posted
Troll Shaman predicts: when stupid humans kill all green things, then Trolls have to eat stupid humans because nothing else left.
Posts: 379 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bao, thank you, that was very well-expressed, and it pretty accurately described my feelings about the subject. You're right, I can't imagine any climatic event that would not be used as evidence in favor of global warming, which makes it much harder to believe the evidence I'm actually given.
I mean, I believe that the climate changes, and that it can have disastrous (or, at times, beneficial) effects on human civilization. The fact of "Global Climate Change" is practically self-evident.
What I have trouble with is the fact that right now, under the umbrella of "Global Warming", we have predictions for the future that vary so widely that it's impossible to prepare for them. Any given region of the planet might be inundated with rain or plunged into drought. It might get hotter or colder or stay the same. Ice might build up or recede. And any of these events would be proof positive of "Global Warming".
How do you prepare for something like that? You'd might as well say, "Anything could happen at any time! Aaaaagh!" And if you said that, well, gosh darn it, the next time "something" happened, you'd be proven right
As to the efforts to reduce our emissions and "prevent" Global Warming ... what is the long-term plan? If we succeed, then what? Do we constantly vary our emissions throughout the rest of future history to keep the Earth's temperature stable? If the earth starts cooling, do we start burning MORE oil and coal to keep it warmer? And then when it warms up, cut them back again?
EDIT: After reading Karl's post, I want to add that I don't think there are malicious scientists twisting evidence to advance global warming. Rather, I think that the systems involved are so complex that it is difficult for a scientist to say, "IF Global Warming is occurring as we predicted, THEN when we do THIS, or observe THAT, you will see EXACTLY THIS RESULT." Then when we see that result, we know it's right, and when we don't see that result, we know it's wrong. That would be a simple, easily-falsifiable, and highly-scientific way to prove Global Warming predictions to be accurate.
Unfortunately, as I said, climate is complex, and doesn't lend itself to that process. So what we get instead is different sets of predictions from different scientists that cover such a wide range of possibilities that anything that happens will prove someone right. I don't see that process giving us any means of making our future predictions more accurate, or advancing the art of climate prediction. It certainly doesn't give skeptics anything to sink their teeth into to start believing.
posted
Saying so, doesn't make it so, Geoff. It's complex, but not necessarily intractibly so, as you seem to imply. Looking at the global climate is simpler than predicting whether it will rain excessively in a particular place, in a particular time.
If anything, increased warming will make weather more unpredictable (basic thermodynamics there). We should try to minimize (we will never remove it all) the unpredictability as much as possible, IMO.
Bok, that article proposes means of stabilizing the CO2 level at 133% of its current level over the next 50 years. If the current level is already disastrous, how does that solve the problem?
For example, the sun reaches its highest point in the sky in the northern hemisphere on June 22nd or so, and then immediately starts to fall ... yet the northern hemisphere doesn't really stop getting warmer until late September because as long as the sun remains above a certain level, the temperature continues to climb, and August ends up being the hottest month.
Similarly, if CO2 levels are high enough RIGHT NOW to cause global warming, then how is stabilizing them at 133% of their current level going to have a sufficient impact to avert disaster? That might stop the warming from accelerating, but it doesn't seem (to me) that such a stabilization would actually stop the warming itself.
Is there some factor that I'm missing here? I only had time to skim the article, so it's possible that I breezed by something that I should have caught ...
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Please stop saying that, Bok. I'm not attempting to make things true just by saying them. I'm trying to present the reasons why I'm not convinced that we've found the right strategy. That's perfectly fair, and I might add that I'm treating you and your position with respect, and some reciprocity might be in order.
quote:It's complex, but not necessarily intractibly so, as you seem to imply. Looking at the global climate is simpler than predicting whether it will rain excessively in a particular place, in a particular time.
What I'm saying is that it is inherently sketchy to try and predict the future, and it would be much easier to trust predictions of the future if we had some solid evidence that the methods we were using worked, and took every important factor into account. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the problem, such evidence is particularly difficult to come by.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because it gives us more time, and is a step in the right direction. The "catastrophe" of global warming isn't some immediate "hit-by-a-comet" change, but over time (a few centuries), it may/will cause serious effects that impact us, as a civilization.
Aside: I just though of another possibly (my speculation, of course). Most of the models assume a steady increase in the CO2 emissions, I bet. No one knows exactly how much in the air at any one time is sustainable, but we aren't in a steady state. Instead we are are increasing that amount, and we're increasing the rate that that amount is increasing
It's like hybrid cars. They are ultimately a dead end, as far as fuel efficiency, but in the mean time, if you can afford it, and it fits your needs, then you really should get one, if you are concerned with CO2 and the like. Because it lowers the emissions now, given more room to find a better solution that will lower them even more.
posted
The following link is to a 2000 year temperture reconstruction using Palentological data by the NOAA (US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). It shows that the current warming trend began at least four centuries ago, well before the advent of the Industrial Revolution. It started in the Middle of the Little Ice Age (Cool documentary on the History Channel about that the other day, BTW.)
The link is from junkscience.com which has lots of great links to information and news stories on "global warming." A little open minded research should show that there is less than anonymity in the scientific community about the issue. Global warming alarmists will argue for the myth of global warming while ingnoring contradictory evidence or alternate explanations.
For example, were told that because of global warming huge chunks of the antarctic are melting and breaking off, and the sea levels will rise and flood Florida and other coastal states. At least so says Al Gore. But there are several studies that show that the Antarctic ice sheet has been growing at an accelerated rate in recent years. Studies show that the Greenland ice sheet is melting at the margins, but the evidence also shows that its growing in the center.
We're shown before and after pictures of Mt Kilimanjaro and told that global warming is the cause for the reduced snow cap. But the same alrmist won't say that maybe the deforrestation around the base of the mountain is the cause. (Less trees equals less humidity and less snow, event though the temperture at the mountain top is still cold enough to make snow.)
Al Gore makes all of these arguements in his movie, but decided to ignore these "inconveinent truths" because they get in the way of his political ambitions.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Al Gore makes all of these arguements in his movie, but decided to ignore these "inconveinent truths" because they get in the way of his political ambitions.
I'm wondering what evidence you have to support your speculation on his motivations.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Al Gore makes all of these arguements in his movie, but decided to ignore these "inconveinent truths" because they get in the way of his political ambitions.
I'm wondering what evidence you have to support your speculation on his motivations.
I am going to have to agree with this man. Tom that is. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But the way you are saying it sounds like it, to me. You make unsupported assertions that it is complex without reading the scientific literature. You say it is too complex, but from most reports, it appears that isn't the case.
Most folks, including Hatrack's resident environmental scientist, The Rabbit, have stated that the peer-reviewed studies have reached a consensus. The only way to have done so is to have ample evidence that supports their models. I'd love to link to those models, and their predictions, but I don't have the subscriptions to the journals, and most of the reports are mostly taking the scientist's statements on that at face value, which won't convince many here. I found at least one article today (from 2/2005) that had it written down that the models had predicted with surprising accuracy the current global trends.
But it also mentioned that the models aren't predicting the weather in, say, the New England states, but rather global temperature/sea level/precipitation totals.
quote: Al Gore makes all of these arguements in his movie, but decided to ignore these "inconveinent truths" because they get in the way of his political ambitions.
I'm wondering what evidence you have to support your speculation on his motivations.
True, I have no evidence as to Al Gore's motivations. I see only two possible reasons for his omissions. I selected political ambitions because he a politician. The only alternative explanation that makes any sense is that he's just an idiot. But I thought I'd be charitable to Mr. Gore, and presume that he's just being dishonest.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's an interesting statement of character that you think it's worse to call someone dumb than dishonest.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the point is that dishonest is recoverable, but dumb is forever. In other words, if he's being dishonest, then there's hope for him.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: It's an interesting statement of character that you think it's worse to call someone dumb than dishonest.
That's very funny. Normally I would agree, but by charitable, I meant not calling him both dishoest and an idiot. I decided to settle on just dishonest, because in the case of a politician like Al Gore, dishonest always seems the safer bet.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The big problem with the CO2 is that future archaeologists trying to date us will get funky radiocarbon results.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not at all. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (or in organisms) has no particular effect on radiocarbon dating, as it relies only on the ratio of two carbon isotopes, one of which decays into the other, the ratio of which is roughly the same in the atmosphere and living creatures (due to breathing the atmosphere), and has been determined for many points in the past.
This variation creates some issues, but is hardly insurmountable given good data.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just dont understand that if Al Gore is so smart, why did he not use the medium that he created, "The Internet" to further this effort, instead of making a motion picture?
I am sorry I just could not resist, I am bored at work.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I probably am confusing several issues- unfortunately as I get older everything gets less clear (and I'm only 25 ). However, my confusion is not from mainstream media reporting, or NPR's Science Fridays. It's reading specialized magazines and seeing them comment on basically, themselves. I have enough to really learn on my plate without trying to learn enough to comprehend highly specialized scientific papers. I'm an electrical engineer, so I have a strong background in sciences and mathematics, but I realize that one cannot become an expert simply by reading enough papers in another field.
Therefore, I've attempted to read more scientific oriented magazines in order to be more literate. I find them very accessible, and with a lot more focus on the science as opposed to mainstream media which is more focused on political/social/economic issues.
I looked up that article I was talking about, and it only shows the first little bit. But the about-face is pretty obvious. If engineers designed like this science is done, your washing machine would take up a thousand square feet, cost $90 per load of laundry, and need to be adjusted every couple of weeks by a specialist.
The whole Global Warming theory seems clunky and pieced together. I don't know if there's a word for it, but it's almost like instead of taking observations and constructing the best theory it's constructing a theory and trying to fit any new observations into it.
I'm not suggesting that all the scientists that believe in it are dishonest. I think sometimes though, we see what we expect to see. My main contention is that I don't see any way for this thoery to be proven wrong. Whenever the data doesn't fit the predictions, instead of looking hard at the current theory I invariably hear, "Yes, although this contradicts computer models, in fact, this does support global warming. You see...."
So it's not the politicization of the issue that's confusing me, it's the community itself.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BQT, it has momentum. Lots of velocity, and lots of mass, and it's just plowing over anyone who demurs. That's not really how science is done.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry. Do you prefer BaoQingTian, or is there a short form? I try to call people what they'd prefer, particularly since almost everyone ignores my preference of Lisa, rather than StarLisa.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The new membranes, developed by researchers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), could reduce the cost of desalination by 75 percent, compared to reverse osmosis methods used today, the researchers say. The membranes, which sort molecules by size and with electrostatic forces, could also separate various gases, perhaps leading to economical ways to capture carbon dioxide emitted from power plants, to prevent it from entering the atmosphere.
What's cool is that they found the engineering application even though they have no idea why it really works:
quote:Indeed, the LLNL team measures water flow rates up to 10,000 times faster than would be predicted by classical equations, which suggest that flow rates through a pore will slow to a crawl as the diameter drops. "It's something that is quite counter-intuitive," says LLNL chemical engineer Jason Holt, whose findings appeared in the 19 May issue of Science. "As you shrink the pore size, there is a huge enhancement in flow rate." The surprising results might be due to the smooth interior of the nanotubes, or to physics at this small scale -- more research is needed to understand the mechanisms involved. "In some physical systems the underlying assumptions are not valid at these smaller length scales," says Rod Ruoff, a physical chemist and professor of mechanical engineering at Northwestern University (who was not involved with the work).
posted
In Gore's movie, he talks about no one thing being the silver bullet to stop human emissions.
Increasing mileage for cars, reducing energy usage, using more alternative energy, and a half dozen other things all added up can drastically reduce our creation of CO2. Countries like China will face international pressure to change that is far greater than anything the US has faced, for several reasons.
And I think the reason why no one suggests that we cut so drastically the level of CO2 from a single source, or even from a single nation, is that doing so would sound so incredibly out of left field that it would dismissed out of principle.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: BQT, it has momentum. Lots of velocity, and lots of mass, and it's just plowing over anyone who demurs. That's not really how science is done.
I'm not going to relate this directly to the controversy, but I remember an almost verbatim criticism of the science 'plowing over' Intelligent Design / Creationism
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think the point is that dishonest is recoverable, but dumb is forever. In other words, if he's being dishonest, then there's hope for him.
But dumb people can learn things and trust smart people to help them. Dishonest people do things for the wrong reasons, or simply do the wrong things and lie about it.
I dunno, I can make a case for being dumb and for being dishonest, because they both carry advantages and weaknesses. Now being dumb AND dishonest.... well it hasn't worked out well for this administration. Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, according to the movie, CO2 buildup in the atmosphere can make some areas cooler and others warmer because it alters the paths of globe-spanning wind and ocean currents. As for CO2 concentration increasing and decreasing over time, the movie said that the CO2 level is now much higher than it's been in the past 650,000 years, and that this should be cause for alarm because in the past the Earth's average temperature has always risen and fallen with CO2 levels. And there are indications that this higher CO2 level is causing higher temperatures, such as the fact that the 10 hottest years on record have occurred in the last 14 years.
Of course, it's possible that the methods used to determine past CO2 levels and temperatures are flawed. But until studies showing that appear, I think it's safer to cut back on CO2 emissions, at least in those ways that don't involve much financial sacrifice (which of course will be different for everyone). Once the CO2 is reduced to, say, 1950s levels, there may be other problems; but I don't think "we may cause other problems by solving this one" is a reason not to solve a problem you know about.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whether or not there is consensus, whether or not there's even majority opinion-- minimizing the use of non-renewable energy sources is just practical sense.
Come on-- I don't need scientists to expound on ocean levels, or rain fall or any of that to know that being a smart consumer of energy (ie, CONSERVATIVE) is at least good for my pocket book.
It makes me happy to drive a car that gets 40 mpg.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Omega M.: As for CO2 concentration increasing and decreasing over time, the movie said that the CO2 level is now much higher than it's been in the past 650,000 years, and that this should be cause for alarm because in the past the Earth's average temperature has always risen and fallen with CO2 levels.
This isn't universally agreed upon by scientists who study it.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, that's why I said, "Of course, it's possible that the methods used to determine past CO2 levels and temperatures are flawed."
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson: "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 remember an ID thread a while back about a bunch of scientists signing something saying they questioned evolution. One of the problems pointed out was that these scientists were from all sorts of different disclipines, most of which were not even specializing in a field related to evolution. There is potentially the same problem with Gore's scientists.
I'll completely agree with the need to curtain emissions, cut fossil fuel use etc. Most of them have nothing to do with a vague fear of global warming, rather than more immediate short term benefits. I kind of agree with what Lynhawn has posted in the past on this matter. Regardless of the global warming controversy, doing these things makes sense for a whole lot of other reasons.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
While Patterson claims to be a "paleoclimatologist", his degrees are in geology, not environmental studies, per se. He is also, according to Google searches, something more of a political advocate on this point. You can see him referenced in tons of conservative sites (as well as Canadian papers, which makes sense since he is Canadian). He is also on the board of "FriendsofScience.org", which actively tries to get people to contact their (Canadian) Representatives to tell them Global Warming is wrong.
So the point brought up concerning ID, applies to Dr. Patterson.
And in any event, you'll always find some dissent, in all sciences. The question is, how much is there in context? I'm guessing this is the equivalent of the 1 in a 1000 (which doesn't mean he's wrong, but that shouldn't also mean we have to stop everything to verify every last dissenter).
This debate seems to be run like the old Polish Senate (back several hundred years ago). One nay vote strikes down the whole proposal. Unanimous or nothing. Of course, this system didn't last long...
According to the climate/environmental scientests at realclimate.org, Gore's science is by and large accurate, and up to date.
1. Someone linked an article here from junkscience.com that intrigued me. Now, I assume from the fact that junkscience.com opposes the global warming predictions that global warming proponents have a whole lot of terrible things to say about them. That's fine. What I want to discuss is their description of the science behind the greenhouse effect. I want to know how accurate it is, and if it is not accurate, where exactly it falls short.
a. My initial assumption (stated earlier in this thread) was that additional CO2 in the atmosphere caused in increase in the rate of warming, so that if you added enough CO2 to cause any warming at all, the earth's temperature would continue to increase at a steady rate until you brought it down again.
According to the article at junkscience, the energy absorbed by CO2 is only trapped temporarily, which means that additional CO2 would cause more heat to be held in the atmosphere at any given time, but that it wouldn't cause a runaway warming trend (like the one I described above) by itself. Therefore, for CO2 to, on its own, continue to increase the temperature of the planet, you actually have to keep adding more and more CO2. Is that accurate?
b. The junkscience article goes on to state that additional CO2 in the atmosphere actually has a diminishing effect on temperature as the atmosphere's ability to absorb certain wavelengths of radiation becomes saturated. So while doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere might give us an increase of 1 degree, doubling it again would only give us an increase of half a degree. Is this accurate?
c. Again, according to the junkscience article, the reason that the computer models used by climate scientists predict these larger runaway warming trends is the fact that they postulate the existence of certain feedback cycles. Such as minor increases in temperature due to CO2 causing more water to evaporate from the oceans, which would cause an increase in water vapor, which is a much more powerful contributor to the greenhouse effect ... and then that additional water vapor causes further temperature increases, which causes more water to evaporate, etc, etc. Is this an accurate (if simplistic)description of the way these computer models work?
d. The problem that junkscience had with these feedback cycles is the fact that no one seems to know exactly how significant their effects would be, different scientists use a lot of different numbers for them, and some include both positive and negative feedback cycles in their calculations that others do not. According to them, there is no definitive understanding of exactly how these complex systems interact with one another, and that therefore, many of the more dramatic numbers going into these computer simulations are largely guesswork. Is this accurate?
Again, let me state that I don't want to debate the political leanings of the source, or any other sort of ad hominem issue here. The fact is that junkscience presented some compelling information, and I want to know to what degree they have it right. And if they have it wrong, I want to know what exactly is wrong with what they've said.
2. I'm just curious ... what would happen if a scientist were to make some new discovery that showed that the methods currently used to forecast runaway global warming are seriously flawed, and that there is no particular reason to expect world climate to change as predicted? I mean, that sort of thing happens all the time in the history of science. My question is, would such a scientist be listened to, and would the forecasts be altered? Or would he be shouted down as a hack or a shill?
Are people, at this point, willing to abandon this theory if new conflicting evidence appears? Or are we too deeply entrenched?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, I'm really tired of hearing about consensus among scientists. I don't care how many people agree about it. I want to understand why they agree. And I think that it's a bit of an insult to science when people insinuate that I should just listen to the experts, accept what I'm told, and not think about it independently. Science is supposed to represent the opposite of that mode of thought.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: Are people, at this point, willing to abandon this theory if new conflicting evidence appears? Or are we too deeply entrenched?
At this point, if 1000 scientists were to produce new and conflicting evidence, they'd be shot down one at a time as being vastly outnumbered. Unless they managed to do it all at once.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would be great, if they used a model that didn't make these assumptions, and it was born out by real world data, and in fact it could project actual results better than the other systems.
posted
We do have the advantage of having a climatologist here at Hatrack. Somebody should email Rabbit and ask her for her input in this thread. Anybody got her address (I'm too busy at work right now to find her profile and email her myself).
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
That's not really fair though. Just because he is active in trying to get the Canadian government to look at the global warming issue more carefully doesn't invalidate what he has to say. The parallel would be discrediting every single scientist that is supports the global warming theory that dares to write a representative about it (or participate in Al Gore's propaganda movie).
From what I was able to find on the man, I didn't see anything that would discredit him as a reputable source. I would imagine it would be difficate to find information on CO2 levels in the past without using Geology. He's hardly alone.
There's an interesting letter addressed to the Canadian prime minister in April of this year. There's quite a list of seemingly reputable scientists from a variety of related disciplines and universities. I guess they could all be dismissed as big oil hacks or something though. Letter to Canadian Prime Minister from 60 ScientistsPosts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit has come down pretty solidly in saying that Global Warming is pretty much universally accepted.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want to see this movie before I make up my mind on it. That said, my own opinions on the matter may bias me - though I will try to view the movie with a critical and unbiased eye, if that's possible.
Still, my own views are pretty set already.
I am convinced that the global climate is increasing in temperature.
I am convinced that the activities of humans has contributed at least in small part to this, though this small part may be minute.
I am convinced that this change in climate is not solely due to human activity.
I am convinced that even if we stop all climate-affecting activities right now 100%, that the climate will continue to change.
I am convined that we, as humans, have little control over long term changes to the earth's environment. i.e. we will not stop an ice age should one begin to happen, nor will we stop the ice caps from melting entirely should that begin to happen.
I am convinced that the world has been warmer than it is now, and colder than it is now, and it will alternate between extremes whether humans existed or not.
I am convinced that there are plenty of other reasons to address environmental concerns and to reduce humanity's impact on its natural environment besides the idea of changing climate. (i.e. massive deforestation is bad for other reasons than its role in changing climate)
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
A lot of the reason climate change is such a problem is because of a failure to plan on our part.
We foolishly build in flood plains, right up to the edge of coastlines, in river deltas, on areas prone to natural disasters (earthquakes/tornadoes/hurricanes/volcanoes), and in other locations prone to dramatic and often sudden environmental change.
Then, when disaster strikes, as it was always bound to do, we lament the loss of life, and many talk about what we've done to cause nature to turn on us.
Well, don't build where you shouldn't, and you'll have a lot fewer problems when the sea level rises or falls a few feet (as it has done throughout time).
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rabbit has come down pretty solidly in saying that Global Warming is pretty much universally accepted.
We don't need Rabbit to tell us how many people agree with the global warming theory. Anyone can do that, and in any case, it's irrelevant to this debate. We need Rabbit to explain the scientific justification for it and counter the arguments against it.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, I wasn't implying that once the Rabbit spoke, the debate was over.
I completely agree with your point Puppy- science is not a popularity contest (or at least it shouldn't be).
Besides Junkscience, my searches on the professor I mentioned above turned up a link that had numerous articles giving the other side to the global warming debate: www.canadafreepress.com
It's obviously biased, but that does make it useful in knowing what kind of articles it collects. I like biased sources when they're upfront about it. If I go to an environmentalist group's site, I know the types of articles I'll find there. Same with this site. Then I can compare the articles on both sites and try to come to my own independent decision. Probably sounds crazy, but it works for me.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
It's not crazy, but it's probably less effective for scientific issues than it would be for issues of political policy.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Anyways, poor input and wording on my part. From past posts anyway, she's shown herself to be very much a supporter of the current theory. She'd be a good sounding board for some questions.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry I nitpicked, BTQ I'm just really itching for someone to answer my questions above, and the last thing I need is another rant from an environmentalist about how everyone smart agrees with him So I'm trying to make sure we all stay focused.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
). However, my confusion is not from mainstream media reporting, or NPR's Science Fridays. It's reading specialized magazines and seeing them comment on basically, themselves. I have enough to really learn on my plate without trying to learn enough to comprehend highly specialized scientific papers. I'm an electrical engineer, so I have a strong background in sciences and mathematics, but I realize that one cannot become an expert simply by reading enough papers in another field. ![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
