I've reposted this comment by Lakerfan that was buried in a comment due to tech issues:
I would like to rant about a subject that we have not discussed in class, but concerns me immensely.
It has been in the news lately that Al Gore recently was a co-winner of the Nobel peace prize for his work in the subject of global warming. Gore, and most of our media, reports that global warming is accelerating and that if we do not do something quickly, the process will be irreversible. They would have us believe that this will lead to rising sea levels, the extinction of certain species, and eventually the destruction of the earths atmosphere, and maybe us.Is this scarry or what? Or, is this exactly what they are trying to do, scare us.
As my trust for the media has waned in the last few months, I have begun to research this global warming subject myself.I ran across an article on digitaljournal.com, written by Michael Wagner.He reports that much of the medias information regarding global warming, is supplied to them by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.This is a 3,000 member panel appointed by the United Nations, consisting of mostly politicians, not scientists.Many of the scientists on the panel dispute the global warming findings, but are having their opinion deleted from the panels reports.
The truth, according to Wagner, is that most scietist in the world disagree with the idea of global warming. He reports that a petition has already been signed by 17,000 scientist that states they do not agree with the conclusion of global warming.
Hearing these statistics makes me leary of our medias reporting of the global warming facts.Does anyone remember the medias reporting of the "fact" that Iraq had WMD's. Was not that meant to scare the American public, as global warming is doing.And was not the truth regarding WMD's shown to be "they never existed".I know the two issues do not seem to be related, except that most Americans receive their info regarding these two issues almost exclusively from the media. It sure makes me wonder.
History has shown that the best way for a government to subvert their peoples rights or to accomplish an unpopular political goal is by scarring them into believing that it is being done to protect them. Personally, I do not put it passed our government to pull a dirty trick like this against the American public.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
PockyIsGod contributed the following comment while Lakerfan's rant was buried in a comment to the debate grading:
It is intellectually suspect to state that Global Warming is not happening, the trends are easy to identify and document. I think the issues lies with if WE, as humans, are the main cause of the warming trend. Sadly, you would be hard pressed to find a study that is not politically backed. They have to get money from somewhere, right? The giving of this award to Gore, I think, is more about his crusade to bring attention to these changes, than any actual scientific work he has done to propogate understanding in this matter.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article516033.ece
Is just one of the articles that proclaim to have final "proof" we are the cause of this warming trend, but sadly, you can find another 30 against the linked article. The comparison to the Media reporting that Iraq had WMD's is a partial strawman, since the "Media" consisted almost entirely of Fox News, aptly nicknamed Faux News since they have a very heavy slant towards the republican party who was in power and trying to convince us we must attack Iraq before we all perish. The current administration relies entirely on FUD. If you aren't familiar with the acronym, I'm sure Prof. Crandall will be more than happy to explain it in depth. For the uninitiated or those people who don't attend class, it stands for "Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt". It is cast on everything you and I do as a way to keep the populace in line.
I have no beef with Muslims. Haha, see what I did there, Beef, Halal..funny stuff that is. I have always questioned the shoveling of news you receive when you get home from work at 5 and switch your TV on. As long as we question, investigate and educate ourselves, we can wade through the FUD and get to the facts.
Lakerfan originally responded to the above comment as follows:
First of all, explain to all of us what is meant by "intellectually suspect", and then tell us who that is directed at. Second of all, I supplied sources defending my arguement and all you supply is " the trends are easy to find".However, I do believe Global Warming does exist,I don't know why, and I do believe it is not to the extent that the media reports. Also,studies are not always politically backed. They are often backed by Universities, Individual Companies, or organizations with no political sponsorship. Granted, if they are politically backed, there would seem to be an agenda.
Lakerfan, I don't doubt that the gov't might lie, but I wonder who would pay it to lie against the oil, automotive, and oil industries, and why these giants would be made to seem so helpless to defend themselves.
PockyIsGod, I'm glad you explained the acronym! I'm familiar with the concept, but I didn't recognize the acronym until you explained. Be careful citing these authorities!
I forgot about this thread, as I seem to have hit a nerve with my "intellectually suspect" comment. Which I stand by despite its negative connotations.
http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2007/03/19/ineed-a-title
The comment is directed not any one person, and especially not at the person whom first initiated this concourse. However, in the same post the previous poster states that she questions the "extent" of the issue and how it is reported by the media. A few disparate comments against a very provable, very real trend is not cause to start employing doubt across the board. There is a very easy, unbiased and direct source of proving that the temperature is changing, and not in our favor.
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/European_Lead_In_Reading_Past_Climates_From_Ice_Cores_999.html
The ice bubbles caught in the old ice contain the makeup of the air at the time of original snowfall. Specifically, the nitrogen and carbon dioxide levels which makeup the ever popular greenhouse gas effect of continual heating of the surface. There exists a well documented, verifiable, reproducible date of the last great jump in those two gases. It was around 200 years ago, when the Industrial Revolution began. Coincedence? I think not. There exists equillibrium with the oceans who take in and basically sequester these excess gases and we have verified (we, being hereafter referring to scientists) that we have crossed that point, in that the oceans are not known to take in any more gasses of this kind. Thus continuing our warming trend. The last time the oceans released all the carbon, methane and nitrogen it once held; we had the swampy environment that was perfect for the dinosaurs, and mosquitos the size of Kaiser rolls.
Here is some more reading from one of my favorite web sites.
Understanding Climate Models: The engine behind climate models
http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2006/9/20/5356
Using Climate Models: Prediction: grape growers to start whining http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2006/7/28/4800
Using Climate Models II: Climate modelers gear up to provide short term predictions http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2007/08/09/climate-modelers-gear-up-to-provide-short-term-predictions
Atmospheric carbon and past climates: Records we'd rather not be setting http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2005/11/27/1937
Historical reconstructions: Measuring past climate data: Part I http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2006/11/20/6027
Historical reconstructions II: Measuring past climate data: Part II http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2006/11/21/6040
Role of sun: Modern warming: sun down, temps up http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2007/07/11/modern-warming-sun-down-temps-up
Role of forests: Can old-growth forests possibly slow global climate change?
http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2006/12/11/6242
Role of burning forests: Not all forest fires are equal http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2006/11/17/6012
Impact on ocean levels: Rising Oceans http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2006/1/27/2682
How not to do climate science: Preordained conclusions produce bad science http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2007/03/19/ineed-a-title
First of all, I refuse to use a degrading, selfserving, comment such as "intellectually suspect". This is only a blog, and none of us our God and "know" the true facts.You can find a lot of info on the net purporting to be from "this" organizaion or that "society", that supports both sides of the issue. BTW,Lakerfan is a "he", not a "she".
For B.C:I found this statement on the net which may possibly help to explain who and why the public is being decieved. ....."And then there are those who yearn for a certain outcome and set about creating the needed data to make it so. Usually you will find this group of scientists greatly dependent on grants supplied by those with a specific political agenda who demand desired outcomes for their money." – quoted from American Policy.
You use self serving in a way that makes one believe that I used the term to better myself or my argument. How so? I claim neither to be a deity, though my chosen posting name begs to differ; but I am stating that it is intellectually questionable to, in the light of the provided evidence, to still have questions ABOUT global warming because of a certain media report about reporting or pre-existing biases against an organization you feel is supplying the data that YOU are ultimately being fed.
I have provided numerous articles, free of bias that show, in cold, hard, provable researched facts that this warming trend is happening, and that it very clearly coincides with the start of the Industrial Revolution.
I don't need God(s) or omniscient abilities to tell me what facts do, the most blatant is that of the drilled ice linked above.
Please accept my deepest apologies for referring to you as a she, as there exists no indicators thus far that would expose the gender of the poster. I can attribute that as a typo.
Ultimately, my argument lies with the fact that you are falling for the reverse of this fallacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority#Appeal_to_authority_as_logical_fallacy
Just because and informant (the media, in this case) may have obfuscated Claim A, does not mean that the ultimately unrelated Claim B is also suspect because of the previous claim made about A.
Questioning is fine, but not to start to disbelieve because of a totall unrelated reference to ghost WMD's in Iraq. THAT line of reasoning is intellectually suspect, not any one person, but the logic used to fuel your skepticism.
I hope this clears that up.
In response to the original post I however do not believe in global warming. It is basic fact that the sun hits the earth at different angles all the time. Some parts of the earth recive more direct sunlight than others. As a result parts of the earth recieve unequal heating at the surface. This creates areas of different temperature also pressure. Since pressure is also influenced by temperature. This then is pritty much the basic cause of a "heat exchange" through pressure and temperature throught the earth. And is another term for weather.
Weather patterns are oftentimes predicted through prognostic charts. Which take into account systems such as cold and warm fronts (front= an/a airmass with the same characteristics) and low pressure (tendancy to take air in all directions) and High pressure centers (tendancy to act as a blower) (because high ALWAYS goes to low). And these charts are not always 100 percent accurate. Sometimes the airmass that moves inmay be from the south tropics and have moisture all of a sudden a shift in the movement of the high pressue system moves more south brining in dry cool air mixing with moisture can cause thnderstorms that were not originally perfdected. Even then weather men often say "35 percetn chance...60 percent chance" My simple point is they are not 100 percent accurate.
Now global warming could also be the same, just different patterns in weather associations with the earths surface. Even scientists notice different activity with the sun. such as more or less activity int he suns outer part called the corona. So therefore could also alter patterns of the sunlight ammount the earth recieves. Russia just had their coldest winters a few years ago. And as we go outside it is 85 in November it could be an "indian summer". When summer extends longer.
And good find on that panal on global warming all politicians. Once again I think they may be trying to stir a new "fad" which can jump start the economy towards products and services catering to "green". Claremont Mckenna just opened a 32 million dollar "green" dormitory building which was featured on NBCnews4 http://video.knbc.com/player/?id=154668.
And who knows that hydrogen fuel cars a enviromentally friendly? Maybe they can even increase respiratory illnesses. I do belive that smog andsuch can cause allergies to increase and more sensitive people to suffer. I do not however believe in global wamring as a huge catostrophic event.
"FUD" as you put it, creats money. Projects towards protection and prevention will be created and initiated. It is simple fact. And who creates these facts?
Beware det_kimble, you are now at risk of being considered "intellectually suspect".
det_kimble:
You mistake the meaning of a fact. No one "creates" facts, facts are there and then are discovered through testing. We don't create the fact that the sky is blue, we observe, verify the wavelength of light that is allowed through the atmosphere, and come to the conclusion/fact that the sky is blue and why.
I don't know if you are stating that the sun is is the cause for the warming trend, which is far more invasive than your argument of it being "weather patterns".
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html
Is a study on the effect of the sun and it's varying power through the mesurement of darkspots, coronal activity, etc. The data extrapolated is that the power of the sun peaked around 1985-87, yet the rising of the overall temperature of the earth is still rising. If the Sun was a major factor in the warming trends observed thus far, shouldn't the facts be equal? They are not, which leads to further testing, most notably and damning is the measurement of the air through deep ice drilling.
The earth is warming at a rate not seen in over 1,000,000 years of recordable history. And has been stated before, the sharpest rise is seen at around 200 years ago, at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The sun cannot account for that, and a warming trend, continuously upward for 200 years is much, much more than a succinct weather pattern.
"The earth is warming at a rate not seen in over 1,000,000 years of recordable history"
They had thermometers back then?
Also if you read the FAA Airplane flying hand book that heat exchange I beriefly described is the exact book definition of what causes weather. And is pritty much what is taught to aviators, meteorologists, and even Air Traffic controlers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather read "mechinism". Hence the earth at a 23.5 degree angle recives different angles of the sun and also changes in season. We also have oceans that generally cool at a slower rate than land. Also the earth rotating on its axis cause weather deflections to occur. Many variables and reasons as to why some parts of the earth recives different degrees of heat.
I think it is all junk science. Now do I think pollutants can harm people, increase respiratory cancers, and other ailments. Yes.
As for natural disasters, they happen all the time throughout the ages hurricans have occured, droughts (check the Bible),tsunami's Japan was affected by a big one) and so on. But like I said it is a good way to gain economically from it. Look at the year 2000 most peopel feared a global "Y2K" bug that could affect the world. As a result thousands of jobs in the computer industry were created. Oppotunities endless.
Imagine if they passed a law banning your vehicle. You would HAVE to buy a new vehicle provided by another company with stake.
And Theoreticlly the sun is over 6 billion years old. How would they know it was the peak in 1986-1989??
Det Kimble, I applaud your willingness to risk suspicion, but I wonder whether you mean that the Sun's light hits the Earth at different angles at different times of the year, day, or glacial epoch.
I'm not sure that year or day vary in the total amount of light that hits the Earth, although it apparently makes a difference whether it hits the more terraform north or the watery south. At night, it hits somewhere else, no?
But neither of these would seem to influence a warming or cooling trend over various years. Do you mean that it hits differently in different epochs, and if so, how does this work?
What if of suspicion?
No since the earth is at a different angle the direct sunlight towards some reigons vary, even during seasons. That + different changes in the suns activity contribute to my point.
"The earth is warming at a rate not seen in over 1,000,000 years of recordable history"
They had thermometers back then?
Don't quote me to be purposely obtuse. You know exactly what I am referring to. The temperatures CAN, HAVE BEEN, and will continue to be deducted and recorded by our explorations into deep ice drilling. We can, by the chemical makeup, determine the relative temperature of the Earth by looking at what made up the air at the time the ice bubbles were formed. If you want to question and be suspicious the more power to you. Don't do it in a way that is scientifically faulty and ultimately responsible for junk science. If you question it, then plainly state why and in what logical capacity you question it. Don't make off the cuff comments that are obviously rhetorical at best, annoying at worst.
My best regards.
*Please do not count my Nov 8 response above, it was incomplete and my internet was kicked off.
In continuing, what kind of suspicion am I subjecting myself to? And in angles I mean by the direct hit of the sunlight to its target(surface,atmosphere). I found many topics and links on this but the universally and easy to use wikipedia has a good article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_of_sun_angle_on_climate. It explains how sunglight angles could affect climate. Since the earth is proven to be at a 23.5 degree tilt on its axis parts of our earths surface revices different angles of sunlight per season, some more direct than non.
Ever wonder why out in the winter in the midwest even though the sun is out, no clouds it is still well below freezing? In that case we could aruge it is a "global cooling". This is because the sunlight is not at a direct angle and does not have as much impact or force on its target. So therefore this may also cause an impact on global temperatures, as well as several factors I mentioned above with regards to, the earths rotation, different activities in the suns corona, low and high pressure shifts, water cooling longer than land etc...
Pockyisgod you make excellent arguments on behalf of global warming. I however present mine and it is also a great way for you to test your stance and mine. I apologize if I may seem annoying, but the use of the quotation was just to directly present my thoughts/arguments on that specific line.
Our current climate models and projection tools are unaccurate. As I said in my previous post "even our current charts are not 100 percent accurate in predicting weather in the next few days". What more for a span of 10-50 years? And most of these "green" regulations apply to the United States and western countries. They do not however, cover 3rd world nations in which they actually have way more pollutants then we do. Then why is it under global warming activities they are not covered.
Post a Comment