In the Rush to Help - Global Warming

[kirbyfan]

Originally Posted by Daddy B

An ephemeral, temporary phenomenon is more complicated than the global warming that will bring about (has brought/is bringing about) a plethora of such ephemeral/temporary phenomenons... and I'm the one who made a joke!

Wasnt a very good one...try harder please.

[PlayadelSoul]

Guesswork at work.
EO News: Frigid South Pole Atmosphere Reveals Flaw in Global Circulation Models - August 28, 2002

Our results suggest that wintertime warming due to sinking air masses is not as strong as the models have assumed," Gardner said. "But, in all fairness, since no one had made these measurements before, modelers have been forced to estimate the values. And, in this case, their estimates were wrong."

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

That wasn't your question. In reality, one would need to believe that there is going to be climatic chaos in order to answer that question. Simply stating that something is going to happen and profiting from the attention (grants, interviews, fame, etc.) does not make it real. Ever heard of DDT?

Yup...and your point is? (and please, read up on this before you reply..)

[Daddy B]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

That wasn't your question. In reality, one would need to believe that there is going to be climatic chaos in order to answer that question. Simply stating that something is going to happen and profiting from the attention (grants, interviews, fame, etc.) does not make it real. Ever heard of DDT?

So, that's your answer as to what climatologists have to gain?

Grants - wouldn't those go mainly to pay for research rather than increase their salaries?

Interviews -

Fame -

And all the scientists who have been warning about global warming have sort of got together in conspiracy to get more and better test tubes, be abused during interviews by that Glenn geezer and be as famous as OJ Simpson?
Can you please tell me on which grassy knoll was this fiendish plot first hatched?!

[Daddy B]

Originally Posted by kirbyfan

Wasnt a very good one...try harder please.

Wasn't trying to make a joke. But I'm glad I tickled your fancy: let's hope you're right and future generations will be able to laugh at all the attention seeking climatologists rather than go through the hardship being predicted.
I'm not so sure and I'm prepared to sacrifice in order to avoid it (even if it won't happen in my lifetime): you think only about yourself and dismiss it as a joke because it would be so far removed in generational terms you know you won't suffer in the least.

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by Daddy B

So, that's your answer as to what climatologists have to gain?

Grants - wouldn't those go mainly to pay for research rather than increase their salaries?

Interviews -

Fame -

And all the scientists who have been warning about global warming have sort of got together in conspiracy to get more and better test tubes, be abused during interviews by that Glenn geezer and be as famous as OJ Simpson?
Can you please tell me on which grassy knoll was this fiendish plot first hatched?!

Science is all about money. If you are in an art that no one knows about, the funding is slim. Create a crisis, and bam! All kinds of dough. New offices, new labs, new computers, the whole ball of wax. You can even retire from the lab and start a company to help fix the problem that you invented in the first place. Or, sit on the board of directors, even.

Now, money is not unlimited. Governments have to decide who gets what. So, every extra dollar or Euro that goes to climate study means a dollar less for some other area of science (maybe the cure for whatever ails me).

[kirbyfan]

Originally Posted by Daddy B

Wasn't trying to make a joke. But I'm glad I tickled your fancy

I'd have to thank you! Its been awhile since I've had my "fancy" tickled!

: let's hope you're right and future generations will be able to laugh at all the attention seeking climatologists rather than go through the hardship being predicted.
I'm not so sure and I'm prepared to sacrifice in order to avoid it (even if it won't happen in my lifetime): you think only about yourself and dismiss it as a joke because it would be so far removed in generational terms you know you won't suffer in the least.

I never questioned "global warming", I questioned your assertation that a model attempting to predict a hurricane is similar in complexity to a global warming model....and they arent even close...as you say apples and pears.

[Rissask]

Originally Posted by Jacko

You should be more in touch with what is happening in the green movement in say the hospitality industry in the United States (finally....Germany for instance has been doing much more for a long time now)...but actually it is starting to happen everywhere...green building, huge push on conservation with better technological solutions etc.. Its truly amazing...ya think this is happening just because we know we should conserve energy more? Guess again why this amazing change is starting to happen......

...\...no....guess again.

that's great.

Now all we have to do is convince China and India to get on board with our 'green movement' and we might have a fighting chance .

(of what I am not sure ).

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Science is all about money. If you are in an art that no one knows about, the funding is slim. Create a crisis, and bam! All kinds of dough. New offices, new labs, new computers, the whole ball of wax. You can even retire from the lab and start a company to help fix the problem that you invented in the first place. Or, sit on the board of directors, even.

Now, money is not unlimited. Governments have to decide who gets what. So, every extra dollar or Euro that goes to climate study means a dollar less for some other area of science (maybe the cure for whatever ails me).

Are there scientists on the IPCC accused of ethics violations? Academics, especially those in the natural sciences, tend to be rather fastidious about research results to avoid these very kinds of conflicts of interests you are talking about. Many of the links and articles from this thread originally appeared in peer reviewed science journals, which is usually an indication that political bias would not be tolerated...

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by Rissask

that's great.

Now all we have to do is convince China and India to get on board with our 'green movement' and we might have a fighting chance .

(of what I am not sure ).

We sure don't have much of a chance of doing anything as long as we continue to spend our time denying that a problem exists rather than sitting down at the table and hashing out the best solutions we can achieve...I mean if we in the U.S. cannot make a simple "sacrifice" by quickly expecting our manufacturers to increase CAFE standards to do what Toyota and Honda have done voluntarily with great success, we sure can't expect much to happen in China.

We need to engage and lead on the issue. We need to be part of selling the solutions to the world. We need to help our own citizens find ways to economically conserve more and save more money as the price of energy increases rapidly.

The global warming denialists have lost their "battle"....indeed, they have delayed positive progress....but the change is now beginning and it is so far, a very good thing..the question will be whether we (the U.S.) still have time to lead AND benefit....or whether the Germans will be the ones..or the Japanese...or the Canadians.....but the change will happen.

[Pok-a-tok]

Originally Posted by Rissask

that's great.

Now all we have to do is convince China and India to get on board with our 'green movement' and we might have a fighting chance .

(of what I am not sure ).

I think so,

Even if the people of China alone achieved a First World living standard while everyone else’s living standard remained constant, that would double our human impact on the world.

Link

[vieve]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Science is all about money. Now, money is not unlimited. Governments have to decide who gets what. So, every extra dollar or Euro that goes to climate study means a dollar less for some other area of science (maybe the cure for whatever ails me).

Just imagine what we could do to save the planet if we weren't spending so much on our war in Iraq....
And about DDT...what did you mean there??? I think the reaction to Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, i.e. the public outcry and the resulting ban on DDT is an example of how we can avert an environmental crisis if we all work together.

[dartay]

Originally Posted by Daddy B

100,000 indicators make up a stronger body of evidence than 100, wouldn't you say?

And when those 100,000 point in basically the same direction they are harder to dismiss than the 100, in my opinion.

A swing and a miss............

He talks about 100,000 variables in a model and somehow you try and twist it to indicators towards a problem.

[melliedee]

And NOAA and NASA? Have they compromised their scientists the same way you claim the IPCC has? I just don't understand how the sway of research grants and new labs might incite the kind of scientific ethics violations you imply the IPCC has committed.

From a member's article on the relatively transparent process of their assessments:



Is there room for political interference here? In the 20 years that I have been a scientist with the IPCC, I have not encountered a government trying at this stage to influence the assessment beyond making suggestions that would genuinely help its remit or focus.

There is then a call for authors who may be nominated by any government or organisation (research institutions, universities, businesses and NGOs).

The co-chairs and working group bureaux scan the research records of the nominees and seek the best match between available skills and the expertise needed to cover the fields of the assessment.
Is this another area open to political interference? I genuinely think we choose the best available, and without political motive.

From more than 4,000 nominated scientists, about 600 were chosen as authors in the Fourth Assessment; and all those not chosen are automatically included amongst reviewers of the drafts.


BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | The IPCC: As good as it gets

[Rissask]

Originally Posted by vieve

Just imagine what we could do to save the planet if we weren't spending so much on our war in Iraq....
And about DDT...what did you mean there??? I think the reaction to Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, i.e. the public outcry and the resulting ban on DDT is an example of how we can avert an environmental crisis if we all work together.

I think what he meant was (possibly, Mark?) how it turned out that DDT wasn't really as harmful to humans after all as they thought at the time. And the negatives from banning it were worse (less disease (malaria) control) than the negatives it caused, environmentally speaking.

Which is highly controversial though.