Global Warming not Real?

[ProxyAmenRa]

Originally Posted by Mary

Hmm.. That is very interesting..
Anyway, I think nuclear power is the way to go. At least it sounds more fun than a carbon plant or solar panels or wind turbines.. IT'S NUCLEAR!

Disclaimer: The following comments have nothing to do with the global warming debate.

I don't think nuclear is no better an option over hydrocarbon based fuel sources. They both rely on a finite resource. Perhaps, better nuclear fuel recycling technology will improve in the future. It would be pragmatic if we invest in base load power stations that rely on renewable sources. Geothermal hot rocks, tidal, wave are probably directions to head in.

I agree with you, nuclear would be more fun. XD

[ProxyAmenRa]

Originally Posted by intuitivet

Ah I had to do alot of research into it for a project, not looking at media coverage but correlations (which, as I mentioned before, I know aren't perfect) and investigations by scientists, frozen isotopes, dendroclimatology and such. Is there alot of evidence against it?

A book by a geologist Ian Plimer called 'Heaven and Earth Global Warming: The Missing Science' is a good read on the subject proposing the evidence against.

[intuitivet]

Originally Posted by ProxyAmenRa

A book by a geologist Ian Plimer called 'Heaven and Earth Global Warming: The Missing Science' is a good read on the subject proposing the evidence against.

Thanks, I'll look into it! I'd like to know the other side of the argument better!

[Mary]

Originally Posted by ProxyAmenRa

Disclaimer: The following comments have nothing to do with the global warming debate.

I don't think nuclear is no better an option over hydrocarbon based fuel sources. They both rely on a finite resource. Perhaps, better nuclear fuel recycling technology will improve in the future. It would be pragmatic if we invest in base load power stations that rely on renewable sources. Geothermal hot rocks, tidal, wave are probably directions to head in.

I agree with you, nuclear would be more fun. XD

Hehehe..
I tend to digress a bit.
<.<

It depends on how much energy we can milk out of said renewable resources and if they are economically feasable. If they are, I'd gladly support them. I just don't want to waste huge fields to be covered in wind turbines (which can actually hurt birds) to create enough energy to power a lightbulb (yes, that is a huge exagguration).

Mark Levin actually had a fantastic opening on global warming where he talked about problems they (scientists studying it) were having with corruption. If anyone wants the link, I'll dig it up.

[Saeros]

interesting video about global warming:

YouTube- How It All Ends

YouTube- How It All Ends

[Trayal]

Originally Posted by Saeros

interesting video about global warming:

Dangit! I came here to post that. :P

Anyway, as a big believer in science, and the scientific method, I fell I must make some kind of a responce, even though this is an older thread at this point.

Originally Posted by Mary

I think there are as many as 30k scientist out there who are very againt this supposed 'manmade global warming'.

Aargh, this keeps cropping up.

The 30k number is likely referring to the Oregon Petition, which claims to have 31,000+ signatories from scientists that disagree on global warming in some form. It is used by various denier circles to dispute that there is a consensus in the scientific community on AGW. This is actually a very misleading argument, though, as there are some serious problems with this petition.

I will be pulling the quotes (italicized) from the petition site, here: petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

My responses will be bolded.

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields.
First problem: the petition defines a scientist as anybody who has a "Science of..." degree. This would include various science of engineering, etc. type degrees, which offer no qualifications to make statements on climate science.

Looking down the page a bit further, this is confirmed.

Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,804 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

Note: the petition further claims that 1,400 of the above 3,800 signatories have a phd in climate related fields. I'll get to this later.

Here's the remaining fields, compressed to save space...

Computer and mathematical ... Physics and aerospace ... Chemistry ... Biology and agriculture ... Medicine ... Engineering and general science
Okay, this means roughly 27,000 do not have degrees in anything related to climate science.

An additional problem is that there has been no apparent vetting process by which the signatories were verified to be valid signatories. There is no contact information listed, which is unusual (this makes it hard for anybody to verify the names are legitimate). Sure, their site states "independently verified" but again, no transparency to this process.

So, Scientific American decided to take a random sample, contact them, and see what they had to say.

web.archive.org/web/20060823125025/http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?section=sidebar&articleID=0004F43C-DC1A-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21

Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition—one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers - a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.

Not exactly confidence inspiring.

Conclusion: the 30,000 number widely thrown around is grossly misleading.

In other words - check your sources.

Speaking of sources - mainstream media outlets are atrocious when it comes reporting science accurately; journalists tend not to understand the material they are trying to report (that's just my guess though). Political sources - left, right, or center - have to deal with the political biases of their constituents, in addition to having the same issues the media does with understanding science, and so are even less reliable.

Consequently, I ignore the newspapers, nightly news shows, popular magazines, think tanks, institutes, etc. Even worse: bloggers that quote mine (take statements out of context in a misleading way), make assertions without making references, and - best of all - post a reference that actually contradicts their assertions because they didn't bother to actually, you know, read the reference. Instead, I find the scientific source, and go read it for myself.

Strangely, when you stick to the actual peer reviewed scientific papers, the consensus is clear: global warming is happening, and at least a significant part of it is man made. Additionally, every major scientific organization backs this consensus. When it comes to science, I'll trust the conclusions of AAAS, NAS, Royal Society, etc. over any other source. This may look like blind trust in authority, but in reality It's just acknowledging that science is best done by real scientists.

[EditorOne]

Someone early on asked if there are natural warming and cooling cycles with visible results. Yes. Greenland. During one warm spell of several hundred years it was briefly habitable by the Norse, who insisted on doing things the way they did them elsewhere, goats, sheep, grazing, etc. It worked briefly, but when the climate shifted and the cold returned, they were doomed. Not so the Inuit, who did things differently: more about the fish, walrus, that stuff.




It apparently doesn't take much, as these things go, to have a severe effect. A permanent effect is another thing, but for a severe effect history tells us the mess that was made of the heavens in the wake of the explosion of the volcano Tambora (and some others the same year) produced a summer, in 1816, where no crops grew in much of North America and there was ice on the lakes in Pennsylvania into July.