another disturbing impact

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

  1. Brookie_Hunter

    Brookie_Hunter aka Dave Hoover

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,332
    Likes Received:
    121
    Location:
    Phinney Ridge, Seattle, WA
    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...:)
     
  2. Brookie_Hunter

    Brookie_Hunter aka Dave Hoover

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,332
    Likes Received:
    121
    Location:
    Phinney Ridge, Seattle, WA
    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.
     
  3. Steve Buckner

    Steve Buckner Mother Nature's Son

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,348
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    Toledo, Wa. on the banks of the Cowlitz
    Home Page:
    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.
     
  4. Kent Lufkin

    Kent Lufkin Remember when you could remember everything?

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    7,175
    Likes Received:
    1,267
    Location:
    Not sure
    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
     
  5. HauntedByWaters

    HauntedByWaters Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    2,943
    Likes Received:
    294
    Location:
    Bellingham
    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.
     
  6. Richard Olmstead

    Richard Olmstead BigDog

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Messages:
    2,850
    Likes Received:
    1,363
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    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
     
  7. WPEB

    WPEB member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2004
    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bothell, WA
    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.
     
  8. chadk

    chadk Be the guide...

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    5,057
    Likes Received:
    43
    Location:
    Snohomish, WA.

    "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).
     
  9. Dave Hartman

    Dave Hartman Strip'n Flywear

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Messages:
    589
    Likes Received:
    35
    Location:
    Whitefish, MT
    Home Page:
    Steve Buckner, thanks for the Sagan quotes. Wish he were with us today.
     
  10. chadk

    chadk Be the guide...

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    5,057
    Likes Received:
    43
    Location:
    Snohomish, WA.
    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.
     
  11. Richard Olmstead

    Richard Olmstead BigDog

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Messages:
    2,850
    Likes Received:
    1,363
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    I did take a look at that site. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. It is unclear who does support that site, if not 'big oil.' All I could glean from the site about who sponsors it is the following:

    "ICECAP is not funded by large corporations that might benefit from the status quo but by private investors who believe in the need for free exchange of ideas on this and other important issues of the day."

    That's not exactly a transparent source of funding.

    On the home page, there are 17 stories. All of them present an angle that refutes global warming by anthropogenic means.

    I'm not sure I'd call it either objective or particularly science-based.

    D
     
  12. Chris Scoones

    Chris Scoones Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    3,700
    Likes Received:
    764
    Location:
    North Bend, WA
    Get this thread back on topic.
     
  13. WPEB

    WPEB member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2004
    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bothell, WA
    It was meant merely as an example of the many scientists who opt for an open debate for lack of actual evidence. The man made global warming is a far more hotly debated topic than what some sources would lead us to believe.

    I find the actual homepage is not entirely helpful, but instead use it as a jumping point for looking into other information.
     
  14. Steve Buckner

    Steve Buckner Mother Nature's Son

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,348
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    Toledo, Wa. on the banks of the Cowlitz
    Home Page:
    Chadk, I'd think you could do better than posting from another rightwing site... http://www.nationalcenter.org/

    Carl Sagan has long list of achievements, here's a list from Wikipedia

    Awards and honors

    NASA Distinguished Public Service MedalAnnual Award for Television Excellence - 1981 - Ohio State University - PBS series Cosmos
    Apollo Achievement Award - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
    NASA Distinguished Public Service Medal - National Aeronautics and Space Administration (twice)
    Emmy - Outstanding Individual Achievement - 1981 - PBS series Cosmos
    Emmy - Outstanding Informational Series - 1981 - PBS series Cosmos
    Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
    Helen Caldicott Leadership Award - Women's Action for Nuclear Disarmament
    Homer Award - 1997 - Contact
    Hugo Award - 1981 - Cosmos
    Humanist of the Year - 1981 - Awarded by the American Humanist Association
    In Praise of Reason Award - 1987 - Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
    Isaac Asimov Award - 1994 - Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
    John F. Kennedy Astronautics Award - American Astronautical Society
    John W. Campbell Memorial Award - 1974 - Cosmic Connection: An Extraterrestrial Perspective
    Joseph Priestley Award - "For distinguished contributions to the welfare of mankind"
    Klumpke-Roberts Award of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific - 1974
    Konstantin Tsiolkovsky Medal - Awarded by the Soviet Cosmonauts Federation
    Locus Award 1986 - Contact
    Lowell Thomas Award - Explorers Club - 75th Anniversary
    Masursky Award - American Astronomical Society
    Oersted Medal - 1990 - American Association of Physics Teachers
    Peabody Award - 1980 - PBS series Cosmos
    Prix Galbert - The international prize of Astronautics
    Public Welfare Medal - 1994 - National Academy of Sciences
    Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction - 1978 - The Dragons of Eden
    SF Chronicle Award - 1998 - Contact
    Named the “99th Greatest American” on the June 5, 2005 Greatest American show on the Discovery Channel.


    And what have you contributed Chad?
     
  15. chadk

    chadk Be the guide...

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    5,057
    Likes Received:
    43
    Location:
    Snohomish, WA.
    ???
    Wow Steve. That's a lot of pent up hatred. Yikes!
    (good call on the editing of your post - that was getting kinda freaky...)

    Also, I quoted from several sources. Just go to the wikipedia site or pick your own. There is nothing I posted that isn't commonly known...

    And I love science and enjoy learning more every chance I get. And in my pursuit of an electrical engineering degree in the early 1990s, I took classes in physics, biology, chemistry, etc and loved them.