# New Research Adds Twist to Global Warming Debate



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

Just an example of some of the things I was saying in the other thread. 
http://www.dendroboard.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=20810
There are always more angles and most are just not hyped by the media.

*New Research Adds Twist to Global Warming Debate*
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,220341,00.html



> *New Research Adds Twist to Global Warming Debate
> 
> Thursday , October 12, 2006
> 
> ...


----------



## christina hanson (Feb 16, 2004)

Kyle,

I Googled that author, it sounds like he has his own agendas.

Christina


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

Everyone does...

My overall point was that there are a number of other things that maybe related yet do not make the media.

Don't get me wrong I'm not against any of the ideas, but I would argue that a mixture of many things contribute to the problem, and many we may not be able to control. On the other hand it may not be a problem but a natural cycle of the planet.


----------



## christina hanson (Feb 16, 2004)

Sorry, I should have been more specific.

Excerpted from http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steve_Milloy


In January 2006, Paul D. Thacker reported in The New Republic that Milloy has received thousands of dollars in payments from the Phillip Morris company since the early nineties, and that NGOs controlled by Milloy have received large payments from ExxonMobil. A spokesperson for Fox News stated, "Fox News was unaware of Milloy's connection with Philip Morris. Any affiliation he had should have been disclosed."


Christina


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

I would have to agree... very valid point. There still could be value to the story though, as like I said there are mostly likely a number of things related.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Have you ever noticed that these "other angles" seem to come from Fox News? But this is that achilles heal of science I was talking about. No matter how many studies support a consensus, there are always a few researchers who will present evidence that at least some believes refutes the consensus. Then a media bent on hype picks up those few that go against the grain to claim that all the other stuff has been caused by media hype. It is unethical and irresponsible in my opinion. Why could Fox simply report that some new research presents another view of global warming? Oh that's right, because it is Fox.

There was a recent paper in Science that reviewed all peer reviewed papers the authors could find on global climate change. There were something like 928 of them. In all those papers, they couldn't find a single one that refuted the consensus that humans are causing climate change. I no longer have access to a research library but I think this may be the issue: Science 28 July 2006 313: 421. I'm not sure because the Science web site won't even let you read full abstracts without a subscription. 

We still have "scientists" running around saying that evolution is crap. There is at least one guy still claiming that AIDS is not caused by HIV virus. Heck, there are a few who claim that vaccines are bogus. That's actually a good thing because it keeps science from being complacent. But scientific understanding is built over time by repeatable observations that are consistent with a set of hypotheses. If that repeatability and consistency holds up, then a consensus is formed. It is NOT easy to build a scientific consensus because scientists are trained to question everything. So when you see a consensus like the one we have with climate change, my advice is to pay attention.

What is really, really, bad is when the news media and http://www.ihaveanaxetogrind.org advocacy groups take these few outlier scientist's interpretations and use them to convince the public that all of the other scientists are wrong. That is dispicable but is exactly what is happening all too frequently these days.

And my apolgies to those who clicked the bogus link to find nothing there.


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

Brent,

Im not saying anyone is wrong, but lets be honest... every media venue in this country is corrupt, and most of them are owned by the same people. The media in this country cares about nothing but ratings... They could careless what they tell everyone as long as it sells. Gloom and doom just sells so thats all we get... We rarely get the truth or at best biased truths.

Now on the other side of things is the new wave of blogs... which are even more of a problem as most of the information gathered is bogus at best, and there are normally even stronger agendas behind the scenes. I always urge people to remember this: anyone with a little time can start a website, but that does not make anything they put on it true.

In my opinion there are normally 3-4-5-6 stories and if you had the time to read the all you maybe able to make your own sound opinion, but any one alone is just about worthless.

Take for example the T.O. story where he had overdosed... there were more reports than you could read and they all said different things. Many people believe he truly did try to commit suicide, but if you notice that fell off the map very quickly. This is a guy that takes painkillers all of the time, and knows his body... unless he picked up the wrong bottle he did not take something he did not know what it was... When you really think about it it all sounds fishy, and normally when something sounds fishy it is. People forget to listen to their gut and just follow along like lemmings.

My main goal in posting this was to throw out other ideas. Id be interested to see information against the article, besides the authors past. As I stated I just think there is more to most things than one simple answer yet human nature is to lock in on one aspect and run with it.


----------



## stchupa (Apr 25, 2006)

christina hanson said:


> Sorry, I should have been more specific.
> 
> Excerpted from http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steve_Milloy
> 
> ...


Anything to divert attention from the true agenda. Which is theirs and why we're not part of it, but for some reason we get the butt end. Right?

Just the other day I heard somewhere that there was unconfirmed evidence that smoking/smokers may contribute largely. Then you have all those millions of sq. kil. of 'black' asphault. 

If only everyone could understand it takes heat to make cold.


----------



## stchupa (Apr 25, 2006)

kyle1745 said:


> I would have to agree... very valid point. There still could be value to the story though, as like I said there are mostly likely a number of things related.


Not most likely, indubitably, as with all things. # of factors never really ends, it's just how far you look into it.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

I agree with you that the media is driven by ratings, and therefore hype. And, so called, balanced reports typically grab nut jobs from both extremes of an issue in some misguided hope that the truth will fall out between them. But at least hype and ratings grabbing can be somewhat filtered out if you read enough reports on a subject with a discerning eye. But Fox has taken poor journalism to a new low by adding an agenda their "reporting". I'm not talking about a right or left leaning bias. I'm talking about an actual agenda where they purposely misreport, selectively report, and twist facts to "make their case". The latest was Fox showing a photo of Tom Foley with (D-Florida) next to his name. Now either their news crew is too stupid and incompitent to check the basic fact that he is a republican, or they are sleazy slimeballs purposely trying to sway opinion. Sorry for the rant but it gets really difficult to see so much money be spent on research which gets done by incredibly brilliant scientists who have no hidden agendas behind their results only to have that hard work get swept aside by unethical politics and journalism. In the mean time the global ecosystem is going down the drain because the public has been duped into sticking their heads in the sand. The message of science is serious but actually rather hopefully if we, as a society, would only choose to listen.


----------



## stchupa (Apr 25, 2006)

Reminds me how we (the people) spent 30 million dollars to make nuclear detonation detectable, and now it's been a week and the people using the tool still can't confirm it. That IMO is worst case scenario.

Then the idea we also have 30.000 troops in Kerea and we can use them cannon foder but not as a form of detection. THEY'RE RIGHT FRICKEN THERE.

I'm so aggrivated/disgusted with this game I'm about to end it.

This might be a highjack but really nowhere more appopriate. Just something to recondition the 'focus' and help relay a much larger picture.
But still a peice of the pie.


----------



## stchupa (Apr 25, 2006)

It's a swaying, that's a for sure. The foundation has settled and now cracked. The strings are brittle and soon to be broke, the original puppets will be unveiled to themselves.


----------



## Rain_Frog (Apr 27, 2004)

I could see the idea as possible. While humans are an important factor, I find it somewhat hard to believe *everything we're responsible for because in a sense our climate has constantly been warming/thawing in the last several thousand years, and technically we ARE in an interglacial period.

But, I think its more likely we're just adding to the problem, so that's why everything has gone to hell so quickly. I'm not saying humans are NOT responsible, I'm saying we're not responsible for EVERY aspect of global warming.

about what Brent said, there was a while ago a scientist trying to refute birds and dinosaurs being descendants again. However, about a week after that article was published, they discovered microraptor gui that could glide with wings on its feet...


----------



## stchupa (Apr 25, 2006)

> kyle1745 said:
> 
> 
> > Brent,
> ...


 Instead of doing what everything has done up to this point in order to survive, "think for yourself, hope for all, expect nothing and take only what is given".

These 'Lemmings' (Old school, love that game, this might be why) you speak of must be attracted to a slower more excruciating way of dying than say follow the leader off the edge, splllllllAT.



> My main goal in posting this was to throw out other ideas. Id be interested to see information against the article, besides the authors past. As I stated I just think there is more to most things than one simple answer yet human nature is to lock in on one aspect and run with it.


[/quote:29v9kzq3]

I'm not against it, but I'm sure adding a lot of 'crap' to it.


----------



## stchupa (Apr 25, 2006)

Rain_Frog said:


> I could see the idea as possible. While humans are an important factor, I find it somewhat hard to believe *everything we're responsible for because in a sense our climate has constantly been warming/thawing in the last several thousand years, and technically we ARE in an interglacial period.
> 
> But, I think its more likely we're just adding to the problem, so that's why everything has gone to hell so quickly. I'm not saying humans are NOT responsible, I'm saying we're not responsible for EVERY aspect of global warming.
> 
> about what Brent said, there was a while ago a scientist trying to refute birds and dinosaurs being descendants again. However, about a week after that article was published, they discovered microraptor gui that could glide with wings on its feet...


Seems apparent to me, the development, stature and structure are beyond comparable.

Just like how people don't consider how close we are to birds, a branch from the same ancestor (reptilian) that only went two ways (we know of), (mammals)humans; bipedal (ability carried to both not lost, but no tail, interesting?), opposable digits, receeded facial structure (thanks to the hands), clavical.
Now the bird comparison; bipedal as well w/tail for flight/running/turning, ONCE opposable digits (Lost/given in trade for flight ability), no longer usable for grabbing so a beak was adapted/extending to fill that void.
The clavical, truely amazing tool, only developed in primitive birds and aboreal mammals, before then did not exist, that itself dictates a much closer relation than most relize. Could go on with canines being as close as apes/marine/bats as close a apes maybe even better, to a great extent but that's neither here nor there for now.

Dogs have no clavical......................


----------



## stchupa (Apr 25, 2006)

See the catch is, they're not responsible if they don't acknowledge it. 
Doesn't get any less complex than that. You can't make them, do what you know you need to do. If you know you can't second guess it. That's the get away, they need us to take the shot first.


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

bbrock said:


> Sorry for the rant but it gets really difficult to see so much money be spent on research which gets done by incredibly brilliant scientists who have no hidden agendas behind their results only to have that hard work get swept aside by unethical politics and journalism. In the mean time the global ecosystem is going down the drain because the public has been duped into sticking their heads in the sand. The message of science is serious but actually rather hopefully if we, as a society, would only choose to listen.


Ok its 4am and I just got done working on some stuff for work so I hope this makes some sense....

I agree and disagree... Let me explain and try not to come across too harsh. Just because someone finishes 8 years of school does not make them an expert in anything anymore. For example in the IT field I would argue most of what you learn in school is worthless by the time you get out. Now with general sciences this is a bit less true, but there are still many ways to purchase a degree as anyone with the will to make it through can. This is not to say there are not brilliant scientists, but they are like any one else and id say only 5% or less are even close to brilliant. So if 5% are brilliant and the other 95% are not then 95% of the information is not fully thought out or brilliant. This is same with the media or anything. Most information is crap or 1/2 truths. Thats not to say it is not valuable or worthwhile, but that there are 5% of people out there that are too busy to doing other things to make the 1/2 truths what they could be.

I agree the ecosystem maybe going to crap and there are some things we can do about it. I think where we may disagree a bit is that id bet there is just as many things or more that we can't control also having an effect on the ecosystem. This is not to say that we sit back and do nothing, but that it may not be enough in the end. The key is keeping an open mind and an understanding that what we may think is true today could be completely false tomorrow, but if we stop looking we will never know.

The truth is... in the grand scheme of things putting tons of money into the ecosystem is just not the top priority, as we still must protect ourselves from threats that could happen much sooner than later. Like the threat of nuclear war, and etc... The reality is that the ecosystem problems will most likely not threaten my family in their lifetimes, but the other threats in the world could... Again this is not to say we can't do anything, but that in the grand scheme of things there maybe more serious things to worry about. Everything can not be done and utopia will never exist, so what is the happy middle ground? Is there one?


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

Whats to say that if we weren't here something else may not just take our place?



Rain_Frog said:


> I could see the idea as possible. While humans are an important factor, I find it somewhat hard to believe *everything we're responsible for because in a sense our climate has constantly been warming/thawing in the last several thousand years, and technically we ARE in an interglacial period.
> 
> But, I think its more likely we're just adding to the problem, so that's why everything has gone to hell so quickly. I'm not saying humans are NOT responsible, I'm saying we're not responsible for EVERY aspect of global warming.
> 
> about what Brent said, there was a while ago a scientist trying to refute birds and dinosaurs being descendants again. However, about a week after that article was published, they discovered microraptor gui that could glide with wings on its feet...


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

kyle1745 said:


> I agree and disagree... Let me explain and try not to come across too harsh. Just because someone finishes 8 years of school does not make them an expert in anything anymore. For example in the IT field I would argue most of what you learn in school is worthless by the time you get out. Now with general sciences this is a bit less true, but there are still many ways to purchase a degree as anyone with the will to make it through can. This is not to say there are not brilliant scientists, but they are like any one else and id say only 5% or less are even close to brilliant. So if 5% are brilliant and the other 95% are not then 95% of the information is not fully thought out or brilliant. This is same with the media or anything. Most information is crap or 1/2 truths. Thats not to say it is not valuable or worthwhile, but that there are 5% of people out there that are too busy to doing other things to make the 1/2 truths what they could be.


Kyle, I think you are displaying the public's general lack of understanding about how the scientific process works. You are right that scientists are people and that not all are brilliant... believe me not all are brilliant. But scientific reporting is not just some person with a degree spouting their ideas as it may appear by watching the media. The scientific process is about gathering and analyzing data to test hypotheses. Then the results of those tests are published in peer-reviewed journals. It is not easy to publish in a peer-reviewed journal. "Peer-review" means that you submit your manuscript and then, if the editor deams it appropriate (and many are rejected at that point) it goes out to review for demonstrated experts in the field to scrutinize. Reviewers love to tear papers apart and find reasons not to publish them (believe me, it feels good). They use their many years of experience in the field to judge whether the methods are sound, the conclusions are appropriate, and the authors have examined all of the pertinent literature on the subject to put their findings in the correct scientific context. Typically a manuscript is reviewed by a minimum of three people (the editor and 2 reviewers). If the reviewers don't agree on the paper, the editor sends the paper to more reveiwers. The process can take months. The top journals have acceptance rates as low as 5% meaning that 95% of the submitted papers are rejected. So the system has a very high standard of quality control. This tends to separate the brilliant from the not so brilliant. Typically in a scientific field you will see a few scientists consistently publishing the most innovative research in the top journals. These are the brilliant ones. Then the rest of the knowldedge of the field is fleshed out by myriad other scientists working on less innovative bits of the problem and publishing in less prostigious journals. The combined works eventually add up to a very solid understanding of the field if all goes well. 

So you should see that this is a heckuva lot different from political pundits getting on TV and spouting their views. A scientific consensus represents much more than just a few people's opinions. A peer-reviewed publication indicates that at least 4 people with demonstrated expertise in the field agree with the methods and findings of the paper. A scientific consensus is like a massive peer-review of all of the published works. I can think of no other profession with so much quality control to ensure that consensus is not just based on whim and opinion, but on solid, repeatable, and defensible data and analysis.



> I agree the ecosystem maybe going to crap and there are some things we can do about it. I think where we may disagree a bit is that id bet there is just as many things or more that we can't control also having an effect on the ecosystem. This is not to say that we sit back and do nothing, but that it may not be enough in the end. The key is keeping an open mind and an understanding that what we may think is true today could be completely false tomorrow, but if we stop looking we will never know.


This sounds like the rationalization for doing nothing that came about with acid rain. The arguement says that we don't know everything so we shouldn't start trying to fix things until we have ALL the answers. This is an example of captializing on scientific uncertainty. There is always uncertainty so this arguement forms a nice security blanket for folks who want an excuse to do nothing. But even Reagan finally had to admit that acid rain was real and there were reasonable steps to correct the problem. It took Bush I to actually do something about it and the economy didn't crumble as many had predicted.



> The truth is... in the grand scheme of things putting tons of money into the ecosystem is just not the top priority, as we still must protect ourselves from threats that could happen much sooner than later. Like the threat of nuclear war, and etc... The reality is that the ecosystem problems will most likely not threaten my family in their lifetimes, but the other threats in the world could... Again this is not to say we can't do anything, but that in the grand scheme of things there maybe more serious things to worry about. Everything can not be done and utopia will never exist, so what is the happy middle ground? Is there one?


This is the argument that short-term gain (and some would say short-sighted) is more important than long-term stability. I find this to be nonsense. Long-term planning and action is intended to actually save money and lives over the long haul. Putting caps on greenhouse gas emmissions is not going to hobble the economy and it is not going to stop us from fighting boogeymen. Raising the CAFE standards for automobiles isn't going to screw the economy either but it would go far toward spawning new energy efficient technologies, reduce our dependence on oil, and reduce greenhouse gas emmissions in the process. The reason we aren't acting on global warming has nothing to do with choosing between short-term and long-term priorities. It has everything to do with lobbyists running our government. Big industry is running this ship and they are steering us straight toward an ice berg while they line their life boats with gold.


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

bbrock said:


> Kyle, I think you are displaying the public's general lack of understanding about how the scientific process works. You are right that scientists are people and that not all are brilliant... believe me not all are brilliant. But scientific reporting is not just some person with a degree spouting their ideas as it may appear by watching the media. The scientific process is about gathering and analyzing data to test hypotheses. Then the results of those tests are published in peer-reviewed journals. It is not easy to publish in a peer-reviewed journal. "Peer-review" means that you submit your manuscript and then, if the editor deams it appropriate (and many are rejected at that point) it goes out to review for demonstrated experts in the field to scrutinize. Reviewers love to tear papers apart and find reasons not to publish them (believe me, it feels good). They use their many years of experience in the field to judge whether the methods are sound, the conclusions are appropriate, and the authors have examined all of the pertinent literature on the subject to put their findings in the correct scientific context. Typically a manuscript is reviewed by a minimum of three people (the editor and 2 reviewers). If the reviewers don't agree on the paper, the editor sends the paper to more reviewers. The process can take months. The top journals have acceptance rates as low as 5% meaning that 95% of the submitted papers are rejected. So the system has a very high standard of quality control. This tends to separate the brilliant from the not so brilliant. Typically in a scientific field you will see a few scientists consistently publishing the most innovative research in the top journals. These are the brilliant ones. Then the rest of the knowldedge of the field is fleshed out by myriad other scientists working on less innovative bits of the problem and publishing in less prostigious journals. The combined works eventually add up to a very solid understanding of the field if all goes well.
> 
> So you should see that this is a heckuva lot different from political pundits getting on TV and spouting their views. A scientific consensus represents much more than just a few people's opinions. A peer-reviewed publication indicates that at least 4 people with demonstrated expertise in the field agree with the methods and findings of the paper. A scientific consensus is like a massive peer-review of all of the published works. I can think of no other profession with so much quality control to ensure that consensus is not just based on whim and opinion, but on solid, repeatable, and defensible data and analysis.


I have the same problems in my field as being in IT we are just a necessary evil, we rarely get credit or get asked what would be the best solution, but yet are forced to implement and mange poor solutions time and time again thus costing the company millions upon millions. The key thing is that we have become so fast paced that we only worry about tomorrow and not the long term costs or effects. This same problem can be related to the topic at hand.

Thank you for explaining this I did have a rough idea of how it worked but you made a bit more clear.

So lets use the example of global warming and do two groups:

1. A group of scientists set out to find the cause of global warming

2. A group sets out to find the cause of the decline in amphibians.

Group one looks into the common causes for global warming, but the odd ball who may have very valid proof to back up his claim may not get funding due to the extreme nature of his claims or the fact that there are only a hand full of people that can understand it. Having local buddy in the sciences I know this is often the case in getting grants or etc, and that many times your requests are reviewed by people actually unqualified to review it. So we go with the average or censuses, which may not involve all angles do to their lack of popularity or understanding. (this where I feel we are with global warming... yes humans are a problem but no we are not the ONLY problem)

Now take group 2 they are focused on why amphibians populations are in decline. These scientists are mostly biologists, and I would doubt with representation from of sciences, and find a tie to temperature. So back to the global warming, but does not mean humans are directly related to the decline in amphibians. It is very interesting how the change in temperature is related, but thats also not to say that the fungus itself is not evolving as well. Or that there could be many things related to the rise in temperature. Just a thought these areas are also being developed and etc... thus the decline in habitat correct? What happens when you develop an area? You raise the temperatures... Could it be that the global rise in temperature is just directly related to use building so much?


My main point in posting this is that there is more than one cause, and we should look into them all and search for other causes. There is more than meets the eye in most cases and if we stop searching we will never find the truth.



> This sounds like the rationalization for doing nothing that came about with acid rain. The arguement says that we don't know everything so we shouldn't start trying to fix things until we have ALL the answers. This is an example of captializing on scientific uncertainty. There is always uncertainty so this arguement forms a nice security blanket for folks who want an excuse to do nothing. But even Reagan finally had to admit that acid rain was real and there were reasonable steps to correct the problem. It took Bush I to actually do something about it and the economy didn't crumble as many had predicted.


Just to make things clear, im not saying we should not do anything but explaining that there is only so much money and other things may take precedence. Things like http://www.fairtax.org/ and etc will need to happen before there can be enough $$ to go around. There is extremely too much waste in our spending and the sciences almost always suffer. Just killing the IRS alone would save us tons of money!



> This is the argument that short-term gain (and some would say short-sighted) is more important than long-term stability. I find this to be nonsense. Long-term planning and action is intended to actually save money and lives over the long haul. Putting caps on greenhouse gas emmissions is not going to hobble the economy and it is not going to stop us from fighting boogeymen. Raising the CAFE standards for automobiles isn't going to screw the economy either but it would go far toward spawning new energy efficient technologies, reduce our dependence on oil, and reduce greenhouse gas emmissions in the process. The reason we aren't acting on global warming has nothing to do with choosing between short-term and long-term priorities. It has everything to do with lobbyists running our government. Big industry is running this ship and they are steering us straight toward an ice berg while they line their life boats with gold.


As much as I may not sound like it I completely agree.. We must get these big corporations as far away from the government as possible. If you have never worked a larger corporation, believe me these people not have a clue, and they are running our government as inefficiently as they do the larger companies.

People can change this by voting out the morons, and voting for extreme changes on how political figures get funding. It is my opinion that each candidate should receive funding from no place other than a general public pool and each should get the same amount. NO funding at all should be allowed to come from large corperations.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

kyle1745 said:


> Group one looks into the common causes for global warming, but the odd ball who may have very valid proof to back up his claim may not get funding due to the extreme nature of his claims or the fact that there are only a hand full of people that can understand it. Having local buddy in the sciences I know this is often the case in getting grants or etc, and that many times your requests are reviewed by people actually unqualified to review it. So we go with the average or censuses, which may not involve all angles do to their lack of popularity or understanding. (this where I feel we are with global warming... yes humans are a problem but no we are not the ONLY problem)


This makes it sound like the scientific process is rigged which has not been my experience. In my experience, if you have good ideas for research and use sound methods to explore the proposed questions, you can get funding. Yes, it does help to know people and yes, personal rivalries do develop to the point where one group can make it difficult for another. This is both good and bad but mostly good because it makes darn sure that scientists proposing new work have dotted all their i's and crossed all their t's. But I have not witnessed anything that comes anywhere close to the censureship that you seem to be suggesting. The point I'm trying to make is that science thrives on controversy and differences of oppinion. It is by exploring all of these differences that allows "facts" as we understand them to emmerge.



> Now take group 2 they are focused on why amphibians populations are in decline. These scientists are mostly biologists, and I would doubt with representation from of sciences, and find a tie to temperature. So back to the global warming, but does not mean humans are directly related to the decline in amphibians. It is very interesting how the change in temperature is related, but thats also not to say that the fungus itself is not evolving as well. Or that there could be many things related to the rise in temperature. Just a thought these areas are also being developed and etc... thus the decline in habitat correct? What happens when you develop an area? You raise the temperatures... Could it be that the global rise in temperature is just directly related to use building so much?


It's been months since I read the Nature paper but, from my recollection, this doesn't characterize the paper well at all. What the paper says is that the best scenario they could come up with to explain ALL of the observed lines of evidence is that warming increases evaporation of the oceans, increasing cloud cover, and DECREASING daytime temperatures in the cloud forests while also creating an increased cloud blanket that holds warmth at night. The result is humid, moderated temperatures favorable for the fungus to grow. In a nutshell, the authors are saying that this is the only scenario they can find that fits the data and the scenario seems to fit very well. It is up to other researchers to try to devise a scenario that does a better job of explaining the observed chytrid outbreaks (which are happening far from human developments). This is only one of the latest in an enormous body of literature all pointing to the same general conclusions. I don't recall the authors making any inferences about the ultimate cause of global warming. But there is plenty of published research available pointing to humans as a significant factor.



> My main point in posting this is that there is more than one cause, and we should look into them all and search for other causes. There is more than meets the eye in most cases and if we stop searching we will never find the truth.


My main point is that science has been searching for all of these different causes for a long time. Sure, we need to keep searching and understanding but we have learned enough already to know there are certain things we could be doing to help. At this point I think it would be a first in science if we magically found evidence that global climate change has nothing to do with burning fossil fuels afterall.



> Just to make things clear, im not saying we should not do anything but explaining that there is only so much money and other things may take precedence. Things like http://www.fairtax.org/ and etc will need to happen before there can be enough $$ to go around. There is extremely too much waste in our spending and the sciences almost always suffer. Just killing the IRS alone would save us tons of money!


This is not an issue of affordability. It is an issue of political priority. The government responsibility in this is largely to provide real leadership and set some regulartory standards that are for the good of all. Yes, the polluting industries are going to feel the pinch but at the same time, new industries are already emmerging to solve the greenhouse gas emmissions problems. And beyond regulation, real leadership by the government would instill a new social ethic in the world that re-evaluates priorities and places a premium on a safe and sustainable global ecosystem. I good start would be to reinvent economic policies that are based on the myth that economies are not constrained by the ability of ecosystems to provide raw materials. It's not about money.



> People can change this by voting out the morons, and voting for extreme changes on how political figures get funding. It is my opinion that each candidate should receive funding from no place other than a general public pool and each should get the same amount. NO funding at all should be allowed to come from large corperations.


This I agree with completely. It's funny that we are faced with the task of cleaning up the same mess that the great trust buster Teddy Roosevelt led the charge against at the turn of the last century.


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

> This is not an issue of affordability. It is an issue of political priority. The government responsibility in this is largely to provide real leadership and set some regulartory standards that are for the good of all. Yes, the polluting industries are going to feel the pinch but at the same time, new industries are already emmerging to solve the greenhouse gas emmissions problems. And beyond regulation, real leadership by the government would instill a new social ethic in the world that re-evaluates priorities and places a premium on a safe and sustainable global ecosystem. I good start would be to reinvent economic policies that are based on the myth that economies are not constrained by the ability of ecosystems to provide raw materials. It's not about money.


I would disagree with this a bit based on some of my other statements. Our companies are ran so poorly that any minor additional cost causes a problem. I would also argue that its all about money... More things are directly related to money or money changing hands than not. More could be done, more should be done, and more won't be done until we stop the BS in our government. This is not a democrat or republican thing, this is a who we elect thing. This is learning that the president really is not he problem, but that the worthless congress men are. What really sucks is that you almost have to vote for the lessor of 2 evils as they all suck.

I just read a article a few days ago on how they added a minor change to bill, which ended up banning Internet gambling in the US, now there is just a few tax dollars thrown away, not to mention the IT jobs supporting those systems. There have also been a number of cases where congressmen have all got together and put a bunch of things into one law or tacked on to another law just to meet all of their agendas. Many of them don't even read the whole thing or even show up to vote on them... 

Also remember our industry is just about gone, and we have very little control over countries like China and etc who are just now beginning to get started with their industry.

Not to beat a dead horse but I really think the additional building in other countries has to play a part. It may not be all of the problem, but other countries are building cities over night, and all that pavement has to contribute on a global level. Just in the rain forests alone the deforestation has to play a big part in the local climate. Cities also influence the evaporation rate which then adjusts the clouds and etc...


----------



## Rain_Frog (Apr 27, 2004)

as far as the human responsibility side,

I think one problem that is under-addressed is the fact that Earth is getting a little too crowded. On the positive side, populations tend to level out and equal the birth and death rate in developed countries like the United states. I have my doubts if the population was much smaller that our pollution would be enough to tip the balance, but now its a major problem. Earth cannot keep up.

The main issue with conservation right now in the US is that so many retired folks want to live near the ocean which has led to draining of the bogs and marshes.

Because of China and India, we already know the situation with oil, since about 1/4 of the world population live in those countries. This is probably why the warming trend has been the most problematic in the last couple of decades as China has rapidly modernized. 

From taking Chinese class in highschool, communism is on its deathbed and sooner or later china will probably be fully capitalist. 

The positive side to the modernization of both China and India is that, like I mentioned, most likely the populations will stabilize and less deforestation. And with better technology and education, surely they'll find solutions to some of the problem of pollution and other issues.

On the negative side, in order to modernize, forests, rivers, etc. have to be diverted or cut down like the Three Gorges Damn, which has caused major issues with the ecosystem. And all the pollution from factories and all the new automobiles instead of bicycles is definitely fueling global warming which is part of the whole "humans are responsible theory."

The harsh reality though, things are going to get much worse before they get better. It will still be another 10 years before hydrogen cars (if they ever are fully devloped) eventually take over, but we will still be dependable on gasoline, so most likely we'd have to have a hybrid vehicle to bridge the gap.

A little off topic, but, what about our trash and landfill? Some islands in Japan are simply mounds of trash.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Rain_Frog said:


> Because of China and India, we already know the situation with oil, since about 1/4 of the world population live in those countries. This is probably why the warming trend has been the most problematic in the last couple of decades as China has rapidly modernized.


I don't think I would blame China too quickly. The U.S. is still the number one producer of greenhouse gas emmissions and when you consider the population of the US, the per capita contribution to global climate change by the US is pretty staggering. Yes, population is the ultimate problem but our greedy overconsumption is a huge issue. Did you know that the largest single use of electricity in the country is used to produce nitrogen fertilizer? And a large amount of that fertilizer is used to do nothing more than grow green lawns that look like astro turf and grow grain to make cattle fat. It is unnecessary consumption. Think of all the unneeded mercury vapor lights, hot tubs, heated car seats, and other ridiculous luxuries that contribute to our per capita consumption of fossil fuels and add to greenhouse gas emmissions. This is why I scoff at the idea that this is mainly a money problem. Just think what could be done if, as a society, we placed a value on not unnecessarily consuming. But, of course, it takes leadership to do that.


----------



## stchupa (Apr 25, 2006)

kyle1745 said:


> bbrock said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry for the rant but it gets really difficult to see so much money be spent on research which gets done by incredibly brilliant scientists who have no hidden agendas behind their results only to have that hard work get swept aside by unethical politics and journalism. In the mean time the global ecosystem is going down the drain because the public has been duped into sticking their heads in the sand. The message of science is serious but actually rather hopefully if we, as a society, would only choose to listen.
> ...


College or any education for that matter is a deffinate gamble. Most people that 'pay' to be taught a specialized task never get into that feild and end up settling or re-purposing themselves. Doctors and lawers are a great example, because they are such popular and high paying careers in the mind of grade schoolers.

But for those who get lucky, great.




> I agree the ecosystem maybe going to crap and there are some things we can do about it. I think where we may disagree a bit is that id bet there is just as many things or more that we can't control also having an effect on the ecosystem. This is not to say that we sit back and do nothing, but that it may not be enough in the end. The key is keeping an open mind and an understanding that what we may think is true today could be completely false tomorrow, but if we stop looking we will never know.
> 
> The truth is... in the grand scheme of things putting tons of money into the ecosystem is just not the top priority, as we still must protect ourselves from threats that could happen much sooner than later. Like the threat of nuclear war, and etc... The reality is that the ecosystem problems will most likely not threaten my family in their lifetimes, but the other threats in the world could... Again this is not to say we can't do anything, but that in the grand scheme of things there maybe more serious things to worry about. Everything can not be done and utopia will never exist, so what is the happy middle ground? Is there one?


[/quote]

Keep in mind world famine is now here. We were barely ahead of ourselves before. 

We don't have to constatly teater on the edge of destruction and expect a smooth never ending ride.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

stchupa said:


> Keep in mind world famine is now here. We were barely ahead of ourselves before.


I think the problems with famine are more of a poverty problem than a food shortage. We are actually over producing food. That's why over have of the grain grown in this country is used to feed livestock instead of people and why we are actually raising corn so we can let it rot and put the alcohol in our cars so we can drive to the beach on the weekend. Of course the cost of over producing food creates soil erosion, pesticide runoff, and water depletion but hey, why not live large?

According to E.O. Wilson (who I believe was quoting the World Bank), it is estimated the world population will peak at about 9 billion and then will begin to fall. Believe it or not, we can actually produce enough food to feed 9 billion people without trashing the earth. But in a free market economy, the food goes to the highest bidder so distribution remains a problem.


----------



## joshsfrogs (May 6, 2004)

Brent took it this direction first....

One aid organization (World Vision) says that every day 29,000 people die from starvation and related causes. And I have also heard that the world creates enough food to feed the world over 5 times. Waste, misuse, greed, etc. cause 29,000 people to die every day.

I think it is irresponsible to place the blame for these deaths anywhere except with us rich folks (owning a home and a car puts you in the 85th percentile as far as world-wide wealth).


----------



## npaull (May 8, 2005)

> Group one looks into the common causes for global warming, but the odd ball who may have very valid proof to back up his claim may not get funding due to the extreme nature of his claims or the fact that there are only a hand full of people that can understand it. Having local buddy in the sciences I know this is often the case in getting grants or etc, and that many times your requests are reviewed by people actually unqualified to review it. So we go with the average or censuses, which may not involve all angles do to their lack of popularity or understanding. (this where I feel we are with global warming... yes humans are a problem but no we are not the ONLY problem)


Kyle I know that bbrock addressed this, but I thought I'd make a few additional comments ... this hypothetical situation more or less flies in the face of how the scientific establishment generally works. In fact, a casual perusal of major scientific discoveries in the last hundred years shows that the opposite is true - revolutionary, weird, and often counterintuitive discoveries are the Holy Grail of science, PROVIDED the standards of evidence for the proposed theories are solid.

Off the top of my head, take general and specific relativity, quantum mechanics, quantum tunneling, neutrinos and cosmic rays, electromagnetism, plate tectonics, the periodic reversibility of Earth's magnetic pole, the fact that all elements heavier than iron are only created in supernovae, the discovery of pulsars and quasars, the theory of black holes, advances in genetics and molecular evolution (and its relationship to speciation events) and the fairly recent proof of Fermat's last theorem in mathematics.

ALL of these discoveries (and there are thousands more) are stunning, reovlutionary in their fields, generally counterintuitive, and many if not all defied conventions and beliefs of their time. What's important about these discoveries, however, is that the evidence in their favor is overwhelming and stands up to repeated interrogation and re-experimentation.

It's not that scientists, as a body, can't handle bizarre or unconventional ideas. In point of fact, every scientist dreams of making such a revolutionary discovery. Rather, the evidence has to be good enough to convince colleagues.

Einstein's relativity was NOT widely liked at first - but no one could prove him wrong, and countless experiments have since proved him right.

This simple characteristic - robustness of evidence - is the element lacking in the generally ignorant and unexplored arguments of creationists, Holocaust deniers, thousand-year Universe proponents, psychics, and a host of other bogus claims veiled thinly with scientific jargon, but lacking entirely the methods and evaluation of science. They aren't "fringe" or "mystical" beliefs beause science won't listen - in fact, their positions have been evaluated, and the evidence isn't there, again and again.

I'm not labeling you as any of the above, please note. In fact it's obvious that your interest in and grasp of science goes way beyond the extreme examples I've used to illustrate my point. But for those not directly involved in the process of the formation of scientific knowledge and theory, it is easy to forget a simple fact: The "scientific establishment" exists not so much because scientists like to build, but because some explanations, no matter how crazy, just can't be torn down.


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

Thanks for the post and I do agree, but would say there is a difference between a new ground breaking idea, and something that goes against the grain or against the norm. I would bet that more theories go unproven than proven just due to our lack of understanding of some related topic, technology, and or time. I think your explanation also proves my point a bit.

If a biologist finds that a fungus is killing amphibians due to a rise in temperature, are they fully qualified to dig into the actual reasons for the change n temperature? Or was an astrologer, geologist, and a few others I can not think of the names for included?

The interesting thing about the sciences is how much we don't know, but this also is its downfall in some cases. We claim things are proven and the reality is we may have only skimmed the surface. So back to my over all point that I agree, but can guarantee we have not figured the reason of global warming completely out, and mostly will not in my life time or my kids lifetimes.


----------



## npaull (May 8, 2005)

> but would say there is a difference between a new ground breaking idea, and something that goes against the grain or against the norm. I would bet that more theories go unproven than proven just due to our lack of understanding of some related topic, technology, and or time. I think your explanation also proves my point a bit.


There is a difference between breaking new ground and going against the grain, but both happen ALL THE TIME in science. Plate tectonics was absolutely, 100% against the accepted body of geological knowledge at the time it was introduced. So, of course, was evolution. So was the idea that DNA, with only four nucleotide bases, was the "code" of life (rather than the more diverse world of protein). Recently, studies indicate that RNA, not DNA may really be the "grandfather" molecule of life (the first to evolve) which would have almost been anathema a decade or so ago. And of course, nothing has ever been more against the grain than Einstein's idea that time is not constant. Your thesis about science avoiding "going against the grain" is unsupported by practically all available evidence.



> If a biologist finds that a fungus is killing amphibians due to a rise in temperature, are they fully qualified to dig into the actual reasons for the change n temperature? Or was an astrologer, geologist, and a few others I can not think of the names for included?


No they are not. But is this what the paper discussed? A biologist is certainly qualified to correlate an observed fact (decrease in amphibian biodiversity) with another observed fact (increased temperature, for example). A hypothesis can be offered on the causal relationship between the two. A biologist who went on to theorize about the causes of the warming (rather than its relationship to biological phenomena) would be out of his league. I doubt this ocurred in a peer-reviewed journal. If it did, it represents a serious editorial error that should be corrected.



> The interesting thing about the sciences is how much we don't know, but this also is its downfall in some cases. We claim things are proven and the reality is we may have only skimmed the surface. So back to my over all point that I agree, but can guarantee we have not figured the reason of global warming completely out, and mostly will not in my life time or my kids lifetimes.


Science is all about what we don't know, but the above comment points out another popular fallacy about science. Science NEVER claims things are proven beyond any doubt. You will never read a scientist saying "this experiment proves beyond any doubt that xyz..." The strongest positions taken on a topic are "this provides strong evidence that" or "this is highly consistent with the theory that" or "this supports the hypothesis that." Society, seeing and experiencing the predictive power of scientific theories, ascribes to them the words fact, proof, and certainty.

Nothing in science is known completely. Not one single thing. So to say global warming "isn't understood completely" is a meaningless and escapists statement (I understand that your position is not one of escapism). But there is no end to the things of which your progeny and mine, for countless generations, will live and die in ignorance. All we can do is the best we can, with the best we have, while continuing to improve both with rigorous scientific inquiry.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Okay, here is the abstract of the article (I can't find my pdf) and the list of author affiliations. Notice the number of authors affiliated with earth sciences and climate studies A.K.A. not biologists.

Nature 439, 161-167 (12 January 2006) | doi:10.1038/nature04246

Widespread amphibian extinctions from epidemic disease driven by global warming
J. Alan Pounds1, Martín R. Bustamante2, Luis A. Coloma2, Jamie A. Consuegra3, Michael P. L. Fogden1, Pru N. Foster4,12, Enrique La Marca5, Karen L. Masters6, Andrés Merino-Viteri2, Robert Puschendorf7, Santiago R. Ron2,8, G. Arturo Sánchez-Azofeifa9, Christopher J. Still10 and Bruce E. Young11

Top of pageAbstractAs the Earth warms, many species are likely to disappear, often because of changing disease dynamics. Here we show that a recent mass extinction associated with pathogen outbreaks is tied to global warming. Seventeen years ago, in the mountains of Costa Rica, the Monteverde harlequin frog (Atelopus sp.) vanished along with the golden toad (Bufo periglenes). An estimated 67% of the 110 or so species of Atelopus, which are endemic to the American tropics, have met the same fate, and a pathogenic chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) is implicated. Analysing the timing of losses in relation to changes in sea surface and air temperatures, we conclude with 'very high confidence' (> 99%, following the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC) that large-scale warming is a key factor in the disappearances. We propose that temperatures at many highland localities are shifting towards the growth optimum of Batrachochytrium, thus encouraging outbreaks. With climate change promoting infectious disease and eroding biodiversity, the urgency of reducing greenhouse-gas concentrations is now undeniable.

Top of pageGolden Toad Laboratory for Conservation, Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve and Tropical Science Center, Santa Elena, Puntarenas 5655-73, Costa Rica 
Museo de Zoología, Centro de Biodiversidad y Ambiente, Escuela de Biología, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Avenida 12 de Octubre 1076 y Roca, Apartado 17-01-2184, Quito, Ecuador 
Department of Environmental Science, Barnard College, Columbia University, 3009 Broadway, New York, New York 10027, USA 
Center for Climate Studies Research, University of Tokyo, Kombaba, 4-6-1, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-8904, Japan 
Laboratorio de Biogeografía, Escuela de Geografía, Facultad de Ciencias Forestales y Ambientales, Universidad de Los Andes, Apartado 116, Mérida 5101-A, Venezuela 
Council for International Educational Exchange, Monteverde, Puntarenas 5655-26, Costa Rica 
Escuela de Biología, Universidad de Costa Rica, San Pedro, Costa Rica 
Texas Memorial Museum and Department of Integrative Biology, University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712, USA 
Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E3, Canada 
Department of Geography, 3611 Ellison Hall, University of California at Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California 93106, USA 
NatureServe, Monteverde, Puntarenas 5655-75, Costa Rica 
†Present address: Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Wills Memorial Building, Queen's Road, Bristol BS8 1RJ, UK 
Correspondence to: J. Alan Pounds1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to J.A.P. (Email: [email protected]).

Received 2 June 2005; Accepted 21 September 2005


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

npaul,


> Your thesis about science avoiding "going against the grain" is unsupported by practically all available evidence.


I think there is a bit more to this as some things against the grain have a very hard time getting funding in many cases. At least so I hear... Also as stated it takes a consensus for most things to take off and thats tough to do when maybe only a handful of people int he world understand the idea. This is the case with many of the astrological theories from what I have heard.

brent,


> With climate change promoting infectious disease and eroding biodiversity, the urgency of reducing greenhouse-gas concentrations is now undeniable.


This too me almost comes across as just thrown in, but I also do not have the whole paper so maybe they go into it more. From the quote though there is no information backing up the statement that greenhouse-gas is directly related. 

Im sure it plays a part but i'd argue there is absolutely no way at this time to prove it is the only cause and I really think some investigation should be done in those regions to see if the development of the areas alone is equally if not more related.

All in all, does the world needs to do a better job of controlling these things? YES, of course we do... are all of those methods as easy as some say? NO, But that does not mean we should not try or that we should not stop looking for other causes as well.


----------



## stchupa (Apr 25, 2006)

kyle1745 said:


> brent,
> 
> 
> > With climate change promoting infectious disease and eroding biodiversity, the urgency of reducing greenhouse-gas concentrations is now undeniable.
> ...


That has quite a bit of validity to it, in the fact that it doesn't just take 'disease' to spread 'disease'.

Not only that but as things begin to 'mingle' in climatic relation the fuana moves with it. Killer bees are a good example of this, they're nearly creeping up my doorstep.

Then other things that don't belong. Imagine seeing a biblical plague of 'bots' in the wrong place, like here with an as of yet untapped/immense food supply (i.e. you me and every other living mammal). 

All that needs to happen is a slight (less than we've already had) increase in temp and they'll be up here right along with the bees and all the other nasties and the **** they carry; malaria, typhoid, yellow fever.

Then all the 'potential' unknowns that threaten us (as people think not of them and are ill prepared for it)that'll only be relized once they're hear.

The band us widening and diversity is losing.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

kyle1745 said:


> npaul,
> I think there is a bit more to this as some things against the grain have a very hard time getting funding in many cases. At least so I hear... Also as stated it takes a consensus for most things to take off and thats tough to do when maybe only a handful of people int he world understand the idea. This is the case with many of the astrological theories from what I have heard.


Kyle, I'm telling you that I've been in this science racket a long time and this simply has not been my observation. I hear these reports of failure to fund things because they go against current dogma in the popular press. But I have never seen an actual example. What we've been saying is that science LIKES to fund research that goes against the grain. If the research is well thought out and based upon sound scientific methodology, it is actually MORE likely to be funded if it challenges traditional scientific consensus.

On the other hand, political biases HAVE influenced how science is funded. But even here I think the effects have been over exagerated. But Presidents have been known to pull little strings within their power to attempt to de-emphasize funding for things they don't happen to like. The most aggregious example has to be stem cell research where the blockage of funding is very blatant and purely driven by politics.

And I would say that many break throughs are actually lines of evidence that overturn long standing ideas. In other words, they go against the grain. For a long time special creation was the accepted scientific explaination for the distribution of species around the planet. The reason that some species were found here and not over there despite similar habitats and climate was believed because God chose to create these species here and not over there. That was the grain. To go against is was not only contradicting scientific tradition, but was also sacrelidge. But then along came Alfred Wallace and Charles Darwin with literally shiploads of evidence in support of a new way of thinking. Man was the scientific world pissed but what could they do? The scientific process won the day.



> [quote:8xp2dqs1]With climate change promoting infectious disease and eroding biodiversity, the urgency of reducing greenhouse-gas concentrations is now undeniable.


This too me almost comes across as just thrown in, but I also do not have the whole paper so maybe they go into it more. From the quote though there is no information backing up the statement that greenhouse-gas is directly related. [/quote:8xp2dqs1]

I don't think they are saying anything different from you. You admit you aren't suggesting we should do nothing. They are acknowledging that the current consensus about global climate change is that greenhouse gases are making a significant contribution to the phenomena. Of all the possible causes of global climate change, this is the one thing we can do something about. I should also probably point out to people not use to reading scientific papers what the abstract is. The abstract is a short (limited by the number of words allowed by the journal) synopsis of the key points of the paper. In a very small space, the authors have to very briefly state what they did, what they found, and why it is important. You can be sure that their discussion about greenhouse gases in the full text is backed with citations.


----------



## stchupa (Apr 25, 2006)

The obvious requires the most rediculous substantiation and by then, to late. The only real flaw in our survivability.


----------



## elmoisfive (Dec 31, 2004)

Before I responded to this thread, I took the opportunity to go back and read the Nature paper again and also dived into the supplementary material. It’s a pretty impressive piece of analysis with the authors carefully pulling together multiple threads of evidence associated with both global and local climate changes, timing of key population declines, impact of altitude on population susceptibility, potential role of macroscopic weather patterns such as El Nino and the presence of Batrachochytridium dendrobatidis in amphibian populations both prior to and during the actual decline event.

Putting aside for the moment the question of what is driving global warming, this study offers very compelling evidence that rapid amphibian declines are strongly correlated with climate change. As Brent has indicated, the document is extensively annotated from a citation perspective. I found the supplementary material to be just as interesting as the main text as well and the supplementary material contains 40 additional references to complement the 50 found in the full length paper. 

Not something easily distilled into a 30 second news clip on TV news or even encapsulated in a message on the DB. Read the full paper (and the supplementary materials) and draw your own conclusions. 

Bill


----------

