Global Warming

Global Warming

The subject of global warming is controversial. A report published by the UK government is outlined in the BBC NEWS site in an article on 30 January, 2006.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4660938.stm
In it

Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett said the report's conclusions would be a shock to many people.
"The thing that is perhaps not so familiar to members of the public... is this notion that we could come to a tipping point where change could be irreversible," she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"We're not talking about it happening over five minutes, of course, maybe over a thousand years, but it's the irreversibility that I think brings it home to people.

Given the timespan of a thousand or so years, the likelihood of common action is questionable. The Bush administration has already demurred on a national plan and other countries have fudged.
While it is easy to focus in on that bad news, the likelihood of China, India and other rapidly developing nations to adopt stringent regulations is slim.

What do we do?
............................
Outcomes of the 2005 report are available at:
http://www.stabilisation2005.com/outcomes.html

The bait: Climate science is so-o complex that even its specialists can hardly understand each other! The quantitative models aren't predictive because the physics is too complicated; too complicated for physicists to critique, surely. In like manner, the political machinations and economic impacts of "mitigation" or "aversion" are beyond mere mortals...

Sorry, Jaybro, but saying Dyson is no more "useful" as a explicator of the science (and psychology) of climate change (in the IPCC's sense) is an example of that faux modesty endemic in the world of PC; you may have swallowed it -hook, line and sinker- but I won't bite...

Did you chide Michael Mann for his gaffe, not inviting (not even from his own institution...) a "specialist" (statistician) to check out his principle components stuff? Of course not! Strikes me as a "some are more equal than others" pose, that the Catestrophic-AGW crowd takes.

Of course, that in no way accounts for your ignoring the import of the economic analysis... (That's a different blind spot altogether.) Dyson's piece was, after all, a review of two current books.

Perhaps this[/i] is preferable? At least, it has the "correct" religious overtones...

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Sorry, Jaybro, but saying Dyson is no more "useful" as a explicator of the science (and psychology) of climate change (in the IPCC's sense) is an example of that faux modesty endemic in the world of PC; you may have swallowed it -hook, line and sinker- but I won't bite...

I did (shame and self-loathing). You're obviously less PC than I. Personally, I wallow in PC like a pig in mud.

Originally posted by jax:

taxes on pollution are better than say taxes on labour.

That depends on how one defines pollution. Let the truth out and then let the people decide.

...Wait a minute, I thought the world was going to end in 10 years acoording to Algore. But wait!! I'll bet GW is causing time to slow down so that the 10 years Algore predicted is still accurate but it will seem like maybe a 100 years. Of course if it doesn't end in 100 that will be proof of futher time-slowing affects of GW. Can I go home now?

...It's now obvious to a whole lot of people that what we know you can write a book on, what we don't know would fill a library....

Please leave poor Al Gore alone!!!!



"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

Originally posted by Acorn15:

That depends on how one defines pollution. Let the truth out and then let the people decide.

Anything that damages human ability to survive in the short term or long term? "Pollution" is just a word to define harmful substances and all will not agree on the solutions necessary to mitigate its circumstances. But we know when something unnatural has been introduced into an environment. It is up to us when we want to start fixing the problems we do see.

Anyway, taxes on pollution would be better than on labor in the long term. They would allow for a more efficient economy, over time. Companies would not have to face the problems associated with sick workers or cleaning up spills. The taxes would influence corporations to take the steps required to prevent spills or have cleaner production methods. Their gain would be fewer problems to deal with in the future. Society's gain would be more workers to get taxes from (or not).

Implementing taxes on pollution would be difficult. Since the companies would rather not redirect their profits to "meaningless" tasks in the short-term, a market-based solution would work as innovation rewards those who took the steps to keep clean. If they don't innovate, they get charged a fee to keep polluting, which should be large enough for them not to want. I say should because the politicians would be the ones determining all of this stuff. That is why we need people who will keep informing the public on these issues, like crazy Al Gore.

A good metaphor for this entire issue would be... Either: You go and clean your room, and your mom bakes you your favorite dessert after dinner. Or: You don't clean your room and she takes away your computer. However, your dad could come in and change up everything and do one, both, or neither. Therefore, it might be good to have people watching to make sure everything is running smoothly -- like Grandma and Grandpa.

BTW, sorry if I got long-winded. Environmental engineering is my major at college. I think about this stuff a lot.

Originally posted by rmccabe916:

and she takes away your computer.

How about "bakes your computer"?

Originally posted by rmccabe916:

But we know when something unnatural has been introduced into an environment.

Fish are helpful like that; they go belly up when the local mercury factory has a major spill, but what do we do when we're told there might be a spill in 50 years....well, maybe a hundred or so? Depending on a number of factors that might or might not happen?

There's the rub.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

How about "bakes your computer"?

Noooo!

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Fish are helpful like that; they go belly up when the local mercury factory has a major spill, but what do we do when we're told there might be a spill in 50 years....well, maybe a hundred or so? Depending on a number of factors that might or might not happen?

Very good point. These problems help us figure out what we need to do to prevent further problems -- or that we need to start thinking about preventing them.

Basically, cleaning up the environment is an issue of altruistic vs selfish behavior. Most people up high don't know how to think about their actions within the world. That is why we need to help teach them to be altruistic, or provide them cost-effective solutions that are altruistic. I chose my major at college to do just that.

Now the question is...how can we actually get them to accept a viewpoint that is concerned with repercussion?

We still have the problem of discredited information and poor science being foist on us and being used to slap extra taxes on us. Not acceptable.

Originally posted by rmccabe916:

BTW, sorry if I got long-winded.

Don't worry, that in comparison to some, sounds like a precis!

Originally posted by Acorn15:

the problem of discredited information

Which information? Just because a few people discredit widely-held findings doesn't mean they are incorrect. The same is with the other way around --- a few people can discredit widely-held beliefs which are wrong. Therefore, to verify what all of these scientists are saying about global warming, one must have an understanding of the topics being discussed. Only then can each of us seperately believe or disbelieve what they are saying. Make sure you don't get fed by a few people who blow hot air. They may have motivations other than helping us all.

I really don't hold very well with collective wisdom or the wisdom of one. I'm going to look at all sources to figure out the causes of global warming.

Originally posted by Acorn15:

being used to slap extra taxes on us

These taxes may make life better for us all. This isn't to say all taxes are good, but some actually do help society. Taxing to clean the environment would benefit us all by providing a place where we could work safely. Another example of good taxes is those for healthcare. If we all paid a little bit of of our money to give healthcare to others, they could go to work more often and help decrease the prices of the stuff we buy. Politicians need to stop focusing on getting big-buck donations to their campaigns, and increasing certain taxes to get them. They need to focus more on what society needs. I think people are finally realizing that.

Originally posted by rmccabe916:

Now the question is...how can we actually get them to accept a viewpoint that is concerned with repercussion?

I'm thinking guns and knives. You should have gone to Harvard Divinity School.

Originally posted by rmccabe916:

I really don't hold very well with collective wisdom or the wisdom of one. I'm going to look at all sources to figure out the causes of global warming.

There's the rub-a-dub. Most folks can't or won't do that, so you're left proselytizing; hence, the divinity school. "Eat your peas, Honey--they're good for you and there are starving children in ____________(pick your favorite)."

While I actually sympathize with your position, I don't envy the downer you're headed for.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

While I actually sympathize with your position, I don't envy the downer you're headed for.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

While I actually sympathize with your position, I don't envy the downer you're headed for.

Heh, I've got a gun hidden behind my back.

I had a meeting with some of my professors about "Doing it for us all!," because they think nothing is coercive. One idea is to do what Socrates did back in the day -- act naive and then pull then rug out from beneath people. But I'll do it nicely so I don't get killed!

I want to discredit any way the corporate heads do business. I think I'm getting the tools to do that. Hopefully, anyone who sees me will understand what the big problem is. I just need to get some advertising money to start my plan....and a lot of political influence.

and you think a gun will solve mine and your problems . . . . . . NOT!

A metaphorical gun! I'm not going to actually threaten someone.

Originally posted by rmccabe916:

Which information? Just because a few people discredit widely-held findings doesn't mean they are incorrect. The same is with the other way around --- a few people can discredit widely-held beliefs which are wrong. Therefore, to verify what all of these scientists are saying about global warming, one must have an understanding of the topics being discussed. Only then can each of us seperately believe or disbelieve what they are saying. Make sure you don't get fed by a few people who blow hot air. They may have motivations other than helping us all.

The matter is not decided (although I believe the body of evidence is against man-made global warming). Until it is proven then we should not be burdened by extra taxes. Your last two sentences go both ways.

Originally posted by rmccabe916:

These taxes may make life better for us all...

Or they may be misused, just as the science behind the whole global warming debate may be misused to create extra such taxes.

No proof - no tax.

The body of evidence against man made global warming seems to be increasing. But something should be done against pollution if it's causing global or not. Pollution itself causes a host of public health issues

Originally posted by Acorn15:

The matter is not decided (although I believe the body of evidence is against man-made global warming).

Nothing can be proved. Nothing -- well math maybe but that's another story. The reason why is people will have their own motivations for their thoughts. They sometimes throw out the possibility of the other side being correct. Because of this, nothing will be proved to them since they will not take new information in. Also, we cannot know everything out there to be absolutely right. We make decisions based on what we know or believe.

Originally posted by Acorn15:

Until it is proved then we should not be burdened by extra taxes.

Since nothing can be proved, we all must validate whether a problem exists or not. Taxes can be put into place on companies when we find the problem pressing enough.

Originally posted by Acorn15:

Your last two sentences go both ways.

Yep. And I am hoping you have not been taken by the oil-companies' hot air. If this is so, I hope you could start looking into the problem elsewhere to see if they are truly correct.

Even though my major at college is environmental engineering, I am going to make decisions on my own over what I learn. I'll be somewhat biased but I can still see what works for me.

Originally posted by Acorn15:

Or they may be misused, just as the science behind the whole global warming debate may be misused to create extra such taxes.

Yeah, and this is why we need to make sure to elect politicians who will not misuse taxes. It is hard to do this, but by asking the right questions we can find the truly altruistic people out there.

Originally posted by Acorn15:

No proof - no tax.

Nothing can be proved - we will tax when we feel like it. But there may alternatives to taxing -- like market-based solutions.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

But something should be done against pollution if it's causing global or not. Pollution itself causes a host of public health issues

Definetely. Especially water-based pollution. That is pretty much all I will be studying how to get rid of at college.

Originally posted by rmccabe916:

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

But something should be done against pollution if it's causing global or not. Pollution itself causes a host of public health issues

Definetely. Especially water-based pollution. That is pretty much all I will be studying how to get rid of at college.

I have always believed that taking on pollution is a noble cause, but what I resent is the way that the "GW Tribe" & the UN has tried to cloak the issues with bad science coupled with ulterior political motives.

If they would come out & just declare that pollution was their main objective from the get go I would find it more palatable & easier to digest.

Unfortunately, the "GW SCAM" continues in the hearts & minds of it's misguided proponents. The good news is that there is more trickling through disproving the science behind their positions.

The first real sign that their armor is weakening is the change in terminology from "GLOBAL WARMING" to "CLIMATE CHANGE", which denotes the need to broaden the spectrum because their predictions are crumbling & needs a facelift.

Originally posted by DreamRyderX:

If they would come out & just declare that pollution was their main objective from the get go I would find it more palatable & easier to digest.

Well, for a lot of us, it is. But most people are really going for the energy side of pollution. They want alternatives to oil and coal, and if they are cheaper, that sector of the environmental market will grow. I cannot say I do not disagree with their viewpoint of introducing more environmentally-sound solutions.

I just hope we do not end up in a rut, with inefficient solutions such as ethanol production from corn. I'll probably have to make some enemies on "my side" to discredit what will not work, and is just bogging us down. I prefer other sources of energy, such as sugar cane from South America, or even better, algae which will grow anywhere.

Originally posted by DreamRyderX:

The first real sign that their armor is weakening is the change in terminology from "GLOBAL WARMING" to "CLIMATE CHANGE"

"Global warming" is basically taking an average of all temperatures around the world. This term is correct in the sense global temperatures will increase by 1-2 degrees. Using "climate change" instead is better for everyone because it implies the resulting disaster of "global warming." The little increases in temperature do cause big problems. For instance, the ice-caps are melting right now at extraordinary rates.

I would like to know where you are finding scientists who have discredited global warming -- as a result of human activity. I cannot help to think we are not causing at least part of the problem. Even if not, we should stop polluting into the atmosphere the way we are now. Public health is still a huge issue (sometimes people cannot go outside due to pollution) and so is acid rain.

Originally posted by rmccabe916:

...I would like to know where you are finding scientists who have discredited global warming -- as a result of human activity. I cannot help to think we are not causing at least part of the problem. Even if not, we should stop polluting into the atmosphere the way we are now. Public health is still a huge issue (sometimes people cannot go outside due to pollution) and so is acid rain.

You can appreciate, I'm sure, that the science is far from being settled.

Actually, it's not whether we are part of the problem or not. In nature all things impact, so why should we be exempt? It's just some of the extreme measures being suggested in relation to how little CO2 man actually is responsible for, & their economic impacts, that more concern me.

Do you believe that we mere humans have the capacity to "control" the climate---make it more to our liking?

Will the benefits (relating to Earth's overall temperature) outweigh the costs?

I agree with you, & the many others, that we must do more to curb our "pollution * ". To me that is a separate issue unto itself.

* CO2 is not a pollutant.

For accuracy's sake my statement was:

...The good news is that there is more trickling through disproving the science behind their positions....

These are some easily found articles here, here, & here just for starters.

I know you can find much more, possibly using Google, but I'm sure you have your own valid research formats that you use to uncover what you need. It's all out there. Seek & ye shall find. I'm absolutely sure you will not be disappointed in how much you discover.

EDIT: Added link

Originally posted by DreamRyderX:

You can appreciate, I'm sure, that the science is far from being settled.

When is 'the science' ever settled? What was 'settled' in the case of Giordano Bruno was forever set in place when the executioner placed the burning fagot in the tinder at his feet. Unlike Bruno, however, scientific certitudes go the way of the Phoenix, arising from the ashes in a form unrelated to the old. Even our fundamental understanding of gravity might change without our drifting into the cold of space.

The important rule in following those links is to look carefully at where they go.

Page last updated at 00:42 GMT, Friday, 4 April 2008 01:42 UK
Global temperatures 'to decrease'

By Roger Harrabin
BBC News environment analyst

Villager walks through the snow in Nanjing, China (February 2008)
La Nina caused some of the coldest temperatures in memory in China

Global temperatures for 2008 will be slightly cooler than last year as a result of the cold La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.

The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.

But this year's temperatures would still be way above the average - and we would soon exceed the record year of 1998 because of global warming induced by greenhouse gases.

The WMO points out that the decade from 1998 to 2007 was the warmest on record. Since the beginning of the 20th Century, the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C.

While Nasa, the US space agency, cites 2005 as the warmest year, the UK's Hadley Centre lists it as second to 1998.

Researchers say the uncertainty in the observed value for any particular year is larger than these small temperature differences. What matters, they say, is the long-term upward trend.

Rises 'stalled'


LA NINA KEY FACTS
La Nina 2008 Forecast (Source: UK Met Office Hadley Centre)
La Nina translates from the Spanish as "The Child Girl"
Refers to the extensive cooling of the central and eastern Pacific
Increased sea temperatures on the western side of the Pacific mean the atmosphere has more energy and frequency of heavy rain and thunderstorms is increased
Typically lasts for up to 12 months and generally less damaging event than the stronger El Nino

La Nina and El Nino are two great natural Pacific currents whose effects are so huge they resonate round the world.

El Nino warms the planet when it happens; La Nina cools it. This year, the Pacific is in the grip of a powerful La Nina.

It has contributed to torrential rains in Australia and to some of the coldest temperatures in memory in snow-bound parts of China.

Mr Jarraud told the BBC that the effect was likely to continue into the summer, depressing temperatures globally by a fraction of a degree.

This would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world.

Watching trends

A minority of scientists question whether this means global warming has peaked and argue the Earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted.

Animation of El Nino and La Nina effects

But Mr Jarraud insisted this was not the case and noted that 2008 temperatures would still be well above average for the last 100 years.

"When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he said. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming.

"La Nina is part of what we call 'variability'. There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change is that the trend is up; the climate on average is warming even if there is a temporary cooling because of La Nina."
(BBC piece)

If one doesn't trace back the Zagoni references, one will come away with unsupported assumptions. Apparently, Zagoni's idea is based on research by Dr. Stephen E. Schwartz and comes to conclusions not supported by that work. I can't be the referee on any of this, but do suggest that the science has become so entangled with politics and rumor that finding a ray of light is difficult. What I can rely on is that anything that leads me to Fox News immediately activates my sniff reflex.

Let us not forget that the much heralded "concensus" on man-made global warming by scientists was a con. Many of the scientists disagreed with the theory and some had to fight to have their names removed from the list.

More than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition denying that man is responsible for global warming.

The academics, including 9,000 with PhDs, claim that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane are actually beneficial for the environment.
Full article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2053842/Scientists-sign-petition-denying-man-made-global-warming.html

Originally posted by DreamRyderX:

Unfortunately, the "GW SCAM" continues in the hearts & minds of it's misguided proponents. The good news is that there is more trickling through disproving the science behind their positions.

Unfortunately its seems to be all about GW. IF GW turns out to not be all that influenced by human activity, people won't be so anxious to protect it, ie clean the air, water, pick up the fscking trash, stop containments from leaking from the landfills into the soil and water supply, etc.

Originally posted by Acorn15:

More than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition denying that man is responsible for global warming.

The academics, including 9,000 with PhDs, claim that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane are actually beneficial for the environment.

I have to look more carefully at this, but a cursory search yielded this:

Robinson established the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine in 1980. In its early years, the OISM focused much of its attention on a new theory that Robinson had developed regarding "molecular clocks" that he thought might influence aging. It also became involved in issues related to nuclear war and civil defense. It published two books, Nuclear War Survival Skills (foreword by H-bomb inventor Edward Teller), which argues that "the dangers from nuclear weapons have been distorted and exaggerated" into "demoralizing myths." Robinson also co-authored another civil defense book titled Fighting Chance: Ten Feet to Survival, in collaboration with Gary North, who like Robinson is a conservative Christian. North is also a prolific author of doomsday books with titles such as None Dare Call It Witchcraft; Conspiracy: A Biblical View; Rapture Fever; and How You Can Profit From the Coming Price Controls. Following his collaboration with Robinson, North built a web-based marketing empire built around apocalyptic predictions that the Y2K bug would make the dawn of the 21st century "the year the earth stands still." North predicted that computer failures would cause "cascading cross defaults, where banks cannot settle accounts with each other, and the banking system goes into gridlock, worldwide," in addition to disruptions of oil supplies, electricity, manufacturing and public utility systems. "We are facing a breakdown of civilization if the power grid goes down," North predicted in late 1999, boasting, "I was the only person saying this on a Web site in early 1998, although a few sites do today." (After his Y2K predictions fizzled, North retooled his website to offer internet marketing products and services.) [Note from Gary North: Dr. Robinson did not believe my Y2K predictions, and in any case is no way responsible for my writings, which should be obvious to any fair-minded reader of this article on Dr. Robinson.]
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

Even a Gore clone will agree that carbon dioxide is beneficial to man, and trees, and algae and ten thousand more things. Is that the point, however? Methane is also very useful, but not necessarily as an overabundant greenhouse gas, or as a human inhalant.

<snipped from a letter @ Jerry Pournelle's site>
Disagreement might generate more light, if not perhaps less heat, were it organized according to Herman Kahn's typology:

• 1st-order agreement is agreement on substance.
• 2nd-order agreement is agreement about what the argument is about. “If A and B have achieved it, either should be able to explain it to C and each should be willing to accept the other’s explanation.”
• 3rd-order agreement is “an understanding on why second-order agreement cannot be achieved. … When third-order agreement is reached, each party can explain satisfactorily to a third why his opponent thinks the two cannot really come to grips on relevant issues and facts and eventually achieve a second-order agreement.”
• 4th-order agreement is “the simple assertion by one or both [parties] that the other is too stupid or biased for further discussion to be worthwhile”.

</snip>(Chaos Manor...)At best, the discussion here is of the 3rd-order type, about what the argument is about; but not much that fills these pages is the best. (There have been more than a dozen threads about global warming... One can find links to them here.) Most of it is 4th-order...but few stop talking.

Originally posted by Acorn15:

More than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition denying that man is responsible for global warming.
l

A petition?
Addressed to whom?
Respectfully requesting what?

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Most of it is 4th-order...but few stop talking.

I'm waiting for your first order contribution. It's pretty clear why most of what is found here is 4th-order. No experts.

Perhaps a part of the difficulty comes from assertions that have nothing to do with the probability of anthropically generated warming creating a tipping point. That gets lost in favor of advocacy.

Originally posted by tt92:

A petition?
Addressed to whom?
Respectfully requesting what?

And it's important to remind ourselves that that isn't even what the issue is about.

Originally posted by Acorn15:

More than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition denying that man is responsible for global warming.

The academics, including 9,000 with PhDs, claim that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane are actually beneficial for the environment.
Full article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2053842/Scientists-sign-petition-denying-man-made-global-warming.html

At the moment I can't access the server for your link. I will try later.

This could be related to the Oregon Petition. When I last read the origional Oregon Petition it didn't state that they were denying anything, but that they disputed the science behind the Koyoto mess & that they, in no uncertain terms, disagreed with the Koyoto findings & that of the IPCC.

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

As related to the post above regarding the Oregon Petition:

The current list of 31,072 petition signers includes 9,021 PhD; 6,961 MS; 2,240 MD and DVM; and 12,850 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,697 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 903 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,691 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

4. Chemistry includes 4,796 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,924 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

6. Medicine includes 3,069 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

7. Engineering and general science includes 9,992 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers' educations.

Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,697)

1. Atmosphere (578)

I) Atmospheric Science (114)
II) Climatology (40)
III) Meteorology (341 )
IV) Astronomy (58)
V) Astrophysics (25)

2. Earth (2,148)

I) Earth Science (107)
II) Geochemistry (62)
III) Geology (1,601)
IV) Geophysics (334)
V) Geoscience (23)
VI) Hydrology (21)

3. Environment (971)

I) Environmental Engineering (473)
II) Environmental Science (256)
III) Forestry (156)
IV) Oceanography (86)

Computers & Math (903)

1. Computer Science (217)

2. Math (686)

I) Mathematics (575)
II) Statistics (111)

Physics & Aerospace (5,691)

1. Physics (5,106)

I) Physics (2,310)
II) Nuclear Engineering (215)
III) Mechanical Engineering (2,581)

2. Aerospace (585)

I) Aerospace Engineering (585)

Chemistry (4,796)

1. Chemistry ( 3,156)

2. Chemical Engineering (1,640)

Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,924)

1. Biochemistry (768)

I) Biochemistry (703)
II) Biophysics (65)

2. Biology (1,365)

I) Biology (985)
II) Ecology (72)
III) Entomology (57)
IV) Zoology (145)
V) Animal Science (106)

3. Agriculture (791)

I) Agricultural Science (314)
II) Agricultural Engineering (111)
III) Plant Science (292)
IV) Food Science (74)

Medicine (3,069)

1. Medical Science (726)

2. Medicine (2,343)

General Engineering & General Science (9,992)

1. General Engineering (9,751)

I) Engineering (7,289)
II) Electrical Engineering (2,075)
III) Metallurgy (387)

2. General Science (241)

Originally posted by DreamRyderX:

This could be related to the Oregon Petition. When I last read the Oregon Petition it didn't state that they were denying anything, but that they disputed the science behind the Koyoto mess & that they, in no uncertain terms, disagreed with the Koyoto findings & that of the IPCC.

Which IPCC report? The generalizations of the first report were quite modest. Give a quick look @
the short synopsis here.

Isn't it always important to look at the qualifications of both researchers and those who disagree with them? This isn't always easy but has to have something to do with the status of the expert within his or her field of study. Most of us aren't going to attack that problem, but it seems to me that people from outside the field are going to be hard pressed to measure up. In the absence of standing within the discipline, how is one to judge competence?

Originally posted by DreamRyderX:

Do you believe that we mere humans have the capacity to "control" the climate---make it more to our liking?

I take some offense to that. We are not mere humans, but rather connections of humans who have built countless things together. Engineers in my field have the potential to develop more cost-effective ways to remediate pollution. We are starting to see what works because our techniques are new, but we will be successful at some of the tasks we take. Controlling the climate is simpler if we understand the principles on how to do so.

Originally posted by DreamRyderX:

CO2 is not a pollutant.

Like I said before, pollution is what humans define it to be. I'll give you an example...

Fertilizer, chemicals produced to enhance crop growth, are usually beneficial to the farmers who use them. The farmers will not call them pollution when under control. But when they are overused or are spilled, algae growth in the water goes up and certain organisms in these water sources die. We then define fertilizer as a pollutant. Counter-intuitive? I think so.

If we apply the same to CO2, it is not a pollutant at all times. But when we face a problem by it, we then call it a pollutant. CO2 created by humans that causes global warming is defined as pollution. This does not mean it exists, but we still call it pollution either way.

With regards to the Oregon Petition and what it says:

Originally posted by DreamRyderX:

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

What industries do they work in? Also, where is the petroleum-engineering breakdown of the engineers who signed the petition?

As an aside, the petroleum industry thrives on all types of scientists and others to keep itself going, and its profits high -- including environmental engineers involved in standards work. I know some people in my major who are potentially trying to just get high-paying jobs in that industry.

Many scientists are getting pushed down and out by GW supporters because they have jobs or worked for an industry that supports CO2 production to keep profits high.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

In the absence of standing within the discipline, how is one to judge competence?

I have struggled with this topic myself. Standing, or rather authority, is a veil of ignorance we put around people to let them handle the wheel. Sometimes, this authority is given and we let people drive. Other times, we can see that the uniform a person wears is just that, a uniform -- not their thoughts or actions.

We must reject our emotional attachment to the authoritarian part of people. This way, we can judge competence by what has been said by the "kings" or "queens" of a field.

Personally, I think some scientists who discredit or credit global warming, as caused by humans, are probably wearing "uniforms" which give them a sense of authority. These people may try to keep their constant inflow of cash by doing this.

Numbers are also like uniforms. Sometimes they are used as a parts of a game and a way to put down a point. They can have an ending which is complicated and takes years for some to understand. This way, people on the other end think they are wrong and will not continue to look at their data, which may still be validated by the sources used.

To understand the entire scope of global warming research out there, we should be able to see the total interests of all those involved. Then we can look at whether we want to believe their research...and their numbers. If nothing is too seriously motivated by personal reason, we can accept their data into a pool of greater data to discuss.

Originally posted by rmccabe916:

To understand the entire scope of global warming research out there, we should be able to see the total interests of all those involved. Then we can look at whether we want to believe their research...and their numbers. If nothing is too seriously motivated by personal reason, we can accept their data into a pool of greater data to discuss.

I like your overall approach.

One way around the problem that you identify is a collation of citations in peer-reviewed, referred journals. While it isn't fool proof, it does provide some measure of who's hot and who's not. Over time it should give a good sense of who the experts are, and it should also identify tangential figures in the "debate." Clearly, if done with intelligence, it does away with some of the tangential personalities, for example an Al Gore. One pays a high price in allying one's self with the Al Gores of the issue because they come ready made for ridicule and abuse, and they are not expert in the field no matter how bright or well-intended. On the other side, no matter the brilliance of a Freeman Dyson, his type offers little more than the Gores. The Dysons have their own expertise and following, but how relevant is it?

Let me suggest the following Google search:
It indicates the degree to which some have gone in dealing with this problem.
Let me suggest a method that is doomed to failure in coming to any reasoned outcome in decision making:

A different day, but the same old tired LAME leftist, tree-huggin, touchie-feelie, pablem-pukin', save an insect/unemploy a town, the sky is fallin', you use petrol----you must instantly be on big-oil's payroll smear.......and to think--------for a minute I thought you might just be an open minded thinker---------nahhh--------just another zombie putz sheep mere human,,,me bad!

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Let me suggest a method that is doomed to failure in coming to any reasoned outcome in decision making:

A different day, but the same old tired LAME leftist, tree-huggin, touchie-feelie, pablem-pukin', save an insect/unemploy a town, the sky is fallin', you use petrol----you must instantly be on big-oil's payroll smear.......and to think--------for a minute I thought you might just be an open minded thinker---------nahhh--------just another zombie putz sheep mere human,,,me bad!

Yes, but it's not doomed to failure in it's real intent: trolling. Likely to fail, but not certain.

Originally posted by aefields:

Yes, but it's not doomed to failure in it's real intent: trolling. Likely to fail, but not certain.

I've always enjoyed snapping up succulent bait, so long as I have a squeeze of lemon and a little salt.

Originally posted by DreamRyderX:

A different day, but the same old tired LAME leftist, tree-huggin, touchie-feelie, pablem-pukin', save an insect/unemploy a town, the sky is fallin', you use petrol----you must instantly be on big-oil's payroll smear.......and to think--------for a minute I thought you might just be an open minded thinker---------nahhh--------just another zombie putz sheep mere human,,,me bad!

Mind giving me a more directed critique of my views? I did for yours, even though I disagreed with some of what you thought. Otherwise you really are - ing around. BTW, what industry do you work in?

Originally posted by Jaybro:

One way around the problem that you identify is a collation of citations in peer-reviewed, referred journals.

Very true. But they still do have a lot of external viewpoints queuing them on.

I prefer looking at the other side too, just to see if they have any good points. I believe only market-based solutions to get rid of pollution, within a body of politics, will help get rid of pollution. I'm going to have to look at both the scientific and influential sides of the debate to make anything I want to work happen.

Also, "intelligence" is not a real thing, but one humans define to put others down and stratify our societal levels. We are all similar when we are born, with a few key differences in our bodies determining which direction we go. Some people are just lucky to be born into good families with a lot of opportunity -- they are more able to develop certain parts of their brain. I am only as (un)intelligent as I am because of the experiences I have been through. Different parts of my brain have developed in greater or less capacity.

We can look at certain things with what we have developed, but without developing the other parts of our mind, no solution will be able to solve a problem for all types of people. Luckily, my (undeveloped) experiences as an engineer, biologist, and politician will help me solve environmental problems more effectively later on.

Originally posted by rmccabe916:

I am only as (un)intelligent as I am because of the experiences I have been through. Different parts of my brain have developed in greater or less capacity.

You might as well tell me we're all born with the same potential to be seven feet six inches tall and that the only thing that prevents us reaching that height is experience. Some people are born with slightly thinner pre-frontal cortexes, are less able to suppress impulses and more likely to break the law in their early years....however good their parents are.

But that isn't the argument in this thread.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

But that isn't the argument in this thread.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Clearly, if done with intelligence, it does away with some of the tangential personalities, for example an Al Gore.

I was talking about this point. You should have restated your views "if done by looking at all the sources, that does away with Gore."

Originally posted by Jaybro:

You might as well tell me we're all born with the same potential to be seven feet six inches tall and that the only thing that prevents us reaching that height is experience.

Height cannot be changed by experience because factors determining it are not connected to the brain.

But some do have the ability to train parts of their brain to account for lacks of others. Training through memorization/experience is one of those ways and makes us human. I know what I'm saying sounds like what would say -- removing all emotion from the problems we face is better to get to a solution faster. Emotion, however, is the stuff that keeps us all sane in doing so -- and it also introduces random thoughts we never would have found by looking at a problem "logically."

Anyway, that's another thread! Back to GW!

Originally posted by rmccabe916:

Back to GW!

Originally posted by rmccabe916:

I know what I'm saying sounds like what would say -- removing all emotion from the problems we face is better to get to a solution faster. Emotion, however, is the stuff that keeps us all sane in doing so -- and it also introduces random thoughts we never would have found by looking at a problem "logically."

Anyway, that's another thread! Back to GW!

But removing all emotions... I am sorry in not beeing able to find that quote via a web-search... but AFAIR Spock said in Patterns of Force that the nazi regime is the best suitable one under circumstances... that finding a external 3rd party to blame unites and is blending out inner problems... so much for pure logic. [Meaning in pure logic that is right, but that is also the why - why I am happy that ethic and moral is part of us beeing human]

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by rmccabe916:

Back to GW!

We have been discussing the ethics involved with GW, since it is an ethics issue -- whether companies want to be selfish or altruistic with their profits.

Originally posted by Shandra:

But removing all emotions... I am sorry in not beeing able to find that quote via a web-search... but AFAIR Spock said in Patterns of Force that the nazi regime is the best suitable one under circumstances... that finding a external 3rd party to blame unites and is blending out inner problems... so much for pure logic. [Meaning in pure logic that is right, but that is also the why - why I am happy that ethic and moral is part of us beeing human]

We should discuss this in another thread! (We can be both Klingon and Vulcan is my starting point...)

Originally posted by rmccabe916:

We have been discussing the ethics involved with GW, since it is an ethics issue -- whether companies want to be selfish or altruistic with their profits.

That would only be the case if GW was man-made. Hence this thread.

Originally posted by Acorn15:

That would only be the case if GW was man-made.

Exactly.

Ditto's

If GW is ever proven to be man made, which is still "open", then & only then should we be suggesting/requiring something to be done to alter it's path.

So far as I see the types of suggestive responses so far are "lets clean up the environment & migrate to lesser use of fossil fuels", "if that doesn't resolve GW well at least we can breathe easier....etc...etc...".

These types of responses avoid the actual finding of answers to the pending question:

Is man actually responsible for Global Warming?

The answer is either YES or NO.

Best guess; Might be; Could be; Most probably is; etc.... are not valid answers----valid enough to spur on in depth, high cost, suggestive at best "cures".


The "drunken sailor approach"---tossing bags of Taxpayer's hard earned cash into the air in hopes of resolution---does not cut it!

As I stated before:

....I have always believed that taking on pollution is a noble cause....

....I agree with you, & the many others, that we must do more to curb our "pollution * ". To me that is a separate issue unto itself....

Originally posted by rmccabe916:

I was talking about this point. You should have restated your views "if done by looking at all the sources, that does away with Gore."

That's not what I should have done at all. I knew what I was saying and meant just that. But that's another thread.

Originally posted by Acorn15:

That would only be the case if GW was man-made. Hence this thread.

That is not the argument of this thread. I don't know anybody who knows anything about the issue who makes the case that GW is man-made. I know next to nothing, but I know that anthropogenic GW is different from any claim that GW is altogether man-made. AGW has to do with the contribution that humans make on top of whatever GW is active in nature aside from man.*

Originally posted by DreamRyderX:

Is man actually responsible for Global Warming?

Absolutely not. Not in the mind of Gore or anybody who's ever considered the issue "intelligently."
...........................................................................................................................
* If you want to put us where we belong, then we're no different from termites. But nobody ever asks whether termites are responsible for GW. The same is true for cows. Wouldn't it be better to ask for a long list of things that contribute to GW, rather than pinning it all on one critter or another? Problem with termites is that they are unaware and don't give a shit, to boot. Damn them!

Some specifics from scientists:
" NASA's Jim Hansen, submitted a paper to Science magazine with several co-authors. The abstract attached to it argued--and I have never read stronger language in a scientific paper--"if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm." Hansen cites six irreversible tipping points--massive sea level rise and huge changes in rainfall patterns, among them--that we'll pass if we don't get back down to 350 soon;"
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080526/mckibben

and a letter to US policy makers: http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/530/2
"the letter calls for specific policies. It advocates slashing greenhouse gas output 15% to 20% by 2020, for example, and recommends an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050."

From the further link: http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/top-us-scientists-and-0120.html "Columbia University economist Heal said the cost of inaction far outweighs the cost of addressing climate change. The costs of cutting emissions to safe levels would be between 1 and 2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), he said, while the costs of allowing climate change to proceed unabated would be on the order of 10 to 20 percent of GDP."

Originally posted by aefields:

From the further link: http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/top-us-scientists-and-0120.html "Columbia University economist Heal said the cost of inaction far outweighs the cost of addressing climate change. The costs of cutting emissions to safe levels would be between 1 and 2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), he said, while the costs of allowing climate change to proceed unabated would be on the order of 10 to 20 percent of GDP."

Well,well... but that is the real problem, ain't it? The 1 tp 2 would have to be invest by peoble in corps at charge right now... and it would lessen their personal gain... whereras the 10 to 20 is in it's time to be paid by someone else, so no loss for the current person in charge (Well, childrens? What the heck, it is my income now!)... and most likely the bet is the state and the people will pay for it then... so why do I have to lessen my maximum now?

Sad thing is that current politicians are more sensible to paying lobby (same argument - my income now and in 4 years I may not be here anylonger) then to long-term reasoning... Especially if they would have to carve some deep wounds into some current and local economies (like agricultural ones) wich would only make them unpopular.... we are always delaying the acts that need to be done for acts that are more convinient towards the current spatial situation

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

The bait: Climate science is so-o complex that even its specialists can hardly understand each other! The quantitative models aren't predictive because the physics is too complicated; too complicated for physicists to critique, surely. In like manner, the political machinations and economic impacts of "mitigation" or "aversion" are beyond mere mortals...

Sorry, Jaybro, but saying Dyson is no more "useful" as a explicator of the science (and psychology) of climate change (in the IPCC's sense) is an example of that faux modesty endemic in the world of PC; you may have swallowed it -hook, line and sinker- but I won't bite...

Did you chide Michael Mann for his gaffe, not inviting (not even from his own institution...) a "specialist" (statistician) to check out his principle components stuff? Of course not! Strikes me as a "some are more equal than others" pose, that the Catestrophic-AGW crowd takes.

Of course, that in no way accounts for your ignoring the import of the economic analysis... (That's a different blind spot altogether.) Dyson's piece was, after all, a review of two current books.

Perhaps this is preferable? At least, it has the "correct" religious overtones...

I find Dyson's criticism of Global Warming Science & Studies very enlightening & valuable. Not just his criticism, but his outlooks in general. Not that I totally agree with all his positions, they are very well organized & logically presented.

The Question of Global Warming

By <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson" title="Who is Freeman Dyson?" target="_blank" mce_href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson">Freeman Dyson

For those that have not yet done so you can read the <a href="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21494" title="Freeman Dyson's Aanalytical Essay" target="_blank" mce_href="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21494">complete essay here</a>. I found the last few paragraphs especially powerful. It's a good read.

Thanks OakdaleFTL