Global Warming News

[FallbrookFarmer]

Sorry FallbrockFarmer - didn't see you're post - first off that's how I feel at 5am after turning in at around 8pm. No problem -lots of reading

I believe if you check, I have not stated support for the recent exaggerated conclusions. I've read of and am disappointed by the sloppy editing and peer review. I don't buy those conclusions. I am quite skeptical of the "carbon credits" issue. These errors (deliberate or not) have nothing to do with the science that has been going on for many years. There have been thousands of temperatures taken from many places over a long period. What's the chance it is all perfect? How much good science have the deniers done and for how long? I agree that money could tempt people to do all sorts of things. Assuming there is a possibility of a problem with emissions what would be the best way to fund the research? What group would be most likely to do the most honest job? (government, private nonprofit, corporations)

It just seems to me as too much of a dream that we can spew 30 billion (30,000,000,000) metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere per year with no significant consequences at some point. (66,000,000,000,000 pounds) This is carbon that has been locked up for lots of years. Earth isn't that big.

Loren

I think what we are doing here is circular logic,
We think there is a problem,
Then we should study it,
We studied it and found that there is a need for further research to reach a conclusion(and we need additional funding).We have studied it further and find that there IS a problem, and now we need further research(along with further funding)to find a solution.
Question: If the whole "hockey stick" research is suspect, which is the basis for most of the "problem" isn't the whole AGW argument suspect?

 

[SpringHollow]

Unfortunately, the source of funding can have subtle affects on the outcomes which is why most places require that a researcher discloses the source of funding. This is especially true where the result has a financial impact on a company's profits. Pharmaceutical companies will not likely pick a researcher who always finds faults with their drugs. An oil company will not give lots of money to someone who says their business is ruining things. An environmental group is not likely to fund a researcher who disagrees with them. So there is subtle pressure to coach the research so that it is favorable to the funding source. Much of that bias is removed with Federal funding.

Now i realize there are also the instances where funding is done specifically to buy the result. The most obvious is when they paid a dentist to write the article about the negative impact of the death tax (a term they also coined) and then had to create their own bogus journal to "publish" it. This was also done recently for some pharmaceutical research (created their own non-pier reviewed journal).

Ken

 

[Pilot]

Yes, funding sources can influence results, but federal funding does not eliminate that problem. With the politics where they are right now on global warming and the president having revenues from cap and trade included on the income side of his new budget, do you seriously think federal grants will go to those whose work questions global warming?

 

[Loren49]

Hi all,
Seems it makes good sense to continue to record temperature on a worldwide basis and to analyse the trends. I know that doubt can always be cast on the cause but this is not a reason to say we're free to put every carbon atom locked away into the atmosphere. At this point there are plenty of reasons to move forward with caution. I suspect big oil has more reason to undermine this work than big tobacco had for undermining health concerns. (Remember those CEOs at the congressional hearing) And they are using some of the same people. Where is the truth?

More important in my view is to decrease our need for so much oil and to become as energy independent as we can. By the way, domestic exploration would result in oil available to the oil companies but I assume that they would sell to the highest bidder worldwide. Unless someone suggests that the Fed should take over or tell the corporations to sell it here for below market value. I've wondered how this would be handled to help our thirst for oil.

Loren

 

[LMTC]

What is "big oil" and "big tobacco"? Where do they live? Where can I go to see them? What do they like for breakfast? Do they have to wait in line at the airport? Are they on the "no fly" list? Has either one ever won a grammy? An oscar? Where do they work? All this silly personification of non-persons is part of what confuses these discussions. I know who an individual is....I even have a fair idea what is meant when someone references "my doctor" or "my son's math teacher", but I have no idea who big oil or big tobacco are. Always seemed to me to be terms used to try to make people think of the boogeyman. If you're going to toss these terms around like they mean something, at least offer a very specific and detailed definition of what the term means. How about "big fear", "big government", or "big lie"? Do they live in the same neighborhood as "big oil"?

 

[Loren49]

Deep, well thought out response.

Loren

 

[LMTC]

So does that translate to no answer? You used the terms. What do they mean? Please define them....with specifics.

 

[Loren49]

LMTC - I taught school for a number of years with all sorts of students. I'm not going to play your game. Guess you win. Sad you couldn't find more to think about from the posts.

Loren

 

[MikePA]

Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage. Saul Alinsky, Rules For Radicals.

 

[LMTC]

Ditto Mike. If he had a clear answer as to what those amorphous and ambiguous terms mean, it would have been so much more simple to just put it forth. Instead, I am ridiculed for raising my hand and saying "You just used a word/term I don't understand. Would you please clarify and/or define it as you are using it?" Glad my teachers were pre-NEA.