# BBC documentary on Global Warming



## kyle1745

BBC documentary on Global Warming

Hour long but take the time to watch this...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... ndle&hl=en


----------



## kyle1745

Interesting that they are threating the people who made this video:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... een211.xml

Makes you wonder... Way too much politics behind the IPCC.


----------



## joshsfrogs

I watched the video...I would very much like to know if what they talked about towards the end was true (and to what degree): How much are environmentalist in industrialized nations forcing "clean" energy on developing nations (much to their economical and sadly physical demise)?


----------



## kyle1745

Ya they went over that one fast, most likely trying to keep to an hour... I think it is very interesting how much politics plays into it all and how much of the data was removed from the reports. It is also interesting how they were using scientists names after they asked for them to not be included.


----------



## r90s

Just watched it,.
And found it very interesting
Was going to post a topic, with link.
But after reading the user agreement again, I came here, and found this topic, and have luckily been spared the embarrassment of posting a redundant topic.  
Gonna watch again, and analyze some more.

By the way, Kyle is on top of things, as usual, but I don't believe it's by the BBC. It's against their religion!


----------



## kyle1745

You maybe right on who made it, but believe it was promoted by the BBC. I had a list of quotes from it I was going to post, but I rather people take the time to watch it. What I think is sad is how bad science is being skewed to meet a political agenda.


----------



## r90s

kyle1745 said:


> You maybe right on who made it, but believe it was promoted by the BBC. I had a list of quotes from it I was going to post, but I rather people take the time to watch it. What I think is sad is how bad science is being skewed to meet a political agenda.


I believe it is this UK channel 4, Kyle.

http://www.channel4.com/news/uk

But I don't think thats a big deal, and I agree with your last point.


----------



## Roadrunner

deleted


----------



## kyle1745

Aaron,

First, did you watch the video? As many of the things you mentioned are explained in the video.

Some examples:
- Volcanoes produce more CO2 than all the factories, cars, and planes put together.
- Animals and bacteria produce 150 gigatons compared to the 6.5 gigtons of humans. Should we then kill them all?


> Allright think of all the technology out there. What part of it do we have access to? There are jets to jet set our businessmen all over the country, military bombs that can find there targets but not enough kevlar for our troops in Iraq.


This has been true throughout history, and what do you think it would take to make that mentality change? Funding goes to protection before anything else... As it should, and if not we would be... French, British, Russian, German or some other nationality over the years, but lets stick to the current topic.



> Our priorities as a nation are not in line and may never be. A lot of people are getting left behind and most of the technology is used to qwell the masses thru xbox and playstations. Big business and the gov`t have all the technology and most scientists can`t get funded who are working on Diseases let alone global warming. A lot of scientists are loosing funding, not just global warming studies.


I agree, but I bet we disagree on what those priorities should be. Ill leave what I think they should be out of it as its a bit off topic, but in your post you damn capitalism, and yet the whole world is moving that direction. So its better to learn how to work within capitalistic systems than just ignore them. The truth is that money talks, and that is just about all that matter no matter how much anyone dislikes it.

The point is we as a county and a planet can not make educated choices for government and in our own lives when we are lied to by people with hidden political agendas. I find it sad that many scientists are selling their souls so to speak for funding, and global warming in my opinion is a perfect example of this happening.

It seems the video has been pulled which does not surprise me, but thinking this would happen I kept a local copy, and will see if I can find another link to it. This in my opinion should be considered more of a problem than the global warming issue itself. Why are we filtered from the truth or anything that questions the norm for that matter? These are the questions we as a country and as a planet need to start asking.


----------



## Roadrunner

Allright I was in a really bad mood this A.M. 
No, I didn`t see the video before it was pulled. I tried and surmised the content by discussion and title.
Of course I can`t explain how I really feel in a page, I damn what capitalism has become, global, meaning what used to be spread out amongst many families is now in the hands of a few. That power(money) used to be more evenly distributed. 

I just know things have changed because of oil, chemical companies and large industry and if we can`t get the right info I`d rather ere on the side of caution and try to step back a little rather than just falling forward w/ the flow.
I won`t write anymore till I get into a better mood. I get emotional about it because I`ve learned about it since I was a kid and I`ve seen a lot vanish in my short time here and because I can`t make a sh*^ bit of difference. 
I apologize.


----------



## kyle1745

Aaron, 

Don't apologies, its good to be passionate about something, and too many people in my opinion either forget their passion or lose it in the busyness of life.

My concern is that when views like this video, which at times have more scientific proof than the norm, get shot down just for being different. I think there is much more to this planet than we know, and to many people that is incomprehensible. I personally blame the media, politicians, and even capitalism for this. Its a sad time when scientific findings can be bought rather than proven and I think that is the case with much of the common beliefs around global warming. This is not to say we do not play a part or that we should not attempt to be be better, but id guess we play a very small roll in the "big" picture.


----------



## r90s

No, frogfarm, I sometimes become passionate about things, and I agree with Kyle that there should be no apologizes needed about that.

Debate, is only, just one form of discussion that is supposed to allow all views to be spoken without suppression. That the fallacies of of poor arguments are exposed, in thorough debate. This was the idea of our founding fathers, in order to have an informed citizenry.

Now, I Feel that, with the political correctness (that was almost non-existent 10 years ago), and its squelching of ideas that disagree with the "PC" standards espoused, this has become much more difficult. For those that refuse to have their voices quited. we now have "Echelon" (well documented), and it's implicit threats(as an example if misused).

Also We have taxes, that so draconian that both parents of a family have to work, and can't raise their children, much less have time to be informed about what their politicians are doing. How convenient for a government! I'll bet that same government will claim to have a solution for the parenting problem.

I believe that I have seen some agendas before, set into motion, tobacco, now its food, and soon maybe alcohol (wait, didn't they try that, with it's great result). Maybe these all are in an effort to point out that you should just, sit down, shut up, be healthy, and stay away from risky sports too, for you belong to the state. Maybe now with all the Orwellian tools that are available, even the prohibition, that was tried before, can be done.

Wait, I better stop, for I might become passionate. :roll:

Anyway frogfarm, I wish that you hadn't deleted your post

P.S.
I had been surprised that the video lasted as long as it did on google. As the video said, "powerful forces are at work"
I have a copy, also.


----------



## kyle1745

I agree Aaron you could have left it, it was by no means out of line... No worries man.


----------



## r90s

Now it's back, again......WTF

After reading the posts above, I checked. It was sure enough, gone.

Now It' back......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJW ... UcqnMeglOg but this one is 22MB.

And this one Below, says that it is complete, but it's 118MB. Yesterday was 218.MB. Maybe this one is not in quadrophenia









http://youtube.com/get_video?video_id=XttV2C6B8pU&l=4555&t=OEgsToPDskJgLgoqrCYXfttZHqGnWnwv

P.S. I now can see that it is a lower resolution copy! But OK I guess.

Here is a better version below... 155mb.
http://youtube.com/get_video?video_id=P ... xu24wmMalw

I'm gonna use all the electrons this board has, by editing versions of video!


----------



## r90s

Ratts! I only wanted to edit in a comma! Not quote this

forum grief




r90s said:


> Now it's back, again......WTF
> 
> After reading the posts above, I checked. It was sure enough, gone.
> 
> Now It' back......





r90s said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJW ... UcqnMeglOg


If you see this, admin, please clean it up(delete this double)
Where is Kyle when you need him :wink:


----------



## stchupa

kyle1745 said:


> Aaron,
> 
> First, did you watch the video? As many of the things you mentioned are explained in the video.
> 
> Some examples:
> - Volcanoes produce more CO2 than all the factories, cars, and planes put together.


Funny how mass extinctions correlate w/ abrupt volcanic expanses, oh wait that's not very funny.

But we are artificially creating the same scenario. But there are many things that are (soon to) going into play and 'we' are just bombarding them all.



> - Animals and bacteria produce 150 gigatons compared to the 6.5 gigtons of humans. Should we then kill them all?


I bet the 6.5 caused by humans didn't incorporate both what we transpire (as all life/death does) and dump as artificial gases. Not to include the build up of solid waste 'we' contribute to and inhibit the natural break down process. And all the snowballing death 'we' continue to support in 'our' environment. Then you can consider the poisoning of sea water (which is another snowball) which only expands and as long as we're here never recovers. Even when we're gone, still may never. Soon to create worse more immediately detrimental gases.... Then at that point you can look into how we've skewed the ratio of not only C02, but nitrogen (many things) in our environment w/ the introduction of synthetics in the 40s-50s. I can't even explain w/in a page (whatever that is) on how large the effects of that will become. There's no end to it, nothing un effected.... 'They' always play that card conservatively, not being conservatives and all.

Regardless of if 'we' should 'we' probably are going to and we are definitely headed that way. Not all, but the vast major.




> Our priorities as a nation are not in line and may never be. A lot of people are getting left behind and most of the technology is used to qwell the masses thru xbox and playstations. Big business and the gov`t have all the technology and most scientists can`t get funded who are working on Diseases let alone global warming. A lot of scientists are loosing funding, not just global warming studies.





> I agree, but I bet we disagree on what those priorities should be. Ill leave what I think they should be out of it as its a bit off topic,


Or so you say, but really what DOESN'T pertain to this besides the 'nothing' 'we' are fed/accept? I know you don't leave it out because you 'think' it's irrelevant, but that 'people' cannot take it 'straight forward'. At least as of yet, but they will have to at some point if they want to go on. Even then the 'ones' that will still be 'here', will see 'IT' for what 'IT' is, regardless of want. I also feel it to be important to leave these voids, because if people get the 'example' before the explanation to take action towards the 'example' they will (likely) be frightened away because the 'true' 'example' will be (for the 'most') unexpected (the long ago dismissed/yet to be discovered).

By leaving that blank, you know that says it all for me.




> but in your post you damn capitalism, and yet the whole world is moving that direction. So its better to learn how to work within capitalistic systems than just ignore them.


I have to say that I 'feel'/'see' 'that/them' eventually extinguishing themselves, and if not that, something else doing it for them.

I didn't think you gave in so easily and I 'hope' you don't really 'believe' that. Capitalism doesn't support itself, the people behind/w/in it, can/do.
Not the 'people', but people, individuals (creators of it) who know reliance will fade. Things that continue to grow in one direction end up........



> The truth is that money talks, and that is just about all that matter no matter how much anyone dislikes it.


Since you didn't specify who you refer to, I'll consider all to alleviate (accentuate) any misconception.
You still 'think' money is 'their' top priority? How can you 'see' what I think you 'see' and still 'think'/'believe' that. (don't answer to that as I was just writing theoretically) Money talks to the 'people'. Not those who print it. Money is motivation for 'us' not 'them' (it is FOR 'them'[extended tool]). A GIVEN limit, to influence 'people' to strive for/above/beyond that set limit (GIVEN focus). What is that focus?, the same thing 'we' started w// are talking about now (money). A decoy/'faith' in convenience. They love you to "believe" that money is everyone's focus, including 'theirs'. I hate to leave that void, but just think about it. No secret, it's right there. I'll never be the first to come out and say it. We can get *into* "money", but that's a whole thread in itself. I'll leave it there.



> The point is we as a county and a planet can not make educated choices for government and in our own lives when we are lied to by people with hidden political agendas. I find it sad that many scientists are selling their souls so to speak for funding, and global warming in my opinion is a perfect example of this happening.


Couldn't of said that better. If they had a "soul", that's exactly what they'd be selling.



> It seems the video has been pulled which does not surprise me, but thinking this would happen I kept a local copy, and will see if I can find another link to it. This in my opinion should be considered more of a problem than the global warming issue itself. Why are we filtered from the truth or anything that questions the norm for that matter? These are the questions we as a country and as a planet need to start asking.


It's all edited, this proof was never needed. But even w/ the extra given I'm sure it will go on as largely unnoticed/undealt w/.

I'm pretty sure you didn't want me to answer that question.

If 'they' let "global warming" leak, imagine what else makes up the big (bigger) picture that 'they' don't let slide. Yet. :?: Shouldn't have to imagine, but you could and still not realize a fraction of it. A percent of a percent, maybe. 

I just watched Al Gore's movie tonight, for the first time. Yay. Think how that movie would change if it were done today. :shock: Talk about a jump. The phrase snowball doesn't even come close to giving it justice. Guess he figured he waited long enough?

Everyone should keep in mind/know, prediction doesn't exist. But you can look at one day (w/ your eye and w/out the filter of the brain) and see the next and even far far ahead if you consider enough. Nothing is hidden, nothing should be expected but everything should be understood.


----------



## kyle1745

Just a quick rewsponse... 

First, did you watch the video? If not please do.... Second many of the things I was responding too were a little off topic and Aaron had removed the post so much of your responses seem a bit off since you most likley did not get a chance to read what Aaron removed.


----------



## npaull

I will watch the video and post more (oh boy, here we go again, I feel like we've already debated this) but I have a few points from the hip:

1) It will NEVER (ever, ever) cease to amaze me that seemingly logical people surmise "hidden agendas" for scientists pursuing issues that may or may not have economic or political overtones, and at the same time will TOTALLY ignore the much more demonstrable agenda of those seeking to discredit their findings. 

What exactly are these "hidden agendas?" Why is the obvious agenda of much of the opposition ($$$) not equally, if not more so, damning? 

2) Regarding the statement about animals and bacteria producing more CO2 - this is a great distractor fact that industries love to throw out. The problem isn't export of carbon - it's NET export of carbon. Animals and bacteria are liberating carbon from sources such as plants and decaying life. This carbon is an active part of the carbon cycle in ecosystems, and most of it is taken back up on a biological time scale.

Humans are liberating carbon that had been locked away in geological time. Ecosystems are not equipped to soak up the excess. The result is accumulation which does not occur to nearly the same degree as with the combustion of fossil fuels.

My knowledge of vulcanism is too incomplete to speak to the point about volcanoes. I strongly suspect there is more to this aspect of the debate. I will try and find out more.

3)


> I believe that I have seen some agendas before, set into motion, tobacco, now its food, and soon maybe alcohol


I do not know precisely what is meant by this, but if you are saying that scientific evidence is inadequate to establish the health risks of tobacco use, and you have made an effort to examine the evidence, then engaging in a rational debate about any area of scientific endeavor will be futile.



> Also We have taxes, that so draconian that both parents of a family have to work, and can't raise their children, much less have time to be informed about what their politicians are doing. How convenient for a government! I'll bet that same government will claim to have a solution for the parenting problem.


I don't see the point here... Our government has been the slowest entity around in terms of acknowledging the issue. Are you implying that they are now a cog in the machine with "hidden agendas" to promote the hypothesis of global warming?

4) Lastly (for now) some people posting in this (and related) threads seem fundamentally unfamiliar with the functioning of science. It's a very simple equation:

Good evidence = published work and acceptance into the scientific community.

The scientific world abounds with examples of incredibly unpopular ideas slowly gaining ground because of the inassailability of the data supporting them. Examples include evolution, plate tectonics, general and specific relativity, heliocentrism, germ theory ... Moreover, there are a multitude of examples of EXPENSIVE mistakes revealed because of science, leading to policy changes. Merck withdrawing Vioxx (admittedly later than we would have liked) is a small example. THis was embarassing, costly, and damaging, but it happened because one cannot escape good evidence.

To say that an idea that is well-supported by evidence is continually shirked because of the methodologies of science flies in the face of the history of science. It's just not the way it works. Nor does science coddle ideas which are clearly wrong - short shrift IS given to those ideas (creationism, geocentrism, etc) which clearly have insufficient data. It isn't "political bias" it's SCIENTIFIC bias.

I encourage everyone to LOOK at the evidence. Do searches on published literature about this problem. Compare them. Compare the sources from which they came. Read critiques of both positions.

There is a reason why there is little (not none, but not much) disagreement in the scientific community about this.

More to come (sigh)...


----------



## r90s

Answers to your questions that are quoted, afraid I must(exclude the pontifications):

1. No (just not their business) I don't belong to the state! (Enron's 
cooking of the books doesn't even compare to the juggaling of scientific data, as to indirect health effects on others.

2.Point was: cloud the perception of and ability of citizens to form sound, informed judgments, on things that affect, these same citizens. And the point was to express some of my Passion (see below), which is the context, you left out.



> No, frogfarm, I sometimes become passionate about things, and I agree with Kyle that there should be no apologizes needed about that.


3.Lets see what else? I needed to gather information before I replied, and lost my place.
Oh Yeah! Watch the video.
Or did you watch the video? Beats me!
Because I have no idea where some of your quotes are coming from.
And whom said "damn capitalism" , or is that just your inference?

Well anyway it looks like you have that passion thing down.

:wink:


----------



## slygecko

I'll say first, that I haven't watched the Great Global Warming Swindle, but I will when I get some free time... maybe over spring break. I have, though, found these two critiques of the film:

http://news.independent.co.uk/environme ... 355956.ece
http://climatedenial.org/2007/03/09/the ... r-swindle/

You should give those a good read, and think about what you guys are seeing...

Cheers,
Nick


----------



## r90s

Thanks slygecko,
but I have already read those.

I have also read many other articles that supported the documentary.

I'll let people use google, and surely they will find them all.

It doesn't hurt to view others critiques, from both sides of the issue, not just one side (especially if some of these may have there own, sometimes nonfactual, bias), and then we can form our own critique. :idea:


----------



## kyle1745

Yes people are slamming it just like anyone that questions the norm. I personally get beat up in PMs and etc for posting this stuff, but I rather everything be on the table than just the norm, which in my opinion has some very strange backing as well.

The video goes into this a bit and while I agree both sides have their flaws I also have also learned in life that with things like this with very drastic differences of opinion the truth normally falls dead in the middle. So for me that is where I stand... I think we can improve many things in how we treat the planet and should, but I also think those things may not have anywhere near the effect on the climate that some claim. 

I also have huge concerns with how things are funded in general, we spend billions to try to stop drugs, and now are putting a good bit of money into this topic. When there are many other things suffering. Want to fix these things? Start properly funding education so people grow up to know better.  Stop letting so many immigrants in, which is overloading our base infrastructures. Stop giving everything to everyone for nothing!


----------



## stchupa

kyle1745 said:


> Just a quick rewsponse...
> 
> First, did you watch the video?


I did not. Still have not. I don't want the effort you took to retrieve it, to be in vain either (even though I don't think it was, the people that 'need' to see it probably [hopefully] did/will). I should've said want, because there's obviously many that 'need' to but don't because they don't feel the want they should. So were told/shown. There ARE some.
I know BBC to be a very reputable source (Much more so than what we have to deal w/ over here). Or at least at one point it once was, could still be, don't watch it much, if at all these days. A few years ago it was considered (by me) to be one of the top (mainstream wise), but shortly after, it 'seemed' as if a contagion of personality and rescoring was 'gifted' from our own. I think (hope) they may be regaining the attributes they once held as their own. It is still edited but to a slightly differing piece of the pie.

I will try to get to it. Even then if this pos computer lets me. But a whole hour, you should have never even said that. That's enough to discourage more than just the major. to even begin to click on it. I just hope it's not a relapse of all the things I've already gone through. I don't 'need' convincing (by others) to make up this mind.



> If not please do.... Second many of the things I was responding too were a little off topic and Aaron had removed the post so much of your responses seem a bit off since you most likely did not get a chance to read what Aaron removed.


Yeah that didn't help, I wish he wouldn't had done that, no need to back track to cover up your mistakes. You wrote it THEN for a reason. I don't care what it was, it was relevant THEN for your purpose. That's all that matters, don't cover it up. If you can learn from your mistakes, so can others.

I have to say this has got to be the most ridiculous issue I have EVER seen. Not so much the issue itself but the reaction to it. Or the reaction 'we' are SHOWN by 'others'. And it only gets more ridiculous as the sands of time pass by. If that's the word you want to use (ridiculous), I'm trying to keep it 'clean'. 
Does there have to be any attack from any side? No. The 'wrong' instigates the attack, w/out them there would be none (as far as any lingering debate). Those that spar the debate DO have their "agenda(s)", and because of that they can/will continue to reach for that 'goal'. This is regardless of if they know what is said is 'wrong' (oh, they know).
It's quite evident they are fighting w/ a denouncers mentality (no matter what....I'm 'right' your 'wrong' no matter how much proof is EVER presented). 'People' MUST realize (no matter what) 'they' will NEVER side to the 'right' side of the debate and start a solution (for the whole). Never, so save your breath, stop wasting 'your' time trying to convince those who already know. If you want to see change make the changes you want to see for yourself. People will inevitably ask why 'you' are doing it? It is that questioning that begins a brand new chain reaction. Ignore them like 'they' have 'you', since 'you' know when (the beginning/sign away). The only way to capture the 'right' is to NOT play the 'wrong's' game. Just gives that satisfaction over to 'them' to see you squeal and waste your ('our') PRECIOUS time while being needlessly distracted. Quite a kick out of it, I'm sure. It is "funny" in a really bone headed/ sick bastard sense. If people would only shut up and just bother to see it for themselves. Finally make that judgement call, even though 'you've' probably been taught your whole life NOT to judge anything. So for those not 'trained' (but programmed) in doing so, should/'need'/have to stay out. Then a move is more than just possible. Chance can be given, once it is no longer w/held. The amazement of it (the 'people's' response [the one's 'we' are shown]) is, there's no word for it. If there was I probably couldn't write it. It is literally a type of blindness/illness/impairment (HINDERANCE!). And it is the largest ([un]noticed) example of (given) human stupidity w/out any 'need' for stretch of that word.
I would be 'ashamed' if I knew w/ certainty this was all humans had to offer. 'Most' (today) might have just that, but the few I consider is all that keeps me going. And I would much despise the thought that the great potential of those few, having been dragged down w/ the ignorant only because of 'them' being in greater # and more willing to open their pie holes to shout.

Ask yourself, how do 'you' rely on the 'govt.'? Other than upholding the "economy', which is just complete nonsense. Sorry if 'you' disagree w/ that, but that doesn't change it from being just nonsense. First of all you CAN'T rely on the 'govt.', and in truth you NEVER really have. 'People' support 'people'. The 'govt.' relies on 'you' for their convenience, NOT yours. Think about the ones' we're' shown in office, they 'seem' pretty well pampered for doing the little-nothing 'they' do for 'our' well being. If anything, it's the complete opposite of "well being". You can imagine the 'one's' behind the strings and how overly pampered 'they' are. Rotten. And people will have to trek through "hell" before ever getting their thanks for it.

I will relish the day when I see that is indeed the 'most' that ARE aware and 'we' were only TOLD of false pretenses and through the added separation the media provides. I do think it is quite possible, more than not, that the 'people (as a whole) are w/ it and have been since the beginning, but were told (shown) that 'most' are unaware, given by falsely misguided/edited (thought to be legit)information/polls..

I know the people I know in my region are aware (for the 'most') of the happenings and see no reason to give doubt. But they then look on the T.V. and see that ('seemingly") doesn't appear to be the case else where. So 'they' 'think' they are alone in this, when in actuality this could very just be an illusion that keeps the connection (possible collaborative solution) from happening. Provided by who?, the media and the opinionated edits of it's sponsors. Then I'm sure it's likewise for the people looking 'our' way w/ the same mentality 'we' have.

Then the rest that really are unaware only are due to the factor of influence set upon them. If they were able to think for themselves (not drowning) they would see the same everyone else does.

This is ALL that might be holding us back. The excepted/fed upon 'belief' that we are not many, but many different. Told by those who 'we' now know have NEVER given 'us' the straight story and continue to use/push 'belief' for 'their' own benefit. :?: 

"Belief" WILL get you in trouble (as a whole in itself), and when you 'believe' those that carry a well noticed reputation of repetitive lying. What can you expect? They'll throw everything they possibly can to diverge your (once possibly set) path. 

'They' don't play by the rules 'they' gave 'us'. Derrr, ya think. You can't stand on the "top" while giving the 'people' equal power/knowledge. Should've never/should never be a "TOP". The "top" could very well be an illusion to 'them', as trust is (given) to the people.

I will try to get to it (the show). It is ONLY the most important obstacle the human race must deal w/. For now. That is assuming 'everyone' else WANTS to go on and not end in lazy daze. I'll sigh when everyone else gets their relief. I might learn one thing from this myself, how long I can hold my breath.


----------



## stchupa

"Norm" is opinion, just like what is 'good'.



kyle1745 said:


> The video goes into this a bit and while I agree both sides have their flaws I also have also learned in life that with things like this with very drastic differences of opinion the truth normally falls dead in the middle. So for me that is where I stand... I think we can improve many things in how we treat the planet and should, but I also think those things may not have anywhere near the effect on the climate that some claim.


'Those' are the positive thinkers you speak of, which will never get us anywhere. 'Good' intentions, maybe, but in the end it's going to let down a lot of 'people' for being so overly optimistic.

The real and very sad truth of this is not everyone is going to survive, no matter what 'we' do now. 'We' could start today towards the path 'we' should and it will still be more than devistating from the causes began.
I do not mean to say that negatively, in any way. But I say it as is, because I know this, as people are currently dying from the (the 'seemingly" subtle to 'some') effects 'we' have today. HAVE BEEN. And it's only been increasing. 

As I said before nothing is predicted, nothing should be. But what 'they' say 'they' have predicted doesn't consider the 'all' and the equation 'they' leave 'us' is very slim and more than overly optimistic/conservative. Every aspect of the 'home' 'we' know (and that 'we' don't) of will play a part in this. It is a domino effect in the least. One thing goes, and if something doesn't take it's place... No nicer way of putting it and still thinking realistically.



> Stop giving everything to everyone for nothing!


Keeps them quiet doesn't it? Why wouldn't 'THEY' want that?


----------



## stchupa

> Good evidence = published work and acceptance into the scientific community.


There's that word again.......

First off who analyzes the evidence? 'People'/scientists what have you. Not robots, but things that can be persuaded/bought. Something w/ judgement of it's own as to what is it's desire. What is desire. Not the neutral, not just facts, but opinion how those facts should be interpreted by others. Their preferrence, usually left/right, hardly, if ever neutral and following the line the facts point towards.

Again what is 'good' evidence? Well first of all what is 'good' other than opinion?

There can be great evidence, immense amounts of it, but I might not ever be 'good' enough depending on that one persons opinion. Which why it would mean anything to anyone else, not a clue.

As I've also stated before. Why/how is our 'govt.'/"legit science" being granted to use opinion? It's not by the 'people'. Must of been one of loose, fine print terms thrown into the Patriot Act. :roll:


----------



## r90s

stchupa,


> I did not. Still have not. I don't want the effort you took to retrieve it, to be in vain either (even though I don't think it was, the people that 'need' to see it probably [hopefully] did/will).


You don't have to "retrieve" it if you dont want, just click on the link and it will play in your browser, as a stream.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...&hl=en&usg=AL29H21p2Q2NQ8PlQw8hpwCEnW6KsL9wKg


----------



## stchupa

I was reffering to Kyle going out of his way to retrieve it for us to look at. Not me, but thanks anyway.


----------



## rburnj

I haven't had the chance to view this documentary but have seen many over the past few years. If you want to get yourself even more depressed you should read James Kunstler's book "The Long Emergency" (actually a good read). I took a course last semester regarding conservation ecology and it primarily dealt with discussing the Age of Oil. Its projected that in 10 years we will have gone through our oil supply. Whats even more disturbing is that the public is unaware of the situation on a whole. We still drive our gas guzzling cars, splurge on useless items etc... but the aftermath can seem almost apolcalyptic. We have altered the environment almost beyong repair and people are still trying to find excuses, place blame, or wipe it under the rug.

If you have a sec try and give this book a read. Its easy reading and you could finish it in a weekend. It is truly eye-opening and most people I talk to about the topic have either no clue or have this idealism that technology will cure all our problems (hopefully it will). 

Sorry for the side tangent but I thought that those that were concerned with the global warming topic would also be interested in this (since they are both intertwined).

Best,

Ryan


----------



## npaull

> First off who analyzes the evidence?


The scientific community. People who have dedicated their lives to studying these phenomena.



> Not robots, but things that can be persuaded/bought. Something w/ judgement of it's own as to what is it's desire. What is desire. Not the neutral, not just facts, but opinion how those facts should be interpreted by others.


No one claims that science and its methods are perfect. But over time, the collective wisdom of the scientific method is pretty goddamn unbelievable. Practically everything we rely on today - from electricity to machinery to medications to materials to agriculture - is the result of the application of scientific methodology.

A relativistic, "what is good, what is real?" approach to the material world is fine for a freshman philosophy class, but fails to get us anywhere in our understanding of physical phenomena in our world. That people may disagree or fail to be persuaded is irrelevant and immaterial to the problem (well, that's not quite true. As Kyle astutely pointed out, education is at the root of practically all our problems, so in that sense, ignorance is relevant). There are plenty of people who "don't believe" in evolution; it does not stop the application of the theory to solving problems in agriculture, medicine, and understanding the origins of life. But I digress.

As far as the "who can be bought" bit - IT APPLIES TO BOTH SIDES. And one side **CLEARLY** has a much more transparent motive in putting forth their views than the other. It is also easier to buy out a minority than an *overwhelming* majority...



> Why/how is our 'govt.'/"legit science" being granted to use opinion?


I don't know where you are going with this... it is a foundation of our country, for one, that all are entitled to their opinions.

From another angle... wherefrom this theory that "government and scientists" are conspiring to bring us this story? It's a wacky conspiratorial theory that makes no sense to me, especially in light of the incredibly multinational effort that is the study of climate change.


----------



## npaull

At this point, I would hasten to add that I agree heartily with criticisms of the ridiculous portrayal of this (and any other) issue in the popular media. Moreover, any efforts to peg a small, transient phenomenon (New York had a cold winter! It's hot in Ontario! There are hurricanes!) to the overall pattern of climate change (anthropogenic or otherwise) is ridiculous; a typical fear tactic displayed by an ignorant media to a largely ignorant (but somewhat less guiltily so) public.


----------



## stchupa

rburnj said:


> I haven't had the chance to view this documentary but have seen many over the past few years. If you want to get yourself even more depressed you should read James Kunstler's book "The Long Emergency" (actually a good read). I took a course last semester regarding conservation ecology and it primarily dealt with discussing the Age of Oil.


I heard of that book.

And I actually wish that were true. Sure 'we' are pumping faster than it can replinish itself. 'We' as whole are not conservative w/ oil. Regardless of what we take out it still replinishes at a constant rate. A sustainable rate if you were to have a more conservative use behind it. 
But the truth is 'we'll' never run out. Well 'we' will 'they' wont. But then that doesn't fill voids we're standing on. I mean that literally.

There ARE engines (that have been devolped long ago) that can run hundreds of miles (at least) on a single gallon. It is relatively simple and very small device that could be added to all gas engines. This has also been reinvinted more than once. Sure 'they' have injectors on market today that vaporize the fuel ("finely"/micronically) before it goes into the intake to increase efficiency (w/ an added limit). But that is technically still a liquid form. There are ways to go beyond that and turn gas into gas w/out much if any extra real effort. 'They' would love 'you' to 'believe' it to be difficult, or even better yet, an impossibility. Just as Hydrogen fuel is thought to be difficult, once an impossibility now an impractibilty because of the "effort" it takes in the extraction process. I'll ask you this, why is it they are able to (mostly unoticably) add/bind hydrogen into 80+% (known) of the foods we eat and still sell it so cheaply if it's takes so much effort to extract hydrogen w/ "fusion"? Was at one one point 100% w/ all fast foods, until a few legal suites took hold. I'm talking millions of tons of potential fuel monthly(U.S. not including anyone else, ex: China), but instead of using it for that, 'people' are eating w/out a second thought.
Why are 'we' eating it, better yet why are 'we' being fed it w/out being told/educated as to why? That's a whole nother issue that goes deep in itself. But still not disconnected, just not ever being discussed.



There are a lot of problems and as far as us running out of oil is not one of them. Those companies that are below govt. but sponsored by the govt. would love you to think oil is running short. 'Their' focus IS money (some), unlike the people I'm talking about here (the sponsors). 'They' are the pawns fooled like everyone at and below their level.

Think about it, the connection is simple. 
Money motivates but it does not make this world go round.



> Its projected that in 10 years we will have gone through our oil supply.


That's people get for projecting while forgetting.


----------



## stchupa

npaull said:


> First off who analyzes the evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> The scientific community. People who have dedicated their lives to studying these phenomena.
> 
> [quote:36hfyfjf]Not robots, but things that can be persuaded/bought. Something w/ judgement of it's own as to what is it's desire. What is desire. Not the neutral, not just facts, but opinion how those facts should be interpreted by others.
Click to expand...

No one claims that science and its methods are perfect. But over time, the collective wisdom of the scientific method is pretty goddamn unbelievable. Practically everything we rely on today - from electricity to machinery to medications to materials to agriculture - is the result of the application of scientific methodology.

A relativistic, "what is good, what is real?" approach to the material world is fine for a freshman philosophy class, but fails to get us anywhere in our understanding of physical phenomena in our world. That people may disagree or fail to be persuaded is irrelevant and immaterial to the problem (well, that's not quite true. As Kyle astutely pointed out, education is at the root of practically all our problems, so in that sense, ignorance is relevant). There are plenty of people who "don't believe" in evolution; it does not stop the application of the theory to solving problems in agriculture, medicine, and understanding the origins of life. But I digress.

As far as the "who can be bought" bit - IT APPLIES TO BOTH SIDES. And one side **CLEARLY** has a much more transparent motive in putting forth their views than the other. It is also easier to buy out a minority than an *overwhelming* majority...



> Why/how is our 'govt.'/"legit science" being granted to use opinion?


I don't know where you are going with this... it is a foundation of our country, for one, that all are entitled to their opinions.

From another angle... wherefrom this theory that "government and scientists" are conspiring to bring us this story? It's a wacky conspiratorial theory that makes no sense to me, especially in light of the incredibly multinational effort that is the study of climate change.[/quote:36hfyfjf]





> At this point, I would hasten to add that I agree heartily with criticisms of the ridiculous portrayal of this (and any other) issue in the popular media. Moreover, any efforts to peg a small, transient phenomenon (New York had a cold winter! It's hot in Ontario! There are hurricanes!) to the overall pattern of climate change (anthropogenic or otherwise) is ridiculous; a typical fear tactic displayed by an ignorant media to a largely ignorant (but somewhat less guiltily so) public.


I will have "fun" w/ this tomorrow. I have so much I could add to this I would be up all night and I have to get up by 7 at the latest. Very off schedule for me, usually the opposite. I'll be back "late"

So that should give you time to re-read everything very carefully and edit your changes, if you feel you should. But I guess it doesn't matter since I quoted the original, but if you do the work I would otherwise have to do, I may take it easy. Till then, 'good' day.


----------



## r90s

OK, ...I see what is going here!

It's a conspiracy,
One fellow is quoting, I don't whom he is quoting, but he is forcing me to search for whom said what, and maybe for a quote thats not here.

Another fellow is forcing me to read twelve sentences to try to figure out what he meant in one of the sentences. That then requires the reading of another twelve to try to understand a second sentence, in the original twelve.

And so few, have had the time to view, the very subject of this topic. But give links, and or books, and or thoughts, on the topic.

It's an obvious conspiracy!

A conspiracy to give me more indigestion, than did the chilly that I had earlier tonight.

And if its depression that you want.
Then Read this topic :arrow: http://www.dendroboard.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=24714

Pursuing this hobby is so damaging to the environment, that we all should quit it, immediately.

Please choose:   :shock: :roll:


----------



## r90s

*News We Might Think About*

News That We Could Use.


GLOBAL 'SUNSCREEN' HAS LIKELY THINNED, REPORT NASA SCIENTISTS



> Nasa News Stories Archive
> 
> March 15, 2007
> 
> GLOBAL 'SUNSCREEN' HAS LIKELY THINNED, REPORT NASA SCIENTISTS
> 
> A new NASA study has found that an important counter-balance to the warming of our planet by greenhouse gases – sunlight blocked by dust, pollution and other aerosol particles – appears to have lost ground.
> 
> The thinning of Earth’s “sunscreen” of aerosols since the early 1990s could have given an extra push to the rise in global surface temperatures. The finding, published in the March 16 issue of Science, may lead to an improved understanding of recent climate change. In a related study published last week, scientists found that the opposing forces of global warming and the cooling from aerosol-induced "global dimming" can occur at the same time.
> 
> "When more sunlight can get through the atmosphere and warm Earth's surface, you're going to have an effect on climate and temperature," said lead author Michael Mishchenko of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), New York. "Knowing what aerosols are doing globally gives us an important missing piece of the big picture of the forces at work on climate."
> 
> The study uses the longest uninterrupted satellite record of aerosols in the lower atmosphere, a unique set of global estimates funded by NASA. Scientists at GISS created the Global Aerosol Climatology Project by extracting a clear aerosol signal from satellite measurements originally designed to observe clouds and weather systems that date back to 1978. The resulting data show large, short-lived spikes in global aerosols caused by major volcanic eruptions in 1982 and 1991, but a gradual decline since about 1990. By 2005, global aerosols had dropped as much as 20 percent from the relatively stable level between 1986 and 1991.
> 
> The NASA study also sheds light on the puzzling observations by other scientists that the amount of sunlight reaching Earth's surface, which had been steadily declining in recent decades, suddenly started to rebound around 1990. This switch from a "global dimming" trend to a "brightening" trend happened just as global aerosol levels started to decline, Mishchenko said.
> 
> While the Science paper does not prove that aerosols are behind the recent dimming and brightening trends -- changes in cloud cover have not been ruled out -- another new research result supports that conclusion In a paper published March 8 in the American Geophysical Union's Geophysical Research Letters, a research team led by Anastasia Romanou of Columbia University's Department of Applied Physics and Mathematics, New York, also showed that the apparently opposing forces of global warming and global dimming can occur at the same time.
> 
> The GISS research team conducted the most comprehensive experiment to date using computer simulations of Earth's 20th-century climate to investigate the dimming trend. The combined results from nine state-of-the-art climate models, including three from GISS, showed that due to increasing greenhouse gases and aerosols, the planet warmed at the same time that direct solar radiation reaching the surface decreased. The dimming in the simulations closely matched actual measurements of sunlight declines recorded from the 1960s to 1990.
> 
> Further simulations using one of the Goddard climate models revealed that aerosols blocking sunlight or trapping some of the sun's heat high in the atmosphere were the major driver in 20th-century global dimming. "Much of the dimming trend over the Northern Hemisphere stems from these direct aerosol effects," Romanou said. "Aerosols have other effects that contribute to dimming, such as making clouds more reflective and longer-lasting. These effects were found to be almost as important as the direct effects."
> 
> The combined effect of global dimming and warming may account for why one of the major impacts of a warmer climate -- the spinning up of the water cycle of evaporation, more cloud formation and more rainfall -- has not yet been observed. "Less sunlight reaching the surface counteracts the effect of warmer air temperatures, so evaporation does not change very much," said Gavin Schmidt of GISS, a co-author of the paper. "Increased aerosols probably slowed the expected change in the hydrological cycle."
> 
> Whether the recent decline in global aerosols will continue is an open question. A major complicating factor is that aerosols are not uniformly distributed across the world and come from many different sources, some natural and some produced by humans. While global estimates of total aerosols are improving and being extended with new observations by NASA's latest generation of Earth-observing satellites, finding out whether the recent rise and fall of aerosols is due to human activity or natural changes will have to await the planned launch of NASA's Glory Mission in 2008.
> 
> “One of Glory's two instruments, the Aerosol Polarimetry Sensor, will have the unique ability to measure globally the properties of natural and human-made aerosols to unprecedented levels of accuracy," said Mishchenko, who is project scientist on the mission.


http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2007/2007031524529.html


----------



## r90s

*More News*

To Spur Thought And Discussion


More News

Danish scientist: Global warming is a myth... URL

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Scienc...obal_warming_is_a_myth/20070315-012154-7403r/

Link To Technical PDF

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/GlobTemp.JNET.pdf

The technical document says better what the scientists involved, are trying to say, better than the flashy headline.

google the prior works of person


----------



## kyle1745

More links to other sites here:
http://www.algoreiscausingglobalwarming.com/


----------



## bbrock

Unfortunately I'm on a dial-up connection so can't view the documentary in question. But from the discussion here it appears that people are being once again duped by a formula that is proving quite successful at undermining science (any science) in today's polarized political climate. Simply put, this tactic can be called "teach the controversy" and it preys on the general public's lack of understanding of the scientific process. Basically, science relies on the peer review process to weed out what appears to be fact from what appears to be erroneous conclusions. So whenever someone wishes to publish scientific results, the paper goes out for independent review to make sure that the methods are sound and the conclusions are warranted by the methods. So, for example, if you measured the number of people who have diabetes by sampling people who live on Indian Reservations and then claim your results indicate the prevalence of diabetes among the general population, your paper would not pass peer review because your sampling methods do not justify your conclusions. But peer review is not a mechanism for censurship as many science opponents like to claim. There are cases where reviewers attempt some level of censorship because they have a personal grudge, a strong bias, or other things that afflict all humans. Which is why the review process seeks multiple reviews and a process to fairly handle disputes when reviewers do not agree. So the anti-science crowd has portrayed this process as a system that only allows results that support prevailing dogma to be published which is ridiculous. It's actually offensive when I consider how my 20 plus years experience as a scientist has shown me how far the process goes to prevent such things from happening. Anyway, that's the first step of "teach the controversy" which is to plant the seed that contradictory results are being suppressed.

The next piece that feeds into the formula is the fact that science is based on skepticism and critical review. Scientists are trained to meet every new revelation with extreme skepticism and to challenge anything that does not seem to make sense. So no matter how broad the consensus may be on a large topic, there are always arguments over the fine points. So there is always "controversy" at some level even if there is broad agreement over the general topic. I think the global temperature deal just posted is an example. Yes, there is great difficulty in distilling temperature into a single "global" number and monitoring its trend over time. But that doesn't address the multitude of other lines of evidence such as the rather sudden melting of ancient glaciers and the thinning ice of the polar ice caps. It is a fine point of the debate that does not overthrow the whoe body of evidence.

So at this point "teach the controversy" has planted a seed of doubt about the veracity of scientific publications (unfairly), and it has established that there is controversy (although there is no requirement that the controversy must be over the topic as a whole). The next trick is to blend the folks who just have an opposing opinion with no real scientific backing with those who legitimately argure over the fine points of the debate so that both appear to have equal legitimacy. Now it is just a matter of pitting the two sides against each other and giving them extra weight. So if 10,000 scientists agree with position A, and 50 scientists agree with B, it is possible to still pick a representative from A and B and have "balanced" reporting on the subject because you are showing both sides.

Personally, I think it is a huge, and unethical, disservice to the public. It undermines the best tool we have (the scientific process) for understanding the world we live in and forming sound policies to protect our long-term best interests. But if you go directly to the published, peer-reviewed, scientific literature instead of relying on presentations that have cherry-picked information, distorted the controversy, and in some cases outright lied, then you see an overwhelming amount of evidence and consensus about global climate change. Most of the earlier critics have now joined the majority consensus but no matter how small the oposition becomes, the "teach the controversy" tactic will always give them equal weight.

Finally, I want to share the opinion that the idea that there is a conspiracy to prove global climate change is absurd. I fail to see who would benefit from that. No, it is not because people getting funding for research because the funding for research in general has remained pretty static. Climate change research has simply shifted funding from other areas of science to climate change. The idea that it is to force "clean fuel" on the world is pretty crazy. If fossil fuels weren't causing problems such as climate change and pollution, then they would BE clean fuel. Why in the world would anyone want to invent problems like this. What is to be gained by it? It simply doesn't make sense.


----------



## kyle1745

> So if 10,000 scientists agree with position A, and 50 scientists agree with B, it is possible to still pick a representative from A and B and have "balanced" reporting on the subject because you are showing both sides.


But lets start looking at how these scientists were funded...



> Finally, I want to share the opinion that the idea that there is a conspiracy to prove global climate change is absurd. I fail to see who would benefit from that. No, it is not because people getting funding for research because the funding for research in general has remained pretty static. Climate change research has simply shifted funding from other areas of science to climate change. The idea that it is to force "clean fuel" on the world is pretty crazy. If fossil fuels weren't causing problems such as climate change and pollution, then they would BE clean fuel. Why in the world would anyone want to invent problems like this. What is to be gained by it? It simply doesn't make sense.


I wouldn't say it is a conspiracy, but yet just one side of the story. As the video describes many scientist names were put on the IPCC report that did not agree with the findings or the overall outcome. So they are politically padding their numbers to show they have more backing than they truly do. I agree with the scientific methods you have described, but I find it troubling that you say those can not be skewed by who is and who is not given funding. In my opinion everyone has a price, and when 10,000 jobs depend on global warming of course the other side is going to have a uphill battle. 

The way I see it neither side is absolutely right or wrong, and I am sure we play a part in the global climate, but I think that part is a fraction of the whole, and that in reality it is not as big as many of the claims. Scientists often omit what they don't know or worse claim to understand something they really do not. In many cases this is what gives them a bad name. In this case I think we only have a very small understanding of all of the "parts" that play a role in our climate. Thus we can not say without a doubt it is all us. With that said I also understand, to explain some of these things to the average person is virtually impossible, and this also plays into the trust issues. I have the same thing in my field as a systems engineer, as many people think because they can use a desktop they understand a server or a server OS. I'll leave all the examples out... ;-)

I would also urge you to watch the video if you can, as I am really interested in your perspective on some of the claims. With one of the large ones being the CO2 increase and how it is not the cause of the warming but a byproduct of it, and they back this up with statements on very old ice core samples.


----------



## Roadrunner

ok, some of the problems of global warming is not the net result in avg temperature over time, which can be very hard to predict, it`s the disruption of natural systems. it`s not about a few degrees here and there it`s about prolonged droughts, changes in weather systems, further drying of some already too dry areas further broadening the desert expanse, hurricanes, floods and general disruption of somewhat stable or successing environments. 
If they are arguing about the fine points of net gain and net loss they are arguing about 1 small aspect of the general problem.


----------



## joshsfrogs

> Basically, science relies on the peer review process to weed out what appears to be fact from what appears to be erroneous conclusions. So whenever someone wishes to publish scientific results, the paper goes out for independent review to make sure that the methods are sound and the conclusions are warranted by the methods.


While I mostly agree, there is a fair amount of crap that gets published and it appears that the crap is what gets reported in the media. My training is in social science and I would say that there are legitamate questions that could undermine the study about 25% of the time in my field. Now, in social science a lot of the time that has to do with how people operationally define variables, but I wonder how many times the stats that people pull from studies are misleading. I get the impression that most news channels only read the abstracts. In social science these studies that have 1 or 2 blocks of crap in their foundation get published when they are deemed "cutting edge", new, or the crap gets overlooked because we all "know" the conclusions are true. 

For instance around the time that Homosexuality was taken out of the DSM there were scientists out to prove that homosexuality was genetic (or at least had some neuro-physical causes). While good evidence was found in studies of twins (while not conclusive (i.e. not 100%) a correlation does exist), there were published studies that were full of crap (i.e. some studies worked from the "truth" that all people with AIDS were homosexual, so if the brain of a person with AIDS was different from a person without AIDS, it was "proved" that there was some neuro-physical causes behind homosexuality).

Brent, I think you will agree with me, but I want to point out that all that is published is not true and all that is true is not published. My research professor always said that a scientists questioning spirit shouldn't end when the study is published. Afterall, the scientific method is far better at proving what ISN'T as opposed to what IS.


----------



## edwardsatc

joshsfrogs said:


> .... were scientists out to prove that homosexuality was genetic ..... it was "proved" that there was some neuro-physical causes behind homosexuality).
Click to expand...

Another misconception about scientists. We do not "prove". Hypotheseis and theories may be supported, rejected or inconclusive but not proved. 

Those that like to contradict science often misrepresemt our research by implying that we say we "prove" or "we know".

npaull and Brent,

Thanks for the excellent representations from the science side and overviews of the peer review process. I've fought this battle over and over again and, to be honest, was too darn lazy to fight it again here. I know how exasperating it is to try to explain the true science behind this issue to those who would prefer to get their "facts" from the news, politicians, etc. Typically those (not all) that deny the science behind global warming have never looked at any of the scientific literature or data themselves. Rather, they prefer to seek out "interpretations" of the data that support their position. How can one make an educated decision without looking at the research and the data?


----------



## edwardsatc

* BTW I have seen the film. Why do you think they concentrate their efforts on issues such as money, oppression of less developed countries, conspiracies and politics rather than the science? Because the data does not support them, that's why.
The idea that the U.S. is using this to control the economies or industrialization of less developed countries is ludicrous. Until recently, the president would not even acknowledge global warming and, in fact, we were one of _only two_ nations that refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.


----------



## joshsfrogs

> Another misconception about scientists. We do not "prove". Hypotheseis and theories may be supported, rejected or inconclusive but not proved.
> 
> Those that like to contradict science often misrepresemt our research by implying that we say we "prove" or "we know".


Hence my use of quotations. I did not mean to say that science can prove anything. I don't even believe that we can say for sure a theory was supported. I think control groups are a theoritical construct that is impossible to replicate in the field. I believe there is no objective person in the world, and therefore our observations (at least one of the corners of the foundation of the scientific method if not the foundation itself) are biased. This brings backs memories of me using the word "know" on the first day of my intro to philosophy class...



> I know how exasperating it is to try to explain the true science behind this issue to those who would prefer to get their "facts" from the news, politicians, etc.


Why didn't you use quotes around "true" in the above sentence? I would say something would have to be "proven" to give the title of "true" or "truth" and you pointed out that nothing in science is proven. Maybe people "misrepresemt our research by implying that we say we "prove" or "we know"", because you and others use terms like "true science".



> Until recently, the president would not even acknowledge global warming and, in fact, we were one of only two nations that refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.


Not saying this is right, but I believe our declining to follow/sign the kyoto protocol had much more to do with economics than science (probably 99% economics). Kyoto is going to (and has started to) have disasterous economic effects. Is our president's job to protect the environment or protect the economy? It's sad that there are far more votes for the economy than the environment. The win-win is technologies that support both environment and economy (and thank God they are coming!!!).

Anybody know some sites that list some green ideas for everyday living? All this discussion has peeked my interest in getting a little greener for my kids and their kids and...


----------



## kyle1745

Just to be clear I am not backing either side as I think they are both as corrupt. I'm sorry but there are way too many aspects of this planet that we do not understand, no matter what the scientists say. I do find the carbon information in the video very interesting as well as the political and job aspects they touch on. I would like to see someone explain some of the carbon data they mentioned and how it is false.

I would like anyone to prove they have enough data to show all of the trends and history of climate to accurately say what the weather will be tomorrow let alone the next 10-100 years from now. No one can, as there are just too many variables, and the majority of those variables are not related to us. When looking at something this grand everything must be included, and some of the data that has been publically stated, which was removed from the IPCC report is an issue in my eyes, because it was removed to make it more gloomy. That is not the truth, that is not what people need to hear and read. Also the political backing behind this has to be of a concern.

The planet is a living thing, and that makes it unpredictable. Just look at our care for our frogs as an example. We have no clue what is ideal. We may know what can make them breed or live for 5 years, but we have no clue if that is ideal.

One thing I like to do is help get the not so popular theories out there as many times they have much more validity to them than the common mainstream theories. I am not a scientist, as are most people, but that data we do get from the media is BS, and normally crap. So on things like this that I care about I try to look at all of the aspects and make my own opinions. Granted I do not have the time to read everything, and as stated I wish I had time to read more.

From what I have seen I think the following...
- Solar and planetary aspects play a much larger roll than the mainstream media leads us to believe. Reason being, that these things are out of our control.
- The gloom and doom aspect of the mainstream theories is unacceptable and abused to get ratings. 
- We have no clue of all the aspects that may or may not play a part in the global climate.
- We should work to better the aspects of what we can control, and work to make those technologies cost effecive.


----------



## kyle1745

Just to clarify:


> Is our president's job to protect the environment or protect the economy?


Is absolutely not true... In reality the president has very little pull, and in the end we elect our public officials. Yet most of us have no clue how our government even functions. The problem is congress and the 70-90 year old morons that keep getting reelected because no one knows better. These people could not run companies and they are now running our nation. Its time people wake up and look at who they are voting for. Not just the president. The media wants everyone to believe it is the president as it is easy to understand, and it hides what is really happening.


----------



## joshsfrogs

Yes kyle, you are right. I was over-simplifying it.


----------



## kyle1745

Wasn't trying to beat ya up either... sorry if I came across that way.


----------



## joshsfrogs

*sniff*

Who do I complain to when the board owner beats up on me?

 

Just Joshin' you. No offense taken. I was oversimplifying it.


----------



## kyle1745

LOL... I try to play nice, but many times am misunderstood.


----------



## r90s

Here here Kyle,

Most of our people in the legislative branch, aside from being fossils, are lawyers, that couldn't even earn a living practicing the law. No wonder they write such crappy legislation.

Too tired to write/type.
But saw, so much fun passing me by. :wink:


----------



## kyle1745

I would love to see term limits 1-2 terms, age limits, and contribution limits, removing any and all corporation contributions.

Please tell me how a bunch of 70 year olds are going to pass legislation on technology? They have no clue how to use a VCR let alone the Internet and etc. They should represent the average age of the public, and in their defense I believe that is going up.


----------



## r90s

Interesting Wiki link on the subject of the video.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

It's not a football game, and choosing a side is not required


----------



## kyle1745

wow great link, it breaks down the main points of the show and the people behind it. It also has some links to more data:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists ... al_warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attributio ... ate_change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth


----------



## kyle1745

Another:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_global_warming

Damn all this information... Too much too read too little time.


----------



## r90s

Roger that!

When I am not so tired, I am going to try to create a points list of how this subject effects froggers, besides the obvious fundamental ones.

My Quote from another site. (Below)

Off Topic? Its so hard to collect frogs if:

A. All the frogs are dead.
B. All the frog collectors are dead.


----------



## AJ_Cann

Hi r90s! Thought you might be here :wink: 

No way this standard of journalism would ever have been broadcast on the BBC Kyle.

More info:
http://www.badscience.net/?p=386


----------



## kyle1745

HUH? I am not sure I understand you. Yes there was a graph problem in the video which I read was corrected in a later version.


----------



## AJ_Cann

Later version?


----------



## kyle1745

Ya I read they rereleased it with a new graph.


----------



## r90s

Here is another link with more information.

"Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says" 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... rming.html


----------



## kyle1745

Interesting...


----------



## bbrock

joshsfrogs said:


> Is our president's job to protect the environment or protect the economy? It's sad that there are far more votes for the economy than the environment.


This is the argument that drives me most insane. The problem here is that there is NO way to have a long term healthy economy without a healthy environment. There is an HUGE problem in the world economic policies because those policies are geared toward sustainable perpetual growth. This can't happen if what is now understand about ecology is true. The problem is that economic models pretty much ignore resource limitations and environmental damages by placing them into a bin called "externalities" that do not factor into the economic equations. But these "externalities" as they call them, actually limit the availability of natural resources which means a limitation on raw materials to drive economies. This disjunct between economics and ecology is so bad that The Wildlife Society (a very conservative organization btw) published a policy statement stating that economic policies based on sustainable perpetual growth were impossible under current ecological understanding. Yes, technologies can increase efficiencies of extracting resources but at some point we have to face the facts of resource limitations and ecological feeback mechanisms. A couple years after TWS published their statement, the Ecological Society of America and the Society for Conservation Biology (more liberal groups than TWS) followed suit. These are the three most important professional scientific groups that study natural biological systems on the planet and all agree that our economic models and policies need to face the realities of environmental and ecological processes that control resource limitation.

As for the funding system being corrupt, this is hogwash. I've been rejected for funding from some of the best. Sometimes reviewers simply don't get what you are trying to do which means you didn't explain it well enough. Most times there are either flaws in the proposal, or there were simply better proposals you are competing with. But to say that thousands of jobs depend on climate change research, and therefore there is corruption built into the funding process is silly. What I tried to say before is that if you create a thousand new jobs from public funding to study climate change, then a thousand jobs in science get lost from other fields. So you can't just say the climate change people are just trying to justify their jobs without wondering why the people who lose funding to pay for climate change studies don't count. Sure, science is full of people and egos and ambition do sometimes get in the way. But I can't think of another system with more checks and balances to keep those problems to a minimum. The people that I know who make these funding decisions do so on the merits of the science. And lastly, to say people don't get funding because the funders don't like their results is absurd. In science, if you have a compelling study that may protentially overturn existing understandings, you are MUCH, MUCH, MORE likely to get funded. But you have to make a compelling case to show that your methods will actually get at the questions you are asking and your interpretations are within the limitations of your methods. And that's where these sour grapes folks normally fail. They either propose the wrong methods to address the questions, or they make grandiose claims about the results that are not warranted by the methods.

Finally Josh, I agree with you that crap does wind up getting published. But the scientific method tends to sift out the important crap over time. I do feel for you in the social sciences though because it is even more challenging for you guys having to measure and define variables that are difficult to define. How does one measure "greed", or "happiness"? Not an easy thing to do. I actually just got my third proposal rejection on a project where we were teaming with social scientists to measure people's attitudes about wildlife and see if it correlated with biotic integrity around there homes. The reviews made my head swim because each reviewer had a different opinion and it seemed no matter what methods we used, they would be wrong according to someone. I don't know how you do it.


----------



## AJ_Cann

bbrock said:


> crap does wind up getting published. But the scientific method tends to sift out the important crap over time.


Unfortunately, the media don't: climate change, MMR vaccine, flat earth?


----------



## r90s

AJ_Cann said:


> bbrock said:
> 
> 
> 
> crap does wind up getting published. But the scientific method tends to sift out the important crap over time.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, the media don't: climate change, MMR vaccine, flat earth?
Click to expand...

Alan, are you telling me that the earth isn't Flat? :shock: 
Come on now, you go too far!





bbrock, I agree that economic viability and a healthy environment are in no way mutually exclusive,and I am selfish in that I want both.

That aside here is a quote of a person that disagrees with a different point that you make. I am somewhat familiar with his background.

I am trying to get at the facts, and present this, in an effort to have continuing discussion on this.

I present an editorial of his, as permission is given to do so on his site.

http://www.sepp.org/






> THE PROBLEM WITH PEER REVIEW
> 
> Editorial by S Fred Singer
> 
> 
> 
> The recent stem-cell fiasco in Science magazine has drawn renewed attention to the shortcomings of the scientific peer-review process. There have been many other such cases in which peer review failed, like the endocrine-disrupter scare featured in the book Our Stolen Future. In most of these cases it is difficult to blame the reviewers for failing to spot fraud. Eventually, the failure to replicate results in the laboratory would expose these fraudulent results.
> 
> 
> 
> But what about scientific results that cannot be verified by independent laboratory experiments? In the area of environmental studies we have seen the case of the “Hockeystick” – an elaborate analysis of proxy data for temperatures, which seemed to establish the 20th century as unusually warm and was accepted by many as a sure sign of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). It was exposed as false only through the diligence of a single investigator who had never published on climate issues but was able to carry out a detailed audit of the data and methodology.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, such audits cannot be conducted on a routine basis – and certainly not by referees. It is the editor, therefore, who bears a special responsibility, since it is the editor who chooses the referees. It is incumbent on editors, therefore, to be especially careful when dealing with “breakthrough” papers that promise unusual results.
> 
> 
> 
> In this respect, the record of the leading scientific journals, Nature and Science, is not very good. This is especially true in the environmental area, which has both high visibility and policy significance. Ozone depletion was a hot topic in the 1980s and led to the signing of the Montreal Protocol in 1987. Global warming continues to be a hot topic – before and since the signing of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. I will confine my choice of examples to these two areas since I am most familiar with them:
> 
> 
> 
> BREAKDOWN OF PEER-REVIEW SYSTEM: Examples with narratives and references
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Supersonic Transport (SST)………………………………………………….Singer
> 
> 
> 
> 2. “Limits to Growth” (1972)……Maddox, Simon, Singer, and recently Nordhaus, Lomborg
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Nuclear Winter (Sagan et al in Science)……………………………….…….Singer
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Acid Rain impacts …………………………………………………………….Singer
> 
> 
> 
> 5. Solar UV and Skin Cancer …(J. Kerr in Science)………………………..Michaels et al
> 
> 
> 
> 6. Arctic “ozone hole” (Anderson et al in Science) Singer
> 
> 
> 
> 7. AGW in the 20th Century--before 1940 …(Wigley in Science)………………Singer
> 
> 
> 
> 8. Fingerprint of AGW (Santer in IPCC-TAR)………………………..Michaels, Singer
> 
> 
> 
> 9. Climate – Hockeystick (Mann in Nature)………………………McIntyre , Mc Kitrick
> 
> 
> 
> 10. Scientific Consensus on AGW (Oreskes in Science)………………………….Peiser
> 
> 
> 
> 10. Ocean Heat Storage – a “smoking gun” of AGW (Hansen et al in Science)…...Singer
> 
> 
> 
> 12. AGW as the Cause of Disappearing Frogs (Pounds et al in Nature)……….Michaels
> 
> 
> 
> 13. AGW and Human Health (Patz in Nature)……………………………….…..Goklany
> 
> 
> 
> 14. Nuclear Winter Redux (Turco et al in Scinece 2007)
> 
> 
> 
> 15. Sea Level Rise (Rahmstorf in Science 2007)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CAUSES AND REMEDIES
> 
> 
> 
> There are many other examples; it would take a book to discuss them fully. But we know enough to (1) demonstrate a breakdown in scientific standards, (2) examine the likely causes, and (3) suggest possible solutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I put the cause squarely on the editors of Nature and Science (and more recently also Proc Nat’l Acad Sci), on their personal prejudices and also on their competitive drive to outdo each other by attracting and publishing papers that advertise spectacular results and seemingly confirm that human activities are damaging the environment.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. With authors clamoring to publish in Nature and Science, both editors can choose the papers they wish to accept, using their personal criteria of “novelty,” “relevance,” “importance,” etc. The underlying criterion might also be: Will it support the AGW thesis and attract media attention? They can then choose the reviewers, more or less as they please. None of the studies listed above would have been published if a different set of reviewers had been chosen; they would not have survived. From my personal experience, I review papers regularly for Environmental Geology and other journals, but have not been asked to review a single paper for either Nature or Science for at least 10 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Remedies for this situation do exist: Either competition will slowly displace these journals or editors or their policies will change. Consider that the first successful attack on the Hockeystick was published in Energy & Environment, a relatively new journal. I was one of the referees of this paper. And then there is the Internet and blogs. I spend an increasing fraction of my time reading them and their critiques of published papers. I list some of them:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. ClimateSceptics (Yahoo group) edited by Timo Hameranta/ David Wojick
> 
> 2. Climateaudit.org by Steve McIntyre
> 
> 3. CO2Science.org by Sherwood, Craig and Keith Idso
> 
> 4. WorldClimateReport.com by Pat Michaels
> 
> 5. ClimateSci.atmos.colostate.edu/ Roger Pielke, Sr
> 
> 6. Prometheus--Science Policy Weblog Roger Pielke, Jr
> 
> 7. JunkScience.com Steve Milloy
> 
> 8. CCNet: http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/CCNet-Archive.htm Benny Peiser
> 
> 9. Center for Science and Public Policy http://ff.org/centers/csspp/misc/index.html
> 
> 10. NZ Climate Truth Vincent Gray
> 
> 11. EnviroTruth.org National Center for Public Policy Research
> 
> 12. And. of course, my own TWTW in http://www.SEPP.org


----------



## kyle1745

Brent, 

So are you saying that political backing can not have impacts on funding for "pet" projects? I would have to disagree, even the medias focus alone has an impact on how things get funded. Just by painting a false picture in the reviewers minds at times id bet. You said yourself that many times these are reviewed by people who may not fully understand what they are reviewing. It is also my understanding that much of the funding is also now private so I am sure can be skewed even more.

I personally think all funding should some how be prioritized based on the current needs, and then after the critical items have been funded the rest should be split evenly. Now it may be handled somewhat like this now, but I do not have a full understanding how it happens. 

The truth is that anything dealing with large amounts of money is corrupt. No matter how anyone tries to twist it. Politicians make decisions based on the companies that fund their campaigns, and not the people needs. They just do what they can to appear to be doing what the people want, and then in the background supporting their financial supporters.

I hope I am not pushing buttons here as I am not intending to. I normally take the stance that if something bad could happen it will, and if money is involved it most likely already is happening. This is why I made the comments about how we need the adjustments to congress.


----------



## joshsfrogs

> joshsfrogs wrote:
> Is our president's job to protect the environment or protect the economy? It's sad that there are far more votes for the economy than the environment.
> 
> This is the argument that drives me most insane. The problem here is that there is NO way to have a long term healthy economy without a healthy environment.


I totally agree with you Brent, but the truth is that the vast majority of politians are looking at what can happen in the next 4 years or what the outcome will be right before the election.

I hope there are economists studying the impact of the Kyoto agreement and other "green" actions we as a country take (did anyone predict the tortilla riots in mexico due to our increase curiosity in ethanol?)



> But the scientific method tends to sift out the important crap over time.


Agreed, but is there a benchmark for how much a topic/variable is studied before we make decisions based on the research? Is global warming "old" enough for us to act on the information? 



> do feel for you in the social sciences though because it is even more challenging for you guys having to measure and define variables that are difficult to define. How does one measure "greed", or "happiness"? Not an easy thing to do.


Not to mention cultural impacts on the terms (for instance Westerners define suffering drastically different than Easterners). I would assume science struggles with operationally defining terms like "impact", etc.


----------



## r90s

Danish scientist 
"global temperature" and global warming is more political than scientific.

Professor Bjarne Andresen

He has many publications. searched google.

Link To Technical PDF, with a sumary

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/GlobTemp.JNET.pdf


----------



## bbrock

I'm familiar with Singer's critique of the peer review process and here it is again. The formula for discrediting science. Singer first holds the peer review process to the impossibly high standard of perfection (and distorts the purpose of peer review) and then points out a few cases where the system was perfect to suggest that the whole thing is broken and you can't trust science. First, the peer review process is not intended to be a censorship mechanism that only allows the "truth" to be published. We can't know the truth, all we can do is fail to reject hypotheses using the best methods available. One of the real values of Science and Nature are that they will publish controversial papers that allow the scientific to move forward. In other words, if the methods reported by the authors seem to make sense, and their conclusions are supported by the data, then it is in the interest of science to publish those results. From there, the scientific process continues. Other researchers attempt to replicate the results. And the full body of scientists scrutinize the paper providing the ultimate peer review. So Singer provides 15 cases out of tens of thousands of papers that he claims for various reasons should not have passed peer review. Some were the product of outright fraud on the part of the authors. But Singer fails to give credit to the scientific process which ultimately revealed problems with the papers in question. Peer review is only one part of the scientific process. It is designed to provide quality control. It is not designed to provide some kind of magic gateway where only "truth" gets through. If we knew what was ultimately "true", we wouldn't need science. What I've said before holds in my opinion. The scientific process is our best tool for understanding how the world works. Peer review is an important part of this process. Because of the checks and balances built in to that process, I will continue to give peer reviewed papers far, far, more weight than what comes out in the papers or from organizations such as Singer's. What is really crazy is that the underlying assumption with these critiques seems to be that because the peer review process is imperfect, then we should rely on non-peer reviewed studies instead. That makes sense, just abandon all quality control. What a great idea.

Kyle, I think you misunderstand the public funding of science. Sure, Congress controls the budget and the President has a lot of influence. But Congress funds the government agencies that control funding, they do not control funding of this project or that except through the use of earmarks (which should be stopped). So the bulk of the funding goes to the NSF, the NIH, the EPA, NASA etc. and it is within those agencies that the decisions on which projects to fund are made. Ultimately these decisons get made by panels of scientific peers. These are not politicians but rather, scientists who set the funding requests, form the review panels, etc. No aspect of life is completely free of politics but other than the amount of bulk money that flows to the funding agencies, the system is built to be about as free from politics as possible. I know several people who do, or have, worked for the NSF and none of them have ever mentioned getting political pressure to fund certain types of research and not others. Sure, they get restraints passed down in the form of laws (like the stem cell research fiasco). But those things occur under public scrutiny of the law making process. I just haven't heard anything close to the closed door pressures not to fund project X because it doesn't meet our expectations. And there is another absurdity built into the notion that funding for research counter to current climate change understanding is being suppressed. Our government has been nothing if not hostile to the scientific findings of climate change. So why on earth would they suppress funding for studies that would refute current findings? It's the argument of the desparate that the people producing the research must be in somebody's pocket. Scientists are weird folks. By far the majority are just passionate about the science and tend to loath politics.

I think my comment about reviewers not understanding the work was misinterpreted. Serving on a review panel is a huge time committment and each panel reviews numerous proposals. You can't expect every reviewer on a panel to be an expert on every aspect of every proposal they review. I run into the same thing when reviewing papers. I may have expertise in the general subject of the paper but there are often aspects of the paper I simply don't know much about. My point for bringing that up is that when writing a good proposal, you need to provide enough background to make sure that all of the reviewers understanding the purpose of the proposal.

As for private funding, this gets even more crazy. Yes, there is an increasing amount of private funding for research and yes, it is a problem. But who the heck do you think can afford to privately fund research? That's right, the industries. So here it is again. Exxon/Mobile dumps tons of money into research to skew science in their favor (we call this biostitution) and then others from the same camp scream about the corrupting influence of private funding. In contrast, the amount of private funding for so-called "enviro" research is almost non-existent.

At least with NSF which I'm most familiar with, I do think there is a prioritization system built in much as you suggest Kyle. Each proposal has to address the merits of itself - how does the work move science forward? why is it important to do now? and what are the broader implications of the work? Which means that as a submitter you have to make a good case for why the work is important to do. The reviewers judge the proposal based on these merits so that the most important and likely most successful proposals get funded. It isn't perfect of course, but it seems to work pretty well.

I'm sorry folks, but I've been involved in science for a long time and I'm a very cynical person. But I just haven't seen the evidence for this broad-scale corruption that would skew science the way the critics claim. This subject does push my buttons because I'm really tired of science being put on trial for very corrupt and greedy reasons. Having spent my life working as, and with, scientists, I've never met a group of people more dedicated to discovering the truth and working for the greater good - usually forfeiting considerable personal gain. It's just very discouraging to see a minority of people preying on the lack of understanding of the scientific process among the general public. Pointing out legitimate criticisms and suggesting improvements is great, but that's not what is happening here. This is a blatant attempt to discredit science to remove the influence of science on public policy.


----------



## kyle1745

Brent,

First thanks for taking the time to type all of that and clarify it a bit. I think one of the main problems I see is that the public does not understand what you have put in these latest threads. I had personally thought I had a rough idea how it worked, but it is apparent I was way off on some things.

With that said maybe my impressions of the corruption is more related to the private funding than public. I question much of our biomedical funding and it sure seems they have a drug for about everything, and there sure are a ton of people getting rich off of it. I can not tell you how many people at work are on Prozac or similar drugs. Rather than look at how employees are treated and the hours they work, we drug them to make it all ok. I will never understand this mentality. Im sure there are people that need these drugs, but not as many as are on them.


----------



## r90s

Brent, I too wish to thank you for that explanation of the situation as you see it.
I will certainly bear it in mind as I study these various matters.

WishIwereAfastTypest


----------



## r90s

Al Gore is to go before Energy and Commerce Committee today, on global warming.

I wonder will he be grilled or kissed, and will it be seen on C-Span?

Hmmm, Good Eating, or sensual puckers?......... NOT!


----------



## Roadrunner

Just watch An Inconvenient Truth.
Pics don`t lie. Whether we helped, created or whatever the rise in co2 you will undoubtedly agree(if you agree in the correlation between temps and co2) that we don`t want to add another bit needlessly. Whether we account for a fraction of one percent of the addition we do want to stop now and prepare because we`re headed for an unhappy place.


----------



## kyle1745

Even if that is a normal planetary rise that could leave as easy as it came?

As already stated we should work to reduce what we can. I do though find it hard to believe that we cause as much of it as some claim.


----------



## Roadrunner

yes
Look at it this way. I know humans have never erred in the past and our greed has never directly caused harm to human health or extinctions of animals or anything, chemical companies have never made bad decisions and profits have never been the motive for any disinformation or anything, but, with something as important as this, if we don`t ere on the side of caution we could be in for real big trouble. I`m not a betting man but if 3 such occasions arise during our lifetime and we don`t heed caution on all of them(if we weren`t pretty damn sure), one is going to kick our ass.
Damn the fact that we COULDN`T be 100% sure should be reason enough.


----------



## r90s

Hi frogfarm,

As 350 plus trillion dollars is the figure stated in todays hearings in congress, by a scientist under oath. (This was repeated figure of other scientists.)
I doubt that you will want to put that on your mastercard, frogfarm.

The scientist whom, views global warming as probably caused by man, admitted that their was no way for all the nations to pay for implimenting goal of stopping greenhouse emissions.

However, don't lose all hope, for there is Global warming on other planets.

This is a quick, and dirty little link, that a fast google search brought up about this.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/global-warming-on-jupiter.html

It's not just the money, its all the unintended consequences, and all the millions that will die because of those consequences. Lets be clear about things before we leap!

I hope, as the sun has done in the past, the sun does it's cycle thingy and drops it's radiation output, as it's scheduled to do.

thanks for your views


----------



## kyle1745

I have found the data how the temps on mars are believed to be increasing by almost the exact same amount as here on earth, very interesting.


----------



## Guest

Is this what you're referring to, Kyle: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... rming.html

An exerpt:


> By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.
> 
> Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.
> 
> "His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.
> 
> "And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report."
> 
> Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."
> 
> The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.
> 
> "Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained.
> 
> All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.
> 
> These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.
> 
> Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.
> 
> "Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said.
> 
> Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.
> 
> He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.


----------



## r90s

I don't know which scientist(s) that Kyle is looking at, for I have seen a number speak on this with similar views on the question caused by those many planets' apparent warming. It's not just mars.

Surely he will comment.


----------



## kyle1745

That is an example, but maybe not the exact one I had read. In that quote they also fail to explain how much our own orbit deviates.

I'm not convinced any of the current theories are 100% correct, but normally people do not rock the boat just to do it. They have a reason, and normally its a passion for the truth. For example my hole reason for bringing these things here is not to disprove the more common theories, but to get people thinking that there could be more to all of this than we know at this time. I really dislike the gloom and doom nature of the media, and the false pictures they like to paint to get ratings. Almost as bad as what politicians will say to get elected.


----------



## r90s

Yeah, they didn't explain a lot of things.
It's quite a interesting coincidence that warming is occurring on all the measurable planets at the same time.

I also found this interesting


> A Gallup poll found that only 17 percent of the members of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society think that the warming of the 20th century has been a result of greenhouse gas emissions - principally CO2 from burning fossil fuels.
> 
> Only 13 percent of the scientists responding to a survey conducted by the environmental organization Greenpeace believe catastrophic climate change will result from continuing current patterns


----------



## Roadrunner

deleted, another bad morning.
let me try again. 
I hate data, it`s meant to be given to the public to distract from reality. They really don`t understand what it means anyway or what might be left out of the equation in the first place. 
how do you get the people to stop looking at data and listening to people w/ agendas and use their senses for what they were meant for, to observe the world around you.
this is why it takes media to fire you up because you have shut your senses down to the world around you. drive down the road on trash day and that should fire you up. drive to the store and see the greed and wealth(probably not really wealth just credit) destroying the places you played as a kid. watch your gov`t at work on teh house of reps channel about katrina housing(could be u next) or tank god I missed it, al gore and climate change or visit a local farm and talk to them about how it used to be and how it`s become, look at all the cars on the road and how much they spew into the air we breath everyday.
back to the data, if correct we have contributed about 50% to what`s going to happen so far. my business uses less energy than a typical family household this size. Where`s my kickback for employing myself and running a business on less than a house does?
the gov`t and scientists aren`t here to clean up all the problems of an unsustainable growth society. we have to start realizing it`s up to no one but us and leave the politics behind. immigrants, gay marriage pollution debates and the like are all meant to fire the people behind them to back an agenda. we have to do what we know is right and place our money only into what we need till the gov`t falls in line and science can provide exact doomsday dates like the public wants. what do you think about this. the more we "need" energy and products the more they have us. ween yourself off the energy machine. 
If everyone grew just a little of their own food energy saved on mass transport and healthier people who would not need as much health care. less energy in trips to the store and most of all a tie to the earth. an investment in the land around you instead of reliance on science and the govt and big business. a feel that every property is tied together. their pesticides for a green lawn could end up in your tomatoes. the runoff from upstream could affect your drinking water, your crops could get shit from upstream and it makes you fight in your local gov`t. This aspect of society is near lost. 
They`ve got animal rights activists pitted against hunters and hunters in the old sense really had a tie to the land. They knew ducks were getting less numerous each year and there was a problem, not because of scientist or politicians because they relied on these birds not only for recreation but a tie to the past, a sense of being able to provide for their family. they rely on science to find the culprit and cut it out but they realize it was something we did. 
ok, enough of a rant for me today. I know it`s off topic but with the statements here i thought this got closer to the root of the problem.


----------



## kyle1745

Aaron,

You are not off topic, but not everyone can fit into the less waste category. This takes way too much time for the average family home. Take for example myself, there is no way with the jobs we have I could live further outside of the city and if I did, or more people did our cars would spew even more than they do now.

Now on your general topic of waste, I could not agree more and am as big of an example as the next person. My family as a whole is so busy I can not even explain how much waste there is. I sit every week as I take out the trash wondering where the heck did this overflowing can come from. What is even worse is some weeks I could fill 2. When think about it, it seems it may be a larger society problem. For example how many families now a days can survive on a single income? While I think we could I doubt we could ever retire and if something would happen it would be a catastrophe. The point is we are all going too fast to even care for a min what we are doing or what effects it has. Heck if I was not as bold as I am I would work 50-60-70 hours a week as my employer sure loves to expect it. For example my wife is a teacher and she gets a total of 50 mins break during the day and thats to eat lunch and prepare. So all that extra work happens at home. In my opinion, really not fair. I personally think unpaid overtime should be illegal. Its nothing more than abuse, that fuels many of societies problems.


----------



## r90s

Kile,

I agree, note my earlier post on passion, being needed, thought.

Thats where I said "if a government can keep people so busy working to pay taxes, and they not have time to study the issues, its easier for the politicians.

But, to what you said, I believe one day we will be mining those land fills.
The plastics that are not designed to decay, will still have the oil energy in them in concentrated form. Also for other materials.

It would be nice if we had the technology going to sort it all out now, but we will before too long.

For now we should really study the issues, and keep the "*#(*@!~" at bay.


----------



## bbrock

kyle1745 said:


> I have found the data how the temps on mars are believed to be increasing by almost the exact same amount as here on earth, very interesting.


This is that trap again. I agree that ALL of the data needs to be considered, sifted through, and have some sense made of it. But a couple of studies on planetary warming does not overturn the mountain of data and published papers that strongly suggest that humans are a significant part of the climate change on this planet. Yes, these measurements from other planets need to be considered and placed in context of what is being observed on earth. But we can't just cherry pick those studies that seem to be at odds with the bulk research that has been done. Results that seem at odds are not unusual in science. Usually, with additional understanding, we actually discover that such seemingly contrary results fit the larger body of work quite nicely. Cherry picking information is what convinced certain people beyond a shadow of a doubt that there were weapons of mass destruction. Let's not repeat that mistake with our own planet's ecosystem.

The question was asked with climate research is old enough to draw conclusions. Of course it is. We are now in the realm of risk assessment. IF what the bulk of climate research is telling us is right, and IF we choose to do nothing about it, then what are the consequences? Well, they are huge so perhaps we should think about acting. Just the impacts on wildlife alone are going to be devastating because humans have severely fragmented the landscape in ways that makes it unlikely that many species will be able to adjust to climate change. Now suppose that the climatologists are wrong and we DO act. What are the consequences? It may cost a lot of money but in the end we will still have a healthy planet and we will have made the transition to cleaner energy sources - which needs to be done for reasons beyond climate change. I have problems with many of the economic doomsday predictions because they seem to consider only half of the story. Sure, some industries may feel the pinch but new industries will be spawned. New product and technology development can be a huge economic stimulous. Have we already forgotton the 90's? My opinion is that it is like standing in the end zone of a football field and seeing someone pointing a gun at you from the other end zone. At what point do you duck? Do you head for cover immediately? Or do you wait to study the problem until you have your proof in the sound of a shot being fired? I know my choice.

Finally, I think it was Josh who mentioned ethanol markets disrupting economies. It's unclear to me how this relates to global warming or the Kyoto protocols. As far as I know, burning ethanol instead of gasoline does not significantly reduce greenhouse gas emmissions. True, it does reduce "emmissions" but in the form of the pollutants that are currently regulated. But I the combustion of ethanol still produces CO2. So I'm not clear how the ethanol market relates to climate change? But IMO, the promotion of ethanol to replace gasoline is one of the greatest scams perpetrated on the public yet.


----------



## edwardsatc

kyle1745 said:


> You are not off topic, but not everyone can fit into the less waste category. This takes way too much time for the average family home.


No offense Kyle but, "I don't have the time" is a cop out.

There are plenty of energy saving/earth friendly measures that can be done at home with little to no effort. For example, how long does it take to replace an incandescent bulb with a compact fluorescent? How long does it take to reprogram the thermostat or just turn it down?

I am a full time student and work in two research labs, in addition to my own thesis research. My wife, like yours, is also a teacher who spends several hours a night grading papers, writing tests, and preparing for the next days class. My children are college and high school students. One income, three tuition payments, and one hell of a hectic schedule......Yet, we still manage to find the time and resources to recycle, implement energy saving measures, buy earth friendly household goods, etc...

It's not a matter of time but, a matter of priorities. If it's not important to us .... we say we don't have time. Funny, seems we all have the time to _debate_ it on Dendroboard


----------



## bbrock

kyle1745 said:


> With that said maybe my impressions of the corruption is more related to the private funding than public. I question much of our biomedical funding and it sure seems they have a drug for about everything, and there sure are a ton of people getting rich off of it. I can not tell you how many people at work are on Prozac or similar drugs. Rather than look at how employees are treated and the hours they work, we drug them to make it all ok. I will never understand this mentality. Im sure there are people that need these drugs, but not as many as are on them.


I should perhaps clarify that I don't think public funding of science is completely free of political influence and corruption. But once the money gets allocated to the NIH, EPA, NSF, or NASA (I'm probably missing some), I think they do a pretty good job of using peer review to judge proposals on scientific merit rather than politics. But when public funding does not go through these channels, I think it is a different story. Earmarks are probably the worst. Although quite a few very good studies could not have been done without the help of earmarks, the process itself is corrupt and is a way for politicians to promote pet projects or curie political favors. Then there is the infamous stem cell research debacle which I believe was a complete travesty of democracy. In that case our esteemed leader pandered to political interests and short-circuited the scientific process of allocating research funding.

But I do think the private funding for medicine and much other private research is a problem. I have a very good friend who will almost certainly die in the next few years because development of a drug to treat his rare disease is not considered profitable. I just don't think that profit should be the primary motive for research and it is a system that is very vulnerable to corruption. I've seen some serious problems with wildlife studies conducted by the energy industry. Half the stuff you read about the impact of oil develpment on wildlife in Alaska is crap because they only report on the species that benefit from habitat change and not the ones that are harmed. I once saw a guy from a power company actually claim that all of the dams along the Platte River were good for wildlife because the allowed sandbars in the river to become colonized by cottonwood trees and willows to provide habitat for birds. He failed to mention that the birds that were colonizing tended to be generalists that are expanding their range but there were species adapted to those bare sandbar habitats that are in decline including sandhill cranes, and two endangered species the least tern and the piping plover. Whoopee, the damn dams gave us more crows, cardinals and bluejays instead of much rarer species. I suppose we should all kiss the power company's ass for damming up the river. Yep, private funding of research tends to introduce a profit motive to get the results that you want.


----------



## kyle1745

> This is that trap again. I agree that ALL of the data needs to be considered, sifted through, and have some sense made of it. But a couple of studies on planetary warming does not overturn the mountain of data and published papers that strongly suggest that humans are a significant part of the climate change on this planet.


Im not sure I agree it is a "trap", but I think it plays a part and a part we my not fully understand. I am also not suggesting that we though out any data.

I am suggesting that we may not fully understand the problem, all of influences, and impacts. If we did the scientists would all agree, and have a very specific agreed upon fix.


----------



## kyle1745

> No offense Kyle but, "I don't have the time" is a cop out.


Ed, 
Please don't read into this that I don't try and I was more referring to the waste as in trash. I have my whole house coveted to CF lighting other than the ceiling fan lights. I run my furnace fan all the time, which is also rumored to save on heating and cooling. I have also sealed any and all gaps in my basement as well as covered most of the walls in Styrofoam. 

I am just amazed at how much trash a family of 4 can produce was my overall point, and its not that I do not try to do my part, but that some of the things I think Aaron was eluding to are tough for us City folk.


----------



## kyle1745

Brent, 

I completely agree on the medical research. In my opinion it should be a priority based system for the "hot" things then somehow split between the rest. 

The problem with business or at least modern US business is that we only worry about time lines and not quality and/or impacts. I can not tell you how frustrating this is as a worker to be forced to do the wrong thing over and over again due to poor planning and crazy time lines. Now while this may seem unrelated I think it is directly related as business such as Oil and other companies act first before they realize the impacts of their actions. All this to meet a time line.


----------



## edwardsatc

kyle1745 said:


> No offense Kyle but, "I don't have the time" is a cop out.
> 
> 
> 
> Ed,
> Please don't read into this that I don't try and I was more referring to the waste as in trash. I have my whole house coveted to CF lighting other than the ceiling fan lights. I run my furnace fan all the time, which is also rumored to save on heating and cooling. I have also sealed any and all gaps in my basement as well as covered most of the walls in Styrofoam.
> 
> I am just amazed at how much trash a family of 4 can produce was my overall point, and its not that I do not try to do my part, but that some of the things I think Aaron was eluding to are tough for us City folk.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I misunderstood. Sounds like you'e trying to do your part.

I too am amazed that, despite my families attempts to reduce our waste, we still produce so much trash. 

Of course, sometimes I even meet with resistance within my own family. There has been some good discussion in my household over my "earth-friendly" attitudes ... some in my family get mad because I won't buy american cheese that is individually wrapped! :shock:


----------



## joshsfrogs

> I run my furnace fan all the time, which is also rumored to save on heating and cooling.


I'd really like some more info on this. I've never heard of this before...


----------



## EDs Fly Meat

> I have found the data how the temps on mars are believed to be increasing by almost the exact same amount as here on earth, very interesting.


Interesting quote Kyle. Without a doubt it's Aliens. That's why I wear tin foil on my head.








They can read your thoughts! Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh


----------



## Roadrunner

and i thought I was the only one who knew about the tinfoil trick. I didn`t want to share it figuring some of you were in cahoots and thought they may find a way around it. shhh!


----------



## bbrock

kyle1745 said:


> Im not sure I agree it is a "trap", but I think it plays a part and a part we my not fully understand. I am also not suggesting that we though out any data.
> 
> I am suggesting that we may not fully understand the problem, all of influences, and impacts. If we did the scientists would all agree, and have a very specific agreed upon fix.


The trap is that these little bits of studies get split out from the whole body of evidence as "proof" that the people claiming that humans are causing global climate change don't know what they are talking about. Of course we don't know EVERYTHING about climate change. If we did, there would be no point in any further science. But more than 95% of scientists agree with the consensus that the earth's climate is changing and that human activities are a significant contributor. As I've said before, the consensus is approaching the consensus their is for evolution and Newtonian physics. Yet, you can still find scientists who have not bought into these "conspiracies". I'm just getting really tired of the cherry picking and giving 5% of data that climate change opponents like the same weight as the 95% of data that they don't like. I posted on a previous thread about the Science paper that sampled several thousand papers dealing with climate change and did not find a SINGLE paper that was inconsistent with the premise that the earth's temperature is increasing and humans are a major factor. Why is it we can execute someone if the evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt but we can't lift a finger to save our own planet without "absolute proof"?


----------



## kyle1745

LOL... never a dull moment. 



ED's_Fly_Meat_Inc said:


> I have found the data how the temps on mars are believed to be increasing by almost the exact same amount as here on earth, very interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting quote Kyle. Without a doubt it's Aliens. That's why I wear tin foil on my head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can read your thoughts! Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Click to expand...


----------



## kyle1745

I am by no means saying we should not lift a finger. I believe I have actually said the opposite at least 3-4 time in this thread.

I am saying that the media, and the IPCC attempt to make things more gloomy than they really are.



bbrock said:


> kyle1745 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im not sure I agree it is a "trap", but I think it plays a part and a part we my not fully understand. I am also not suggesting that we though out any data.
> 
> I am suggesting that we may not fully understand the problem, all of influences, and impacts. If we did the scientists would all agree, and have a very specific agreed upon fix.
> 
> 
> 
> The trap is that these little bits of studies get split out from the whole body of evidence as "proof" that the people claiming that humans are causing global climate change don't know what they are talking about. Of course we don't know EVERYTHING about climate change. If we did, there would be no point in any further science. But more than 95% of scientists agree with the consensus that the earth's climate is changing and that human activities are a significant contributor. As I've said before, the consensus is approaching the consensus their is for evolution and Newtonian physics. Yet, you can still find scientists who have not bought into these "conspiracies". I'm just getting really tired of the cherry picking and giving 5% of data that climate change opponents like the same weight as the 95% of data that they don't like. I posted on a previous thread about the Science paper that sampled several thousand papers dealing with climate change and did not find a SINGLE paper that was inconsistent with the premise that the earth's temperature is increasing and humans are a major factor. Why is it we can execute someone if the evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt but we can't lift a finger to save our own planet without "absolute proof"?
Click to expand...


----------



## bbrock

kyle1745 said:


> I am by no means saying we should not lift a finger. I believe I have actually said the opposite at least 3-4 time in this thread.


I know you didn't say or mean that. But that is the way this is being translated by the general public and, more importantly, our elected officials.



> I am saying that the media, and the IPCC attempt to make things more gloomy than they really are.


And I'm saying that the overwhelming majority of scientists looking at the problem agree with these gloomy predictions. Just as the vast majority of scientists believe that evolution is the fundamental process through which diversity of life is formed. If that majority of gloomy scientists turn out to be right, but the public hasn't acted because they choose to believe in Santa Claus, then the result will be even MORE gloomy. The smart thing to do is get serious about reducing greenhouse gas emmissions now. This debate has been going on at least 30 years now.

Brent


----------



## slygecko

kyle1745 said:


> I am saying that the media, and the IPCC attempt to make things more gloomy than they really are.


Actually, the IPCC is not doom-and-gloom. Anything that has not been triple-checked was not included, including many recent findings that show climate change is accelerating even faster than predicted. It is watered down more than it was hyped up.
Here's an article about it (you may have to be subscribed to view, pm me if you cant, i can scan it):
http://environment.newscientist.com/cha ... -down.html
And another about climate skeptics:
http://environment.newscientist.com/cha ... ience.html

~ Nick


----------



## npaull

Back to the thread after a spring break off... A couple more points.

First, thanks so much Brent for a wonderful round of volleys loaded with the clear thought and patient responses of science. Beautiful.

Quick thought about the drug business: I couldn't agree more with comments about the problems with pharmaceutical companies - erections get a lot more attention than malaria, etc. It's shameful and inexcusable. However, the problem really isn't with the science - (the vast majority of the drugs DO in fact do what they claim to do) but with the business model of our pharmaceutical industry which focuses drug makers to certain fields. This is not the case with climate research for a number of reasons Brent has already elucidated. Briefly, the institutions funding and doing climate research do not, for the most part, have a direct financial stake in a certain outcome of the research. This is clearly not the case with a pharm company developing its own drug.

Brent has talked about the danger of cherry-picking several times. A closer to home anecdote: what if there were industries with a major interest in continuing practices destructive to amphibian conservation? What data might they cherry pick?

How about the incredible spread and seeming prosperity of bull frogs? How about the fact that D. azureus populations are probably higher now than they have ever been (we'll just leave out the fact that they are all in captivity)? How about the observation that A. callidryas doesn't seem to be undergoing anywhere near as precipitous a drop as some other Neotropical amphibians? 

These are three little confounding facts to the "amphibian crisis" hype (I'm speaking tongue in cheek here) that I thought of in three minutes this morning. They aren't consistent with the rest of the data! STOP amphibian conservation until we've addressed these questions!

In at least one of the instances cited above, there is a deliberate "distractor" fact (D. azureus) that really only people intimately involved with amphibians would have any ability to evaluate. 

This is exactly the tactic employed by many anti-intellectuals (creationists) businesses (oil industry) and yes, the media to confuse the public about the findings of science. 

An earlier comment reflected the effectiveness of this technique - I think it was Kyle who said that if data were solid, ALL scientists would agree. But in fact, they never do, because finer points are always up for debate.

To continue the analogy a little further, let's say word gets out in the media (pray that it does) that all amphibian species are in terrible trouble. Pretty good statement, most of us would probably agree. 

But somewhere out there, a careful scientist thinks about bullfrogs. He decides not to agree with the statement. Word gets out, interested industries leap onto the quote. This scientist may even write a paper, one that ends with the sentence "the continued success and spread of the American bullfrog is inconsistent with the overall decline in amphibian species worldwide." Now we've got a published paper! But what's really being debated here?

I think everyone sees where I'm going with this. Ironically, the "climate change debate" is indicative NOT of science's unwillingness to consider alternate viewpoints, but rather emerges because science relies on a tenuous balance between openness to new ideas (so people with contrary hypotheses are being heard in the media) and a ruthless elimination of those hypotheses which are not supported by the data.[/b]


----------



## bbrock

npaull said:


> To continue the analogy a little further, let's say word gets out in the media (pray that it does) that all amphibian species are in terrible trouble. Pretty good statement, most of us would probably agree.
> 
> But somewhere out there, a careful scientist thinks about bullfrogs. He decides not to agree with the statement. Word gets out, interested industries leap onto the quote. This scientist may even write a paper, one that ends with the sentence "the continued success and spread of the American bullfrog is inconsistent with the overall decline in amphibian species worldwide." Now we've got a published paper! But what's really being debated here?


In fact, something not too dissimilar to this has already begun. See the Dec. 8, 2006 issue of science for a point-counterpoint on what should be done about amphibian declines.

Pounds et al. 2006. Responding to Amphibian Loss. Science. 314:1541-1542. (including a response by Mendelson et al.)

email me privately at [email protected] if you can't access a copy.


----------



## Rain_Frog

I agree that Global Warming may be probably the most serious of all environmental issues today.

However, some reason I do have some hopes that eventually it may slow down or taper off because it hopefully won't be much longer until we can take advantage of hydrogen as a fuel source...the main problems with using hydrogen is compressing the gas and the need for platinum and something else for the generator inside an automobile which is expensive.


----------



## joshsfrogs

> However, some reason I do have some hopes that eventually it may slow down or taper off because it hopefully won't be much longer until we can take advantage of hydrogen as a fuel source...the main problems with using hydrogen is compressing the gas and the need for platinum and something else for the generator inside an automobile which is expensive.


I heard a rumor (I was talking to some people who heard something on TV...) that another problem with using Hydrogen was the amount of water vapor that would be expelled into the atmosphere somehow affecting weather patterns. Any truth to this?


----------



## EDs Fly Meat

> I heard a rumor (I was talking to some people who heard something on TV...) that another problem with using Hydrogen was the amount of water vapor that would be expelled into the atmosphere somehow affecting weather patterns. Any truth to this?


None what so ever Josh.


----------



## elmoisfive

Josh,

They were probably confusing release of hydrogen into the atmosphere which would be an issue versus water. Excessive hydrogen gas emission, most likely due to escape from production plants, could ultimately damage the ozone layers at the North and South pole. In addition, hydrogen gas buildup in the upper atmosphere can accelerate (in conjunction with other compounds) the production of water vapor in the upper atmosphere. This upper atmospheric water vapor can increase global warming.

Bill 

*Nature* 424 (6951) 918-921 (2003)



joshsfrogs said:


> I heard a rumor (I was talking to some people who heard something on TV...) that another problem with using Hydrogen was the amount of water vapor that would be expelled into the atmosphere somehow affecting weather patterns. Any truth to this?


----------



## Rain_Frog

so, we'd have to make sure there is no leakage in our hydrogen tanks? (kinda like the whole freon issue).

I think another problem with hydrogen is the need to generate it. To make aluminum for instance, by electrolysis it uses 1/20 of our energy. JUST to make aluminum. I remember making hydrogen gas via electrolysis in lab once last year.

Perhaps uses solar or wind energy to make it from water?


----------



## elmoisfive

Doug,

Hydrogen leakage would have to be controlled at the sites of production, through the distribution chain and ultimately in the vehicles themselves. Not impossible but certainly more complex than the current petroleum based fuels.

Unfortunately today's hydrogen powered vehicles use hydrogen produced from hydrocarbons and ironically produces more net greenhouse gases than conventional petroleum based autos (the cars burn cleanly but that is offset but a very environmentally unfriendly hydrogen production process).

While hydrogen gas can be produced via electrolysis of water utilizing renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and water power, those approaches are not yet economically feasible and the quantity of those sources is small in today's environment. 

A more practical yet controversial approach would be to use nuclear power in this regard. I have to admit I have very mixed feelings about nuclear power. Much cleaner than coal or oil fired plants from a greenhouse gas perspective but the hazards associated with this technology are many. 

However, since governments, particularly our own, have been slow to recognize the looming dangers posed by global warming, I suspect that we will wait until we are in the sh*tter before any move is made to radically change the nature of our energy economy. At that point like it or not nuclear may be our only option. Of course given that significant portions of the globe will likely no longer be capable of supporting humans, we may have less of an energy crisis as the 'herd' gets thinned by 80-90% :? 

Bill


----------



## Rain_Frog

I have read on Wikipedia that since it may take 50 years or so to fully develop a hydrogen economy, its very possible we'd have the technology to limit leakage.

I have heard that nuclear fusion has been speculated to be a wonderful form of energy...but nobody has come up with yet to hold plasma within electromagnetic fields. :? Trying to recreate the same environment like on the sun may be impossible.

Another option is the notion being developed that we can "screen" out CO2 with some type of reactor with genetically engineered E. coli. The resulting bicarbonate can be used to make limestone and baking soda.

Even IF we found a way to stop carbon emissions from fossil fuel, we're still facing the problem of renewable energy...and honestly I think that may be a bigger problem than stopping global warming itself.

Has anybody tried making synthetic petroleum? I hope we realize once petroleum is gone...so is plastic.


----------



## bbrock

The deal about hydrogen and water vapor probably came from one of my posts. I've never seen it mentioned by any energy experts but I guarantee it will become an issue if hydrogen becomes the main fuel source for cars. There are already studies that have shown that jet trails out of LAX form nuclei for cloud formation and has contibuted to increased rainfall in the area. Not a huge deal but imagine those millions of cars spewing water vapor in a mediteranian/desert environment. So call me crazy, but some day you will be saying, "man, that guy was right." Luckily there is a very easy solution which would be to just collect and condense the vapor and dump it when you refill the car. And then you have a new water source. Somebody will probably come up with a more clever solution but I'm telling you that you can't dump that much water vapor into arid climates and not change things.

But back to reality. I saw a documentary that said the Netherlands has developed a system for producing hydgrogen from water using solar energy. Supposedly, they have gotten it efficient enough that they can build a small remote hydrogen production plant that uses only solar so that the hydrogen is actually manufactured on site at the filling station. If this pans out, they will be the next super power.


----------



## bbrock

elmoisfive said:


> A more practical yet controversial approach would be to use nuclear power in this regard. I have to admit I have very mixed feelings about nuclear power. Much cleaner than coal or oil fired plants from a greenhouse gas perspective but the hazards associated with this technology are many.
> Bill


I'm with you on this. My main hesitation is that I don't trust our free market economy and lobbyist-tainted politicians to require the regulation need to put our safety first. But I'm convinced the technology is available to make the reactors safe - especially when you factor in the dangers associated with the alternatives.


----------



## bbrock

Rain_Frog said:


> Even IF we found a way to stop carbon emissions from fossil fuel, we're still facing the problem of renewable energy...and honestly I think that may be a bigger problem than stopping global warming itself.
> 
> Has anybody tried making synthetic petroleum? I hope we realize once petroleum is gone...so is plastic.


But Doug,

You shouldn't worry because I just heard a Bush lacky last night brag on the News Hour that this administration has spent more than "5 million dollars a year" for alternative energy research. Woohooo! Here's a dime buddy, go by yourself a house. It's not like energy is important for national security or anything. Absolutely appalling.


----------



## bwebb

Hey everyone...new here, and big science nerd so naturally drifted into this area. 
I have to agree that the Bush administration is pathetic in regards to environmental concerns, to bad they wouldn't declare a war on global warming. 
I think wind could be a good source of energy for electrolysis considering some of the open areas of the US. 
The biggest issue with Hydrogen right now is finding an efficient way to store it. Maintaining it in liquid phase requires energy and is not feasible for the big picture at this time. I don't think Hydrogen leakage is a large issue environmentally considering that it is around 1/15th the density of air which means it rapidly ascends into the atmosphere and actually escapes, hence the reason why elemental hydrogen is so rare on the planet. Nuclear power is an option but it has been tabooed so badly over the years with incidents like Chernobyl that it will be difficult to sell the public on it until crunch time. What we really need to figure out is antimatter annihilation.... :wink:


----------



## kyle1745

Yes we should be using a good bit more nuclear power than we are. People say what about the waste, I say we fire it at the sun and incinerate it. Might not be cheap but better than sitting around here.

One thing I brought up before and I will bring up again is that while I agree these issues need focus, we also need to understand that this great nation we all love is failing miserably. Everyone can blame it on the President but that is by no means the problem. It is time we start looking at all of our elected officials and the contributions that put them in office. We need to change term limits and eliminate any and all cooperate campaign funding. The bigger issues are our congressmen and Media. We also must realize as a nation that it is time we start looking to protect ourselves as we are slipping from a super power and the further we slip the more people will be looking to come after us. I am not talking on a political or economic level either. Its a sad day when not one of the future presidential candidates is worth voting for and yet they still get elected. So while I am concerned about global warming and environmental concerns, I feel our safety is becoming our biggest concern.

Take for example the pet food scare. Just imagine if that was a food we ate? Whats to say its not? Whats to stop china or another country we outsource our essential items to, from slowly poisoning us all? Our big businesses are concerned about one thing and one thing only, and that is tomorrows bottom line. The current mentality of this country is in turn killing it. We need to stop looking for a free ride, and giving everything to everyone for nothing. Stop discussing diversity and start discussing unity, and how we save what is left. It may already be too late, but the reality is that funding for these things will never happen unless it some how benefits someone getting re-elected.


----------



## Rain_Frog

_I'm with you on this. My main hesitation is that I don't trust our free market economy and lobbyist-tainted politicians to require the regulation need to put our safety first. But I'm convinced the technology is available to make the reactors safe - especially when you factor in the dangers associated with the alternatives._

I am not an advocate of nuclear power, (Primarily, yes, because of the Chernobyl incident and the danger that nuclear waste poses.). I think that poses more of a danger than the other stuff.

If we found a way to recycle the waste, then perhaps it might work. We're already running out of space with land fills. What will we do in a couple decades with excess nuclear waste?

I think the new technology to remove carbon emissions from exhaust and the ability to make synthetic fuel might prove to be a winner. 

But honestly, I still have high hopes that hydrogen will work...if we would just take it a bit more seriously. And like Brent said, we really aren't. Five million is teeny compared to things like WAR we like to spend our money on. It seems humans in general like to spend more money on killing themselves than saving themselves. :roll:


----------



## joshsfrogs

> The deal about hydrogen and water vapor probably came from one of my posts.


Sorry Brent, but the farmers I was talking to don't read dendroboard.



> There are already studies that have shown that jet trails out of LAX form nuclei for cloud formation and has contibuted to increased rainfall in the area


I also wondered what would happen in colder city like New York City if all these cars are pushing out water vapor. It would cover the road, sidewalks, and store fronts with ice. But, standing in downtown New York City would during the summer would do wonders for your sinuses.

I get CNET news on my Treo and I was reading two articles today on these topics. One was an article in which some company had developed a Hydrogen Cell that somehow used Magnesium and created a Magnesium Oxide by-product. The details were none existant, but this was to reduce the problem of releasing as much water vapor or carrying around the weight of water. Interesting read.

The other article was on solar power. They were saying that right now solar power costs twice what "grid power" costs now, but if volume increased substantially, the cost of solar power would drop to "grid power" rates. Another interesting read.[/quote]


----------



## npaull

> People say what about the waste, I say we fire it at the sun and incinerate it


Interesting idea, but over time we'd be shedding mass from the planet. Depending on how much we are burning, it could actually (theoretically) become a problem.... Plus it's way expensive. But I agree nuclear power is way underutilized.



> Everyone can blame it on the President but that is by no means the problem.


Agreed, but sometimes the best way to cure a disease is to start by fixing the symptoms. Which is why I think your ideas about campaign funding and term limits are right-on.

I disagree quite ardently that the biggest threat to our society is "security," whatever that means. I think a vastly, vastly more profound problem is anti-intellectualism. We rose to power on the backs of innovation, technology, and scientific thought. We're squandering that legacy. It's apparent from debates about "creationism" taught as a science in school to our failure to be world leaders in stem cell research, from declining math and science graduates to our struggling auto industry that is failing to lead in fuel conservation technology. The media and politicians are inextricably linked to this cycle. They pander the way they do for a reason, though... I do not know the best way to address this overall problem.



> The current mentality of this country is in turn killing it. We need to stop looking for a free ride, and giving everything to everyone for nothing.


Exactly, though I think you are focusing on the wrong aspects of that mentality. I strongly think that practically everything going wrong in our country comes down to a lack of honesty, recognition of complexity, willingness to sacrifice, and *reason*. This general plague is the media upon which grow the seeds of destruction.



> Whats to stop china or another country we outsource our essential items to, from slowly poisoning us all?


Well, the fact that we owe China trillions of dollars probably keeps us safe from them, assuming they ever want to collect. 

Don't you think that a nation-wide, nation-to-nation insidious poisoning is just a little conspiracy-theorist?[/quote]


----------



## kyle1745

Just a quick response...

Yes I think the thought is a bit conspiracy-theorist, but it pays to at least think about these things and keep them in the back of your mind. Things like this and etc take place when you least expect it and we Americans seem to think we are untouchable and that no one would ever try. History disproves this thinking time and time again, and it is sad our day maybe coming.

I completely agree on the "anti-intellectualism", and I have read an article on how our education system was designed to promote just that. Though not in those words of course. I've posted my concerns on education before and how immigration laws are killing our national infrastructure. 

Something must be done, but sadly most people just follow the mainstream media and will continue to elect the same problems we have today.

On a more related topic, I think the issue with Nuclear power is just "fear". It can be done right, and with the current technology should not be that hard. It is the cleanest form of energy by far though the waste is nasty. Thus my thought of sending it into the sun... This may sound crazy but think about it, it would burn up before it got there.


----------



## bwebb

> It's apparent from debates about "creationism" taught as a science in school to our failure to be world leaders in stem cell research, from declining math and science graduates to our struggling auto industry that is failing to lead in fuel conservation technology.


I'm going to have to disagree on this one. I don't believe that the U.S is significantly lagging in these areas at all, it is more of an illusion created by the large advances in other countries. The majority of people in the US don't agree with teaching creationism in science class, the areas where it was debated were in the center of the bible belt and it still had trouble. 

As for the number of graduates in math in science, biology has been the number one major at the college I attend for the last decade. On the topic of stem cell research I don't think we are failing in any sense of the word. Keep in mind that we are the ones who discoverd ES cells in the first place, and just because there is no federal funding in place doesn't mean there is no funding nor is there a lack of research. I do believe however that the ethical boundaries in this country are a bit too resrictive, especially in the field of cellular and molecular biology (believe me I know, I'm in it). Yet there are still amazing things being done. I will be starting grad school this fall working with a team of researchers who are developing methods of gene therapy using a transposon based vector called Sleeping Beauty. They discovered the sequence all broken up in the DNA sequence of salmon and put it back together into a working transposon system. The name came from the fact that it lost function about 10 million years ago and now they've revived it. It is now patented and is much more effective at delivering genetic material than viral vectors, yet poses less risk. They are developing many applications, but the coolest one is that they have used it to impart chemotherapy resistance to rat hematopoetic stem cells. After treatment the rats can handle above lethal doses of chemo which vastly increases the chances of killing the cancer. 

The US is still a huge super power, even with our supposed lagging economy our GDP is still three times the next closest country. US car makers are getting better as far as fuel economy, and remember that most of the problems facing US auto makers are due to the money lost to overzealous retirement packages, and not so much competition. I think sometimes we need to have a little faith in the US, but that doesn't mean we should stop debating issues that need improvement.


----------



## npaull

> The majority of people in the US don't agree with teaching creationism in science class, the areas where it was debated were in the center of the bible belt and it still had trouble.


Fair, but that it is an issue which can attract national attention at all is quite disheartening. I also think you are underestimating the number of people who remain willfully ignorant with regards to evolution, prefering to belive in a creation story.



> As for the number of graduates in math in science, biology has been the number one major at the college I attend for the last decade.


But one school does not an industry support. The overall numbers are going down, and that's what matters.



> On the topic of stem cell research I don't think we are failing in any sense of the word.


Most stem cell researchers with whom I have spoken would disagree fervently. Nations with less restrictive laws are advancing far, far ahead of us and will surely outstrip us if we do not increase funding and availability.


----------



## bwebb

> I also think you are underestimating the number of people who remain willfully ignorant with regards to evolution, prefering to belive in a creation story.


There will always be people who refuse to give up their faith, that is why it is called faith. I believe in evolution myself, but even as a molecular biologist I struggle to believe that an organized digital code (DNA or RNA) just spontaneously formed in the oceans. Is is possible, sure. Is it probable, not in my opinion. How life began has little or no bearing on evolution anyway. The thing that annoys me the most is that people think you have to believe one or the other. If I were a highly advanced intellectual being and I wanted to seed a planet with life, I surely would incorporate a mechanism for that life to adapt to a dynamic environment. Like I said I believe in evolution, but I'm not sold on how life originated in the first place. What I am sure of is that nothing should be taught in a science class if it does not include facts derived from the scientific process, e.g. the judeo-christian theory of creation. 



> But one school does not an industry support. The overall numbers are going down, and that's what matters.


I agree with you that the numbers are going down, but the void is being filled by international students moving into the US. Is this a good thing? I don't know but at least they will be in the US. I do feel that the US public education system has to step up it's education in this area. On the other hand we could do what asian countries do and kick the struggling students out of school so our test scores stay high. 



> Most stem cell researchers with whom I have spoken would disagree fervently. Nations with less restrictive laws are advancing far, far ahead of us and will surely outstrip us if we do not increase funding and availability.


Sure our federal laws and standards are strict, but if they weren't we'd have scientists like Hwang Woo-suk in Korea who fake results. I think you would have a very hard time finding any researcher who is happy with the amount of funding they receive, which is why they are constantly applying for grants. On the contrary, just because the feds don't fund the research doesn't mean anything. In fact if they did their contributions would pale in comparison to the state and private funding on stem cell resarch, and remember most resrictions on ES research come when you are federally funded, which is rare. If you are privately funded you have much more leeway. California alone will be spending $300 million per year for the next ten years on stem cell research (the entire UK budget is 175$ million per year), and this is just a small fraction of the amount from the state and private sector. The fact is that the US is still ahead of other countries when it comes to SC research and funding, we may have faltered, but with all the private funding coming in we're back to widening the gap.


----------



## bbrock

[quote="bwebb]On the contrary, just because the feds don't fund the research doesn't mean anything. In fact if they did their contributions would pale in comparison to the state and private funding on stem cell resarch, and remember most resrictions on ES research come when you are federally funded, which is rare. If you are privately funded you have much more leeway. [/quote]

But this gets very complicated since most labs operate on a combination of federal and private funds. For example, if your lab's centrifuge was bought with a federal grant, can you use it to perform privately funded stem cell research? As you know, the personnel and equipment in any lab are often used to support multiple projects. I've heard reports that these sorts of questions are being interpreted many different ways and it has been difficult for many labs to sort through them.


----------



## bbrock

bwebb said:


> The majority of people in the US don't agree with teaching creationism in science class, the areas where it was debated were in the center of the bible belt and it still had trouble.


But what about this?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/ ... 5223.shtml


----------



## bwebb

I don't disagree nor am I surprised that the majority of Americans believe in creation by God, after all our money says "In God we trust". I was talking about the areas where they were actually thinking about teaching creationism in science class. 



> For example, if your lab's centrifuge was bought with a federal grant, can you use it to perform privately funded stem cell research?


That is a good point, and believe me I understand that our government has made it very tough on researchers. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1979637,00.html

Still, there is tons of stem cell research that is going on in the US unhindered by politics and by no means are we behind on stem cell research. We may have been running the risk of falling behind, but with all the private money going into it now I think we are back to being competitive.


----------



## npaull

> by no means are we behind on stem cell research. We may have been running the risk of falling behind, but with all the private money going into it now I think we are back to being competitive.


Straying a bit from the original intent of the post, but again...

I think this is basically an incorrect statement. I've heard from numerous biologists who work extensively with stem cells at a premier biomedical institution (University of Washington) that we're (as a nation) rapidly being outstripped in stem cell research because of restrictive federal regulation.


----------



## npaull

To bring this back to the title of the thread a bit, the anti-intellectual environment that has been metastasizing in this country is what is allowing the debate about the bedrock findings of climate change to occur. People KNOW that few Americans really understand (or care about) science. They KNOW that even the intelligent, engaged person (anywhere, at any level) can be bamboozled by a few selected facts if they are not well trained in the marriage of skepticism and wonder that is science's hallmark. And they know that the digital age has bestowed a dangerous equality of media/popular attention to all viewpoints without doing much to improve access to quality, peer-reviewed, data-supported science. The result is a milieu tailor-made for confusion. We're doing OK at teaching the *findings* of science, but we need to teach everyone about the *process*: the scientific method and why it is the way it is, the peer-review process and how it works. It's the WHY of science, almost as much as the WHAT, that gives it power.

Changing tacks... I have yet to hear someone who proposed monetary incentive as a driving force for scientists worried about climate change explain why money is not a hugely more obvious influence for industries contributing to climate change (and scientists funded by them). How in the world can you say "they are in it for the money!" to one side and NOT to the other? It blows my mind.


----------



## bwebb

I understand that the SC discussion is a bit off topic from the original content, but that seems to be the nature of scientific discussions. Often times outside of school it is impossible for me to talk about scientific issues because no one seems to care, it's maddening. There are even many students I see that don't really seem to be deeply interested in the actual science. Science isn't out to prove anything, it's out to disprove the current accepted theory. Unfortunately, like you said, there are inevitably many degree holding people who claim to be "scientists", when really they are nothing more than pawns who have sold out to large corporations. 

I just have to throw this in....and then I'm done. 

_In January 2005, Democrats in New York proposed legislation that would commit US$1 billion to stem-cell research (McIntire, 2005). Behind this move are fears that the state might lose out to California, which approved a US$3 billion stem-cell fund in 2004, and to New Jersey, where governor Richard J. Cody recently proposed supporting stem-cell research and establishing a new research institute (McCook, 2004; Mansnerus, 2005). In addition, several universities, including Stanford (CA, USA), the University of California and the University of Wisconsin (Madison, WI, USA), have also established privately funded centres to support stem-cell research. Despite limitations on federal funding, the USA has a dominant role in the biotechnology sector, which will surely enable it to also have a leading role in stem-cell research in the future._

http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v6/n4/full/7400383.html

Still, if I end up working with ES cells in grad school, I'm sure I will be telling you that we need to do more to fund it and that we are risking falling behind. Seriously, what scientist doesn't want their research topic to be the center of attention?


----------



## bbrock

Regarding special interest groups manipulating the public's ignorance of science for personal gain, here is an example close to our hearts as it deals with frogs and pesticides:

http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articles/ ... _30_02.htm

This is one of the most cleverly crafted bits of counter-science I have ever seen and I'm even having trouble figuring out what is legit and what is not. But a couple of huge red flags here are that this "review panel" seems to be countering a peer reviewed paper through non-peer reviewed media. They do reference (and reprint) an actual paper that includs their arguments, but again, I'm confused as to whether that paper has been peer reviewed. The other red flag is that most, if not all, of the esteemed members of this panel appear to have strong ties with the pesticide industry. Indeed, the panel itself is funding by a major pesticide manufacturer. Here is a bit more on the story:

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/ ... versy.html

Some of the criticisms the panel have levied against the original study are fairly silly. Others are more difficult to dismiss. But it is impossible for me, not being an expert in this field, to determine whether any of the criticisms are damning and whether the criticisms would pass peer review. It looks like another case of: select a few facts, pick on the weak points of the study, and razzle dazzle the public with your credentials.



bwebb said:


> _In January 2005, Democrats in New York proposed legislation that would commit US$1 billion to stem-cell research (McIntire, 2005). Behind this move are fears that the state might lose out to California, which approved a US$3 billion stem-cell fund in 2004, and to New Jersey, where governor Richard J. Cody recently proposed supporting stem-cell research and establishing a new research institute (McCook, 2004; Mansnerus, 2005). In addition, several universities, including Stanford (CA, USA), the University of California and the University of Wisconsin (Madison, WI, USA), have also established privately funded centres to support stem-cell research. Despite limitations on federal funding, the USA has a dominant role in the biotechnology sector, which will surely enable it to also have a leading role in stem-cell research in the future._


Three quick points here:

Yes, several states have passed laws to support stem cell research. But these have largely been passed to send a signal to the federal government that they are not happy. Second, it is impossible to gauge whether we are falling behind other countries simply by looking at the dollar amounts spent in this country on research. We may spend large amounts, but what are other countries like France spending? And what limitations do our federal laws impose on how our private funding gets spent as opposed to other countries? Finally, and most worrisome, let's suppose private and state funding is completely successful for funding stem cell research. What message does that send to fiscal conservatives? I think many will say that we should cut way back on federal science funding because we've proven it can be done with private and state funding. But do you think we would ever see large amounts of private and state funding for most science? What about amphibian declines, pesticide saftey, and things like that? Okay, and there is a fourth point. We've already discussed the many problems with private funding. There are many strings attached. Private funding usually happens when a private intity has a vested interest in a particular outcome of the research... "show that my product is safe", "show that our way is most effective", "tell me how to develop the next patentable miracle drug".

In total, I would say that even if the US is not falling behind on stem cell research, our SC regulations are still causing us to fall behind in science in general. Our government spends over 800 Billion dollars on defense every year. And our President brags about spending more than 5 MILLION dollars on renewable energy research every year. That is absolutely shameful. Fifty-one percent of our federal budget is spent on defense and national security. Way more than any other country spends. And we are worried about our security? C'mon. Security is going to come from creating a just and equitable society. Maybe if we spend a little less effort on pissing people off, we wouldn't have to worry so much about getting punched in the face.


----------



## bwebb

> Second, it is impossible to gauge whether we are falling behind other countries simply by looking at the dollar amounts spent in this country on research. We may spend large amounts, but what are other countries like France spending? And what limitations do our federal laws impose on how our private funding gets spent as opposed to other countries?


I hate to say it but money talks in regard to biotech. Labs that have access to funds also have access to modern equipment and logistical supplies. The US has almost half of the worlds genome sequencing centers which is huge when you isolate new and uncatagorized genes and need them sequenced. Federal laws only regulate research conducted with federal money. These new centers that are being established with state and private funds are much less restricted. France just started stem cell research in 2004 so they are way behind. Our main competition is from the EU, Australia, and some of the asian countries specifically Japan and Singapore, but if you read primary lit on SC research you will see that many researchers from all of these countries collaborate often. Here is an interesting statistic, between 2000 and 2004 the US published 42% of all the stem cell research papers published in the world. If you just count embryonic stem cell papers the portion is even larger. 

http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/fallingbehindmyth2.pdf



> There are many strings attached. Private funding usually happens when a private intity has a vested interest in a particular outcome of the research... "show that my product is safe", "show that our way is most effective", "tell me how to develop the next patentable miracle drug".


Why is that surprising? If I invest my money into a lab, I want that lab to generate positive results. Does this mean it will happen, no. I still have faith that the vast majority of scientists are ethical and don't skew facts for money, besides they would be ripped apart by their peers in no time if they did. 



> our SC regulations are still causing us to fall behind in science in general. Our government spends over 800 Billion dollars on defense every year. And our President brags about spending more than 5 MILLION dollars on renewable energy research every year. That is absolutely shameful.


Hey, your not going to get any argument from me about our governments lack of dedication to research, but I will say that as for science in general, you would have a hard time finding anyone anywhere that would agree the US is falling behind. This administration has been terrible on scientific research funding, specifically environmental research. I work at the Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center which is part of the U.S.G.S and believe me we are feeling the pinch. It's a joke, and frankly it almost makes me sick. Why should we give up all of our liberties and other aspirations just because some fascist radical Muslims want to kill us all? You have to agree that since 911 many things have changed, and I bet that the military budget pre-911 and especially pre-Iraq war was much smaller. I can't wait till '08.


----------



## bbrock

bwebb said:


> There are many strings attached. Private funding usually happens when a private intity has a vested interest in a particular outcome of the research... "show that my product is safe", "show that our way is most effective", "tell me how to develop the next patentable miracle drug".
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that surprising? If I invest my money into a lab, I want that lab to generate positive results. Does this mean it will happen, no. I still have faith that the vast majority of scientists are ethical and don't skew facts for money, besides they would be ripped apart by their peers in no time if they did.
Click to expand...

This is a very dangerous precedent to set. Let's give industry/private funded research the benefit of the doubt and assume that their science is just as valid as publicly funded science (which I think is a VERY generous assumption in many cases). This still leaves a lot of control in private hands over what research gets funded and what does not. A funder may not be able to know whether funded research will come out with the desired result but there are many ways for them to hedge their bets but being particular about how the research they are funding is conducted. I don't think it is any coincidence that research funded by oil, tobacco, and chemical companies tend to yield much more favorable results for the funders than the general body of science on these topics. If I want to fund research that shows oil drilling in the arctic is all yippie skippie, I know not to fund research on ground nesting birds but rather, focus on species much more flexible with respect to human development.

Also, if we rely on private funding for science, then many society research needs will be left in the lurch. We've already talked about how pharmaceutical research focuses on the most profitable diseases and ignores those rare ones that aren't money makers. So forgive me if I don't see private funders stepping up to the plate as being an acceptable solution for loss of public funding.


----------



## bwebb

I just have to say that since joining this board a few days ago I have been very impressed with the amount of informed discourse that bounces back and forth on this forum. It is refreshing to converse with people who actually care about some of these issues. As has been established, most of the population is relatively uninformed, which is unfortunate. Anyway.. 



> So forgive me if I don't see private funders stepping up to the plate as being an acceptable solution for loss of public funding.


I agree that the private sector should not be the sole source of funding, but until the feds and general population come around on the issue it is keeping the US scientists competitive. You are right that companies will try to fund research that will benefit them, that is why people need to be more informed and critical of this research, but we should not cut it off comletely. I wouldn't be inclined to believe research on global warming that is funded by oil companies. Besides, most of the funding I referenced was state funding not private funding, so there are at least two sources at this point. Eventually the benefits of stem cells will begin to speak too loudly for the government to ignore, and laws resricting it will be reevaluated. 



> This is a very dangerous precedent to set. Let's give industry/private funded research the benefit of the doubt and assume that their science is just as valid as publicly funded science


I'm sorry if that is how I came across, but I personally do not give any researcher the benefit of the doubt, not even myself. Misinterpretations of data and bias can slip in unintentially or intentionally requiring that all scientific research be scrutinized. However, I do feel that it is equally dangerous to assume that most researchers are unethical and only out for the money. This decreases the credibility of the scientifc community as a whole and alienates the majority of scientists because of the reputation of some. I agree that many researchers are lured into the pharm field due to the funding availability, but it costs around 800+ million dollars to get a drug through FDA testing and there are not many firms that want to invest that money on a drug for a disease like Malaria just so it can be given away because the people who require it are mainly found in poor third world countries that can't afford it. I don't agree with it, and I don't accept it, but that is the nature of the beast at this point. What's even more maddening? New research has created transgenic mosquitos that are resitant to Malaria, yet because of the taboo against anything genetically engineered, it will just have to be a "cool" idea for now. 

http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/18407/

I feel that I may have contributed to the high-jacking of this thread, but honestly I can't resist a good debate on a subject I am very interested in.


----------



## npaull

> We've already talked about how pharmaceutical research focuses on the most profitable diseases and ignores those rare ones that aren't money makers.


Quick point, Brent - they ignore the COMMON ones that are *major* killers but aren't money makers. It's really outrageous.



> costs around 800+ million dollars to get a drug through FDA testing and there are not many firms that want to invest that money on a drug for a disease like Malaria


This is true. It's one of several massive problems with our healthcare system... let's not dabble there now though. We could go on for hours, and working within the system, I'm out of energy for posting about it...



> What's even more maddening? New research has created transgenic mosquitos that are resitant to Malaria, yet because of the taboo against anything genetically engineered, it will just have to be a "cool" idea for now.


This isn't quite fair; the idea has only proven true in the lab. THere are many unanswered questions that don't relate directly to concerns about genetic engineering that must be ansdwered before it could be used int he field. Incredibly cool idea all the same though.


----------

