another disturbing impact

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by gt, Feb 15, 2008.

  1. I'd say that Americans are 96% idiots... This thread certainly supports that premise. Ask the dude at McMurdo if he's a climate change scientist. Now ask all the people (read: climate change scientists) in my department why they just spent millions of dollars on this http://www.biotron.uwo.ca/... I'm an American who's spent seasons in the Arctic and in the Antarctic. I've been a biologist for a long time, and THERE IS NO DEBATE. The same way THERE IS NO DEBATE ABOUT EVOLUTION. Even responding to misinformed ideas and accusations tends to lend credibility to those that profess them. Dawkins is right... The saddest thing is that all the folks on here who might know something about fishing claim to know something about science as well. There are a couple of biologists who occasionally post meaningful replies to misinformed rubbish, although it certainly seems their numbers are dwindling... I wonder why... At least all you Washingtonians ended up voting for Obama...
     
  2. Here's a dissenting opinion from a well qualified scientist though I'm sure one of the scientists commenting here will call him a whack job. However it's also clear that idealogy is also unfortunately driving this debate way to forcefully. Well founded skepitism is ridiculed and is certainly dropped from the public debate. When's the last time any contrary data to the "Consensus" has been presented by the lib media who has clearly taken a side in this debate? I don't have a problem in believing global warming is occuring. I just feel I'm being evangilized into believing so.

    The Warming Debate's Gray Area

    By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, October 15, 2007 4:30 PM PT

    Global Warming: A top climate scientist calls the theory that won Al Gore an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous." Others would speak out, he says, if they didn't fear retribution from those who put ideology over science.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Related Topics: Global Warming


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Dr. William Gray, professor emeritus of the atmospheric department at Colorado State University, who has become known as America's most reliable hurricane forecaster, made that assessment at the University of North Carolina over the weekend.

    "We'll look back at this in 10 or 15 years and realize how foolish it was," he said.

    Climate scientist William Gray, skeptical that man is responsible for global warming, is unswayed by political pressure.
    Meantime, said Gray, "We're brainwashing our children. They're going to the Gore movie and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."

    Not schooled as a politician or showman like Gore, he told the group of 300, including meteorology students, that "the human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major impact on global temperatures."

    Gray said that a natural cycle of ocean temperatures related to the amount of salt in ocean water was responsible for global warming, which he acknowledges has taken place. As part of this natural cycle, global temperatures will eventually cool again.

    He says that fluctuations in hurricane intensity and frequency, Exhibit A in Gore's inquisition, have nothing to do with carbon dioxide levels or human activity, but with changing ocean currents.

    He noted that there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared with 83 from 1957 to 2006, when the earth warmed.

    At a National Hurricane Conference held earlier this year in, appropriately enough, New Orleans, Gray said that this phenomenon "goes back thousands of years. These are natural processes. We shouldn't blame them on humans or CO2."

    At 78, Gray stands on his record as a pioneer in seasonal hurricane forecasts and no longer fears the career death that many of his like-minded peers risk if they dare to stray from the politically popular climate orthodoxy that gave Gore his Nobel Prize for activities that have nothing to do with world peace.

    "It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," Gray said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."

    Gore says he will give his $1.5 million prize to a green charity, the Alliance for Climate Change in Palo Alto, Calif. But as a group of economists, including four Nobel Prize winners, reported in 2004, there are better ways to help the planet.

    They found that one dollar spent fighting HIV/AIDS produced $40 in social benefits, and that one dollar spent on fighting malnutrition yielded about $30 in social benefits, but that one dollar fighting to lower CO2 emissions yielded between 2 and 25 cents in benefits.

    And, as we've said before, what greenies propose stunts economic growth and is a recipe for global poverty.

    In an Associated Press interview at the hurricane conference, Gray said of Gore: "He's one of those guys that preaches the end-of-the-world type of things. I think he's doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about."

    Neither, apparently, does the Nobel Prize committee.
    __________________
     
  3. The easiest way to fuel skepticism is to tell somebody they can't ask questions.

    Its very disingenuous how the debate about AGW always gets steered to a discussion about GW. THERE IS DEBATE ABOUT AGW. Of course we effect our environment by burning fuels. It's been that way from the very first time mankind started a fire. But exactly how, and to what extent? The complexity of the system is far beyond our current understanding. Otherwise, your climate change scientists would be unemployed, and millions of dollars would not be spent trying to figure this out.

    Sorry, but I'm going to ask questions when someone shouts me down while simultaneously reaching for my wallet with one hand and the keys to the kingdom with the other. I'm just funny that way.
     
  4. everyone has an opinion! that and a couple of bucks will get you something to drink at any starbucks, so???

    the point of fact is that no one, thats ZERO, has been able to put up a link to a SINGLE scientific peer reviewed study that refutes climate change.

    now if you have that link, post it. but please, no more opinions of this that or the other guy, they are meaningless in this discussion, MEANINGLESS, get it????????????
     
  5. Dr Gray above and others have disagreed with the peer review studies. Other studies not back by the consensus people are quickly dismissed as being funded by the oil/gas lobby or something.
     
  6. of course, gray has disagreed. so where is his peer reviewed study(s) that refute climate change???? they don't exist! what we have is another opinion. and yes, the 'scientists' on the payroll of gas and oil were the original ones to claim this was a hoax. but you will note, all they have to show is their OPINION, that is totally worthless in light of the overwhelming body of scientific evidence that has been peer reviewed and published.

    now, brookie hunter, post that peer reviewed link.......................
     
  7. I don't understand why those who are clearly qualified to tender an opinion about a peer review study are so quickly dismissed because they don't have a peer reviewed study themselves. I think there is a little too much coziness in peer reviwed studies....like people, with like views. There is all kind of anedotal evidence to show that atmospheric science is far from precise. The number and severity of annual hurricanes predicted are usually far off from there preseason prediction. So what makes all the modeling for climate change so more reliable? As I said before, I have no fear in believing that global warming is occuring, I just think it's been a predetermined outcome for many of the scientists involved particularly as any dissenting opinion, if you can find it, is killed off quickly.
     
  8. As Mr. Hays pointed out in the post above yours, there's an entire other level this discussion is playing out on that does not appear in the 'lib' media.

    It's called scientific discourse and occurs in journals, conferences and other forums that you could certainly read or attend if you or others here made the effort to do so. As Hays also notes, the problem is that far too many of us here confuse the question of man's contribution to the process as a public referendum in which we all get to vote. Sorta like the old saying, "Don't confuse me with facts. I already know what I want to believe."

    The scientific community suffers no such illusions.

    Perhaps the reason Dr. Gray's opinion is a minority dissenting one is that he's a professor emeritus, that is, retired and thus no longer involved in active participation in the scientific community.

    The plain fact is that we can debate it here until hell freezes over (or rather until the Artic melts) and our popular, non-scientific, yet passionately held opinions still won't add up to a pile of shit.

    K

    BTW, ever notice that the media is only portrayed as 'liberal' when it presents opinions that are not cherished by conservatives? Just a thought . . .
     
  9. "I think there is a little too much coziness in peer reviwed studies"


    now that is the ultimate stupid statement in this entire thread!

    got that peer reviewed study refuting climate change? post it.

    i won't be reading your OPINION on the subject until you are able to actually offer up the evidence that climate change is NOT happenning. until then............................
     
  10. Here are some quotes from Carl Sagan, as they seem appropriate given the direction that this thread has taken...

    "In a democracy, opinions that upset everyone are sometimes exactly what we need. We should be teaching our children the scientific method and the Bill of Rights. [Carl Sagan & Ann Druyan]"

    "If you want to save your child from polio, you can pray or you can inoculate....Try science. [Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World, p. 30, quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief, Famous People with the Courage to Doubt, by James A. Haught, Prometheus Books, 1996]"

    "In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion. [Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address]"

    "There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong. That's perfectly all right; they're the aperture to finding out what's right. Science is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny. [Carl Sagan, Cosmos television series]"

    "One prominent American religion confidently predicted that the world would end in 1914. Well, 1914 has come and gone, and - whole the events of that year were certainly of some importance - the world did not, at least so far as I can see, seem to have ended. There are at least three responses that an organized religion can make in the face of such a failed and fundamental prophecy. They could have said, Oh, did we say '1914'? So sorry, we meant '2014'. A slight error in calculation. Hope you weren't inconvinenced in any way. But they did not. They could have said, Well, the world would have ended, except we prayed very hard and interceded with God so He spared the Earth. But they did not. Instead, the did something much more ingenious. They announced that the world had in fact ended in 1914, and if the rest of us hadn't noticed, that was our lookout. It is astonishing in the fact of such transparent evasions that this religion has any adherents at all. But religions are tough. Either they make no contentions which are subject to disproof or they quickly redesign doctrine after disproof. The fact that religions can be so shamelessly dishonest, so contemptuous of the intelligence of their adherents, and still flourish does not speak very well for the tough- mindedness of the believers. But it does indicate, if a demonstration was needed, that near the core of the religious experience is something remarkably resistant to rational inquiry. [Carl Sagan, Broca's Brain]"

    "In Italy, the Inquisition was condemning people to death until the end of the eighteenth century, and inquisitional torture was not abolished in the Catholic Church until 1816. The last bastion of support for the reality of witchcraft and the necessity of punishment has been the Christian churches. [Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World, p. 413, from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief, Famous People with the Courage to Doubt, by James A. Haught, Prometheus Books, 1996]"

    "Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science? [Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark]"

    "My faith is strong I don't need proofs, but every time a new fact comes along it simply confirms my faith. [Palmer Joss in Carl Sagan's Contact (New York: Pocket Books, 1985), p. 172.]"

    "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe. [Dr. Arroway in Carl Sagan's Contact (New York: Pocket Books, 1985]"

    "A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism. [Carl Sagan, Contact, pg 244]"

    "Finding the occasional straw of truth awash in a great ocean of confusion and bamboozle requires intelligence, vigilance, dedication and courage. But if we don't practice these tough habits of thought, we cannot hope to solve the truly serious problems that face us -- and we risk becoming a nation of suckers, up for grabs by the next charlatan who comes along. [Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection]"

    "One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. it is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. (So the old bamboozles tend to persist as the new bamboozles rise.) [Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection]"

    "Finding the occasional straw of truth awash in a great ocean of confusion and bamboozle requires intelligence, vigilance, dedication and courage. But if we don't practice these tough habits of thought, we cannot hope to solve the truly serious problems that face us -- and we risk becoming a nation of suckers, up for grabs by the next charlatan who comes along. [Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection]"
     
  11. many of the scientists are so entrenched into their positons and have reputations to protect, I doubt they couild ever be moved from their postions. Scientifics positions of many disciplines of the past are constantly being reversed and changed. The consensus of Astronomers about the compostion of the Universe in the 1970's is quite differnent than it is now. Climatology professionals have hardly been very precise about anything. Lastly, the media and acedemia by there own survey are highly populated by those of the liberal persuasion. It would be niave to believe that their political positons are not seeping into their reporting and academic work. If there is any dissenting opinion out there, it's near impossible to find it, I don't think it's because it doesn't exist. Al Gore, the non-scientist, has a cult like following for his political position IRT climate change. He's a media darling for taking that positon and getting a Nobel Prize these days is often a political statement by their selection committee and nothing else. As soon as these scientists can be close enough to be on the same planet in their seasonal hurricane predictions, then I start believing in their climate change papers. Until then I guess I'll be the knuckle dragging skeptical nethanderthal which several here have more or less implied...:)
     
  12. One last statement before I shut up on this thread....It's not that I don't agree that climate change is happening but whether human activity is the major contributor. I also refute the remidies that have been offered due to their colosal costs for the fractional impact they would likely have.
     
  13. That is the nature of science, it is self correcting.

    "In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion. [Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address]"

    "There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong. That's perfectly all right; they're the aperture to finding out what's right. Science is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny. [Carl Sagan, Cosmos television series]"

    "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe. [Dr. Arroway in Carl Sagan's Contact (New York: Pocket Books, 1985]"


    Humans have been around for nearly 3 million years, yet only within the last 100 years have we had any real explanation of cause and effect, determined what matter is composed of, the nature of electromagnetism, advances in health care etc.. This all the result of science, not religion. It took the catholic church until 1992, nearly 350 years after Galileo's death, to finally acknowledge that Galileo was correct, that the sun is the center of our solar system, yet nearly 20% of americans today, still believe the sun revolves around the earth...

    Approximately 25% of americans have college degrees, and fewer of those have science related degrees. The U.S. ranks pretty low amongst developed countries in our level of education, so it's not surprising to see that manifested in the course of this thread.

    Science has developed far faster than what the majority of the general U.S. public can keep up with. Yet many (if not most) of the luxuries we enjoy today, along with the knowledge we have, is scientifically based. Much of what we know was first proposed by scientists in the early 1900's. It's taken almost 100 years for many to even begin to understand the magnitude of those discoveries. And since that time, scientific evidence and methods become stronger, not weaker. We still haven't learned all there is to know, but science is the best tool we have for discovering and explaining the world that we live in. The computer you're using today is the result of science and the list goes on and on...

    So the next time someone is sick, will you take them to the doctor, let them perform x-rays, mri's, administer pharmaceuticals or surgeries, or will someone just pray for them? Most will take the scientific approach every time.
     
  14. What?! And you know that for a fact?

    Sounds suspiciously like a generalization in which you're confusing real scientists with some of the posers and hacks here. If I'm wrong, please document that statement.

    Absolutely. But doesn't that contradict your statement immediately preceeding?

    Who do you think knows more about global warming: some of posers here or real climate change scientists who are infinitely more aware of and closer to actual empirical evidence?

    God gave you a brain and He expects you to use it. Don't insult Him by doing otherwise.

    K
     
  15. I believe where this arguments gets hazy when you get to, "Is this HUMAN CAUSED or not?"

    I think scientists mostly agree global warming is happening.

    If it is really related to human emissions is an entirely different question.
     
  16. Thanks to Kent, GT, Steve and others for upholding science on this thread. I would have made some of the same comments, but don't have to now. I will add a few, however.

    1) The comment about peer review being 'cozy' obviously didn't come from a scientist trying to get his research published in first tier journals. Peer review is a cutthroat business with everyone holding a sharp razor and able to wield it without fear of retribution by the anonymity of peer review.

    2) The comment about climate change scientists "becoming unemployed" is simply not true for most such scientists who work in academic institutions where their jobs are not dependent on their research funding and where academic freedom permits them to freely draw conclusions based on their research results, without fear of losing their jobs. The only climate change scientists whose jobs depend on delivering a particular message are those employed by the energy industry and other private-sector businesses that have a commercial interest in framing the scientific results in a specific way.

    3) The problem with the 'liberal media' in this debate (as in the so-called evolution debate) is that they promote the subject as if there were two sides to the science. If they were truly being representative of the balance of evidence and of the proportion of scientists on the two sides of the 'debate,' there wouldn't be type small enough to print the global warming deniers evidence.

    D
     
  17. No debate, huh? There is about 19,000 scientists, and growing, who would disagree with you right here http://icecap.us/index.php Many are climatologists, paleo-climatologists, atmospheric scientists, and meteorologists

    Please don't discredit it before you read at least some of it. And no, the group is not funded by big oil/coal. I will say that there are individuals who are funded by big oil and gas, but the majority are not. Anyhow, if you think that many scientists advocating that global warming is man made are not on the payroll of groups or companies who stand to gain from promoting this global warming thing, you would be sadly mistaken. Many can get larger funding by simply saying they agree that the warming is man-made.
     

  18. "He was especially troubled by anti-religious attitudes. While not a believer himself, Sagan had constructive interactions with religious leaders, including the Pope and the Dalai Lama. He wrote “There is no necessary conflict between science and religion. On one level, they share similar and consonant goals, and each needs the other.”

    "Those who have something to sell, those who wish to influence public opinion, those in power, a skeptic might suggest, have a vested interest in discouraging skepticism” (Sagan 1995).

    **********


    "Quickly capping 363 oil well fires in a war zone is impossible. The fires would burn out of control until they put themselves out... The resulting soot might well stretch over all of South Asia... It could be carried around the world... [and] the consequences could be dire. Beneath such a pall sunlight would be dimmed, temperatures lowered and droughts more frequent. Spring and summer frosts may be expected... This endangerment of the food supplies... appears to be likely enough that it should affect the war plans..." - Sagan in op/ed he co-authored with Richard Turco, The Baltimore Sun, January 31, 1991, commenting during the Gulf War on the impact of oil well fires

    "'We think the net effects will be very similar to the explosion of the Indonesian volcano Tambora in 1815, which resulted in the year 1816 being known as the year without a summer.'"

    Sagan has received numerous awards, including the "Chicken Little Honorable Mention," granted by the National Anxiety Center of Maplewood, New Jersey in 1991. The "honor" was bestowed on Dr. Sagan "for keeping everyone nervous with theories about nuclear winter, global warming and even the possibility of being hit by an asteroid."

    Dr. Sagan was one of the early supporters of the Global Warming Theory, the proposition that the build-up of CO2, methane and refrigerant gases in the atmosphere could lead to a cataclysmic rise in the earth's temperature. He was also one of first proponents of the Nuclear Winter Theory, the proposition that nuclear war would send so much dust and debris into the atmosphere that heat from the sun would be blocked and the planet would freeze. Both theories have been hotly contested by respected members of the scientific community. A 1992 Gallup poll of scientists involved in climate research, for example, showed that 53% of the respondents did not believe global warming was occurring and 30% were undecided. Sagan has also advocated legalizing the sale of drugs (he was a pot smoker).

    Though Dr. Sagan is one of the most frequently cited experts on atmospheric issues by the media, his predictions are often wrong. For example, at the outset of the Persian Gulf War, Sagan warned that if Saddam Hussein delivered on his threat to set fire to Kuwait's oil wells, so much black soot would be sent into the stratosphere that sunlight would be blocked and a variation of the "nuclear winter" scenario would occur. Hussein followed through on his threat and by the close of the war over 600 wells were on fire. But the fires had little environmental or climatic effect beyond the Gulf region and virtually no ill effects globally. Peter Hobbs, a University of Washington atmospheric sciences professor who studied the atmospheric impact of the fires for the National Science Foundation, said that the fires' modest impact suggested that "some numbers [used to support the Nuclear Winter Theory]... were probably a little overblown."
    Retired atmospheric physicist, Fred Singer, dismissed Sagan's prediction as nonsense, predicting that the smoke would dissipate in a matter of days. In his book The Demon-Haunted World, Sagan gave a list of errors he had made (including his predictions about the effects of the Kuwaiti oil fires).
     
  19. Steve Buckner, thanks for the Sagan quotes. Wish he were with us today.
     
  20. Acutally most will choose both. As Kent said above, God gave us brains and expects us to use them. And as Caral Sagan was quoted earlier, science and religion do not need to conflict with eachother.
     

Share This Page