"an inconvenient truth"

[YetAnotherOne]

How else would it have been discovered..?

The overwhelming majority of the researchers screaming about it are on the government dole. That is to say that their livlihoods derive from procuring a piece of a very limited stream of research funds doled out by governments and NGOs. Given that the overwhelming majority of grant requests are turned down for lack of funding, whom do you suppose will actually get the funds: a) those who would like to research something that they claim does not exist (or was not caused by human action; or b) those who scream their heads off about the real or imagined dire consequences of evil human activity? Further, as many are beginning to point out, that very dynamic creates a climate of fear in the scientific community such that many researchers will not speak against the theory that rakes in the funding for fear of being ostracized.

[kennslp]

The overwhelming majority of the researchers screaming about it are on the government dole. That is to say that their livlihoods derive from procuring a piece of a very limited stream of research funds doled out by governments and NGOs. Given that the overwhelming majority of grant requests are turned down for lack of funding, whom do you suppose will actually get the funds: a) those who would like to research something that they claim does not exist (or was not caused by human action; or b) those who scream their heads off about the real or imagined dire consequences of evil human activity? Further, as many are beginning to point out, that very dynamic creates a climate of fear in the scientific community such that many researchers will not speak against the theory that rakes in the funding for fear of being ostracized.

Interesting points... Well, let's say your premise is accurate, and said scientists opinions are 'influenced' by their ability (or lack there of) to procure funds. Who would we then believe regarding ANY scientific endeavor? How do you (or I) decide what is correct and actionable? Do we base our opinions on whatever side of the political fence we fall on? Do we rely on public officials to tell us what we should believe? I would think not. And considering the current party in 'power', wouldn't they be giving said grants to the very scientists who support their point of view anyway?

I've done some reading on the subject, and agree that this is a highly debatable topic. While there have been studies on both 'sides' of the issue, there is only one way to get real answers: Take the Political bickering out of the science! Is there no topic of discussion that can be had without the BS name-calling & biased rhetoric? If there is, this BETTER be it. I would hate to think that we (current citizens of this planet) could be so self-absorbed that we let this potentially very important subject go ignored simply because the prevailing political winds say we should.

I haven't seen the Gore movie yet, but I will. And when I do, I will listen to the science he sites, and review the research that refutes it. His political past will have nothing to do with the opinions I form, one way or the other....

-Kenn

[Thrust]

I haven't seen Al's new movie but Global warming is damn near indisputable at this point. We, unfortunately, are near the tipping point where there is little hope for return. In addition to SUV's being detrimental to the environment a large portion of blame resides in the burning of coal. I was hopeful that we could shift away from coal as a primary source of energy for two reasons. One was obviously for the reduction of harmful gases and second was so the coal industry would quit wrecking my home state of WV. However, it looks like they are going to actually increase coal production

If anyone wants to check out a really good film about conserving energy and new/alternative methods of energy I HIGHLY recommend this film. It's not a "hippie" type of movie but rather a pragmatic look at what the common person can do to reduce his/her energy consumption and reduce their monthly power bill by A LOT!

http://www.kilowattours.org/

[Stinkbug]

Lots of good points have been made in this string. Maybe I can make a few more or restate some that have been made.

It is important to remember this is as much (or more) of a political issue as it is a scientific issue. Al Gore is a politician. He is running for office like all other politicians. It may not be official stated or known what office, but all politicians are always running for office in some form or another. So take anything they say with a grain of salt. They are not interested in a balanced arguement or science they are interested in getting votes. They pander to the demographic they feel they can win over.

Scientists (and certainly politicians) are not statisticians. I am amazed at some of the studies I see and statistically insignificant conclusions they make. Of course some scientists understand stats, many do not. Publish or parish is a common theme in Universities. Political agendas and financial obligations can and will get in the way of "science". As for who hands out the funding I don't think they are necessarily directed by the man in the white house. He may have some say, but a 4 or 8 year stint isn't going to alter everything. Also, consider that a grant may be to "study changes in climate". That is not a baised study as stated, how the money is used after it is handed out is where the bias may result.

Those interested in science should read up on common cause vs special cause variation. There is a difference between noise in a system and a shift in a system. Meaning, the earth maybe warming, but is that part of the natural cycle of warming and cooling or is it a shift to a new cycle? I don't know, but that is a scientific question.

Ultimately, none of us know who is correct. Perhaps they all are correct, but just answering different questions and they are too busy having a Pee war to figure that out. Personally, I don't trust much of what I hear on TV, that does double for the "news". The exception is "The Simpsons", that is all true!! The only way to really know about something is to find out for your self. Read all sides of an argument, study logic, THINK, and determine what makes sense to you. Just don't follow what a career politician tells you to think. Both sides are selling you something.

[Razor]

Lots of good points have been made in this string. Maybe I can make a few more or restate some that have been made.

It is important to remember this is as much (or more) of a political issue as it is a scientific issue. Al Gore is a politician. He is running for office like all other politicians. It may not be official stated or known what office, but all politicians are always running for office in some form or another. So take anything they say with a grain of salt. They are not interested in a balanced arguement or science they are interested in getting votes. They pander to the demographic they feel they can win over.

Scientists (and certainly politicians) are not statisticians. I am amazed at some of the studies I see and statistically insignificant conclusions they make. Of course some scientists understand stats, many do not. Publish or parish is a common theme in Universities. Political agendas and financial obligations can and will get in the way of "science". As for who hands out the funding I don't think they are necessarily directed by the man in the white house. He may have some say, but a 4 or 8 year stint isn't going to alter everything. Also, consider that a grant may be to "study changes in climate". That is not a baised study as stated, how the money is used after it is handed out is where the bias may result.

Those interested in science should read up on common cause vs special cause variation. There is a difference between noise in a system and a shift in a system. Meaning, the earth maybe warming, but is that part of the natural cycle of warming and cooling or is it a shift to a new cycle? I don't know, but that is a scientific question.

Ultimately, none of us know who is correct. Perhaps they all are correct, but just answering different questions and they are too busy having a Pee war to figure that out. Personally, I don't trust much of what I hear on TV, that does double for the "news". The exception is "The Simpsons", that is all true!! The only way to really know about something is to find out for your self. Read all sides of an argument, study logic, THINK, and determine what makes sense to you. Just don't follow what a career politician tells you to think. Both sides are selling you something.

Damn that is one hell of a good post! It's worth reading twice!

[SeventhSon]

Real scientists tell the actual inconvenient truth. My favorite part, "Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." I continue to be astonished that people are such sheep.

Lol. Professor Bob Carter is funded by Exxon-Mobil (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1134). The website he writes for also did a piece on how McDonalds was good for you, after they took a bunch of cash from McDonalds.

Usually the best way to get to the truth of the matter is to follow the money. In other words, look who's funding the efforts to discredit global warming.

BTW, Gore never said that he invented the Internet (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp).

[SeventhSon]

SUVs dont cause high gas prices.People that invest in gas futures cause the price changes.Nothing we do is going to cause global warming or cause a hole in the ozone layer.
The earth is actually in a cold cycle at this time.
MM you need to quit reading Time magazine or you local paper and start thinking for yourself.

Gas prices are controlled by supply/demand.

The criteria for accepted scientific theory is through publications in peer reviewed journals. The pinnacle achievement of scientific peer review is the nobel prize. Here is a list of nobel laureates who support the science behind global warming: http://dieoff.org/page123.htm

As stated in a previous post, there are "scientists" who claim that global warming doesn't exist. But if you find out who funds their research, it's usually some multinational corporation who stands to benefit in keeping things the way they are.

[charvelguy]

See, it all goes back to the wheel, so blame the guy who invented the wheel because its everybody after him that has been reinventing it for profit and the 'better of mankind'

[YetAnotherOne]

Usually the best way to get to the truth of the matter is to follow the money. In other words, look who's funding the efforts to discredit global warming.

My point exactly but from BOTH sides. Exxon's research is no more likely to be biased than is that funded by governments, the potential biases merely run in opposing directions. Kenn is exactly correct that we all need to examine the evidence for and against then make up our own minds.

I vividly remember the "public service" commercials inserted into my Saturday morning cartoons in the early to mid 1970s. One featured the (in)famous crying Indian awash in a sea of trash that was to be the fate of the entire US if we didn't immediately change our ways. Another claimed that we were using oil so fast that in a decade or two there would be no oil left for future generations. My personal favorite showed the Statue of Liberty with snowdrifts up to her shoulders and gloomily assured me that global cooling caused by fossil fuels would bring about a new ice age in only a few decades (scan of one of many associated press clippings from the time here - I believe that one is a Newsweek piece). As I look out my window today I see trees, grass, and a couple of SUVs all without an advancing glacier in sight. Color me skeptical of the latest impending environmental catastrophe based on past experience with the movement.

[toejam]

Kill Whitey!

[Jack Napalm]

There are studies going on with Mars and Jupiter I believe because those planets are also showing signs of warming. Last I checked I didn't know of any SUV's driving around those planets.

Perhaps that big yellow thing in the sky has something to do with all this warmth?

[straycat]

BTW the ozone layer is a product of the sun.Razor is right on the money.

[YetAnotherOne]

Save Mars!

[toejam]

Save Uranus!

[Razor]

Kill Whitey on Mars!