Global Warming Shadiness?

[Miss Anthrope]

Just read this article at the Wall Street Journal website:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html

Now, I'm not one of those people who thinks that the belief that global warming has been caused by humans is false, I just have always been willing to admit that I don't really know. But I've sometimes found myself in arguments with people who want to shove it down your thoat as a "fact" and "proven" because "every scientist says it's so" and it always reminded me of being in an argument with a religious zealot.

I didn't post this to really make any kind of statement or get into an argument or anything, though. Just thought you guys might be interested in it.

[Whitney]

If the emails really do reflect how the whole center is operating and aren't just the work of a selective few...that is sad for the entire scientific community.

As for what is causing Global Warming....I really don't care if it was humans or not because since the same things which we think contribute to warming also contribute to environmental pollution we need to be cutting back and finding cleaner options anyway.

[Miss Anthrope]

I agree, I'm all for reducing pollution and striving for a cleaner environment regardless of global warming. And whether or not global warming is proven or not, I still would support moderate efforts to prevent it simply based on the possibility. But I think some people get too extreme about it.

[Whitney]

But I think some people get too extreme about it.

Ya...like the people who claim you hate the environment if you don't go vegan.

[Miss Anthrope]

[deleted by user]

[Recusant]

In defense of the scientists, they have said that the e-mails have been taken out of context, and that only a selection which made them sound bad was used.  Even if you take the worst possible view of this, it could be said that they are merely trying to get the world to wake up to certain realities which threaten the continued existence of life as we know it on this planet.  An overwhelming percentage of climate scientists say that the evidence points to climate change, and that there seems to be a clear correlation between the change and human production of greenhouse gases.  What reason would they have to do this, other than presenting facts that they've learned. If they are correct, then this will affect us and our children and grandchildren in ways that sound, to me at least, horrible.  I didn't bother to see "An Inconvenient Truth," because to be honest I don't need a movie to convince me that something serious is going on.  The polar ice has been melting.  That is not a lie or illusion. I believe the climate scientists when they say that if current trends continue it's going to be, as Dan Miller says, GAME OVER by around the end of this century.  That sounds extreme, and it is.  I hope that we manage to do something, but in truth, I don't see it happening, and the US has consistently dug in it's heels to avoid cooperating with the rest of the world in efforts to change.  

If you happen to hate Al Gore, or think that his film was made just to inflate his ego, perhaps you might be willing to listen to Dan Miller, an entrepreneur (former president of Ask Jeeves Inc.) and capitalist who has gotten involved in the search for clean energy, and has been investing in one version (biofuels.)  Sure, you might say that he's trying to make money by scaring us all, but the fact is, he's not flogging biofuels in his talks, and actually he says that they are not going to help the situation much, if at all.  One of the first things he says in the "What Can I Do About This?" portion is, "Apologize to your children."  He's not joking.

The talk takes a bit over an hour, but is set up on the website so that you can either watch it all the way through, or check it out chapter by chapter as you have time.

Dan Miller's talk: A REALLY Inconvenient Truth

[SSY]

What reason would they have to do this, other than presenting facts that they've learned. SNIP.  The polar ice has been melting.  That is not a lie or illusion

First bit, continued funding, no one is going to fund a climate research lab if they keep telling us that everything is hunky dory.

Second bit, they do seem to be melting, but at one point we had polar rain forests, ecosystems change over time, with or without human involvement.

/Devil's advocate.

I take the position that human activity probably does have an effect on the climate, but it is such a complicated system, it is hard to know how significant this is, and due to the fact we only have one earth, and therefor no control group for our experiment, it means any guesses as to how humans are effecting the climate are just that. In general, my sentiments echo those of Miss Anthrope.

Not saying it's true in this case, but scientists misrepresenting data upsets me.

[Sophus]

Ok, so here are my thoughts after reading confirming stories today....

What is the earliest accurate data we still have and how does it compare with accurate data we can take today? We will have lost any trends inbetween but perhaps we can tell if the climate is indeed raising. Of course not as drastically but perhaps it would still be significant? After all they couldn't have made too great of changes... wouldn't it have been glaringly obvious?

If not then the whole thing was hoax.

[Will]

I know nothing about climatology. I think it's time we allow the best minds on the subject in the world, educated people instead of pundits, teach us what they know. I'd like very much to learn instead of just being shown models and being told "that intuitive response you just came up with despite having no education or experience with this subject is probably right".

[Sophus]

Looks like Ayn Rand is speaking from the grave to voice her opinion:

http://www.pjtv.com/v/2794

[Recusant]

I found Yaron Brook's comments to be about what one would expect from a follower of Rand.  "Stop government funding of science."  Right.  That would certainly assure that the findings of science are objective.  After all, there is no doubt that megacorporations have the best interests of people in mind. Once they were in control of all funding for science, the world would be much better off.  He also seems to believe that "the left" has an agenda of thwarting prosperity because of "guilt."  Thus, the issue of climate change is actually a smokescreen.  They're merely using it as a tool to inhibit economic growth, and redistribute wealth because they hate the wealthy.  Yes, the man's insight into the hidden agenda of the left, and their conspiracy to attack the wealthy is truly inspiring.  He has obviously investigated the science behind the warnings being issued by climate scientists, and knows what he's talking about. </sarcasm>

[Big Mac]

I agree, I'm all for reducing pollution and striving for a cleaner environment regardless of global warming. And whether or not global warming is proven or not, I still would support moderate efforts to prevent it simply based on the possibility. But I think some people get too extreme about it.

Exactly, I think we as a society are conditioned for results so much that unless we will have results we wont' do something. Kind of like people who act selfishly because they don't see the consequences of their actions. We should be concerned about creating giant amounts of trash everyday or that we have millions of machines on the road spewing out burnt fossil fuel!!!

[Sophus]

Sorry to revise a no longer current event, but I have an answer on the "Climategate" conspiracy now. These skeptics were lying. The emails have been published and it's just a bunch of scientists being rude to eachother: Article on "Climategate"
On a related note, I'm rather disappointed in the Objectivists nowadays. Rand's philsophy I don't generally agree with but she birthed a lot of interesting thoughts out of, as far as I could tell, the facts. Now these Objectivists are using these emails as "proof" of Global Warming being a "religion".