Environmental Skeptics Are Overwhelmingly Politicized, Study Says [Archive]

Fraggle145

6/12/2008, 02:26 PM

Environmental Skeptics Are Overwhelmingly Politicized, Study Says

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5782

by Ben Block on June 11, 2008

A review of environmental skepticism literature from the past 30 years has found that the vast majority of skeptics, often identified as independent, are directly linked to politically oriented, conservative think tanks.

The study, published in this month's issue of Environmental Politics, analyzed books written between 1972 and 2005 that deny the urgency of environmental protection. The researchers found that more than 92 percent of the skeptical authors were in some way affiliated to conservative think tanks - non-profit research and advocacy organizations that promote core conservative ideals.

While many environmental skeptics are known to work for these think tanks, the study is the first to provide a quantitative analysis of the relationship. The popular media often regard environmental skeptics as independent experts, despite their connection to industry-funded campaigns that seek to de-legitimize sound environmental science reports, especially on climate change, says lead author Peter Jacques, an environmental politics professor at the University of Central Florida.

"A lot of skeptics might say they are independent voices, but it's clear there is an organization behind the skeptical discourse," Jacques said. "If not for conservative think tanks, we wouldn't be having this same discussion; we wouldn't be hung up on whether climate change is real."

The review analyzed 141 books, which the authors consider the largest compilation of the environmental skepticism genre and the majority of all English-language skepticism books. An author was "affiliated" to a think tank if the organization published the book or if the author ever - before or after the book was published - held a position with the organization, wrote for an organization's publications, or delivered lectures sponsored by the organization.

The U.S. conservative movement has lead opposition to international environmental regulation since the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. In the years since, the movement has succeeded in undermining the credibility of many environmental issues, said Riley Dunlap, a sociology professor at Oklahoma State University, who co-authored the study. "From the [political] right, there's no longer a sense of neutral, objective science - only liberal or conservative - and that's an unfortunate trend," Dunlap said.

Many skeptics say that they form their opinion despite their affiliation to think tanks or industry. For instance, Ronald Bailey, a correspondent for the ExxonMobil-funded Reason Foundation and former fellow for the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, recently reversed his stance as a climate change denier. His original skepticism was the result of inconsistent temperature datasets. He was not "passing along misinformation supplied to me during expensive lunches," he wrote in the article Confessions of an Alleged ExxonMobil Whore.

The authors say skeptics like Bailey have every right to voice their opinion. But the statements of a few think tank-supported experts should not be regarded as equal to scientific findings that have been vetted through an intense peer-review process, they say. "We want to allow a cacophony of voices in public policy," Jacques said. "Where we get into problems is where we fail to evaluate the voices; we fail to evaluate the merit of the claim."

Ben Block is a staff writer with the Worldwatch Institute. He can be reached at [email protected].

Just some food for thought, when making up your mind about environmental politics.

mdklatt

6/12/2008, 02:50 PM

A review of environmental skepticism literature from the past 30 years has found that the vast majority of skeptics, often identified as independent, are directly linked to politically oriented, conservative think tanks.

This is only going to bolster their credibility among the flat earthers who think truth is determined by your political affiliation. :rolleyes:

Truthiness: It's the American way.

Sooner Eclipse

6/12/2008, 03:42 PM

This is only going to bolster their credibility among the flat earthers who think truth is determined by your political affiliation. :rolleyes:

Environmentalism: It's the way to Communism.

When the basis of the science has a political agenda as it's goal, the skeptics are by nature going to have the opposite view.

Someone with the inclination would easily be able to produce a study that shows that the majority of those scientists that promote the idea of global warming are also overwhelmingly socialist/marxist in their political leanings.

mdklatt

6/12/2008, 03:46 PM

When the basis of the science has a political agenda as is goal

Yep, all those "activist scientists" trying to take over the world one differential equation at a time. :rolleyes:

RedstickSooner

6/12/2008, 03:50 PM

When the basis of the science has a political agenda as is goal, the skeptics are by nature going to have the opposite view.

Someone with the inclination would easily be able to produce a study that shows that the majority of those scientists that promote the idea of global warming are also overwhelmingly socialist/marxist in their political leanings.

Sound reasoning. People with degrees tend to be liberal. Ergo, we should never listen to 'em. Are you updating the old hippy adage about not trusting anyone over 30? Now we shouldn't trust anyone with more than a GED?

Sooner_Havok

6/12/2008, 03:52 PM

soonerbrat

6/12/2008, 03:53 PM

the vast majority directly linked with conservative think tanks?

LOL

that cracks me up.

Sooner Eclipse

6/12/2008, 03:53 PM

If its not obvious to you that the whole global warming BS is a political power grab then you deserve all the pain, misery, and lowering of economic status that is coming our way because of it.

Carbon credits, cap in trade, bah. Load of ****.

mdklatt

6/12/2008, 03:59 PM

Sound reasoning. People with degrees tend to be liberal.

Even if that's true, you'd have to buy into to a conspiracy theory on a massive scale to think that the piles and piles of peer-review research that support AGW is all just part of a liberal agenda.

How much peer-reviewed research do the skeptics have on their side? Approximately zero. Instead, they have "reports" written mostly by people without any background in earth science, or any science background at all in many cases. It's a mirror image of the tobacco PR campaign in the 90s, in many cases being carried out be the exact same people at the exact same think tanks.

Sooner Eclipse

6/12/2008, 04:00 PM

Sound reasoning. People with degrees tend to be liberal. Ergo, we should never listen to 'em. Are you updating the old hippy adage about not trusting anyone over 30? Now we shouldn't trust anyone with more than a GED?

No, i'm saying that i believe in the old adage that states "figures don't lie, but liars can figure".

The fact remains that there is no scientific proof the manmade global warming exists. There are theories and models, but they PROVE nothing.

Until that proof is offered, I will remain skeptical.

mdklatt

6/12/2008, 04:01 PM

the vast majority directly linked with conservative think tanks?

LOL

that cracks me up.

Why?

Frozen Sooner

6/12/2008, 04:03 PM

Even if that's true, you'd have to buy into to a conspiracy theory on a massive scale to think that the piles and piles of peer-review research that support AGW is all just part of a liberal agenda.

How much peer-reviewed research do the skeptics have on their side? Approximately zero. Instead, they have "reports" written mostly by people without any background in earth science, or any science background at all in many cases. It's a mirror image of the tobacco PR campaign in the 90s, in many cases being carried out be the exact same people at the exact same think tanks.

I think you're misreading what Redstick is saying.

mdklatt

6/12/2008, 04:05 PM

The fact remains that there is no scientific proof the manmade global warming exists. There are theories and models, but they PROVE nothing.

First of all, do you know what a "theory" is? Not in the colloquial sense, but in the scientific sense? Do you know what "scientific proof" is? What do you know about atmospheric physics that allows you to dispute this?

Until that proof is offered, I will remain skeptical.

What proof are you looking for?

yermom

6/12/2008, 04:07 PM

the smoking lobbyists needed something to do...

mdklatt

6/12/2008, 04:08 PM

I think you're misreading what Redstick is saying.

I'm not saying he buys into a conspiracy, I'm just pointing out that the "skeptics" are donning the tinfoil hat when they start bringing up politics.

yermom

6/12/2008, 04:09 PM

the "skeptics" are cashing checks is what they are doing

Harry Beanbag

6/12/2008, 04:11 PM

Why?

Probably because it's as absurd as the AGW worshippers claiming that their view has nothing to do with politics.

mdklatt

6/12/2008, 04:16 PM

the smoking lobbyists needed something to do...

That is exactly right. Fred Singer was a "tobacco expert" for RJ Reynolds in the 90s, and now he's a "climate expert" for ExxonMobil.

mdklatt

6/12/2008, 04:17 PM

AGW worshippers

Who are the "AGW worshippers"? The scientists who have all the data on their side?

badger

6/12/2008, 04:18 PM

Are you saying that liberals are more educated/smarter than conservatives?:eek: :rolleyes: :D

What I've observed:

1- Both conservatives and liberals are poor, rich and everything inbetween.

2- Both conservatives and liberals are highly educated, educated or not very educated.

* With #1 and #2, it is important to note that being any level of income or education will not determine whether you are liberal or conservative (i.e. "You're rich, so you're conservative, but he's poor, so he's liberal."). You will find that the same number of highly educated, high income people are conservative and liberal.

3- Rich liberals want the government to help the poor... so long as it is the middle class funding it. Rich conservatives don't want anyone funding government help to the poor, especially themselves.

4- Educated liberals believe they are intellectually superior to others and are willing to share why they are so smart. Educated conservatives tend to be more modest and as such, are more reluctant to share the knowledge.

5- Well-to-do conservatives donate to charitable causes to establish themselves at the top of the community. Well-to-do liberals ask others to donate to charitable causes on their behalf.

6- Special interest conservatives want businesses to get government assistance during hard economic times. Special interest liberals want businesses to share profits during hard economic times.

7- In times of crisis, liberals will blame government inaction. Conservatives will blame the instigators and those who failed to prepare themselves.

8- When it comes to candidates, liberals will fund both Democrats and Republicans if it is in their future's interest (i.e. promises made to them). Conservatives will fund Republicans, but as far as Democrats go, only if they've done something for them already.

9- Liberals believe they are the moral authority on right and wrong, even if they do not act as they say others should. Conservatives believe tradition and the past dictates what should be right and wrong, because if you don't learn from what's already been done, you're foolish.

10- It is a perfect balance between Conservative and Liberal ideals that has made the United States the prosperous nation it is today and the most difficult times and situations arise when either side has assumed control for too long without balance from the other.

Sooner Eclipse

6/12/2008, 04:19 PM

Probably because it's as absurd as the AGW worshippers claiming that their view has nothing to do with politics.

Exactly, why is it that common sense goes out the window when this subject comes up.

I'm not saying that the study isn't true, it's that the other "side" is as politically motivated as the skeptics.

soonerbrat

6/12/2008, 04:23 PM

Why?

because I think a blanket statement like that is absurd.

yermom

6/12/2008, 04:24 PM

9- Liberals believe they are the moral authority on right and wrong, even if they do not act as they say others should. Conservatives believe tradition and the past dictates what should be right and wrong, because if you don't learn from what's already been done, you're foolish.

um, that's bull****. conservatives are just as bad, if not worse since their constituents are conservative and they have hide more ****.

just think "wide stance"

at least it was a girl that WJC was cheating on his wife with...

Harry Beanbag

6/12/2008, 04:25 PM

just think "wide stance"

Um, I think I'll pass. :)

yermom

6/12/2008, 04:25 PM

because I think a blanket statement like that is absurd.

The researchers found that more than 92 percent of the skeptical authors were in some way affiliated to conservative think tanks

that's not a blanket statement...

Harry Beanbag

6/12/2008, 04:27 PM

Who are the "AGW worshippers"? The scientists who have all the data on their side?

You sound kind of defensive, so I think you know exactly what I'm talking about.

soonerbrat

6/12/2008, 04:36 PM

that's not a blanket statement...

well, they left the feet sticking out, but mostly, yeah it is.

Harry Beanbag

6/12/2008, 04:37 PM

It's like saying 99% of all cops are bad. ;)

mdklatt

6/12/2008, 04:37 PM

You sound kind of defensive, so I think you know exactly what I'm talking about.

I'm just curious why when the subject of weather and climatology comes up, everybody who ever had an earth science class in middle school (if that) thinks they're an expert.

The American Metorological Society? Bah, what would they know about global warming? NATURAL CAUSES!

mdklatt

6/12/2008, 04:39 PM

It's like saying 99% of all cops are bad. ;)

If you're talking about Norman PD I think that number is a little low. The good news is that I saw a news story about how NPD is having trouble finding recruits. That restores my faith in humanity a little bit.

Harry Beanbag

6/12/2008, 04:39 PM

I'm just curious why when the subject of weather and climatology comes up, everybody who ever had an earth science class in middle school (if that) thinks they're an expert.

The American Metorological Society? Bah, what would they know about global warming? NATURAL CAUSES!

It's just the internet dude, not to be taken seriously.

yermom

6/12/2008, 04:40 PM

It's like saying 99% of all cops are bad. ;)

except, i'd imagine there is some compilation of numbers to back it up

badger

6/12/2008, 04:47 PM

um, that's bull****. conservatives are just as bad, if not worse since their constituents are conservative and they have hide more ****.

just think "wide stance"

at least it was a girl that WJC was cheating on his wife with...

I'll provide a defense, your honor.

"Moral authority" liberals include the likes of Michael Moore and Al Franken who like to talk about how awful corporate businesses are, but at the same time, invest in those same businesses in the stock market. Al Franken can justify affirmative action in one sentence of another bestseller book, while sending his son to MIT and other top schools for visits in the next sentence. There is a lot of "do as I say" in action when it comes to these podium thumpers, when all I care to hear from them is "Where's my burrito?!" in a Homer Simpson-like way, lolz. Thus, liberals tend to promote good ideals, but not necessarily live by them.

Conservatives aren't off the hook in my glittering generality of taking traditon and history in the way things should be done. Conservative thinkers tend to believe in the likes of inheritance and entitlement because of their family history and heritage. Sons of dentists will become dentists, sons of business owners will overtake businesses later in life, that sort of thing. In the same realm, the status quo can also be a bad thing, with group think, glass ceilings and good ole boy clubs. Basically, laissez faire.

These were general statements that are not necessarily promoting or bashing either ideology. It's not in reference to Republicans or Democrats. The fact of the matter is that both extremes are well represented and leads to a very good balance.

Sooner_Havok

6/12/2008, 04:50 PM

Plate tectonics, Atomic theory, General relativity. What do these have in common? They are theories. Theories that cannot be 100% confirmed, yet they work to describe there topics very well. Hell, Newton's law of universal gravitation doesn't work as well as general theory of relativity, yet we call it a law.

A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model which contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations

mdklatt

6/12/2008, 04:57 PM

It's just the internet dude, not to be taken seriously.

Well I'm genuinely curious about this. Not just the science, but the reactions of people to the science. AGW skepticism among the public isn't based on science, because they don't understand the science well enough to make an informed judgment either way. There is a lot more certainty in atmospheric physics than there is in medicine. So how many AGW skeptics question their doctor when he writes a prescription? "Do you have any scientific proof that this isn't going to kill me, or is that just a theory?"

Sooner Eclipse

6/12/2008, 05:01 PM

Plate tectonics, Atomic theory, General relativity. What do these have in common? They are theories. Theories that cannot be 100% confirmed, yet they work to describe there topics very well. Hell, Newton's law of universal gravitation doesn't work as well as general theory of relativity, yet we call it a law.

What is the difference between these and GW theory? The diff is that we are not about to make basic changes to our economy and way of life based on them. Nor are we about to **** away Trillions of tax dollars thereby crippling our economy because of these theories. The law of common sense urges caution, yet GW proponents are willing to sell us out based on a theory.

yermom

6/12/2008, 05:04 PM

um, you mean oil money depends on the status quo, even if it means eventually hosing the economy

wouldn't it have been nice to move to alternative fuels before gas was $4 a gallon?

NormanPride

6/12/2008, 05:04 PM

Arguing this with a meteorologist is like arguing illnesses with doctors or legal interpretations with lawyers. We don't know jack about this stuff, and frankly, acting like we do is kind of insulting to those that went through years and years of school dedicated to it.

Sooner_Havok

6/12/2008, 05:05 PM

What is the difference between these and GW theory? The diff is that we are not about to make basic changes to our economy and way of life based on them. Nor are we about to **** away Trillions of tax dollars thereby crippling our economy because of these theories. The law of common sense urges caution, yet GW proponents are willing to sell us out based on a theory.

Without the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, we would have no economy

mdklatt

6/12/2008, 05:10 PM

What is the difference between these and GW theory? The diff is that we are not about to make basic changes to our economy and way of life based on them.

So if the science tells you something you don't want to hear, the science must be wrong? Do you think climate change is going to be good for our economy and way of life?

The law of common sense urges caution

Doesn't the law of common sense urge you to listen to people that know a lot more about something than you do? Doesn't caution urge you take them seriously when they say something really bad is happening?

Harry Beanbag

6/12/2008, 05:13 PM

I'm starting to warm up to the idea of socialism. Only I think if we're gonna do it we should go balls out. Everyone surrenders their entire paycheck to the government. Every penny. Then once a month we all get a check in the mail for say $10,000.

If that's how it worked, I'd be all in. :)

Harry Beanbag

6/12/2008, 05:14 PM

Sooner_Havok

6/12/2008, 05:14 PM

Doesn't the law of common sense urge you to listen to people that know a lot more about something than you do? Doesn't caution urge you take them seriously when they say something really bad is happening?

No. I am telling you, they are selling us up the river. We can take our lumps now and get it over with, or we can wait till the next generation comes along and let them get whacked. Our economy is going to suffer one way or another, it just depends on when we want it to happen. Now, or 20 years from now.

mdklatt

6/12/2008, 05:16 PM

It's the South Oval, you know better than that.

You'd think. :O

Sooner Eclipse

6/12/2008, 05:20 PM

um, you mean oil money depends on the status quo, even if it means eventually hosing the economy

wouldn't it have been nice to move to alternative fuels before gas was $4 a gallon?

No, I mean you can wish in one hand and **** in the other. Guess which one will have a viable alternative to oil in it first.

There is not and will be no mass produced viable alternative to oil for 30-40 years unless gas is well beyond $10-20 a gallon. By that time our economy will be well beyond salvagable. And no, I'm not talking about hybrids. Hybrids and electrics are a stop gap. As far as automobiles go, we need an entirely new propulsion system. One that isn't ultimately using oil/coal to generate the energy. That excludes electricity save for nuclear generated elect. and that seems to be something else the libs absolutely will not allow.

mdklatt

6/12/2008, 05:22 PM

or we can wait till the next generation comes along and let them get whacked

It's the American way!

For the record, I admit that I'm a selfish bastard so I'm all for screwing over future generations. However, it's looking more and more like the **** is going to hit the fan even sooner than predicted, so I'm starting to get a little worried.

Sooner_Havok

6/12/2008, 05:23 PM

That excludes electricity save for nuclear generated elect. and that seems to be something else the libs absolutely will not allow.

...it is reasonable – and realistic – for nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration

:pop:

Sooner_Havok

6/12/2008, 05:25 PM

It's the American way!

For the record, I admit that I'm a selfish bastard so I'm all for screwing over future generations. However, it's looking more and more like the **** is going to hit the fan even sooner than predicted, so I'm starting to get a little worried.

Heh, and people wonder why I smoke. I'm in the generation that is going to have to fix this crap. I don't want those years at the end of my life smoking takes away :D

Harry Beanbag

6/12/2008, 05:28 PM

...it is reasonable – and realistic – for nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration

For automobiles? :confused:

Sooner_Havok

6/12/2008, 05:31 PM

For automobiles? :confused:

Damn straight!
http://www.shorey.net/Auto/American/Ford/Dream%20Cars-58%20Ford%20Nucleon.jpg

mdklatt

6/12/2008, 05:32 PM

There is not and will be no mass produced viable alternative to oil for 30-40 years

We've already been hearing this for 30-40 years, and it has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Tiny, cramped, not-that-windy Europe has more wind power than the US. Germany is the largest solar energy market. Germany! Where the sun shines about 5 days a year! A new wave of electric cars is going to hit the market in a couple of years. Imagine how much farther along we'd be if we had 30 solid years of development already behind us? But nope, all we've had is hot air about we should keep pouring our money down oil wells. We were too dumb to invest in the future 10 years ago when oil was dirt cheap, so I guess we'll just wait until we have absolutely no choice. I'm sure that won't be bad for the economy at all.

Sooner_Havok

6/12/2008, 05:32 PM

I do wonder why he listed Nuclear as the clean energy. What about solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, and hydro?

Sooner Eclipse

6/12/2008, 05:35 PM

So if the science tells you something you don't want to hear, the science must be wrong? Do you think climate change is going to be good for our economy and way of life?

Climate change has been going on long before, and will go on long after this species expires. Why do you insist on freaking out about 1 deg C. ;)

I also hear that these same scientist are telling us that we will be going into a period of average cooler temps over the next 10-15 years, but don't give up believing in GW, cause its real and all. :rolleyes:

Doesn't the law of common sense urge you to listen to people that know a lot more about something than you do? Doesn't caution urge you take them seriously when they say something really bad is happening?

You would have a much better chance of convincing me if AlGore wasn't your spokesman. That idiot makes Bush look like a scholar. He and the others that state that "the debate is over" on GW before most Americans even have the opportunity to research it for themselves, much less judge whether or not they believe what they are being told. AlGore's movie made this a political fight. Before that you might have convinced me.

mdklatt

6/12/2008, 05:35 PM

For automobiles? :confused:

Plug-in electrics.

Now I have a question about these plug-ins that are coming. The idea is that you plug it in overnight to charge it up...but what about people who don't have a garage?

Harry Beanbag

6/12/2008, 05:37 PM

Plug-in electrics.

Now I have a question about these plug-ins that are coming. The idea is that you plug it in overnight to charge it up...but what about people who don't have a garage?

That's easy, the government will build everybody one.

Frozen Sooner

6/12/2008, 05:50 PM

Plug-in electrics.

Now I have a question about these plug-ins that are coming. The idea is that you plug it in overnight to charge it up...but what about people who don't have a garage?

You and your fancy French words.

Here in Amurrica we call it a car-hole.

Sooner Eclipse

6/12/2008, 05:51 PM

We've already been hearing this for 30-40 years, and it has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Tiny, cramped, not-that-windy Europe has more wind power than the US. Germany is the largest solar energy market. Germany! Where the sun shines about 5 days a year! A new wave of electric cars is going to hit the market in a couple of years. Imagine how much farther along we'd be if we had 30 solid years of development already behind us? But nope, all we've had is hot air about we should keep pouring our money down oil wells. We were too dumb to invest in the future 10 years ago when oil was dirt cheap, so I guess we'll just wait until we have absolutely no choice. I'm sure that won't be bad for the economy at all.

If your profession gives you insight into climate change that I don't have access to then fine. But my profession gives me insight into automotive development that you dont have access to. Those "cars" you refer to will be rejected by Americans, unless we completely redefine what constitutes a car.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have seen this coming. I'm not saying we don't deserve it to some extent for not putting more into development. But blowing up the economy, or not doing everything possible to mitigate the damage is just liberal stupidity.

Developing alternatives doesn't require this pain. It requires commitment by the govt to encourage the development, financially and otherwise with a sound and reasonable energy policy. And that doesn't mean don't drill anywhere in the US.

mdklatt

6/12/2008, 05:59 PM

Climate change has been going on long before, and will go on long after this species expires. Why do you insist on freaking out about 1 deg C. ;)

Not sure what you mean by the winkie, but yeah, 1 C is a huge deal. Not so much the temperature change itself, but the entire redistribution of weather it's going to cause. If you think a carbon tax is going to be expensive, what about the creation of a permanent dust bowl in the US corn and wheat belts?

I also hear that these same scientist are telling us that we will be going into a period of average cooler temps over the next 10-15 years, but don't give up believing in GW, cause its real and all.

Link? I've heard of one study that hints at a temporary halt in the warming, but its very preliminary and based on some experimental modeling techniques.

You would have a much better chance of convincing me if AlGore wasn't your spokesman. That idiot makes Bush look like a scholar.

And here we go. Global warming is a hoax because I don't like Al Gore.

Here is the explanation for AGW. Which of these statements do you disagree with?

1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
2) adding more greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect
3) fossil fuel combustion has been adding CO2 to the atmosphere for the last 150 years or so

All of the physical evidence and all of the models back these statements up.

mdklatt

6/12/2008, 06:04 PM

Those "cars" you refer to will be rejected by Americans, unless we completely redefine what constitutes a car.

Four wheels and a seat that gets you where you want to go?

But blowing up the economy, or not doing everything possible to mitigate the damage is just liberal stupidity.

Do you think climate change is going to be good for the economy? Is it conservative stupidity to not be doing everything possible to mitigate damage from that?

RedstickSooner

6/12/2008, 06:06 PM

Al Franken can justify affirmative action in one sentence of another bestseller book, while sending his son to MIT and other top schools for visits in the next sentence.

I disagree with your argument, but in all fairness, I think you should use the better argument (which I've seen used around here before), and bring up liberals like Babs who speak out on carbon emissions and travel in private jets.

I mean, c'mon, badger -- EVERYONE would send their kid to MIT (or the equivalent) if they could get their kid in.

People don't realize they follow a particular political bent and then become scientists. They become scientists because science appeals to them. It just annoys me when people pick & choose which of science's benefits they'll accept when it suits them due to their political whims.

It'd be one thing if it were a handful fringe of scientists warning us about global warming. Once you've got the vast majority of those who've studied the phenomena concluding that it's for real, ignoring them smacks of a certain arrogance. Not the other way around.

That being said, I wonder sometimes what's the point of doing this sort of research into climate change. History shows us that people simply don't believe in most catastrophes until the evidence is self-evident. 'Til we start having routine 120 degree heatwaves in the midwest (or Texas actually catches fire), nothing of any substance will be done about global warming. There'll always be someone who'll speak out against the consensus either out of greed, or out of simple contrariness. And so long as those voices exist, we won't do anything substantive about any given problem.

So, there's some question as to the usefulness of such research. Long-term climatologists would be better served working for, say, agrobusinesses in helping them model crop forecasts for the future. (Companies whose livelihoods are affected are amazingly willing to listen to scientists with expertise in a given field. Unlike politicians, whose livelihoods are governed by an entirely different set of metrics.)

Frozen Sooner

6/12/2008, 06:09 PM

Turd_Ferguson

6/12/2008, 06:09 PM

You and your fancy French words.

Here in Amurrica we call it a car-hole.We ain't got no car-holes down here in Newcastle...we got a porte-cochere.

soonerscuba

6/12/2008, 06:10 PM

(or Texas actually catches fire),
Well, **** Al Gore then, I'll be back after I burn my trash.

RedstickSooner

6/12/2008, 06:14 PM

Some businesses are smart about listening to people with expertise.

There were a lot of warnings about the impending credit crash a few years back, but very few companies heeded the warnings. The same experts are warning about a similar credit crash in the auto finance market, yet I still see institutions willing to make 96 month loans on new autos.

I disagree with you here, Mike. Banks always know it's a bad idea to write bad paper. The problem with the credit collapse is sorta like the tragedy of the commons -- when *every* bank is doing it, even the most sensible are pressured into joining in. Because if they don't, they won't profit (since bad paper can be very profitable for a while before it completely tanks) and they'll look like morons to their investors.

Corporations frequently pursue dangerous long-term strategies out of short-term competitive need. But, when they can prepare for a long-term trend without losing short-term competitive edge in the process, they'll usually do so.

'Course, I'm sure there's exceptions. You never go broke betting on stupid :)

Frozen Sooner

6/12/2008, 06:16 PM

Interesting point, Redstick.

soonerbrat

6/12/2008, 06:16 PM

Sooner Eclipse

6/12/2008, 06:19 PM

Not sure what you mean by the winkie, but yeah, 1 C is a huge deal. Not so much the temperature change itself, but the entire redistribution of weather it's going to cause. If you think a carbon tax is going to be expensive, what about the creation of a permanent dust bowl in the US corn and wheat belts?

The winky was an attempt to lighten the tone a little bit. Meteorology can't predict the weather beyond a week or 2. Why should we believe this is absolute fact.

Link? I've heard of one study that hints at a temporary halt in the warming, but its very preliminary and based on some experimental modeling techniques.

no link - just wondered what your response to this was.

And here we go. Global warming is a hoax because I don't like Al Gore.

Here is the explanation for AGW. Which of these statements do you disagree with?

1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
2) adding more greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect
3) fossil fuel combustion has been adding CO2 to the atmosphere for the last 150 years or so

All of the physical evidence and all of the models back these statements up.

I don't deny any of these. I also believe that ice core studies have shown that there were periods of time where CO2 was in much higher amounts in the atmosphere long before the Geico caveman started lighting his farts.

I also understand that CO2 is pretty inefficient as a greenhouse gas. Water vapor is much more effective, abundant and efficient. Should we start removing all water vapor from the atmosphere?

Look neither one of us is going to convince the other on this subject. This whole thing started over a study that states one side is politically motivated. (implying the other is not) The presence of AlGore on the other side should end that argument.

mdklatt

6/12/2008, 06:23 PM

That being said, I wonder sometimes what's the point of doing this sort of research into climate change. History shows us that people simply don't believe in most catastrophes until the evidence is self-evident. 'Til we start having routine 120 degree heatwaves in the midwest (or Texas actually catches fire), nothing of any substance will be done about global warming. There'll always be someone who'll speak out against the consensus either out of greed, or out of simple contrariness. And so long as those voices exist, we won't do anything substantive about any given problem.

If there wasn't any warning, when the **** hit the fan everyone would be all "Why didn't you tell us???" Same thing with people complaining about too many tornado warnings. And climate research isn't just about global warming, but about all those "natural cycles" the skeptics like to hang their hat on. ENSO, QBO, etc. are all important to understand if we want to be able to predict the climate for the next three months or the next 100 years. Since we're apparently not going to do anything about prevention we might as well start focusing on mitigation, which means knowing exactly what is going to happen.

By way, there is really no such thing as a "global warming" researcher. That's just an application, not a field unto itself. People have been getting funding to collect rainfall data, launch ocean buoys, count polar bears, and code climate models long before anybody started worrying about AGW, and that's what they'd be doing if there was no such thing. Which is why the eye-rollingest skeptic argument is that scientists are somehow getting rich off of all this.

Sooner_Havok

6/12/2008, 06:33 PM

I don't deny any of these. I also believe that ice core studies have shown that there were periods of time where CO2 was in much higher amounts in the atmosphere long before the Geico caveman started lighting his farts.

Yup. Know what happened to that CO2? Well, long time ago when they was a lot of that particular gas in the atmosphere it was pretty damned warm across the planet. Trees and plankton and **** growing everywhere. Well, trees done got themselves killed, plankton couldn't survive in the now cooler waters (they took all that damn CO2 out and replaced it with O2, a really ****ty greenhouse gass) and they died. Well, now you got a couple million metric **** tons of organic mass just sitting at the bottom of swamps and oceans. Don't know if you ever noticed, but there ain't much oxygen at the bottom of water. So, instead of rotting and decaying quickly, this organic crap get buried, along with all that damn carbon they had absorbed.

A couple hundred million years of heat and pressure later, Jed Clampet was out shooting for some food and, well, the rest is history. So all that carbon what the plants took out of the earth's atmosphere cooled the earth. Cooled earth didn't have as many areas for green **** to grow. Green **** dies, takes carbon with it. We are now releasing that carbon back into the atmosphere. See, the Earth really can't violate them laws of physics, so it can't just make elemental carbon disappear. It can hide the stuff, but it cannot eliminate it from the system. :texan:

Ike

6/12/2008, 06:51 PM

No, I mean you can wish in one hand and **** in the other. Guess which one will have a viable alternative to oil in it first.

There is not and will be no mass produced viable alternative to oil for 30-40 years unless gas is well beyond $10-20 a gallon. By that time our economy will be well beyond salvagable. And no, I'm not talking about hybrids. Hybrids and electrics are a stop gap. As far as automobiles go, we need an entirely new propulsion system. One that isn't ultimately using oil/coal to generate the energy. That excludes electricity save for nuclear generated elect. and that seems to be something else the libs absolutely will not allow.

Electrics are less of a stop gap than you might think. Even if they get their power from the burning of fossil fuels, the electric car makes far more efficient use of that energy bringing the operating cost down substantially (something like a factor of 5). Not only that, but any new power production mechanisms can easily be used to charge batteries on electric cars.

The main limitation of electrics though is battery technology. Currently, the average electric car can go about 30 miles or so on a charge, and it takes a few hours to charge up. Better batteries can solve this problem.

Hydrogen is another transportable fuel that will adapt easily to any electric system we may put in place.

mdklatt

6/12/2008, 06:56 PM

The winky was an attempt to lighten the tone a little bit. Meteorology can't predict the weather beyond a week or 2. Why should we believe this is absolute fact.

Predicting the climate is not the same as predicting weather. I've got a 50% chance of predicting the result of one coin flip, but I've got a 99% chance of predicting the result of 1000 coin flips.

I don't deny any of these. I also believe that ice core studies have shown that there were periods of time where CO2 was in much higher amounts in the atmosphere long before the Geico caveman started lighting his farts.

Link? Even if this is true, it's irrelevent. We're not talking about unprecedented warming in the history of the earth, we're talking about unprecedented warming in the modern history of mankind. Humans survived an ice age, but how do you think that would effect modern society? It would be a little disrupting at least.

I also understand that CO2 is pretty inefficient as a greenhouse gas.

So, what you're saying is that all the people who know a lot more about this than you or me are wrong when they tell us what the warming sensitivity to CO2 is?

Water vapor is much more effective, abundant and efficient. Should we start removing all water vapor from the atmosphere?

Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. It's self limiting--you get too much in the atmosphere it just rains out--so it doesn't drive climate change. It will enhance it, however. As will all the methane stored in the permafrost when that melts. And all the GHG currently in solution in the ocean. One thing the skeptics are right about is when the say that AGW might not be as bad as predicted; of course they ignoring the possibility that it might be worse. The melting of Arctic sea ice last year caught everybody by surprise. Loss of sea ice is a huge positive feedback for warming.

Anyway, CO2 concentration, water vapor, paleoclimate, all the standard of litany of skeptic talking points. That's all pretty basic stuff, so do you think that this hasn't already been considered? That is, do you assume that all those atmospheric scientists, oceanographers, etc. are incompetent? Is Homer Simpson, Ph.D. sitting around somewhere thinking, "Hmmm...I did remember to factor in the sun, didn't I? D'oh!"

Look neither one of us is going to convince the other on this subject. This whole thing started over a study that states one side is politically motivated. (implying the other is not)

Both sides are politically motivated, but only one side has the scientific evidence to back them up. This should not be about politics, but thanks to the bang-up PR campaign by the fossil fuel industry, it is.

Sooner_Havok

6/12/2008, 06:58 PM

Jerk

6/12/2008, 07:23 PM

People with degrees tend to be liberal.

Advanced degrees? Yes.

4 year college degrees? Bull f***ing sh*t. I swear you guys are the most arrogant motherf***ers to ever grace this planet.

Your base are people dependent on government hand-outs. What does that tell you?

Sooner Eclipse

6/12/2008, 07:38 PM

Electrics are less of a stop gap than you might think. Even if they get their power from the burning of fossil fuels, the electric car makes far more efficient use of that energy bringing the operating cost down substantially (something like a factor of 5). Not only that, but any new power production mechanisms can easily be used to charge batteries on electric cars.

The main limitation of electrics though is battery technology. Currently, the average electric car can go about 30 miles or so on a charge, and it takes a few hours to charge up. Better batteries can solve this problem.

Hydrogen is another transportable fuel that will adapt easily to any electric system we may put in place.

your're not accounting for all the resources used to produce the batteries in a hybird. Just like you should consider the ammt of carbon released to generate the electricity to power the batts, you have to acct for the lead and other materials in the massive ammts of batteries needed in a hybrid.

It currently takes around 13 years to realize an advantage in total carbon release in substantially similar hybrid vs non hybird vehicles. And that assumes that the batteries don't need to be replaced before the scheduled replacement. $ per mile maintenance costs still can't be matched by hybrids given the cost of batt replacement and the schedule.

The company I work for was building hydrogen/electric hybrids in the early 90s. You're preaching to the wrong guy about them.

Hydrogen is a great alternative if you don't take into account the costs in generating it.

Sooner Eclipse

6/12/2008, 07:43 PM

That is, do you assume that all those atmospheric scientists, oceanographers, etc. are incompetent? Is Homer Simpson, Ph.D. sitting around somewhere thinking, "Hmmm...I did remember to factor in the sun, didn't I? D'oh!"

I think these are the same people that were trying to scare the crap out of us in the 70s by announcing that the great ice age was occuring and we best prepare else we be up to our poopers in snow in june.

Homer Simpson indeed. mdklatt cries wolf too much and then complains when no one believes him.

By the way, shortly after this occured, AlGore invented the internet and then started the first E-business by offering free shipping to any resident of Florida or Texas to purchase a snowblower from his company. :cool:

Jerk

6/12/2008, 07:53 PM

I'm waiting for the good old fashioned Soviet response to dissenters to make a comeback.

"Oh, you don't agree with us? You must be insane!"

And off to the mental ward they go for a lobotomy.

Anyone who disagrees with Global Warming, oops, I mean Climate Change (that way they can cover their asses if it gets cooler) is a religious nut-case, a right wing listener of Hate Radio, and an idiot who doesn't even have a G.E.D. No opposition allowed.

And while you're at it, come up with a new Kyoto that doesn't unfairly punish the U.S. while letting China pollute the world into oblivion. That way, us rednecks won't realize the obvious; that we're getting bent over a barrel in the name of a political agenda.

Mongo

6/12/2008, 07:56 PM

I huff CFC free spray paint. I am doing my part

mdklatt

6/12/2008, 08:04 PM

I think Newsweek magazine was trying the crap out of us in the 70s by announcing that the great ice age was occuring

Fixed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling). There was a cooling trend after WW II due to sulfate pollution, but there was nothing more than conjecture that this was the start of an ice age. And 33 years later, we know more about how the climate works.

You know, if you're going to continue to trot out all the well-worn skeptic talking points, you should probably check their veracity (http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics#Scientific%20Topics) first.

Sooner Eclipse

6/12/2008, 08:07 PM

Fixed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling). There was a cooling trend after WW II due to sulfate pollution, but there was nothing more than conjecture that this was the start of an ice age. And 33 years later, we know more about how the climate works.

What makes you think that in 33 years you won't realize that this was a "slight miscalculation" as well?

mdklatt

6/12/2008, 08:12 PM

"Oh, you don't agree with us? You must be insane!"

So you don't think that disagreeing with all the world's experts in a particular field isn't just a little kooky?

Sooner_Havok

6/12/2008, 08:15 PM

AlbqSooner

6/12/2008, 08:22 PM

So you don't think that disagreeing with all the world's experts in a particular field isn't just a little kooky?

Once upon a time:
Wright Brothers = "Kooky" talking about powered flight;
Albert Einstein = "Kooky" talking about a warped universe;
Christopher Columbus = "Kooky" talking about a round Earth;
ad infinitum - ad nauseum

Sooner_Havok

6/12/2008, 08:27 PM

Once upon a time:
Wright Brothers = "Kooky" talking about powered flight;
Albert Einstein = "Kooky" talking about a warped universe;
Christopher Columbus = "Kooky" talking about a round Earth;
ad infinitum - ad nauseum

Problem with ole Al there is his work has never been completely proven. It is still just a bunch of theoretical horse crap:(

Jerk

6/12/2008, 08:31 PM

To those that think AGW is a hoax, perpetrated by the liberal scientists to destroy the US economy, I would like to ax you a couple of questions.

1) What would it take for you to acknowledge that the earth's climate is changing?

2) If you acknowledge that climate patterns are changing, but maintain that it is part of a natural cycle, do you think that we need to address what this change will do to our economy now, or wait until later and "adapt" as changes happen?

3) Add Oil shale, ANWR, and coal to oil together. How long will these keep us energy independent?

4) If you don't want to invest in alternatives to carbon now, when would be a good time to start?

5) Do you believe that many of the leading climate change experts are saying what they are as a warning to help save their country from ruin, or a ruse to guide their country into decline?

1) It always has changed. There have been ice ages before. What got us out of them?

2) It always changes. We've adabted before. We can do it in the future.

3) Maybe enough time to figure out how to make cars run on Spotted Owl urine and rainbows.

4)) It's a free country. If people want to invest in energy alternatives, then no one will stop them. There would be an enormous market for a cheap and available alternative to hydrocarbons if someone found it. It's your money. Go for it.

5) There are climate experts on both sides. I don't know anyone else's agenda. Mine is to avoid the nanny state and remain free.

mdklatt

6/12/2008, 08:36 PM

What makes you think that in 33 years you won't realize that this was a "slight miscalculation" as well?

The fact that this is completely different from any ice age predictions from Newsweek magazine?

Until somebody figures out 1) what would cause CO2 to stop acting like the greenhouse gas we know it is; and 2) what as-of-yet unknown mechanism is causing the observed warming, the safe bet is on the AGW side. Nobody worth listening to on the subject doubts that warming is happening, and that manmade CO2 is the main cause. The remaining questions are how much and fast is it going to warm, and what are the effects of the warming going to be. The effects won't be good for a lot of people in the short term, and in the long term they could drastically change the geography of the haves and have-nots.

What are you going to do in 33 years if there's nothing but a dust bowl from Texas to North Dakota? "Oops! My bad." What's the worst case scenario if we act but we didn't need to? Maybe some short-term economic pain--if you discount all the economic opportunities that new technology and industries create--but we'll still have cleaner air and a more sustainable economy in the end. If we do nothing when we should have been doing something, the costs of mitigation are going to be a lot more than the money we saved on prevention. Even those communist hippies in the military are taking the threat seriously (http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2007/2007-04-16-05.asp).

Sooner_Havok

6/12/2008, 08:45 PM

1) It always has changed. There have been ice ages before. What got us out of them?

2) It always changes. We've adabted before. We can do it in the future.

3) Maybe enough time to figure out how to make cars run on Spotted Owl urine and rainbows.

4)) It's a free country. If people want to invest in energy alternatives, then no one will stop them. There would be an enormous market for a cheap and available alternative of hydrocarbons if someone found it. It's your money. Go for it.

5) There are climate experts on both sides. I don't know anyone else's agenda. Mine is to avoid the nanny state and remain free.

Hey, I think you may have answered one question there, GO YOU!!!!!!!1

You don't know how long those resources would keep us independent I presume.

We'll adapt huh? Why the hell can't we adapt to high oil prices?

You think investment into alternative energies should come from the private sector I take it. Then why should the national government be expected to invest in oil?

Avoid a nanny state? You want the federal government to continue to subsidize oil. To what end, so we can have slightly cheaper gas? Hate to break it to you, but subsidies are a form of welfare. Who pays more gas taxes, rich folks. They are keeping gas prices low for the poor folks who buy less of the stuff. But I digress, people warning of impending doom must be doing so cause deep down, they hate America and want to watch it fall.

mdklatt

6/12/2008, 08:57 PM

1) It always has changed. There have been ice ages before. What got us out of them?

Something other than all the CO2 we've been spewing for 150 years. Or do you think that there cannot be more than one cause for the same effect? The warming we're seeing now is much more rapid than anything that has come before.

2) It always changes. We've adabted before. We can do it in the future.

Sure, we can just get all of our grain from Russia. Maybe they'll let us have some oil too.

4)) It's a free country. If people want to invest in energy alternatives, then no one will stop them.

It's a free country, but it's not a free market. The true cost of hydrocarbons are being masked by government spending and, well, whoever ends up paying for all the premature deaths due to air pollution.

There would be an enormous market for a cheap and available alternative of hydrocarbons if someone found it.

Why do you think we can't build wind farms fast enough in Oklahoma?

5) There are climate experts on both sides.

There are people on both sides of the earth-is-round "debate", too, but on balance of the available evidence I don't think one side (url=http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm) is very credible. There's a handful of scientists of any note on the denialist side, and all the arguments they've put forth to date just don't hold up to scrutiny. Christy published an article a few years ago with data that seemed to contradict AGW predictions, but it was later determined that some calculation errors rendered his finding moot. Even though he acknowledged the errors and published a correction, he continues to use the uncorrected data when he's shilling for his think tank buddies. Richard Linzen is a rock star in meteorology, but on the subject of global warming he seems to have turned into a cranky old coot.

Jerk

6/12/2008, 08:57 PM

Hey, I think you may have answered one question there, GO YOU!!!!!!!1

You don't know how long those resources would keep us independent I presume.

We'll adapt huh? Why the hell can't we adapt to high oil prices?

You think investment into alternative energies should come from the private sector I take it. Then why should the national government be expected to invest in oil?

Avoid a nanny state? You want the federal government to continue to subsidize oil. To what end, so we can have slightly cheaper gas? Hate to break it to you, but subsidies are a form of welfare. Who pays more gas taxes, rich folks. They are keeping gas prices low for the poor folks who buy less of the stuff. But I digress, people warning of impending doom must be doing so cause deep down, they hate America and want to watch it fall.

I don't want the government to subsidize anything. I want them to GET THE F*** OUTTA THE WAY.

"You want the federal government to continue to subsidize oil."Why do you say this when I never said any such thing? Never have I even came close to saying this.

btw- I like the "I'm an independent" claim. Funny, given that you side with the neo-commies on every single issue that comes up.

Sooner Eclipse

6/12/2008, 09:02 PM

1) What would it take for you to acknowledge that the earth's climate is changing? I don't doubt its changing. It has and always will change until the planet is dead. Doesn't mean humans are responsible for it or that the planet can't adapt to whatever we throw at it.

2) If you acknowledge that climate patterns are changing, but maintain that it is part of a natural cycle, do you think that we need to address what this change will do to our economy now, or wait until later and "adapt" as changes happen?
I think mother nature will never be as predictable as you insinuate. You can prepare all you want. Just don't spend a good portion of the GNP on your hunch please.

3) Add Oil shale, ANWR, and coal to oil together. How long will these keep us energy independent?
ANWR, CtoO and off shore drilling = 30 years a todays US usage rates. Oil shale = 100 to 150 years at todays rates. Granted, I'm just repeating what i've been told, but even if the total is just 50 years, that's plenty of time to develop alternatives without shooting both feet off like we seem to be doing now.

4) If you don't want to invest in alternatives to carbon now, when would be a good time to start?I've been working on it since the early 90's, how bout U? You young punks think private industry hasn't been working on this? You think you can just mandate it and it will be so? Please.

5) Do you believe that many of the leading climate change experts are saying what they are as a warning to help save their country from ruin, or a ruse to guide their country into decline? I think many of them are well intentioned, but lack a total understanding of our ecosystem. Much like the 1970s era scientist that were predicting an impending ice age. And no, it wasn't just newsweek as mdklatt suggests. I'm old enough to remember it. Discussion went on several years. I don't think we've reached a complete understanding of our ecosystem and that there are still things that we don't know or are not taking into account. Until you can start predicting earthquakes with some regularity, please lay off trying to convince me that you know exactly how the earth will react to CO2 in the atmosphere, a much more complex and changing environment than the earths crust and tectonic plates that moves at a snails pace.

Sooner_Havok

6/12/2008, 09:04 PM

btw- I like the "I'm an independent" claim. Funny, given that you side with the neo-commies on every single issue that comes up.

You sure about that?

mdklatt

6/12/2008, 09:07 PM

Who pays more gas taxes, rich folks.

They don't necessarily pay more gas taxes (at the pump), but they certainly pay more into the general fund, which is where a lot of oil subsidies are hiding.

mdklatt

6/12/2008, 09:11 PM

Much like the 1970s era scientist that were predicting an impending ice age. And no, it wasn't just newsweek as mdklatt suggests. I'm old enough to remember it. Discussion went on several years.

Link?

Until you can start predicting earthquakes with some regularity, please lay off trying to convince me that you know exactly how the earth will react to CO2 in the atmosphere, a much more complex and changing environment than the earths crust and tectonic plates that moves at a snails pace.

LOL Is there a geologist in the house?

Sooner Eclipse

6/12/2008, 09:32 PM

The fact that this is completely different from any ice age predictions from Newsweek magazine?

Until somebody figures out 1) what would cause CO2 to stop acting like the greenhouse gas we know it is; and 2) what as-of-yet unknown mechanism is causing the observed warming, the safe bet is on the AGW side. Nobody worth listening to on the subject doubts that warming is happening, and that manmade CO2 is the main cause. The remaining questions are how much and fast is it going to warm, and what are the effects of the warming going to be. The effects won't be good for a lot of people in the short term, and in the long term they could drastically change the geography of the haves and have-nots.

As opposed to $4 gas and the loss of economic purchasing power going on right now unnecessarily. The number of people effectively under the poverty line will double every time average gas goes up 2 bucks

What are you going to do in 33 years if there's nothing but a dust bowl from Texas to North Dakota? "Oops! My bad." What's the worst case scenario if we act but we didn't need to? Maybe some short-term economic pain--if you discount all the economic opportunities that new technology and industries create--but we'll still have cleaner air and a more sustainable economy in the end. If we do nothing when we should have been doing something, the costs of mitigation are going to be a lot more than the money we saved on prevention. Even those communist hippies in the military are taking the threat seriously (http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2007/2007-04-16-05.asp). its the militarys job to prepare for every contention, not just the ones they think will occur.

def_lazer_fc

6/13/2008, 01:17 AM

def_lazer_fc

6/13/2008, 01:19 AM

No, i'm saying that i believe in the old adage that states "figures don't lie, but liars can figure".

The fact remains that there is no scientific proof the manmade global warming exists. There are theories and models, but they PROVE nothing.

Until that proof is offered, I will remain skeptical.

same goes for religion for me

Fraggle145

6/13/2008, 01:31 AM

Wow this threads turned into a good one... 2 things I saw that I wanted to say something about.

People don't realize they follow a particular political bent and then become scientists. They become scientists because science appeals to them. It just annoys me when people pick & choose which of science's benefits they'll accept when it suits them due to their political whims.

It'd be one thing if it were a handful fringe of scientists warning us about global warming. Once you've got the vast majority of those who've studied the phenomena concluding that it's for real, ignoring them smacks of a certain arrogance. Not the other way around.

Yep, but I get told I'm arrogant on a regular basis. I just dont get it I guess. :confused: I didnt decide science for any other reason than I was curious about the way animals work. All of my research into climate change and its effects on ecosystems and the organisms within them has led me to believe we are doing it, and the effects on organisms and ecosystems, particularly aquatic ecosystems, are pretty drastic. The part I am worried more about rather than oil is the water, the effects of climate change on water etc... you can have as much oil as you want, but without water nobodies economy runs.

:pop:

This whole thing started over a study that states one side is politically motivated. (implying the other is not) The presence of AlGore on the other side should end that argument.

The other side may be politically motivated also, however for the most part I would say the papers published in the peer reviewed literature showing evidence of anthropogenic global warming are not published with a direct link to politically motivated forces such as a liberal think tank. Al Gore does not publish in peer reviewed literature and I would bet he would have a difficult time doing so.

Fraggle145

6/13/2008, 01:34 AM

same goes for religion for me

That is an interesting take on this argument... since that position often elicits a negative response on this board, but yet that argument gets used in this situation (not necessarily by the people posting in this thread, but it is still interesting). Faith is different I guess.

OUWxGuesser

6/13/2008, 02:55 AM

What are you going to do in 33 years if there's nothing but a dust bowl from Texas to North Dakota? "Oops! My bad."

Heh... funny you should mention. Because of ethanol, farmers are REMOVING tree breaks and pushing fields to produce more crops. Hey what was that low visibility I saw the other day... oh wait... the farmer's topsoil blowing away? ahhh Snap!!!

I think many of them are well intentioned, but lack a total understanding of our ecosystem. Much like the 1970s era scientist that were predicting an impending ice age. And no, it wasn't just newsweek as mdklatt suggests. I'm old enough to remember it. Discussion went on several years. I don't think we've reached a complete understanding of our ecosystem and that there are still things that we don't know or are not taking into account. Until you can start predicting earthquakes with some regularity, please lay off trying to convince me that you know exactly how the earth will react to CO2 in the atmosphere, a much more complex and changing environment than the earths crust and tectonic plates that moves at a snails pace.

Where to even start? What the heck do earthquakes have to do with atmospheric science? Under this logic, we can't predict tornadoes because we don't have a cure for cancer. WE KNOW how additional CO2 impacts the atmosphere and our radiative balance (by absorbing infrared radiation). We use this fact with satellites all the time to measure different variables. Look at the run-away greenhouse effect on Venus... this stuff is piece-o-cake. If you don't believe that then there's no hope.

The other comment about proof whether we are impacting the climate??? Of COURSE we are impacting the climate. Quick example: go stand in a field on a sunny day. Now go stand in a parking lot. Can you tell a difference? I bet you can. All things being equal, integrate this over a few years. Which location on average will be warmer? Hmm. Now consider the impact of our agriculture. There are plenty of articles out there that show how the winter wheat belt in OK influences surface observations. The corn belt in my neck of the woods is even crazier. Note that I haven't even touched the greenhouse gas topic yet.

Now before I go get labeled as a hippy...

We DO NOT know to what extent we are impacting the climate (as simply putting a few parking lots in would do little) although in my non-bias scientific opinion, the overwhelming evidence is WE ARE making a noticeable change above what we can expect from natural variations in the past century.

I DO NOT believe (at least for now), there is a noticeable change in "extreme" weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. Shame on Al Gore for harping that crap.

We DO NOT know to what extent the climate will change in the future. Atmosphere... that's pretty easy for simply greenhouse gasss. We know if CO2 goes up, so will T. The big question is how do the land/oceans deal with increased CO2? How does the atmosphere respond in terms of clouds and water vapor which are even more important for balance? Big Big BIG fuzzy points. For this reason, I'd take long term models with a grain of salt. I don't believe in death and destruction. I do believe there will be winners and losers. We'd most likely benefit in North Dakota so bring on the global warming ;)

One last comment... it's sad how politicized this scientific debate has become.
What if Al Gore never released his movie? It's sad that many of us get labeled as "evil" liberals when in fact some of us are republicans or moderates.

mdklatt

6/13/2008, 09:29 AM

Where to even start? What the heck do earthquakes have to do with atmospheric science?

Is Petro-Sooner still around? He'd get a kick out of this. :D

TheHumanAlphabet

6/13/2008, 09:44 AM

I'm a huge skeptic. Last I checked, my paycheck doesn't come from a Think tank...It is based on my scientific knowledge about the field... Something Al Gore doesn't have.

mdklatt

6/13/2008, 09:48 AM

I DO NOT believe (at least for now), there is a noticeable change in "extreme" weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. Shame on Al Gore for harping that crap.

Take a look at the Upper Mississippi basin right now. How many "100 year floods" have there been lately? There's already evidence of an accelerated water cycle in the tropical Pacific, so it's not inconceivable that we're seeing the same thing here. Last year, Lake Thunderbird went from an all-time low to an all-time high in less than three months. And then the rain kept coming all summer long. None of this is conclusive, but it might be the start of a trend. Who knows. Blaming individual weather events on climate change is like trying to decide which rain drop caused the flood.

One last comment... it's sad how politicized this scientific debate has become.
What if Al Gore never released his movie? It's sad that many of us get labeled as "evil" liberals when in fact some of us are republicans or moderates.

But that's the beauty of truthiness. Rather than debating about what the policy implications of scientific findings should be, it's much more effective to attack the science itself. For example, why even discuss the fine print of the Kyoto Treaty at all--thus risking some sort of *gasp* compromise because of those weak-kneed RINOs in Congress--when you can claim that global warming doesn't even exist in the first place?

mdklatt

6/13/2008, 09:51 AM

I'm a huge skeptic. Last I checked, my paycheck doesn't come from a Think tank

But doesn't it come from the oil industry?

..It is based on my scientific knowledge about the field... Something Al Gore doesn't have.

Yep, Al Gore made all of this up. IPCC? What's that?

Bourbon St Sooner

6/13/2008, 10:29 AM

So you don't think that disagreeing with all the world's experts in a particular field isn't just a little kooky?

I think what Jerk was saying is that your arrogant, condescending attitude may be a barrier to you actually selling your point to anybody.

Of course, if we all weren't so dumb we'd make you, Hillary and Al Gore co-dictators and parents to us all.

mdklatt

6/13/2008, 10:34 AM

Of course, if we all weren't so dumb we'd make you, Hillary and Al Gore co-dictators and parents to us all.

You'd think with all those "expert" skeptics out there, somebody would be able to come up with a rebuttal that didn't invoke the specter of Al Gore. Apparently not.

Bourbon St Sooner

6/13/2008, 10:52 AM

You'd think with all of your edumacation, you'd get my point since it had nothing to do with climate change.

mdklatt

6/13/2008, 10:58 AM

You'd think with all of your edumacation, you'd get my point since it had nothing to do with climate change.

Okay, so you do think it's reasonable to take the word of a handful of think tank employees over the piles of evidence published in hundreds of research journal articles?

Bourbon St Sooner

6/13/2008, 11:02 AM

mdklatt

6/13/2008, 11:33 AM

No my point was that when you talk down to people they are probably less likely to listen to you. I'm not making any comment on whether what you're saying is true or not. You should watch the movie 'The Great Debaters'.

All these stupid threads end up the same way. I try to point out when people are making statements that are factually incorrect. That's it. I don't even care about the politics. Instead of "no, I think you are mistaken and this is why" or "oh, I did not know that" the responses almost invariably degenerate into "oh yeah, well Al Gore is a poopyhead", and it's all downhill from there. It's very frustrating. It is not at all unreasonable to disagree about what we should be doing about global warming, but it is unreasonable to deny that it's happening in the first place. The evidence is just not there. It's just so much nonsense when Michael Crichton or whoever wants to challenge Al Gore to debate, as if either one of them is an expert. Or as if a format meant to resolve which side of a subjective argument can determine scientific fact.

I apologize to anybody who thought I was insulting them personally, but seriously, all these skeptic arguments that keep coming again and again and again are demonstrably false. We all need to become better information consumers. It's not enough to Google for talking points that support your preexisting notions; you also need to evaluate the credibility of that information. If you don't know enough about the subject to do that, you need to evaluate the credibility of the source. The National Academy of Science, the American Meteorological Association, NASA, WMO--all certainly more credible on the topic of climate change than Random Internet Guy with a blog posting full of dubious calculations about CO2. Nonpartisan scientific organizations--probably more credible than partisan think tanks who are funded by the industries that stand to lose the most from CO2 regulation.

soonerbrat

6/13/2008, 12:46 PM

*yawn*

this thread makes me want to take a nap.

mdklatt

6/13/2008, 12:51 PM

*yawn*

this thread makes me want to take a nap.

Quit eating all the food in the break room and you wouldn't be so tired. :D

soonerbrat

6/13/2008, 01:01 PM

hey, trust me i could never eat ALL the food in there. today only one vendor brought stuff though. braum's biscuit sammiches, bananas and orange juice. I did have some juice and a big ol' banana. i like bananas. big ripe ones.

mdklatt

6/13/2008, 01:04 PM

TheHumanAlphabet

6/13/2008, 01:05 PM

But doesn't it come from the oil industry?

Yep, Al Gore made all of this up. IPCC? What's that?

And Big Oil has brainwashed me into my opinion. :rolleyes:

And I do think Al and his cronies who wrote the stuff did make up a lot of the information...At least bent the data to scare people and push their side of the story. You want to be a conservationist, fine, go out and appeal for to peple to save and re-use, etc. I recycle and cut back, because from Boy Scouts, I was taught not to be wasteful of nature and to protect it from my incursions. I, however, do not subscribe to the sky is falling mentality of ALGore. The science is not on his side and it is becoming more and more evident that their science is not tracking with observation. I would be more mindful of the solar cycle and the solar output than CO2 - IMO.

MD - I'm glad you have your position - it'll cause for debate. I just don't think the alarmists research and headlines get us anywhere and I don't think the data shows an issue here. Climate changes, has done so since the Earth began. Its part of a natural cycle. Talk to me about plans to deal with an Ice Age or the Magnetic poles reversing or such, I would be happy to have that conversation.

mdklatt

6/13/2008, 01:13 PM

And I do think Al and his cronies who wrote the stuff did make up a lot of the information..

Do you have any actual facts or this just all about Al Gore?

TheHumanAlphabet

6/13/2008, 01:21 PM

Do you have any actual facts or this just all about Al Gore?

To follow on...
...At least bent the data to scare people and push their side of the story.

The first statement was over the top and unsupportable.

soonerbrat

6/13/2008, 01:22 PM

So vendors just bring in free food for everyone to eat? How do you hook that deal up?

yes, every single day.

mdklatt

6/13/2008, 01:40 PM

To follow on...

Where is the evidence of this bent data? Are you talking about Mann's "hockey stick"? Even the Flat Earthers have moved on from that argument, although they'll drag it out for old time's sake every now and then. Even AAPG acknowledges that warming is happening, and they hem and haw that CO2 might just have something to do with it.

We know what the greenhouse effect is. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know that observed increases in atmospheric CO2 are from fossil fuels. We have a very good idea of the influence of CO2 on the greenhouse effect. The basic calculations were done by Arrhenius over 100 years ago, and have since been confirmed. When you run the climate models, there is no known climate driver other than CO2 that can replicate the observed warming over the last century. This is the case for AGW. Which of these claims is false, and why?

Harry Beanbag

6/13/2008, 05:04 PM

Klatt, like Bourbon St. says, you do come off as an arrogant dillweed in these discussions, whether it is intentional or not. But I really do understand why you get frustrated though.

I think the major problem is nobody can have any disagreement of any degree with you or they are labeled a flat earth, head in the sand dullard because the scientists are 100% right for God's sake. I mean come on, you act like their theory is as certain as saying UT sucks or something. It's just not possible they are that accurate. :)

GrapevineSooner

6/13/2008, 05:12 PM

mdklatt

6/13/2008, 06:02 PM

I think the major problem is nobody can have any disagreement of any degree with you or they are labeled a flat earth, head in the sand dullard because the scientists are 100% right for God's sake.

The major problem is that when I ask people for reasons why they think global warming is hoax, I get something that is either factually wrong or "because Al Gore sucks", which may or may not be true but is totally irrelevant.

mdklatt

6/13/2008, 06:08 PM

Furthermore, I'm not so sure that if we make drastic changes to reduce the emission of CO2, greenhouse gas that is also a naturally occurring gas, that that is going to have a "short term" effect on the economy.

Reducing our dependence on foreign oil won't be good for the economy? The development of the alternative energy industries won't be good for the economy? The costs of mitigation certainly won't be good for economy.

Jerk

6/13/2008, 06:28 PM

The major problem is that when I ask people for reasons why they think global warming is hoax, I get something that is either factually wrong or "because Al Gore sucks", which may or may not be true but is totally irrelevant.

You got asked "Why did Kyoto punish the U.S. and let China get away with taking a dump on mother earth?" And I don't remember your reply.

mdklatt

6/13/2008, 06:50 PM

You got asked "Why did Kyoto punish the U.S. and let China get away with taking a dump on mother earth?" And I don't remember your reply.

I didn't see that. I don't know enough about Kyoto to comment on it. Like I said, I don't get too worked up about the politics because there's a lot of wiggle room there. What drives me up the wall is seeing the politics conflated with the science. Your opinion of Al Gore should not effect whether or not you think the science is valid, but making that distinction seems to be a fool's errand.

One of the truly evil aspects of the Bush administration is the placement of political flunkies in charge of scientific organizations in an effort to twist the science to conform with the Republican strategy. NASA, EPA, CDC...all victims of that nonsense. It's the politicians that are ****ing everything up. Leave the scientists alone and let them do their job.

Both McCain and Obama say climate change is one of their important issues. Neither one even bothered to show up to vote on the Leiberman-Warner bill. Worthless. Same ****, different day. At least they acknowledge the problem, so I guess that's a little bit of progress.

Jerk

6/13/2008, 07:11 PM

I didn't see that. I don't know enough about Kyoto to comment on it. Like I said, I don't get too worked up about the politics because there's a lot of wiggle room there. What drives me up the wall is seeing the politics conflated with the science. Your opinion of Al Gore should not effect whether or not you think the science is valid, but making that distinction seems to be a fool's errand.

One of the truly evil aspects of the Bush administration is the placement of political flunkies in charge of scientific organizations in an effort to twist the science to conform with the Republican strategy. NASA, EPA, CDC...all victims of that nonsense. It's the politicians that are ****ing everything up. Leave the scientists alone and let them do their job.

Both McCain and Obama say climate change is one of their important issues. Neither one even bothered to show up to vote on the Leiberman-Warner bill. Worthless. Same ****, different day. At least they acknowledge the problem, so I guess that's a little bit of progress.

I never asked you that question, directly. But I have posed it before as a simple 'WTF?' for people to ponder. You need to understand, whether you are right or wrong, that when people of my ilk (i.e., rednecks) see a U.N. treaty proposed that stands to weaken the U.S. and let other countries do as they may, it gets our attention. There should be no double standard. Us little simple minds don't like that sh**. If there is indeed a climate crisis, then everyone should play by the same rules, whether they be a tin-pot dictator of a 3rd world country, a commie nation, a bunch of European birds, or the good ole USA. God bless 'Merica.

Harry Beanbag

6/13/2008, 07:13 PM

The major problem is that when I ask people for reasons why they think global warming is hoax, I get something that is either factually wrong or "because Al Gore sucks", which may or may not be true but is totally irrelevant.

Well, I was trying to lighten mood. Oh well. Just admit that you take this topic way too personally to even be questioned on any aspect whatsoever and move on.

mdklatt

6/13/2008, 08:31 PM

I never asked you that question, directly. But I have posed it before as a simple 'WTF?' for people to ponder. You need to understand, whether you are right or wrong, that when people of my ilk (i.e., rednecks) see a U.N. treaty proposed that stands to weaken the U.S. and let other countries do as they may, it gets our attention.

What you feel about U.N. treaties has nothing to do with the validity of the science itself. You can accept that, right?

Jerk

6/13/2008, 08:35 PM

What you feel about U.N. treaties has nothing to do with the validity of the science itself. You can accept that, right?

If the science is correct then all nations should be in this together, with equal effort, right?

GrapevineSooner

6/13/2008, 11:08 PM

Reducing our dependence on foreign oil won't be good for the economy? The development of the alternative energy industries won't be good for the economy?

Where did I insinuate that it wouldn't?

Of course it would and the reasons for doing so extend far beyond any impact it could have on climate change. While I remain a skeptic on the impact pollution has on climate change, I'll certainly admit that just in terms of air quality (my wife and child both have asthma for one), it's all our best industries to find cleaner burning fuels to overtake oil.

That kind of change, however, takes time for a number of reasons. And the impetus for the change, IMO, has to be free market driven. Forgive me, but I think when change is forced upon an industry by the government, the Law of Unintended Consequences can sometimes take over and be a real beyonce, if you know what I mean.

tommieharris91

6/14/2008, 12:05 AM

Hmm, I expected to see a lot more of the phrase "flying dickwheels" in this thread...

Carry on.

Curly Bill

6/14/2008, 12:20 AM

Hmm, I expected to see a lot more of the phrase "flying dickwheels" in this thread...

Carry on.

I think most of the peeps at the U.N. are flying dickwheels.;)

Harry Beanbag

6/14/2008, 12:58 AM

I think most of the peeps at the U.N. are flying dickwheels.;)

Don't forget Congress. :)

Fraggle145

6/14/2008, 03:00 AM

Your opinion of Al Gore should not effect whether or not you think the science is valid, but making that distinction seems to be a fool's errand. little bit of progress.

this is what ****es me off about a lot of stuff. I feel like we as scientists are doing what we are getting paid to do often by grants from the government (EPA, NIH, etc...) and then it gets twisted and spun and nobody wants to believe the scientists. Then if I or some other scientist says this is what is happening we get called arrogant. We may not be the best at conveying our ideas in a publicly minded format, we dont get payed to do that... we barely get enough to carry out the test necessary to come up with answers, but after we do I/we get so frustrated when all of the research and time and money that has been put into what we do gets met with a resounding "well you dont know what you are talking about." Hence we get more angry and more curt with our response.

I understand Jerk's postion... we often havent seen eye to eye on a lot of this... and I agree everyone should be together on it, unfortunately it isnt that simple. Especially when comparing developing nations with our own, its apples and oranges. I mean we have already forested the entire US at least once for example.

However I think the main problem in our disconnect (Jerk and I) and mdklatts disconnect with many in this thread is the disconnect between the science and the public. Politicians on both sides take advantage of this and spin everything both ways until nobody trusts anything.

Fraggle145

6/14/2008, 03:05 AM

Oh ya, politicians are dickwheels.

def_lazer_fc

6/14/2008, 03:10 AM

I think what Jerk was saying is that your arrogant, condescending attitude may be a barrier to you actually selling your point to anybody.

Of course, if we all weren't so dumb we'd make you, Hillary and Al Gore co-dictators and parents to us all.

i don't take kindly to scientists telling me whats what. thats the thing that seems to be happening with a lot of people here. they think anyone else, regardless of knowledge and or qualifications, is arrogant b/c they happen to know things you don't. everyone's an expert in his or her mind. believe me, i worked tech support for a couple years. people that didn't even know how to turn off their computer properly were all of a sudden an expert when you were trying to tell them what to do. :rolleyes:

yermom

6/14/2008, 10:58 AM

mdklatt

6/14/2008, 01:47 PM

If the science is correct then all nations should be in this together, with equal effort, right?

So you're saying that because the politicians can't agree the science must be wrong?

mdklatt

6/14/2008, 01:57 PM

i think a lot of it is that what scientists are saying in these cases has implications that people don't want to hear

if the majority of scientists were saying that driving SUVs 100 miles a day helped the environment and that people's wasteful consumer lifestyles were great for the planet, then there wouldn't be a disconnect

This is exactly right, and is a cornerstone of the PR campaign by the "skeptic" think tanks. A study shows that drinking a glass of red wine a day is good for you? Hell, yeah! A study shows that shows that red meat bad for you? Those scientists don't know what they're talking about.

jkjsooner

6/14/2008, 03:15 PM

As for the Kyoto and developing countries....

From my understanding Kyoto's goals are to reduce each country's greenhouse gas emissions by x% based on 1990 emissions. It also uses a cap and trade system.

It's not hard to see how this would be unreasonable for an undeveloped or developing country. Many of these countries have very little carbon emmissions. To cap their emmissions to x% less than what they emmitted in
1990 is ridiculous. It's like saying they are not allowed to ever achieve development.

This is very similar to some of the criticisms of a cap in trade system in general. It rewards those industries who were polluting prior to agreement. In fact, as the European example shows it it rewards corporations who initially overestimated their pollution levels.

There's also the idea that rich developed countries can afford the costs associated with reducing emmissions whereas an undeveloped country must be stuck on burning coal as their only viable short term solution.

The question is whether we want to be leaders or conform to the lowest common denominator.

That all being said, considering we keep losing our good jobs to India and hearing about how China pretty much owns us, I'm not so sure they should be in the "developing" camp - even if they still have very poor people there.