Seattle Times: "The truth about global warming"

Lowell - I sincerely apologize for posting off topic on this thread - clearly a serious subject. I guess I couldn't pass up the temptation of trying to provide some levity when it seemed to me folks were getting a little too emotionally charged. <br>We're all in this life together and most of us basically seek similar objectives. Getting things done together is what it is all about. You just seem to be a bit better at keeping your eye on the ball than others (like me for instance )<br>Thanks for your contributions and participation in this forum. I know I'm not the only one that appreciates it.

This discussion and referenced sources are very interesting and have caused me to do some reading and consideration. I cannot say that I have read anything that is new to me. I will offer some other discussion, in the interest of healthy debate.<br><br>The subject and tone of the original post, a Seattle Times Editorial, was clearly political in nature. The Editorial also linked to scolarly and scientific sources. When one reads some of the material linked, it is clear that The National Academy of Sciences (and others) recognize a compelling and important theory that may or may not have dramatic and possibly damaging consequences, and that those consequences may or may not be significantly driven or affected by human activities. <br><br>Below are cut and pasted quotes from The National Academy of Sciences website that was linked from the Editorial:<br><br>Uncertainties in Climate Predictions<br><br>The report identifies several components of climate change that are highly uncertain and make it difficult to predict future changes....<br><br>However, it also cautioned that uncertainties about this conclusion remain because of the level of natural variability inherent in the climate on time scales from decades to centuries, the questionable ability of models to simulate natural variability on such long time scales, and the degree of confidence that can be placed on estimates of temperatures going back thousands of years based on evidence from tree rings or ice cores...<br><br>Are We Changing the Climate?<br><br><br>But it is not known how much of the temperature rise to date is the result of human activities... <br><br><br>Almost all of the major greenhouse gases -- with the exception of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) -- have both natural and human-induced sources.<br><br>(end of quote)<br><br><br><br>In consideration of the referenced reports, a thinking person could conclude that it would be problematic to ignore the theory and its consequences and likewise problematic to consider the theory of significant human causation as proven fact and act on that basis.<br><br>In thinking about this some analogies from other fields come to mind. In business and management is the concept that it is of supreme importance to clearly and accurately define and measure the problem before formulating a solution and expending resources to solve the problem (in the interest of efficient and effective use of resources {for those of you who may believe that resources are unlimited as long as our good politicians can continue to raise taxes on rich people}). The other analogy comes from the medical care of an acutely ill individual.<br><br>The term homeostasis refers to the baseline or balanced physiologic condition of a living organism. Living organisms normally make physiologic adjustments or responses in order to return to homeostasis. In the treatment of acute illness other means (meds, treatments, emotional support etc.) are employed to attempt to bring the patient back toward homeostasis. When such means are employed, the judicious and well reasoned application is necessary so that the proper treatment affects the (intended) diagnosed condition in the positive manner that is intended. Unintended consequences may result, and can be harmful, neutral, or just wasteful. In comparison to the topic of global warming, if the exact nature of the problem is not understood or defined, measures to change the theoretical problem may similarly have unintended consequences.<br><br>Other interesting comments have been presented in the thread that are basically sociopolitical.<br><br>To be told, in so many words, that if one must believe in "science" and heed the instructions of "scientists" as defined by one interest group or one specific individual, is anathema to a thinking person. Scientists are clearly politicians, since most scientists must convince someone to pay them since their work often does not produce an immediate cash flow. Scientists are not neccessarily more intelligent than many who read this forum, and may not have any more formal education than some forum participants. "Scientists" and others sometimes clearly lack reasonable judgement for various reasons. The term scientist carries a certain load of bs in my view, since many if us, even those of us producing useful products and services, use the scientific method and science in our daily lives.<br><br>Discounting studies or comments without consideration of the data presented by someone that is personally socially unacceptable (political association, paid by oil companies, paid by environmental interest groups, association with a certain political group, country of origin...etc.) is certainly bigotry. Apparently, some feel that anyone disagreeing with their view are extremists.<br><br>In the interesting flurry of political commentary in this thread is the far too familiar passive-aggressive technique. This passive-aggressive maneuver is perhaps used as a method to control the message, or stifle the "healthy debate" when it is not going a certain way: <br><br>1) A controversial political topic that is within the realm of science is presented with the endorsement of a well known and liked individual.<br><br>2) Following the posting are politically-based comments.<br><br>3) The poster of the politically controversial topic then purports to retreat and attempts to play the "science" card while deploring politics and inferring personal insult from the differing viewpoints.<br><br>In my view, all are free, within reason and at the pleasure of the Administrator, to post their ideas and comments. Ideally the concept and not the personal attack of the participants is the topic of interest. <br><br>

Count me among those mystified by the apparent polarization in interpreting the science along political lines . . . figuring out how to pay for the research and who shall sacrifice what to resolve the problem is one thing, but I've always thought of thorough science as pretty apolitical, and this is no exception. Choosing to ignore the data goes beyond politics. <br><br>

Lowell - thanks for the links and the heads up on the conference - I will PM you if I'm going to manage to sign up AND free up the work time to attend and learn more.<br><br>Randonee - I'll just let lay the rest of what you've written, but when you state "In business and management is the concept that it is of supreme importance to clearly and accurately define and measure the problem before formulating a solution and expending resources to solve the problem" I have to disagree. I work at a large and successful company you probably have heard of in our area, and one of the key "success factors" that we look at in folks to move up into the management ranks is "dealing with ambiguity." It is important that decision-makers not suffer "analysis paralysis." Of course, the willingness to make decisions with partial data or remaining uncertainties must be balanced with other factors like good overall judgment, strategic thinking, etc. But we don't want folks to refuse to take action simply because there might be even more data that could be collected to eliminate more of the existing uncertainties. In business, that is a way toward the death spiral as swift competitors move ahead of you. If we want government to run more like successful businesses, we would not wait to get consensus among 100% of the scientists - something approaching 99% might suffice, perhaps paired with some common-sense gut-checking of the info (e.g. comparing warming rates to prior warming periods, etc.)...<br><br>Ron - that was funny writing that comes off as a hard slam on liberals but only a light tap at conservatives, which may or may not be what you intended (satire is a tricky art). In any case, I appreciate that your intent was to reduce the polarization a bit here. I hope the folks who enjoyed the passage realize that both average liberals and average conservatives contribute productively to society through their hard labor despite disagreeing on policy matters. If we can all at least agree to that, perhaps we can work toward more significant agreements...

I will offer some other discussion, in the interest of healthy debate.

<br><br>I welcome discussion in the interest of healthy debate. That's why I started the thread. I hope to learn something, even if it's only how other TAY readers view the issue. I don't mind discussing politics as long as it's related to the topic under discussion. Ron's post was off-topic, and he acknowleged that with his usual grace and good humor.<br><br>The Seattle Times article that started this thread, which you called an editorial, was a front-page article by the paper's science reporter. It wasn't an editorial, but it was presented provocatively, because the reporter's findings challenged the public's perception of climate science, and the editors expected it to be controversial. They were right. Today's Times letters page was devoted to the story. The letters ran six against, four in favor, and one with no opinion.<br><br>I appreciate the quotes you provided from the National Academy of Sciences website. It would be helpful if you provided a website reference, because it's hard to interpret the statements out of context. I'd like to offer the following from the Summary for Policymakers in the 2001 Synthesis Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 4-5). This report represents a consensus of thousands of scientists from around the world. <br><br>

Question 2: What is the evidence for, causes of, and consequences of changes in the Earth's climate since the pre-industrial era?<br><br>Some of the answers:<br><br>* An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system.<br><br>* Globally it is very likely that the 1990s was the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in the instrumental record.<br><br>* There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.

<br><br>This report is four years old. (I believe a new report will be coming out this year or next.) Everything I've read (but I'm no expert) suggests that each IPCC report has been more confident than the last that human-induced warming is real, and the next report is likely to continue this trend.<br><br>You wrote:<br><br>

<br>Scientists are clearly politicians, since most scientists must convince someone to pay them since their work often does not produce an immediate cash flow. <br>

<br><br>This implies that scientists are arguing that human-induced warming is real because it helps tham get research grants. Can you explain to us which grant organizations have an interest in seeing this theory promoted? I believe most grants come from goverments. Would you like us to believe that governments throughout the world have subtlely pushed their researchers to reach this conclusion?<br><br>At the end of your post you wrote:<br><br>

Ideally the concept and not the personal attack of the participants is the topic of interest.

<br><br>In other words, if a poster hurls contempt at the other participants in this discussion, as you did in your first post (Reply #9), we should ignore that and focus on his or her conceptual arguments. Okay, I'll do my best.<br>

I found an interesting site the counters the assumption of global warming. This site contains a petition signed by thousands of Phd's and others, rejecting the Kyoto Accord as being based on bad science. I bring this up to show that the argument on Global Warming is not a done deal and there are reputable scientific arguments to counter the assumptive trend:<br><br> www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm <br><br>Global Warming Petition <br>We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. <br><br>There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. <br><br><br><br>Here is an astounding conclusion that this group has on the topic:<br><br>"....Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not measurably warmed the atmosphere, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not significantly do so in the foreseeable future. It does, however, release CO2, which accelerates the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes. <br><br>As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people. <br><br>Human activities are believed to be responsible for the rise in CO2 level of the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere and surface, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the CO2 increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution. ...." <br><br>