Global warming ????

[John Kirk]

Butler, fire up the Prius.  I want to take a drive in the country today!

[Wyatt Halliday]

Butler, fire up the Prius.  I want to take a drive in the country today!

Wrong again John.....

For proper pretentiousness, it's "Driver, fire up the Prius.  I want to take a drive in the country today!"

[Matt Kardash]

Science does not care if you "believe" or not and science does not care if some talkingheads on cable news network disputes it.

Science does not have the capacity to "care" as it is not a living, breathing thing.  Rather it is an enterprise populated by scientists.  These creatures are human and like you and me imperfect beings.

Yes, they are imperfect, but that is why the peer-review system is in place. It ensures that "bad science" is eliminated because others can demonstrate flaws thru reasoned argument, data, and calculations. If I were you I wouldn't be so quick to look down upon this method. Science and the peer-review process has been "the process" that has developped every technology in our world that makes our lives better. This is the same process that is saying that climate change is real and anthropogenic.

I do no get offended very easily. But I do find it very insulting when people spout out their opinions as if they think they are right when people like myself have gone to school and studied the research and friends of mine are actually DOING the research. Would you not find it insulting if I told you that at your job, as say a doctor, you do not know how to practice medecine, or are doign it incorrectly, all the while all I know about medecine is what I learned watching a hospital-based television drama? For some reason people feel like their opinion on the subject matter of climate change counts for something. Just something for you detractors, and people in general to keep in mind, because what I just said could apply to many things.

Matt,

I find your response curious, as you make several assumptions and implications about me.  I have made nothing more than a factual statement of which you agree in your first few words.  From there you accuse me of "looking down" on the peer review process.  I have done no such thing.  You imply that I have forgotten, or discounted that science has developed every technology in the world.  I have made no such statement, and hold no such belief that science has little value.  As an aside I would point out that "science" has done no such thing.  People have.  We owe nothing to science, as it is not a living thing.  Humans are responsible for our achievements and have developed the enterprise of science and the pursuit of truth.  It is to us that we owe our accomplishments. 

You go on to become offended because I have spouted opinion; again I have offered no opinion, just a statement of fact.  You make an assumption that I must not have gone to school and studied the research.  I must also not have friends DOING the research.  Further you imply that I must be developing my opinions based on watching TV, or possibly you believe me not to have the mental acuity to recognize the facts for what they are.  Wow, you really drew a lot of information from a few short sentences.  Well done.  I will now retire to my living room for cartoon watching.  While doing so I will wipe the drool from my chin, eat the booger I just picked and contemplate how a man with your soaring intellect and brilliant friends managed to twice misspell medicine.  Maybe you were speaking French.

Richard,

I tend not to post on these types of threads, as too many folks resort to name calling.  You don’t know me, and I don’t know you, so I will not take offense to being called dumb and lazy.  Life is too short to engage in discourse with someone that quickly resorts to such tactics.  Candidly, I find it rather revealing.

You also have made some incorrect assumptions in your post.  I did not state or imply that because humans are fallible, facts are therefore fallible.  I believe no such thing.  Furthermore, I am not insulting “the amazing scientific discoveries throughout the ages.”  The quest for knowledge, truth and the betterment of the human condition is a noble and needed endeavor.  I am not someone who believes that the earth came into existence 6,000 years ago.

It is clear from your response that you believe science to be perfect, as you take issue with my claim that it is imperfect.  I stand by my statement.  Just because scientists have discovered and proven facts, that does not make the enterprise of science perfect.  That is a standard that is not reachable.  I struggle to see how that is a controversial statement.  The peer review process is not perfect either, as it was developed by and is practiced by humans.  That does not mean that I don’t feel that it has value (obviously it does) nor am I dismissive of the discoveries that the peer review process has helped scientists achieve and document.  To strive for total and perfect understanding is of great value to us.  Let’s just not pretend the system in place eliminates the shortcomings of man.  Rather it is the best that we can do.

As for climate change being definitively and factually proven to be anthropogenic, I don’t believe that it has.  The imperfectness that I mentioned in my original post I believe to go a bit deeper than “bad science” subject to correction by peer review, as it applies to the research on climate change.  I’m sure to you this makes me a boob, or whatever other insults you want to pile on.  Somehow I’ll live.

As for now, I must retire to the living room as Bugs Bunny is on.  Later, when the show becomes too complicated for me to grasp, I will likely blow bubbles and giggle uncontrollably.

My first paragraph was addressed to you, the rest of it was not and was meant to be more general. Sorry for not making that clear. It would have saved you some typing and the ad-hominum attacks on my spelling. And yes, as a matter fo fact I live in Montreal, which is a french speaking place, so I often mistake the spelling of similar words.

But let me address one thing. Yes, you are right, humans are responsible for the incredible technological acheivements. However, I said it is the peer-review structure that is at the heart of these acheivements. It enables ideas to be shared and challenged. It is this very framework that ensures that the science is legitimate.

I hope I spelled everything correctly. I'm too lazy to re-read what I typed.

[Lou_Duran]

No, no.  As those of us who have met him know, JK is a man of simple tastes if not modest means.  His pilot and butler split driving duties in deference to current economic times and his sensitivity to not being seen as ostentatious or prolifigate.  The Prius, however, is turbocharged.

Mr. Clark,

I must say, your screed is disturbing.  Though I can't recommend picking one's nose, watching Bugs Bunny is greatly underrated.  I do find that it often takes repeated viewings of the same episode to gain a full understanding.  Catching Glen Beck right afterwards can facilitate absorption.  However, for total immersion, you should set your TIVO to Joel Osteen and watch, in order, one episode of Bugs, a half segment of Beck, and 15 minutes of Osteen right before you go to bed.  If you are anything like me, when you get up in the morning you'll feel much smarter, maybe like you're pushing your IQ quotient to just under three digits. )

[Craig Sweet]

Richard...perhaps the 'saying' is "there are no truths in science"?

[Rick Shefchik]

I thought the saying was, "There are no truths outside the gates of Eden."

[Matt Kardash]

Richard...perhaps the 'saying' is "there are no truths in science"?

Newton's LAWS of motion. It has been tested and proven. So yes, there are truths in science.

Richard was trying to say that new understandings of our universe are built upon old understandings. It's not to say that these old understandings were wrong. In fact, they were correct, but did not maybe apply to the entire picture.

Like Richard (I think) said,
1915: Einstein's General throry of relativity BUILDS UPON Newtonian physics and gives us a new, more intricate understanding of the universe. Newton could calculate where a planet should be with tremendous accuracy, however he did not know WHY it was there. That is what einstein taught us.

In the 1920's quatum mechanics(led by Neils Bohr amongst others) showed that Einstein's view of the universe was limited. His equations only worked on large objects, but broke down at the atomic level. Quantum mechanics had a solution for this. However Einstein did not like quatum mechanics and did not take well to it. However, the PEER-Review process showed that Quantum mechanics was indeed reall, and that in fact the particles that make up our bodies are everywhere in the universe at the same time. Peer-review did not care that a genius like Einstein did not think this theory was right. So no, it is not individuals that necissarily are at the heart of science, it is the peer-review collection!

Right now physicists think string theory might be the answer to unite the world of small and the large. We do not know if they are right yet, however, even if they are it does not discredit what Newton, Einstein, or Neils Bohr did previously. What they did was right in certain scenarios, but ultimatley something new will come along that will build upon their knowledge and give us a more complete view of the world we live in.

[Steve Lang]

I always like Newton's quotes.. specially the 2nd below from http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton

Amicus Plato — amicus Aristoteles — magis amica veritas
*   Plato is my friend — Aristotle is my friend — but my greatest friend is truth.

These are notes in Latin that Newton wrote to himself that he titled: Quaestiones Quaedam Philosophicae [Certain Philosophical Questions] (c. 1664)
Variant translations: Plato is my friend, Aristotle is my friend, but my best friend is truth.

*  If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants.
Letter to Robert Hooke (15 February 1676) [dated as 5 February 1675 using the Julian calendar with March 25th rather than January 1st as New Years Day, equivalent to 15 February 1676 by Gregorian reckonings]

*  I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called a hypothesis, and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.
Letter to Robert Hooke (15 February 1676) [5 February 1675 (O.S.)]

[Craig Sweet]

ALLRIGHT!!!!!  Perhaps the saying is "There are no absolutes in science"?

[Colin Macqueen]

Craig,

Absolute zero!!?? Getting closer in Chicago anyway!

Colin

[Anthony Butler]

The Republicans just put a guy who believes God will handle the challenge of global warming for us so there's no need for any carbon emissions policy or renewable energy investment.

Why will I not be surprised when Chevron and Exxon finally figure out how to globally manufacture and distribute some kind of renewable energy substitute for oil all of a sudden 'clean energy' will zoom to the top of the 'national agenda' for the GOP.

Honestly, it's so far past 'Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." with these people that anyone who keeps swallowing this garbage deserves everything they get. The unfortunate part is that the rest of have to suffer along with the fools.

[Ross Tuddenham]

I think all climate change and human caused climate change deniers should be locked in a room with prof brian cox until they see sense.

What a guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aXuQ9Dg2gE&feature=related

[Anthony Butler]

I think all climate change and human caused climate change deniers should be locked in a room with prof brian cox until they see sense.

What a guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aXuQ9Dg2gE&feature=related

Oooh lovely floppy hair on 'im...

I'll wager this guy gets more undergraduate p__ntang at the University of Nottingham than Prof. Indiana Jones

[john_stiles]

I do wish Al Gore would take some of the money earned on his zinc mine, courtesy of Armand Hammer, less the amount spend on his heated driveway and whatever is needed to clean up Caney Creek next to the zinc mine, and put out the second edition of his book.

[Steve Lang]

Craig,

Absolute zero!!?? Getting closer in Chicago anyway!

Colin

how about -40 F = -40 C ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ross,

Perhaps that professor could explain how the traffic on the LIE melted the glaciers that covered Long Island.

I don't believe that anyone has been able to quantify the incremental impact that humans have had on global warming.

Are some environmentalists suggesting that we have a large scale thermonuclear exchange, thus causing a long term nuclear winter, which will in turn cool off the planet for quite a while ?(;

Do some suggest limiting our global population to its current number ?(;

And, do others think that the expansion and development of civilization should cease ?(;

I'd certainly like to see our dependency on oil, especially foreign oil reduced considerably.

While I hate to admit it, the French appear to have gotten it right, with solving most of their energy needs.
 

[Carl Nichols]

Global warming reflects the fact temperatures measured throughout the globe show the planet is heating up on average .5 celsius degrees per decade.

That doesn't seem right at all.  That would reflect about a 10 degree fahrenheit increase in the last century, which no one is claiming.  I thought the claim was that global average temperatures had risen .8 degrees Celsius since 1880.  

Matt, what is it that you do?

[Anthony Butler]

Global warming reflects the fact temperatures measured throughout the globe show the planet is heating up on average .5 celsius degrees per decade.

That doesn't seem right at all.  That would reflect about a 10 degree fahrenheit increase in the last century, which no one is claiming.  I thought the claim was that global average temperatures had risen .8 degrees Celsius since 1880.  

Matt, what is it that you do?

Sorry made a backwards conversion there. It's more like .2 celsius in the most recent decades. Again that's an average. In different parts of the world they are experiencing higher increases. Because global warming triggers extreme weather episodes, something like this winter will reverse things temperature-wise for a few years.

I'm no scientist, but I have done a lot of work in this area with environmental groups and energy efficiency organizations. From my vantage point, it seems water shortages will soon be a more urgent issue globally than climate change. although they are interrelated. An  investment in the desalination industry might pan out in the long term. Energy prices will also become an issue in the next few decades. As the price of oil rises, of course, oil shale and oil sand extraction become more commercially viable.

The average Western European's carbon footprint is almost half that of the average US citizen is due to three major factors:

• Smaller/more energy efficient homes & buildings (unless your proposed structure is LEED Platinum-standard, you can't get a construction loan in some countries)
• Lower % of car ownership and smaller cars on average (due in large part to the cost of gas-a social engineering policy with enormous benefits for the countries who adopted this policy.)
• Large utility scale nuclear development and with solar energy on a similar scale coming.

[Ross Tuddenham]

Would anyone here debate the existence of dinosaurs?  Probably not, so why question scientists when it comes to climate change?

[David_Elvins]

Would anyone here debate the existence of dinosaurs?  Probably not, so why question scientists when it comes to climate change?

Because 'scientists' would have you believe that dinosaurs pre-dated human habitation. 

[Matt Kardash]

Global warming reflects the fact temperatures measured throughout the globe show the planet is heating up on average .5 celsius degrees per decade.

That doesn't seem right at all.  That would reflect about a 10 degree fahrenheit increase in the last century, which no one is claiming.  I thought the claim was that global average temperatures had risen .8 degrees Celsius since 1880.  

Matt, what is it that you do?

I am an Environmental Scientist. Needless to say, my background had me studying a lot on paleoclimatology. Currently, I am working to reduce industrial wastewater pollution.

[Carl Nichols]

 Regardless, assuming these energy rich hydrocarbons are a finite resource, name one good reason why we shouldn't try to minimize their use.

There isn't, all other things being equal, or assuming that doing so is cost-free.  But it's not, of course, and even if you assume that the globe is warming as a result (at least in part) of human activity, that doesn't answer the very difficult question of how much we should be spending to try to stop it.  One of the problems with the debate (not here, out in the real world) is that some people use concerns about global warming as a way to push for pre-existing agendas....

[Carl Nichols]

The average Western European's carbon footprint is almost half that of the average US citizen is due to three major factors:

Serious question -- what is their average economic output/person?

[Carl Nichols]

Global warming reflects the fact temperatures measured throughout the globe show the planet is heating up on average .5 celsius degrees per decade.

That doesn't seem right at all.  That would reflect about a 10 degree fahrenheit increase in the last century, which no one is claiming.  I thought the claim was that global average temperatures had risen .8 degrees Celsius since 1880.  

Matt, what is it that you do?

I am an Environmental Scientist. Needless to say, my background had me studying a lot on paleoclimatology. Currently, I am working to reduce industrial wastewater pollution.

Thanks. What is your view on the current state of the science on whether the climate change that has occurred over the last century has caused/is causing extreme weather?

[astavrides]

The average Western European's carbon footprint is almost half that of the average US citizen is due to three major factors:

Serious question -- what is their average economic output/person?

EU GDP 15.1 trilliion (IMF stat), pop. 500 million
US GDP 14.6 trillion (IMF), pop. 300 million