katrina

[meetVA]

paul, from your favorite news source.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4290340.stm

[Paul3eb]

and a good site that is.. and that's a pretty good article. you can see she's being good about the science, meaning skeptical from a scientific perspective.. but she also presents her personal view and that comes up when she starts referring to her beliefs and her interpretation of that data..

But she also believes that the NSIDC data suggests an impact from the human-enhanced greenhouse effect.

"All data goes through cycles, and so you have to be careful," she said, "but it's also true to say that we wouldn't expect to have four years in a row of shrinkage.

"That, combined with rising temperatures in the Arctic, suggests a human impact; and I would also bet my mortgage on it, because if you change the radiation absorption process of the atmosphere (through increased production of greenhouse gases) so there is more heating of the lower atmosphere, sooner or later you are going to melt ice."

maybe another part of the picture, though, would be this:

http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/solar/sunspots.htm

Several investigations have shown positive correlations of solar influences on climate change. The hydrological system is a major player in the weather system because 70% of the Earth's surface is covered by water. Dr. George Reid, senior NOAA scientist, examined the sea surface temperature record for the last 130 years and found an interesting correlation with the 11 year running mean sunspot number (Reid, 1987, 1991). Though not identical, the two time series have several features in common, including a prominent minimum during the early 1900s, a steep rise to maximum in the 1950s, a drop in the 1960s and early 1970s, and then a rise that continues to date. Sea surface temperature data are from the British Meteorological Office, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research.

i'll respond more when i get the time..

[Paul3eb]

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.

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

good points and i'd have to agree. and i'm not sure how much they fund or if it's a large amount. that was, perhaps, unfounded.

the presence of any bias, regardless of degree, illegitamizes the results and is a call for skepticism, skepticism that is the very basis for science.

[Paul3eb]

i'm trying my best to put this as nicely as possible:

science isn't about agendas or beliefs, not about thoughts or desires and even theories. science is about humanity's eternal and undying need to try to explain the world around us, to understand what we see, hear, feel, think, smell.. everything. science isn't the parent on the playground but rather the child looking at the clouds asking, incessently, "why?" the second it stops asking why, the second it stops questioning, the second it stops doubting, it ceases to be science. when we begin to believe something, we throw up walls and from these walls we project our views far in advance of any visitors that may bring new thoughts. those that agree and bring gifts of benefit are great and lovely. but those that ask the tough questions we'd rather leave out of our comfy little homes and send them off, back to the enemy who surely must have sent them in malice.

it's absolutely foolish to proclaim to be on the side of science and then proceed to use it only to support your own position and then dismiss it when it disagrees with what you're trying so hard and so desperately to say. for so many of us who laugh at the ability of religion to pick and choose that works for it, it's ironic that we would do the very same thing with environmentalism.

and another thing: just because i or someone else might disagree with you or question how right you are doesn't mean it's the beginning of an argument. how can it be an argument if you both have the same goal: to understand and find a truth? (remember: there are many truths but no Truth.)

you can ask me what i believe and what i think but that has nothing to do with what is true. i believe that homeopathy works.. but there's no science to support it. so that effectively makes my belief a faith. and any papers or journals that would support me i am highly skeptical of: i'd rather be skeptical and late in being right than foolhardy and the first to be wrong.

personally, i believe this "sureness" in the absolute good and truth of almost all things "environmental" is the most dangerous faction to environmentalism. these people who make statements about the certainty of their beliefs and complete unwillingness to consider the possibilities (that is, the science) essentially end up making nothing more than emotional declarations, statements of faith rather than reason. when you do that, when you characterize the opposition as stooges, corrupt imbiciles, as people who want to hate and hurt, when you honestly believe that you're completely right, you're no different that the bible beaters on their soapboxes preaching to the agnostic masses.

you have to be open and aware at all times. what's the purpose of your goal? is it everyone's? should it be? who's going to be hurt? who's going to be helped? what risks are involved? if you're wrong, what are the consequences? if you're right, what are the consequences? are you ready to accept those consequences? what are the pros and cons? to whom are they pros and cons? and most importantly, how can you make your case and present it as fairly and truthfully as possible?

guess what: environmentalism isn't all holy and good. all too often, it ends up oppressing and burdening the poor and marginalized. they usually bear the greatest burden. if you wish i'll list the instances when the environmental movement gets exactly what it wants (and needs) and ends up hurting the hungry, the poor, the sick, the forgotten. is that something we can accept, a necessary evil? maybe it is.. but i know it's a whole lot easier here above the waters, here with full dinner plates and padded trust funds.

just because i disagree doesn't mean i'm arguing, doesn't mean i'm slow or dumb, doesn't mean i'm in the back pocket of the oil companies. all it means is that you and i are looking for answers and the best way to get to our common goals.

..that being what it is, don't believe anything i've said.

[Alan Evil]

[Alan Evil]

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/that.html

[vic]

The thing about science that I would like to point out is that we still have so much to learn and so much to prove... while we are "intelligent", it often times takes us too long to prove something with science.
The logic, the sometimes obvious (and sometimes unproven), is something we must also accept in our lives. The obvious is that humans do more harm than good to the planet and that it's time we become aware of this. Becoming aware means that we may be able slow down the process of detoriation (slow down being the key word here).

I could be so wrong, but in the end, being a little more aware of our wasteful habbits, uncaring actions, and sacaging ways isn't gonna kill ya - and may be the considerate THING to do. I'll just let you be the judge - until someone can prove it right or wrong in the next 100 or so years.

[Paul3eb]

The obvious is that humans do more harm than good to the planet and that it's time we become aware of this.

i know i sould like the devil's advocate but honestly you need to define "harm" and i'd question "obvious". i agree with you but i don't know how well or easily it can be proved..

I could be so wrong, but in the end, being a little more aware of our wasteful habbits, uncaring actions, and sacaging ways isn't gonna kill ya..

in the vague general sense that you put it in, of course not. but the application and ways that people go about trying to remedy this situation is what can and does kill people. and, like you say, whether that is right or wrong is debateable.. but people go on for too long ignoring this aspect of it.

[alien2]

maybe another part of the picture, though, would be this:

http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/solar/sunspots.htm

Several investigations have shown positive correlations of solar influences on climate change. The hydrological system is a major player in the weather system because 70% of the Earth's surface is covered by water. Dr. George Reid, senior NOAA scientist, examined the sea surface temperature record for the last 130 years and found an interesting correlation with the 11 year running mean sunspot number (Reid, 1987, 1991). Though not identical, the two time series have several features in common, including a prominent minimum during the early 1900s, a steep rise to maximum in the 1950s, a drop in the 1960s and early 1970s, and then a rise that continues to date. Sea surface temperature data are from the British Meteorological Office, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research.

A study had also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase. This suggests that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate "the natural factors involved in climate change." Our CO2 levels are off the charts that go back 400,000 years and the ocean can't keep sucking up all of our CO2. It will become too acidic after a certain point and kill all marine life (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=169 or http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 063005.php). Scientists do believe the sun may have caused the previous ice ages but they also think that the current change is too great to be attributed solely to the sun.

I agree with you we must keep an open mind and not become railroaded in our thoughts and views. All to often, we do become one-sided. There may be time for more research and a measured response.

[tbwilsonky]

i'm trying my best to put this as nicely as possible:

science isn't about agendas or beliefs, not about thoughts or desires and even theories. science is about humanity's eternal and undying need to try to explain the world around us, to understand what we see, hear, feel, think, smell.. everything. science isn't the parent on the playground but rather the child looking at the clouds asking, incessently, "why?" the second it stops asking why, the second it stops questioning, the second it stops doubting, it ceases to be science. when we begin to believe something, we throw up walls and from these walls we project our views far in advance of any visitors that may bring new thoughts. those that agree and bring gifts of benefit are great and lovely. but those that ask the tough questions we'd rather leave out of our comfy little homes and send them off, back to the enemy who surely must have sent them in malice.

1) It's nice how you have removed science from its practice by social actors (people) - but I believe you are incorrect. Science is always about agendas, thoughts, desires, and, most notably, theories. Dr. George Fuddlepants is not the embodiment of "humanity's undying and eternal need" to try and understand the world. He is as much there to solve 'scientific' problems as he is there to get tenure - science is always being mediated by the social, political, and economic.

2) Again, the putting up of barriers, of stopping to question outside the bounds of a scientific paradigm, is always occuring in scientific communities. A scientific community operates under a set of (or a single) assumption, which is often called a paradigm. Day to day research then operates under these paradigmatic assumptions, taking little steps under those assumptions. These 'little' practices reaffirm the paradigmatic assumptions because the core validity of their work hinges on the veracity of those assumptions. Additionally, these assumptions are protected by the disciplinary project of scientific journals, departmental politics, funding, etc.. These act as a regulatory device that decides what constitutes 'real' science.

Now, what happens when something arises that is inexplicable within the framework provided by the current set of assumptions? The discipline slowly re-orders itself around this new kernel and re-imposes the same set of regulations to ensure its disciplinary integrity. Why do you suppose they call them disciplines? So, while I understand your Socratic enthusiasm for 'pure science', I think you need to allow space for both paradigmatic moments in science and regular science within a paradigm. The quest for knowledge is a bit more complicated than you give it credit.

Ultimatley, however, I think you are right - we must be vigilant in our pursuit of figuring out the 'right' way. In the case of global warming, however, I'm sold until something better comes along. I'm not naive. I know it may be wrong - but the data seems convincing enough for right now. In light of what I know - I choose X.

For further reading on science I suggest:
Thomas Kuhn - The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Bruno Latour - Actor-Network Theory

I'm going climbing this weekend. yippee.

tommy