"an inconvenient truth"

[Thrust]

The commingling of politics with sciences is unfortunately VERY problematic in the research community. Did anyone watch the 60 minutes episode that talked about how the Bush administration has neutered scientist who have done critical research on global warming? VERY interesting video. Here is the link the video is on the right.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml

[withmyshadow]

if people have to worry about losing their son in iraq next week or their job next month or their house next year they are not gonna worry about san fransisco going under water in 50 years.
there's always gonna be more pressing short term issues...

[YetAnotherOne]

The commingling of politics with sciences is unfortunately VERY problematic in the research community. Did anyone watch the 60 minutes episode that talked about how the Bush administration has neutered scientist who have done critical research on global warming? VERY interesting video. Here is the link the video is on the right.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1415985.shtml

[SeventhSon]

The earth goes thru heating and cooling cycles it has for mellinia.where are you global warming dicks in the dead of winter?Inside complaining its so much colder than it used to be.

Why are people who believe that global warming is happening dicks? I certainly don't think that people who believe that global warming is NOT happening are cunts. What's with the hate and emotion here? We're just having a discussion.

BTW, I agree that the heating/cooling cycles that the earth goes through are one of the more convincing arguments that support your position.

[SeventhSon]

Not bad Ron but I prefer the explanation of a genuine scientist.

Another paid shill! http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=95

What's wrong with a nobel laureate?

[YetAnotherOne]

Yeah, exxonsecrets.org is a *really* trustworthy site.

Don't like the science? Attack the scientist! Why is it that the left is so afraid to debate the question on its merits?

[Deneb]

Why is it you're always mentioning things the left this and the left that? Why isn't the right doing more about this issue?

Anyone that thinks it's not happening, needs help. I guess global warming isn't happening, the holocaust never happened, and it's okay to have illegal immigrants hop your border.

[SeventhSon]

Yeah, exxonsecrets.org is a *really* trustworthy site.

They just simply list FACTS (not opinions/debates) about who funds the scientists that support certain positions.

Don't like the science? Attack the scientist!

Why don't your scientists ever publicly disclose their source of funding when presenting their point of view? Similar disclosure is now required by law when an "analyst" pumps up a stock. Why? Because the source of funding is an important FACT that one should consider when listening to someone's OPINION.

Why is it that the left is so afraid to debate the question on its merits?

Lol. There's a boatload of nobel laureates that are happy to do so. You have yet to produce any kind of publication that has been published in a peer reviewed science journal. Here's what Science magazine (one of the most respected academic journals in the world) has to say about the debate:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/570 2/1686 [sciencemag.org]

Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

[SeventhSon]

From the Science article [sciencemag.org]:

That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts,
published in refereed scientific journals between 1993
and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords
"climate change"

So they just grabbed everything, and evaluated the papers' position on the consensus view of global warming. 75% Implictly or explicitly supported it, 25% did not offer a position (mostly these were methods papers detailing a method not a result, or paleoclimate papers that did not deal with current climate issues), and 0% disagreed with the consensus view.


And to be specific, the consensus view is "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), or equivalently, "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise." from the National Academy of Sciences. Additionally, the National Academy of Sciences, The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science all have issued statements that agree with the IPCC. These aren't rinky-dink outfits, they are the cream of the crop of academic science, noble laureates, etc.

The fact that you can find a small number of cranks to claim that global warming is "debatable" really means very little, see Flat Earth Society [wikipedia.org], etc etc. The scientific community as a whole has made up their mind, and it is clear that global warming caused by humans is occuring.

Scientists don't debate whether global warming is occurring, or even that it's caused by humans. Only politicians do.

[Thrust]

So I take it you've authored or been somehow connected to some research grant proposals lately? Politics weighs HEAVILY into grant funding.

[withmyshadow]

Scientists don't debate whether global warming is occurring, or even that it's caused by humans. Only politicians do.

thank you!
it's my opinion that people who clearly don't believe global warming now will never change their minds but I believe people who are skeptical will eventually come to believe it. so that should make up the majority. that's why I didn't start the discussion about if global warming is happening.
I was asking the ones who DO believe it is how you are gonna make your life decisions accordingly.
more and more my high school and college friends are getting married and having kids now. I just don't know why they are so optimistic the future of their kids is gonna be there for them...

[SeventhSon]

CO2 levels in the atmosphere since 1973

http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/insitu.html



What I can't quite understand is why this is characterized as a left vs. right argument. Don't we all want our kids to have a habitable planet to live on? Why are people so vehemently opposed to the possibility that it's happening? Just because some hippies gave you the finger for driving your SUV?

[Jack Napalm]

I dont' think anyone is saying it's not happening. Just the debate as to the cause.

[RacerX]

CO2 levels in the atmosphere since 1973
Barrow
Mauna Loa
Samoa
South Pole

Well, good thing I don't live anywhere near those areas!

[SeventhSon]

Earth's temp at a 400 year high..."human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming." -- National Acadamy of Science

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...L&type=science