Seattle Times: "The truth about global warming"

Thanks Ron, I'll check into that. I'm not really looking for debate as much as I am in search of historical data, facts figures, etc. Exchange of ideas is a good thing, but I try not to push my ideas on anyone, just share them.<br><br>Thanks again.

Thank you very much, Ron. I read the article last evening and again this morning. The article includes but greatly enhances or amplifies all of the arguments that I would have made on this topic.<br><br>The popular topic may be defined as global warming driven by human caused- er, US human caused especially, others get a pass-hydrocarbon emissions.<br><br>My take is to observe the problem while attempting to adhere to the scientific method. My current view is that while compelling, the data are inconclusive. <br><br>For example, in this forum discussion I have not attempted to deny the possibility that global warming could exist in the popular lib-enviro-US=bad scenario. On the other hand, some proponents of the popular theory promote a singular idea as fervently as would a religious or political fanatic. I think it was particularly telling when I used the data from the global warming title posting to point out that significant uncertainty does exist, a vigorous counter argument ensued, and some stated that they did not agree with my points! I was simply quoting the data presented by the proponents of the above defined idea, and those individuals took issue with their own data!<br><br>Of real interest to me, and mentioned by Crichton as an example, is the spotted owl issue that occured here in the PNW. I can say honestly that although I was in the business for a while, I think there was too much logging too fast and it needed to be limited. With modern technology, demand for old growth saw logs could be diminished to near nil. Enough land had been roaded and logged that reasonably no more should be opened in such a manner, previously harvested areas could be again rotated and harvested. <br><br>With the fanatical implementation of the theory of the spotted owl, the desired effect of limiting logging was accomplished, in fact to the level of extreme overkill. The degree of intellectual and political dishonesty based on bad science in foisting the spotted owl theory is severe. Even now is a recent compelling study that attributes the decline of the Northern Spotted Owl to factors unrelated to logging! In my recent experience, my acquaintances in the USFS like to change the topic quickly and avoid a discussion of this recent study. Unfortunately, the public never really understood the issue, but reacted to support the concept in the predictable fanatical fashion. <br><br>Now few of the general public have any or no awareness of the issue and its severe socioeconomic effects on people and communities. If you recall, I posted the op-ed article "Why Is Rural America At Loggerheads With The Environmental Movement" by Theodore Roosevelt IV was included in the winter 2005 Patagucci catalog:<br> <br> www.patagonia.com/enviro/reports/2005/loggerheads.shtml

The rural-urban divide described more than likely includes views on the topic of global warming. As I write this, I ponder the nature of thoughts in regard to my discussion by those living "within the hubris of a large metropolitan and cosmopolitan culture."

Even in this gentle forum, I see those with differing views disparaged, name-called, or for example snowmobilers or pedestrians called names and assumed in negative caracatures, those of a different political view disparaged and name-called. Generally anyone with thoughts, habit, vocation, or behavior differing from the dominant Puget Sound culture becomes a target. It is quite clear that daring to consider the data in regard to global warming in a manner not in sync with the assumed dominant idea places the bullseye on one's back (It must be that remnant of ancient Scots blood, my ancestor probably stood near Hadrian's Wall and foisted a middle finger toward England).

In conclusion, I will say that I appreciate everyone's contribution to this discussion. It is important to read and consider many different ideas and information.

A couple facts to consider in relation to Crighton's article and our, as US residents, general thinking about global climate change:<br><br>First fact: The journalism on global climate change in the United States has for years portrayed a debate in the scientific community regarding the existence, cause, and potential effects of global climate change. This in light of there being broad scientific consensus on the first two of these issues (existence and cause - the big question is what exactly is going to happen). This seems to me to be an effort by the media establishment to maintain the image of fair and balanced journalism and counter the long-alleged "liberal bias" of our media. So conclusions in an IGPCC report (based on exhaustive literature reviews of peer-reviewed scientific journals) are disputed by a scholar (who may be a scientist of some sort but often has little formal background in atmospheric science) from some think tank who has not published any peer-reviewed journal articles on the subject. The newspaper gives each view equal weight.<br><br>So the first fact is this: while for years the peer-reviewed scientific literature has consistently indicated a consensus on many aspects of global climate change, the story told to the American public has been that this area is the subject of vigorous scientific debate. <br><br>I think it's a good idea for all of us to consider seriously where the information that we draw conclusions from originates. <br><br>Second fact: The science (fluid mechanics, atmospheric chemistry, thermodynamics, etc...) underlying concerns about the effects of increased CO2 in our atmosphere is well-developed. The uncertainties come from holes in the data and limited computing power that make it difficult to impossible to account for localized effects in climate models even though we know these localized effects can have HUGE significance in a nonlinear dynamic system like the atmosphere. This situation is in contrast to the eugenics analogy that Chrighton uses. In the eugenics case, conclusions were being drawn before the underlying science (DNA, genetic inheritence, etc which is still the frontier of modern biology) was developed.<br><br>This is a great discussion. Keep the perspectives coming.

See - I told ya there was some really smart folks on here, didn't I.

Rando, I appreciate your point regarding bad science even though I disagree with some of your conclusions. As for the spotted owl and the enviros, that has a bit to do with science, and a lot more to do with playing the game - lobbying, in short. <br><br>Somewhere in the mid 20th century, enviros realized that they weren't getting very far playing by the rules. Scientific studies and altruism and imploring industrial companies to clean up their act willingly just wasn't doing much. So they started playing dirty - hiring lawyers, suing government agencies, pushing studies that strengthened their positions, and not talking about the ones that didn't. In short, they became more political, as well as less naive. They also became more effective. As an ecologist, I sometimes cringe when I read the stuff coming out of the hardcore environmental camp. And yet, the underlying sentiment - that too many trees have been cut down around here - is valid. Whether or not it is entirely based on science is not the point. People have a right to demand big trees on public lands, and the scarcity of those remaining big trees suggests that a position advocating legal protection for remaining stands is totally reasonable. <br><br>Now, there are organisms and processes that require old-growth forests, such as the spotted owl, and but we don't know anything about most of these organisms(microorganisms, soil processes, fungi, etc.). The precautionary principle suggests that it would be a bad idea to rid ourselves of these woods, although forest ecologists are divided on how important they are. For instance, is a 150-year old doug-fir/hemlock stand just as good as a 1000-year old stand? It depends on what you're interested in. Owls? Clean water? Recreation? Intact soil? Maintaining productivity? <br><br>The point about the spotted owl is that it is an organism that gets protection under a currently existing legal framework. I personally don't think the spotted owl will be around these parts in 40 years, and I also don't think the ecosystem will collapse if the spotted owl is lost. And I'm with you - at this point, logging impacts are probably less of an issue than range migration of the barred owl (a similar, more aggressive owl). But I do believe that keeping the remaining westside old-growth forests unlogged (and preferably unroaded, and mostly undeveloped) is an excellent idea, since they encompass so much that we don't know about. So the spotted owl is the icon, and what people are really interested in is preserving the remaining old-growth. If you don't think very much has been lost, take a trip up from Longmire to Paradise sometime, keep that image in your head, and then head to the western Olympics (outside the park), and imagine that the forests there used to consist of considerably taller trees. <br><br>But I suppose all this is somewhat (not entirely) apropos to the climate change discussion...

You don't even have to take a drive to know how big the trees used to be.... Just look at the stumps in Lake Keechelus and you can only imagine the size those trees once were. <br><br>(my kids at Keechelus)<br>