Global earth warming up

[unriggable]

I'm kind of confused what the skeptics think the scientists get out of tricking the general public...

Well, like the whole cigarrettes and nicotine thing, some are probably paid by various people and organizations to say certain things. On both sides, mind you.

The only companies I can imgaine are paying scientists to say that global warming is happening are companies like 'smartcar'.

[flashleg8]

After a quick catch up on this thread I'd just like to add that I feel the major reason why most people (i.e. the US government) are reluctant to admit to the problem of global warming is because once it is accepted that it is real, they will be forced to deal with the problem.
I think this reluctance to deal with the problem is partly the fault of the scientists and environmentalists themselves. These people constantly lobby governments to create policies and donate money towards the goal of reducing CO2 emissions by stressing the dangers of climate change. This is of course worthwhile to point out, but what they often fail to do is to stress the positive benefits of taking this action. This money will not be wasted or just used to mitigate the current effects – we can reverse this trend and actually make the environment better than it has been for centuries (as some other posters have alluded to).
By increasing our awareness of the impact of our society on the environment we will create a healthier place to live. The air will be cleaner, resulting in less respiratory aliments - thus less medical costs, the climate will be more stable, leading to less flood damage and problems with extreme weather conditions. All in all the world will be a nicer place to live.
More stress should be placed on the economic argument that spending money to reduce CO2 emissions will save money in the long term.
The money we spend in taxes will directly contribute to everyone’s life - we are getting something for this. If I put it this way to you, how much would YOU be prepared to spend for a better place to live - with cleaner air, a nicer environment and to be more healthy? £10 a year? £100 or £10,000?
Some people move halfway round the world for these benefits spending a fortune in the process - I know I would be willing to pay much more money for the guarantee of a more healthy environment (thus a longer life).

[Nobunaga]

... When the Global Warming issue began to make headlines, a noted climatologist had this to say:

"To capture the public imagination we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us (scientists) has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest".


Dr. Stephen Schneider (climatologist - University of Stanford)
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/index3.html

[Stopper]

... When the Global Warming issue began to make headlines, a noted climatologist had this to say:

"To capture the public imagination we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us (scientists) has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest".


Dr. Stephen Schneider (climatologist - University of Stanford)
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/index3.html

I can't see what's wrong with that - that kind of politics is just part of life. Remember, he's just a university climatologist, and he and others like him don't have the resources of Exxon, for example. Exxon may have a vested financial interest in rubbishing global warming theory.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/clima ... 62,00.html

[Nobunaga]

... My point is simply, scientists are like hired guns or mercenaries these days.

... If anybody wants to look at actual science, without politics (it's a lecture from Penn State University, found it when I ran a search).

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 4120074576

... but it's long.. no naked chicks and no explosions . . . probably appeals to about 2% of the US population.

[btownmeggy]

... My point is simply, scientists are like hired guns or mercenaries these days.

Hired by whom? I'd love to know.

[alex_white101]

I'm blaming deforestation the most, god damn indonesians and brazilians don't know when to stop.

and you are from the USA, the largest contributor and waster of, well, pretty much everything. whereas the brazillians and indonesians you ''blame'' are very poor and are constantly being screwed over by richer countries. i hate it when people such as yourself throw blame around to everyone else but will accept none themselves.

[Stopper]

I'm blaming deforestation the most, god damn indonesians and brazilians don't know when to stop.

and you are from the USA, the largest contributor and waster of, well, pretty much everything. whereas the brazillians and indonesians you ''blame'' are very poor and are constantly being screwed over by richer countries. i hate it when people such as yourself throw blame around to everyone else but will accept none themselves.

[Nobunaga]

... My point is simply, scientists are like hired guns or mercenaries these days.

Hired by whom? I'd love to know.

... By GW, or Mr. Gore, or whatever politician can get ahead by making ridiculous claims based only loosely in fact.

... Do yourself a favor and watch the video I posted above. It' very educational and has no political motives, just a very timid taunt at the media in general for half-truths and exaggerations.

[got tonkaed]

though i havent watched the video as im in a computer lab....i hope you realize nobunga that nothing that is a commentary on a polictially oriented issue such as representation of the media is done without any type of political motivation or leanings. Just because someone does go right out and say this is where i stand, doesnt mean their work doesnt imply it.

[Nobunaga]

... no, watch it. It's a long, boring thing by two scientists who laugh a bit at Time magazine is all. It's 99% yaaaawn science. I forced myself to watch it, simply because I've had no opinion on the topic and wanted an education.

[alex_white101]

... My point is simply, scientists are like hired guns or mercenaries these days.

Hired by whom? I'd love to know.

... By GW, or Mr. Gore, or whatever politician can get ahead by making ridiculous claims based only loosely in fact.

... Do yourself a favor and watch the video I posted above. It' very educational and has no political motives, just a very timid taunt at the media in general for half-truths and exaggerations.

the scientists arent ''hired'' as such. they are merely nudged in a certain direction. so the politician can draw the conclusions they wish to from the research. i wouldnt blame scientists here.......

[jay_a2j]

or paid...ie, some scientist was given 250,000 by the Heinz Corp. (John Kerry) These "Global warming experts" are paid to say what they say. Humans are not causing global warming.

[alex_white101]

maybe not causing it........ but we are most definately helping it along.

[unriggable]

Likewise, those who claim that global warming is entirely caused by human activity are ignoring the strong correlation between climate and solar output, and the fact that Mars and Jupiter are both showing signs of warming that match ours.

I know that isn't true since we have no way of knowing temperatures on those planets. Especially since Mars has no atmosphere, and any attempt to know temperature on Jupiter would result in a downed spacecraft.

I'm still confused why people are arguing about this and no acting. Consider this:

If Global Warming is not true:

We act: We don't fix the problem, but air is more breathable, etc, and places like Mexico City are no longer as bad as they were at one point.

We don't act: Nothing happens or changes.

If Global Warming is true:

We act: We fix the problem.

We don't act: We are fucked.

I know this is alot like Pascal's Wager (I denounce that a lot) but here it is one way or another, whereas pascal's wager is very open to different possibilities.

[alex_white101]

Likewise, those who claim that global warming is entirely caused by human activity are ignoring the strong correlation between climate and solar output, and the fact that Mars and Jupiter are both showing signs of warming that match ours.

I know that isn't true since we have no way of knowing temperatures on those planets. Especially since Mars has no atmosphere, and any attempt to know temperature on Jupiter would result in a downed spacecraft.

I'm still confused why people are arguing about this and no acting. Consider this:

If Global Warming is not true:

We act: We don't fix the problem, but air is more breathable, etc, and places like Mexico City are no longer as bad as they were at one point.

We don't act: Nothing happens or changes.

If Global Warming is true:

We act: We fix the problem.

We don't act: We are fucked.

I know this is alot like Pascal's Wager (I denounce that a lot) but here it is one way or another, whereas pascal's wager is very open to different possibilities.

this is very sound reasoning and what is pascals wager?

[unriggable]

this is very sound reasoning and what is pascals wager?

If God does not exist:

You believe in him: You just wasted some sundays but nothing bad happened

You don't believe in him: Nothing happened

If God does exist:

You believe in him: You will be saved

You don't believe in him: You're pretty much screwed.

The problem with this is that it does not take into account the desires of God, the people who used it said that the God that exists is exactly how they worship him as being. For all we know God could be an ifrit waiting to kick the shit out of us when we 'ascend to heaven'.

[vtmarik]

this is very sound reasoning and what is pascals wager?

If God does not exist:

You believe in him: You just wasted some sundays but nothing bad happened

You don't believe in him: Nothing happened

If God does exist:

You believe in him: You will be saved

You don't believe in him: You're pretty much screwed.

The problem with this is that it does not take into account the desires of God, the people who used it said that the God that exists is exactly how they worship him as being. For all we know God could be an ifrit waiting to kick the shit out of us when we 'ascend to heaven'.

It also doesn't take into account that if you believe in him just so you won't go to hell, that is a lie and lying is a sin. Pascal's Wager is fundamentally flawed in this way.

[Stopper]

or paid...ie, some scientist was given 250,000 by the Heinz Corp. (John Kerry) These "Global warming experts" are paid to say what they say. Humans are not causing global warming.

Are you talking about this? The man won a prize - he wasn't paid to say anything!

[alex_white101]

yes but still, i think the reaasoning he used for global warming is good, as it does not rely on some higher being, just the fact that if u do act u will be in a win win situation......

[jay_a2j]

or paid...ie, some scientist was given 250,000 by the Heinz Corp. (John Kerry) These "Global warming experts" are paid to say what they say. Humans are not causing global warming.

Are you talking about this? The man won a prize - he wasn't paid to say anything!

Yes thats it. The problem with this guy is, a reporter wanted an interview but to have someone else "listen in" on the conversation so what was said could not be misconstrued. The man declined.... stating some "nazi-type" press monitoring the interview. When a organization has an award to "a person who helps document global warming" ... many people will come forward to get the cash whether their "research" is based on fact or fiction.

[heavycola]

Jay please explain why the overwhelming majority of climatologists (who agree that we are changing the climate of this planet with our fossil fuel addiction) are wrong? They were saying this years before the politicians got involved, too.
I would like to know why they are all wrong, and how you know more about climatology than 90% of scientists.

[vtmarik]

Jay please explain why the overwhelming majority of climatologists (who agree that we are changing the climate of this planet with our fossil fuel addiction) are wrong? They were saying this years before the politicians got involved, too.
I would like to know why they are all wrong, and how you know more about climatology than 90% of scientists.

Because he's on the "right" side of the issue.

DA-DUM-PISH!

[jay_a2j]

Jay please explain why the overwhelming majority of climatologists (who agree that we are changing the climate of this planet with our fossil fuel addiction) are wrong? They were saying this years before the politicians got involved, too.
I would like to know why they are all wrong, and how you know more about climatology than 90% of scientists.

They are probably being "financially reimbursed" by politicians.

Last night I was listening to M. Savage. He had a scientist on that said Gore is full of hot air. He also said that the Gore charts that showed that "increases in temperature correlates with the increase of CO2" were actually REVERSED, and that the charts actually show the CO2 increasing BEFORE the temperature started to rise.

In essence Gore was stating that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is leading to higher global temperatures, when if fact the higher temperatures are leading to an increase in CO2.

[vtmarik]

So one guy says that everyone else is wrong.

Whatever happened to your concept of majority rules? A majority voted for Bush in 2004 and that's set in stone, but a majority of scientists conclude that global warming exists and all of a sudden its a massive conspiracy?