'Skeptics Guide' To Global Warming...

**TonyU** · 12-10-2006, 15:17

Originally Posted by Defined

Excellent information, especially from Aaron. Thankyou.

Someone in this thread mentioned that it was a political thread. It is not.
I take pity on the people who do not listen to information just because of the person who is giving it to them.

So Al Gore did 'An Inconvenient Truth', who cares. I haven't seen it myself, more because I couldn't justify spending money to find out what I already know. So if you don't believe things such as global warming, think of a better excuse than something along the lines of 'oh, but this politician said it'. I have heard this excuse many times, almost as many as 'oh, but this politician doesn't believe in global warming'. Either way, it's rather annoying.

Ah, but I disagree. It is a political one, especialy when you have a politician manipulating it for his own agenda. So I won't go see it. It would be difficult to seperate fact form fiction.

I also agree that it is a topic or concern we should be aware of and take every precaution to take care of this planet.

This stuff always reminds me of old sci-fi movies I used to watch as a kid where we, as a human race, needed to find another place to live because we depleted all our resources on our planet.

This is our home, lets take care of it.

**jwinch2** · 12-10-2006, 15:33

Originally Posted by TonyU

This is our home, lets take care of it.

I think that is what it all comes down to. No matter what side of the scientific argument you come down on or what side of the political aisle you may be on, everyone should be able to agree to that...

**Tony Dismukes** · 12-10-2006, 16:25

Just for the record, I did pretty much finish looking into all the claims made by Senator Inhofe in the attached pdf.

I don't want to monopolize this thread with a 20-page debunking of the debunking, but here's the summary.

I haven't yet seen An Incovenient Truth*, so I can't directly comment on Inhofe's critique of that movie. However, here is a review by an actual climate scientist (bio).

* I do plan on seing the movie, based on a recommendation from my father. Dad's not a climate scientist, but he is a scientist and he's very picky about people making scientific arguments.

Inhofe spends a lot of time criticizing press coverage of global warming. Since news media coverage of science just about always sucks, I didn't think it was even worthwhile to see which criticisms I agreed/disagreed with.

I spent quite a bit of time looking into Inhofe's scientific claims rebutting the mainstream consensus and didn't find anything convincing. If anyone wants details, let me know. If you want to do your own investigating, this blog run by actual climate scientists might be a place to start.

Inhofe's claims that there is no scientific consensus in the field is either delusional or a lie.

Inhofe's claim that global warming is a huge hoax would imply that the overwhelming majority of researchers in the field of climate science were guilty of deliberate scientific fraud. It's certainly conceivable that the scientific consensus in the field could be wrong. That's happened before and will happen again. But to imagine that most of the scientists in entire field of science are deliberately lying is just flat out insane.

As I said before, when it comes to a choice between politicians and scientists, I know which I find more trustworthy.

**Maro** · 12-10-2006, 17:09

Politcians always resort to invective when it comes to subjects that involve Science. Whether you agree with it or not, only 5% of the Politicians in Canberra actually read the Report on Stem-Cell research before voting. A personal stance is fine but that kind of negligence to your electorate is wrong.

I think that Politicians forget what they are elected for - it's not supposed to be the quick way to a comfortable directorship.

I actually studied Environemental Science for my BSc. I'm by know means a leftist greeny tree-hugger (my lead into the course was more of a Geological background). However, as Tony says, it's just good practice to look after the planet.

**elder999** · 12-10-2006, 19:13

I should just add that science has always been political-we can go as far back as Aristotle, but a better example would be Galileo's conflict with the Vatican (at the time very much the political power) over heliocentricity.

**Defined** · 12-10-2006, 20:39

Originally Posted by elder999

I should just add that science has always been political-we can go as far back as Aristotle, but a better example would be Galileo's conflict with the Vatican (at the time very much the political power) over heliocentricity.

Yes, but that was when science and religion (religion at the time you could say was politics) were more intertwined. The global warming issue is also not disagreeing with doctrine either.

To a certain extent I believe this issue is being used to encite argument politically for votes, well, why else would they talk about it. From what I have heard the dirty politicians talking about, there is generally two sides.

Side 1 - Will tell you that they believe in global warming and give promises (if elected of course) to set up things such as alternative energy reduce green house emissions.

Side 2 - Gives the impression that anyone supporting side 2 are green hugging hippies without actually saying it. Admits there is evidence (how coudl they not) but refuses to admit how strong the evidence is. Does nothing to say how we are helping to warm the planet instead telling us that the higher emissions help our growing economy and will continue this way, if elected.

Fun fun fun.

**elder999** · 12-10-2006, 23:39

Originally Posted by Defined

Yes, but that was when science and religion (religion at the time you could say was politics) were more intertwined. The global warming issue is also not disagreeing with doctrine either.

Well, working backwards, we have the politics of stem-cell research,the number of planets in the solar system, cloning, primate research, animal experimentation, the political implications of the human genome (eugenics), euthanasia, pain management, evolution vs. “Intelligent design,” the Soviet rejection of entire fields of scientific endeavor as “capitalist and bourgeois," biological warfare, the Chinese Cultural Revolution’s dismissal of entire fields of science as "degenerate,"-to the point of sending some scientists to "reeducation camps," the Space Race, nuclear power, nuclear warfare, the development of the thermonuclear weapon, the development of the atomic bomb, the absorption of Nazi scientists into the post-war establishment , eugenics (again-for real this time and many others), the Nazi rejection of entire fields of science as “Jewish,” Nazi scienitific assertions of the inferiority of the “Jewish race,” the scientific assertions of the inferiority of the “black race,”scientific assertions of the inferiority of the “Native American Race,” scientific assertions of the inferiority of the “yellow race,” chemical warfare, evolution, the flat earth, the hollow earth, the Lost World (just kidding!)…..I could go on, but you get the idea, and don’t even get me started on the political implications of my work…..

**Webmaster** · 12-11-2006, 11:55

UN downgrades man's impact on the climate

Cow 'emissions' more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars

**Mandeigh Wells** · 12-11-2006, 14:03

Never ever believe anything you read in the British press

**Webmaster** · 12-11-2006, 15:24

Originally Posted by Mandeigh Wells

Never ever believe anything you read in the British press

Or, in the American press for that matter.

**wab25** · 12-11-2006, 16:16

Lets not even look at water vapor.

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

Water vapor is a natural greenhouse gas and accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect.

Whats interesting is that they don't mention what exactly that percentage is.

here: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
we find that:

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect.

If you take into account water vapor, then man's contribution to the total greenhouse gases is 0.28%. I wonder if we can even measure the total amount of greenhouse gases to within 0.28%???

Whats interesting is that we want to replace fuel burning cars, with fuel cell cars, which only emit water vapor...... Great trade there, heck if we are going to contribute, lets at least contribute where it matters most.

Most people against global warming, are red neck republican type people, who live in the back woods, farmers, loggers, hunters,..... In other words, people who make their living off the environment. They don't want to screw up the environment any more than the city dwellers do. What they want is for people to respect the environment, and look before they leap. In California, someone suggested we should put an additive in our gas to help the environment, so right away, we did. Turns out, that additive is worse for the environment, dangerous to humans and makes us get much less gas mileage. But, its for the environment. All the anti global warming folks I know, are all for taking care of the land. They are out of a job, and you are out of food, if we don't. (people seem to forget that the evil farmers grow the food you eat, before it magically appears in the grocery store) What they want is for people to slow down, and really look at proposed changes, BEFORE, we make them, to avoid more things like this gas additive.

People are opposed to oil drilling off the California coast, where companies would have to file environmental impact reports, and then build and maintain there operation under the watchful eye of every environmental group out there trying to sue them. So, as a result, we have our oil drilled half way around the world, with no environmental impact studies, no environmental laws or concerns of any kind, where the environmentalists can not watch over. Then, it has to be put in a boat, and shipped half way around the world to us. (we never have problems with boats full of oil....) Yes, we should get off oil. But in the mean time, I think we should be drilling where we can maintain the most control on the environmental impact that the drilling causes. Not close our eyes, and expect 3rd world nations to have the same respect for the environment that you have.

What I am trying to point out here, is that whether people are pro or anti Global Warming, pro or anti environmentalist, not very many people are for trashing the environment. Those that do, should be punished. And while we have changes to make, those changes should be carefully considered and studied first. We have made too many bad decisions in the name of the environment, because people make decisions based on fear and emotion, not on fact.

I grew up on a walnut orchard. We could not spray hershy's chocolate sauce, peanut butter or garlic juice on our trees. (they work great for controlling certain bugs) The anti pesticide crowd have determined that the residue of these chemicals, left on the out side of the hull, which is out side of the shell, which surrounds the nut meat, may cause cancer. So, now instead of using chemicals you can buy and eat at the grocery store, we now spray manmade chemicals, which you can not eat.

Lets just look (at facts), before we jump, thats all I ask.

**elder999** · 12-11-2006, 16:32

Originally Posted by Webmaster

UN downgrades man's impact on the climate

Cow 'emissions' more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars

We've know about cow flatulence for a long time-however, this does count as a man-made influence. We keep the cows in much greater numbers than ever before, and much greater numbers than they ever would have without us...heck, we pretty much made them what they are today.

**Tony Dismukes** · 12-12-2006, 17:53

Jay Leno recently found a Time magazine from the 70's... The cover story "gloal cooling" a new ice age?

As previously mentioned, that was strictly media sensationalism that did not reflect any sort of scientific consensus. At that time the available data was insufficient to draw any sort of firm conclusions. The present worries about global warming are based on the concerns of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists, who feel that the data is now sufficient to draw conclusions.

According to my Almanac, the hottest record setting days are all in the late 1800's early 1900's?

Even if your Almanac was a reliable historical record (which I doubt), it would only be reflecting the temperatures measured at one particular place. The data scientists are looking at are reflecting average temperatures worldwide, as based on a variety of methods for gathering that information.

Besides, Al Gore went off the deep end after losing the election, remember?

Umm ... no. I do remember that a few years ago he made a few passionate speeches critical of the Bush administration, in response to which some Republican spinmeisters tried to portray him as unhinged. At this point in time, the majority of the U.S. population has largely come into agreement with his criticisms of the Bush administration. In fact, I've seen some conservative/Republican bloggers criticize Bush more severely than Gore did.

But in any case, that's irrelevant. Al Gore happens to be just one person trying to spread information about global warming. If you don't like the man, fine. Don't bother seeing his movie. As was said above, the existence and cause of global warming are scientific questions. Check and see what the actual scientists have to say. http://www.realclimate.org/ I recommend you start by checking out the "Highlights" section on the sidebar. (Scroll down just a little ways.)

**wab25** · 12-12-2006, 18:20

and that would be a completely unbiased resource, composed of scientists whose funding and jobs, do not depend the existance of global warming in response to human activity......?

**Tony Dismukes** · 12-12-2006, 19:22

and that would be a completely unbiased resource, composed of scientists whose funding and jobs, do not depend the existance of global warming in response to human activity....?

The field of climate science, with funding and jobs for those involved in it, did indeed exist before the scientific community decided that anthropogenic global warming was a reality. Has the funding for the field increased significantly since they came to that conclusion? I have no idea. If you have any verifiable information on the subject, please share.

If funding for climate science research has indeed drastically increased in response to concerns about global warming, then that might be cause of subconscious bias among some researchers. For that bias to convince 99% of the researchers in the field, many of whom would have secure jobs regardless? Unlikely. Scientists are a pretty argumentative lot. If you have holes in your data or your logical reasoning, someone is going to point it out.

**wab25** · 12-13-2006, 15:39

Originally Posted by Tony Dismukes

The field of climate science, with funding and jobs for those involved in it, did indeed exist before the scientific community decided that anthropogenic global warming was a reality. Has the funding for the field increased significantly since they came to that conclusion? I have no idea. If you have any verifiable information on the subject, please share.

If funding for climate science research has indeed drastically increased in response to concerns about global warming, then that might be cause of subconscious bias among some researchers. For that bias to convince 99% of the researchers in the field, many of whom would have secure jobs regardless? Unlikely. Scientists are a pretty argumentative lot. If you have holes in your data or your logical reasoning, someone is going to point it out.

Why are the scientists hired by Cheveron any different than the scientists hired by a University? The Cheveron Scientists bring money to Cheveron, by proving that global warming does not exist. The University scientist brings money to the University, by proving that it does. If a University scientist, proves global warming is not happening, the University loses many grants, because they are based on solving a non issue. I fail to see how one scientist, getting paid to produce the conclusion his employer wants, is any more pure, or unbiased than any other scientist getting paid to produce the conclusion that his employer wants.

But the other side uses scientists and methods that this side does not accept.... If you look real close you will see both camps following this logic. Neither camp accepts the other camps "experts" as such, nor their methods as valid.

I suspect the truth, (whats really going on, independent of politics and money) is somewhere in the middle. I also think that as terrible as we are now, with regard to the environment, it is easier to make things worse, instead of better. Too many times we use the emotional "we must save the environment, or our grandchildren will die...." argument, to make changes before we know enough about the changes we are suggesting. Too many times, we have allowed our emotion to make thing worse, instead of better.

With man's contribution to greenhouse gases amounting to less than 1%, and our inability to measure the total amount of greenhouse gases to within 1%, I suspect we have a little while longer to make changes. Lets study them first. What is the effect of trading CO2 emissions (a greenhouse gas), for water vapor emissions (another greenhouse gas)? One car, no big deal. What happens when all cars are emitting water vapor (a greenhouse gas)? Then the amount being released is significant, or at least as significant as the amount of CO2 being released. Should we be mandating the change to fuel cell cars, and getting rid of fuel cars now, thus trading emissions of one greenhouse gas for another? Or should we slow down, and use our technology, to study this a bit to make sure we aren't screwing things up more?

**wab25** · 12-13-2006, 15:59

Originally Posted by ACS

Yeah, somewhere in the middle maybe. I do think that you can't pump all the pollution into the atmosphere and not have something go wrong? Like taking heart medication but it gives you an ulcer? I figure the universe as some kind of balance and if you have extra of one thing you have less of something else. It's just hard to form a position when everybody seems to have an agenda? Does the drug companies really want a cure for cancer? To listen to 'em they're working feverishly to put themselves out of business for mankind? I just don't know, and the more I learn, the more I don't know

I agree with you there. Especially the part about pumping more pollution into the air. Yes, water vapor is natural, so it shouldn't be a problem. But, animals have been exhaling CO2 for thousands of years before cars were invented. CO2 is just as natural as water vapor. How do we know that a substantial increase in water vapor is any better for the environment than CO2?

**Tony Dismukes** · 12-13-2006, 16:47

The University scientist brings money to the University, by proving that it does. If a University scientist, proves global warming is not happening, the University loses many grants, because they are based on solving a non issue.

You're assuming facts not in evidence. The university scientists (which would be most scientists in the field) are mostly performing basic research, not working to solve a particular environmental issue. Has the consensus on global warming drastically increased funding for climate science? I already said that I don't know. If you think that you know, please provide some backing evidence. If you have evidence that the majority of climate scientists would find their jobs in danger if global warming was disproven, please share that as well. I would note that a large number of climate scientist are doing research that is not based on proving or disproving global warming, yet most of those scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming.

I fail to see how one scientist, getting paid to produce the conclusion his employer wants, is any more pure, or unbiased than any other scientist getting paid to produce the conclusion that his employer wants.

But the other side uses scientists and methods that this side does not accept.... If you look real close you will see both camps following this logic. Neither camp accepts the other camps "experts" as such, nor their methods as valid.

I think you're confusing the debate between environmental activists and industry spokesmen with the debate among scientists. Scientists carry out their debate through the presentation of evidence, especially the publication of peer-reviewed research. Unlike political activists, they don't get to dismiss counter arguments by saying "You took money from Chevron, I'm not listening to you."

I think you're also mistaken if you think that there are two "camps", as such, among scientists. There are a handful of respected scientists in relevant fields* who still a) doubt that global warming is happening or b) believe that global warming is happening, but think the cause may not be man-made or c) believe that global warming is real and man-made, but that the consequences won't be all that bad. These scientists make their arguments by presenting evidence. Those scientists who disagree make theiir counter arguments by presenting evidence and research of their own. At this point in time, probably 99% of the scientists in the field have been convinced by the believers in man-made global warming, not the skeptics. Having looked at the summaries of the arguments on both sides, I'm convinced by the majority as well, although obviously I don't have the expertise to critically analyze the details of individual studies.

* There are also some skeptics who have not done any work or published any peer-reviewed research in relevant fields. Those skeptics can fairly be dismissed as not experts on the subject. That's just the way science works and has nothing to do with the political advocacy on any issue.

**Tony Dismukes** · 12-13-2006, 23:48

Okay, in partial support of William's argument, I have been able to verify that funding for research on climate change has skyrocketed over the last couple of decades. I don't know how much of that is new funding and how much of it was redirected from other areas of climate science. Still, I imagine at least a significant portion of it may be additional funds which might not be available to climate scientists otherwise.