scary new changes in the earth's eco-system

[Jax]

I am not saying there is not good info there, and often it is superb, but for academic purposes, it is not useful for serious research.

Wikipedia articles are only as good as their citations. If you check on the citations (the numbers in the middle of the article text with link to other articles), and the sources are good, you can trust what you have read in the article

For example, if an article on Al Gore states that Al Gore created the internet, and the citation takes me to the National Enquirer, I'll most likely ignore that fact. But if the article states he helped write a particular bill, and the citation takes me to a governmental webpage with a document which shows that he was indeed involved, I can be pretty safe to say that the fact is correct.

If an article in wikipedia lacks citations, I won't even bother reading it.

You can think of Wikipedia almost as a database of different resources with text written around them to help you find the resources easier.

Last week I used Wiki to help me prepare a presentation on medical imaging techniques used in the staging of prostate cancer. Of course I didn't cite Wiki as a reference, instead I cited an article by the National Cancer Foundation which Wiki helped me find . There's nothing wrong with that. Now referencing a Wikipedia article directly, that would not look good.

Edited February 6, 2008 by Jax

[Subdude]

Just a reminder... We've been through all this before. Everyone though "all" the scientist agreed. They were "all" wrong back then also.

Ice Age is coming

FIRST they said the earth is flat, NOW they say it is round!! FIRST they said atoms were indivisible, and NOW they say they are!! Obviously you can't trust these so-called scientists who keep "flip-flopping"!!

Man, the scientific process is built around the idea of testing hypotheses and discarding those that don't hold up.

AL GORE SPOKESMAN!!

Still going on about Al Gore...sheesh

[BryanS]

There are 'qualified' people on both sides, if having a Ph.D. and experience are the only measure. But I had a few 'qualified' crackpots as full or associate professors when I was in college, many of them with lengthy and impressive biographies. One insisted that his wife give birth to a child without the use of painkillers, because of course the only moral way to give birth is in writhing pain. Another one insisted in 2004 that Hillary Clinton, once elected to the presidency in 2008, would usher in the Second American Revolution. One of the above was a believer in GW and an advocate of even the most poorly conceived legislation, and the other didn't believe in GW, and even if he were, he suggested that GW could be beneficial to humanity and that we then ought to seek ways to hasten the process.

Physicians and pilots are highly skilled. They are put through rigorous hands-on training and are subjected to plenty of case studies on things that can go wrong. The situations for which they are trained have often been documented hundreds of times over given all forms of complicating factors, all within the contexts of the human body or an aircraft, respectively. Climatologists have far more raw data at their fingertips, but its analysis is overwhelmingly more complicated. They only have ever had one subject, not billions as with a doctor or hundreds of thousands as with a pilot. Their subject is constantly changing in every conceivable way, with one action having so many reactions as it is almost an infinitude; it is chaos. I am sorry, Brian, but your analogy is weak, another apparent fallacy.

Even if climatologists were able to develop a reliable model projecting climate change, what tools do you propose that they have in their toolkit to cure the ailment? For that matter, what is the optimal state of nature to foster the advancement of man? Should the optimal state of nature be sought for human benefit, or should consideration be given to ensuring that certain other extraneous species avoid extinction? These are not questions for climatologists, but for politicians, philosophers, economists, and anthropologists. And guess in which fields all my crackpot professors--which you'd apparently consider 'experts'--happened to teach...

Our country should sign on to the Kyoto treaty, but commit to cutting our CO2 emissions 50% beyond what Kyoto specifies. We should live in grass huts, ride bicycles, dig and plant potatoes, and stop all discretionary consumption. That is the answer... Just kidding! You'd didn't think I'd take the bait that easily, did you? There may not be any options at this point... Recognizing we have a problem and doing (or not doing) something about it are two different things.

You drive my point home, even further. There maybe 'qualified people' on both sides, but in order to issue a credible stand on an issue of this importance, you're work needs to be checked, verified, and vetted. An educated person, with a PhD, can issue their conjecture and opinon... but until it's wrung through a vigorous proof process, its just that: an opinion.

You site singular points of reference, a dangerous approach. Take the individual and his wife that you site. I would bet that, while he and his wife (although I question if his wife really agrees with him) may subscribe to such a notion that pain killers are "immoral," I can tell you first hand that 99% of the birthing population doesn't believe that. Why? My sister is a OBGYN. As soon as those people come in and turn on their Enya music, dim the lights, and begin their yoga... within 30 minutes - they're asking for an epidural, the lights go full bright, and the Enya crap is turned off. I would argue that the consensus is that pain killers are OK, even if some 'crackpots' don't believe it, won't accept that notion. The same is true with all your other crackpot professors, as you say. What one person says or believes is one thing... but when a consensus emerges on any given issue (and it has been vetted)... I go with the credible experts.

Unfortunately, both money and politics have clouded this issue, which is sad.... and its Bryan... please... I like you Niche! =)

[TheNiche]

You drive my point home, even further. There maybe 'qualified people' on both sides, but in order to issue a credible stand on an issue of this importance, you're work needs to be checked, verified, and vetted. An educated person, with a PhD, can issue their conjecture and opinon... but until it's wrung through a vigorous proof process, its just that: an opinion.

You site singular points of reference, a dangerous approach. Take the individual and his wife that you site. I would bet that, while he and his wife (although I question if his wife really agrees with him) may subscribe to such a notion that pain killers are "immoral," I can tell you first hand that 99% of the birthing population doesn't believe that. Why? My sister is a OBGYN. As soon as those people come in and turn on their Enya music, dim the lights, and begin their yoga... within 30 minutes - they're asking for an epidural, the lights go full bright, and the Enya crap is turned off. I would argue that the consensus is that pain killers are OK, even if some 'crackpots' don't believe it, won't accept that notion. The same is true with all your other crackpot professors, as you say. What one person says or believes is one thing... but when a consensus emerges on any given issue (and it has been vetted)... I go with the credible experts.

My point of course, in citing the examples, was not to provide an exhaustive list of "qualified" crackpots, but to establish that there are "qualified" crackpots, that they are not a rarity, and that they ought not be relied upon by the public. They are not immune to reason, and I have always sought to apply it, even when they are the clear "qualified experts."

I do not accept that either side has sufficiently proven their case, at this point, that we can conclude that GW is occuring, will perceptibly shift the course of civilization, can be influenced by civilization, is undesirable to civilization, and can be reversed by civilization. Notice the "and" in there. It is not an "or." Basically, if any of those conditions can't be met, it is a moot issue for all but that thin minority that pretends like a natural birthing process is somehow desirable. I consider it likely that multiple conditions will be met, but not all. This is why the "ready, fire, aim" approach that you espouse isn't much to my liking.

[CDeb]

For those of you that are enamored with "peer review," a Hudson Institute study begs to differ with the idea that there is "consensus:"

A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance.

"This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global

temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.

Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention. "Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics," said Avery, "but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see."

http://www.prnewswire.com/news/index_mail....61425&EDATE

While not a climate scientist, I have written peer reviewed papers and I have been a peer reviewer for papers. The process is only as good as, well, your peers.

Because the scientific debate has entered the political realm, there IS big money in global warming, and the fact that climate scientists don't make much underscores the point: they need research dollars to justify their jobs. And in order to keep getting those research dollars, the political climate must be considered. Right now, the political climate strongly supports carbon emissions as the cause of global warming, to the point of sometimes rubbishing or silencing critics (calling them hacks for industry). When your "peers" have a strong interest in maintaining the "consensus," the concept of peer review is greatly undermined.

There used to be a time when scientists welcomed the testing of, and disagreement with, their findings. Either confirmation or rejection would add to the body of knowledge. But nowadays, those in support of the view that carbon emissions causes global warming do not allow that opposition to that view might even be reasonable. Those "scientists" ought to be ashamed of themselves. Saying that there is a consensus, or the science is settled and the like is hogwash.

[Jax]

For those of you that are enamored with "peer review," a Hudson Institute study begs to differ with the idea that there is "consensus:"

A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance.

"This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global

temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.

Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention. "Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics," said Avery, "but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see."

http://www.prnewswire.com/news/index_mail....61425&EDATE

While not a climate scientist, I have written peer reviewed papers and I have been a peer reviewer for papers. The process is only as good as, well, your peers.

Because the scientific debate has entered the political realm, there IS big money in global warming, and the fact that climate scientists don't make much underscores the point: they need research dollars to justify their jobs. And in order to keep getting those research dollars, the political climate must be considered. Right now, the political climate strongly supports carbon emissions as the cause of global warming, to the point of sometimes rubbishing or silencing critics (calling them hacks for industry). When your "peers" have a strong interest in maintaining the "consensus," the concept of peer review is greatly undermined.

There used to be a time when scientists welcomed the testing of, and disagreement with, their findings. Either confirmation or rejection would add to the body of knowledge. But nowadays, those in support of the view that carbon emissions causes global warming do not allow that opposition to that view might even be reasonable. Those "scientists" ought to be ashamed of themselves. Saying that there is a consensus, or the science is settled and the like is hogwash.

This study says they are counting papers that show " our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance.", yet this was been proved wrong years ago in the peer reviewed literature. That leads me to believe that this study is counting out of date articles. I actually went over this last sumer in another thread (as I also went over everything else I have said in this thread in another thread), where I critiqued several of the articles this study mentioned as "refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming", and they were mostly refuting elements of the theory that had more recently been proved otherwise. Of course I didn't go over all 500, but the fact that they put facts in their press release like "our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance" is a bad sign. This is a statement that an uneducated person will read and say "wow, global warming must not be happening". But if you read the literature on solar irradiance, you ill realize that it effects the temperature on the order of a fraction of a degree, definitely not enough to explain global warming. Several other facts in the press release are similarly sensationalized.

I hate posting something like that without citing my sources but I already posted a link to the exact article in Science last summer, and since nobody here but me has a subscription to Science, they couldn't read it anyways. If you are interested in that article, PM me.

Interestingly, the Hudson Institute is largely funded by several companies which stand to benefit from the lack of carbon regulations, and several others with poor environmental records.

Edited February 6, 2008 by Jax

[CDeb]

This study says they are counting papers that show " our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance.", yet this was been proved wrong years ago in the peer reviewed literature. That leads me to believe that this study is counting out of date articles. I actually went over this last sumer in another thread (as I also went over everything else I have said in this thread in another thread), where I critiqued several of the articles this study mentioned as "refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming", and they were mostly refuting elements of the theory that had more recently been proved otherwise.

"Argued against" and "proved wrong" are two different things, Jax.

And these are all "peer reviewed" studies published in repsected journals. Still so wild about "peer review?"

nterestingly, the Hudson Institute is largely funded by several companies which stand to benefit from the lack of global warming regulations.

Interestingly, doesn't the UN (the sponsor of the IPCC) stand to beneift TREMENDOUSLY from the creation of enormous emissions agreements and treaties?

Edited February 6, 2008 by CDeb

[Jax]

And these are all "peer reviewed" studies published in repsected journals. Still so wild about "peer review?"

Yes, peer review is the foundation of modern Science.

Here's how it goes.

1) Somebody writes an article with a theory that solar irradiance causes global warming. Peers read the article and try to apply their data to the problem

2) A few months later, somebody releases their data showing the lack of a correlation, or evidence that solar radiation causes only a fraction of a degree temperature change.

3) Hudson institute counts 2 articles because the first one introduced the theory, and the second one had a sentence saying that "solar irradiance was proposed as an explanation for global warming", before going on to show that evidence does not support that theory.

Do you see what I mean? Neither of these scientist proved that global warming was natural. One simply proposed a theory that was later proven wrong. Most of the other facts that the press release mentions (for example the idea that less organisms die due to heat than cold, therefore global warming will be positive) have been similarly proposed, debated, and ultimately defeated in the peer reviewed literature. Just because an idea is proposed, studied, and defeated doesn't mean it should be counted as evidence that scientists don't believe in global warming.

Edited February 6, 2008 by Jax

[houstonmacbro]

CDC Flu Season Getting Worse

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-02-15-flu_N.htm

[CDeb]

Someone better tell the ELF about the danger of carbon emissions:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headli...on/5587360.html

[TJones]

P.S. TJones: Do you know how much money scientists make? Not a whole lot, especially when you compare scientists to oil companies. The US doesn't exactly dedicate a large portion of the budget to climate research either.

There's WAY more money to be made in the war and oil industries. Anybody who's a climatologist for the money is going to be extremely disappointed.

Until they write a book or make a movie about it. Ooooooorrrrrrr, perhaps they can sell off our Navy's oil reserves to their own company for cheap and make a huge profit off of it by selling it back onto the free market, HUH ?

But, you're right, there is NO MONEY in Global Warming research.

Edited March 4, 2008 by TJones

[TJones]

Sorry for the double post but THIS is why NOBODY takes Treehuggers SERIOUSLY !!!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/05/e...li_n_90032.html

[jgriff]

Until they write a book or make a movie about it. Ooooooorrrrrrr, perhaps they can sell off our Navy's oil reserves to their own company for cheap and make a huge profit off of it by selling it back onto the free market, HUH ?

But, you're right, there is NO MONEY in Global Warming research.

I hear Nobel hands out some prizes that pay well too.

[houstonmacbro]

Collapse of the Wilkins Ice Shelf and what it's gonna mean.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/03/28...tion=cnn_latest

[houstonmacbro]

Dengue outbreak in Brazil

Mass Cannibalism by 2040?

[houstonmacbro]

Make sure to check out Silent Tsunami slide show. It is really a sad state that our world is in when countries that did not experience food shortages are doing so now through bad economic policies, environmental issues, rising costs, and bad farm management policies.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24361263/

The slideshow titled "Silent Tsunami" is utterly sobbering and a look at what could happen here in the States if we are not careful and vigilant to food policies. In fact, some of it IS happening here already.

[houstonmacbro]

19-square-mile ice sheet breaks loose in Canada

"These changes are irreversible under the present climate and indicate that the environmental conditions that have kept these ice shelves in balance for thousands of years are no longer present," said Mueller.

During the last century, when ice shelves would break off, thick sea ice would eventually reform in their place.

"But today, warmer temperatures and a changing climate means there's no hope for regrowth. A scary scenario," said Mueller.

Full article here: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jO9eK94...q3L4YwD92VGDT00

[TheNiche]

19-square-mile ice sheet breaks loose in Canada

19 square miles? That's all? Houston's IAH airport is larger than that!

If the 19 square miles were oriented as a square, the distance traversed by Washington Avenue would be equal to one of its sides. Or from Main Street at Buffalo Bayou to University Dr. in the Tx. Medical Center.

This is not news.

[memebag]

19 square miles? That's all? Houston's IAH airport is larger than that!

If the 19 square miles were oriented as a square, the distance traversed by Washington Avenue would be equal to one of its sides. Or from Main Street at Buffalo Bayou to University Dr. in the Tx. Medical Center.

This is not news.

How big would it have to be to be news?

[houstonmacbro]

How big would it have to be to be news?

I was wondering the same thing? I guess it would have to be the size of Texas (or at least Houston) to make any difference.

19 square miles is not a small area.

[TheNiche]

I was wondering the same thing? I guess it would have to be the size of Texas (or at least Houston) to make any difference.

19 square miles is not a small area.

Oh, it isn't!? Canada is 3,855,103 square miles. That means that this chunk of ice is ¹/_202,900th, or <0.0005% of the land area of Canada. This is not news.

If they were reporting the net totality of ice lost to melting, globally, that would be news.

[RedScare]

Oh, it isn't!? Canada is 3,855,103 square miles. That means that this chunk of ice is ¹/_202,900th, or <0.0005% of the land area of Canada. This is not news.

If they were reporting the net totality of ice lost to melting, globally, that would be news.

I don't think your statements on this issue are having the effect you desire.

[memebag]

I don't think your statements on this issue are having the effect you desire.

But Red! The surface area of Jupiter is 6.21796

[TheNiche]

I don't think your statements on this issue are having the effect you desire.

It's not my place to think for people--only for myself. And I think: this is not news.

Whether my opinions are popular or not really doesn't concern me.

[TJones]

Ok meme, go outside and look at your hybrid car and visualize that it is Canada, now go look and that bug that is splattered on your windshield, now look at the bug's left testicle. That is the amount of ice that broke off of Canada.

Edited September 5, 2008 by TJones

[RedScare]

It's not my place to think for people--only for myself. And I think: this is not news.

Whether my opinions are popular or not really doesn't concern me.

That was pretty much my point. Whether the science is correct or not, your statements reveal that you wouldn't understand the science if it hit you in the face.

[TheNiche]

That was pretty much my point. Whether the science is correct or not, your statements reveal that you wouldn't understand the science if it hit you in the face.

Right back at you.

[crunchtastic]

I keep looking at that McCain/Palin tag with their photos, and all I can think is a billboard in some market like El Paso, saying

your news and weather --when it matters!

5, 6 and 10 pm.

[memebag]

I keep looking at that McCain/Palin tag with their photos, and all I can think is a billboard in some market like El Paso, saying

your news and weather --when it matters!

5, 6 and 10 pm.

I just hope we never hear that final "And now, back to you, Sarah."

Ok meme, go outside and look at your hybrid car and visualize that it is Canada, now go look and that bug that is splattered on your windshield, now look at the bug's left testicle. That is the amount of ice that broke off of Canada.

You didn't read the article, did you?

[TJones]

You didn't read the article, did you?

I did, and what I found not to be to surprised about, was that they didn't attribute anything to the "original" break up of the iceshelf in the early 1900's. Were too many Canucks icefishing and their woodburning stoves in their shacks caused too much CO2 and superheated the area back then ?

Edited September 5, 2008 by TJones