Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jan 2, 2013 10:07:44 GMT -5
First of all, you linked to a 404. Second of all, do you seriously think that Alaska isn't experiencing warming, or are you just throwing s against the wall because you saw this on Drudge or a gun board or something? I mean that's literally one of the dumbest claims made in this forum. I want to bring my kids there in the next 10 years so they can catch the Exit Glacier before it disappears. How is this, in any manner, a response to the content of that story? (it's not a dead link; there's just an inadvertent period at the end of it). The point of the article is that no, in fact, Alaska is NOT experiencing warming based on gathered data. You should ask your question of the author. Now, personally, I do not hold that one set of data from one location in the world can be writ large to provide any sort of conclusions about global climate trends. Then again, that never stops anyone from doing just that when we have a hot summer in D.C.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,462
|
Post by TC on Jan 2, 2013 10:26:00 GMT -5
How is this, in any manner, a response to the content of that story? ... The point of the article is that no, in fact, Alaska is NOT experiencing warming based on gathered data. You should ask your question of the author. What was the point of the article? Or EasyEd's argument? To skew a paper which makes a point about atmospheric circulation into some denial of warming. Read the lede of the article again and then read the abstract of the paper. The narrative of the article doesn't resemble what the paper it quotes says whatsoever.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jan 2, 2013 10:42:53 GMT -5
Oh, Good Lord. I have read both. No, the study makes no conclusions about global warming, as it should not. It is reporting data from Alaska with shows a cooling trend over a decade following a longer warming trend. The article mostly reports just what the study does, but makes a couple of glib references to global warming and Sarah Palin and this is what gets your panties knotted? I am shocked by this development. But if you want, I'll ask the turnip truck to slow down so you can hop back on. Sheesh.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,462
|
Post by TC on Jan 2, 2013 10:59:22 GMT -5
What point do you think Drudge is trying to make with the snippets he quoted with?
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jan 2, 2013 11:00:58 GMT -5
What point do you think Drudge is trying to make with the snippets he quoted with? I didn't see Drudge, just the article and the study. I'll take your word for it that he is being a snarky partisan. Again, shocking.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 2, 2013 11:17:35 GMT -5
Why did I post that article (other than to antagonize TC)? Just for the reason Boz stated: why is it always permissible for climate change advocates to claim a warm summer/spring/winter/fall (take your pick) is supportive of global warming but climate change skeptics like me are not given the same freedom to show that there are some areas of the world that are not following the warming trend? Or to state that the worldwide warming trend seems to have disappeared over the last decade? In fact we are ridiculed as deniers or anti-science.
I do not claim that decreasing temperatures in Alaska over the last decade proves or disproves anything related to global warming. Nor did the hot summer in Walla Walla.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,462
|
Post by TC on Jan 2, 2013 11:24:45 GMT -5
Why is it always permissible for climate change advocates to claim a warm summer/spring/winter/fall (take your pick) is supportive of global warming but climate change skeptics like me are not given the same freedom to show that there are some areas of the world that are not following the warming trend? So basically your argument is : why can't I put forth fallacies? Great argument.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 2, 2013 15:04:12 GMT -5
Is it a fact that temperatures in Alaska have declined during the past decade? Or is it a fact that worldwide temperatures have plateaued over the last decade? And, who appointed you as judge as to what is a fallacy? Despite what you might believe, man-made global warming is not a proven fact, just like the predicted coming ice-age a few years ago was not a proven fact - even though both had a consensus view of climate scientists. How arrogant can you get?
|
|
ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Jan 2, 2013 15:25:07 GMT -5
Is it a fact that temperatures in Alaska have declined during the past decade? Or is it a fact that worldwide temperatures have plateaued over the last decade? And, who appointed you as judge as to what is a fallacy? Despite what you might believe, man-made global warming is not a proven fact, just like the predicted coming ice-age a few years ago was not a proven fact - even though both had a consensus view of climate scientists. How arrogant can you get? The "coming ice-age" never had anything close to a consensus at the time...seven peer-reviewed articles at the time said cooling, twenty were neutral, and 44 said warming... usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,462
|
Post by TC on Jan 2, 2013 15:59:02 GMT -5
Read what you wrote yourself one post ago. You admit it's a fallacy. Your argument is : if people who accept global warming put forth temperature highs as proof of global warming (and that's generally not what they are doing when they post those as an observation), then why can't climate change denialists put forth small sample sizes (10 years) of cherry-picked regional data (everything but Northern Alaska) to argue that warming is not happening?
Your argument here is made even more ridiculous by the fact that the paper cited, as Boz says, makes no claims about applicability to global warming trends and the first sentence even says that Alaska has warmed at twice the global rate till this decade. But someone wrote an article about it that had some sensationalist language about ice ages so Drudge picked it up because it fits his narrative, and now you think that it is some sort of counterpoint.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 9, 2013 11:45:19 GMT -5
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 9, 2013 14:06:48 GMT -5
Maybe the authors should evaluate themselves since the three topics they selected were those advanced by the left and the glaring one they left out - when human life begins - show their cultural cognitive reaction to what they consider to be scientific consensuses. In other words, they had an agenda for their study.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 10, 2013 11:16:15 GMT -5
Maybe the authors should evaluate themselves since the three topics they selected were those advanced by the left and the glaring one they left out - when human life begins - show their cultural cognitive reaction to what they consider to be scientific consensuses. In other words, they had an agenda for their study. I don't know enough about the science there to know whether you are right or wrong, Ed, but I'm sure it's possible. Though I think it's strong to call out someone's bias by not including something in a list of three studies out of a potential forty kajillion. They didn't do a study on child abuse, either; that doesn't mean they approve of it. Your fun misdirection aside, does this mean you agree with the theory? That your rejection of scientific consensus is based on your cultural and political point of view and not really any objective grounding? I'm prodding because I know you will never actually change, but there might be a few people on this thread who actually go for the introspection thing.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 10, 2013 20:14:48 GMT -5
SF, after graduating from Georgetown and a stint in the military I got a degree in engineering, along with significant graduate level engineering studies. I am not a scientist but I am technical. I had a successful engineering career and I have managed scientific and engineering organizations. All of this to say I have some credentials and lots of years of experience. These lead me to be a skeptic, not a non-believer.
When I went to grade and high school scientists said the atom was the smallest possible form of matter. Until recently scientist said nothing could reach speeds beyond the speed of light. Just a few years back many scientists said we were entering a new ice age. Despite the so-called consensus on a specific form of man-made global warming caused by carbon-based fuels, I have the benefit of years of scientists being wrong. Notice I say a specific form of man-made global warming rather than warming caused by the mere elevation of temperatures caused by using energy of any sort (including clean energy). In the past I have also referred to the belief that Mars has also warmed during the recent past. And the belief that in centuries past the earth has gone through periods of hot and cold, all caused by natural phenomena.
Is it possible that the burning of fossil fuels has caused the earth's temperature to rise? Of course. Is it possible temperature increases may have occurred because of any use of energy? Again, of course. Is it possible that the contributions of man to temperature fluctuations are minimal? Again, of course.
For as long as I can remember there has been an opposition to industrialization, coming from the left. Over 50 years ago this opposition killed the U.S.'s supersonic transport under the guise that such aircraft would release deposits that would hurt the ozone layer. That same opposition is now behind climate change and have crafted a theory about what is causing our planet to warm and they have demeaned anyone who has a differing opinion and have systematically limited any such differing opinions from refereed journals, while reaping the benefits of research dollars. I've been there, done that.
So I am a skeptic when it comes to the consensus that the burning of fossil fuels has a significant effect on the earth's temperature. I suspect you will also a few years down the road when you are more able to see the forest instead of the trees. Just an opinion. Could I be wrong? Yes. Could I be right? Yes, I believe.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jan 11, 2013 11:27:43 GMT -5
You write pretty well for a heretic, EasyEd!
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 11, 2013 11:52:04 GMT -5
Ed,
I am fully aware that scientists can often be wrong, especially in the more theoretical world. But you can't throw out everything just because it's sometimes wrong. The bible blatantly contradicts itself in several places; the church has changed policy and you still listen to them. My parents were wrong -- should I deny it completely?
So, yeah, it's possible that most scientists are wrong here. But it's more likely they are right. Just like with almost any scientific consensus on something like this.
Anyway, your skepticism applies to science but apparently not to the other side of the argument -- there's a leftist conspiracy across all scientists to kill industry? Come on. There's less proof for that but you show no skepticism here.
My point in posting that study -- and the article Austin posted on the gun thread -- is that your disbelief of science (and I'm sure I have a similar blindspot somewhere) is triggered by your bias -- that the left is trying to screw industry, etc.
A significant majority of people who study this think it is likely that man-made actions are messing with a global ecology that is used to changes over hundreds of thousands of years, not twenty.
So shouldn't we try to be more careful? The cost is always listed in jobs and the such -- but it's really just cost in change. A coal miner's job is replaced by a nuclear technician. Money streaming over to Saudi Arabia comes back here. Some hotshot executive gets less of a bonus because he can't save money by dumping arsenic in the water supply.
Government intervention in things is much less likely to kill the economy than just change it. Have to cut down on factory emissions into the air? We need to make filters and more efficient furnaces and built new ways to get alternative energy. It's new, it might be harder, but it still creates demand and thus jobs at some end. They just aren't always the same jobs.
If I'm wrong, the result is some people get laid off and some people get hired and some people in new industries get richer and some people in old industries get poorer. Sometimes it's not much of a crime because it's someone with enough getting a little less and sometimes it's awful because it's someone with a little losing everything. That's why I'd be fine with tax dollars going to retraining, etc.
If you're wrong on global warming, then we could wreck our climate, destroy the great plains as the breadbasket of the world, lose our coastlines, radically destroy complex ecosystems leading to an unstable ecological world. Death and massive loss of quality of life for many people.
I know which one I hedge against.
(I wonder - were you against air quality requirements? Catalytic converters? Toxic dumping rules into drinking water?)
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,516
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Jan 11, 2013 16:17:23 GMT -5
In your last three paragraphs, SF, you were arguing for the precautionary principle, which I tend to go along with too. Ed may be right in his beliefs, but I think we should employ a safety hatch, if he is wrong. And yes, your last paragraph keeps me gainfully employed.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 11, 2013 16:20:27 GMT -5
Thank you, Nevada.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,394
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Jan 12, 2013 7:48:14 GMT -5
Eloquently stated, SF.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 12, 2013 10:37:23 GMT -5
Please read my posts carefully. I have stated clearly I'm a skeptic, not a non-believer.
Secondly, I don't need a multi-thousands of dollars scientific study to know all of us react to science partially based on our biases. I know I do and, I suspect, all of you left of center posters do also. They partially explain my skepticism on man-made global warming. And they partially explain the reactons of many to the subject of when human life begins.
Third, you may dismiss my contention that some on the left are anti-industrialization but I stick to my beliefs here. It's grounded in the beliefs of some that industry exploits its workers and must be punished. It's further grounded on the belief that industry is bad for the environment.
|
|