Post Reply
Page 4 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
7 years ago  ::  Nov 14, 2007 - 6:09AM #31
Zero-Equals-Infinity
Posts: 10
[QUOTE=NJLee;13978]I listened to a clip on radio on Global Warming

When asked what will happen, the young child said "We will all Die"

When asked where she got her information on Climate she said

"Al Gore's movie"

Considering that The British Government is warning that the movie contains 9 lies and more questionable conclusions and should be used with great care,  Al Gore owes that child an apology.

And all environmentalists, especially those with any kind of faith in God,  should educate their children with facts and confidence and not with silly and speculative movies from political activists.[/QUOTE]

There is a plus and minus to this.  The problem is significant and people need a "kick in the pants" to be motivated to make life style changes they would not otherwise be inclined to make.  On the other hand, if there are substantial false claims being made, the argument may be criticized and dismissed. 

And so the question:  Is it reasonable and effective to stretch the truth of your argument when the end of changing public policy and behaviour justifies it?  It is a legitimate question, and especially if the techique is effective.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Nov 14, 2007 - 7:20AM #32
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301
You mean, like Powell did at the UN?

Zero]Is it reasonable and effective to stretch the truth of your argument when the end of changing public policy and behaviour justifies it?



C'mon!

If you think your gut feeling is right, go for it by ALL means!

There is no such thing as a good end that could be spoilt by bad means.

- -

Now, is Gore guilty of pulling a Powell? I don't think so.

If that child gets a wrong impression from the movie, apparently its parents have not been able to do their job. I wonder what that same child would have said if asked about the average American tv viol wrote:

Is it reasonable and effective to stretch the truth of your argument when the end of changing public policy and behaviour justifies it?[/quote]

C'mon!

If you think your gut feeling is right, go for it by ALL means!

There is no such thing as a good end that could be spoilt by bad means.

- -

Now, is Gore guilty of pulling a Powell? I don't think so.

If that child gets a wrong impression from the movie, apparently its parents have not been able to do their job. I wonder what that same child would have said if asked about the average American tv violence...

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Nov 14, 2007 - 9:51AM #33
rbchaddy2000
Posts: 1,277
I think that it is important to be concerned and aware of global warming. I am skeptical of the dire claims of some such as Al Gore, but that is not to say that people should go merrily on their way. People are having an impact, which can't be ignored. We have a very limited record of the climate. Awareness is in order. Richard
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Nov 14, 2007 - 6:26PM #34
NJLee
Posts: 2,191

Zero-Equals-Infinity wrote:

There is a plus and minus to this. The problem is significant and people need a "kick in the pants" to be motivated to make life style changes they would not otherwise be inclined to make. On the other hand, if there are substantial false claims being made, the argument may be criticized and dismissed.

And so the question: Is it reasonable and effective to stretch the truth of your argument when the end of changing public policy and behaviour justifies it? It is a legitimate question, and especially if the techique is effective.



The real issue is the conclusiveness of the statistics rather than anyone lieing. 

There are things we can and should do to clean up the environment, but it is presumptious of us to think that we have the power to alter the basic nature of climate change of the globe.

We have an awful record of predicting hurricanes and other natural disasters,  what gives us the faith that we can predict  these global changes with any better accuracy. 

An example is the Greenland Ice melting and discovering ancient forests.  Proof that the globe is warming or proof that these changes are natural and cycular.

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Nov 14, 2007 - 11:09PM #35
Bodean
Posts: 9,511
I just happen to be at a siminar this week, and an interesting facet of human behavior was brought up.

It's called our "paradigm".

Essentially, our own personal paradigm will dictate how we see data.  This is especially true of people who are looking for data to fit a particular hypothesis.  In essense, one's own paradigm will prevent them from seeing data that contradicts what their paradigm would dicatate!

It happens to almost everyone!  It even brought up Scientists as the example (not Global Warming, but other scientists).

This is how it is with most people who have a firm opinion on Global Warming.  They just cannot see data that contradicts their paradigm.  And this is where I trump most on this board, because my paradigm is one of inquistive curiosity, not of position.

For Example:

1) I do not deny that the Globe has warmed.  It most certainly has warmed, at least, certain regions have warmed.  But there are studies that have brought into question the temperature record, as the record is not a hard record, but a mathmatical adjusted record.  Further, the meteoroligical stations do not correspond to the Satelite Data, unless you mathmatically adjust the Satelite Data.  The question, will your paradigm allow you to accept this uncertainty??

2) I do not deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we have records that show it has increased.  Lab results show that it absorbs energy within a certain bandwidth.  But again, studies have questioned wether or not CO2 has caused the warming, or rather responded to warming.  Science dictates that CO2 can only absorb reflected energy (IR energy converte to infared and re-emitted from the earth).  The History Channel had a show on last night that suggested that CO2 was the driver in warming the "snowball" earth.  This is just not very likely, as most energy in a snowball earth was reflected as IR, not infared.  Studies by NASA and the NOAA have shown that SST precede CO2 increases, and the Vostok Ice cores show the same thing.  El Nino and La Nina have also been shown to have drastic effects on both temperature and CO2 concentration, and the record shows a clear change in pattern that was unrelated to CO2 effects.  This introduces uncertainty.  Question is, will your paradigm allow you to acknowlege it??

3) Is there really a consensus??  Well, yes, there is a consensus of the scientists who are involved in the IPCC process.  But, we know that the IPCC does not consist of all or even most Climate Scientist.  Further, most of the consensus is based on opinion from people who are just agreeing with the opinion of others ... based on their own paradigm.

4) Alternative models have been created and shown to be just as high a correlation to temperature as CO2 models.  Which one is right??  Can't say.  But, it is apparent that people will allow their own paradigm to dictate which they believe is right and which is wrong.  What is so interesting about it, as that when opposing sides characterize each other, they misrepresent the other sides views .. consistently!  The perfect example is Solar Models.  I've read the critiques, and the critiques omit and manipulate the data so that it doesn't even remotely represent what was claimed .. and then claim it to be false!

5) Science!  Most all would agree that politics and science do not mix. BUT .. what constitutes a mix is based on what one wants to believe.  However, there are some tell tell characteristics by which one can judge whether or not something is being politcized or not.  Number on on that list is transparency!!!  I've mentioned on numerous occasions of the documentation of the "secrecy" of Climate Science.  Data and methods should have no protections to prevent others from tearing it appart.  In fact, that is the validation process of any good science.  A great example.  Maunder, the guy who first noticed the total lack of sun spot acitivity associated with the Maunder Minimum (little ice age), was completely dismissed at his suggestion of a link.  It wasn't until hundreds of years later that another scientist took his data and methods, and validated that he was right! .. and hence, the period was named after Maunder.  In Contrast, Keith Briffa (a british scientist) who was the lead author of AR4 and cohort of M. Mann (the hocky stick guy), comopletely dismissed comments on AR4 that opposed the work he was including, which just happened to be his own!  Is this scientifically ethical??  I don't think so.  Even having him as the lead author represented a conflict of interest.  Mann, was the previous TAR lead author, and he created the science basis after his own work (and the hocky stick was the feature of that report).  Ethical??  Not really.  Gore, a politician, presented the hockey stick and fraudulently accredited it to Ice Core data from Lonnie Thompson, as nowhere in Lonnie Thompson's work will you find it.  Ethical??  NOPE!  Lonnie Thompson himself, also featured on the forementioned History Channel show refuses to give up or achive his data to be verified.  Scientific?? Not hardly!! Does this prove that CO2 is not causing warming?? ... clearly the answer is NO!  However, it does cast uncertainty on the issue, and is suggest of one's own paradigm interfering with objective presentation of what is allegedly scientific fact.

6)  AND ... Most Importantly!!  Does the fact that some people see and acknowledge these discrepancies necessarily make them "deniers"??  Well, depends on how you look at it!!  If you paradigm is to PROVE that Global Warming is man's fault and to push for policy changes accordingly, well, I guess you could say yes.  However, from the pure objective observation, the answer is no.  They are not "deniers", they are scientists who recognize uncertainty, and wich to see it addressed before making any committments on the subject.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Nov 15, 2007 - 4:30AM #36
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301
I think we do not basically disagree ont he state of the science.

But as you so often have put it, Bo: it's political!

As long as the greenhouse theory is not off the table, we just might want to use it as a political argument to further our social agenda:

Energy independence from fossil fuels.

Less waste and more sustainable living.

More responsibility for one's own doing.

But there are powerful lobby groups who have invested in waste, who earn a lot of money from irresponsible behaviour, particularly energy waste. The very idea of sustainability is counter to big commerce -- if a product has high quality and lasts long, for instance,  people will not buy another one for a long time.

And there are the willing lackeys who further these lobby groups' agenda by throwing stones onto the path of reform...
tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Nov 16, 2007 - 1:28PM #37
Bodean
Posts: 9,511
[QUOTE=CharikIeia;70378]I think we do not basically disagree ont he state of the science.

But as you so often have put it, Bo: it's political!

As long as the greenhouse theory is not off the table, we just might want to use it as a political argument to further our social agenda:
..[/QUOTE]


Well Charik .... you win!!

You got me!!  You are absolutely right!!  AND .. I can't make an argument against it!

When it comes to politics, people have different "opinions", and each is entitled to their opinion, and no one has a right to say right or wrong!

I may disagree that it is the right thing to do ... but, I can't say you are wrong!

:)
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Nov 18, 2007 - 1:48AM #38
robinhood
Posts: 5
This issue is clear to me. Should we dramatically change our way of life here in America when the science is imprecise?

      The science is not really imprecise.  The IPCC is not quibbling about this, the corporations and their lackeys are.   It's very clear that massive environmental changes are already taking place, more are in store, and many results could be dangerous, or worse.
     Incidentally, there was an earlier comment about the IPCC being political.  While the scientists do come from nation-states, the scientific community is renowned for good reasons.  When mavericks like Einstein come around, their results get tested.  When charlatans like "Piltdown man" or "snakeoil salesman" come around, they don't get accepted.  The IPCC is not political because it represents a large community of scientists that practice the rigor of verification of evidence, and careful consideration of hypotheses.  Corporations and laymen, on the other hand, might not want to respect those rules because they have other beliefs, like "Money talks," which they follow regardless of non-financial science.  That is why the Stern Economic Report is a good one to look at, because of the probable economic damage it calculates.
     Other toxic chemical crises reveal these dynamics. The Ozone crisis would make a good comparison, seeing as corporations resisted strongly, and it was Greenpeace that promoted a non-ozone damaging refrigerant option that became successful in Europe.  International countries also just signed the Stockholm Convention in 2004 to ban 12 highly toxic chemicals, including DDT, PCB's, and Dioxin.  They gave leeway on DDT for malaria, but I was just watching a documentary on the Chemical Company response to Rachel Carson.  It was not exactly diplomatic or fair-minded.  Propaganda is more like it.
     As for Climate Change, investments in solar and wind alone could provide massive new sources of energy.  However, that takes a sense of social responsibility since the incentives currently favor the non-renewables, including toxic waste laden nuclear.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Nov 18, 2007 - 10:21AM #39
Bodean
Posts: 9,511
[QUOTE=robinhood;77617]This issue is clear to me. Should we dramatically change our way of life here in America when the science is imprecise?

      The science is not really imprecise.  The IPCC is not quibbling about this, the corporations and their lackeys are.   It's very clear that massive environmental changes are already taking place, more are in store, and many results could be dangerous, or worse..[/QUOTE]


Robinhood ...

I think you need to consider the point of advantage in this case.  Of course the IPCC is not quibbling about it, as they are in the point of advantage.  They are a political body.  They have the media on their side.  Their position is the "in vogue" position.  BUT .. this doesn't make them necessarily right.

Regarding those "lackys"!  I hardly consider the entire astrophysics division of science a bunch of lackys!!  In fact, I tend to consider them much more adept and honest than a group of modellers ... which is all the IPCC has.

Yes ..the Climate is changing.  The question is, "is it unprecedented".  Their are opinions on both sides.  Just from a complete historical perspective, I have a hard time believing what the doomsday crowd is saying.  Here is how it goes.

Thoughout history, warm periods have been beneficial to life.  More rain, longer growing seasons ... and warmer temperatures.  The MWP was characterized by population explosion, crops, settlements of new lands.  Tree lines move higher on mountain ranges, and plant growth move farther north in lattitude.  Along with it, animal life follows.

In contrast, cold periods tend to be detrimental to life.  Drought, shorter growing seasons, crop failures, etc.  More extinctions are connected to cold than to warm.  That is just a basic fact. Plant life retreats, and what plant life does, determines what happens to animal life.  Another interesting facet; The IPCC is predicting more hurricanes due to warming, but history shows the opposite to be the reality.  Warm periods are connected to El Ninos which produce a high pressure ridge over the Atlantic, squelching hurricanes.  The last two hurricane seasons were not unusual to the real hurricane scientist at all!  They expected them to be quiet!  In contrast, cool periods are connected to more La Nina, which equates to more and stronger hurricanes.  Don't be suprised if this comming year (2008) is more active than the last two years, as we are in a La Nina.

The only place where IPCC is correct is floods.  However their reasoning is wrong!!  They would like to blame it on CO2, but the reality is man's impact on the landscape!!  Roads, buldings, and drainage systems alter the natural hydrological system, such that water is channeled, drainage to rivers etc, are increased beyond what is normal.  Couple this with the increased rain of warmer periods, and you get floods.

As far as the science being precise ... well, that is debatable.  Unfortunately, there is no debate.  Climate Change has went the way of Abortion or Gay Rights.  There is no debate.  While I can see such in highly charged issues such as abortion, there is no room for this type of hard-headedness in science.  There are multiple lines of data, all good, all precise, that show differing positions on the cause of Climate Change.  After reading it all, I tend to agree with  the Astrophysics guys.

What is going to be a trechery, is if the IPCC convinces governments to start preparing for Future Global Warming, and the Climate Cools!!!!!  IMO, it will be grounds to throw a bunch of people in jail, because MILLIONS will die because of it!  The table is not turned on the opposite side.  If we do nothing to prepare for Global Warming in the next 20 years other than try to limit the growth of CO2 emissions, and it warms, impact on life will be minimal! 

But to be honest, I don't see the globe warming in the next hundred years.  The Globe has not warmed in the last ten years, and the El Nino/La Nina balance has definitely switched.  Further, Astrophysics is predicting the lowest solar output in centuries over the next 60 years (the low of a 200 year cycle).  They are actually predicting conditions similar to the LIA come 2050!!  IF our CO2 can help mitigate that kind of environment, where England saw a year without a summer, and you could walk to Stanton Island from NY ... across the ice, I say we need to pump out as much as we can!!!  But somehow, I don't see it having any affect .... none at all.  Hopefully I'm wrong, but I fear I'm not!  There's just too much historical precedence pointing to my conclusion being right.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Nov 18, 2007 - 3:00PM #40
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301
[QUOTE=Bodean;77958]Regarding those "lackys"!  I hardly consider the entire astrophysics division of science a bunch of lackys!![/quote]

You do not want to peddle the idea to us that all astrophysicists deny the IPCC findings. Or do you?

The lackeys I spoke of were the Michael Crichtons and the local weathermen who say "it always has been warmer and colder again" -- the posters here who profess to be progressive but are stubbornly sabotageing any change towards energy independence, for purely political reasons, saying "you may be right but, he he, for the wrong reasons, so I prefer to just let the market solve a problem it cannot solve" -- the Bush 41s who say "the American way is not up for negotiation".

You know Keldar from the old Israel& Palestine board? He was so enthusiast (though in a different context) about America's ability to re-invent itself! You think, like Bush 41, that he is not only wrong, but even *should* be wrong?
tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 4 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook