Scientists Agree Global Warming is Real
Original Post by freedomfrom:
So who do you trust to sort out one authority from another, in a field that's operates in this day and age by playing authority to the rest of us chickens?
Peer reviews. Acknowledged instutions, scientific journals, associations, and accreditation bodies.
It's not like there's no review of what any scientist does, and they're just out there screaming "trust me!" (Well, some may, but I doubt they're respected for it.)
Original Post by nomoreexcuses:
I would hate to think that learning about healthy foods to eat, healthy ways to cook, healthy exercises to engage in, and how to balance your life are quite as technically specialized topics as trends in global climate patterns.
I'm also skeptical that you can gain working knowledge on global climate patterns simply by personal experience.
"I'm not a climatologist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express..."
Original Post by jules817:
Original Post by jeffmidguard:
If you liked Oboma's comments, I'm sure you'll love it when the new energy Tzar rewards utility companies for producing less thereby ensuring higher rates for consumers.
what's a T-zar? is that anything like a T-rex?
mmmm t-rex, good eatin I hear.
Technically, Czar, Tsar, and Tzar are all acceptable romanizations of the Russian царь.
Is Jules eating dinosaurs again?
Original Post by trhawley:
Is Jules eating dinosaurs again?
I told her to stop, but she won't.
Original Post by santonacci:
Original Post by ignayshus:
If not a dentist, how about someone extremely knowledgeable about geothermal heating systems?
It would depend if they are also knowledgeable about how geothermal heating systems interact with other systems and affect changes in the climate.
Just to clarify you wouldn't listen to a scientist nor a dentist, but you would listen to a guy that installs ACs and Heaters?
gotcha :D
You can contract with this guy if you want to get a geothermal hvac system installed.
Original Post by ignayshus:
Just to clarify you wouldn't listen to a scientist nor a dentist, but you would listen to a guy that installs ACs and Heaters?
First, I didn't say I wouldn't listen to a scientist. It's dependant on their expertise and background.
Second, I didn't say I wouldn't listen to a dentist - it was my dentist. Of course, I could be wrong about her background - maybe I'll bring up a climate study the next time she's doing an X-ray.
Third, if my HVAC guy has background and knowledge about various types of heating/cooling systems, their efficiency ratings, and how they affect emission levels and climate systems, then yeah, it might be an interesting conversation - but he'd better not apply that time to the service call charge.
Admittedly, I would be wondering why a person with that amount of knowledge and experience on such a topic would be content being an HVAC service call guy. But then, it is quite a skilled labor job, and they earn great money.
Personally I think scientists and advocates of the environment failed their own movement when they changed direction and made their arguments about the scientific "facts" and not about the philosophy of stewardship and the protecting the environment as a social good.
The same data and statistics can be made to advance just about any position, so instead of a debate on the environment, we get a debate on the accuracy of facts and the validity of competing analysis of said facts.
Keep it simple. Is it better to live in a polluted world or not? How much pollution are we as a people willing to tolerate in favor of jobs/lifestyle? When do we start seeking new sources of energy? Are we willing to pay more today in order to pay much less somewhere down the road? How much further down the road?
Stuff like that.
my 2c.
Original Post by santonacci:
Original Post by ignayshus:
Just to clarify you wouldn't listen to a scientist nor a dentist, but you would listen to a guy that installs ACs and Heaters?First, I didn't say I wouldn't listen to a scientist. It's dependant on their expertise and background.
Second, I didn't say I wouldn't listen to a dentist - it was my dentist. Of course, I could be wrong about her background - maybe I'll bring up a climate study the next time she's doing an X-ray.
Third, if my HVAC guy has background and knowledge about various types of heating/cooling systems, their efficiency ratings, and how they affect emission levels and climate systems, then yeah, it might be an interesting conversation - but he'd better not apply that time to the service call charge.
Admittedly, I would be wondering why a person with that amount of knowledge and experience on such a topic would be content being an HVAC guy. But then, it is quite a skilled labor job, and they earn great money.
Admit it. I caught you in my trap. :)
edit: for those unaware of what a geothermal heating system is, here's a link to a decade old article from Popular Mechanics.
Original Post by ignayshus:
Admit it. I caught you in my trap. :)
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Seriously - if that geothermal heating system installation tech can talk with some knowledge about global climate patterns, it would be an interesting conversation.
But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Original Post by ignayshus:
But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Well spoken, sir. 
Now you're just stalling.
I may have to watch that tonight.
Original Post by nomoreexcuses:
Now you're just stalling.
You'd like to think that, wouldn't you?
Original Post by moonikins:
It's very interesting that the biggest doubters among scientists are the petroleum geologists. I think they're just protecting their paycheck.
....
So first off I guess I should say I fall in the category of people you think are protecting their paycheck...but also fall outside of that group..haha!
I am workin on my masters in geophysics and will undoubtedly work for an oil company doing exploration seismology when I graduate. But, for my thesis work I am studying a depleted oil reservoir and analyzing its potential use for CO2 sequestration. I go to school in Houston (oil capitol of the world) and this debate is brought up A LOT.
I guess I just have a few things I wanna add to this thread.
I agree with what trhawley said on page 2...There isn't much debate about whether or not climate is changing...but on how much if any is anthropogenic and what factors are most important to global temperatures.
Tons and tons of data show that global climate has always been very cyclic. The data also show that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere have the same trend as temperatures. The largest issue in this debate I see (in the geoscience community anyway) is when scientists say"see how CO2 and temperatures go up and down together? That means that CO2 concentrations control global temperatures". Assuming a relationship simply from noticing a trend is completely against the scientific method...and tons of scientists ignoring that....Its so bizarre....they are just completely throwing out a huge portion of their training and just going along with everyone saying that its a fact. I'm not saying they aren't related in that way, but a trend doesn't prove anything. There are a ridiculous amount of factors in global temperatures and before we can say that increasing CO2 concentrations increases global temperatures, we need to consider ALL the factors and how they fit in. For example...solar energy...I personally think the SUN is a bigger factor than CO2 concentrations.
Having said that, I am studying CO2 sequestration and think its important to research many different possible ways to affect temperatures. I don't think the debate on whether or not humans are responsible for climate change is even something people should talk about. We have not been responsible for past climate changes and yes...the climate would change even if we weren't here. I think what we need to focus on are ways to deal with climate change and to possibly curve the effects. I don't think humans are so powerful that we can control the weather...like thunderstorms or hurricanes...but I think we can potentially change different factors of global temperature(like the amounts of CO2...and more importantly...H20 in the atmosphere). I really really really don't want to live in an ice age and if CO2 does increase global temperatures...we should probably start burning as many fossil fuels as we can....because the global temperature trends show this...
At the end of an ice age, temperatures will rise increase very rapidly(on a geologic time scale anyway)....then will begin dropping back down until we are in another ice age(as you can see in the link I posted at the top). I don't really mind a few degrees of temperature increase...but I really dont want to live on a planet half covered in ice. Right now, we can't prevent the cyclic temperature changes...but I hope some day we can! and thats not for my own job security.
Original Post by santonacci:
Original Post by trhawley:
I suppose there is a possibility that the Ice Age is a myth and there never were any Glaciers covering most of the upper midwest.Well, were you there to witness these "glaciers"? No? Hah - nuff said.
What we do know is that the average temp worldwide has increased by .6 deg. f in about a century. If I'm not mistaken, most of the measuring stations are near urban centers, he so called "heat islands."
Prior to this the record gets a little fuzzy. There's evidence of a "little ice age" that ended during the previous century. Remember, the thermometer has only been in existence for about 400 yrs, and prior to that writing and distribution of written material was limited. I'd say we need a couple morelifetimes of data before we can ascertain if the current conditions are not part of a continuing cycle.
Original Post by santonacci:
Original Post by trhawley:
I suppose there is a possibility that the Ice Age is a myth and there never were any Glaciers covering most of the upper midwest.Well, were you there to witness these "glaciers"? No? Hah - nuff said.
Oops!
Will I lose weight if I eat the same food over and over?
You can lose weight despite eating the same food day-after-day as long as you eat fewer calories than you burn. In fact, eating the... Read more