Global warming?
-
brianwelsch wrote: We are still learning, so it seems premature to make firm statements either way well, you might want to read this: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686[^] someone did a study of peer-reviewed papers published in 2002/2003 about climate change, to see if there is any disagreement in the scientific community about climate change. so, they reviewed 900+ papers and sorted them into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position [ie. humans are causing climate change], evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. guess what? nobody rejected the opinion that humans are causing climate change. so, the consensus among people who study this for a living is that there is a change, and that humans are causing it. of course they could all be wrong, and nobody who's correct is bothering to write papers for publication; or that people just can't get dissenting papers published in peer-reviewed publications. that implies a conspiracy... Software | Cleek
Holding a different and unpopular view in the academy is very hard. Getting funds is hard, no conferences to attend, hard to publish. Very few do it.
-
The article you link to makes no reference to the mathematical abilities of scientists. Attempting to interpolate global function behaviour from local is unreliable at best. Arguing that one variable has an effect without understanding others and their interaction is foolish. However, there appears to be a large degree of consensus among scientists that human activity is indeed contributing significantly to global warming. Based on flawed reports. Serious studies have control groups where only one factor differs from the hypothesis. This is impossible with global warming - time, place, etc are different.
Felix Gartsman wrote: Attempting to interpolate global function behaviour from local is unreliable at best. You probably mean extrapolate. But that is what science does, albeit more successfully in some cases than others. Felix Gartsman wrote: Arguing that one variable has an effect without understanding others and their interaction is foolish. So is crossing a road without checking for traffic, but you offer no proof that this is what is being done. Felix Gartsman wrote: Based on flawed reports. Serious studies have control groups where only one factor differs from the hypothesis. This is impossible with global warming - time, place, etc are different. This is nonsense. In the first place, if there is interaction in the effects of two or more variables (i.e., if their effect is not simply additive but may be, for example, multiplicative), then you will fail to capture that interaction if you only allow one variable to change. Second, only allowing one variable to change is impossible in much scientific investigation. Multi-variable statistical analysis is the standard technique used to handle this problem. One "controls" for other variables by explicitly modelling their effect. Like I said, I claim no expertise on global warming and most people would agree that there is a lot of uncertainty involved in the modelling of climate change. Nevertheless, there appears to be the consensus that I have previously referred to. Claims that scientists are a bunch of dopes who are blind to the insights available to those less qualified strike me as rather obvious nonsense. John Carson Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious. Oscar Wilde
-
Felix Gartsman wrote: Attempting to interpolate global function behaviour from local is unreliable at best. You probably mean extrapolate. But that is what science does, albeit more successfully in some cases than others. Felix Gartsman wrote: Arguing that one variable has an effect without understanding others and their interaction is foolish. So is crossing a road without checking for traffic, but you offer no proof that this is what is being done. Felix Gartsman wrote: Based on flawed reports. Serious studies have control groups where only one factor differs from the hypothesis. This is impossible with global warming - time, place, etc are different. This is nonsense. In the first place, if there is interaction in the effects of two or more variables (i.e., if their effect is not simply additive but may be, for example, multiplicative), then you will fail to capture that interaction if you only allow one variable to change. Second, only allowing one variable to change is impossible in much scientific investigation. Multi-variable statistical analysis is the standard technique used to handle this problem. One "controls" for other variables by explicitly modelling their effect. Like I said, I claim no expertise on global warming and most people would agree that there is a lot of uncertainty involved in the modelling of climate change. Nevertheless, there appears to be the consensus that I have previously referred to. Claims that scientists are a bunch of dopes who are blind to the insights available to those less qualified strike me as rather obvious nonsense. John Carson Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious. Oscar Wilde
John Carson wrote: You probably mean extrapolate. Right, sorry. John Carson wrote: But that is what science does, albeit more successfully in some cases than others. Sure, but here they simply abuse it. 500? years of data out of billions, without proper understanding of past behaviour is too much... John Carson wrote: One "controls" for other variables by explicitly modelling their effect. Model how? They can't without understanding them. At some point oversimplification (assume x,y,z) leads to errors. John Carson wrote: Claims that scientists are a bunch of dopes who are blind to the insights available to those less qualified strike me as rather obvious nonsense. Not dopes, but pursuing specific agenda while ignoring valid concerns. First link shows that media ignores opposite views. Second is a good reminder of single mindness scientific views. http://www.freemarketproject.org/specialreports/2004/globalwarming_study/sr20041108.asp[^] http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/[^]
-
Finally, BBC shows an opinion I actually agree with - the global warming scare is a result of arrogant "scientists" who would fail undergraduate math course. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4066189.stm Sorry, no clickable link because of Firefox.
-
Giles wrote: I hope the global warming bunch are wrong. But what if they are not? Then we'll fix it. Changing our way of life because there is a theory that maybe we change something we shouldn't that has doubtfull evidence is unwise. Pollution is a disaster because of health risks, not because a tornado may or may not be the result of chemical waste.
-
Finally, BBC shows an opinion I actually agree with - the global warming scare is a result of arrogant "scientists" who would fail undergraduate math course. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4066189.stm Sorry, no clickable link because of Firefox.
I'm not an environmentalist so to speak, I do believe in trying to minimize the effects of what our population does to the Earth. I believe in higher fuel standards, I do think that nuclear energy is a good option. I also believe we need to protect forests, etc. I think we need to take action to protect the environment, but I tend to view the global warming research as premature. I found this reprint of an article that warned of just the opposite "global cooling" only 30 years ago. I'm not saying there is or isn't global warming, just that we need to take responsible action to protect where we live while not jumping on any bandwagon. http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm[^] Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
Finally, BBC shows an opinion I actually agree with - the global warming scare is a result of arrogant "scientists" who would fail undergraduate math course. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4066189.stm Sorry, no clickable link because of Firefox.
I'm not an environmentalist so to speak, I do believe in trying to minimize the effects of what our population does to the Earth. I believe in higher fuel standards, I do think that nuclear energy is a good option. I also believe we need to protect forests, etc. I think we need to take action to protect the environment, but I tend to view the global warming research as premature. I found this reprint of an article that warned of just the opposite "global cooling" only 30 years ago. I'm not saying there is or isn't global warming, just that we need to take responsible action to protect where we live while not jumping on any bandwagon. http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm[^] Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
Finally, BBC shows an opinion I actually agree with - the global warming scare is a result of arrogant "scientists" who would fail undergraduate math course. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4066189.stm Sorry, no clickable link because of Firefox.
Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science. And what, exactly, are those "vested interests"? Speaking of vested interests, a google search on "Dr Martin Keeley" (the author of the article) turns up this information: Dr Martin Keeley became an executive director for Emerald Energy in 1996 with primary responsibility for their Colombian operations. Link[^] Who is Emerald Energy? "EMERALD ENERGY Plc is a United Kingdom based company engaged in exploration and production of hydrocarbons in Colombia." http://www.emeraldenergy.com/[^] You may also be interested in his website: "If you are looking for Investment Opportunities currently being promoted by Dr Martin Keeley, directly and indirectly, in the oil & gas and precious metal/mining sectors, you should click on "Martin Keeley, Wealth Creator and Entrepreneur" ... if only I could get my hands on US$ 20-50MM, I could create more than ten times that in new value within 5-7 years. http://www.martinkeeley.net/[^] Overall, I think the article overplayed the "global warming scientists are stupid and have ulterior motives" card. Based on the information he presents, I would expect him to argue that climate scientists were jumping the gun and coming to conclusions based on insufficient evidence. The "vested interests" arguements work much better against the oil companies and their employees (e.g. Dr Martin Keeley) because they have a lot to gain from downplaying the global warming scenarios. ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
-
Finally, BBC shows an opinion I actually agree with - the global warming scare is a result of arrogant "scientists" who would fail undergraduate math course. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4066189.stm Sorry, no clickable link because of Firefox.
Felix Gartsman wrote: Sorry, no clickable link because of Firefox. Firefox broke your fingers? :~ :) As for the global warming thing... there may be an amount of truth to it, but i'm not qualified to say. I do know that most people have a fairly large amount of skepticism towards anything weather-related, simply because of the inaccuracy in predicting it locally day-to-day. While this maybe shouldn't be applied to those making longer-term forecasts for larger areas, it does make things more difficult. IMHO, smog is a lot more effective in convincing people to reduce emissions. Find something that affects me *now*. ;) :sigh:
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "To talk of many things..." -
Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science. And what, exactly, are those "vested interests"? Speaking of vested interests, a google search on "Dr Martin Keeley" (the author of the article) turns up this information: Dr Martin Keeley became an executive director for Emerald Energy in 1996 with primary responsibility for their Colombian operations. Link[^] Who is Emerald Energy? "EMERALD ENERGY Plc is a United Kingdom based company engaged in exploration and production of hydrocarbons in Colombia." http://www.emeraldenergy.com/[^] You may also be interested in his website: "If you are looking for Investment Opportunities currently being promoted by Dr Martin Keeley, directly and indirectly, in the oil & gas and precious metal/mining sectors, you should click on "Martin Keeley, Wealth Creator and Entrepreneur" ... if only I could get my hands on US$ 20-50MM, I could create more than ten times that in new value within 5-7 years. http://www.martinkeeley.net/[^] Overall, I think the article overplayed the "global warming scientists are stupid and have ulterior motives" card. Based on the information he presents, I would expect him to argue that climate scientists were jumping the gun and coming to conclusions based on insufficient evidence. The "vested interests" arguements work much better against the oil companies and their employees (e.g. Dr Martin Keeley) because they have a lot to gain from downplaying the global warming scenarios. ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
And what, exactly, are those "vested interests"? Funds and prestige. I don't know your familiarity with scientists, but being part of the mainstream and being media favorite is very helpfull with your status.