Originally Posted By wahooskipper I know what is causing Global Warming...and you heard it hear first. Taco Bell. Down with Taco Bell.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I know what is causing Global Warming...and you heard it here first. Taco Bell. Down with Taco Bell.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The majority of scientists in those links, which represent some highly respected institutions, believe it.> I'm sure they believe many things, but I'm not sure their "it" is the same as was asserted. There are many subleties involved in this debate, and I'm very leery of blanket statements.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 The "it" I was referring to the bulk of them believing was that climate change (a more accurate term than global warming) is at least partly due to human activity.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh "at least partly" is a qualifier that wasn't in the statement I objected to.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 I have heard so many different statistics regarding how many scientists believe this or believe that, that these purported figures are no longer of interest to me. Personally, I believe there is some short-term warming happening, but in earth time - geological time - it is absurd for us to use figures such as "five years" "20 years" even "100 years" to prove some trend, because on a chart of climate change in geologic time, one hundred years would represent a tiny slash barely visible by the human eye. It's like watching the Dow Jones Industrials, and looking only at the past threee days, three weeks, or even three months - it's the long-range trends that tell us something. As for the bulk of scientists who believe one way or another about one particular issue, there are numerous examples of the majority of scientists backing one theory and laughing at those minority scientists who back another - only to be proven wrong in time. The persecution of Alfred Wegener in 1915 when he published a book called The Origin of Continents and Oceans, comes to mind. In his book, he proposed that 200 million years ago the continent of Pangaea broke into two lesser continents—Laurasia and Gondwanaland. Twenty million years later, Wegener proposed, these two smaller continents split apart again. He postulated that these pieces had constantly drifted over a basaltic ocean floor to become the continents that exist today. Immediately after his book was published, he was ridiculed by the scientific establishment. His theories, as I assume you all know, were eventually accepted as valid. I am currently writing a book about another scientist, J Harlen Bretz, who proposed a massive flood as the cause for eastern Washington's one-of-a-kind geological landscape called the Channeled Scablands. He was also ridiculed by the scientific community at large when he proposed this in 1923. Fortunately, he lived to age 99, long enough to see his theory validated in the early 1970s. So, it appears to me that even if the majority of contemporary scientists agree that global warming is caused by humans, that does not mean that we should automatically assume that what they believe is true.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<The "it" I was referring to the bulk of them believing was that climate change (a more accurate term than global warming) is at least partly due to human activity.>> <"at least partly" is a qualifier that wasn't in the statement I objected to.> Um, yes it was. Let's go to the videotape. The first paragraph referred to: <<The majority of scientists in those links, which represent some highly respected institutions, believe it.> ...which referred to <Referring to the links; that the majority of scientists involved in writing the pieces in question, believed it was at least partly caused by humans (I believe all those links are reports by groups of scientists, not individuals)> Ta da.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Not quite. The original statement I objected to was in post 28. It said, "The vast, vast majority of respected scientists working for respected, reliable institutions believe global warming is real and that it's the result of human behavior." You'll notice there's no "partly" in there.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 But there was later, after you were still objecting. (You'll also note there's not a "wholly" in the first statement).
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <But there was later, after you were still objecting.> Yes, for the reasons I stated. Notably, that the "it" we were talking about changed. (See my post 60).
Originally Posted By woody <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci</a> ence/nature/4290340.stm "The area covered by sea ice in the Arctic has shrunk for a fourth consecutive year, according to new data released by US scientists." "They say that this month sees the lowest extent of ice cover for more than a century." "The Arctic climate varies naturally, but the researchers conclude that human-induced global warming is at least partially responsible." "They warn the shrinkage could lead to even faster melting in coming years." ----- I wonder what they would say if the arctic ice suddenly stopped shrinking and started to increase. Four years doesn't mean anything. It is way too early. It might take over 20 years of trends to find anything significant, and then suddenly, the weather may change again. Will we start blaming Global cooling to human activity? That will be a start.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<But there was later, after you were still objecting.>> <Yes, for the reasons I stated. Notably, that the "it" we were talking about changed. (See my post 60).> I addressed your number 60. The direct antecedents of "it" included "partly."
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Will we start blaming Global cooling to human activity? That will be a start.> Actually, climatologists are starting to change the preferred term to "climate change" rather than to "global warming" because while the globe as a whole is getting warmer, certain sections ARE getting cooler, which (some) also attribute partly to human activity. In other words, human activity is messing around with the climate in general, making some sections hotter, some sections cooler (and this is related); some areas seeing increased hurricane activity, others seeing less, etc. FWIW, based on what I've read, I'm not firmly in the camp yet that this is for certain caused by human activity, as some here may assume. The majority of non-industry-funded scientists and climatologists may be, but I'm more in the group who feels "well, quite possibly, but let's see some more data before we say it's definite." The most compelling evidence, at any rate, is not simple surface temperatures.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 And to get back to the OT, there's no way the administration should be censoring or re-writing the findings of its own scientists because it doesn't like their conclusions.
Originally Posted By Shooba Roger Ebert has some good comments on his website, re: Global Warming & Al Gore's movie: <a href="http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=ANSWERMAN" target="_blank">http://rogerebert.suntimes.com /apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=ANSWERMAN</a> An 'Inconvenient' statement June 11, 2006 Dear Readers, I've received so many messages about my review of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" that, frankly, I don't see how the Answer Man can process them. I could print a dozen or a hundred, but that would lead us into an endless loop. Many are supportive. More are opposed to the movie and just about everything in it, and are written by people who have not seen the movie and will not see it for a variety of reasons, including the theory that it is "liberal propaganda." What I fail to understand is why global warming should be a liberal or conservative issue. It is either happening or is not, and we can either take action to try to slow it, or we cannot. That is why a great many conservatives have agreed with Gore on this. When I am told "this is another one you're trying to blame on Bush and Halliburton," all I can say is, somebody is listening to way too much talk radio on which they are told global warming is being blamed on Bush and Halliburton. Actually, Gore blames neither and mentions neither. "It got worse on his watch as vice president." Yes, it did. "He flies around on a jet to warn against it." Yes, one of thousands of jet flights every day. One person says that when Gore finds a "100 percent agreement" among scientists about global warming, that proves he is wrong, because 100 percent of scientists do not agree on anything. Then they quote scientists who disagree with Gore. What he said was, a random sampling of 935 recent articles published in peer-review scientific journals shows agreement with the basic findings reported in his film. Many people inform me that they just read a story saying that the South Pole was tropical many eons ago. So it was, as reported in "March of the Penguins." I don't know what they want me to do with this factoid. Applaud our actions to bring that condition around again as quickly as possible? I cannot get into a scientific discussion here. There will be no end to it. All I can say is, the Gore documentary made a deep impression on me. I urge you to see it. You will not be seeing a "campaign film," or "sour grapes," or "Gore still being bitter." George W. Bush has repeated for six years that global warming "requires more study." If Gore has spent six years studying it, aren't his findings worthy of attention? Yes, I'm "being political." But saying the issue "needs more study" is a political statement when energy groups are among your major supporters and your family is in the oil business.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The direct antecedents of "it" included "partly."> Yes, and that's why I complained that the "it" had changed.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <The direct antecedents of "it" included "partly."> <Yes, and that's why I complained that the "it" had changed.> Good grief. Let's just let other folks, if they have a shred of interest, check out the old threads and see for themselves.
Originally Posted By ecdc Since the other thread was closed, and since some posters continue to do exactly what I said they would do, I think it's worth reiterating what I've already said and continues to remain unaddressed: The myth conservatives like to perpetuate about the climate change debate is that the scales are evenly balanced; that there are scientists on both sides who disagree about whether it is manmade or not, and they post a quote or a link or two from these people to bolster their claims. Again, the vast, vast majority of scientists who are not funded by the oil industry believe climate change is real and is the result of human behavior. Even some quick Google searches reveal this: In the December 2004 issue of Science magazine, a study was published that analyzed over 900 abstracts published on climate change. Of these abstracts, 75% agreed with the consensus that climate change is real and is caused my man; 25% took no position. Astoundingly - as the author noted - none explicitly disagreed with the consensus opinion.
