The American Thinker Slaps Down Global Warming

[Sukerkin]

Hi Ray

A quick look at your profile doesn't help me out, so I wonder if you could tell me your background? Why? Because I can't work out if you're pulling my leg or not {smilies are a mans best friend in the interwebs :lol:}?

Newtonian gravitational theory is an approximation and it's flaws get larger the bigger the masses involved and further away from the observer you get. Einsteinian relativity inherited this inaccuracy and it's only these days that we're starting to get in the ball park of a theory of gravity that both works and sits consistently with the other major forces.

However, as ever with any statements I make like this, the sub-clause is I am not a physicist {insert other discipline here as necessary}. I just study a lot (which is why there are more letters after my name than are in it ).

As an aside to everything in this thread other than the nature of science and it's development, this makes an interesting read (it's a paper by some chaps with one theory of gravity who are at odds with another chap who also has a theory of gravity): http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0407/0407059v4.pdf.

 

[Ray]

Hi Ray

A quick look at your profile doesn't help me out, so I wonder if you could tell me your background? Why? Because I can't work out if you're pulling my leg or not {smilies are a mans best friend in the interwebs}?

I am a factory worker. I haven't had a lot of physics homework lately so I haven't read the latest and greatest theories and discoveries. I am serious that: we humans are smart but not smart enough.

Newtonian gravitational theory is an approximation and it's flaws get larger the bigger the masses involved and further away from the observer you get. Einsteinian relativity inherited this inaccuracy and it's only these days that we're starting to get in the ball park of a theory of gravity that both works and sits consistently with the other major forces.

Thanks for the link that you posted. Do you have a link that describes the flaws/inaccuracies? I'd like to read up on it a bit.

As an aside to everything in this thread other than the nature of science and it's development, this makes an interesting read (it's a paper by some chaps with one theory of gravity who are at odds with another chap who also has a theory of gravity):

with dvali, sundrum and like drivel I haven't see a whole lot that I like.

 

[Karatedrifter7]

What argument are you trying to make? So you take someone way out of the mainstream thought, to prove a point? Thats who David Icke is. Somebody could easily solicit the opinions of creationists conservatives, that tell us the world was created in six days. Does this also mean that global warming is a fallacy?

 

[Sukerkin]

I'll keep this brief as we're close to wandering OT - for the simplest exemplar that Newtonian gravity is not accurate but close enough for everyday purposes, look no further than page ten of Steven Hawkings "A Brief History of Time".

 

[Ray]

What argument are you trying to make? So you take someone way out of the mainstream thought, to prove a point?

Who me?

Thats who David Icke is. Somebody could easily solicit the opinions of creationists conservatives, that tell us the world was created in six days. Does this also mean that global warming is a fallacy?

I don't disagree that global warming may be man made, that it may become a problem...but I haven't seen sufficient information to be converted (even though my 18-year old boy did make me watch Al Gore's flick with him). BTW, it's 23 degrees F where I am; I wouldn't mind a little more heat and sunlight.

The earth is much older than human-kind, if we create our own destruction the earth will do okay without us; something better is bound to evolve. We try real hard to do the "right thing" but we fail time and time again.

So I say, we humans are pretty smart, but not smart enough.

 

[michaeledward]

Because people, like Al Gore who make money by exploiting fear of global warming caused disaster are somehow more trustworthy?

I say "evidence" ... and you say "Al Gore".

Is there a language barrier here?

No, not a lie at all. When the "great" scientists of the time all believed the earth was flat and/or the center of the universe that was indeed, regardless of where the idea came from, a consensus of scientists, just as you claim there are now, supporting the idea of man-caused global warming leading to mass hysteria, dogs and cats living together, etc

Please put a name the "great" scientists of which you speak. One or two scientists who argued for a flat earth, that did not go by the title "Your Holiness", will do.

You see, the scientific method, as we understand it today, is generally accepted to come into existance in the 1600's, more or less (at least here in the West). Prior to that time, whatever it was that brought about your supposed 'consensus', it was not science. More likely, it was religious decree.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Quite true there, Kenpo.

I have to confess that I've been very lax and not followed that link to see what my impressions are on the survey (and the surveyed).

I also have to confess that I'm not a climate scientist, I'm just what used to called "Well read" so my words carry no 'professional weight.

The reason why I tend to get drawn into these discussions repeatedly is not that I'm an evangelist for the Global Warming Corporate Mafia; indeed, I'm still more than ready to believe that this sudden warming explosion will trigger an inversion. It's that I consistently fail to grasp why there is so much resistence to trying to do what we can to make sure we're not making things worse then they need to be.

That's particularly true when it comes to developing non-polluting alternative sources of energy. It's a given that petrol is a magnificent energy store and the oil companies, via vast economies of scale, are able to get it to us for a ludicrously low price. Those attributes make it hard to beat, especially when most of the proposed alternatives are simply the same 'model' dressed up in new clothes with a different 'fuel' that isn't as good. Even those that look superficially great, like many of the electric car designs for example, simply move the pollution a step back towards the source and generate an even worse problem with other elements of the technology (the batteries are an ecological nightmare to dispose of).

There are approaches that could break the mould if fully developed tho' e.g. photo-voltaic cells combined with fuel cells to use the sun to provide the power to get the hydrogen you need to drive the car. No magic bullets as yet tho' .

Be very careful here. When you start making statements like thhis, skeptics may start to say, "Hm, good point."

Like I've said in other threads about global warming, it is not that I don't necessarily believe that man may be helping to cause global warming. It's that those in the debate (not necessarily the science) are so vitriolic in their attitude towards those who are skeptical or don't belive. That raises the question mark above my head, especially when there is some evidence to the contrary.

But none of that means that, hey, it could be possible, so why not mitigate if it is may be true and when we can.

Not Me. I would not believe anything because of a list of names.

Instead, show the evidence for their claims.
Show me who is funding their research.

Show me the evidence that is contrary to their claims.
Show me where their funding is sourced.

I suppose I should have made explicit what I thought was implicit. I did mean to imply that the list would include their research.

And do you necessarily believe that their source of funding has an absolute correlation with their findings and therefore to be disregarded , or to you would this to be a situation where you might take what they say with a grain of salt?

 

[michaeledward]

And do you necessarily believe that their source of funding has an absolute correlation with their findings and therefore to be disregarded , or to you would this to be a situation where you might take what they say with a grain of salt?

The source of funding needs to be considered and weight appropriately. Modern scientists do two things .... they examine the world around them, and they write grant requests.

The entities that fund those grants may very well have an agenda. If the scientist were to desire further grants from that entity, it may be important that the research is in line with the aforementioned agenda.

Here, I would like to quote directly from my cousin's web-page. David is a geologist with the University of South Carolina. I understand he recently received an extensive grant to study the geology of Antartica.

Advice for my graduate students and graduate student applicants
...
3. Generating funding is an important aspect of being a geologist and a practice you will need to perfect. Regardless of existing funding, take every opportunity to apply for grants no matter how small. If you aren't trying to support yourself, I will be less likely to expend my effort to support you. If I have to suggest to you to apply for a grant or a fellowship, you aren't doing your job.

I point to this paragraph specifically for that first sentence in his third bullet point. He has learned how to write grants, and is encouraging his grad students right up front that it is an important part of the vocation.

I wonder if it might be easier to get a grant from Exxon Mobile if I am willing to say Global Warming is a myth.

 

[Ray]

I wonder if it might be easier to get a grant from Exxon Mobile if I am willing to say Global Warming is a myth.

Generally I have a good feeling about the motives of scientists. If you're right, then I should examine the motives of all of them?

I'd rather examine their work than their motives. I'm hoping peer review keeps them mostly honest, but I'm naive and trusting.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

The source of funding needs to be considered and weight appropriately. Modern scientists do two things .... they examine the world around them, and they write grant requests.

The entities that fund those grants may very well have an agenda. If the scientist were to desire further grants from that entity, it may be important that the research is in line with the aforementioned agenda.

Here, I would like to quote directly from my cousin's web-page. David is a geologist with the University of South Carolina. I understand he recently received an extensive grant to study the geology of Antartica.


I point to this paragraph specifically for that first sentence in his third bullet point. He has learned how to write grants, and is encouraging his grad students right up front that it is an important part of the vocation.

I wonder if it might be easier to get a grant from Exxon Mobile if I am willing to say Global Warming is a myth.

I can understand, an can agree with your post. I was just wondering what your position to be, which is that the evidence would be foremost, but, not being a scientist (and hence, able to test) you may take it with a grain of salt.

And as Ray said, the evidence and peer review should speak for itself.

 

[Big Don]

I say "evidence" ... and you say "Al Gore".

Is there a language barrier here?

If oil company funded research is so obviously biased and therefore, not to be trusted, simply because an oil company funded it,then the fact that Al Gore makes money by fomenting the fear of global warming, ought to disqualify him from commenting on it, in your little "follow the money" world.

The question "Where does the money come from" works both ways, and while you and others may like to think of oil companies as the focus of evil in the world, there sure are a lot of crackpots and criminals on the global warming bandwagon, and, btw, entirely too many politicians...

 

[michaeledward]

Generally I have a good feeling about the motives of scientists. If you're right, then I should examine the motives of all of them?

I'd rather examine their work than their motives. I'm hoping peer review keeps them mostly honest, but I'm naive and trusting.

"Generally", Ray, I think that most of us would agree with your statement about motives. However, individual arguments and positions are not being put forth 'Generally'. They are raised and put forth by 'specific' people. Just because Sean Hannity yells twice as loud, for twice as long, as anyone else on television, it doesn't mean he is four times more correct.

Any population can be represented by 'the Bell Curve' ... where most individual metrics 'Generally' end up in the mushy middle. It is the extremes on either side of that Bell Curve that do not fit in to that "Generally" descriptor.

The requests for specific researchers, studies, and funding sources is to try and determine if the position is one of the 'Generally Accepted' positions, or if it is an idea that is three or four standard deviations out on the Bell Curve.

Notice how Big Don keeps bringing up Al Gore. He hopes that the myth of Al Gore has pushed the name far enough out on the end of the Bell Curve to paint the information presented as extreme. It seems to escape the notice of those crying 'Al Gore' that Mr. Gore is not a scientist. He did not perform the studies reported on in his film or book. He just reports the information. A more credible attack would be to attack the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. Of course, screaming the NOAA is biased doesn't have the same ring.

So, yes, Peer Review will usually cause things to 'self-correct'. Except when power and authority wish for it to not self-correct. Did you hear about the head of the Texas science teachers organization got thrown out of a job because of an email raising awareness about 'Intelligent Design'? I thought Dover settled that matter. But, alas, it is an extreme position four, five, or six standard deviations away from the norm, that keeps getting play.

And just as with ID, there are some that will disupte the Keeling Curve ... which I just found out turned 50 this year.

 

[Big Don]

No, Al Gore isn't a scientist, he is someone who makes money selling carbon credits and making movies hyping global warming fears. That is exactly why anything he is involved this deeply in should face much more serious scrutiny. Especially since, while he counsels everyone else to reduce their carbon footprint he still flies on private jets. Notice how Michael Edward refuses to explain why he considers industry funded research as biased but, research and statements made by proponents of global warming are not suspect...

 

[Andrew Green]

How is it that so many discussions on the issue of global warming turn into personal attacks on the credibility of Al Gore? As if he was the leading authority on the matter. He isn't, he is a activist, not a scientist.

 

[Big Don]

How is it that so many discussions on the issue of global warming turn into personal attacks on the credibility of Al Gore? As if he was the leading authority on the matter. He isn't, he is a activist, not a scientist.

Gore has portrayed himself as an expert and an authority on global warming, mostly, imho, to advance his bank accounts.
I have merely asked why, if studies funded by industry must automatically be suspect, why those on the other side of the debate are not suspect at all, even when the most famous activists implore people to walk, ride bicycles, carpool, or use mass transit while they continue to flit, hither and yon on private jets, arriving to be picked up in limousines. Yet, none here wish to address the blatant hypocrisy of those who claim to champion the environment.
They blithely ignore the pronouncements of scientists past,

“If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.”

UC Davis’s Kenneth Watt said, Earth Day 1970
They liken skeptics of global warming to NAZI war criminals

"When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg.”

http://gristmill.grist.org/print/200...ow_comments=no
Which should have invoked Godwin's law.
They distort (Polar bears at risk of drowning) they sensationalize (The Day after Tomorrow) they call anyone who dares disagree with them fools or lackeys of corporate interests.
Gore gets brought in to the discussion because he has desperately tried to portray himself as some kind of environmentalist hero, while flying private jets and running up $40000 MONTHLY gas and electric bills.

 

[Big Don]

Michael Chriction gave a rather brilliant speech about global warming at the National Press Club Jan 25th 2005. You can read it on his website.

 

[tellner]

Michael Chriction gave a rather brilliant speech about global warming at the National Press Club Jan 25th 2005. You can read it on his website.

Brilliant in that he agreed with you?

I saw the transcript. It was pretty much science-free but full of veiled personal attacks on anyone who disagreed with him.

When he went after Jared Diamond, Dr. Diamond put it very, very well:

Everything you say is true. There are a couple of things to be added to it. One is that my previous book, "Guns, Germs, and Steel," has sold more copies than Michael Crichton's one and a half million, so I think my new book will get to more readers. And the other thing is that Michael Crichton is a very skilled writer of fiction. And fiction is, by definition, the telling of stories that are untrue. He's very good at that. And I'm a writer of nonfiction, which aims to be the telling of stories that are true.

 

[Big Don]

Brilliant in that he agreed with you?

I saw the transcript. It was pretty much science-free but full of veiled personal attacks on anyone who disagreed with him.

When he went after Jared Diamond, Dr. Diamond put it very, very well:

No, brilliant as in well researched and documented. Science free? The debunking of Mann's Hockey Stick was more mathematical than scientific, so, OK...
Diamond's comments sound like sour grapes, which is odd, being that his book out sold Chricton. Perhaps he doesn't earn as much per copy, maybe he should talk to his publisher...

 

[Sukerkin]

Okay chaps, the posts are getting shorter, sharper and more pointed.

It wont take much more for things to begin getting heated (yeah, global warming pun attack !) or at best devolve into "Tis!" vs "Tisn't". Is that really where you want the thread to go?

Laying out your reasons why you think something, accepting the validity of certain criticisms of those foundations and counter-arguing why you still believe what you do is a good way to discourse an issue. Becoming defensive to the point of sniping is a bad way.

As always, it's a free medium so the choice is up to the participants but I'm sure prior experience has shown that flames lead to thread-lock as sure as CO2 leads to a temperature rise .

 

[michaeledward]

They distort (Polar bears at risk of drowning) they sensationalize (The Day after Tomorrow) they call anyone who dares disagree with them fools or lackeys of corporate interests.

Bear scientists have recently published studies that tell us that seven of the eight bear species on the planet are projected to be extinct within the next 100 years. This is not a claim of Environmental scientists, but the claims of those who study bears. (Just in case some were confused between bears and the environment.).

I suppose the comforting thought is that the North American Black Bear is the one species that is expected to survive.

Oh, and "The Day after Tomorrow" is a work of FICTION. You aren't confusing fiction with science, are you?