Global Warming

[cheeno]

Personally, I think the evidence that everyone agrees on is amazing enough. The human race has changed the chemical composition of the entire atmosphere of the planet enough to measure it! That is astounding. Astounding!!

You can measure the amount of cow farts in the atmosphere too. Astounding!!

 

[redandguilty]

You can measure the amount of cow farts in the atmosphere too. Astounding!!

It is actually. The global beef industry is also amazing.

 

[Michchamp]

Personally, I think the evidence that everyone agrees on is amazing enough. The human race has changed the chemical composition of the entire atmosphere of the planet enough to measure it! That is astounding. Astounding!!

it is a little silly to look at all the scientific groups and organizations that have come out on one side of the issue, and conclude they're wrong, and the "skeptics" (who've often been demonstrated to have taken $$$ from the industries and organizations that stand to lose from curbing emissions) are the unbiased ones here.

What, exactly does the American Physical Society have to gain by falsely claiming global warming exists? Well... besides less air pollution, better planned cities, and a cleaner environment... I mean, is some other industry going to hand them a check? The all-powerful Greenpeace?

 

[redandguilty]

it is a little silly to look at all the scientific groups and organizations that have come out on one side of the issue, and conclude they're wrong, and the "skeptics" (who've often been demonstrated to have taken $$$ from the industries and organizations that stand to lose from curbing emissions) are the unbiased ones here.

What, exactly does the American Physical Society have to gain by falsely claiming global warming exists? Well... besides less air pollution, better planned cities, and a cleaner environment... I mean, is some other industry going to hand them a check? The all-powerful Greenpeace?

Well, honestly, American university science does get influenced by more by outside forces than we'd like to admit. Just like everything else, it's all about chasing dollars. It's not as bad as the skeptics would have you believe, but we only get to research our proposals that get funded. Funding agencies have a lot of pull.

 

[cheeno]

Well, honestly, American university science does get influenced by more by outside forces than we'd like to admit. Just like everything else, it's all about chasing dollars. It's not as bad as the skeptics would have you believe, but we only get to research our proposals that get funded. Funding agencies have a lot of pull.

Good point and very true. Once things have academic critical mass it is hard to go in the opposite direction and expect to get your research funded or to be taken seriously in your field. I don't suggest that is the case but it is a valid argument. Are you in academia R&G?

 

[Michchamp]

Well, honestly, American university science does get influenced by more by outside forces than we'd like to admit. Just like everything else, it's all about chasing dollars. It's not as bad as the skeptics would have you believe, but we only get to research our proposals that get funded. Funding agencies have a lot of pull.

okay, but who is funding this research? Is Al Gore the one out there cutting checks? Greenpeace?

If anything, academia has every incentive to come out on behalf of the skeptics.

 

[tsmith7559]

I understand that distinction, but if you accept that the climate oscillates on its own, why post that you've watched it for 20 years and observed that it doesn't change? On one hand, you know it changes, on the other, you argue it doesn't.

sorry, the water appears to be the same elevation...... with all that glacier melt it should be under water, no?

 

[redandguilty]

Good point and very true. Once things have academic critical mass it is hard to go in the opposite direction and expect to get your research funded or to be taken seriously in your field. I don't suggest that is the case but it is a valid argument. Are you in academia R&G?

Barely/technically not anymore. I'm part of a university spin off trying to develop river energy harvesters. But last year I was with Pitt and the year before that with Duke.

I think the peer review process is really solid and it does serve as something of a check against political and corporate interests, but science costs money, so you need to get someone (usually someones have agendas) to pay for it. Mostly, it seems that science suffers bias from fads more than agendas. Micro-bio-nano-interdisciplinary-energy tech or whatever's the "it" thing of the moment gets funded.

Meanwhile pop-science writers and bloggers are the people that actually influence what people think is going on in the world of science...and noble as their efforts may be, they still leave people expecting flying cars when they shouldn't.

 

[redandguilty]

okay, but who is funding this research? Is Al Gore the one out there cutting checks? Greenpeace?

If anything, academia has every incentive to come out on behalf of the skeptics.

either companies or the government usually

 

[redandguilty]

sorry, the water appears to be the same elevation...... with all that glacier melt it should be under water, no?

well then, if you say it isn't changing, that pokes at your assertion that it changes naturally, doesn't it?

 

[Michchamp]

either companies or the government usually

okay, so while your point about how the scramble for funding influences research is valid, it is not applicable to the point I was making regarding the supposed bias that the AFS presents (or every other scientific organization that's come down on this issue). If anything, it explains why some scientists funded by oil, coal, etc. have claimed either there is no evidence that the climate is changing, or that there is no link between human activity and climate change.

 

[tsmith7559]

well then, if you say it isn't changing, that pokes at your assertion that it changes naturally, doesn't it?

why does the water have to rise if there is a climate change??

 

[Michchamp]

why does the water have to rise if there is a climate change??

in your previous post, you claimed there should be more water if the glaciers are melting... I think you are now arguing with yourself, not Red.

 

[redandguilty]

okay, so while your point about how the scramble for funding influences research is valid, it is not applicable to the point I was making regarding the supposed bias that the AFS presents (or every other scientific organization that's come down on this issue). If anything, it explains why some scientists funded by oil, coal, etc. have claimed either there is no evidence that the climate is changing, or that there is no link between human activity and climate change.

What I said certainly doesn't (and wasn't intended to) refute what you said about bias. It's just a confession that we're not isolated from society and we are susceptible to succumbing to a zeitgeist.

 

[redandguilty]

why does the water have to rise if there is a climate change??

well, if water rising doesn't say anything about climate change, then why did you bring up your 20 year observation in your thread about climate change?

 

[redandguilty]

in your previous post, you claimed there should be more water if the glaciers are melting... I think you are now arguing with yourself, not Red.

It's like a set of arguments in favor of rock, paper, and scissors.

 

[tsmith7559]

in your previous post, you claimed there should be more water if the glaciers are melting... I think you are now arguing with yourself, not Red.

maybe there is more evaporation that occurs that compensates...eh?

 

[cheeno]

Barely/technically not anymore. I'm part of a university spin off trying to develop river energy harvesters. But last year I was with Pitt and the year before that with Duke.

I think the peer review process is really solid and it does serve as something of a check against political and corporate interests, but science costs money, so you need to get someone (usually someones have agendas) to pay for it. Mostly, it seems that science suffers bias from fads more than agendas. Micro-bio-nano-interdisciplinary-energy tech or whatever's the "it" thing of the moment gets funded.

Meanwhile pop-science writers and bloggers are the people that actually influence what people think is going on in the world of science...and noble as their efforts may be, they still leave people expecting flying cars when they shouldn't.

Cool, what is your background in, engineering?

 

[redandguilty]

Cool, what is your background in, engineering?

Yup. Mech engin. Fun stuff as long as you get to keep switching fields.

 

[Thumb]

maybe there is more evaporation that occurs that compensates...eh?

More evaporation would lead to more precipitation, which would leave the water levels mostly unchanged.