Chuck52 said:
George,
What is it that you want from me?
Chuck, I'm not making any demands. I've been accused of parsing and taking people's 'words' too seriously. Probably a personality flaw. But, in my defense (and everyone will defend their own personality flaws
) I believe that people say things for a reason and I try not to be dismissive of them. If I didn't think your words were important I wouldn't reply to them. Maybe I push too hard looking for clarification.
Relax and have a homebrew is on a magnetic thing on my whiteboard, no deep or denigrating meaning was intended by its use.
That's fine, I had never seen that particular refridgerator magnet. But you didn't suggest that those who have a different belief from mine to 'relax and have a homebrew' nor did you suggest that those who share my belief get out and vote. Maybe it was just a peculiar coincidence, but taken together those three things seemed to be a bit dismissive. If that is not what you intended, so be it, but that's why I asked.
I don't think you used it, but referring to folks who believe in human caused global warming as "treehuggers" and snide remarks about Al Gore could be interpreted as demeaning too, couldn't they?
Yes. As you say, I didn't use those terms so I won't try to defend them. I have used the term 'greenies'. I don't think it is demeaning.
If you think that the majority of scientists (and no I don't want to get into the definition of scientist) who argue that man is contributing to global warmning are at best wrong and at worst simply going for the bucks, I don't think I can convince you otherwise.
First off, I never said the scientists in question were in it for the bucks. I doubt there are that many bucks to make in that field. I also wouldn't use the term 'majority', I would use the term 'all', as in every last one. Its just a fact of 'science' that the observer will bring bias to any scientific endeavor. The realm of pure science is tiny and bias is always an issue. Thus the demand that hard core medical research be done via prospective, randomized, double blinded studies. That option is not available to the scientists in the global warming issue. Bias, whether idealogical, political or even personal gain cannot be eliminated. So it must be considered. To do otherwise would be niave indeed. Unfortunately, this topic of global warming reeks with it and equally on both sides. Possibly more so than any other 'scientific' topic since evolution. I cannot imagine how anyone could dismiss it when evaluating the data.
If you believe in global warming and that it will or might cause problems that we can address, even if man's activities are not contributing to the process, and you have actions we can pursue to ameliorate those problems, more power to you. We would probably agree on doing those things.
Right. That's what the pragmatic and logical side of me wants to know. What are the real, practical and effective adaptive
and ameliorative steps we need to take? The skeptical side of me is concerned that that is the very thing we are hearing so little about. Why? Isn't that THE most important issue? Why, why, why are we not hearing any critical analysis of the things we need to do? It is a huge sucking vacuum of a subject. Why? I've already told you why I think it is. Why do you think it is?
And yes indeed, some of the things which will be proposed by those who do believe in human caused global warming will be ridiculous and even potentially harmful. That's why I say to think about it and Make Up Your Own Mind about how to proceed.
A fundemental precept of the medical profession is primum non nocere, or "First do no harm." I think those words could be applied here as well where the patient is society, culture and mother earth. It exists to keep physicians always alert to prevent harming someone they are trying to heal. Global warming needs to share that same level of vigilance. We needed that type of vigilance at Manzanar, no?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manzanar
Presumably your cynicism about biased scientists has basis in your experience; it does not jibe with my own experience, but I don't discount it altogether. I've known some guys who have incorrectly interpreted their data, in my opinion.
Well,
you use the word cynicism. I prefer the word skepticism. The fact that personal bias is extraordinarily difficult to control for, and that I take that fact into consideration, doesn't make me distrustful. It makes me cautious. But come on, you don't strike me as a Pollyanna either. You say you've known some people who have incorrectly interpreted data. Good gosh, everyone misinterprets data. That is the single most ubiquitous thread in the history of human science! It doesn't mean anyone is wicked, just mistaken.
I don't know any personally who intentionally presented incorrect data, though there have been some well documented cases, even local to me. It would be easy to cite a number of such cases, but those cases make news largely because they are uncommon when you look at the vast number of scientific articles published.
You seem to have a sheltered perspective on the scientific community. We'll just have to differ on that. I was very forutnate to have trained under a very
cynical mentor. When he wanted to demonstrate weaknesses in medical studies he didn't pull out the throw-aways. He went straight for JAMA and the NEJM. The current issue, not the ones from the days of leeches and hormone replacement therapy for menapausal women! It's there man, you just have to know how to spot it.
Taking it to the polls is what we should do in a democracy.
Of course. It is the power made available to us. If we do not use it we should not complain. But it is also important to understand the extent and practical reality of that power as applied to the issue at hand. Can 'We the People" really do anything about global warming even if we march in lock step? If so, what? And if so, what are the costs as weighed against concrete benefits.
Don't take any of this personally Chuck. I've enjoyed discussing this topic. I'm learning stuff about global warming and, more importantly, about other people's thoughts on global warming. I'm sure I've done more than my share of gabbing but the topic interests me and I think it is fun (plus we got an inch of snow today and as many southern towns do when it snows, we go home and chill out). I also think the topic is a good one for this forum. People who own tractors are very often more out-doorsy and probably prone to be curious about the topic. It would also appear that many of us here, probably the majority, are skeptics when it comes to the issue. So it is even better that we get to hear great comments from the other side of issue. And all-in-all I think everyone has been very civil in what is often a divisive topic. My hat is off to the members here.
