The Elephant in the Room

[oakapple]

As far as I know, the FACT that the globe is getting warmer has pretty broad agreement, regardless of political ideology. The only seriously argued question (aside from flat-earth types) is WHY. This does not mean there aren't spots in Wyoming where the trend is different, but we are talking about global warming, not Wyoming. It is certainly not a 1:1 ratio of places that have gotten colder, to those that have gotten warmer. If there is scientific data supporting your position, please point us to it.

 

[AdironRider]

Reading comprehension is not your friend is it. My Wyoming example is just that, an example showing the contrary. Im sure there are thousands of others. My ultimate point is you cannot trust the science in this specific instance for several reasons.

The money and people who feel adamantly one way or another are searching for a specific answer that may or may not exist. Noone gave a shit about climate change back in the 1800's, and the scientific method wasnt really all that strong back then either. I just dont trust data points taken by some guy back in 1900, who didnt give a crap other than what temp it was that day.

The entire argument is being funded by backers with massive political agendas. That in and amongst itself should send up massive red flags. Again, you cannot go about this by coming up with a conclusion, then searching for data to prove it.

Im not saying that temps arent getting warmer or colder one way or another, just that the whole frame of reference for this specific argument is skewed by bias of multiple forms. Get back to me in 50 years and maybe Ill believe it, but at this point in time, with such a small accurate data set (how many of these weather stations have been around for all that long?), I just cant put enough faith in it to say one way or another is absolute fact. Besides, any scientist who says something is an absolute truth is blowing smoke up your ass. At one point people took it as fact that the world was flat, and most recently thought nothing could travel faster than the speed of light, which some dudes over in Euroland seem to have debunked as well.

Ultimately, the issue is to new and to all encompasing to try and have the feds think that a couple years of research should completely change the way our economy and society operates. But if you want to think its an absolute truth then so be it, 30 years ago Carter said to turn down the thermostat and put on a sweater. Its a joke now.

 

[BenedictGomez]

The problem comes from the money involved. The scientific method calls for research then you can come to conclusions. However, with the global warming fiasco, you have money coming hoping to prove a point one way or another, prior to any research.

Precisely.

Real "science" does not work like this.

The overwhelming percentage of grants are now given to research LOOKING for evidence of Global Warming.

What happens if you dont "find" it? Guess who isnt getting additional research funding. Hmm... guess who's out of a job and isnt putting food on the table for the family anymore. Again, no real science works like this, and it's very troubling to say the least.

As far as I know, the FACT that the globe is getting warmer has pretty broad agreement, regardless of political ideology. The only seriously argued question (aside from flat-earth types) is WHY.it.

Well.......actually, even that's not true anymore.

The earth hasn't been warming as it should over the last 10 or 15 years, and that's a REAL problem for the Global Warming crowd, because CO2 production HAS been increasing (and that is indisputable). Hell, the recent email scandal even caught some of the world's top warming "scientists" admitting that Global Warming seems to have stalled.

So if CO2 is increasing and the earth isnt warming? Mythbusted. I genuinely believe that this is a house of cards, and it will fall in the next 10 or so years.

 

[RISkier]

Probably an anomaly. Last winter was completely different. Global warming is really referring to an overall change in global climate over time. Year to year variations are not new. Somewhere I read that with climate change we could expect more extreme weather and weather swings.

 

[kingslug]

That's pretty much the way I look at it. I think there are small cycles with larger cycles that we don't have enough data to measure. even temperature data for the last 500 years would be a mere pimple on the arse of a fly when looked at in the contect of the Earth's several billion years of existence. There have been at least 5 "ice ages" and there have been warmer periods as well. Now I'm gonna leave this thread and go back to wishing for some snow.

BINGO..winner..we don't know shyt...130 years of data...billions of years..of weather...

 

[riverc0il]

Global Warming ? Not political, but is this year's lousy snow and warm an anomaly or trend, what do you think.

Seriously? No matter where you stand on the issue and no matter which scientists you subscribe to... one year does NOT make a trend! Also, climate change might make some regions colder and snowier. Folks in Alaska and BC must be talking about how climate change is a hoax. HELLO!!! :roll:

 

[Cannonball]

There is some mixing and matching of terms and concepts that derails this (and most) discussion.

Climate /= Weather
Global Warming /= Local Warming or Cooling
Climate Change /= Human Induced Climate Change
Specific Examples /= Trends
Media Reporting of Scientific Findings /= Scientific Findings

I'll also say that there is just as much money, motivation, and political will on both sides of this issue. So I think it's a tough sell to say that scientists as a group are financially motivated to seek evidence for human induced climate change. Individual financial biases definitely exist....but on both sides.

 

[mediamogul]

Now one thing you have to admit is that these right wingers are damn good at making a political argument. That's precisely the reason that they draw everything into the political realm. All of a sudden its not about evidence or data or even common sense, its about money and agendas and evil leftist scientists destroying the moral fiber of the country and taking the economy down with them. They make the same argument about evolution and call it "Darwinism" as though its a new religion.

Science is about making hypothesis and testing them, abandoning them if they don't make sense. If global warming doesn't make sense it will be abandoned and a new theory will proposed and tested and data will be gathered to measure its validity.

This season seems to be more about a prevailing weather pattern that is not in our favor that keeps funneling warmth and mixed precip into our part of the US which is what a La Nina winter generally does.

Hell, I say don't believe in global warming. Let the polar ice caps melt until we all have beach front property.

 

[Nick]

I have a feeling this thread might derail rather quickly... try to keep it in the context of skiing guys and gals

 

[witch hobble]

try to keep it in the context of skiing guys and gals

Sorta limits the context and the research available doesn't it?

 

[riverc0il]

I have a feeling this thread might derail rather quickly... try to keep it in the context of skiing guys and gals

I've scanned the forums daily for quite some time now. To be frank, the discussion on AZ is sliding decisively towards non-skiing more and more lately...

... maybe just move it to the Misc forum?

 

[Nick]

Sorta limits the context and the research available doesn't it?

I mean more in terms of lets not get into blatant politics and right wing this , left wing that, because that always ends in a bunch of F-u's, fired up posters, and no one happy :lol:

 

[Nick]

I've scanned the forums daily for quite some time now. To be frank, the discussion on AZ is sliding decisively towards non-skiing more and more lately...

... maybe just move it to the Misc forum?

I was actually thinking it kinda feels like summer :roll:

 

[mediamogul]

Sorry my fault ill reel it in...

Damn lack of snow...

 

[Nick]

no worries. Group hug :lol:

 

[BenedictGomez]

I'll also say that there is just as much money, motivation, and political will on both sides of this issue. So I think it's a tough sell to say that scientists as a group are financially motivated to seek evidence for human induced climate change. Individual financial biases definitely exist....but on both sides.

Absolutely true, but it's disproportionately worse on the "pro" side, because they control the levers of power with a near monopolistic authority, and are far more heavily invested.

BINGO..winner..we don't know shyt...130 years of data...billions of years..of weather...

We are a species that has only been able to poop indoors for a mere 130 years. Human arrogance never ceases to amaze me.

At the very least, it should be "okay" to question individuals who generally cannot predict the weather 20 days from now, but claim they can accurately predict the weather 200 years from now.

But the Global Warming fanatics seek to ostracize and put a stigma upon those who "dare" to even question them. You're a skeptic? Oh, well, you're a "fool" or a "nut" then.

Science is about making hypothesis and testing them, abandoning them if they don't make sense. If global warming doesn't make sense it will be abandoned and a new theory will proposed and tested and data will be gathered to measure its validity.

Quite so, but perhaps not before individual nation's entire economies may be seriously imperiled by a "theory" as yet not proven.

One would think we'd want to be as certain of its' merits as we are the laws of gravity before we entirely revamp the global economy on a relatively new science that is unproven at best, and currently cracking at worst.

 

[witch hobble]

Absolutely true, but it's disproportionately worse on the "pro" side, because they control the levers of power with a near monopolistic authority, and are far more heavily invested.

I assume from your previous posts that by "pro side" you mean people who believe that climate change is, in fact, real and who would like their governments and businesses to use their powers to curb greenhouse gas emissions, and conduct more thorough research on techniques used by extractive industries before implementing them.

But do you truly believe your own statement? You think the side (for lack of a better word) that is anti-status quo controls the levers of power, and is more heavily invested, than the oligarchy and corporate overlords?

 

[witch hobble]

<<<<<<There Nick still about skiing!

 

[Cannonball]

I'll also say that there is just as much money, motivation, and political will on both sides of this issue. So I think it's a tough sell to say that scientists as a group are financially motivated to seek evidence for human induced climate change. Individual financial biases definitely exist....but on both sides.

Absolutely true, but it's disproportionately worse on the "pro" side, because they control the levers of power with a near monopolistic authority, and are far more heavily invested.

I have to respectfully disagree on that one. I've been in the environmental sciences for over 15 years. In that time I have worked for academic institutions, governmental agencies, commercial industries, and non-profits. By FAR the biggest budgets, deepest pockets, and heavy investing in science came from the commercial industries (specifically oil companies). And actually I've never experienced any of those entities trying to influence the results of the science I worked on. Although I'm aware that it happens.

Edit: I forgot to get to my point!! What I HAVE seen is almost all of those entities using spin, cherry-picking, and biased presentation of the sound science to promote as agenda. This is even more prevalent in, and exacerbated by, a biased and/or uninformed media. It's not at all surprising that the general public gets confused about what to believe. And "science" ends up get a bad rap because it is being misused.

 

[Nick]

<<<<<<There Nick still about skiing!

So how's the 10 day forecast looking :flame: