NASA Scientist: Last Chance (Global Warming)

#27
#27
Fine Vol said:
Yea I am sure all of you Gobal warming believers are goin to quit driving your cars and all that it takes to fix the problem.
Click to expand...

Gore has INCREASED his private home energy consumption by 10% since last year.
But that is OK because he has "purchased" carbon credits, from himself, to offset it.
 
#28
#28
BigPapaVol said:
you're right, but the 1971 lunacy makes a smoking gun that much harder to produce today.
Click to expand...

I think that it depends on your prospective. The understanding of the role of aerosols, CO2, methane, black soot, etc. all play into climate science. The climate models have to include (and forecast emissions...or use probability distributions for emissions) all of these to model temperature change through time. Science evolves as you better understand your inputs and decrease uncertainty. The fact that this was predicted (by a FEW scientists) in 1971 doesn't really make me less confident in today's science. The fact that it was picked up by the popular press, conveyed to a very wide audience, and got as much attention as it did should cause us all to be skeptical of the way global warming is handled in the popular press.

The problem is that uncertainty really, really sucks when it is time to turn science into policy...which is often where the media come in. I'm not trying to blame the popular press for doing a bad job, but I just think that scientific uncertainty doesn't always translate so well into the popular press.
 
#29
#29
Fine Vol said:
Yea I am sure all of you Gobal warming believers are goin to quit driving your cars and all that it takes to fix the problem.
Click to expand...

Well...I left my car in Tennessee and I walk about 15 minutes and take a train another 15 minutes to work (and back home) every day. I won't say that was because I am scared to death of global warming..but it does satisfy me that I don't drive a car as much... (and makes me appreciate it a lot more when I do!!).
 
#30
#30
Vol Mania 21 said:
global warming is the biggest crock of S, i've ever heard of. Interesting that here in bama the past wk or 2 it's been ridiculously nice. usually it's so dang muggy you can't walk outside for 2 seconds without sweating.
Click to expand...


Then you might need to educate yourself on the subject a little better. If some republican would have passed on the message, you would be a believer. There is NO debating climate change. Too much hard evidence
 
#31
#31
TennTradition said:
I think that it depends on your prospective. The understanding of the role of aerosols, CO2, methane, black soot, etc. all play into climate science. The climate models have to include (and forecast emissions...or use probability distributions for emissions) all of these to model temperature change through time. Science evolves as you better understand your inputs and decrease uncertainty. The fact that this was predicted (by a FEW scientists) in 1971 doesn't really make me less confident in today's science. The fact that it was picked up by the popular press, conveyed to a very wide audience, and got as much attention as it did should cause us all to be skeptical of the way global warming is handled in the popular press.

The problem is that uncertainty really, really sucks when it is time to turn science into policy...which is often where the media come in. I'm not trying to blame the popular press for doing a bad job, but I just think that scientific uncertainty doesn't always translate so well into the popular press.
Click to expand...

TT, I have become a rabid subscriber to Dr John Ioannidis's stance:

Dr. Ioannidis is an epidemiologist who studies research methods at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece and Tufts University in Medford, Mass. In a series of influential analytical reports, he has documented how, in thousands of peer-reviewed research papers published every year, there may be so much less than meets the eye.
These flawed findings, for the most part, stem not from fraud or formal misconduct, but from more mundane misbehavior: miscalculation, poor study design or self-serving data analysis. "There is an increasing concern that *in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims*," Dr. Ioannidis said. "A new claim about a research finding is *more likely to be false than true*."
*The hotter the field of research the more likely its published findings should be viewed skeptically, he determined*.
 
#32
#32
truefan said:
Then you might need to educate yourself on the subject a little better. If some republican would have passed on the message, you would be a believer. There is NO debating climate change. Too much hard evidence
Click to expand...

I do not believe that anyone is disputing "climate change". The whole issue is if it is natural or man caused.
History proves that it is natural. Man caused is only a theory and the opinions of some people.
 
#33
#33
truefan said:
Then you might need to educate yourself on the subject a little better. If some republican would have passed on the message, you would be a believer. There is NO debating climate change. Too much hard evidence
Click to expand...

John McCain...:whistling:
 
#34
#34
truefan said:
Then you might need to educate yourself on the subject a little better. If some republican would have passed on the message, you would be a believer. There is NO debating climate change. Too much hard evidence
Click to expand...

no, there are plenty of republicans who have bought into Al Gore's hysteria. I think they're just as nuts as he is.
 
#35
#35
hndog609 said:
*in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims*," Dr. Ioannidis said. "A new claim about a research finding is *more likely to be false than true*."
*The hotter the field of research the more likely its published findings should be viewed skeptically, he determined*.
Click to expand...

That's pretty interesting stuff. So..if true, then what does the scientific community need to do to right that ship? Has the volume of published work outpaced the level of peer-review? From my experience, there is nothing that someone in the scientific community likes to do more than prove another member of the community wrong....so it would really seem to me that many of the mis-findings get corrected in short order...I suppose that is only true if they are noticed though (but I have seem some insanely sharp eyes out there).
 
#36
#36
truefan said:
Then you might need to educate yourself on the subject a little better. If some republican would have passed on the message, you would be a believer. There is NO debating climate change. Too much hard evidence
Click to expand...

many repubs have signed on........that shoots down point one. Also if you could point to any hard evidence (other than a "consensus") I would entertain it.
 
#38
#38
In other words truefan make the link between man and global warming/climate change.
 
#39
#39
truefan said:
Then you might need to educate yourself on the subject a little better. If some republican would have passed on the message, you would be a believer. There is NO debating climate change. Too much hard evidence
Click to expand...
this is as delusional as can be. If the hard evidence truly existed, this would no longer be the shrill, emotional debate that the left has resorted to. The hard evidence says the world is cooler today than it was 10 years ago, regardless of the reasons. Beyond that, the global warming movement is all about a bunch of assumption laden models and skewed research & data and fearmongering for dollars. It's a time proven political model and has worked like a champ for the shrill crowd.
 
#40
#40
TennTradition said:
From my experience, there is nothing that someone in the scientific community likes to do more than prove another member of the community wrong....
Click to expand...

But then what happens when those who call out someone's findings are labeled as "flat earthers" or "holocost deniers"? What happens when VAST sums of money, notoriety, and even political power come with taking a particular stance? The scientific community has never come across something that challenges peer review like AGW. I'm not walking around with my eyes or mind closed but I am very, very skeptical.
 
#41
#41
hndog609 said:
But then what happens when those who call out someone's findings are labeled as "flat earthers" or "holocost deniers"? What happens when VAST sums of money, notoriety, and even political power come with taking a particular stance? The scientific community has never come across something that challenges peer review like AGW. I'm not walking around with my eyes or mind closed but I am very, very skeptical.
Click to expand...

It is less likely that someone would say AGW is crap than they would say...here is where you made your error...this bad assumption or this miscalculation. I'm saying this from the context of the post you made about the epidemiologist. If it is generally not an intended mistake..then pointing it out isn't something that will ruin a career. Basically, I'm saying one can raise questions about the results without directly attacking the conclusion. If those results change the conclusion...then I don't know...it *shouldn't* matter....
 
#42
#42
TennTradition said:
It is less likely that someone would say AGW is crap than they would say...here is where you made your error...this bad assumption or this miscalculation. I'm saying this from the context of the post you made about the epidemiologist. If it is generally not an intended mistake..then pointing it out isn't something that will ruin a career. Basically, I'm saying one can raise questions about the results without directly attacking the conclusion. If those results change the conclusion...then I don't know...it *shouldn't* matter....
Click to expand...

As a generality I agree wholly with you. What I stated in my last post is peer review as we generally know it has become a whole 'nuther animal with regards to AGW. I mean, there are scientists out there that after a couple drinks would go UFC on each others...ah, glutes...on the subject. That's perhaps my biggest problem, the "science is settled" mentality is flat out scary to me. Now take into account one of the biggest SIS guys on the planet is the guy preaching to Congress and it just gives me the hebee jebees. I'd rather have YOU talking to Congress on the subject. Even if we aren't absolutely eye to eye on the subject I believe you are rational on the matter.
 
#43
#43
hndog609 said:
As a generality I agree wholly with you. What I stated in my last post is peer review as we generally know it has become a whole 'nuther animal with regards to AGW. I mean, there are scientists out there that after a couple drinks would go UFC on each others...ah, glutes...on the subject. That's perhaps my biggest problem, the "science is settled" mentality is flat out scary to me. Now take into account one of the biggest SIS guys on the planet is the guy preaching to Congress and it just gives me the hebee jebees. I'd rather have YOU talking to Congress on the subject. Even if we aren't absolutely eye to eye on the subject I believe you are rational on the matter.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on what is meant by the science is settled...but it obviously isn't settled. I think that many in the scientific community regard the 3rd IPCC assessment report as being the piece that tied together everyones work and "settled" the issue of whether or not man is impacting climate. But, even if you accept that, there is still a lot more science to be settled...still too much uncertainty to make good, sound policy. I don't necessarily think that means we can't make any policy...but the most aggressive policy is probably too risky at this point.

There are others testifying to Congress...and individuals that I think are more down in the meat of it than Hansen. However, I appreciate the vote of confidence (well...at least a vote over someone you don't admire..but it's still a vote :))...I wouldn't mind testifying before Congress once :p.
 
#44
#44
truefan said:
Then you might need to educate yourself on the subject a little better. If some republican would have passed on the message, you would be a believer. There is NO debating climate change. Too much hard evidence
Click to expand...

Look at New York and Albany. They are about 150 miles apart. Now, I'd imagine that any global phenomenon would affect those two cities equally. New York's average yearly temperatures have risen about 5 degrees in the last few decades. Paradoxically, Albany's temperatures have dropped a couple of degrees. It's important to note that NYC has experienced massive urban development since that time while Albany hasn't grown all that much. That's just one example. There's just as much (if not much more) hard evidence to combat global warming as there is to support it.
 
#47
#47
westtnorangeman said:
This is not true he has added solar panels and other energy saving devices to his house
Click to expand...

And once he did that, he stepped up his energy consumption. It's sort of in the same line of thinking that hybrid cars don't really help all that much because their owners just end up driving a lot more. Al Gore made his home more energy efficient, but he's still using more energy than he did before.
 
#48
#48
westtnorangeman said:
This is not true he has added solar panels and other energy saving devices to his house
Click to expand...

This is 100% true! The Tennessean ran a story on it a few days ago.
Gore is a TOTAL capitalist! But wants all of "us" to do what he says is right.
 
#49
#49
Here's some pretty disturbing comments from Hansen.

Veteran climate scientist says 'lock up the oil men' | The Register

he went further with The Guardian, claiming that the heads of oil companies have been active in spreading disinformation. "When you are in that kind of position, as the CEO of one the primary players who have been putting out misinformation even via organisations that affect what gets into school textbooks, then I think that's a crime," he told the paper.
He said such execs, should be put on trial for high crimes against humanity, and pointed the finger at their lobbyists and paid pols into the bargain, saying that their actions had undermined democracy.
Click to expand...

When do you move from scientist to zealot?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top