Mass Plankton Die-Off

[anotherT34C]

Originally Posted by dacust

Since I am neither a Democrat/Republican/Liberal/Conservative I look at all of them from the outside. In a way that I think is more objective . I don't see much difference in those groups. I think they are almost exactly alike. They refuse to actually discuss an issue. They only argue about things they think they have a snappy comeback to. They are totally polarized and don't really care about any issue at all. They only care that their side wins, whatever the issue. (OK, I have over simplified and exaggerated. But I want to keep this post to under 10,000 words.)

So, I evaluate the sources using a different criteria.

I see that the one seems to be funded and backed either directly by the energy industry or by people formerly involved in the energy industry - and the other source where I can see nothing overt to make me doubt what they say. That is, nothing more than the fact that I always suspect the pissibility of ulterior motives.

However, the link I gave was just one link that said NRSP had energy ties, there were more. So, when I get corroborating evidence, then I find it easier to believe. Only easier, I am always aware that even then it may be misleading.

So, you tell me. Do your own research. Is there enough said on links from various sources that makes it reasonable that I have doubts about their motives and objectivity? Not enough to prove it, but enough where it is reasonable that I would want to hear what they have to say from a different source before I believe it?

That is all I am saying. I researched them and think there is reasonable doubt as to their credibility.

It is absolutely astounding to me how many times I research the GW deniers and find ties to the energy industry, or a total lack of peer reviewed publications, or a total lack of credentials - and it's usually a combination of those.

It is also telling the huge number of times I read quotes of scientists, that when I go see the actual paper they wrote, the quote was either taken out of context and/or the shortcomings were completely acknowledged and/or the actual quote was preceded with "In an absolute worst case scenerio...", etc.

And additionally, it is telling that the attacks against scientists research are in the paper, on TV, etc. But the scientists rebuttal is usually found on the web, many pages into the google rating, as published in a scientific journal. Since these rebuttals so seldom see the light of day, you almost never see a denier even address them. After all, why call attention to it?

And the REAL interesting point, is that generally, the scientists viewpoint only gets heard as a quote in a denier article. So, the huge majority of the public gets BOTH sides of the story from the energy industry. Because they have a bigger budget. And I could go on about that subject for a few paragraphs.

I think I'll shut up now.

-dan

In a google world, it becomes critical for people in a democracy to become more discerning consumers of information, as Dan appears to be. Human beings have a VERY strong instinct when faced with an issue they don't understand, to simply believe what they wish to be true. Scientists generally (though certainly not always) have this drilled out of them, and are much more concerned with "truth" than laypeople. Google makes the situation far worse. One can google "climate skeptic" and have troves of pages, all seemingly scientific to people who are untrained (similarly if one googles, say "Obama muslim", or "Bush Saudi conspiracy"). Google unfortunately contributes to the balkinization of society, as one never really needs to come accross an opposing viewpoint if they don't wish to.

[osirissail]

Originally Posted by hummingway

. . . Incidently a number that is floating out there is that 97% of climatologists support the view that man has affected climate change. The fact that there is a list of scientists opposing the common view doesn't make that untrue. First off it is the common view and hence the list and secondly most of these guys aren't climatologists., none-the-less I post it in the interest of balance.

- - Be careful of that 97% number being bandied about - see posts 198 -199 so see exactly who/where that number came from. Basically it is an out of context misquote from an original by the media. It is like saying "97% of everybody thinks crusing is the answer to happiness" when the real statement was "97% of everybody on CF thinks cruising is the best answer to finding happiness." Statistics like that are instantly challenged by thoughtful folks as obviously nobody polled/asked "every" climate scientist in the whole world.

- - There seems to be a consensus in the thread that whichever side of the "fence" you are on or even if you are sitting on the "fence" that any politician in a position of power in any government of the world is not going to do anything about GW/AGW/ACC/CC beyond throwing a lot of your hard earned money paid in taxes towards more studies and conferences.
- - The proof of that was the recently concluded Copenhagen Summit on Climate which ended in a frenzy of fiscal piranha attacks by small countries against the big countries. There was the smell of money and everybody wanted a piece of the action.
- - When savvy politicians want to do nothing they appoint a committee to study it. Which leads to another example of the piranha styles feeding frenzy to be one of the study committee/groups.
- - Which encourages more folks to buy cruising yachts and sail off away from the bedlam and mayhem to quieter and more sane corners of the world where we can sit behind our lapbooks/netbooks and pontificate on CF while sipping rum and cokes/wine/beer and are surrounded by lush green islands full of friendly natives who haven't a clue or care about the whole subject.

[dacust]

Originally Posted by osirissail

- - Be careful of that 97% number being bandied about - see posts 198 -199 so see exactly who/where that number came from. Basically it is an out of context misquote from an original by the media. It is like saying "97% of everybody thinks crusing is the answer to happiness" when the real statement was "97% of everybody on CF thinks cruising is the best answer to finding happiness." Statistics like that are instantly challenged by thoughtful folks as obviously nobody polled/asked "every" climate scientist in the whole world.

...

Post 198:

Originally Posted by stark

Far from the truth!!

Although S&S had a good point about people who are "not in the trade" have to take it on faith, the difference between science and religion is that if an "expert" in religion tells you about God, well you know even (s)he is basing it on faith. But when an expert in science tells you about Einstein's relativity, you may not understand it, but you know its true because it is used everyday in our GPS system. Just look around, everything you see is brought to you because scientists [for the most part] have a pretty good understanding of how things work.

Also scientists do not belong to some giant cohesive group that gets together and decides that we are going to believe this and that, but not the other. To the contrary, we are an extremely critical and competitive group. But this is what makes it such a strong group and this is why 'bad' science always washes out.

The influence of money on science? Well, yeah its there. But just because your making bank to do bad science doesn't mean you will be accepted by the community (check out these scam artists: Development -they can fool their investors, but they are rejects in our community)

Back on topic, I believe global warming is a serious issue. I also believe there is nothing we can do about it because we will never sacrifice our economy for it. The bigger impact on cruisers will not be how it affects weather predictions, but rather the availability and distribution of resources esp. in under-developed areas.

Post 199:

Originally Posted by Captain Bill

You are correct, I did give the modern definition of scientist. This is not ment to discredit pioneering minds in science that did not have the advantage of accredited universities and colleges. After all at one time barbers also acted as medical doctors and today you can go to barber college and to a university to medical school, but today would you go to your barber for medical advice?

With regards to methane being the culprit for global warming, the models that predict a runaway greenhouse effect (worst case warming) see the release of large amounts of methane from the permafrost and from methane hydrates at the bottom of the ocean as the ultimate global warming catastrophe. The buildup of CO2 slowly warms the earth and oceans enough that the methane stored in the permafrost and methane hydrates is released. Methane is said to be ( I have not read these papers myself) 17 times more effective at blocking infrared radiation than is CO2. So CO2 is the trigger that releases methane and causes the runaway greenhouse effect. If CO2 does not cause this warming then the methane release never happens. CO2 is still the culprit in this model. By the way activated charcoal does not absorb methane, just the sulfurous emmisions that accompany it.

I don't see where this addresses which scientists make up that "97%". Did you maybe get the post numbers wrong?

-dan

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by dacust

Their main page: SourceWatch

-dan

Looks interesting, and rather far left. I'll look at it for a while.

Thanks.

[dacust]

Originally Posted by Therapy

Looks interesting, and rather far left. I'll look at it for a while.

Thanks.

Could be I haven't looked quite as close at it as I should. I'll be interested on your take on it. Especially if you find exaggerations or inaccuracies.

-dan

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by dacust

Could be I haven't looked quite as close at it as I should. I'll be interested on your take on it. Especially if you find exaggerations or inaccuracies.

-dan

I only read a few things just now. One was by Al Gore. I couldn't finish it in one swallow though because I just keep thinking about his footprint and wonder. But then I own a plastic boat and millions (billions?) don't own a plastic toothbrush.

Plus, I spent a lot of time with this stuff a year or so ago and not so much recently, though I don't things have changed much. What I don't have is a very good catalog of "things" to whip out to "prove" my beliefs. Just some.

Like I said. I think pollution and over use of resources are more important issues.

And most all of that is related simply to overpopulation.

I'm tired again.

[osirissail]

Originally Posted by dacust

. . .I don't see where this addresses which scientists make up that "97%". Did you maybe get the post numbers wrong?
-dan

Yep, sure did get it wrong! Old age - it was posts #168 & 169 - At my age I have trouble with that "69" number - too many old memories . . .

[dacust]

Originally Posted by Therapy

I only read a few things just now. One was by Al Gore. I couldn't finish it in one swallow though because I just keep thinking about his footprint and wonder. But then I own a plastic boat and millions (billions?) don't own a plastic toothbrush.

Plus, I spent a lot of time with this stuff a year or so ago and not so much recently, though I don't things have changed much. What I don't have is a very good catalog of "things" to whip out to "prove" my beliefs. Just some.

Like I said. I think pollution and over use of resources are more important issues.

And most all of that is related simply to overpopulation.

I'm tired again.

I agree with you about the pollution and overuse of resources. And since most scientists say it's those same things that make sense to work on to reduce the "man made global warming", then it makes sense to me to try to do those things and to support the GW research.

-dan

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by dacust

I agree with you about the pollution and overuse of resources. And since most scientists say it's those same things that make sense to work on to reduce the "man made global warming", then it makes sense to me to try to do those things and to support the GW research.

-dan

Ah, a voice of reason and some reasonable agreement.

Sometimes I think we all go out of our way to disagree over pedantic arguments when at heart we agree on the fundamentals.

Too many people, using too much stuff, does bad things to our environment that none of us like. It is in our mutual interest to find ways to reduce this trend, if possible.

If is is not possible to remedy the situation (would be a shame but probable), the one should look to ways to survive the possible unintended consequences be they financial, drought, war, whatever.

Cheers

[osirissail]

Originally Posted by hpeer

. . . If is is not possible to remedy the situation (would be a shame but probable), the one should look to ways to survive the possible unintended consequences be they financial, drought, war, whatever.
Cheers

That's easy - get a cruising yacht and get away from 1st world countries. Somehow, I had a feeling that the CF forum was about just that.

[markpierce]

It really grates when someone preaches to you but doesn't conform to their message. For instance, an ill-deserved, Nobel-prize winner preaches and profiteers on the ills of using carbon-based energy, yet expends 100 times and more polluting the planet than I. I spend $50 to $100 a month for gas and electricity at home, about $30 for water a month, and drive about 600 miles a month. Yet his ilk's policies will substantially reduce my standard of living because I live in a first-world country.

[Ex-Calif]

This thread has gone remarkably well and you are to all be congratulated!

A gentle reminder that this is about climate and not politics.

At 260+ posts and 18 pages it has had a tremendous run.

Let's stay on track!

[markpierce]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

...
A gentle reminder that this is about climate and not politics.
...

True, but much of the discussion has been about who/what is responsible for the climate change and how people can affect it. Politics are hard to avoid because any regulation or law attempting to deal with this issue is a result of politics. Still, I don't recall any immediately-recent post specifically naming any political party or politician.

Have more than a few of us noticed the weather has become warmer in the last couple of hundred years (thank goodness), but nevertheless recognized it was even warmer a thousand years ago? ... Some people have egos so large they believe they can change world climate.

[markpierce]

California is considering regulating the flatulence of dairy cows so as to limit global warming. These regulators would be more effective if they banned beans, cabbage, and such other gas-producing foods from human consumption. But then they would be seen for what they are.

[osirissail]

Don't forget to ban brussel sprouts. Ugh! Nasty little round things.