FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Are politicians good sources for science? (Greenhouse Myth)





The Philosopher Princess
Is anyone surprised that a politician gets the science wrong? How do politicians survive? By fear-mongering the peons.

Do you get your science from politicians?

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192544,00.html (Tomato coloring added by me. At the source, you can click for graphics. I added one of the graphic links below.)

Fox News wrote:
The Greenhouse Myth
Thursday, April 20, 2006
By Steven Milloy

Al Gore’s global warming documentary hits theaters on May 28. Entitled, “An Inconvenient Truth,” the film purports to make the case for concern over manmade emissions of greenhouse gases.


Meanwhile at JunkScience.com, we’ve produced “The Real Inconvenient Truth” – debunking two key myths of climate alarmism, including that the Earth’s atmosphere acts like a greenhouse and that reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emission will avert significant temperature change.

The notion that our atmosphere acts like a greenhouse – that is, so-called atmospheric “greenhouse gases,” like water vapor and CO2, “trap” incoming solar radiation to warm the atmosphere – is wrong. Not only doesn’t the atmosphere work that way, greenhouses don’t either.

Greenhouses work by physically blocking heat transfer (by convection) from inside to outside – the same effect that heats the inside of your car when it’s parked in the sun on a hot day. Opening the doors and windows allows air currents to flow and the heat to dissipate.

But neither the atmosphere nor “greenhouse gases” block convection, so there is no literal atmospheric “greenhouse effect.”

Since “greenhouse effect” terminology has long been used to refer to the natural warming of our atmosphere to a habitable level, we’ll stick with that incorrect, but commonly-used, terminology for ease of discussion. So how does the “greenhouse effect” actually work?

Atmospheric flows of energy are complex, but a simplified explanation – depicted in this graphic – is as follows.

Incoming solar radiation is partly absorbed by the Earth’s surface, partly absorbed by various atmospheric gases (particularly oxygen and ozone) and partly reflected back out to space. Solar radiation isn’t significantly absorbed by greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere and so doesn’t directly cause the greenhouse effect.

For our purposes, the greenhouse effect is largely caused by energy emitted by the Earth’s surface, most of which is subsequently absorbed by greenhouse gases and clouds. Very simply expressed, the greenhouse gases and clouds transform that absorbed energy into heat that warms the lower atmosphere and into energy that is radiated back to space and also back to the Earth’s surface.

These radiative processes, if they acted alone, would warm the Earth’s atmosphere to about 77 degrees Centigrade – much warmer than the 15 degrees Centigrade the Earth actually is. Fortunately, other atmospheric processes – including updrafts and circulation carrying heat upwards and toward the poles – facilitate energy escape into space so that our atmosphere cools to around 15 degrees Centigrade.

But our focus here is CO2’s role in greenhouse warming – that’s what Al Gore wants us to fret.

Putting aside the cooling convection and circulation processes mentioned above, the limiting factor with respect to greenhouse warming isn’t the quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere; it’s the energy emitted by the Earth’s surface.

As illustrated in this graphic, different greenhouse gases absorb different wavelengths of energy emitted by the Earth. The fact that only a limited amount of the Earth’s emitted energy is available for absorption by CO2 and that CO2 has to compete with water vapor and clouds for that energy, results in a crucial (but little publicized) relationship between CO2 and atmospheric warming.

As illustrated in this graphic, the relationship between CO2 and temperature is logarithmic in nature – that is, as CO2 increases in the atmosphere, it absorbs less and less additional energy to produce correspondingly less and less additional warming. ­At some point, adding more CO2 to the atmosphere doesn’t significantly change atmospheric temperature.

To analogize, consider a window with many shades, each blocking half the incoming light. As successive shades are pulled, the transmitted light is halved and the effect of each shade is diminished. Eventually, there’s no additional effect because previous shades have already absorbed the light to all but a vanishing degree. As more shades won’t block more light, more CO2 won’t cause significantly more warming.

In fact, there’s been more than enough greenhouse gas in the atmosphere to cause much greater warming than actually occurs since long before humans discovered fire.

“The Real Inconvenient Truth” contains interactive CO2-Greenhouse calculators so you can get a feel for the all-important logarithmic CO2-temperature relationship.

So what's the point at which more CO2 doesn’t cause more warming? Are we near it? The commonly-used range of estimates of CO2’s impact on global temperature should help put any worry into perspective.

As illustrated by this graphic, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from pre-Industrial Revolution days (280 parts per million to 560 ppm), might increase global temperature from between 0.5 degrees Centigrade to 1.5 degrees Centigrade – that is, not much.

The current atmospheric CO2 level is about 380 ppm and the estimated temperature increase since 1880 (when regular temperature recordkeeping began) is estimated to be about 0.60 degrees Centigrade.

Since at least half of this temperature increase pre-dated 1950 – prior to any significant increase in atmospheric CO2 levels – we can estimate that the 30 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 since the Industrial Revolution is associated with a temperature increase of about 0.30 degrees Centigrade. This supports the idea that doubling atmospheric CO2 from pre-Industrial Revolution levels would cause less than a one degree Centigrade increase – and we’re not close to such a doubling.

Since this small variation in global temperature is well within the historical climate record, panic hardly seems warranted.

So where does all the fuss about manmade CO2 and global warming come from? Not from actual temperature measurements and greenhouse physics – rather it comes from manmade computer models relying on myriad assumptions and guesswork. Many models incorporate hypothesized “positive feedbacks” in the climate system, which tend to amplify model predictions. But no model has been validated against the historical temperature record. So they don’t “radiate” much confidence when it comes to forecasting temperatures.

In preparation for Al Gore’s movie, the global warming lobby has purchased lots of newspaper and TV space for an alarmist advertising blitz during May. It’s comforting to know that all that hot air won’t be significantly warming the planet.


Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com, CSRWatch.com. He is a junk science expert, an advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
smalls
Thanks for the tip on a great article!
I don't know for sure whether or not humans have a big impact on global warming. But there is such a halo around the heads of environmentalists that just questioning their claims becomes blasphemy.
SunburnedCactus
There are always two sides to every argument. And each side always seems to have as many different "conclusive proofs". This article is an eye-opener about the amount of scaremongering that occurs in modern politics, but at the same time I don't feel overly inclined to completely agree with it. People get as carried away with debunking popular theories as they do in promoting them.
rwojick
If you are talking about how Democracy was DESIGNED then Politicians would be a Great source. For the System is based on TRUTH.

In practice, Politicians are ******, same as most Doctors and Most Lawyers. TV Stations? Only in it for bucks.

Ie. I think Aids is a hoax. I think prior to aids if you had a bad cold or pnumonia and you went to the Doctor he told you you had a cold. You were his customer for a week.

Now, if he tells you you have HIV then you are his customer for the next 20 years.

There is just too much false information being passed as true throughtout this Country for it to be healthy for ANYONE, especially the children who have to listen to of the conflicting information and baloney.

The buck drives the ****** and the ****** will say ANYTHING for money!
The Philosopher Princess
Concerning these statements.....

smalls wrote:
I don't know for sure whether or not humans have a big impact on global warming. But there is such a halo around the heads of environmentalists that just questioning their claims becomes blasphemy.
SunburnedCactus wrote:
There are always two sides to every argument. And each side always seems to have as many different "conclusive proofs". This article is an eye-opener about the amount of scaremongering that occurs in modern politics, but at the same time I don't feel overly inclined to completely agree with it. People get as carried away with debunking popular theories as they do in promoting them.

.....you both sound extremely rational to me. Here’s a bulleted summary I’d offer of my main points.

Arrow Most people -- even the most educated amongst us -- “don't know for sure whether or not humans have a big impact on global warming”.

Arrow The people who speak the strongest as if they do know for sure, and who are pushing for political laws to force what they “know for sure”, are the very ones who know less than the rest of us.

Arrow Besides the haloed environmentalists, it’s also considered blasphemous to question the halos around the heads of politicians who are trying to force their laws on this issue.

Arrow When other people believe incorrect science (on this or any issue), that is their business, not any of ours. However, it becomes our business as soon they begin to support laws such as environmental regulation that affects our businesses and personal habits (thus affecting us directly), and the businesses providing the products and services we want (thus affecting us indirectly).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
rwojick, I feel your disgust at a political system set up to brainwash the common folk.

I would like to think that you were presenting your next statement tongue-in-cheek.....

rwojick wrote:
If you are talking about how Democracy was DESIGNED then Politicians would be a Great source. For the System is based on TRUTH.

.....but I gather from others of your writings that you do, unfortunately, believe it.

No, Democracy was never designed to be a system based on truth. And, in fact, it always has been designed to inherently not be based on or seeking the truth.

I understand that a fair number of people believe this myth so you are not alone.

Democracy is based on majority rule, and since well-informed truth-seekers are always in the minority, that means Democracy is based on rule by the less-informed. Moreover, Democracy is based on making promises to voting blocks and compromises between voting blocks, which further distances the truth from the final outcome.

The failure of Democracy is not because the politicians are corrupting the system. It is because the system is a corrupt design that encourages corrupt people to rise to power, and also uses the lure of power to corrupt those who start out to do good (within the system).
Traveller
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
Democracy is based on majority rule, and since well-informed truth-seekers are always in the minority, that means Democracy is based on rule by the less-informed. Moreover, Democracy is based on making promises to voting blocks and compromises between voting blocks, which further distances the truth from the final outcome.

The failure of Democracy is not because the politicians are corrupting the system. It is because the system is a corrupt design that encourages corrupt people to rise to power, and also uses the lure of power to corrupt those who start out to do good (within the system).


...and the failure of modern America is that so many people THINK it is a democracy, but are only partially correct: it is a democratic republic. A "pure" democracy is actually little more than an organized form of mob rule.
The Philosopher Princess
Good! But it is not the failure; it is a failure. Razz (I've spoken of mob rule in a similar fashion, elsewhere in these forums.)
Soulfire
A greenhouse traps heat, correct? Doesn't the atmosphere also trap heat? Largely due to the CO2 in the atmosphere. I am not saying that the earth is a literal greenhouse, but surely all of our man-made emissions aren't good for the atmosphere, and our earth. Regardless of whether it causes global warming or not, it's not good, and we need to cut down on it.

I did only skim your article, as I'm about to leave, but I hope to have a bit more discussion. The statements just seem so unorthodox.
The Philosopher Princess
I like your attitude, Soulfire! Sincere questions and skepticism of things that seem “unorthodox” are very good starting points.

When you have a chance to read the article, let’s talk more. I’m asking you to read it -- not because I consider it necessarily fully truthful -- but because we’re not going to have a coherent conversation if you’re talking about points in it, not having read it. So, it also is just a starting point. For example.....

Soulfire wrote:
Regardless of whether it causes global warming or not, it's not good, and we need to cut down on it.

.....how sure are you of this? Is it a feeling, or do you have hard facts? There are many things we humans run into in this world that seem on the surface as really bad things, and then upon further study, we find out things are not quite as they appear.
The Philosopher Princess
Oops! I just realized (all by myself Wink) that you, rwojick, are someone different than I’d thought! (I think the cryptic name discombobulated me.) So, everything I said is still valid, except that I’m not as familiar with your writings and thinkings as I’d indicated. Thus, I am not as sure that your first statement was made seriously. However, I do know who you are now, and am even more curious what you might say to what I replied to you earlier. I hope you will come back. Smile
smalls
Soulfire wrote:
...but surely all of our man-made emissions aren't good for the atmosphere, and our earth. Regardless of whether it causes global warming or not, it's not good, and we need to cut down on it.

Don't be so quick to make this statement. Are you so convinced that everything we do is bad for the planet? Do you have any reason to believe this? Isn't it feasible that we could have emissions that have a positive impact on the environment? I get a little discouraged when people assume that humans are intrinsically bad for the Earth.
diverden
Bush and his republican energy friendly associates have tried to convince the American public ( since we are like children, too stupid to understand the truth according to them!) that global warming and greenhouse gases are not our problem and that there is no scientific evidence of that. It is a lot like the arguments in the past of smoking doesn't cause cancer or guns don't kill people, people kill people. It is hard to comment on the absurdity of these arguments as they go below the mental capacity of a tomato.
Soulfire
smalls wrote:
Soulfire wrote:
...but surely all of our man-made emissions aren't good for the atmosphere, and our earth. Regardless of whether it causes global warming or not, it's not good, and we need to cut down on it.

Don't be so quick to make this statement. Are you so convinced that everything we do is bad for the planet? Do you have any reason to believe this? Isn't it feasible that we could have emissions that have a positive impact on the environment? I get a little discouraged when people assume that humans are intrinsically bad for the Earth.

So you're saying all the CO2, carbon monoxide, chemicals, waste, etc. that is pumped into our atmosphere daily is good? The stuff that destroys forests, makes the air unhealthy, poisons the water, and puts more of a burden on earth to sustain us... is good?

I do suscribe to the theory that global warming is only part of a natural cycle, that has happened in the past, is happening, and will continue to happen.
Arnie
This discussion about whether or not the greenhouse effect and climate change is alarming, should not be centered to the political side imho. It is mainly a discussion between two scientifical sides. (The statement is scientifical and should only be approached from that point of view.) One side says climate change is alarming because humans have had a major influence. The other side claims that human influence is marginal, and that the rise of temperature is for the largest part a natural process that would have occured even without humans burning fuel etcetera. There are a lot of popular arguments for both sides, the most famous probably being the 'hockey stick' graph, that shows that even though temperature has risen and fallen throughout the history, it has never risen so fast and so high as now. Whether this graph has been correctly calculated is also being debated heavily.

Last year I was deeply involved in this discussion (from the scientifical point of view), and my view of the people participating in this topic is that you seriously need to do some reading and investigation on the matter before stepping into it. A lot of articles and meetings have been created regarding the debate on human's influence on climate change - and you need to find them, especially the scientifical ones. It is nice to compare people with tomatoes, but that does not prove or disprove anything - it is just empty cannon fodder, as an attempt to use boldness to impress people of your opinion while in fact you're not saying anything of value. You cannot participate in this discussion without being properly informed.

A name I feel is worth mentioning in this debate is Jeff Harvey (google him if you like). This man is a very radical representative of the first side. Basically his message is that the other side is in denial. Large companies would pay scientists to prove that action against climate change is not that necessary. Now as for politicians and science: it would be absolutely invalid to say that the idea that the greenhouse effect is caused by humans and must be actively stopped, originates from politicians suggesting that to create fear. (I tasted that implication somewhere in this topic, though I may be wrong.) Yes, I know the theory about "creating a problem that does not exist, then saying you have the solution and thus getting elected". Perhaps some politicians do this, but there are also (and I think more) of them that are on the other side. Climatic interest often antagonises with economical interest, and many politicians do not want to sacrifice economy to do something about climate change. At least that's one of the common ideas. So, politicians have both reasons to be for or against, but it's the truth that matters. Thus we must stop looking at politicians, whatever they say concerning this, and start doing the science first. And unfortunately you cannot just jump into a scientifical discussion without getting the background information, because you'll just be shouting prejudices about tomatoes.
LeviticusMky
"Greenhouse" has become the catch-phrase of this generation of pop-icons (politicians) to describe a scientifically complex area of study more aptly labeled "Climate Change"

While it's true that climate change is a perfectly normal part of the Earth's place in the solar system, what is so alarming is the rate at which humans are impacting it.

Now, before I hear the traditional rhetoric "debunking" human-prompted climate change, I'm not talking about recorded trends, I'm talking about measured levels of gases in the atmosphere, and the relation that those gases have to the amount of heat that stays in our atmosphere.

Measurement of CO2 has been going on for some time now, essentially ever since the industrial revolution started, and the results are conclusive. The human industrial complex puts out an amazing amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, and we know that CO2 is a gas that helps to trap heat. I can grab sources if needed, but this is a well documented area of study. (Again, I don't want to hear anything about volcanos that put out millions of tons more than humans of CO2 per day, as that has been going on far longer than the human race has been industrialized, and is not increasing, it is a constant.)

The exact science behind climate change differs from group to group, but the consensus is the same: The CO2 cannot simply be ignored. The fact of the matter is that the earth cannot put this excess CO2 into the myriad carbon sinks that are scattered around the planet, and that it will continue to increase in density unless some other force acts on it.

Thus it cannot be ignored that we are having an impact on the earth's normal climate, and that it is very plausible that that impact is not healthy.
Arnie
OK, but now you still need to prove that CO2 is a significant factor in the climate change. For example CH4 and H2O could be much more important greenhouse gases.
Biodiesel
What concentrations of methane do you expect to find in the atmosphere? What concentrations of H20 do you expect to find in the atmosphere? I think those are good questions to ask too. Some information can be found in the book:

McMurray, J., and Fay, R., Chemistry, 4th edition, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2004.

on page 366.
We don't all have time to read and understand high level chemistry though. For now I am going to take the word of scientists who have been studying the subject as their life's work, rather than some jack### with a political agenda, or some journalist trying to get everbodies hackles up.
The Philosopher Princess
Biodiesel wrote:
rather than some jack### with a political agenda, or some journalist trying to get everbodies hackles up.

Good for you, Biodiesel! Smile

Biodiesel wrote:
For now I am going to take the word of scientists who have been studying the subject as their life's work,

Let’s just not forget that there will be “scientists who have been studying the subject as their life's work” who disagree with each other, so obviously they can’t all be right. Also, many who fit the published credentials of “scientists who have been studying the subject as their life's work” are being funded by politicians and governments who have an agenda. So, all “scientific” findings should be suspect until we research properly. (Not an easy feat, I realize Exclamation)
~~~~~~~~~~
I don’t guess you’d be able to scan in the part of that book you mentioned Question
Traveller
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
Also, many who fit the published credentials of “scientists who have been studying the subject as their life's work” are being funded by politicians and governments who have an agenda. So, all “scientific” findings should be suspect until we research properly. (Not an easy feat, I realize Exclamation)


In addition, much of the funding is provided by people who share the same, underlying presuppositions, so the researchers sometimes find what they want to find, and give it a plausible, maybe even award-winning interpretation, but could still be completely incorrect other than on the surface (albeit a surface much deeper than that of the average Joe). One of the greatest difficulties when trying to assign universal meanings to scientific findings is that the scientists are a part of the universe they are trying to study (i.e. the observers are part of the system that is being observed), so it is absolutely impossible for any scientist to have a 100% objective point of view. In other words, when the observer is, ulitmately, part of the subject being observed, all observations remain tainted by at least some degree of subjectivity.
bgillingham
I thought that the majority of independant scientists and researchers agreed that Global Warming - or more correctly "Global Climate Change" is caused by industry.

The point that I think is relevant is that this is an early warning. Most climate scientists agree that the weather is changing. Most research is being done to get answers to the questions of "How Soon?" and "How Much?". Here is a page that I found that answers many of the doubts in the initial post.

There is simply too much evidence pointing to things getting worse. Consider the examples of how many degrees centigrade warmer the 1990's were than any time in the last 2000 years... if any of the predictions about weather change are true, What exactly do you think the weather could be like in the year 2030?

Nobody wants to curb the profits of industry - just to be safe. I can understand how industry would be hesitant to impose their own restrictions ("if we lower production in any way, our competition will make more profits than us! wahhhh!").

I firmly believe that something is happening that we have caused. I also believe that whatever happens could ultimately be much more catestrophic than anybody imagines. I think that we need to err on the side of safety here... or should we "FULL SPEED AHEAD!" until there is proof (and possibly too much irreversable damage)?
The Philosopher Princess
bgillingham wrote:
Nobody wants to curb the profits of industry - just to be safe. I can understand how industry would be hesitant to impose their own restrictions ("if we lower production in any way, our competition will make more profits than us! wahhhh!").

Good observation! Please also consider the “other” side of the coin. Would you also understand how those who have something to gain by the majority citizenry being fearful of global warming (whether or not there is a rational basis) -- that those people “would be hesitant to impose their own restrictions” on pseudo science?

What I’m saying is that you are right that people who have something to lose are going to want to “force” “the answer” to be one thing. And I add that the people who have something to gain are going to want to “force” “the answer” to be the other thing. Therefore, anyone who is sincerely after the truth better not default to believing any of them, and instead do, and look for, independent study.

As an example, let’s look at who is behind the answers you mentioned.

bgillingham wrote:
Here is a page that I found that answers many of the doubts in the initial post.

From their own website, we have this:

undoit.org About Us wrote:
Global Warming: Undo It is a major national campaign, spearheaded by Environmental Defense, to increase public awareness about the dangers of global warming, to press political and other leaders in the U.S. for more aggressive action against global warming, and to win passage of the Climate Stewardship Act in Congress. Introduced by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), this bill has become the political litmus test for senators on global warming.

The goal of this group is not to look for actual science, wherever the truth may lead. The admitted goal is to go around discussing “the dangers of global warming”. bgillingham, these politicians have made up their own minds, and since they are in a position to spend taxpayers’ money to make up the minds of those same taxpayers, they are doing just that.

bgillingham wrote:
I thought that the majority of independant scientists and researchers agreed that Global Warming - or more correctly "Global Climate Change" is caused by industry.

Now that you know that some people do not believe “that the majority of independent scientists and researchers agreed that Global Warming...”, I hope you will do your own independent study. Before you believe somebody, Follow their Money Trail! Smile

Here is part of a related article (with bold added by me):

Reason wrote:
Two Sides to Global Warming
Is it proven fact, or just conventional wisdom?


Ronald Bailey

During more than 15 years of reporting on climate change science and policy, I have watched climatology become increasingly politicized. Most headlines and publicized scientific reports confirm that humanity is heating up the planet by burning fossil fuels that load the atmosphere with heat-trapping carbon dioxide.

Take just two reports from the last week. The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report from the Arctic Council found that Arctic warming is increasing twice as fast as elsewhere on the planet. This finding corresponds nicely with predictions made by various computer climate models that forecast that the poles should be warming faster than the rest of the planet.

Another new study from the journal Nature that seems to confirm this prediction finds that krill are declining in the frigid oceans around Antarctica. Why? Evidently because the sea ice is declining, and krill live on the algae that live and grow on the underside of the sea ice.

These reports are confirming what the majority of climate scientists have been saying—that man-made global warming is occurring at a rapid rate.

Well, maybe. Once a particular notion becomes conventional wisdom, evidence and stories confirming that conventional wisdom are easily accepted and published—and reported in the media. Those that contradict the prevailing views have a much harder time getting a hearing. Either global warming has hardened into conventional wisdom in the climatological community, or mounting scientific evidence shows that humanity is in fact warming the world at a dangerous pace.

Which is it and how can one tell?

To show how hard answering that question can be,
let's take a little closer look at the two reports mentioned above. The Arctic Council report is based on the observations and deliberations of 300 scientists from eight countries and six groups of indigenous people over the past four years. They find that the Arctic region is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world. They further find that the sea ice that covers the Arctic Ocean is thinning, and could almost disappear in the summer months by 2100.

But University of Alabama at Huntsville climatologist John Christy, a climate expert on whom I have relied for years, makes some interesting observations about the Arctic Council's report. "If you look at the long term records, the Arctic has been as warm or warmer than it is today," says Christy. He cites temperature data from the Hadley Centre in the UK showing that from 70 degrees north latitude to the pole, the warmest years on record in the Arctic were 1937 and 1938. This area is just slightly above the Arctic Circle.

Furthermore, those same records show that the Arctic warmed twice as fast between 1917 and 1937 as it has in the past 20 years.

There is more to the article at the link above. I encourage you to search for independent evidence, yourself. Smile
Rmgk
The amount of CO2/other Greenhouse emmisions has been linked to a growth in temperature

between 1970-90 we have had the hottest average temperature on record 23 times over,

Without politicians scientists would have no job

without scientists politicians couldnt make distorted statistics based on irrelevant information

Without scientists i guess we would be believing a lot more the church would tell us
rwojick
Politicians are a good source of COW SHIT, which, as of today, cannot be burned for fuel.

Many dislike the duplicity of Politicians. I'd like to direct them to the 14th Amendment, section three.

This sections says that if Politicans rebel against the Constitution, and I read this to be to perpetrate a fraud, then they need a 2/3 vote of Congress to be able to run for office again.

I think this amendment should be brought up more often. We vote for lawmakers who make laws that we, AND THEY, are supposed to go by.

To many times they Play politics on the Interpreting side of the law. This leads them to take a FALSE position, as in "we have evidence of weapons of mass destruction".

Once this false position is taken and advanced that Politician should be held to the 14th amendment, section 3.

God forbid our leaders should have to meet in the back room and agree on strategies that are truthful....why....the whole stock market could go down 300 points if they did.

Don't kid yourself, we are in a WAR ON BALONEY!
Jayfarer
Wait wait wait - So I shouldn't get my science from Politicans, but instead get it from some website called junkscience dot com? Or better yet, I should be getting my science from Steven Milloy, "paid advocate for Phillip Morris, ExxonMobil and other corporations"?

Smells of just as much bias to me.
bgillingham
This is a bit of a stupid question (all due respect...), but you shouldn't believe what politicians say about science. You might has well ask the similar question "Are Priests a good source to get your science?" - or "Should I ask Bill Gates which stocks to buy?"

Given that the environmental movie by Al Gore is about to be in theatres, this is today's news... I only hope that he correctly references all of his facts.

For some reason, I am remembering that the Fahrenheit-911 movie was being ripped apart by the conservatives when it came out. They were all too happy to say "Moore has a vendetta against Bush" or "Fahrenheit is full of lies". To this I'd like to remind people about the context of that criticism (election time) - and think about how true the movie was.

I really don't understand the Philosoper Princess' perspective. Do you think that we need to ignore what is going on with the environment because some of what some politicians have said can be traced to lobbyists? Regardless of who paid for the science, if the research deals with environmental impact we should take the findings into consideration; at the same time, I don't always completely trust scientists. Furthermore, I think that Philosoper Princess can't see the forest for the trees - just because politicians are initiating various research projects doesn't mean that they stand to profit from it somehow. I don't have to listen to any politician on this matter - I graduated with a Civil Engineering degree with a focus on Environmental Engineering. I think that I can come to my own conclusions about this - regardless of the bits of money behind some research projects.

Long story short - some of the time, politicians are responding to the peoples' civic needs (or in this case, responding to concerns). You have to agree that the first people to mention global warming had no money connections. The initial theory about global warming was created out of science not from politics - the initial theory has everything to do with science. Here's waht I found about the beginning of "global warming" theories: Global Warming's Early Roots.

I know one thing - unless the water level rises over 1,700 feet, I'll be safe - I live on a mountain... or will it be an island someday?
The Philosopher Princess
Thank you for the question, bgillingham.

bgillingham wrote:
I really don't understand the Philosopher Princess' perspective. Do you think that we need to ignore what is going on with the environment because some of what some politicians have said can be traced to lobbyists?

No. I think that we should “ignore” what any politician offers as “science”.

Rmgk wrote:
Without politicians scientists would have no job

And, I think that we should “ignore” anything offered by “scientists” who are in cahoots with politicians.

Politicians have a built-in conflict of interest when it comes to real science (and many other things). Politicians’ built-in goals include redirecting and redistributing as many public tax dollars as possible to benefit the people who will keep them in office (or other positions with power). “Scientists” in cahoots with people with a political agenda, also have a political agenda. You made the point very well, yourself:

bgillingham wrote:
"Should I ask Bill Gates which stocks to buy?"

When you want good information on stocks, you go get advice from someone who is objective, someone who has no financial stake in whether you buy this stock or that stock.

If you’re looking to buying a particular house, you don’t rely on knowing its faults by only asking the owner. No, you hire an independent, private house inspector for a fixed fee, who will not gain or lose anything by telling you the truth of the house’s defects.

If you want good science, you need objective studies from real scientists who don’t fear losing their jobs depending on what scientific results they find.
~~~~~~~~~~
Please notice that my use of “ignore”, above, is in quotes; it’s not quite as strong as it sounds. I do not mean completely ignore, because even pathological liars will by chance tell the truth every once in awhile. But I do mean do not assume it as being the truth. It can certainly be used as a starting point for more independent study.
~~~~~~~~~~
Al Gore is a high profile politician. Al Gore has a lot to gain if his version of “science” is believed by the masses. Al Gore is not an independent, objective scientific leader. But Al Gore is highly promoting his movie (just like most actors go around stumping for the movies they’re in; come to think of it: Al Gore is an actor).

I was going to provide you a recent article on.....

Canada Free Press wrote:
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006

.....but a search shows that it’s given in its entirety over here: Al Gore = :OWNED: (again).

You are welcome to comment on that article as if it were here too. Note that I do not offer it to say “believe it”, but to say “don’t take Al Gore’s word for it; get more information before you believe anything”.
Vrythramax
Since the original question was "Are politicians good sources for science?, I'll make my answer short and eloquent....NO.

I hold 2 major science degrees, and not anything I learned was from a politician. I do my learning the old fashioned way...by reading and studying.

My apologies for the spam Princess.
bgillingham
I was not convinced in the least by reading what the Canadian Free Press published (go to that site and read it there if you want to see TONS AND TONS OF ADS! - otherwise read it from the forum post that Princess posted). I would have to agree that some scientists do not agree with the idea of global warming. I would have to contend that a growing percentage of scientists say what the politicians want to hear. History has shown us how science was previously in the pocket of the pesticide business - saying that DDT was never linked to nerve damage... until it was PROVEN to them that it did horrible things to all organic creatures' nervous systems.

Politicians are proving to be better and better liars. They are never really held accountable for lying - Rove not indicted becuase Fitzgerald felt he didn't lie to the grand-jury, but the facts that came out of the case PROVE that there was a plan to continue lying - that is a separate thread.

Here is a specific question, if Gore isn't running for political office, can you really keep calling him a politician? Sure, he still gets a check from the Senate and from being VP, but I don't think that he has ANY official political weight any more. Are you guys afraid that he'll run in 2008?
The Philosopher Princess
Vrythramax wrote:
My apologies for the spam Princess.

The only thing that was spam was your comment about spam. Wink Laughing
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
bgillingham, I am thrilled to have the opportunity to write on the sub-topic of my assertion that high-profile politicians don’t lose that “status”. Thanks for wanting to delve into the main topic further. Smile

bgillingham wrote:
Here is a specific question, if Gore isn't running for political office, can you really keep calling him a politician? Sure, he still gets a check from the Senate and from being VP, but I don't think that he has ANY official political weight any more. Are you guys afraid that he'll run in 2008?

Arrow Do we still call Al Gore “Mr. Vice President”?
Arrow Has he ever done anything other than politics?
Arrow Did he decide to write a book and make a movie on the “horrors of global warming” to compete with Stephen King as a major writer in the horror-fiction genre?

The answers to these questions are just our first indications that Al Gore is very much a current politician.

Many (most?) political pundits seem to think Gore is trying to position himself for another run for President, and using the book and movie and interviews resulting from them as a stage to launch his comeback from. Please see http://www.algore04.com/, but one’s own searches will give much more to support this.

Now let’s look at another aspect. Consider what most “retired” politicians do for an encore (or living). They take a high-salary (and/or high-profile) position either lobbying their former associates (congress, the bureaucracy, administration, court, or other governmental cases), or overseeing or regulating areas of government (university board of regents, education administrator, judge, welfare chief, state lottery coordinator, etc.), or a top job with a prestigious law firm, defense contractor, oil company, college president or dean, or something else derived from his “public service” contacts.

Since Gore isn’t known as any of these, and since his entire life’s perspective has been political, and since his recent works (book and movie) seem to be politically motivated, it would seem more than reasonable to still refer to him as a “politician”. After all, his spots don’t seem to have changed.

As for whether he is planning to run for President again in 2008, it’s true that he’d have to outlast (outmaneuver) Hillary Clinton, Wesley Clark, Howard Dean, and others on the Demo side, and then beat the Repo candidate (McCain?) so it’s not at all surprising that his political operatives came up with a marketing ploy of doing a book and movie to get press, and put him back amongst the forerunners.

When considering his record, I can’t find any category that fits Al Gore better than “politician”.
Vrythramax
@ Princess

to take your theory one step further, what about high profile celebrities? Bill Gates is working himself back onto the front pages again, sure it may just be a shell corp., but does he not deserve the right to run for public office?

(you already know my feelings on the subject....just trying to interject a little diversity here).

Peace M'Lady.
The Philosopher Princess
Vrythramax, I’m not clear on what you’re asking. Would you do me a favor and say some more on the above?
Vrythramax
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
Vrythramax, I’m not clear on what you’re asking. Would you do me a favor and say some more on the above?


ex-politicians are being thrown into the political arena as possible choices for "Top Gladiator", I'm simply wondering what about other "High-Profile" people who have even more money to throw around (without donations)....should the y be allowed to run for public office as well?

Please don't take me into my personal stance about M$ Sad
The Philosopher Princess
Vrythramax wrote:
ex-politicians are being thrown into the political arena as possible choices for "Top Gladiator",

Okay, except that one of my points is that they’re not “ex-”. They may be ex-office-holders, but anyone who is a “possible choice” for Head Honcho is a politician.

Vrythramax wrote:
I'm simply wondering what about other "High-Profile" people who have even more money to throw around (without donations)....should the y be allowed to run for public office as well?

I would state it thusly: No one should be forcibly prevented from running for “public office”. But that’s not really a subject on which to go further here. More relevant would be: Should people believe the opinions of high-profile non (or not yet) politicians any more than they should believe the opinions of high-profile politicians? And my answer of course would be No.

It does amaze me sometimes how actors and other celebrities get such a big voice in the press, especially when they are dunderheads on the science of economics yet specifying how the marketplace should be run, etc. -- but I realize sheeples want to believe celebrities. That is very pertinent to this thread.
Vrythramax
very well stated and put across as we all would expect from you Princess....but here is a point to ponder....what if I where a very rich ex-convicted felon? Can I still run for public office? I have the backing (no matter how dubious, elections have been won on much less(just think about Joe Kennedy))....would I have the right to run for office then? It seems a matter of money, not exactly popularity...money can buy good graces....and that has been true thoughout time immortal. What are your feelings on this please?


It seems we have criminals in office as it stands.
The Conspirator
No, politicians are not a source of good information. But nether is an opinion weather it come from fox news.com or my site.
When it come to news site and channels pay attention to the news only and not the opinions and when it come to politicians, treat them the same as commercials, don't believe then, just assume there lying cause they probably are.
The Philosopher Princess
Vrythramax wrote:
what if I where a very rich ex-convicted felon? Can I still run for public office? I have the backing (no matter how dubious, elections have been won on much less(just think about Joe Kennedy))....would I have the right to run for office then? It seems a matter of money, not exactly popularity...money can buy good graces....and that has been true thoughout time immortal. What are your feelings on this please?

I don’t see any reason to bar “ex-convicted felons” from office. If they have “paid their debt”, been rehabilitated to the point that people now trust them, it is difficult to see how they would be any worse than the “future-convicted felons” we have now Wink. After all, such a person would be more subject to scrutiny and would have to be much more careful about his reputation than most.

But, what is really important is not the question of who holds political power, but rather how much power they have over others and how much damage they can do with it.

While there are lots of changes in the election system that could make it better, the underlying method (which I almost want to call evil, even though that’s not a term I typically use) of giving some people power over everybody else needs to be changed. Whether it’s done by divine right, heredity, force of arms, democracy, or any other method -- political power is always abused. The “great experiment” of America has shown that elected politicians can be just as stupid, just as dishonest, just as corrupt, and just as despotic as kings, emperors, dictators, and tyrants.

Since every form of government ever tried on planet Earth has produced similar anti-freedom results, it stands to reason that severely limiting (or eliminating) political power is the only solution that may lead to freedom. That is a huge task (even to properly explain) that I am working on philosophically.
~~~~~~~~~~
Vrythramax wrote:
to take your theory one step further, what about high profile celebrities? Bill Gates is working himself back onto the front pages again, sure it may just be a shell corp., but does he not deserve the right to run for public office?

(Gates, and anybody who wants to may run for public office. Gates, by the way, recently publicly stated that he doesn’t want to do that because he wants to keep to the focuses he’s good at.)

My point is that when one is running for office, or otherwise tied into the power structure, anything they say should be weighed with their conflicts of interest in mind. Politicians’ statements should not be regarded as facts. In fact, the propensity of making “campaign promises” and “prevaricating” to fool the public into voting for them, and their agendas, make politicians one of the least viable sources for truth-seekers. The veracity of politicians rates right up there with pathological liars and convicted felons, which many of them turn out to be (as you so well stated).
The Philosopher Princess
<<BUMP>>

I just came across this article about Gore’s book, which is relevant. I post just the intro and a couple of its points here (so you may want to go read more there).

National Review Online wrote:
Gorey Truths
25 inconvenient truths for Al Gore.

By Iain Murray

With An Inconvenient Truth, the companion book to former Vice President Al Gore’s global-warming movie, currently number nine in Amazon sales rank, this is a good time to point out that the book, which is a largely pictorial representation of the movie’s graphical presentation, exaggerates the evidence surrounding global warming. Ironically, the former Vice President leaves out many truths that are inconvenient for his argument. Here are just 25 of them. [...]

21. Population. Al Gore worries about population growth; Gore does not suggest a solution. Fertility in the developed world is stable or decreasing. The plain fact is that we are not going to reduce population back down to 2 billion or fewer in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, the population in the developing world requires a significant increase in its standard of living to reduce the threats of premature and infant mortality, disease, and hunger. In The Undercover Economist, Tim Harford writes, “If we are honest, then, the argument that trade leads to economic growth, which leads to climate change, leads us then to a stark conclusion: we should cut our trade links to make sure that the Chinese, Indians and Africans stay poor. The question is whether any environmental catastrophe, even severe climate change, could possibly inflict the same terrible human cost as keeping three or four billion people in poverty. To ask that question is to answer it.” [...]

24. The “Scientific Consensus.” On the supposed “scientific consensus”: Dr. Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, San Diego, (p. 262) did not examine a “large random sample” of scientific articles. She got her search terms wrong and thought she was looking at all the articles when in fact she was looking at only 928 out of about 12,000 articles on “climate change.” Dr. Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University in England, was unable to replicate her study. He says, “As I have stressed repeatedly, the whole data set includes only 13 abstracts (~1%) that explicitly endorse what Oreskes has called the ‘consensus view.’ In fact, the vast majority of abstracts does (sic) not mention anthropogenic climate change. Moreover — and despite attempts to deny this fact — a handful of abstracts actually questions the view that human activities are the main driving force of ‘the observed warming over the last 50 years.’” In addition, a recent survey of scientists following the same methodology as one published in 1996 found that about 30 percent of scientists disagreed to some extent or another with the contention that “climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.” Less than 10 percent “strongly agreed” with the statement. Details of both the survey and the failed attempt to replicate the Oreskes study can be found here. [...]
smalls
Princess,
Fantastic point made by your last post.
Although I know there is still a great deal of debate surrounding whether or not humans have a large effect on climate change, I am willing to accept that we do.
However, I'm not willing to accept that we should change our entire economic system (which is basically what we would have to do) in order to combat it. We need to examine the damage that could be done if we took action based on Gore's suggestions. I don't have the answers, but we need to ask the questions before taking action. This is something that is rarely done when scare campaigns such as Gore's are waged.
Vrythramax
keep in mind this is only my opinion and amounts to nothing....After what reading I have done on the subject of Global warming I think 3 things are apparent (to me anyway)
1. Humans are a most likely cause of the [alleged] excelleration of the effect (if indeed there is any excelleration at all), through either direct, or indirect causes
2. like many things spewed forth by current and former politicians, I think this has been blown out of proportion for personal gain....in this case to sell Gore's book/movie
3. Gore is, and always has been an alarmist, and this is just another example of how we must take caution when listening to any politician...current or former, when they take a bold (???) stance on any topic...especially one with Gore's past record.

From what I have read in the scientific texts I have dug up, the results boths sides are claiming seem to make sense....on the surface. Unforunatly upon deeper study it seems both arguements tend to fall apart to a certain degree....some much more than others (I am hesitant to take a stand here on which arguements truely fall apart since I don't believe I know enough on the subject to make such an assessment....right now).

Gore has managed to find a subject for which thier is great worldwide concern and is using it as a means to an end....to sell his propaganda as truth. The main thing to keep in mind here is to bear in mind that a half-truth equals a whole lie in my opinion.

@The Philospher Princess... if you could steer me in the direction of any additional scientific information sources I would appreciate it very much....you have truely peaked my interest here and I would like to find out what is truth and what is fiction.
nopaniers
This article is written by Steven Milloy who is not a scientist, but is a paid advocate for Exxon-Mobil. Some simple checks will debunk most of what he had to say.

Milloy wrote:
This supports the idea that doubling atmospheric CO2 from pre-Industrial Revolution levels would cause less than a one degree Centigrade increase – and we’re not close to such a doubling."

For the past 600,000 years CO2 levels have varied between around 200ppm and 280ppm. We are now at around 380ppm and heading upwards year in, year out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

Milloy wrote:
Since this small variation in global temperature is well within the historical climate record, panic hardly seems warranted.

The changes in the historical record of temperature and CO2 happened over hundreds of thousands of years, but the changes we have seen have happened in the past 100. For example the dramatic rise in 100ppm of CO2,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
and of temperature:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
This magnitude in increase of CO2 has historically been the difference between an ice-age and a warm period.

He goes on to suggest that predictions suggest that climate change will slow, regardless of increasing CO2. Here are a couple of more respected models which contradict his claims:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_Warming_Predictions.png
The models don't agree on exactly what the increase will be (as you would expect with any prediction of something as complex as the global temperature), but they do agree on the general trend, which is nothing like what he suggests.

Milloy wrote:
So where does all the fuss about manmade CO2 and global warming come from? Not from actual temperature measurements and greenhouse physics – rather it comes from manmade computer models relying on myriad assumptions and guesswork.

In my view the concern comes from actual temperature measurements - 9 of the last 10 were the hottest on record. The concern comes people seeing from the shrinking of glaciers, and the bleaching of coral, the increasing spread of tropical diseases, and changing of climate in crop growing areas. Destroying our wonderful world out of selfishness and greed is not a good look...

Quote:
But no model has been validated against the historical temperature record.

Which, again, is just not true. See, for example,
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/311.htm

The models are based on physics and are verified against "actual" temperature measurements when they show good agreement
IPCC wrote:
Surface air temperature is particularly well simulated, with nearly all models closely matching the observed magnitude of variance and exhibiting a correlation > 0.95 with the observations.


If anyone wants to take part such a simulation, then I'd encourage you to download a climate change screensaver from the BBC, when you will find the very first thing that you do is simulate the last 100 years of climate so that it is possible to verify the model against the historical record.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/aboutexperiment1.shtml

Politicians are not a good source of science. Neither are paid lobyists. Don't listen to this guy. Listen to the scientists.
Arnie
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
There is more to the article at the link above. I encourage you to search for independent evidence, yourself. Smile
So what is independent? I hope it's not evidence that agrees with you. This 'search for independent evidence' seems quite a meaningless one-liner to me. Besides, if somebody really wants to prove a certain point, he is not independent but he is very motivated. And nowadays everyone has an opinion on climate change anyway, including scientists before they do their research. What really should be done, is verifying all those evidences and seeing if there may be any error in them.

Someone will have to find a breakthrough with evidence that cannot be denied. And until then, my idea is we should be careful now - because there at the very least is the possibility that climate change is severly effected by humans. Besides that, there are many other reasons to change our current behaviour (lack of fuels, unhealthy life style, local pollution). That's the terrain of politicians.
Vrythramax
Arnie wrote:
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
There is more to the article at the link above. I encourage you to search for independent evidence, yourself. Smile
So what is independent? I hope it's not evidence that agrees with you. This 'search for independent evidence' seems quite a meaningless one-liner to me. Besides, if somebody really wants to prove a certain point, he is not independent but he is very motivated. And nowadays everyone has an opinion on climate change anyway, including scientists before they do their research. What really should be done, is verifying all those evidences and seeing if there may be any error in them.

Someone will have to find a breakthrough with evidence that cannot be denied. And until then, my idea is we should be careful now - because there at the very least is the possibility that climate change is severly effected by humans. Besides that, there are many other reasons to change our current behaviour (lack of fuels, unhealthy life style, local pollution). That's the terrain of politicians.



hmmm...Arnie has a legitimate point here Princess, if someone starts looking for evidence in support of a conclusion they have already come to, they are going to arbitrarily overlook (or just not mention) anything that doesn't support that conclusion. I think that's just human nature....note that I am not disputing your claims...simply that Arnie here has a point that can't, nor shouldn't, be overlooked.
nopaniers
PP wrote:
Before you believe somebody, Follow their Money Trail! Smile


Reason wrote:
Two Sides to Global Warming
Is it proven fact, or just conventional wisdom?


Ronald Bailey


Okay, let's follow your advice and see where Ronald Bailey's money comes from and what his background is:

He is not a scientist but a journalist working for the Reason (strongly right wing/libertarian) magazine. So he makes his money writing politically motivated articles.

Bailey received funding for "Eco-Scam" from the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, one of whose major funding sources is Exxon-Mobil, who reportedly have given the foundation $500,000. This organisation is basically set up as a "think tank" to provide advocacy for business.

He is also a member of the "Wise Up Movement". The Wikipedia says about this group: "The Wise Use movement is a loose affiliation of activists opposed to some goals of the envionmental movement." and receiving funding from many conservative groups, for example the Alliance for America whose motto is "We are the true conservatives".

Political advocates like Ronald Bailey are not good sources of information. They have a clear agenda to distort the truth.

I suggest the following are much better sources than the right wing of US politics:
http://www.nature.com/news/infocus/climatechange.html
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change;jsessionid=BGIDABGNDCBF
http://www.ipcc.ch/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2004/climate_change/default.stm
damj
I totally reply on politicians to provide me with fair, balanced and objective information Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes In fact, I think we can now dispense with the biased media Wink Wink Wink
nopaniers
This was interesting to read today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5130538.stm
Birds are changing their migration patterns as the temperature increases.

Also, I read this week that climate change may also be connected with the inceasing strength of hurricanes
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2006/627/2

The last decades of the 20th century were likely the hottest in the past 1000 years,
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/312/5782/1854

Not a politician in sight...
Arnie
Nopaniers, you want independent reliable information, right? I'm puzzled how you post a link to a Wikipedia article saying that's a good source. Though Wikipedia is a great project, you cannot verify who wrote what in an article. (Sure you can check out their anonymous usernames...) Could it be that you just think it's a good source because it agrees with your opinion? Because it's certainly not a good source because of the authors, even though that's exactly what you imply in your post. (You first mention an author that's bad, and then provide better authors... like Wikipedia.)

There is going to be an international conference on climate change at the National History Museum in London, from 11 to 14 July. Does anyone happen to go there?
nopaniers
Arnie wrote:
Nopaniers, you want independent reliable information, right? I'm puzzled how you post a link to a Wikipedia article saying that's a good source. Though Wikipedia is a great project, you cannot verify who wrote what in an article.


Wikipedia is presenting the information in a coherent way which is accessable to most people. Their information (such as the graphs which I posted) were published in peer reviewed scientific journals, such as Science and Nature. If you are that about the Wikipedia then it doesn't take much effort to chase up their references and citations. So, yes, it is easy to verify what someone writes, their references are clear and explicit.

I could say their historical CO2 data is taken from
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_data.html
and was published in Nature:

Petit J.R., Jouzel J., Raynaud D., Barkov N.I.,Barnola J.M., Basile I., Bender M., Chappellaz J., Davis J., Delaygue G., Delmotte M., Kotlyakov V.M., Legrand M., Lipenkov V., Lorius C., Pépin L., Ritz C., Saltzman E., Stievenard M. (1999). "Climate and Atmospheric History of the Past 420,000 years from the Vostok Ice Core, Antarctica". Nature 399: 429-436.

Fischer, H., M. Wahlen, J. Smith, D. Mastroianni, and B. Deck (1999). "Ice core records of Atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations". Science 283: 1712-1714.

... and so on... they are all cited.
nopaniers
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
24. The “Scientific Consensus.” ... On the supposed “scientific consensus”: Dr. Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University in England, was unable to replicate her study....


It's funny you don't quote from a scientific source, but a political website advertising Rudi Guiliani's book, the 28th conservatives students conference and what you can do for "Supporting strong republican candidates". And their statements don't add up.

Peiser's "study" was rejected for publication. In other words, it had serious flaws and could not pass peer review. You have to wonder about anybody whose best evidence cannot pass review. On the other hand, the study indicating global warming had a consensus was published in one of the world's leading scientific journals.

The consensus is that global warming is happening. 11 of the world's academy of science including the Royal Society in the UK and the National Academy of Science in the US, as well as the equivalent academies of science in Germany, China, Russia, Italy, Canada, Brazil, India and France, and Japan recently declared that
Quote:
"There is now strong evidence that global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades is attributable to human activities."


http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
Arnie
nopaniers wrote:
Wikipedia is presenting the information in a coherent way which is accessable to most people. Their information (such as the graphs which I posted) were published in peer reviewed scientific journals, such as Science and Nature. If you are that about the Wikipedia then it doesn't take much effort to chase up their references and citations. So, yes, it is easy to verify what someone writes, their references are clear and explicit.
If this is so, then you ought to also accept articles from people whose money trail is not clean, when you can verify what they write. This is the same point you will find in my posting as a reply to the PP.
nopaniers
Yes. If anyone produces a model properly referenced argument based on experimental evidence, which can pass peer review, then those opinions should carry weight, and deserve to be heard, regardless of if we agree or not. That's healthy scientific debate.

And yes, scientists too have opinions. That is why in scientific journals there is an insistence peer review and on repeatable and reproducable results. A measurement of 380ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, then there was a measurement of 380ppm in the atmosphere. Regardless of our original opinions, all people who take the science seriously should be able to agree on the repeatable experimental evidence. If that evidence contradicts our existing opinions (or models) then we should change our models, not the other way around.

But I think a fundamental point here is that articles such as Milloy's did not cite proper references. He cites himself... and and if you follow the links through, you find that he even cites papers which were rejected for publication as if they were published.
Arnie
So, that totally demolishes any value of "following the money trail". It's a useless principle, from that POV. The only reason one would follow a money trail, is to find stuff that will get rid of the credibility of somebody with an outspoken opinion. Even if that opinion is scientifically correct - as long as you can damage his image by a money trail, he's silenced.

I'm not saying this is my opinion, but if you go with the "faultless scientifical verification" theory, you are obligated to deny any value of "following the money trail", because the money trail has nothing to do with the scientifical facts.

As for my opinion, I think scientifical verification isn't faultless at all. I see a lot of manipulation and misleading in many science works as well. Peer review fine, but it's still humans and they can make mistakes. It most certainly is possible to deceive the great mass of people. Look at Hitler for example. He could make people believe in facts that weren't true.

And you cannot argue that "there must be at least one genuine scientist who uncovers deceit" because does the community always pay attention to a single scientist? Then you may say, they will if he has hard evidence. But what is hard evidence? There is definately room for deception, and denying so only makes it worse. That's what the scientifical world is doing: they want to create the image that science is faultless, but it isn't.

The moment you hear somebody use sarcastic language, an alarm bell to the trick described in the first paragraph should ring. Of course money trails aren't the only weapon in this war of deception. Science isn't just facts. Everyone speaks about a scientifical community - well, that involves humans, and human relationships. There's a lot of room for deception here. Not just by politicians. Scientists do it just as well. Facts are facts, but that's not just in science, also in politics. Why then are the politicians always liars and the scientists always speak the truth?

So, I'm always careful and just because something is said by this or that scientist doesn't make it true. Remember Hwang Woo-Suk? The same with evidence for climate change: I don't think it's likely the scientists are creating an image of the right proportion. But whether it should be larger or smaller I don't know; I just know that the "scientifical consensus", which for many people is little less than the truth, probably isn't exactly right. Nonetheless, action must be taken because we simply can't take the risk.
nopaniers
I believe scientific journals over lobby groups.

Why? Because I can look at the evidence. I can see that CO2 is rising. Nobody can deny that, it is hard evidence. Temperature has also been increasing. We have readings. Regardless of your view on global warming, you have to admit that there is uncontroversial and repeatable measurements which you can make. That should be the baseline for any discussion. If you look at your thermometer today, you are taking such a measurement. If you collate a whole world's worth of thermometer readings you have very good evidence!

But then you see these lobby groups even trying to deny that. I was surprised by one claim that CO2 wasn't increasing, so I chased through the references. Ironically the study they cited had a graph which specifically showed that CO2 was increasing. So you have to ask yourself: Why? Why are they saying things on their website which are plainly wrong? And I think the answer has to be their funding from groups who have a vested interest.

And of course, I'd say there's a vast difference between a scientist who gets funded to take CO2 readings and a political lobbist. His interest isn't to present one view or the other, but merely to accurately measure what the readings were. He has to take accurate readings, because his readings can be (and are) checked. On the other hand a political lobby group receives funding specifically to bias public and political opinion. That's what they do. When they run TV advertising campaigns they don't do it out of the goodness of their heart, but because the people who fund them would like to bias public opinion. They have no interest in the truth, and every interest in protecting profits.

PS. Welcome back! Hope you had fun on holiday Smile
diverden
One man/woman's myth is anothers truth. I don't know that Gore is the one to give accurate science but if nothing else he has stimulated a discussion about it. I think the people scientists at the NSF and at MIT could be considered pretty reliable sources and both websites have tons of information that seems to indicate that the problem is real, not myth.


http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=105692

Quote:
Overturning is a fundamental component of the global climate conditions we know today, said Bil Haq, program director in the National Science Foundation (NSF)'s division of ocean sciences, which funded the research. For example, overturning in the modern North Atlantic Ocean is a primary means of drawing heat into the far north Atlantic and keeping temperatures in Europe relatively warmer than conditions in Canada, he said.

Today, "new" deep-water generation does not occur in the Pacific Ocean because of the large amount of freshwater input from the polar regions, which prevents North Pacific waters from becoming dense enough to sink to more than intermediate depths.

In the case of the Paleocene/Eocene, however, deep-water formation was possible in the Pacific Ocean because of global warming-induced changes. The Atlantic Ocean also could have been a significant generator of deep waters during this period.

Modern carbon dioxide input from fossil fuel sources to the earth's surface is approaching the same levels estimated for the PETM period, which raises concerns about future climate and changes in ocean circulation, say the scientists. Thus, they say, the Paleocene/Eocene example suggests that human-produced changes may have lasting effects not only on global climate, but on deep ocean circulation.

"Overturning is very sensitive to surface ocean temperatures and surface ocean salinity," said Norris. "The case described here may be one of the best examples of global warming triggered by the massive release of greenhouse gases. It gives us a perspective on what the long-term impact is likely to be of today's human-caused warming."

-NSF-



Scientists urged to spread word on global warming
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/climate-speth.html

Nancy Stauffer, Laboratory for Energy and the Environment
April 11, 2005

Quote:
Global warming is real, dangerous and ignored at great risk to the planet, a leading environmentalist told an audience of about 250 at last week's inaugural MIT Environmental Fellows Invitational Lecture.

Professor James Gustave Speth, Dean of Yale University's School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, urged the scientific community to make its case to the public, which remains unconvinced of the crisis despite decades of first-rate science and policy analysis, he said.

Temperatures at the Arctic are already climbing, and there will be "irreparable damage in the decades ahead due to our negligence" in addressing climate change. U.S. policy makers and citizens must be spurred into action, Speth said in his talk, "Some Say by Fire: Climate Change and the American Response," held Wednesday, April 6.

"If I had a hundred million dollars," Speth said, "I think I'd put almost every penny of it into a public service advertising campaign…because we've got to reach lots of people quickly with this issue."

Speth is a founder of the World Resources Institute, co-founder of the Natural Resources Defense Council and former advisor to Presidents Carter and Clinton. His lecture was sponsored by the Laboratory for Energy and the Environment.

[/quote]
foodman
some people are really good at spinning subjects the way they want. the earth is heating up and some people try to disprove that so they dont have to worry about environmental laws. well thats what i think.
Arnie
Nopaniers: of course you have bad lobby groups. But that doesn't make all scientists right, just because they oppose them. What you think are scientifical facts, have still went through the hands of men.
hazaramat
The Philosopher Princess wrote:

Do you get your science from politicians?

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192544,00.html


Do you get your science from foxnews?
Come on! Before debating truth, science, and democracy, start by questionning your sources!

EVERYONE knows that foxnews sweared allegiance to united states' government, and EVERYONE knows that united states' government sweared allegiance to petrol sellers (or represents petrol sellers), and EVERYONE knows that petrol sellers don't really enjoy the climate change debate... Who would ever trust the words of foxnews about any (environmental) topic?

PS. personal point, which has nothing to do with the debate-
-don't blame me for bringing the debate to a pathetic direction:

So disappointed by the Princess.
I was seduced by her topics, just a bit annoyed by her manic-depressive habit with italics, bolds, colors and font sizes (can't you decide which font you like and just adopt it, instead of changing font after every word?), and now I discover she's quoting foxnews for opening an epistemologic debate... what a pity.
Vrythramax
@hazaramat

I'm sure The Princess has duly noted your pity and filed it in the appropriate location.

Note: At least when she is biased on any particular subject she states it clearly, and then furthers the topic along. Wink
Arnie
@hazaramat: You might as well read some posts above yours. The fact that group X is allied to group Y would not make their science wrong, since according to certain people in this topic it doesn't matter who you're allied to (as in, money trail) as long as the science itself is right.
hazaramat
sorry for double posting -got mixed between "view" and "post"
hazaramat
Vrythramax wrote:
@hazaramat
I'm sure The Princess has duly noted your pity and filed it in the appropriate location.

"dans mon cul", as the french say? Wink

Vrythramax wrote:
Note: At least when she is biased on any particular subject she states it clearly, and then furthers the topic along. Wink


I agree with that point: she states it clearly.
Mine is: how can we pretend to blame an idea for being subjective, "and then furthers the topic along Wink " (what is the Wink for?), by quoting a contradictory idea which is as much subjective?

Sorry I'm not a native english speaker, and "subjective" might not be the proper word. Maybe an analogic example would be more clear:
I wrote:
Industrial motion pictures are dangerous to your mind, they make you sleep instead of think, let's have a policy in public schools to keep our children away from industrial motion pictures and propose them movies they will never be proposed in cinemas, like Jean Luc Godard or whatever good.

Universal motion pictures wrote:
It is not proven that our dumb movies are dangerous to any mind

And then? Should we wait-and-see just because someone says (and I don't even question his motives, if you think it's more acceptable like that) "it's not sure"?


Arnie wrote:
@hazaramat: You might as well read some posts above yours. The fact that group X is allied to group Y would not make their science wrong, since according to certain people in this topic it doesn't matter who you're allied to (as in, money trail) as long as the science itself is right.


I agree with that point: I might as well read some posts above mine. I just saw the "foxnews + CC" thing and Shocked and quoted and wrote my post. But I enjoy the debate.

"@Arnie": would you tell me what you think of my point:
Science right or wrong is maybe difficult to discuss in a forum where our final point is too keep our hosted account active.
Furthermore, science is never "right" or "wrong" because no one will never know (cf. world is infinitely complex), and because science is just one way, among others, to explain what we see of the world, in order to not become crazy facing its complexity and being able to interact with it. What makes science look different of a belief is that

1./ it is cumulative (this word is ok in english?): any proposition that follows a previous one makes "the way to explain" more precise.

2./ its internal social process of validation of its proposition is working very, very well. Any new proposition is debated among a college of proposers, and they decide whether or not it is valid and acceptable.

So you are right, it is not the fact that mister scientist X is affiliated to group Y that makes its proposition validated by the corps (what you call "the science right"); it is the validation of the proposition by the largest number. And so far, even if "climate change myth" is still under discussion, I think the scientists corps agrees more with "climate change is happening" than with "climate change is bullshit".

...
"climate change myth" !! Smile I like that. What about "Science right" myth, fellows? And, wait wait wait! ok! Even if we accept the "science right" stuff: tell me if I didn't understand your point: so the science which is right should be the source of decision for politics? mmm, but aren't we getting close to fascism? politics decide what to do, not what is right, and science, if we accept the idea that it is right, doesn't say or decide what to do!

I must have missed a point dear fellows, because I feel like your points are so fragiles. please let me know
The Philosopher Princess
It’s strange! I never got notification that more posts had been written here after my last one. (I came here by chance for a different reason.) I’m looking at the rest of the ones after mine, only now for the first time Surprised. Sorry, I didn’t mean to ignore people speaking to me, but now, I’m not sure I have time to get back to this subject. But it’s good y’all didn’t need me anyway to have some good back-and-forth deeper discussion.
Arnie
Because of a related topic I came back here and saw that there is still an unanswered question to me. I hope nobody will mind me kicking this topic, since it's quite a vivid discussion anyway.

@hazaramat:
In my opinion the greatest weakness of science is that humans perform it, and then claim it is the infallible truth. This is included in point 2 that you stated. As I said before, that so-called peer review can also fail. It involves humans and human communication: there is room for deception. (Read my previous post for more details.)

There are some things that we can be just about sure of, so you could say science is right on those points. I'm talking about rather practical stuff like the existence of gravity, or burning stuff. But the deeper you dig, and the more theoretical models come in, meaning scenarios that people invented by studying experimental data, the more shady things get.
Related topics
islam is...
More front page news NOT on the front page..
The rotting flesh that is our political system
US media finally aknowledge Global Warming
Global Warming
A debate of religion, science, and more
Workplaces ready for day without immigrant staff
Al Gore = :OWNED: (again)
Is Adam really the first human in our world?
What evidence of God is there?
Kyoto?? Bah! China Blows by USA in CO2 Emissions.
God is a monkey!!!
Expert panel calls for carbon tax to reduce greenhouse gases
The 5 most influential ideas of all time
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.