Global warming worries Utah Gov

[ski_resort_observer]

http://www.timesargus.com/article/20091129/NEWS01/911290314/1002/NEWS01

To be honest, personally speaking I'm glad I'm pretty close to 60yo as I don't think we will be skiing as we know it today sooner than most think.

 

[redalienx11]

its less about global warming, more about global climate change, anthropogenic or not.

i agree about the skiing changing sooner than we think.

 

[Big Game]

Who cares if the globe is warming. The concern should be ...are the mountains?

Anyway, good news for those deniers among us who like to feel smug. It appears as if something besides science happened these past years. The earth has actually been cooling. The "scientific consensus" cooked the books to "hide the decline." The IPCC produced a hoax -- the hoax directly responsible for the "overwhelming consensus" we were all supposed to believe.

Of course, they've buried the story in mainstream US press, but not so much in England and everywhere else.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...rst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

 

[speden]

The earth has actually been cooling.

It's unfortunate those scientist's were willing to cook their data, but I don't see how that leads you to conclude the earth is cooling. There has been significant melting of glaciers around the world. If the earth were cooling, the glaciers would be growing in size, not shrinking.

 

[BushMogulMaster]

The issue of whether the globe is warming or not has been so overshadowed by the fear-factor, sensationalized political agendas that true science and facts are nearly impossible to uncover.

 

[riverc0il]

The issue of whether the globe is warming or not has been so overshadowed by the fear-factor, sensationalized political agendas that true science and facts are nearly impossible to uncover.

This is a really interesting observation. Except I would replace "the fear-factor, sensationalized political agendas" by simply saying "the media and the popular opinion market place". What worries me is that people talk about global warming in terms of "belief". Science has nothing to do with belief. I rely on media to supply me with facts but different media outlets report on different studies and ignore others. The best media sources simply ignore almost all sources and studies and try to remain out of the issue.

Most people, myself included, would be very hard pressed to identify truly unbiased, rigorously peer reviewed studies and sources for this type of information on the subject. The truth of the matter is that most people are completely divorced from the scientific process and only appeal to science when they need to back up their notions and ideals of how the world "should" operate and help define their philosophies and policies.

Pretty scary that such an important topic is being driven by ignorance and agendas. But that is how much topics are driven regardless of importance. Both those who are advocates and nay sayers are both guilty and the whole lack of educated discourse on this issue is truly a shame.

 

[redalienx11]

is the earth cooling or warming? it all depends on the time scale you look at.
for example: say in the last 100 years the mean global temperature has been decreasing. this would cause many to argue for global cooling. but if we look back 100,000 years, we could find that the "cooling" is actually one of the oscillations of a much larger trend that is actually warming. but if we look back 10 million years, the warming of 100,000 years may just be an oscillation in the global cooling trend. but if we look back..... etc etc. Mean temperature over time does not produce a smooth line. In an effort to make it smoother and easy to work with, one can use many "statistically sound" filters yet these filters can often lead to different conclusions.

i hope if i have kids they can enjoy skiing like i do

 

[dmc]

I always hear that climate change will cause the ice to melt and the oceans to cool.. Which will cool the northeast down.

But who knows... I can't trust anyone on this stuff...

 

[ctenidae]

My biggest problem is with thos who say teh science isn't conclusive, so we shouldn't do anything.

I'm not aware of any benefits to continued reliance on fossil fuels, whether political, sociological, environmental, or anything else. From a Pascal's Gambit perspective, we're better off doing something than doing nothing.

The twist, and this is something you don't see debated or mentioned much, is what do we do if climate change is occuring and the effects are bad, but there's noting we can do to stop or alter it? Clearly, moving coastal cities inland 50 miles isn't really an option, but are there less costly things we should be doing? Like, stocking up on canned goods and ammo?

 

[Mapnut]

"Global warming worries Utah gov" - Actually, reading the article, it's the ski resorts who are really, really worried and the governor isn't.

 

[psyflyer]

It's unfortunate those scientist's were willing to cook their data, but I don't see how that leads you to conclude the earth is cooling. There has been significant melting of glaciers around the world. If the earth were cooling, the glaciers would be growing in size, not shrinking.

Actually glaciers in India are expanding, as well as the swiss and Italians glaciers. Global warming is an illusion and temepratures have been cooling well into the mid part of this century and are projected to be cooling off into this century. In fact, temperatures have been cooling for most of the past 10 years...

 

[speden]

Actually glaciers in India are expanding, as well as the swiss and Italians glaciers. Global warming is an illusion and temepratures have been cooling well into the mid part of this century and are projected to be cooling off into this century. In fact, temperatures have been cooling for most of the past 10 years...

One of the tough parts of climatology is figuring out what is a trend and what is a normal variation in snowfall from year to year and from one location to another. From what I have read, the trend is that most glaciers have been receding.

If you looked at Bretton Woods this weekend you might say November 2009 was a great month for snowfall, but if you looked at all the northeast resorts you'd come to the opposite conclusion.

I would say it's pretty obvious that burning fossil fuels is not a good idea. Cigarette companies used to say there's no proof that smoking causes cancer, but you didn't need to be an oncologist to know their goal was to confuse people to hide the truth. Bad things are happening to the environment, like massive deaths of bats and bees, fish stocks vanishing, huge floating masses of discarded plastic in the oceans, etc. The Earth is vast and can take a lot of abuse, but I don't understand people putting their heads in the sand and wanting to pretend everything is going great.

 

[riverc0il]

One of the big issues with both sides of the debate is Observational Selection. In other words, "counting the hits and ignoring the misses" as it relates to the one's predetermined perspective/outlook. This is part of the Sagen Baloney Detection Kit. The irritating thing is that both sides of the "debate" utilize Observational Selection when discussing the issue. And I say "debate" because it seems like the issue is more a debate about perspective than it is about reviewing the actual science (see BushMogulMaster's post and my response on that issue above).

Nothing frustrates me more than counting the hits and ignoring the misses. Observational selection happens regarding this issue all the time such as those that posit because one micro climate of the world has a higher or lower temperature over a given period of time that it is a refutation an opposing argument but ignoring when the opposite happens in a different micro climate. Some locales could see decreasing temperatures despite the world as a whole seeing an increase and vice versa.

We see this above with speden citing glaciers melting around the world (true) while psyflyer notes that glaciers are shrinking in India (I will assume this is true as well). Neither of this issues in and of itself proves a point but people use it to debate their side of an argument while ignoring or trying to refute facts that are not even in dispute in the scientific community. Simply put, both sides of this debate selectively line up facts that fit into their concept of what is happening.

Ultimately, regardless of man's effects (or lack thereof) on climate change, I think the bottom line is we should be taking better care of our planet regardless any ways, so ultimately much of the discussion is moot. However...

From a Pascal's Gambit perspective, we're better off doing something than doing nothing.

Much as Pascal's Wager has its critical flaws that invalidate it, I think this line of thinking is also flawed in reference to your applying it to this discussion. Perhaps depends what type of "something" we should do. From an argument perspective, this line of thinking could lead to tragic results extended to certain proposed solutions. While I disagree with certain objections to doing something about climate change (i.e. that it will have a terrible economic impact and is absolutely not worth doing no matter what), I also understand that we can not derail the trail without causing tragic results. Some sort of balance needs to be found to improve our impact on the world environmentally, regardless of whether or not said impact exacerbates climate change.

 

[mondeo]

The truth of the matter is that most people are completely divorced from the scientific process and only appeal to science when they need to back up their notions and ideals of how the world "should" operate and help define their philosophies and policies.

Including climatologists, unfortunately. The "scientists" involved are guilty themselves of advocacy instead of just trying to figure out what's going on.

My biggest problem is with thos who say teh science isn't conclusive, so we shouldn't do anything.

I'm not aware of any benefits to continued reliance on fossil fuels, whether political, sociological, environmental, or anything else. From a Pascal's Gambit perspective, we're better off doing something than doing nothing.

Which is where I'm at. Switch over to free sources of energy, and because the sources are free, energy production should gradually become cheaper, not the other way around as with fossil fuels. Economies based on commodities tend to go along with more socially repressed societies, so there's that benefit. Not burning stuff leads to fewer emissions.

The question is how to get there. What's the appropriate amount of capital to invest above what would be spent anyways for conventional power? Do you press the issue, installing "green" power even where it's cost effective? Do you push old power plants with useful life left offline? etc.

And what about unsolved environmental issues with "green" power? Bird fatalities due to windmills, I've heard both that it is and isn't an issue. Chemicals used in solar cell production.

All I know is I don't know anything.

 

[redalienx11]

i wrote a huge reply buuuut computer died before i could post it. don't wanna type it again, but it was in the vein of observational selection, as talked about by Rivercoil.

and like i said before, maybe temperature has been cooling for the past ten years; THAT DOES NOT REFUTE GLOBAL WARMING.

 

[speden]

Neither of this issues in and of itself proves a point but people use it to debate their side of an argument while ignoring or trying to refute facts that are not even in dispute in the scientific community. Simply put, both sides of this debate selectively line up facts that fit into their concept of what is happening.

You're painting this issue as if both sides have equivalent good points, but I think it's actually quite lopsided. There is a political calculation on the right wing to say everything is fine because they think that is the pro business position (misguided as that is). On the left they are trying to change policy because things are so obviously going in the wrong direction, even though this is not politically popular. If people don't take sides on this, nothing is going to improve. Major shifts likes the rapid industrialization of China are going to accelerate the environmental problems.

How can people see coral reefs dying around the world and say, well, that's probably no big deal. Giant jellyfish have suddenly showed up in the oceans around Japan, threatening their fishing industry. Doesn't that seem like a hint something is amiss? The southwest U.S. is having one drought after another. No worries. I'm sure not having enough water will be great for business out there. Northern forests are being attacked by insects that would normally be unable to survive there. The signs that something is wrong are everywhere.

Just because scientists haven't come up with models accurate enough to explain what is happening, doesn't mean bad things aren't happening. Champions of ignorance like the Utah governor should be voted out of office.

 

[riverc0il]

You're painting this issue as if both sides have equivalent good points, but I think it's actually quite lopsided.

I prefer to reverse that and say both sides of the issue have bad points as well as "evidence" supporting their claim.... selective evidence at that. As someone firmly routed in science, if contradictory evidence is provided.... we MUST evaluate it even if it does not fit into our preconceived notions of the truth. Doing otherwise would mean that we selectively filter science to meet our "beliefs". I can not accept that.

From what I have seen, the preponderance of evidence (especially those studies that are critically reviewed by fellow scientists that are experts in their field) comes down on the "man is effecting climate change" argument. However, I will not engage in argument or discussion on the issue itself as a topical issue.... the science really needs to speak its case and I think it would be dishonest to say that the science has 100% provided its verdict.

Just because scientists haven't come up with models accurate enough to explain what is happening, doesn't mean bad things aren't happening.

That is an accurate statement. However, in science, you can not prove a negative (that man is NOT effecting climate change) so the burden of proof is for scientists to prove conclusively that it absolutely is man's effect on the impact of climate change (causation rather than correlation).

This is why I come back to the bottom line that it does not matter if man is effecting climate change or not, we still need to do something!!! The argument for taking action using reasoning that man has caused the problem is the wrong argument as it is irrelevant. I think we would get more people on board with taking action to help the environment if the issue was posed as an environmental issue rather than a climate change issue.

 

[speden]

However, in science, you can not prove a negative (that man is NOT effecting climate change) so the burden of proof is for scientists to prove conclusively that it absolutely is man's effect on the impact of climate change (causation rather than correlation).

I would put the burden on the polluters to prove that it is okay to continue polluting. If they can't, then take away their licenses to drill for more oil and dig more coal, and phase out the use of their damaging product. When traces of pharmaceuticals turn up in drinking water, then tell the manufacturers if you can't figure out a way to prevent that, then you can't sell the drug anymore. When rivers are found to be dumping pesticides and fertilizer and cow dung into the oceans, tell the farmers and if you can't control your runoff, then you have to stop what you are doing. People and industries can adapt, but the people and government need to have the will to put the rules in place.

When the industrial revolution started, it was just assumed that man is so insignificant, he could never do serious damage to the environment. Now I think it is clear that this was a wrong assumption. We were born in a strange era of extravagant waste and pollution, rampant consumerism, population rising out of control, and it's not sustainable.

 

[psyflyer]

I would put the burden on the polluters to prove that it is okay to continue polluting. If they can't, then take away their licenses to drill for more oil and dig more coal, and phase out the use of their damaging product. When traces of pharmaceuticals turn up in drinking water, then tell the manufacturers if you can't figure out a way to prevent that, then you can't sell the drug anymore. When rivers are found to be dumping pesticides and fertilizer and cow dung into the oceans, tell the farmers and if you can't control your runoff, then you have to stop what you are doing. People and industries can adapt, but the people and government need to have the will to put the rules in place.

When the industrial revolution started, it was just assumed that man is so insignificant, he could never do serious damage to the environment. Now I think it is clear that this was a wrong assumption. We were born in a strange era of extravagant waste and pollution, rampant consumerism, population rising out of control, and it's not sustainable.

The "polluters" affecting the temperatures of the earth might just be the sun cycle, and what you are really trying to curb are manners and complacency rather than the earth's temperatures. Do not forget that over time the temeprature of the earth is never constant, or we would have a problem. Therefore why tamper with something that can not be easily understood or dealt with, lest you exposing yourself to a myriad of unintended consequences? Money. Follow the money and you shall be set free. Stephen Hawkins summed it up pretty good in asserting that this earth is here to be used, and when we are done that means we are off to greener pastures such places like Mars and other planets. Until then we might just debate to debate because we feel like debating. Global warming is an illusion, nothing more in my view.

 

[speden]

Stephen Hawkins summed it up pretty good in asserting that this earth is here to be used, and when we are done that means we are off to greener pastures such places like Mars and other planets. Until then we might just debate to debate because we feel like debating. Global warming is an illusion, nothing more in my view.

Your backup plan if you are wrong is to migrate to other planets? Mars is a terrible environment for human life, and it's probably the most hospitable of the other planets. We should be stewards of the earth, not consumers of it.

If you are willing to write off climate change as normal, do you also think the acidification of the oceans due to the uptake of co2 is normal? Coal and oil don't just disappear when you burn them; they go to other places.