Post #258,984
6/14/06 8:08:34 PM
|
No attack from me.
I've known for a while that the question of whether there is global warming is a fight between two groups of scientists claiming similar territory.
One group bases their theories on the predictions of computer models.
The other group bases their theories on the measurements of what has happened historically.
The two groups wound up at loggerheads, and are now solidly entrenched into their positions, data be damned. A computer model that suggests things aren't so bad is ignored while one that says they are is paid attention to. (The hockey stick is a good example of bad science spreading due to this theme.) Measurements indicating that CO2 levels change climate get ignored and you get grand claims like, on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such as changes in the brightness of the Sun when we simply don't have direct measurements of changes of brightness of the Sun over a lot of interesting scales.
(BTW his example of 450 million years ago is very disingenous. Greenhouse gases only make a difference if the Sun warms the ground, resulting in infra-red radiation that can get trapped. But 450 million years ago the Earth was covered in ice, so there was very little infra-red being radiated for a greenhouse effect to work with. No wonder high levels of CO2 didn't make a difference!
The people who build fancy computer models get the attention of the press because, hey, computers are cool. Plus they are predicting disaster. Plus their work is easier to put in a nutshell.
I believe the truth lies in between. There is no question that greenhouse gases like CO2 affect the Earth's temperature. It is trivial to calculate what the temperature of the Earth would be without them and prove that they do make a difference. We're producing lots of them, and that has to have some (though possibly trivial) impact. But they clearly are not the only effect out there. Also most of the computer models are cack. (If you predict that the Earth is on the verge of becoming another Venus, then you need to explain why it didn't do so 5 million years ago when the Earth was a lot warmer than it is today.)
Cheers,
Ben
The great masses of people ... will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one. -- Adolf Hitler
|
Post #258,987
6/14/06 8:22:44 PM
|
was refering to the eurogogs :-)
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #258,989
6/14/06 8:30:20 PM
|
Gah, read slashdot on this
[link|http://science.slashdot.org/science/06/06/14/209235.shtml|http://science.slash...6/14/209235.shtml]
The fact that the author is funded by Exxon is enough to limit its credibility. I'll shut up on causes of global warming unless I take time to look at the subject in more detail.
Cheers,
Ben
The great masses of people ... will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one. -- Adolf Hitler
|
Post #258,996
6/14/06 10:09:26 PM
|
oh, and who pays for the co2 advocates?
I like this quote from /. 'm sure there are oil companies dying for someone of repute to go against the tide and say they aren't ruining the planet.
But they have to just sit and wait for someone else to fund the study. Any study funded by an oil company, or even a subsidiary twice removed from an oil company will be automatically bashed for being "bought" by said oil company. The other side does not have an agenda? Do they not intend to reap huge profits and salaries by scaremongering? Remember the movie is brought to you by a guy who flooded a creek with a few inches of water to float a canoe to make an environmental point. thanx, bill Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #258,998
6/14/06 10:37:40 PM
|
Nobody is free of self-interest
Nobody is free of self-interest, and thus it is a good idea not to trust anybody blindly.
At the same time, I trust government scientists more then corporate ones. The person working for the government at least in theory is trying to find the best possible description of reality and their reputation and career are somewhat staked on being right. The guy working for a corporation has more to gain by producing a convincing answer that supports the corporations posistion.
Or to put it more directly. The government scientists might be wrong, but they are not usually intentionally deceptive, corporate ones often are.
Jay
|
Post #259,000
6/14/06 10:49:51 PM
|
who directs government scientists? Politicians
I saw that many times in Alaska, Clintonian suits hardwalking on environmental studies that didnt support their position, then OMYGOWD when Bushites did the same thing an almighty furor broke out, go figure.
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #259,012
6/14/06 11:38:31 PM
|
Not quite.
Saying politicians direct government scientists is like saying CEOs direct programmers. There's a connection, but it's very, very indirect. Don't confuse public policy statements with the work done by scientists.
I'm aware of incidents like [link|http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html?ei=5088&en=28e236da0977ee7f&ex=1296190800&pagewanted=all|Hansen's]. And we know that scientists have biases just like everyone else. But good scientists aren't directed by politicians to find a particular result to support a particular policy. They're directed to investigate a problem and accurately report the results. Hansen's case, as I understand it, was a conflict between his appropriate role in reporting research results versus the perception that he was making policy statements for the government (something that isn't his role).
For example, the National Science Foundation funds [link|http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/progSearch.do?SearchType=progSearch&page=2&QueryText=&ProgOrganization=&ProgOfficer=&ProgEleCode=1530&BooleanElement=true&ProgRefCode=&BooleanRef=true&ProgProgram=&ProgFoaCode=&RestrictActive=on&Search=Search#results|climate research] even though the results may contradict the Administration's positions. It's similar in government labs. (Of course, politicians determine (in the broadest sense) what research gets funded. But they don't direct research outcomes.)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #259,027
6/15/06 8:50:53 AM
|
BLM in Alaska re-writing biology reports to suit the admin
clinton pro envirowaco any dissent written out and results suppressed, now stifling sensitive data on actual environmental issues.,
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #259,031
6/15/06 9:23:10 AM
|
That is why I said in theory
That is why I said in theory. The difference is that when the government manipulates science to get the answers it wants, it is recognized as wrong. When the corporations do the same thing, it is considered a good use of the advertising budget.
Jay
|
