|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 2:53 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| sundubuman wrote: |
Can you give me any statistics on the percentage of climatologists that are in concurrence with the global warming theory
Would love to know exactly WHAT PERCENTAGE of scientists are, beyond a shadow of a doubt, SURE of this theory of anthropomorphic global warming.... |
Science isn't about beyond a shadow of a doubt. It has error bars. So the true answer to your statement is probably close to zero if they're being good scientists. You have, however, too narrowly defined your goal post.
A better question:
How many climate scientists agree the best research indicates it is likely humans are responsible for climate change?
A good way to answer that is look at the policy statements of associations that represent climate scientists. These associations are democratic institutions and issue such statements only after a consensus of its members is reached. (Think of, say, the recent vote on Pluto as an example of how such societies work. They don't make such position statements until after major conferences after considerable debate and a vote.)
So examine:
America:
http://ametsoc.org/POLICY/2007climatechange.html
Despite the uncertainties noted above, there is adequate evidence from observations and interpretations of climate simulations to conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change; and that further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human societies, on economies, on ecosystems, and on wildlife through the 21st century and beyond.
Canada:
http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepos_e.pdf:
Arguments by a few individuals that recent temperature trends may not be unprecedented within the past thousand years and can therefore be fully explained by natural variability and causes for change (often referred to as the �hockey stick debate�) are based on limited assessments and are seriously flawed. While some uncertainty is an inherent aspect of all science, related international research studies continue consistently to refute such conclusions.
Can you find a national or international association that doesn't take that position?
This is one of the ways science gets done. In almost everything, there tends to start off being two major camps. From brain research to particle physics. They debate (as the climate community) for years and decades. They do their research. Critics try to poke holes in their research. But eventually such groups reach a broad consensus on such disputes based on the evidence.
Last edited by mindmetoo on Thu Jul 12, 2007 3:54 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| So, the Ice Age is not overdue? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
| So, the Ice Age is not overdue? |
One of the theories is:
More water in the atmosphere from GW, more snow. You get regions in the north where there is too much snow from the winter to melt down over summer (kind of like how those mountains of snow in mall parking lots stay around until May). This region slowly creeps south. Then add in all the fresh water injected into the ocean from ice cap melting disrupts the current of warm south atlantic to the north that keeps the UK from freezing up...
So, it's entirely possible the long term effect of GW is an ice age. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
So are you saying governments, the military, charities, social clubs, families, tribes, nations, fraternities, and say, PEOPLE have no interest in SURVIVAL???
|
Yes they do. Sure they do! And in order to survive, they rely on the science establishment to provide them with correct information so they are able to make informed choices.
Sometimes that information is what they want to hear, sometimes it is what they don't want to hear. But it is important that governments, militaries etc... have the RIGHT information. Companies don't want correct information, they want information that helps their bottom line. Tobbacco companies, need this be said, sucked idiots like you in for decades, then lied to a senate committee hearing.
See, the scientific establishment has a responsibility to the people and their representatives. Bought and sold scientists have no such responsibility.
| Quote: |
| You personify the idiocy of the left. Congratulations. The leftist establishment has successfully convinced you that ONLY corporations and evil capitalists are interested in surviving. |
If you can't grasp the difference between a nation making decisions based on correct information and companies making decisions based on what helps the bottom line, then you are so far gone I can barely see you george.
That said, I certainly can understand your skepticism with scientific organizations such as the one you previously quoted but, as mentioned, unless problems arise in their science, it's pretty difficult to claim that they are 'fudging' data.
| Quote: |
| Scientific research organizations which employ thousands and survive on the taxpayer's/government TEATS have no interest in surviving then...do I understand you correctly???? |
See, here's the thing monkey brain: Scientific research will ALWAYS march on. There are ALWAYS topics to study, there are always things to know.
A complete trashing and a total rejection of GW theory will have no solid impact on ANY organizations. There are ALWAYS ideas and topics that need to be addressed so these organizations will ALWAYS receive funding whether you want them to or not.
Are they interested in "surviving"? YES!!! FUCK yes they are.
But their method of survival has nothing to do with being in the black.
I'll tell you this right now: Providing, concluding, and producing BAD scientific data is how scientific research organizations CRUMBLE; it is the very method by which they die.
Someday I hope you learn that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| khyber wrote: |
[That said, I certainly can understand your skepticism with scientific organizations such as the one you previously quoted but, as mentioned, unless problems arise in their science, it's pretty difficult to claim that they are 'fudging' data.
[. |
The Club of Rome. Limits to Growth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/03_1.shtml
The Ice age will happen.
Humankind did not start it humankind will not cause it humankind cannot stop it. It is cyclical and cannot be prevented.
If humankind had any effect it merely delayed the inevitible.
The Ice Age is coming, it is late by all accounts much overdue.
It is coming it is not your fault. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The Club of Rome. Limits to Growth |
I haven't read the tome but I can say the basic theory (that there is a limit of resources on planet earth) was at the time, an almost completely overlooked point. It still has important arguments to consider.
Also, their claim stated that humanity had "about a century" before the fit hit the shan....so they still have about 70years.
Regardless conservative, I'm still curious as to why you brought it up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
Humankind did not start it humankind will not cause it humankind cannot stop it. It is cyclical and cannot be prevented. |
Last time there was an ice age,..
a) There was an ozone layer, intact.
b) Human settlement had not encroached over much of the planets surface.
c) Humans had not radically altered and changed virtually every ecosystem on earth.
d) there was not a vast belt of pollution circuiting the earths atmosphere, causing a significantly dimmed/ reduced level of sunlight on earth (look up "global dimming").
e) The earths surface was covered with natural vegetation systems.
f) Dinosaurs were not pumping out 3.2 billion metric tonnes of CO2 annually- there was not a growing positive imbalance in the carbon cycle.
I really think you underestimate the ability of 6 billion people and their activities to have effects, on their home. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There are plenty of "problems" with the Milankovitch cycles. Strangely, a lot of the problems in the data appear to be offset by energy that is absorbed by the planet.
Undoubtedly there will SOMEDAY be a massive, terrifying ice age, but that won't be anywhere NEAR our lifetimes.
Water, the stuff that's all over the earth is VERY good at absorbing heat and regulating temperatures on planet, but it won't do it in perpetuity and, at some point in time, the pendulum will swing back.
ps...found this great little website that I'm slowly perusing.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleodata.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 4:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| khyber wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The Club of Rome. Limits to Growth |
I haven't read the tome but I can say the basic theory (that there is a limit of resources on planet earth) was at the time, an almost completely overlooked point. It still has important arguments to consider.
Also, their claim stated that humanity had "about a century" before the fit hit the shan....so they still have about 70years.
Regardless conservative, I'm still curious as to why you brought it up. |
They predicted that the oil would be used up by 1990. Almost 20 years later and there's still a few billions lying around. Russia, Canada, certain S.A nations and of course the Mid_East. They were also wrong about mineral resources.
This was an example of scientists either getting it wrong or relying on "fudged data" in order to scare people and get funding for their work. Acid rain, ozone layer, and the population "bomb" All were raised in the past as issues. The ozone layer is repairing itself and the other two have been debunked. It's been estimated that the earth can support a couple billion more people than it has presently and acid rain..when was the last time it was a hot topic...back in the eighties?
Cry "Wolf" often enough and people will stop listening. You can fool all of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
They predicted that the oil would be used up by 1990. Almost 20 years later and there's still a few billions lying around. Russia, Canada, certain S.A nations and of course the Mid_East. They were also wrong about mineral resources.
|
As mentioned, their basic premise is an important one that economists still consider.
Regardless, I have NO idea what the oil reserve forcasts were like back in the 1970s. I suppose I'll have to read the book.
But how did they draw their conclusions?
-- This is how much oil we have now and I don't think we can find anymore (a silly claim, I'll agree).
-- This is how much we are currently using
-- If we will continue to use that much
------>THIS is when we will run out.
That is a relatively simple (and logical) way to come to that conclusion. Though I'll be the first to admit. not the best way to make predictions.
I'm no HUGE fan of models for predicting science. They have their place and I'm sure a GREAT DEAL of improvements have taken place in the world of computer modelling (I'd read that "Limits to Growth" was the first important computer modelling that was done but it was fraught with subpar equipment and technologies). I still remain somewhat skeptical.
Thanks for the suggestion Cons. I'll definitely take a read of that.
| Quote: |
| Acid rain, ozone layer, and the population "bomb" All were raised in the past as issues. The ozone layer is repairing itself and the other two have been debunked. |
uhm what? Acid rain has NOT been debunked, it's simply not an important political issue but it certainly still happens and it certainly affects aquatic life.
As for the ozone repairing, I'd like to think that that had something to do with policies that were put into place that severely restricted CFCs and other ozone depleting chemicals. Also, from what I've read, a) there are STILL holes and b) the ozone is still (on the whole) is still thinning, just at a slower pace than before.
Regardless, I'm still using SPF 30 and getting burned. When I was a kid, it was 7-10. When we get back to their, I'll breathe a sigh of relief:
And as for the population bomb, i'm not sure how you think that has been "Debunked". The fact is that the last 150 years there HAS been a population bomb and it still continues (7 billion when? fairly soon...we have a population growth of about 3 people/second).
BUT, now people know about it and China specifically is taking great pains to limit it's population.
Their population in 50 years will be, well, I'd guess about 20% of what it is.
| Quote: |
| It's been estimated that the earth can support a couple billion more people than it has presently and acid rain..when was the last time it was a hot topic...back in the eighties? |
The earth could support twice it's present population is the resources were distributed evenly. But since that ain't gonna happen, we'll just have to deal with starvation.
As for acid rain, I'm surprised you're equating "hot topic" with "debunked". I'm certain you have more sense than that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
dp
Last edited by khyber on Sat Jul 14, 2007 7:44 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Anyhow....so the whole solar flare argument is out the window.
Gord, are you there? Maybe its time to seed the oceans with iron filings now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
