leejo

Whatever. I think you guys and these scientists are picking a silly fight given the actual nature of these edits, which either improve the original or represent a slight tweak in tone with an eye toward how the politicians in the Senate will use and/or misrepresent the document. Where is the fundamental alteration of fact? Show me one of those and I might agree.

Beatnik hates Bush and is inclined to throw his arms up in disgust with little provocation. I don't know about you. But I think that politics play a huge role in how one feels about this matter, and that includes these so-called objective scientists' concern. Their vast experience and expertise does not make them any more capable of speaking to the press or communicating with the Senate. For example, I have worked with hundreds of talented software developers and I'd only let a very few speak directly to a customer I wanted to keep.

For my vote I'm happy with the current policy of oversight with regard to public statements. Provided that oversight doesn't materially alter their findings, I have no problem with a lawyer reading these docs and changing "will" to "likely". And I don't believe for a second that these guys aren't advocating a policy.

Again if they'll take the leejo challenge and tell me within 3 degrees what NY City's average temp will be in 5 years, then I'll be happy to listen to their assertions about how the arctic will be doing in 50. Until then, I'm glad *someone*, be it a lawyer or a janitor, is changing "will" to "may".

Diceman

Me? I'm just anti-leejo! (kidding!)
Well, both of our positions seems clear on the issue, so I'll say no more. I think we're both probably pretty good at agreeing to disagree.
I'm doing the All-Bran challenge right now. Can I take the leejo challenge in 30 days?

__________________

[drill][medic][conduct][tg-c1][tpf-c1]
[ma-c2][taw-c1]

Beatnik

Most of the edits made were detailed earlier. Again, please show me an opinion that was edited.

Also, please show me a mention of SUVs, or ANY political statement made in the reports I've cited that I've apparently ignored.

__________________

Beatnik

Sorry buddy but your assertions are way out of line.

A. Beatnik does not hate Bush. Beatnik thinks Bush is incompetent and in a bubble, but he doesn't hate him. Beatnik would most likely have a good time with Bush back in the day before he got a DUI and became Born Again. What I throw my arms up in disgust at is the smiling complacency of people not unlike yourself at continued and significant efforts of the administration to hoodwink us.

B. Beatnik does not confuse the person with the issue (the famous ad hominem fallacy). None of my statements made previous in this thread have attacked Bush, rather they referenced the policy of editing analysis. None of my statements have attacked you, rather your assertions and opinions on this topic.

C. If you can demonstrate the lobbyist's expertise in environmental climatology and how exactly that qualifies him to make those edits, go right ahead.

"For my vote I'm happy with the current policy of oversight with regard to public statements."

D. Public statements and scientific findings are not the same thing. I don't know how that keeps coming back into your assertions.

Again, we come back to the olden tyme saying of arguing on the internet. Even if you win, you're still a loser.

Let's agree to disagree once again. I feel I've adequately provided factual citations behind my point of view. And, like all political discussions, on the internet or otherwise, not a single person participating, or simply reading along, has changed their mind. Hi ho.

__________________

leejo

A. Sorry. You are inclined to interpret information in a way that is least flattering to President Bush.
B. You make ad hominem attacks all the time. Beatnik says Bush watches Fox as if that means anything at all on its face. You don't like Bush or Fox, and that's fine, but don't think it means jack.
C. I can't directly, but my father is a lawyer whose career has basically been spent challenging expert witnesses and separating their assertions from actual fact, so I know it's possible for a trained attorney who has specialized in an area of study to recognize when a scientist is telling the truth or offering opinion. The edits that Mr. Cooney made were of that nature. You show me where they were not merely separating fact from opinion.
D. Public statements and scientific findings most certainly are not the same thing. My point is that when a document leaves a federal department and heads to the Senate, it has ceased to be merely a scientific finding and has become a public statement. These PAB scientists have chosen to get their panties in a wad instead of trying to partner with their attorney coworkers. That's their problem, IMO.

I think a government employee who runs to the press every time his boss changes a word or two in a document is a little bitch, and you don't.


So yeah, let's agree to disagree.

AMosely

It's not the alteration of fact - it's the omission of scientific postulation with regard to climate change. Bush's administration doesn't like government scientists to speculate, mention, or discuss anything along the lines of global warming. As a taxpaying citizen, I want to hear what these scientists have to say about their research because it impacts my health and the health of the planet. I don't want the government covering this up.

Please don't trivialize this issue because you fail to see the importance of it.

Climatology is not meterology. At issue here is not a 3-5 degree farenheight change in NYC's climate - at least this isn't what scientists are focusing on and trying to write about. At issue is the rapid melting of the polar ice caps and the effect that will have on the Earth's climate and the species it supports - including humans. If you are one who believes in the inter-connectedness of the Earth's living systems, these issues are of great concern. If you only care about how much more electricity you'll need to run your air-conditioner, then you probably only care about the temperature in your town. I would argue that the latter is short-sighted and selfish.

Caring for the Earth should be part of every human's value system, and understanding its fragile nature should be a part of every person's education. This planet is what gives us life, and it can just as easily take it away. If someone who has devoted their professional life to studying the Earth's natural (and unnatural) systems believes their findings indicate something "will" happen and write it as such - I take great issue with an unqualified political appointee changing that to "may" simply based on political (or other) belief. Science - and most especially Earth science - is not at all the place for political spin.

Beatnik

Again, you provide no examples of me making ad hominem attacks "all the time". Let's first examine the definition of an ad hominem attack, from wikipedia:

Cite one example where I've ever used that argument, due to something objectionable about Bush, his policy is false or unjust. This quote unfortunately does not qualify:

Here is a better example of ad hominem attack, taken from this thread:

Using that statement as a means to discredit the content of the assertions made in his NY Times Op-Ed is, by the definition above, an ad hominem attack.

This is all off topic, but it bears saying that I take great care to stick to facts, use citations, and focus on issues. I'll also call out fallacious arguments, or simply rhetorical arguments with no factual citations, when I see it.

Nothing personal to you Leejo. We both feel very strongly and take almost polar opposite views of these issues. But I do not engage in rhetorical games or fallacious arguements to prove my point.

__________________

GhostintheShell

Mosely, that post was very passionate, but IMO misguided.

If you dig a bit you will find that not all that many scientists fully support the idea of global warming. I would be surprised if even 50% of them fully supported it, other than due to political pressure. A good portion theorise that we are headed into another eventual ice age in the constant cyclic changes that this planet goes through. The polar ice caps may be shrinking, but no one has explanation for other contrarian phenomenon such as the fact that many glaciers are actually growing while many other are shrinking. The predictions they are making are really no better than the predictions of the length of womens skirts a thousand summers from now.

I agree it is important and prudent for everyone to think of the consequences of their actions on a global scale but there is no globle warming crisis, there is no overpopulation crisis, there is no carbon dioxide crisis, there is no acid rain crisis.....you can pretty much apply this statement to every latest fad crisis the news media digs up. Personally I'm most afraid of the coming global banana shortages. (You don't know my kids appetite for banana's.)

What you have to bear in mind is that the planet will keep spinning until the theoretical universe collapse. It may get p.o.'d at us and slough off a few million of us every few thousand years but there is little to nada we can do about that anyway.

__________________
Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter.
Ernest Hemingway, "On the Blue Water," Esquire, April 1936

tau_neutrino

All of the professors I've had at UT as well as my supervisors and post-doc coworkers support the idea of global warming. The peer-reviewed journals I've read indicate that scientists are taking the idea very seriously.

The questions the scientific community are asking are:
1. Are the increases in temperature the result of human activities, part of Earth's natural cycle, or a combination of both?
2. To what extent are human activites influencing the abiotic environment?
3. What effect(s) will rapid changes induced by global warming have on the abiotic environment -- and ultimately, the biotic environment?
4. If human activities play a significant factor, what can we as a civilization do about it?

The evidence we have so far indicates a rapid and relatively large increase in average global air and water temperatures over the past few decades. IIRC from my ecology class a few years ago, some symptoms do not manifest themselves for a long time, and some will persist (e.g. CFC decay time).

__________________



TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

CingularDuality

I'm wondering why this hasn't gotten more press... It's certainly disturbing to me, too. I <3 banana pudding!

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

GhostintheShell

The evidence I have provided in this very thread, shows this to be untrue. There has not been a rapid increase in air or water temperature measurements over the last 50 years. I do not interpret those numbers as rapid or alarming, or a crisis.

Many people "support" the idea of global warming without actually knowing much about it. I'd bet if you did a poll on the street/campus or wherever you want you would be hard pressed to find very many people haven't bought into the idea. Many scientists are afraid to even voice their opinions against the theory of global warming due to ridicule. IMO this is sort of the eugenics of the 21st century.

__________________
Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter.
Ernest Hemingway, "On the Blue Water," Esquire, April 1936

tau_neutrino

How do you explain the accelerated rate of ice cap melting and glacier breakup? We also have data in the form of tree rings, coral, and bubbles trapped in ice core samples.

Here is a table showing the levels of atmospheric CO2 concentrations from 1958 to 2004: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/maunaloa.co2
Their methods and references: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm
More sources:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984Sci...225.1019L
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/online/doe/doe.html
http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/324237a0
http://www.c-ciarn.ca/app/filereposi...5DC8803E3A.pdf


*note: may need a subscription or internet connection from an academic and/or research institution to access full articles

I've tried to select links that are available

If you use google scholar (scholar.google.com) you can find many such sites and journals with detailed analyses on the issues at hand. The sheer amount of literature dedicated to the subject is vast and growing every day.

I'm not going try to convince anyone that global warming is true. It's up to the individual to read the sources and reports from those who are directly involved in studying it to make the decision for themselves.

__________________



TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Steeler

Counterspin: Many people "deny" the idea of global warming without actually knowing much about it.

__________________

AMosely

This is true, without even having to dig. I should point out that I am attempting to argue the point regardless of human impact to climate change because of a lack of concrete evidence. My main point in this thread is that this is far too important a subject for the government (or anyone) to politicize by altering scientific study and writing.

These may not be crises, but they are definitely not 'fads.' Low-rise jeans are a fad. These are complex environmental changes in our ecosystem, any of which may have a profound impact on all life on Earth.

I think that you are misguided here - the problem with the media is that by hyping issues that many people don't research on their own, they often provoke an attitude of dismissal, like the boy who cried wolf. Calling these changes 'crises' is a matter of taste and opinion, but all of them are serious issues facing the Earth's ecosystems today, and it is quite ignorant to claim that they are not happening at all.

- Global warming is occuring. Two new reports were just relesased this week - http://www.acia.uaf.edu/ and http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...efer=australia

- Overpopulation is a matter of opinion, but there is no doubt that the doubling time of population is decreasing at an exponential rate, which presents many questions about sustainability. The strain this can create on in-demand resources (currently oil) may not be a crisis but is at least cause for concern.

- Carbon dioxide is by far the most (in terms of volume) dangerous gas depleting Earth's ozone today, and it is reaching crisis levels - some studies indicate that the damage is already done. This may or may not be a major factor in climate change, but it is definitely not a good thing. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world...729253,00.html

- Acid rain is an ongoing crisis (you may have heard of the impact of deforestation on CO2 levels - this in itself is a crisis), and so are other toxic chemicals in rain water, such as mecury contamination. Do you know that freshwater fish are no longer safe to eat in my state - Maine - by pregnant or nursing women and children? 39 other states have these same advisories. This is a new thing - since 1994. And the mercury levels continue to rise, not fall. This is a direct result of human impact on environment - and people and animals are ultimately paying the price.

I bear this in mind every day. This planet, or a change in our solar system, could wipe us out in a matter of minutes. It can also slowly erode, making our lives slowly more and more miserable through cancer, neurological disorders, birth defects and other reproductive diseases. Some would argue this is already occuring.

Humans (and all life for that matter) may be able to endure much of this change. But isn't it smarter to study it, better understand it, and correct the negative man-made impacts instead of suffering through the results of our own industrialization? To me, this means supporting wind farms in my state and others so that we can shut down more coal burning power plants and our kids might be able to actually eat the fish they catch. It also means politically supporting candidates that understand this. It also means speaking out against candidates who downplay it, or even worse, twist and cover up scientific research that furthers our understanding of environmental health and its impact on life on Earth.

CingularDuality

See, this is where I disagree. I think there are many more important issues that have a greater impact on my and my family's day to day life than this "global warming" issue, even IF I believed that it was as horrible as the media and "enviro-whackos" would have us all believe.

And I still don't have a problem with an administration that doesn't allow its government scientists to opine on their research. Speculation is a part of research, but not a part of the conclusion. I think we should leave the speeches and opinions to the politicians, and the experiments and research to the scientists.

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran: