably not wrong, and those who insist that they are don’t actually have evidence with which to support that assertion.</p>
<p>Here’s the other thing: I’m interested in observing how public opinion is shaped. The tobacco industry’s work is a fascinating case study on how beneficial societal change which threatens strong corporations’ profits can be attacked and delayed. I see a lot of parallels to the current state of the public debate over climate change. Most of the “skeptics” arguments are obvious echoes of the PR strategy laid out in the Luntz memo describing how to manipulate public opinion regarding environmental issues which was leaked in 2003. <a href=“http://www.luntzspeak.com/graphics/LuntzResearch.Memo.pdf[/url]”>http://www.luntzspeak.com/graphics/LuntzResearch.Memo.pdf</a> When a public policy issue has a side which threatens corporate profits, it’s just good business for the affected corporations to try to sway public opinion to the other side. And the means of doing that are manifold. </p>
<p>If you find yourself nodding your head to a policy argument on something you actually don’t know much about, chances are that you are responding to a well researched set of talking points, which may or may not have scientific validity as their basis. If you find yourself chuckling at a glib pop journalistic article which use terms like “alarmists” or “zealots” in describing people who support taking action with regard to global warming you’re responding to carefully researched and crafted linguistic persuasion tools. Human impact on the climate is the product of business activities which earn trillions of dollars - seriously, do you think the fossil fuel corporations have just been sitting on their hands for the past 30 years? Do you think they have done nothing to try to influence your opinion, or that they are amateurs in doing so? We’ve all been the target of a lengthy, sophisticated PR campaign undertaken on many levels which is designed to make us question the validity of malign anthropomorphic climate change, question the wisdom of acting to lessen it, doubt, dither, question. That’s the game plan, and it’s exactly the same game plan the tobacco companies used, quite effectively, to stall meaningful action on smoking-caused cancer for decades. If you find yourself doing what Exxon/Mobil wants you to be doing, you really should take a minute to wonder if you have been subtly manipulated to do so. Because it is in their interest to manipulate you, and they have the resources to do it.</p>
<p>I have no doubt that the energy companies have spent some effort trying to diffuse the global warming arguments. I suspect their efforts were not very successful and probably not even in their self interest. Regardless of any policy changes, we are going to continue to use fossil fuels at a record rate. If we try to implement major shifts to use of alternate technologies and fuels, these costs will be extremely costly. I have no doubt that the energy companies will be their to collect their share of the additional expenses.</p>
<p>I guess we should go by the scientific consensus. We certainly know that scientists are objective and not influenced by politics, availability of research funding, peer approval, or persuasive rehearsed arguments.</p>
<p>
Considering the repeated posts here by various CCers reiterating the arguments against doing anything which might adversely affect their bottom lines, I seriously doubt the accuracy of this statement. Most of us who were being manipulated by the tobacco companies in the 60s and 70s didn’t realized it at the time; most of us would have been offended if someone had tried to convince us that we were. Have I offended you? 
As to your last sarcastic comment, if scientists as a group are such unprincipled hacks-for-hire, how do you explain the failure of the “global cooling” theory to gain traction? it had all that stuff going for it; everything in fact except, in the end, the data.</p>
<p>I explain that error the same way I explain the changes in global warming predictions. Not too long ago that was predicted as a few tenths of a degree per century. I can’t keep up. What is the current prediction, many degrees/decade?</p>
<p>I don’t know the exact data that you are looking for- but I have seen prediction and measures of human population increase & the impact it has had on other species.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/bird.shtml[/url]”>http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/bird.shtml</a>
<a href=“http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070416160715.htm[/url]”>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070416160715.htm</a></p>
<p>I think noting increase in climate change is irrelevant unless you understand what lies behind- and what the impact has been/likely to be.
That isn’t understood fully- but we can see the results.
<a href=“http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/earthandsun/climate_change.html[/url]”>http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/earthandsun/climate_change.html</a></p>
<p>Just out of curiousity, does anyone here know much about, or have any thoughts on, James Lovelock’s “Gaia” Hypothesis in connection with the global warming issue? I recall first reading a little bit about this way back in the 70’s when it was probably looked down upon as too “new age” so I am not certain how seriously his ideas are currently taken in the scientific community although this seems to be accepted as a valid scientific theory. The wikipedia article below provides a decent summary, but basically, Lovelock (who is a British biochemist and environmentalist) believes that the planet Earth is, in effect, one living homeostatic organism that self-regulates itself to maintain the planet’s global temperatures and chemical composition, thereby making the planet suitable for life. </p>
<p>From the wikipedia article:</p>
<p>“In James Lovelock’s latest book, “The Revenge of Gaia”, he argues that the lack of respect humans have had for Gaia, through the damage done to rainforests and the reduction in planetary biodiversity is testing Gaia’s capacity to minimise the effects of the addition of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This eliminates the planet’s homeostatic negative feedback potential and increases the likelihood of positive feedbacks associated with runaway global warming. Similarly the warming of the oceans is extending the oceanic thermocline layer of tropical oceans into the Arctic and Antarctic waters, preventing the rise of oceanic nutrients into the surface waters and eliminating the algal blooms of phytoplankton on which oceanic foodchains depend. As phytoplankton and forests are the main ways in which Gaia draws down greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, taking it out of the atmosphere, the elimination of this environmental buffering will see, according to Lovelock, most of the earth becoming uninhabitable for humans and other life-forms by the middle of next century, with a massive extension of tropical deserts. Given these conditions, Lovelock expects civilization will be hard pressed to survive.”</p>
<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis</a></p>
<p>He presents an inevitably catastrophic picture of our not too distant future as can be seen by an article he wrote in early 2006:</p>
<p>“Our planet has kept itself healthy and fit for life, just like an animal does, for most of the more than three billion years of its existence. It was ill luck that we started polluting at a time when the sun is too hot for comfort. We have given Gaia a fever and soon her condition will worsen to a state like a coma. She has been there before and recovered, but it took more than 100,000 years. We are responsible and will suffer the consequences: as the century progresses, the temperature will rise 8 degrees centigrade in temperate regions and 5 degrees in the tropics.
Much of the tropical land mass will become scrub and desert, and will no longer serve for regulation; this adds to the 40 per cent of the Earth’s surface we have depleted to feed ourselves.
Curiously, aerosol pollution of the northern hemisphere reduces global warming by reflecting sunlight back to space. This “global dimming” is transient and could disappear in a few days like the smoke that it is, leaving us fully exposed to the heat of the global greenhouse. We are in a fool’s climate, accidentally kept cool by smoke, and before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.”</p>
<p><a href=“http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article338830.ece[/url]”>http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article338830.ece</a></p>
<p>I suspect many (Americans in particular) continue to laugh at his “new age doom and gloom”, but I am finding it very difficult to dismiss everything he says…</p>
<p>This is not good. Now you have deforestation mixed in with release of CO2 due to burning fossil fuels. This is going to screw up those climate simulation models.</p>
<p>“Many of “our” songbirds spend four to nine months of the year in the tropical forests of Latin America and the Caribbean. These forests are being cut to the ground at record rates. In Central America, more than 40 percent of the forest canopy has been destroyed in the last 30 years as the population of the region has doubled.”</p>
<p>Populations have doubled there previously without much in the way of deforestation. Destruction of forest canopies in Central American are the specific result of policies pursued by Al Gore that both kicked folks off their lands and out of subsistence farming, and toward cities and toward export-oriented production (i.e. lumber/beef), as well as sending millions of destitute people toward the U.S. border, all in the name of neo-liberalism and so-called “free trade”.</p>
<p>And if you come with me to South India, I’ll take you on a tour of Al Gore prawn farms, which have kicked hundreds of thousands of people off their land, indentured tens of thousands of 10-year-old girls, and polluted what had once been the ricebowl of India for generations to come. </p>
<p>Any takers - pm me (I am perfectly serious.)</p>
<p>hey I don’t even eat prawns- precisely for that reason</p>
<p>( however- I can eat crawdads )</p>
<p>Im also interested in this concept- of course I have it pretty easy living in Seattle- although where I am going to get my mangos I don’t know- ( and cinnamon does that count?)</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1200783,00.html[/url]”>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1200783,00.html</a></p>
<p>guess I better go look at my garden</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yup, and so were outlawing slavery and child labor.</p>
<p>It’s amazing what we can adjust to, when it’s the right thing to do (and ultimately in our own self-interest.)</p>
<p>garland - I completely agree on both your points, the ethical and the practical. </p>
<p>Decreasing energy consumption in general will free up funds that were used for energy. Major corporations are working to reduce their energy costs via a number of technologies because it is good for their bottom line. Decreasing oil consumption in particular will have remarkable effects on our foreign policy and, ultimately, on our military budget.</p>
<p>What energy consumption to you want to give up? Energy used for production of food, medicines, plastics for medical devices, communications infrastructure? Or how about what other people want to do for hobbies and personal interests?</p>
<p>Believe me, we will always have enough money for the military even if it runs out to support the health and welfare of the coming elderly boom.</p>