Page 17 of 111 FirstFirst ... 712131415161718192021222767 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 340 of 2209
  1. #321  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    .... it is the opinion of the vast majority of climate scientists.
    Prove it. You and clulup both have thrown out this statement and even though I have asked several times, no one has posted the poll given to the worlds scientists nor the list of those that participated. Without those I'd say it is impossible to claim vast majority. So pony up the data and lets see your vast majority on paper.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  2. #322  
    I have to say id like to see this as well.
  3. #323  
    i wonder how feasible it would be to switch from coal consumption, etc to "clean" nuclear energy to fuel the majority of our industry, power needs?

    and its true that hybrid cars are a large step in the right direction, and alternative less pollutant fuels used in jet airliners would no doubt reduce emissions dramatically.

    i think the options are there, its just a matter of taking the steps toward making these conversions.
    Last edited by treobk214; 02/27/2005 at 12:28 AM.
  4. #324  
    Enough of the politically biased links giving "proof" one way or the other..

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...global_warming
  5. #325  
    Quote Originally Posted by Joebar
    Enough of the politically biased links giving "proof" one way or the other..

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...global_warming
    i removed the link i had above, realizing it was badly out of date.
  6. #326  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Needless to say it would be great if ALL countries do their part. I just think China has a far better excuse for not doing anything: They want to become rich, too, so why should they START REDUCING now that they are at one tenth of your level? How would you explain that to them.

    The Kyoto Protocol is about reducing the level of greenhouse gas emissions to 5.2 % below the levels of 1990. For China, that would more or less mean reducing to the level of the Stone Age, while for developed countries, it would not make THAT big a difference (after all, we were already quite rich and happy in 1990, too, or were we not?). I can understand perfectly well that China is NOT willing to go back to 5.2 % below its 1990 levels, and I guess you can, too. It would be equivalent to going back to e.g. the 1930 levels (or so) for us...

    So PLEASE note that it does NOT mean the same for China to reduce CO2 emission to 5.2 % below the 1990 level, as the Kyoto Protocol asks for.
    However, again unless I'm missing something, China is exempt. Therefore isn't it reasonable to assume that as US emissions would drop, Chinas would rise and eventually approach our current levels?

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Maybe one day we will beg China (and India) on our knees NOT to reach our levels of CO2 emission, because that would essentially double the total CO2 emission we have now. But based on what arguments will you do that, coming from a country who didn't care at all, but preferred to think it was all natural and even if not, who cares?
    But then, if we're headed for disaster now, what will that scenario be like? And who said anything like "who cares?" Did you not see my post where I had said I also inhabit the planet and am all in favor of cleaner burning fuels and less pollution?
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  7. #327  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    You have done an outstanding job in summing things up. Case closed
    Well, that settles it. Whatever Claire says!!!
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  8. #328  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    Prove it. You and clulup both have thrown out this statement and even though I have asked several times, no one has posted the poll given to the worlds scientists nor the list of those that participated. Without those I'd say it is impossible to claim vast majority. So pony up the data and lets see your vast majority on paper.
    The consensus reports from the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (consensus report means that the majority of its members agree with the statement), as well the climate science literature for the past 5 years. Thats what I mean when I say the majority of the climate science community. Here is a good summary in Science (top science journal in the world) from two months ago, additional references are below.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686

    Here is the report:

    The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

    Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

    The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

    IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

    Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

    The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

    The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

    Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

    This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC , the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

    The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

    Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

    references

    A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1.

    S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2 (1), 3 (2003).

    See www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.

    J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).

    National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).

    American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508 (2003).

    American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003).

    See www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.

    The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the paper was not about climate change.

    This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture, "Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong," presented at the AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R. Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful discussions.

    n.b.
    by the way if you are going to try to nit-pick about what is simple majority or what is vast majority or something else like that forget it, if you look at the science literature review in this article, of 928 articles published in the climate science literature none of them disputed this view.

    Lets go one step further, do your own poll:do a science google literature search "causes of global climate change" in scholar.google.com and then tally up how many articles written in science journals support your view or mine. I can do this too, and then we can compare notes if you wish.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 02/27/2005 at 09:09 AM.
  9. #329  
    However, they don't cite names of individuals. Rather "Bodies", as in groups. Thats like saying Labor Unions support the Democrat ticket, even though individual members may support another Party.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  10. #330  
    Sorry that all of the science organizations did not take the time to jump through that hoop for you. How many polls of thousands of people actually publish the names of those polled?Hey maybe because we don't have the names of every individual who voted for Bush, we can just ignore those results too?
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 02/27/2005 at 09:37 AM.
  11. #331  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Sorry that all of the science organizations did not take the time to jump through that hoop for you. How many polls of thousands of people actually publish the names of those polled? Hey maybe because we dont have the names of people who voted for Bush, we can just ignore the results?
    I'm not interested in who they voted for. All I'm saying is a "body" may issue a statement, but that doesn't mean it's members are in 100% agreement. I'm fairly sure there are dissenters within those organizations.

    I mean, using TreoCentral as an example, I'm sure we as a group we think this is a great device, however there are some here who think it's buggy as all get out.

    Would that not be fair to assume?
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  12. #332  
    yes, the majority of scientists in all the different organizations agree, and almost all of the scientific literature reviewed in the last 5 years. But I am not saying that every scientist out there agrees, no way. Scientists are a fairly diverse lot with a wide variety of opinions. They question far more than you and Woof do about the science. Some of them are a real pain in the posterior, especially when they review other people's work, I can tell you from personal experience

    As far as the treo I think it is a great device and it is buggy too. I just upgraded to the 650 GSM model this week and I hope it is less buggy.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 02/27/2005 at 09:49 AM.
  13. #333  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    .....I won't bring up arrogance, but I do believe it is against our best interests to ignore this problem. Anyway, its not just my opinion, it is the opinion of the vast majority of climate scientists.
    Since global warming really begins at home, I was wondering what you are doing to reduce your emissions of greenhouse gases. Do you take public transportation to work? Probably not. Do you drive a hybred car or have you had you current car converted to burn natural gas? Probably not. Do you ever car pool? Probably not. Does your wife do her shopping with the neighbors to reduce the number of cars on the road? I doubt it.

    Caring about the environment takes more then recycling a few milk containers and some newspapers. You want some big government "fix" so long as it doesnt inconvenience you or jeopardize your job. I think you said before that you did research at a University. What is their record on greenhouse emissions? What have you dont to help them understand the problem? College campuses are pollution factories. A recent Yale University study reports that the school emits more greenhouse gases than 32 developing countries.

    I think there are 141 signers of the kyoto thingie. I wonder if the 32 countries mentioned in the Yale report are some of them?

    I think what I'm saying is that you shouldnt be soo insulted that the government didnt buy into the kyoto deal. Im sure that the city you live in is larger than Yale. You have such an opportunity to effect some real changes right in your own community with city government and the responsible employers in the area. The Federal government is not the answer to all of the country's problems, nor is it the cause.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  14. #334  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Well, that settles it. Whatever Claire says!!!
    Seems clear that the most vocal here disagree with her. They have simply dismissed what I said and have gone on as though I had been silent.

    That said, there is no magic bullet. The current dialogue, of which this thread is typical, is ideological, partisan, and contentious. Not only is it not leading to consensus, it has immobilized us. For almost a decade both sides have held ANWAR hostage to any action. The Republicans will not consent to any energy policy that does not include drilling for oil in ANWAR and the Democrats will not consent to any policy that does. The result has been no policy and time wasted.

    As I suggested, I see only two solutions, population control or new energy strategies. If we do not undertake the latter, we will get the former by default. Am I missing something? Is there support here for limiting population growth? (Yes, I understand that many of us are secretly in favor of population control in China and India, but I mean generally, including the Western European culture.) If not, that leaves energy policy.

    Whatever one believes about global warming, we need new energy policy. It seems likely that in your lifetime the extraction of fossil fuels will peak and prices will begin to rise inexorably.

    The few easy things, such as hybrid cars, that have been suggested here are those that the market can do but which do not go very far. The really hard choices, like modern nuclear, that provide great leverage and potential are not even on the table. How about high taxes on autos and auto fuel? Venezuela, an oil producing country, permits autos to be used only on alternate days. Where is the support for mass transit? Where is the support for electric corridor and long-range rail to replace short range jets? Trains in Europe are energy efficient and prevent huge amounts of pollution from autos and jets. The Europeans consciously elected to build railroads in preference to highways while President Bush subsidizes airlines and highways and starves Amtrak.

    Where is our vaunted American technological ingenuity and political leadership? If we are the leaders that we like to think that we are, why does the rest of the world see us, not only as dragging our feet but, as The Problem? If one believes that Bush/Cheney are too tightly tied to the status quo, then where is the opposition? What was Candidate Kerry's energy policy?

    It is (artificially) cheap energy that has made us a wealthy nation but which is polluting our world. It is creating consumption and waste in our generation at the expense of our children and grandchildren. We cannot rely upon the markets alone to solve this problem because the markets are already distorted by poliitics. That leaves the political system and there is no will. We have already wasted a generation, perhaps two. It looks to me as though we are still a generation, perhaps two, from a consensus. By that time the solutions will be orders of magnitude more expensive and disruptive than they are now.

    I am seventy years old and I drink. I will die without issue. I will not be here when the chickens come home to roost. I have less skin, literally and figuratively, in the game than most of you. But whatever you may think, I love you and wish you well. I am disheartened by this thread. As I read it, I hear those who are more interested in demonstrating that their adversaries are obstinate and foolish than in finding a statement of the problem on which they agree and that lends itself to a solution. I beg each of you to consider whether your rhetoric is contributing to the solution or the problem.
    Last edited by whmurray; 02/27/2005 at 10:31 AM.
  15. #335  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    I am disheartened by this thread. As I read it, I hear those who are more interested in demonstrating that their adversaries are obstinate and foolish than in finding a statement of the problem on which they agree and that lends itself to a solution. I beg each of you to consider whether your rhetoric is contributing to the solution or the problem.
    You can't get someone to do anything if they will not even admit there is a problem. If being partisan means being on the side of good rational science, then call me partisan. I would love to start talking about a solution. I think you have some great ideas.

    P.S.
    Murray, lay off the drinking and stick around, OK?
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 02/27/2005 at 11:25 AM.
  16. #336  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    You can't get someone to do anything if they will not even admit there is a problem.
    The Society of Friends has a concept called the "sense of the meeting." Under this concept issues are decided only by broad consensus, the sense of the meeting, and never by a narrow majority with strong opposition. When such a consensus cannot be reached, they conclude that the problem is poorly stated. They then adjourn to restate the question until they arrive at a statement of the problem that they can both agree on and solve.

    The list "heresies and other words I try to live by" includes "There is no such corrupting lie as a problem poorly named" and "Given two statements of a problem, I prefer the one that permits of a solution; given two solutions, I prefer the one in my own hands."

    As I read this thread, I do not hear people who are trying to agee on a common statement of a problem around which to rally. I hear people insisting on their own statement of the problem with little willingness to explore alternative statements. I hear people stating the problem in such a way as to deny any personal control and to fix responsibility, not to say blame, on others. "Global Warming" is a catch phrase that identifies a problem that all but defies solution. That is part of the reason that people resist it; it makes them feel impotent and frustrated. You may not like "over consumption and waste" any better but I do. It is an example of thinking globally and acting locally. It leads to Kant's Categorical Imperative: Act such that you would be happy for everyone else to behave the same. "Live simply, that others may simply live."

    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    P.S.
    Murray, lay off the drinking and stick around, OK?
    Thank you. I plan to stick around for at least a while longer. It is not clear whether the quantity I drink will add to or shorten my remaining years but the impact is more likely to be measured in weeks than in months or years. On the other hand it seems to improve the quality of those years. In any case, let us not get distracted by that concern.
    Last edited by whmurray; 02/27/2005 at 11:53 AM.
  17. #337  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    Since global warming really begins at home, I was wondering what you are doing to reduce your emissions of greenhouse gases.Do you take public transportation to work? Probably not. Do you drive a hybred car or have you had you current car converted to burn natural gas?
    I ride my bike to work when it is not raining, and for the last 10 years I have driven my honda civic which gets great gas milage. I do most of my own shopping, to and from work. I make good use of a backpack when I need to. My sig other, she does the same as me, by and large.

    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    Caring about the environment takes more then recycling a few milk containers and some newspapers. You want some big government "fix" so long as it doesnt inconvenience you or jeopardize your job.
    nope, I recognize there is a problem and so am willing to make sacrifices. I try not to be wasteful, I recycle and I am not going to play the little game of asking or assuming what you do.
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    I think you said before that you did research at a University. What is their record on greenhouse emissions? What have you dont to help them understand the problem? College campuses are pollution factories. A recent Yale University study reports that the school emits more greenhouse gases than 32 developing countries.
    I attend faculty senate meetings and make my voice heard. As an assistant professor and now as a tenured professor, I have discussed this issue with the current and past medical school deans, thanks for asking. By the way here is what my university is doing to address greenhouse gas emissions. I do not agree with all of it, especially the part where some of the work is being funded by the pollutors themselves, but it is a start.

    http://www.isa.org/InTechTemplate.cf...ontentID=21056

    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    I think there are 141 signers of the kyoto thingie. I wonder if the 32 countries mentioned in the Yale report are some of them?

    I think what I'm saying is that you shouldnt be soo insulted that the government didnt buy into the kyoto deal. Im sure that the city you live in is larger than Yale. You have such an opportunity to effect some real changes right in your own community with city government and the responsible employers in the area. The Federal government is not the answer to all of the country's problems, nor is it the cause.
    I agree with you Claire, I think this begins at home, that is so true. however, energy policy, regulation of car and industiral emissions, and many other policies that affect global warming are controlled by the federal government. How can we ignore them?
  18. #338  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    The Society of Friends has a concept called the "sense of the meeting." Under this concept issues are decided only by broad consensus, the sense of the meeting, and never by a narrow majority with strong opposition. When such a consensus cannot be reached, they conclude that the problem is poorly stated. They then adjourn to restate the question until they arrive at a statement of the problem that they can both agree on and solve.

    The list "heresies and other words I try to live by" includes "There is no such corrupting lie as a problem poorly named" and "Given two statements of a problem, I prefer the one that permits of a solution; given two solutions, I prefer the one in my own hands."

    As I read this thread, I do not hear people who are trying to agee on a common statement of a problem around which to rally. I hear people insisting on their own statement of the problem with little willingness to explore alternative statements. I hear people stating the problem in such a way as to deny any personal control and to fix responsibility, not to say blame, on others. "Global Warming" is a catch phrase that identifies a problem that all but defies solution. That is part of the reason that people resist it; it makes them feel impotent and frustrated. You may not like "over consumption and waste" any better but I do. It is an example of thinking globally and acting locally. It leads to Kant's Categorical Imperative: Act such that you would be happy for everyone else to behave the same. "Live simply, that others may simply live."

    Thank you. I plan to stick around for at least a while longer. It is not clear whether the quantity I drink will add to or shorten my remaining years but the impact is more likely to be measured in weeks than in months or years. On the other hand it seems to improve the quality of those years. In any case, let us not get distracted by that concern.
    I agree with you completely.
  19. #339  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    ...I agree with you Claire, I think this begins at home, that is so true. however, energy policy, regulation of car and industiral emissions, and many other policies that affect global warming are controlled by the federal government. How can we ignore them?
    I dont necessarily think that is true. Why does California have tougher auto emissions then any other state? Why dont the car manufactures just tell California to get bent? Because 10% of cars produces for sale in the US go to California. Looks like the state has a great deal of control over what happens.

    The article you submitted is nice, but it doesnt discuss the University's plans to reduce their own emissions.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  20. #340  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    I dont necessarily think that is true. Why does California have tougher auto emissions then any other state? Why dont the car manufactures just tell California to get bent? Because 10% of cars produces for sale in the US go to California. Looks like the state has a great deal of control over what happens.

    The article you submitted is nice, but it doesnt discuss the University's plans to reduce their own emissions.
    Yes, I agree local state fed levels are all good places to try to effect change. As for my University, they do their part too:

    http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr...roslac131.html

    For my part, I will stop posting today - that should reduce plenty of hot air emissions.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 02/27/2005 at 01:02 PM.

Posting Permissions