katrina

[tbwilsonky]

I understand our grasp on ecology is weak - enormous systems rife with contingent variables make for a hard read. In light of this (mis)understanding, it seems our most rationale recourse with regard to carbon emissions would be to do...um...whatever we feel like, as we have no way to accurately predict outcomes.

Ha. Correlation. Ha ha..

[Paul3eb]

In light of this (mis)understanding, it seems our most rationale recourse with regard to carbon emissions would be to do...um...whatever we feel like, as we have no way to accurately predict outcomes.

that's not exactly what i'm saying and it's pretty silly if you really believe that's at all what i'm getting at.

what sort of science is being taught anymore? or is it being taught and people weren't paying attention? or were you paying attention to only the things you wanted to hear?

that's not science. that's politics.

[alien2]

Global warming is a term which many people have heard, but most likely do not understand. Some scientists are very worried by a recent increase in average annual temperatures around the world. They are afraid that this warming trend will severely alter climates here on the planet Earth. These scientists believe that this warming trend is largely the result of human activities. Other scientists believe that the evidence is weak for a variety of reasons. The temperature on Earth has greatly fluctuated for millions of years. The observed increase in temperature may just be part of this natural fluctuation and have little tie to human activities. This would mean there would be very little, if anything, that could be done to stop the temperature changes. This uncertainty among the scientific community forces each person to make their own judgments about what may be happening to our environment. We need to ask ourselves: Is it better to continue emitting large amounts of CO2 and other harmful gases into the environment, hoping that global warming will not really occur, or, would it be safer to take steps to reduce the production of harmful gases, hoping that the temperature changes can be curbed?

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing by 0.4% a year since the late 1800's because of the use of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas and the slash-and-burn clearing of tropical forests. Other gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect, such as methane and chlorofluorocarbons, are increasing even faster.

What concerns me the most is the stress the planet is under lately. I can remember when the sky was clear and blue. We never had smog like today. You can't even go to the mountains to escape the smog anymore. Everywhere I go I see the brown orange haze. It didn't used to be like that.

[tbwilsonky]

that's not science. that's politics.

And the separation between these two is terribly clear. You can't separate science from the social world from which it springs. You just Kant, man, you Kant.

I understand what you're getting at: we need to be hesitant before we begin to 'plan' ecological systems. I agree. But aren't we affecting these systems anyways? And if we are (re)crafting the world - does it not seem we should approach it rationally?

Of course, this is the crux right? What is rationally in this instance? In such a highly indeterminable set of circumstances, is rational practice even a plausible goal?

I'm not sure. I do, however, believe global warming is a real phenomenon brought on by carbon emissions. Scientific data is not produced in an objective social vacuum and my readings suggest that 'research' refuting the anthropogenic nature of warming are mostly corporate products. That is, corporate entities with a vested interest in particular results often make for shakey sources. If I have to choose between data set A (funded by Exxon) and data set B (funded by the NSF) I would have to go with the latter.

Where this leads (politically, ecologically, etc..) is beyond me.

tommy

[Paul3eb]

That is, corporate entities with a vested interest in particular results often make for shakey sources. If I have to choose between data set A (funded by Exxon) and data set B (funded by the NSF) I would have to go with the latter.

i'll respond more thoroughly later.. but don't you think the climate scientists have a vested interest in the results of their research? or the environmental groups? after all, if they find out there's nothing to worry about, they're out of work and, worse than that, they'd have to (dare i say it).. say they're wrong..!

[tbwilsonky]

The 'work' of earth science is not isolated to the global warming (GW) issue. You could do two lifetimes worth of research and never touch GW. Given this flexibility (supported in many cases by professorship pay), I don't think their level of 'vestedness' is at all comparable to that of an oil company.

One could make an argument about the effects of environmental group interest, but with so many points of contention, I think they would be financially sound with or without GW.

A useful question:
Do environmental groups fund research? How much? What kind? I'm curious.

later

[vic]

Twinky... I mean tbwilsonky is smarter. (sorry paul)

[Alan Evil]

In the real scientific community there is no debate over whether or not global warming is a) happening or b) caused by human activity. There is this sort of phantom group of a few (the ratio is something like 1 to 10,000) corporate shills who call themselves scientists that claim that there are "doubts" but it's all smoke and mirrors. The facts are that we need to change our lifestyles (and by "we" I mean all humans across the globe) and approach to the natural world or the coming generations will find life on this planet far more difficult than we can imagine. With the current political climate, though, nobody has the balls to ask us (and by "us" I mean Americans) to sacrifice or conserve. Except for Kucinich (sp?) that is. And he got brushed under the political rug like a spilled ashtray at a party.

Drive less, drive slower, insulate your house, and all those other little things if you care. If you don't, blame yourself when you have to burn your furniture to keep from freezing to death.

[Paul3eb]

In the real scientific community there is no debate over whether or not global warming is a) happening or b) caused by human activity.

if there's no debate, then it's not a scientific community.

[Alan Evil]

Oh you know what I mean! There is no doubt that we're causing this crap and that we could slow it down (though there's a lot of doubt as to whether or not we've tipped the scales over). There are questions of degree and question about what will happen and how quickly, but there is no doubt that the temperatures on the earth are warming and they're warming because of human activity. The tiny cabal of nay sayers are basically paid mouthpieces for a policy and their claims cannot hold up under peer review. Today a report was released that estimated if things continue the ice cap on the north pole could disappear in as few as 8 years. Glaciers are vanishing worldwide. Some mountains which were historically frozen solid at high altitudes are now unclimbable choss piles.

And now for some eye candy about Katrina:





That's me, driving the speed limit in the right lane in the weird car. I'm getting 36mpg on the highway. How about you?