Global Warming?

[DrSmellThis]

It matters

with respect to everything that you, nor any other global warming scientist has never produced one bit of data

demonstrating that 'global warming' is outside natural parameters demonstrated over a statistically significant

period regardless of how people are living or which insects are migrating where. The globe has repeatedly warmed and

cooled throughout histiory and archeological evidence indicates that nature made those changes in the past. If and

until it is demonstrated that it is outside natural occurance the entire discussion is moot. To take action in an

effort to change the natural course of events, if that's what it is, is absurd.

This key paragraph presents

an opportunity to further clarify something just stated in the last post.

Asking important questions of our

world is really the first step in the scientific method.

For me, as a citizen of the planet, the most

basic question is not whether global warming is outside what is "natural" over the history of the planet. It is very

likely not, for one thing. Nature is for all practical purposes all powerful, and the surface of the planet may even

have been unfriendly to humans at times. Assuming that does not make other questions moot.

I have in mind three

kinds of questions, having to do with taking responsibility for our role in nature:

1. One question is, "does

human activity cause warming, within whatever larger cycles that might be occuring?"

2. And if so, "what are

the risks to humans associated with any absolute human effect on warming, given where we are now?"

3. Further

questions would shift to the realm of public policy, such as the action-value of such risks.

If there

turn out to be theoretically solid risks to life connected with our behavior, it is of secondary importance

whether or not, say, nature might be about to do something else that renders all that moot, such as impose an ice

age, unless we would have extremely compelling evidence about what the earth is planning to do in the imaginable

future and why. I make no claim to know about those plans. If we can find this out, let's find it out. But we might

indeed be powerless to change those kinds of scenarios.

Given the huge uncertainties about everything in the

solar system and everything planetary that might affect climate, we need to make some simple assumptions based on

where we are now, to evaluate whether risks based on such simple assumptions are significant in absolute terms.

What our actions should be would be partially determined by those risks, given what we know at this time.

Of

course, we should still learn about those possible scenarios, and act prudently to preserve ourselves if

appropriate; if something emerges as a likely event.

Our main responsibility is to learn about the "micro" level

effects of our own actions, within the larger, "macro" cycles and forces of the history of the solar system. Just

because an effect is "micro" doesn't make it practically insignificant at a certain time in

history.

Incidentally, my tendency, or choice, is to trust Mother Earth's ability to support and nuture life for

now, and yet accept that nothing in the universe is permanent. So far, the earth "knows" more about how to sustain

life than humans do. Gaia is my boss, and the working assumption is that I shouldn't do anything to usurp her

decisions about how to nurture me. If I'm responsible for my own actions I can accept the rest.

[belgareth]

Doc,

Please excuse the use

of the word you. It wasn't intended so much as you as a generic grouping of the people who want to take action on

what is so far a flimsy correlation. I should have waited until I had more time to write my thoughts out better.



Interesting you should mention Gaia as that comes closer to what I believe than anything else discussed here.

[belgareth]

In your second post you list

three questions, two I have asked repeatedly without an answer or them even being responded too, the third I believe

is implied as well. I'm not saying the climate isn't changing but I am saying we simply do not know why yet. My

stand on the risks of our failure to seek long term evidence to ascertain the true extent of man's effect on the

environment is well founded. We screw things up when we don't make sure we have all our ducks in a row. The risks

inherent in tampering with the environment are emmense and our record is lousy.

In reply to your question about

initial studies, I've already answered that. At the very least we need to ascertain what can realistically be

expected of global climate change within the normal cycles of nature. We have a sixty million year window we can

look at. Once that is done, we need to determine any correlations between various gases, solar fluctuations,

magnetic pole shifts, global temperatures, volcanic activity, plant life cycles including growth patterns and die

offs etc. It's a long list but can and should be done.

Once that is done, we need to determine all the factors

involved in man made changes. It is very likely that greenhouse gases are one of the culprits if we are impacting

the climate. However, other issues are not being taken into account. One I keep mentioning is melt associated with

soot. Again, I don't claim it is the sole cause, is a major contributor, or is significant because I simply don't

know. However, the issue of reflected and absorbed energy indicate that it could very well be contributing to snow

and glacial melting. Over the past few days a volcano has been erupting in Alaska. Which way is the ash drifting? Is

it having some effect on snow pack? What a wonderful opportunity to further our knowledge of one potential facet of

the questions we need to ask.

To date, we know there have been tremendous cyclic changes in the environment but

we have only scratched the surface as to why those changes took place. That knowledge will help us to determine our

place in the changes. To simply say that the globe is warming is much like saying the car won't start. To say we

are the cause of it without understanding the true nature and pattern of those changes is much like checkiing the

air in the tires when the car won't start.

There are a lot of people out there saying that we have to do away

with the infernal combustion engine and accept lower living standards to protect our planet. Others are

pushing nuclear solutions to our power needs. Still others want to force protocools on the entire world without

proof that they are relevent and at huge expense to the entire human race. Each of those proffered solutions has

inherent risks and drawbacks. Many of them are simply not workable. Others do not fully address all the associated

issues or even come close.

[DrSmellThis]

CO2 levels

have been higher then dropped to lower the average levels of their own accord, why? Temperatures have been higher

then dropped to much colder, why?

Jeez. I can't believe I missed this one. I'm slipping.

I'm not sure

what time periods you are referring to, but think about the definition of correlation. Then read carefully what you

just asked.

[belgareth]

That's my point, is there a

correlation? In either case, what caused the change in the CO2 levels in the first place?

[DrSmellThis]

Wouldn't CO2 levels have

dropped from their maximum with the decline of hard industry, State emission (e.g., DEQ) standards, improved public

transit, and zero population growth in the U.S., all human factors?

And as you say, if temperatures dropped over

that same period, would those data points not suggest correlation? In order to establish the most accurate

correlation, you need greatest frequency of measurement of these, that is, many more data points. It doesn't seem

that hard to measure. I don't get it. Shouldn't we know what the correlation is?

[belgareth]

If you'll go back and look at

what I wrote, I was referring to historical records in order to determine if we are having some effect on the

climate. The periods I refer to were long before the advent of factories and in most cases before the taming of

fire. I did not say that they happened over the same period. I asked if they did.

[DrSmellThis]

So what is the correlation

between CO2 and T since people were first able to affect CO2? Shouldn't this be the first number that everybody

talks about?

[belgareth]

I think it is one of the

numbers and a lot of people are talking about it already. However, if historical CO2 levels and temperature do not

coincide it might make the possible current correlation no more than a coincidence. Further, whether or not they do

coincide historically, we need to determine what CO2 levels were in the past relative to today's levels; were they

higher or lower and so on. We also need to determine why CO2 levels were where they were, especially if they were

higher.

There's an article I posted about growing plants producing large quantities of methane. It brings to

mind more questions about natural occurance of greenhouse gases. If plants produce so much methane, along with

animals and volcanic activity, how does plant coverage coincide with temperature fluctuations?

[DrSmellThis]

Here I'm not talking about

the relation between CO2 and T over the aeons, when natural cycles, balances, equilibreii, and dynamics were doing

their thing; when no increase in CO2 happened in isolation from the larger earth processes that could have caused

both T and CO2 changes; and when our measurements are necessarily very flawed. I mean if you have access to this

information, fine. It would be nice to know how big an effect CO2 has had on planetary temperature in general, all

other things being equal.

That is different than the effect of human produced greenhouse gases, though, during

current and recent history. It must be considered its own effect, for the reasons I mentioned. I'm giving the

planet some credit here, and allowing for natural equilibreum.

A metaphor would be looking at the effect of body

temperature to fight influenza. The effect of increased temperature caused by a strong, whole body immune response

would be different from that caused by artificially dipping somebody -- whose whole immune system hadn't responded

in multifarious ways -- in hot water.

If you're going to isolate humans' effect, isolate it.

But that

relation over the time when people could have unilaterally spiked CO2 by their isolated actions. What is it? Let's

look at it year by year. If you have that many data points, not just general linear trends; along with some

measurements just before as an immediate baseline, that should be more than enough to establish a meaningful

correlation, beyond all meaningful statistical possibilities of chance. I mean, once you're that sure, you don't

have to beat the dead horse, do you?

All you need is a lot of data points, regardless of how many years you

use. That way the length of time is mathematically irrelevant. The strength of correlation determines how many

points you need.

You could even look at daily numbers over the course of a year, factoring out average seasonal

variation. This stuff must be at our fingertips somewhere.

For that matter lets look at all the greenhouse gases

combined, then lets look at the overall human industrial effect; or the correlation with industrial activity in

general. What are those numbers?

[belgareth]

The problem with your

comparison is you have some inkling of how the human body should be behaving so you know that your fever is a

problem. With the global warming you do not have that knowledge thus the comparison is invalid.

The period just

prior to the baseline is not sufficient to establish a pattern. You are working from a snapshot. I could easily use

your example of the human body and state that the body was suffering from hypothermia at the time of the initial

measurement and you have no evidence to state otherwise. Since you have not established a normal pattern for that

body you have no way of knowing what is abnormal. There is solid evidence that the globe was much warmer in history,

did it have a fever or is it just coming out of hypothermia now? We don't know. The number of data points is only

somewhat relevent as it gives you a clearer picture to establish a small portion of your trend lines.

Looking at

the correlation is fine but until you establish that there is a direct, repeated relational aspect you are only

looking at what could be coincidence. There's also the possibility that other factors coincide with man's

industrialization. I'll point to the study regarding methane and plants again. It states that methane is produced

in greater quantities as the temperature increases. That sounds like a feedback mechanism contributing to warming.

How do we know that cycle had not already begun when we began to industrialize? Are there other, similar occurances

that we have not discovered?

[DrSmellThis]

The problem

with your comparison is you have some inkling of how the human body should be behaving so you know that your fever

is a problem. With the global warming you do not have that knowledge thus the comparison is invalid.

The period

just prior to the baseline is not sufficient to establish a pattern. You are working from a snapshot. I could easily

use your example of the human body and state that the body was suffering from hypothermia at the time of the initial

measurement and you have no evidence to state otherwise. Since you have not established a normal pattern for that

body you have no way of knowing what is abnormal. There is solid evidence that the globe was much warmer in history,

did it have a fever or is it just coming out of hypothermia now? We don't know. The number of data points is only

somewhat relevent as it gives you a clearer picture to establish a small portion of your trend lines.

Looking at

the correlation is fine but until you establish that there is a direct, repeated relational aspect you are only

looking at what could be coincidence.

I do not accept your terse dismissal of my comparison as "invalid",

since you apparently missed the point of it, which was comparing isolated with holistic or systemic change. It was a

good, illustrative comparison if you understood it, by any standards. Please try not to use extreme, derogatory

terms like "invalid", when you really meant to say that there is at least one relevant difference between the

metaphor and the reality -- no shock in any metaphoric comparison. That I'd be fine with, and that was the content

of your point. But I'm tired of attacks.

Within the metaphor, you can't just claim the guy had hypothermia. You

would have no evidence to expect that, except by random, astronomical chance. The odds of hypothermia being the

explanation in that case are exceedingly remote. All you can say is that there is opportunity for random error. But

most methods account for that error. You'd test 15 or 20 guys with fevers, and there would be no way they could

systemastically have hypothermia, unless you had a compelling reason to argue they did. This is a run of the mill

issue in every research design.

Your thinking about data points being of minor relevance and trend lines being

the point seems to reflect a misunderstanding of correlation and statistics. Trust me -- the reliability of a

correlation is directly related to the number of data points, as well as the size of the resultant correlation.

That's how you measure the reliability, in fact.

With the baseline, the same principle holds. You just need a

certain number of points to establish the baseline. the best time frame mathematically is something similar in

order to the other time frame you used; and you actually want to work with near history, in the same part of

history, when similar larger conditions existed. That is the best you can do for your primary comparison.

What

happened before is not the main point, since we are concerned with what is happening now, within whatever

aeonic cycle we are in. You can still see the "local effects" and correlations within that cycle. If you have

larger, slower cycles, you can still detect a spike within that, can you not?

Then we would be concerned with the

possible effects of whatever is happening on our lives. This fits in with the three questions I outlined.

At the

end of your post you are claiming that correlations lack reliability and could be random chance, when the whole

process of deriving a correlation in such a study involves accounting for these. A "direct repeated relational

aspect" is the very definition of a correlation, not something lacking in a correlation.

[belgareth]

I do not

accept your terse dimissal of my comparison as "invalid", since you missed the point of it, which was just comparing

isolated with holistic or systemic change. It was a good, illustrative comparison, dude. Think again. Please try not

to use extreme, derogatory terms like "invalid", when you really meant to say that there is at least one relevant

difference between the metaphor and the reality -- no shock in any metaphoric comparison, is it? I'm tired of your

attacks.

It wasn't an attack. If you choose to take it that way its up to you but don't hold me

responsible for how you decided to take a statement. It was neither derogatory nor extreme except in your

perception.

No, you can't just claim the guy had hypothermia. You would have no evidence to

expect that, except by random, astronomical chance. The odds of hypothermia being the explanation are exceedingly

remote. All you can say is that there is opportunity for random error. But most methods account for that error.

You'd test 15 or 20 guys with fevers, and there would be no way they could systemastically have hypothermia, unless

you had a compelling reason to argue they did. This is a run of the mill issue in every research

design.

No more than you can claim that it is a normal situation since you do not have a group of test

subjects to work with. Without those test subject to work with you are working in a knowledge vacuum. You do not

know if at the time of your intitial measurement the subject was in what could be called a normal state or if some

other condition existed. I am attempting to eliminate all potential errors and coincidental data so we can get to

the real core of the matter. The inescapable fact is that the globe has been both cooler and warmer than it is now

and we don't know why. Did it have a fever or hypothermia and what was the source of

that?

Your thinking about data points being of minor relevance and trend lines being the point

seems to reflect a misunderstanding of correlation and statistics. Trust me -- the reliability of a correlation is

related to the number of data points,as well as the size of the resultant correlation.

It was not a

dismissal. It was an acknowledgement of data points within its timeframe. However, as I keep pointing out, you do

not have a base to work from other than a snapshot condition that we are not sure of it's relevence or of other

mitigating influences.

With the baseline, the same principle holds. You just need a certain

number of points to establish the baseline. the best time frame mathematically is something similar in order to the

other time frame you used; and you actually want to work with near history, when similar larger conditions existed.

Near history is a relevent thing. We are talking about something bigger than a single lifetime with

changes encompassing ages. A baseline only encompassing a period of a thousand years is not adaquit for the frame of

reference as it does not encompass known historical changes. We need to understand the relevence of those changes to

understand if and how we may be affecting them.

What happened before is not the main point,

since we are concerned with what is happening now, within whatever aeonic cycle we are in. Then we would be

concerned with the possible effects of whatever is happening on our lives. This fits in with the three questions I

outlined.

Here's the main point of contention. From my perspective, until you understand the machine you

cannot understand the relevence of current changes. I'd prefer a longer study period than the sixty million years I

keep mentioning. However, there was a cataclysmic event not too long before that which probablly skewed the data.



Let me ask again though, from your perspective, what is the harm in gathering the data and determnining if there

is relational information that will better our understanding of the rather short time frame we live within? Other

than possibly showing that global climate change has other potential causes, what harm would assuring we have the

correct information and baseline do?

Again, I'm not dismissing anything. I am arguing against dismissing

historical data that you appear to want to exclude for reasons of your own.

[DrSmellThis]

I will hold you responsible

for attacks if they involve me, and will need to find a way that works, hopefully, for both of us. It would be

better if you just didn't do it. I am asking you to please work on this. You are a good guy, but are too often

unnecessarily, and too harshly, critical of others on this forum, IMHO. AKA has been very patient here, for example,

as have others, like netghost. You really ripped netghost, and he was trying to be nice. I have had to work on that

myself, and don't judge you. I'm not asking you to eat crow without being willing to eat some from time to time

myself. I am also more sensitive to this than average, and that is my issue. But I'm not imagining it.

I just

told you I'd have 15 or 20 guys and you're telling me I don't have a group of subjects? Whatever. It's my

metaphor and hypothetical example.

I accept your question about the possibility of coming out of an ice age or

whatever as significant to consider in some ways, but not really crucial for the time frame where humans could have

affected the climate. It's a separate issue. The gradual change from the most recent ice age could not mask sudden

effects of industrialization within that cycle.

Why does it matter if the globe has been warmer and cooler in

ancient history for detecting an effect that either happened over the last 150 years or did not? There is no reason

to require a baseline that extends into ancient history, you just need to compare the time period just before with

the time now to get the effect of primary interest. I'm not saying the rest is completely irrelevant.

In fact,

you don't even need a baseline, statistically speaking. You can establish a correlation based on degrees, not

absolute presence and abscence of something. Multiple baselines are a nice luxury. A baseline might tell you about

the effect of naturallly produced CO2, for example. But if there is a strong relation between levels of human

produced greenhouse gases and T, from day to day and year to year, there just is.

A baseline helps you with

determining the signicance of a climate change in planetary history. But we are more interested in significance of

the human effect, on the planet's supporting of human life and quality of life. That is the crucial information we

need right now, regardless of who is right or wrong.

Why do we need to know "all known historic changes"? Isn't

that just irrelevant for the question of primary interest? Again, I'm not saying ancient history is irrelevant. It

is relevant for determining the absolute level of any global warming you observe, on planetary scale. It's

historically interesting. It's also good for understanding what humans have done to adapt to different climate

conditions in history. But we can determine the practical effects and practical significance of warming on us now

without all of that.

There is no harm in gathering the data. It's good. I don't know why you are asking, since

we agreed before. I don't doubt that there might be other causes of climate change other than humans. But you

should be able to get some crucial information on specific human effects, already, from the standpoint of good

scientific practice.

Again, you should be able to demonstrate some human effects on global temperatures, and

estimate the near term risks of certain absolute changes; without knowing all the causes of climate change. There is

no scientific reason why you can't, and it is often the case in science that you know some causes and not others.

That doesn't mean the science failed.

[belgareth]

I will hold

you responsible for attacks if they involve me, and will need to find a way that works, hopefully, for both of us.

It would be better if you just didn't do it. I am asking you to please work on this. You are a good guy, but are

too often unnecesarily, and too harshly, critical of others on this forum. AKA has been very patient here, for

example, as have others, like netghost. You really ripped netghost, and he was trying to be nice. I hate to break it

to you, but it's not just me. I have had to work on that myself, and don't judge you. I'm not asking you to eat

crow without being willing to eat some from time to time myself. I am also more sensitive to this than average, and

that is my issue. But I'm not imagining it. It is unreasonable to expect others to allow that forever, or to expect

to just tell people it's their issue. It's off putting to put it on others, given that you talk about how

absolutely responsibile you are.

It's no more an attack on you than the above is an attack on me. I

made a statement that you decided was an attack. No more and no less. What you decided to do with that statement was

entirely up to you.

If you refer to what I said to Netghost, he made a clearly inaccurate statement. I said so.

Then I went on to explain why it was inaccurate.

AKA has been great and I've said so several times. He really

does a good job with his homework and has been the best discussion in this thread. I didn't bother to go back and

debate each point with him, his information was great the applications sometimes weren't. But that was of no

matter.

You may be using more words than me but you are still doing the same thing as you attribute to me. I'm

not sure what your reason is and am not going to find out because it doesn't matter. I WAS NOT ATTACKING YOU, ONLY

MAKING A STATEMENT SIMILAR TO THOSE YOU MAKE YOURSELF. I have no control over your decision to interpret it that

way.

I just told you I'd have 15 or 20 guys and you're telling me I don't have a group of

subjects? Whatever. It's my metaphor and hypothetical example.

Please go back and read it again. I said

that in the case of the earth's climate you don't have the group of test subjects. You don't have controls. You

are starting from a point and assuming it is a valid baseline point.

I accept your question

about the possibility of coming out of an ice age or whatever as significant to consider in some ways, but not

really crucial for the time frame where humans could have affected the climate. It's a separate issue. The gradual

change from the most recent ice age could not mask sudden effects of industrialization within that cycle.

Why

does it matter if the globe has been warmer and cooler in ancient history for detecting an effect that either

happened over the last 150 years or did not? There is no reason to require a baseline that extends into ancient

history, you just need to compare the time period just before with the time now to get the effect of primary

interest. I'm not saying the rest is completely irrelevant.

In fact, you don't even need a baseline,

statistically speaking. You can establish a correlation based on degrees, not absolute presence and abscence of

something. Multiple baselines are a nice luxury. A baseline might tell you about the effect of naturallly produced

CO2, for example. But if there is a strong relation between levels of human produced greenhouse gases and T, from

day to day and year to year, there just is.

A baseline helps you with determining the signicance of a climate

change in planetary history. But we are more interested in significance of the human effect, on the planet's

supporting of human life and quality of life. That is the crucial information we need right now, regardless of who

is right or wrong.

Why do we need to know "all known historic changes"? Isn't that just irrelevant for the

question of primary interest? Again, I'm not saying ancient history is irrelevant. It is relevant for determining

the absolute level of any global warming you observe, on planetary scale. It's historically interesting. It's also

good for understanding what humans have done to adapt to different climate conditions in history. But we can

determine the practical effects and practical significance of warming on us now without it.

There is no harm in

gathering the data. It's good. I don't know why you are asking, since we agreed before. I don't doubt that there

might be other causes of climate change other than humans. But you should be able to get crucial information on

specific human effects, already, from the standpoint of good scientific practice.

Again, you should be able to

demonstrate human effects on global temperatures, and estimate the risks of certain absolute changes; without

knowing all the causes of climate change. There is no scientific reason why you can't, and it is often the case in

science that you know some causes and not others. That doesn't mean the science failed.

I'm repeating

myself again but you can only demonstrate casual relationships through that methodology. You cannot demonstrate that

it would not have occured without human intervention. Nor can you demonstrate that past climate change was gradual.

We assume it was but how do we know?

Perhaps, and I offer this as an olive branch, our training is significantly

different. The relationships that you appear to consider to be proof of human intervention would in the physical

sciences be considered a starting point to a research project. I say that from my own studies in the sciences as

well as that of those I am around on a regular basis. In other words, it may be no more than a matter of different

traiings that we are disagreeing on the importance and the relevence of the data.

[Icehawk]

You cannot

demonstrate that it would not have occured without human intervention. Nor can you demonstrate that past climate

change was gradual. We assume it was but how do we know?

There in lies Belg's sticking point. Forget

the baselines, points, asteroids, medival warm periods. Just a clear corelation between temperature change due to

industrialization.

[belgareth]

There in lies

Belg's sticking point. Forget the baselines, points, asteroids, medival warm periods. Just a clear corelation

between temperature change due to industrialization.

That's more or less correct. You can

demonstrate all day long that man COULD be the cause of global climate change. But nobody has demonstrated that man

is because nobody has demonstrated that any change outside the natural order is taking place. Without the data

showing other times and conditions you cannot really demonstrate that there is a change at all, much less a man

created/caused change. The current climate fluctuations could easily be well within normal variations of the

environment. Until you demonstrate it isn't you have no case whatsoever to claim there is any such thing as global

warming or any relationship to man.

As I said before, I am not trying to prove or disprove anything. I want the

data to determine what is really happening so I can judge for myself and so others can do the same. It isn't an

unreasonable expectation. Expecting anybody to accept global warming claims based on the above posted arguments

is.

[tim929]

We have had minor ice ages in

recorded history more than once.Europe had issues with the a couple hundred years ago.Climate change is a fact of

life on this planet.When mount Pinatubo erupted in the Philipines,climatologists said that it did more damage to the

earths ozone layer in one day than industrialized man had done in history.They also said that this damage would

easily repair itself within a year or two.How is it that the ozone wont repair the little bit of damage we did but

it will repair a whole lot of damage done all at once by nature?

I work with ozone generators...the O3 molecule

has a very short life span at room temperature and even shorter when you apply heat.Its also very reactive,and as a

result tends to break down when its exposed to almost anything.Was it flurocarbons that desolved the ozone?Or was it

any number of thousands of other various things that find thier way to high altitude...man made and otherwise.To say

flurocarbons break down ozone is correct...so does mold,mildew,bacon fat...no joke...ozone reacts to anything

organic and breaks down.It also reacts with many metals...so what was the cause of ozone depletion?

I think its

kinda cute to hear about global warming now that Im almost forty.When I was a youngster in grade school,they had us

all wringing our hands and worrying about something totaly different.Durring the early 1970's,scentists had

concluded that as a result of polution,the earth was headed for a man made ice age and that by the year 2000 the

city of seattle would be under a perpetual blanket of ice and snow.Here it is 2006 and we are still complaining

about too much damn rain.All that time spent worrying and fretting about my bleak and dismal future as a snow man

and wondering if I could talk my mom and dad into moving to Pheonix...I could have been spending my time doing the

things that all the kids who slept through the films were doing instead...But noooo...I had to be paying attention

and actualy caring about becoming an ice creature...I missed out on alot of soccer and base ball and swimming and

bike riding because scientists who knew what they were talking about had told me I was gonna turn into a

Timmy-cicle...My older siblings had it worse...they were all spooked about the Ruskies and the bomb.They spent thier

childhoods diving underneath things every time a car backfired.Never mind forth of July...

The fact is that what

climatologists know about climate change is about as much as your family dog knows about building rockets and flying

to Mars.They have made alot of assertions in the past that have fallen appart and now they are making wild

assertions about something else.In order to generate funding from federal agencies and congress,they have to creat a

crisis,study the crisis,publicize the crisis and then offer a solution to the crisis.Once all that is done,the

funding drys up.What now? No jobs,mortgages dont get paid,cars get reposesed...etc,etc...So,what about creating

another crisis? Yeah! That will work! Then we can go to congress and ask for money to study the crisis and

maybe...if we are lucky...we will all be retired and be able to pass the torch on to the next generation of

scientists who will come up with the solution to this new crisis.Then they can go through the whole process of

creating another one and getting funding and so on and so on and so on and...

It realy is sort of stupid if you

sit down and look at the history of it all.Environmentalists have a very valid and valuable purpose,and that purpose

shouldnt need a crisis to make it all make sense.But...in a generation of sound bites and TV dinners,unless it poses

a threat,nobody cares.Unfortunatly,once you get people on board with the crisis approach,it becomes a religious

crusade to save humanity from the evils of ______________insert crisis here.

How do you think all the

astronomical observatories generate funding now? By looking for the dreaded "killer asteroid!" They are afraid that

if we dont spot one on its way to earth,that someone might get an eye put out or something.They have created thier

crisis and now the federal dollars are flowing like a pink champagne fountain."WOOO HOOO!!" they all cried,and

bought new homes and new cars(SUV's I might add) and bought new Carl Sagan lunch boxes and slide rulers...The party

is on for the astronomers these days.They are even featured as the heros in movies about big rocks in space.The

climatologists need to be paying attention so they can figure out how to become hollywood heros too.Otherwise they

run the risk of being marked as boring and loosing all thier funding.

Have I rambled on enough yet?I better

shut up befor I make any enemies.I dont wanna run the risk of ticking off an astronomer and not get told that Im

gonna get hit in the head by a rock from space...

[belgareth]

Ok, now that I've cleaned up

the mess from spitting my water all over the desk while readin your post I'll say thank you for that breath of

fresh air. Jeese! And I thought I was cynical. The unfortunate part is that I really can't disagree with

anything you've said.

The one thing I'd add is that despite my deep seated scepticism of the whole global

warming scenerio and those who promote it, the climate is still an important issue. It only makes good sense to

study the climate and learn as much as we can about it and any possible effects we have on it. Once people get off

the panic wagon and take a real look at the associated issues we stand a good chance of gaining true understanding

of the world around us. But until that happens, until people take off their blinders and stop making excuses for

lousy science, we'll keep going in circles and playing this panic the public for money game.

[tim929]

Synical? Maybe...stark raving

sane is more like it though.The sad reality is that panic politics has become the main stream way of doing

business.There are plenty of reasons to study climate and funding shouldnt depend uppon creating a doomsday scenario

to present to the public in order to explore things that we should be exploring as a matter of practice anyway.It

results in funding that gets misdirected from legitimate goals of science toward projects designed to increase fear

for the purpose of manipulating the public.

An example of panic politics is the idea that only republicans are

qualified to deal with matters of national defense.If we leave it to the democrats there will be firefights in the

streets and Taliban tanks rolling through Washington DC. And only democrats are qualified to handle scocial

issues...if we leave that to the republicans there will be thousands of starving children lining the streets and the

elderly will be rendered down for dog food.

Americans have been trained over the years to respond only to the

most severe and shocking examples of anything in order to get our attention.Shock radio,shock television,shock news

casting....evrything has to create shock in order to get noticed.Look at all the various dramas surrounding

hollywood celebrities like Brad whats his-name and Angelina something-or-another.That Paris girl or Pamela

whats-her-name.Evrything about them has to shock people befor anybody even cares.At some point,mark my words...there

will be hollywood representatives in every home with cattle prods,making sure that when something happens that your

supposed to care about,you "moo" at all the appropriate moments or you will get a fifty thousand volt blast to wake

you up!

Give it time,the American public cant get much more numb than they are now and it will take those sorts

of extremes to motivate people to care enough to even eat.After we get done with a sixty or seventy hour work

week,pay bills with money we dont have,spend some quality time with the young people who might remember us as being

thier parents,and watch a couple hours of mind numbing flashing lights on a screen,it will take a cattle prod to get

anyone to care that there are tank battles and firefights going on in the streets,or starving children lining the

streets...by the way...where are my grandparents?

[belgareth]

Well said, Tim. Unfortunately,

I expect this is the last I'll hear of you unless the newspapers publish your burning at the stake for heresy.

Maybe you'll be live at eleven?

[tim929]

o0o0o0o0o...burned at the

stake...film at eleven...I like the sound of that.The news casters will like it too...its sure to get a rise out of

a weary and apathetic viewing audience.

I am realy on the fence with global warming.Kind of like Im on the fence

about global terrorism,SARS,avian flu and all the other doom and gloom that gets published in the interest of

getting attention.In the old days,if a half a dozen people died of a strange ailment that couldnt be identified it

was carefuly placed in a file marked "who gives a sh*$." Now its headline news and the CDC sends a C-130 and a

special reaction team out to find out the cause.And of course there are the ascociated press conferences and

telephone conversations with the Whitehouse regarding the latest in a long and growing number of "epidemics."

Special commities are assigned the task of sorting out who is going to handle it and where the money should be sent

(usualy to a Swiss bank account.)Doctors are briefed on the signs and symptoms of a desease that will probably never

amount to more than a flash in the pan.And it will amount to that much only because the news people got ahold of it

and ran the story.

Sorta like the newsy punk that overheard a cell phone conversation about the trapped miners

and took a statement totaly out of context and got it on the air...The next thing you know,twelve miners are being

brought out in body bags and one on a stretcher after the world had been told they were all alive.Or the time that

people stopped going to the polls to vote after they heard that the election was already won...even thought the

polls had only reported less than one percent of the returns at that point.The list goes on and on and on.

News

programs are like everything else.They are supported by advertising dollars.Those dollars go to the show with the

best ratings and to get those ratings you have to be "edgy" and "on the spot." Timing is everything.Accuracy in news

reporting means waiting to get the whole story.Its easier to make stuff up and go with it and correct it later than

it is to simply wait and get it right the first time.And when reporting on science issues,information may be years

or even decades in comming.That wont get ratings tonight so...make something up and run with it.The news media

creates more news than they report.Global warming,because of the absence of information,qualifies as one of those

issues that they just couldnt wait for so they just ran with it.And thats what the "scientists" wanted.That way they

could publish a bunch of scary stuff and get funding and grants for it.

Im sure...if you were to ply him with

enough beer...JVK could tell you horror stories about this kind of "science" where it pertains to his working

circles.Sensable people get pushed aside by folks with more exciting agendas...and to hell with the facts!

[belgareth]

Let me be clear about

something. I am not now and have not at any time said the climate is not changing. I have clearly said the global

warming scenerio is a joke and still stand by that statement. Tim makes a very good point about how science is dealt

with in the news and the public eye. Once the public has a hold on the hype, they don't let go. Politicians are no

better than anybody else and they are trying to get reelected. So if the general public says to get naked, rub blue

mud in their belly button and dance around the campfire, that's what the politicians are going to do, just so long

as the people are looking. There's nothing new about it. II can't say even half as well what Tim has already said

about the science.

The globe may be warming or we may be headed into another ice age or a long list of other

possibilities. So long as people wear blinders and believe without asking critical questions and so long as they

make excuses for poor scientific methods and refuse to even acknowledge the need for real, in depth research, we are

never going to learn what is really happening. That really and truly scares the crap out of me!

[Netghost56]

I guess I'm just too

emotionally involved (and too dumb) to argue this.

[belgareth]

I'd agree with the emotional

involvement and that's never a good idea when you are dealing with science. The dumb part isn't true. You, like

everybody else, have been subject to the daily flood of garbage and sensationalism endemic in our society. It isn't

your doing that all these agenda driven organizations do such a good job of hyping their stories to the exclusion of

reality.

My suggestions are this. One is to turn off the TV and completely ignore what the general public

believes to be facts. Instead, at every opportunity go to classes and learn the important scientific methods,

accepted practices of good science and absorb as much of the real knowledge as you possibly can. Then suppliment

that with independent research whenever you need a point clarified. Most importantly, never, ever believe what any

agenda driven person or organization tells you until you have verified it through at least two unaffiliated

sources.

When you read of something, look for phrases like "Many scientists believe". It translates to "A bunch

of others disagree but their side was stiffled because it wasn't sensational enough for the ratings".

Try to

always take every issue apart and look at its underbelly. Ask why these things would happen as described then look

for the science that supports it. Don't ever take anything at face value. Be a sceptic. The way I was raised and

the way I live my life today make it implicit that I always look at things from that perspective. Anything else

would be a failure to what I've been taught.

Learn to look at the news as if it's half fantasy because it is.

Learn to look at all organizations as if they are agenda driven because they are. Always question motives. Sceptical

cynicism may irritate others but it often reveals the truth.

[tim929]

I'd agree with the

emotional involvement and that's never a good idea when you are dealing with science. The dumb part isn't true.

You, like everybody else, have been subject to the daily flood of garbage and sensationalism endemic in our society.

It isn't your doing that all these agenda driven organizations do such a good job of hyping their stories to the

exclusion of reality.

Well said bel...the sad reality is that our world...yes,the one you see on the

news every night...is pretty boring.And because of that lack of interesting stuff going on,the news media,in the

interest of getting good ratings has to "spice things up." Ratings are critical in television.It doesnt matter if

its a Sweedish cooking show,prime time sit-coms or the news.Ratings are EVERYTHING! Those ratings are what determine

the price of advertising air time in that time slot for that program.If the news doesnt catch peoples interest the

way a sit com does,the ratings fall and the money dries up because nobody wants to pay a premium for the airtime in

a dead slot.

The result is all the news thats fit to exagerate,over dramatize and inflate beyond recognition.If

you hang around with anews crew for a while,you will quickly discover that life in the real world is frankly...kinda

boring and dull.But let the journalists get ahold of it and a simple bus ride becomes "THE RIDE OF DEATH!" A walk in

the park becomes "A JOURNEY OF LIFE AND DEATH!" A kid catches a cold at the local grade school and suddenly

"EPIDEMIC THREATENS TENS OF THOUSANDS OF LIVES!" Im not even gonna tell you what they could do if they got ahold of

your pet poodle "Fifi." "KILLER BEAST MAULS CHILDREN AND LEVELS SUBURB!"

Global warming has been treated much

the same way.There may be major climate changes happening and continuing to happen.But that nothing new or unusual

in the life of the planet.In fact...its so normal,Im not realy even sure why it bears mentioning.Its right up there

with news stories like "SCIENTISTS DISCOVER THAT RAIN IS WET! FILM AT ELEVEN!"

[a.k.a.]

I guess I'm just

too emotionally involved (and too dumb) to argue this.

Being able to argue an issue and

understanding an issue are two different things.
If you feel like your argument skills are lacking, I

think you could learn a lot from Gerry Spence’s “How to Argue and Win Every Time” :

http://www.gerryspence.com/howtoargue.html

There is IMO a minimum intelligence requirement for

understanding the issue of global warming. But I think you, and the majority of Americans, are well above this

minimum.
The problem is that intelligence is just one factor in understanding an issue. The most important

factor is information. And the more complex an issue is the more information you need in order to understand

it.

In the case of global warming there’s quite a bit of information to digest simply in order to get a

handle on the scientific theory. And this is just the start.
In the final analysis, the future of this

issue is going to be determined by politics, not science. And the politics of global warming is considerably more

controversial, if not more complex, than the science.
To have a well rounded understanding, you need to

dig into both the science and the politics.

Whether or not emotions are appropriate to this endeavor

depends on what kind of emotions we’re talking about. If we’re talking about the kinds of emotions that arise when

someone contradicts your views, then I agree that these can only hinder understanding. If we’re talking about the

kinds of emotions that arise when you really care about the environment, the future of humanity, global justice or

the advancement of science... I think these emotions are essential if you want to remain motivated and focused while

digging through all the information.
This goes double for getting a handle on the politics of global

warming. Lose your heart and you will surely lose your way.

As far as where to start... I strongly

recommend reading the “IPCC’s Third Assessment Report” http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/
This

document represents the broadest scientific consensus on a) whether global warming is real, b) whether human

activities are behind it, and c) whether there is a risk for future generations. It contains a very clear and

detailed summation of the premises, methodologies, and data behind the notion that we are putting our futures at

risk.
In itself, this single document won’t give you a complete understanding of the science behind global

warming, but it will give you a perfect picture of what IS NOT the science of global warming. When environmentalists

say something like, “Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming.”, you’ll know for yourself if that’s what the

theory is about. When skeptics say something like, “The notion of global warming ignores the role of cyclical

climate changes.”, you’ll be able to judge for yourself wether it does or doesn’t.
In other words, this

document will serve as a reliable gauge to sort out genuine criticisms (or applications) of the science from all the

common misrepresentations that accompany such a polticized issue. It’ll help you drawn the line that says, “This is

where I have to learn more about the scince, and this is where I have to get a firmer grip on the politics.”



In any case. Don’t feel bad if you feel out of place in the discussions coming out of this thread. This forum isn’t

going to change anything. At it’s best, it’s nothing more than an intellectual exercise. Mostly it’s just some

middle aged men venting our frustrations.

[tim929]

In any case. Don’t feel

bad if you feel out of place in the discussions coming out of this thread. This forum isn’t going to change

anything. At it’s best, it’s nothing more than an intellectual exercise. Mostly it’s just some middle aged men

venting our frustrations.

AMEN!
As a nearly middle aged man,I feel strongly compelled to agree

with you on that one.But on the flip side,there is another aspect of that that you may be missing.If I tell two

friends,and they tell two friends and they tell two friends and so on and so on,suddenly there is a ground swell of

people who become interested or concerned with the issue at hand.Hence,my earlier post in another thread regarding

minimum wage and its effects on the economic health of our country.Or this thread on the effects of global warming

and its potential impact on our future.

There is realy nothing wrong with venting or speaking your mind.It can

be a very healthy practice and in the end,if its carried to any kind of conclusion by people who care,it can in fact

begin to change the world.forums like this,up until recently have been composed of small groups of people who vent

and are heard by only a few others.But sometimes information found in a forum like this one finds its way into the

main stream.Rare? You bet it is.But it does happen.

My sincere hope is that over time,forums like this one will

become jumping off points for discussions that will spread to larger and more viewed places to eventualy be

discussed openly among the masses and begin to effect change in the way we think and act and percieve our world and

our scociety.It might not happen in my life time,but these types of forums can have an impact if people start to

care enough and get active and maintain an open mind and heart toward others.

I have mentioned in other posts

about the forums in ancient Rome.These places were where scocial issues and political issues realy took hold and

spread from one province to another and eventualy to Rome itself.In those forums,people were able to bring thier

concernes and problems and work together to find answers to problems that existed and it gave people opportunity to

share different viewpoints on the same subject.A big part of critical thinking is to adhere to nothing with such

zeal that an opposing viewpoint is irrelevant.Instead,approach everything with an open mind and understand that none

of us has all the answers and by sharing different perspectives it becomes possible to expand our understanding of

the world around us.

The advantage we have is that people from all over the world have the ability to post in an

internet forum and express thier differing views with us and we have an opportunity to see life through thier eyes

for a brief moment and expand our limited understanding.That cant be a bad thing.

Its sad that a tool of such

amazing power like the internet would be used less as a tool for changing the world and more for a tool of

dispalying pornography and selling used crap on EBAY from our garages

[DrSmellThis]

I would just like to see some

solid, logical, scientific reasoning here. I might not know the facts, and will gladly defer to others there; but I

know how to think like a good, professional research scientist in basic ways.

If there is a correlation,

C, between CO2 and T during the last 200 years, there just is. There is only one set of facts for that comparison --

the temperatures and the levels. There are no further kinds of studies possible for this specific question, in as

much as the first one was done right with accurate data and correct methodology (and I'm not saying it was.

Again, I am of course open to any arguments about the specific temperatures and emmission employed over the time

period, and any other methodological questions about the initial study). C is the basic number of interest for the

question of whether there is human caused warming; becauses it expresses the likely relationship between human

industrial activity and temperature, according to the theory you are testing, the greenhouse theory. Period. All

roads go through C.

Given C, you can conclude that, right now, over the measured time period, there is a

significant, reliable, sysematic, NON-CHANCE relationship between a prominent greenhouse gas and global

temperatures.

Again, if a strong C exists, and I am not saying it does, since I didn't see the

study, end of preliminary discussion. If both numbers move together every day, and both numbers go up and down

together often enough, day to day or year to year, you RULE OUT RANDOM CHANCE as a cause of the correlation.



No sane, good scientist can dispute this. Period. You cannot point to other periods in history,

and argue the correlation is due to chance! (unless you were just dealing with a few data points or

something having to do with a totally amateurish initial study) Hopefully, no one here would even think of

making this decidedly unscientific, illogocal argument (even though I saw a website that did). What you can do here,

I'll mention in a second. That doesn't answer all the questions, of course.

What questions remain, according

to scientific logic? In short, for this most basic issue, the follow up question must be, "What is the cause of the

correlation?" Specifically,

a) Does T cause CO2? (can't this be ruled out?)
b) Does CO2 cause T? (solid theory

backs this possibility up)
c) Or does a third cause cause them both?
d) It is also possible for a mixture

of a, b, and c to be true. But you'd have to have a solid theoretical basis to argue for that, as for the

others.

There are no other logical possibilities so far.

OK. Given C, the only way other historical

periods can be relevant for this question, so far, is if something about the time period we are in causes T and

CO2 to correlate. That is (c), the "third cause argument". You're arguing history is a confound, in other

words. Since I think like a scientist, I'm happy to entertain this possibility, in any way whatsoever. I'm all

ears.

(b) represents perhaps the most likely scenario. If (b); if CO2 causes T, resulting in observed correlation

C, the remaining questions here are:

1) Why does CO2 change T? (looks like the theory is strong here), and...
2)

What causes CO2 to change? (Is it humans, volcanic activity, levels of other gases, what?)

I'm happy to learn

more, and open to anything within this logical structure of basic scientific thinking. I could care less whether

the greenhouse theory is right or wrong. Honest!

But I am not open to unscientific arguments. The logic of

science does not change in different branches of science. If somebody thinks I'm missing something, please let me

know. But please do so firmly within this line of typical, basic scientific thinking. Otherwise, it's just

perpetuating confusion, in my book.

[belgareth]

That link to the IPCC is great

and exemplifies my point. It also reminds me of a discussion I had with a minister a while back. The IPCC's

methodology is right because the IPCC says other methodologies are wrong. It doesn't really work that way.

My

advice is still the same to Netghost. Please read and absorb every word on the IPCC's site. Then go out and talk to

other scientists who have differing opinions and spend some time researching it for yourself. If you can spend the

time, take physics, meteorology, cosmology, archeology and ecology classes. They are well worth your time. Also,

spend some time learning true scientific methodology and it's applications. Without those classes or at least a

portion of them, you are not really qualified to judge the various claims. However, I do believe you are capable of

learning what you need to know to make honest and unbiased judgments for yourself and that's all I really want. The

IPCC is not unbiased, neither is the petrolium consortium or any government I know of.

I don't ask you to

accept a word I say. All I ask you to do is keep an open mind and learn from every source possible. I can assure you

the IPCC is not the only or the last word on the subject. But you are far better off learning it for yourself. I've

followed my own advice, along with having several very bright physical scientists to call on for information.



One last thing: Why would any organization be so bent on excluding all other viewpoints as the IPCC is?