Scientists Agree Global Warming is Real
Original Post by santonacci:
Original Post by trhawley:
I wasn't aware that there was any doubt that Global Warming was real.
Well, as you stated, some of it is as simple as people acknowledging the warming, but don't believe it's affected by human behavior.
However, I have run into some that don't believe climate change exists at all, and like to use the "there can't be global warming, we just had 15" of snow" argument.
I like to urge caution about accepting any belief without eximination. That's what's defined as "dogma". So, global warming is a dogma of the environmental movement. I see it as another "spotted owl" issue. That's where the Weyerhauser corp. pimped out some environmentalists to help them secure a larger share of the domestic timber market. It's all a matter of record now.
Original Post by ignayshus:
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.
hmm, i think i actually may have to agree with you there, but dont get used to it. going back to my first post, to me the debate is mute. we need to do a few things different even if man made global warming is just a child's play or not. and the whole global warming movement has racked up some big moola. now i dont trust the oil companies, i seriously think we need to get out of that binding trap & start mining the sun since we have another 5 billion years of it.
Original Post by jeffmidguard:
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.
Yes, you are mistaken. The data from Arctic and Antartic ice cores, the aercheological and geological record and other paleoclimate research are far more accurate and specific than the right-wing talking heads from AEI and Cato would like you to believe. The only sources of controversy over the data are ginned up by oil industry front groups like the AEI or the Heartland Institute who would like you to believe that their dissemination of misleading non-science about climate is unrelated to their oil industy donors, just like their opposition to tobacco laws and taxes is unrelated to their extensive funding from Phillip Morris. Or their opposition to municipal WiFi is unrelated to their funding from Verizon.
They are and were shills for the tobacco industry obfuscating the clear link between cigarette smoke and cancer for a number of years, in fact if you look at the list of people and organizations who were part of this effort to delay implementation of public policy based on science the tobacco companies themselves had known about since the 1960ies, you'll see the same names who are now taking money from the oil industry to sow confusion and dissent over climate change and delay implementation of public policy based on the current science.
There are legitimate queries into the models, there are legitimate questions that have no good answer in the current models, and there is some very interesting research on solar variation and how the various solar cycles relate to the climate cycles. That doesn't change the underlying consensus despite what some oil industry shills would like you to believe - the US is the only country in the world where the oil industry even bothers to try to pretend like there's legitimate grounds for dispute over CO2 being a climate forcing influence.
I know who Melkor is now! There were so many links in that post he has to be Frank Rich!
And (assuming) that everything Melkor posted and linked to was, on the whole, factually accurate and an honest unbiased analysis of the data, it amounts to nothing.
It amounts to nothing, because it will not change opinion, only confirm existing opinion. The minds that he would seek to change do not and will not trust his sources as being trustworthy and so will at best read the links only looking for reasons to discredit them. Those that agree, probably didn't even bother to follow and read the links, because they already agree.
That's why I said making the debate about the data and interpretations of the data due the environmental movement harm for no gain. If the argument were a philosophical one, we could get somewhere, but sadly it's not.
Original Post by ignayshus:
And (assuming) that everything Melkor posted and linked to was, on the whole, factually accurate and an honest unbiased analysis of the data, it amounts to nothing.
It amounts to nothing, because it will not change opinion, only confirm existing opinion. The minds that he would seek to change do not and will not trust his sources as being trustworthy and so will at best read the links only looking for reasons to discredit them. Those that agree, probably didn't even bother to follow and read the links, because they already agree.
That's why I said making the debate about the data and interpretations of the data due the environmental movement harm for no gain. If the argument were a philosophical one, we could get somewhere, but sadly it's not.
I don't think either argument would get us anywhere. A philosophical argument would just be academic and...amusing. :D
Original Post by ignayshus:
And (assuming) that everything Melkor posted and linked to was, on the whole, factually accurate and an honest unbiased analysis of the data, it amounts to nothing.
It amounts to nothing, because it will not change opinion, only confirm existing opinion. The minds that he would seek to change do not and will not trust his sources as being trustworthy and so will at best read the links only looking for reasons to discredit them. Those that agree, probably didn't even bother to follow and read the links, because they already agree.
That's why I said making the debate about the data and interpretations of the data due the environmental movement harm for no gain. If the argument were a philosophical one, we could get somewhere, but sadly it's not.
I agree. We should do the right thing for our environment simply because it is the right thing to do.
Original Post by trhawley:
Original Post by ignayshus:
And (assuming) that everything Melkor posted and linked to was, on the whole, factually accurate and an honest unbiased analysis of the data, it amounts to nothing.
It amounts to nothing, because it will not change opinion, only confirm existing opinion. The minds that he would seek to change do not and will not trust his sources as being trustworthy and so will at best read the links only looking for reasons to discredit them. Those that agree, probably didn't even bother to follow and read the links, because they already agree.
That's why I said making the debate about the data and interpretations of the data due the environmental movement harm for no gain. If the argument were a philosophical one, we could get somewhere, but sadly it's not.
I agree. We should do the right thing for our environment simply because it is the right thing to do.
Oh, and how do we decide to do the right thing for the environment? Let's look at the data! :D
Original Post by trhawley:
Original Post by ignayshus:
And (assuming) that everything Melkor posted and linked to was, on the whole, factually accurate and an honest unbiased analysis of the data, it amounts to nothing.
It amounts to nothing, because it will not change opinion, only confirm existing opinion. The minds that he would seek to change do not and will not trust his sources as being trustworthy and so will at best read the links only looking for reasons to discredit them. Those that agree, probably didn't even bother to follow and read the links, because they already agree.
That's why I said making the debate about the data and interpretations of the data due the environmental movement harm for no gain. If the argument were a philosophical one, we could get somewhere, but sadly it's not.
I agree. We should do the right thing for our environment simply because it is the right thing to do.
clap clap!
i love it when melkor comes out of the gym ;)
Original Post by pgeorgian:
i love it when melkor comes out of the gym ;)
i know, i keep expecting some lifting analogy to pop up. i think its when he has his caffeine fix.
Original Post by dnrothx:
Original Post by trhawley:
Original Post by ignayshus:
And (assuming) that everything Melkor posted and linked to was, on the whole, factually accurate and an honest unbiased analysis of the data, it amounts to nothing.
It amounts to nothing, because it will not change opinion, only confirm existing opinion. The minds that he would seek to change do not and will not trust his sources as being trustworthy and so will at best read the links only looking for reasons to discredit them. Those that agree, probably didn't even bother to follow and read the links, because they already agree.
That's why I said making the debate about the data and interpretations of the data due the environmental movement harm for no gain. If the argument were a philosophical one, we could get somewhere, but sadly it's not.
I agree. We should do the right thing for our environment simply because it is the right thing to do.
Oh, and how do we decide to do the right thing for the environment? Let's look at the data! :D
You use the data to determine how to fix/improve X once the conclusion is drawn that X needs to be fixed/improved.
Going to the data first is putting the cart before the horse.
As trhawley said, we should be stewards of the environment because it's in everyone's best interests.
Original Post by dnrothx:
I don't think either argument would get us anywhere. A philosophical argument would just be academic and...amusing. :D
To be fair, you think a lot of things ;)
Are you telling me you need data to determine that you should vaccuum your house regularly?
I think the overwhelming majority can agree that landfills aren't a sustainable solution.
I think the overwhelming majority can agree that car emmissions don't improve the quality of our air.
I think the overwhelming majority can agree that polluting ground water is bad.
But if we make it about how bad is it compared to X then we get away from the real issue. How much are we as a society willing to contribute to the problem? What are we willing to forgo to limit our impact?
Surprisingly enough, I agree with that. I miss the kind of conservatives who included actual conservation in their politics, instead of conservation of the privilege of the rich over the rule of law.
Nixon established the EPA and the Clean Air act. And do you know who established the national park system?
I miss the real conservatives.
Original Post by ignayshus:
Are you telling me you need data to determine that you should vaccuum your house regularly?
At some point, someone collected data that a dirty house was bad, and someone also collected data that determined that vaccuming decreased the dirtyness of the house. It's now considered general knowledge, but started out as people making observations (i.e. collecting data).
