I came to a realization years ago that everyone has the right to be who they are, and that everyone has a story.

I was at a social function attended by a couple who were reporters from a local newscaster, and several distinguished seniors. Most gatherings are small talk and personal chat, but this turned out to be a riveting interview. Views on affairs varied, but the venue and the participants were courteous and respectful.

Often, we fail to recognize where our battles are best fought, and where our efforts are best placed.

In my aging years, I have become active in local politics. In my earlier years I complained and theorized with everyone else, until I realized that few were taking action, and unless I did, my concerns would be mute.

So, back to the topic of the thread;
Man has altered many of natures processes to his advantage. Has he altered normal climate change, and if so, do the implications justify actions. Is man afraid of change. We know that change is a force of nature that has brought us the wonders we enjoy. Stagnation may be a much bigger poison than change.

 

Seems like a little levity is needed here.
I think I have found the solution to global warming...

That's a bit of a crock isn't it?

Sucrose is C12H22O11 so it contains heaps of carbon.

So they are doing a service by growing and refining sugar, which removes carbon from the environment and stores it in the sugar.

BUT if you buy and eat the sugar, you release the carbon (probably as carbon dioxide) and are doing the environment a DIS-service!

So it's a bit of a weird marketing ploy, it only remains valid IF nobody buys and eats their product!

 

That's a bit of a crock isn't it?

Sucrose is C12H22O11 so it contains heaps of carbon.

Yeah, that was my point. It's a bald-faced lie.
Dominos think they will sell a lot of sugar to the people who believe that carbon is the chemical equivalent of the devil.
If you read the web site where I found that ad, they make the same point.

PS As I'm sure you know, the diet-conscious term for cane sugar is evaporated cane juice (preferably organic), not cane sugar or sucrose. Another crock, IMHO. I guess Domino is still refining theirs.

 

A team of researchers with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) studied nine years worth of data on 48 species living in 34 different habitats across the country. They found that from 2002 to 2011, amphibian populations disappeared from their habitats at an average rate of 3.7 percent each year. That means within just two decades, you won't be able to find frogs or their relatives in half of the country's current amphibian habitats if that pace continues.

http://www.livescience.com/34644-amphibians-in-sharp-decline.html

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=3597&from=rss

 

Frog populations dive when there are less bugs to eat.

How are the bug numbers compared to previous years?

 

Frog populations dive when there are less bugs to eat.

How are the bug numbers compared to previous years?

We have tons of frogs and bugs and insects of all sorts here. I'd say too many hematophage insects.
The city is trying to kill black fly larva with some chemicals (some pilot experiment), but who knows what will be the long-term effect...

 

It would appear that insect population is on the rise. The City of Toronto, Canada, is attempting to tackle the infestation of gypsy moth with extensive aerial spraying.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2013/05/28/toronto-gypsy-moths.html

 

The reason we turn to scientists in matters of science is the same reason we go to a dentist for a toothache. Scientists have the training, knowledge and experience to do the research, collect and analyze data, test theory against observation and such. We don't go to a mechanic for a root canal because that wouldn't make any sense. By the same token, we go to engineers for technical issues. My boss doesn't always understand what I tell him, but he knows that I have the education, knowledge and experience to know what I'm talking about. By accepting my expertise, he is not accepting it on blind faith. He has reviewed my credential and knows my work, and realizes I'm the best source for information that he has available. Similarly, when we go to scientists, we know their credentials and experience and know that they are the best source for the information we seek. It's not blind faith; it is using the best source available. Nobody can know everything. We educate ourselves in the physical laws that govern our universe, in chemistry that governs how various substances in our environment react, in biology to know the effects or our environment upon all living things. Sometimes, however, because nobody can possible know everything, we are required to use our best judgment. Even in the science of engineering, we often refer to best judgment when we don't have all the information. The wise among us look at the best and most knowledgeable scientists to leverage their knowledge, just as my boss leverages my knowledge. Others, less wise, turn to bloggers, "news" anchors and demagogues and absorb their misinformation.

In contrast to repeated charges of "blind faith" and so on, I choose to believe the science of AWG for several reasons. Aside from the fact that the foremost authorities on the subject overwhelmingly endorse the science, I've reviewed what science has to say about man's effect on global temperatures, I've educated myself on the relevant sciences, I've read pro can con publications on the subject, I've discussed the facts with other educated, knowledgeable men and women, I've listened to what the skeptics has to say and I've witnessed first hand how the environment is affected by the activities of man. I've looked into who is doing good science and who is honestly presenting the data. I've read, not only what the scientists write about their research, but also how they respond to questions about their work. I've also found that criticism of the body of scientific work on AWG is highly suspect and decidedly not scientific. Most of what passes for science amongst the skeptics is either amateurish or misleading, from what I've seen.

Science has always had it's distracters. In days past, people didn't now about sanitation and as a result, disease could easily decimate cities. When scientists tried to inform the public about the issue, they were ridiculed in much the same way they are today. If we go back a little further, scientists were imprisoned for publishing simple truths, which are universally accepted as truth today. Science has done more to advance civilization than any other human endevor.

Much of the criticism of AWG doesn't even address what has been published. An example that comes up over and over is that the exact temperature cannot be predicted by the science. However, that is not/never was a claim of any accepted paper. AWG science doesn't claim to know the day to day, year to year, millennium to millennium temperature. There are, as in any human endeavor, knowns and unknowns. AWG validates the many variables that come into play when it comes to global temperatures. Those who discredit the science on this tenant alone doesn't understand science or nature. There is always a difference between theory and practice. The very best device engineers cannot guarantee the beta of a simple transistor. There is always variation. In the same way, there is always variation in nature. What we look for are trends. If the trend fits the theory, then the theory has credibility. Absolutes are not necessary. And when I look at the trends over the last couple hundred years, it's very clear to me that global temperatures are rising, long term, with rising CO2 in the atmosphere. Nothing else correlates better with the rise in temperature than the rising CO2 levels.

 

500 scientists across the globe warn of society-wide impacts if we fail to stem the overdevelopment and exploitation of our biosphere: 'We must work hard to solve these global problems, starting today.'

http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2013/05/opinion-ehrlich-planet-limits

http://mahb.stanford.edu/consensus-statement-from-global-scientists/

 

The wise among us look at the best and most knowledgeable scientists to leverage their knowledge, just as my boss leverages my knowledge. Others, less wise, turn to bloggers, "news" anchors and demagogues and absorb their misinformation.

Of course, one's opinion of one's own wisdom is always biased. There are those who also consider themselves to be wise and hold a different opinion than yours. It all comes back to who and what is the object of one's faith.

 

Of course, one's opinion of one's own wisdom is always biased. There are those who also consider themselves to be wise and hold a different opinion than yours. It all comes back to who and what is the object of one's faith.

I never said those who hold a different opinion are not wise. And as I explained, not definitely not a matter of faith.

 

I never said those who hold a different opinion are not wise. And as I explained, not definitely not a matter of faith.

Maybe that's not what you meant to say, but that's exactly what you said.

And life is composed of actions and beliefs that rely on faith. When you step out of bed in the morning, you have faith that the floor will support your weight. If you have stepped from the same bed to the same floor, then you have personal experience to support your faith. Otherwise, you are placing your faith in the skill of the builder of the flloor and the generallly accepted practice that floors support the weight of human beings, or some similar rationale. But regardless of your reasoning, faith is a component of every action and belief of every person.

It's up to every human to decide in the face of every decision based on what he believes, and beliefs, by definition, are a matter of faith.

 

Maybe that's not what you meant to say, but that's exactly what you said.

It's exactly what I didn't say. I said what I said and nothing more.

I don't live my life by faith. I can ascertain the strength of the floor before I step on it. I don't need to know how it's constructed as I have the intelligence to analyze the strength of the floor from many indicators. I can feel, hear and think critically about what I'm walking on. Maybe you rely on faith, I don't.

 

The reason we turn to scientists in matters of science is the same reason we go to a dentist for a toothache. Scientists have the training, knowledge and experience to do the research, collect and analyze data, test theory against observation and such.
...
Similarly, when we go to scientists, we know their credentials and experience and know that they are the best source for the information we seek. It's not blind faith; it is using the best source available.
...

Thanks for the post Brownout, it was well written and contains respectable points.

But I think you missed something important, by using a single generalisation of "scientists".

Nobody will argue that these guys are smart, and can analyse things in their field much better than a typical man (or an engineer in another field).

BUT many scientists are simply paid by entities with an agenda. Let's say a political entity that realises they can rake in X billion more a year by introducing a carbon tax. They go and employ "scientists" on huge money, and they are told to "gather all the evidence you can that supports this hypothesis so we can introdcue the carbon tax". So the scientists are paid to prove one side of an argument.

And of course being govt funded their published results are also backed up by govt "credibility".

Likewise scientists working for the private sector are paid to provide evidence of results that the private entity wants to prove. Like a mining company using scientists to prove that their new mine won't impact some environmental issue.

So if govt scientists are paid to prove what the govt wants to prove, and private scientists are paid to prove what that private entity wants, where are these wonderful independent, completely unbiased scientists who can give us common men the real facts?

There's quite a few out there, and many of them questioning the heavily pushed doctrine of man-caused climate change.

As I said before the climate was changing long before we showed up. That's proof that there are OTHER things that cause change without our help. Let's see some open-minded discussion from "scientists" as to what percentage of change might be from man, and what percentage of change is from the other stuff. And that unbiased percentage type discussion is completely missing from scientists paid to prove one side of an argument.

 

You talking hypotheticals. Some scientists may be driven by money, but unless you can show that the corruption of money is widespread throughout the scientific community, you're only putting up a smokescreen. As I've said in the entirety of my post, I've read the science and I've made the effort to educate myself. I don't know everything, but I do know enough to make a very good judgement. I deal in facts, and not hypotheticals.

If you read what has been published, you would already know there has been great discussions on how much warming is due to human activities and how much is naturally occurring. It's been a huge subject of discussion among the scientists studying climate changes. The published record is simply full of data on this very subject. All one needs to do is look.

 

If government were paying scientists to push government agenda we would hear of it. The fact is we don't because there is little scientific evidence that goes counter to the consensus.

I know for a fact that the Government of Canada has muzzled its government scientists because they do not want the truth to be known. Instead the Canadian government goes one step further and has stopped funding in critical Arctic research.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/2012...on_science_plunge_us_into_a_new_dark_age.html

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2...tists_see_canada_slipping_on_world_stage.html

 

I know for a fact that the Government of Canada has muzzled its government scientists because they do not want the truth to be known. Instead the Canadian government goes one step further and has stopped funding in critical Arctic research.

The US government has done the same for 25 years, going so far as to threaten to fire government scientists for speaking out in support of AWG science.

 

Well, on the flip side, this is from the U.S. Senate Committee about scientists being fired for "opposing" the official line of global warming.

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...ecord_id=5ef55aa3-802a-23ad-4ce4-89c4f49995d2

Do you have a government source to cite concerning those being terminated for supporting global warming?

Attached is the Senate Report report

 

Do you have a government source to cite concerning those being terminated for supporting global warming?

Why are you only interested in government sources?

 

Why are you only interested in government sources?

I am interested in any news source or something on the public record taken under testimony and is subject to "contempt charges".

I am not interested in any hyperbole from a website or source with a stake in the game [receiving public funding].

Of course, there are portions on the web that quote Al Gore's "science will not intrude on public policy" with respect to those who disagree with the "consensus of scientists". I assume that number is over 21000 scientists now as over 650 who disagree represents the 3 percent.

I've also read about the destruction of raw data so no one could do a FOIA on the information, leaving people to either take the "claim" as is or be called names by the true believers.

What percent of error is acceptable to you when these scientists make their WAGs. Billions of public funds is at stake.