simple question

[_beastie]

If only you all relied on FOX news as Wade clearly does, you could be as (mis)informed as he is!

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/ ... 2&lb=brusc

A new study based on a series of seven US polls conducted from January through September of this year reveals that before and after the Iraq war, a majority of Americans have had significant misperceptions and these are highly related to support for the war in Iraq.

The polling, conducted by the Program on International Policy (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks, also reveals that the frequency of these misperceptions varies significantly according to individuals’ primary source of news. Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely.

[_wenglund]

Some of my favorite examples of smart people buying into questionable things, are: 1) the global warming nonsense (see: junkscience.com; and 2) the Embryonic Stem Cell boondogal (see:Science and Technology Magazine.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hi Wade,

I'm not someone that is often accused of being smart, but I am someone who believes that global warming is occuring, and that it is likely being accelerated by human actions.

I am familiar with the website that you linked to, and it's history, but I'm not a climate expert. I will admit that I have based many of my beliefs concerning global climate change on other's primary research and not my own, so I would enjoy looking into this deeper with you. I certainly don't want to be misled, and perhaps you have information that I have not been exposed to yet.

I am a scientist in probably one of the more conservative (idealogically) disciplines; agricultural science. I spent 9 years in a land grant institution department that housed the state climate center, with a dozen or so climatologists and biometeorologists. They were unanimous in their belief that global warming was occuring, and that it was likely being accelerated through human activity, despite some broad idealogical differences (several were conservative LDS). The agriscience dept that I'm currently in also appears to be unanimous in this belief. This degree of unanamity between these scientists that I trust, has influenced my own beliefs, but like I said earlier, I haven't put the time in to really investigate the claims of both sides.

I am interested in discussing the global warming issue with you, and seeing what evidence has brought you the level of certainty that you have in your views. If you want to go over and dissect an article from the site that you linked, that might be a good start. I must say that I don't have a lot of confidence in "junk science.com" based on what I know about the site, but I'm open to the fact that I'm in error.

Please let me know if you would like to explore this further. cacheman

Since my off-hand comment about "global warming nonsense" has engender such a strong reaction, perhaps it may be prudent and respectful for me to expound upon what I said, and give cause for thinking the way I do. However, I am just about to leave for a golf tournament, so the earliest that I will be able to post on the subject is late this evening. For your's and Tarski's benefit (and anyone else who may be interested), I will open a separate thread for discussion when I get a chance.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_ozemc]

Except you are completely wrong and a victim of right wing politicization of science yourself.
Find me some names of publishing, top academics at our best universites that are experts in the very field of earth science of global climatology that disagree with the following:

1. Global Warming is a well established fact.

Well, it has been warming since the last ice age. A little up and a little down, but, overall, an upward trend, I'd say. If it hadn't, we'd still have glaciers in Chicago.

2. Evidence is strong (about 80% sure) that humans are significantly contributing to global warming.

Not exactly. More evidence is coming in that maybe that great big bright ball in the sky has something to do with it. Seeing how it is where all the warmth comes from in the first place, makes sense.

3. The evidence is strong enough that policy changes are in order

Again, not exactly. Just how do we stop sunspot activity, anyway?

Where were all the SUVs and coal-fired plants during the Medievel Warm Period, by the way?

You do know that the warmest year that we have on record is 1934?

[_ozemc]

I see that you have joined the religion of "Global Warming", and Al Gore is now your prophet. If that is what makes you happy, then I am fine with that. I certainly don't want to be instrumental in undermining your faith, and so I will simply leave each to their own. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Whether or not something is a religion or not is determined by who can or cannot provide actual scientific evidence strong enough to convince others trained in the given field.

I am willing to get in the ring with you concerning evidence and science as well as review what is published in top peer reviewed journals.

You are not.

Therefore, it is you that is adhering to a religion. You have to. It's part of the right wing, religious right anti-science package you seem to adhere to.
Now is it surprising that it is you that turned out to be guilty of adhering to something on a religious basis without proper evidence or cogent argument?
No it isn't! It is you that is all about religion after all.

Instead of a website put together by a hack who just sites Fox news articles and fringe scientists not even in the proper field, why not look at one of the few websites put together by actual earth scientist and climate scientists:

http://www.realclimate.org/

Might I also suggest:

http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php

In it, you'll find how some of the temperature reporting stations are actually located in heat islands, such as being on asphalt, or surrounded by air conditioners. Now, that couldn't possibly affect the readings, could it?

There's a great blog about this at:

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/

Science is very interesting.

[_Ren]

Global temperatures are directly linked with CO2 levels in the atmosphere:

We humans are significantly altering the CO2 levels in the atmosphere:


Feel free to try and dispute the above data.
Good luck.

[_Tarski]

2. Evidence is strong (about 80% sure) that humans are significantly contributing to global warming.

Not exactly. More evidence is coming in that maybe that great big bright ball in the sky has something to do with it. Seeing how it is where all the warmth comes from in the first place, makes sense.

Not exactly not exactly:

From realclimate

the big problem for blaming the sun for the recent global warming is that there hasn't been a trend in any index of solar activity since about 1960, and that includes direct measurements of solar output by satellites since 1979. Well, another paper, has come out saying exactly the same thing. This is notable because the lead author Mike Lockwood has worked extensively on solar physics and effects on climate and certainly can't be credibly accused of wanting to minimise the role of solar forcing for nefarious pro-CO2 reasons!

Objection: The sun is the source of warmth on earth. Any increase in temperature is likely due to changes in solar radiation.

Answer: It's true that the earth is warmed, for all practical purposes, entirely by solar radiation, so if the temperature is going up or down, the sun is a reasonable place to seek the cause.


Turns out it's more complicated than one might think to detect and measure changes in the amount or type of sunshine reaching the earth. Detectors on the ground are susceptible to all kinds of interference from the atmosphere -- after all, one cloud passing overhead can cause a shiver on an otherwise warm day, but not because the sun itself changed. The best way to detect changes in the output of the sun -- versus changes in the radiation reaching the earth's surface through clouds, smoke, dust, or pollution -- is by taking readings from space.

This is a job for satellites. According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has not changed.

There has been work done reconstructing the solar irradiance record over the last century, before satellites were available. According to the Max Planck Institute, where this work is being done, there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940. This reconstruction does show an increase in the first part of the 20th century, which coincides with the warming from around 1900 until the 1940s. It's not enough to explain all the warming from those years, but it is responsible for a large portion. See this chart of observed temperature, modeled temperature, and variations in the major forcings that contributed to 20th century climate.

RealClimate has a couple of detailed discussions on what we can conclude about solar forcing and how science reached those conclusions.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... r-forcing/

Journal article
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/pr ... 071880.pdf
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... or-a-spin/

[_barrelomonkeys]

Since this thread is no longer about the ark.

Cacheman, are you still moving to Murfreesboro?

[_cacheman]

Cacheman, are you still moving to Murfreesboro?

I'm here. You didn't warn me about this ungodly heat!

cacheman

[_barrelomonkeys]

Cacheman, are you still moving to Murfreesboro?

I'm here. You didn't warn me about this ungodly heat!

cacheman

I'm sooo sorry! You'll get used to it.

Welcome to Tennessee. :D

[_cacheman]

Thanks;)

I'm actually really liking it so far.

cacheman