Global Warming Science: A Giant Farce

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

And to examine a data field of 150 years at best, without using the same methods of measurements in order to make prognostication about the happenings in a system over billions of years, makes no sense to this non-scientists.

Gross over-simplification.

Originally Posted by Archaea

So if good scientists know we know so little, why is their hysteria? There is a political agenda which must benefit those sounding the alarm, that is the purpose of all hysteria and agendas.

Jeff detracts from the anti-hysterians by laughing off Crichton, all the while he seems to be accepting of the hysterians' hyena, Gore, without a mention.

Please show me where I have "accepted" Gore's hysteria?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Gross over-simplification.



Please show me where I have "accepted" Gore's hysteria?

Ok, maybe you haven't but I don't see you criticizing the hysterians' overstatements, while you do critique the lack of credentials by the anti-hysterians, the pro-science side.

You expect a meaningful summary in one sentence?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I would find his distant prior funding worth mentioning but not as important as pending funding?

Jeff, try to be dispassionate. In front of a jury, I can state, the two are not the same.

Distant past contracts, or imminent current or future contracts, which appear to create a greater conflict?

You remind me of my brother who told me last week that the medical industry conspires to suppress cures for cancer, in order to maintain the business of treating people.

If you buy into that type of conspiracy theory then there is not much point in having a debate. You can pretty much write off all basic scientific research also, since scientists don't work for free.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by Mars

You gotta read Michael Crichton's State of Fear.

While State of Fear surely makes some interesting arguments, the idea of taking a work of fiction as a convincing argument on any subject makes me laugh.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Spaz

While State of Fear surely makes some interesting arguments, the idea of taking a work of fiction as a convincing argument on any subject makes me laugh.

I haven't read the book, but perhaps the strength of Crichton's "argument" is the source material his "science" is based on.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

You remind me of my brother who told me last week that the medical industry conspires to suppress cures for cancer, in order to maintain the business of treating people.

If you buy into that type of conspiracy theory then there is not much point in having a debate. You can pretty much write off all basic scientific research also, since scientists don't work for free.

I don't see the analogy working.

We have discussions regarding the various causes contributing to climactic change. I'm okay with that so far.

Next we have politicians, not necessarily known for honesty or lacking an agenda, backing certain plausible explanations for climactic changes. And with these theories come legislative changes which benefit some of these politicians financially.

And then we see groups of these scientists proclaiming "everybody agrees that this nascent science can determine with relative certitude that manmade greenhouses gases significantly contribute to climactic change."

So I reasonably assume that these hysterical voices sound like they have a biased agenda.

I don't believe the medical industry suppresses cures, and am much more familiar with how that industry operates.

I charge the hysterians with how their agenda has become politicized to benefit the hysterians financially. I don't believe it's really conspiracy, but more a tacit recognition how to get more money, it's a classic research technique, feed panic and politicians will throw money at you. A researcher lives off of public funding.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I haven't read the book, but perhaps the strength of Crichton's "argument" is the source material his "science" is based on.

I haven't read the source material. He was pretty diligent about citing sources. I have no information as to the credibility of those sources - I do know that most Global Warming-ites laugh the book off as irrelevant.

Personally, I thought the arguments themselves were more interesting than the science it was based on...for example, the difficulty involved in removing all the natural variables involved in the climate in order to isolate the man-made vectors. Additionally, the argument that warming, while bad for some areas of the earth, could prove beneficial for other areas...and the fact that the measures used to limit greenhouse pollution is inhibitive of third-world populations' advance towards modern production...


Still, a work of fiction will always be fiction, and shouldn't itself be used as an authoritative scientific document.

[Spaz]

Personally, while I'm unconvinced that man has had a large affect on global warming, I still think that doing what I realistically can to limit my own pollution is a smart move. Not making realistic changes in my own practices simply because I may not be causing warming seems to be rather ignorant to me.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Spaz

Personally, while I'm unconvinced that man has had a large affect on global warming, I still think that doing what I realistically can to limit my own pollution is a smart move. Not making realistic changes in my own practices simply because I may not be causing warming seems to be rather ignorant to me.

It sounds reasonable to be good stewards of our earth. And to extent we can make changes to improve our cultivation of the earth so that those that follow can benefit, I bet nobody disagrees.

The questions always revolve around costs/benefits and priorities. Do we pour billions down a rabbit hole if we have no idea it will impact the environment, positively or negatively?

The reason for the hysteria is to steer economic policy.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It sounds reasonable to be good stewards of our earth. And to extent we can make changes to improve our cultivation of the earth so that those that follow can benefit, I bet nobody disagrees.

The questions always revolve around costs/benefits and priorities. Do we pour billions down a rabbit hole if we have no idea it will impact the environment, positively or negatively?

The reason for the hysteria is to steer economic policy.

No, I wouldn't say it's reasonable to spend billions of dollars on the assumption that Global Warming is man-made.

I agree, there are MANY (Al Gore) who will use this as political leverage, and we should be careful to avoid listening to those individuals very closely. Still, I don't think even a majority of scientists fall into this group. I would bet most are trying to honestly research the issue.

Some things I would NOT currently do, due to fear of man-made global warming (warning - these will consist of double-negatives):
-Not drill economically viable oil sites in the U.S.
-Buy a hybrid that gets 40mpg, and costs 3x as much as my Toyota Corolla that gets 35mpg.
-Spend thousands of dollars on 'clean' energy for my home.

Some things I WOULD do, right now:
-Start carpooling & mass transit where available & convenient.
-Limit unnecessary driving.
-Work on my wife not leaving lights all over the bloody house on all the time. How hard is it to flip off a switch on your way out the door?