sarcastic tone of voice doesn't mean he's right.

Your comment adds absolutely nothing to the debate either. Science 101:

1) Identify a perceived problem
2) Research the issue
3) Form a hypothesis
4) Test the hypothesis
5) Examine results
6) Formulate a conclusion
7) Report results
Repeat until hypothesis is judged an accepted fact

Where would you say we are at in this process?

Corporate propaganda.

See comment #2.

Yet in the 1980's everyone is screaming about global cooling and the second ice age. What a turn around eh?

Debate is for politics; peer review is for science.

Why do you think Stossel and other conspiracy theorists spend all their time making videos and none doing research? Probably because they know that political rhetoric is the only way they can prevail.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Good discussion provoking post. For me, global warming is not the big issue- I'm more concerned about heavy metal spewed from smoke stacks and other pollution in the air.

However, the global warming movement works to alleviate this - so I hope it continues.

Dag, personally I agree with you. The problems I see lie in the toxins, not in the CO2. I support anything that stops the steady poisoning of the planet. That being said, I wonder if we are doing more harm than good supporting "refutable" data such as that behind global warming rather than advocating reductions in mercury, PCBs, pesticides, etc. Science irrefutably supports the harm these are doing and instead we focus our energies arguing about a very, very refutable "problem". Toxins in our food supply have a much more immediate and devastating impact than potential CO2 problems... why can't we focus on this instead?

Dystopian... We can argue the merits of the peer-review process ad nauseum but I don't think that will accomplish anything. Instead I think it is germane to focus on replicated, irrefutable experiments. The trick is to focus on those and ignore "pop" science on EITHER side of the debate.

Global Warming is part of a cycle. But it's really easy to equate that as a human caused effect. Global warming may have some water but the popular attached ideas that it's something that man can change at will is bogus.

Gorgon, your comment makes my point. The idea that man has caused global warming is still not "scientifically" proven. Will it ever be? I won't speculate. Perhaps we should focus on issues which we know man causes (ie: synthetic hormones released into our water supplies) and which have direct impacts on our food supply.

The debate is over whether or not the globe is warming. John Stossel neglected to report that despite winning that prize for his paper with Spencer, John Christy's analysis was called into question and a subsequent article was published by a different group which came to the opposite conclusion.

Now, onto the consensus.

In a paper in Science recently, almost a 1000 papers were looked at for the last 15 years, absolutely none contradicted the thesis that the globe was warming. And 75% supported the claim that the cause was anthropagenic.

These four scientist are very well known for their opinion, because they are probably the only four who have it.

Rugar, interesting first post..provoking good debate. This sift needs some help Good luck

p.s. May I suggest some more tags, channel placement to help your sift get more attention?

Anyone who argues that it is not proven that man has caused global warming is missing the point. Whether it is part of a natural cycle or not, the consequences of those changes could prove catastrophic. To not take seriously any alarms being raised in the scientific community is irresponsible. It is time for even the most ardent opponent of a global warming hypothesis to stop burying their head in the sand and have a serious debate on what course of action can be taken to minimize any danger. The last thing we need is a lot of misinformation from either side to cause us to delay that debate any further.

Twiddles, interesting comments. I am interested in knowing what alarms to which we should be paying attention. I don't think I have my head in the sand, but I am missing your point somewhat so maybe I do. Science indicates man may or may not be causing global climate change. Science indicates that climate change may be bad for some areas but may be good for others. Your statement that people should have a serious debate on minimizing danger presumes that everyone agrees with you that: 1) There is a danger and 2) Mankind is responsible for / capable of stopping it.

BTW, I think it's important to state that I think mankind does have a role in changing the climate of the planet. I don't believe that we are the sole agent responsible, but I think we are a factor. I do however see a bit of silliness in people who insist that there "is no debate" or "there is an overwhelming consensus" or "most scientists agree". I feel we should react to real, identifiable problems (see my comments above) and allow the debate over mans role in global client change to continue. At this point, I think we need to allow the scientific process to continue until there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence to support one view or the other. And saying "most scientists agree" is a joke at best. Remember, at one time most scientists (or philosophers if you prefer) agreed that the earth was the center of the universe.

Rugar, my statement only presumes that people would wish to debate the fate of their planet. You admit that you believe man has a role in changing the climate of the planet. Would you let that role continue unchecked until it is too late? If climate change may be good for some areas will that change offset the bad changes in others?

I have no clue what your second paragraph was directed at since I didn't address any of what you said there. But let me say this: By all means continue the scientific process. However don't confuse that with the debate neccessary to minimize any damage. It is already too late for some species of the planet.

Twiddles, I simply ask that you list specific problems so that we may deal with them. Let me say in advance that "Man-made / released CO2 is making the planet hotter" is not a specific problem to which there is conclusive evidence. That is too much in debate at this point in time. I could not support any program meant to eliminate what is at this time a non-problem. If however, you were to say "Development of alternative energy sources will reduce our dependance on a limited resource" I can absolutely support that. Or I could enthusiastically support this statement: "Release of un-treated sewage is causing the introduction of synthetic estrogens into our water and food supply."

In a nutshell, simply saying "If you don't accept the truth of global climate change and that man is causing it you are part of the problem" presumes facts not in evidence. On the other hand, identifying a specific problem (ie: the hormone example above) to which there is conclusive evidence and a measurable impact that can be alleviated through a change in mankinds actions changes the argument. Instead of arguing "Is this true?", we can then argue "How do we fix this?"

And because I only get one video at a time and I don't want this to become too contentious... *discard

I'll try and add something with a bit more humor.

Discarding this post - discard requested by original submitter rugar.

Damnit Rugar.. too damn hasty.. When/if your other tanks, I'm ressurrecting this. Prepare for contention!!

So even though I voted against... Eric owes me a *save. I will use it on your video.

Invocations (save) cannot be called by MycroftHomlz because MycroftHomlz is not privileged - sorry.

*save

Saving this video from the discard pile and sending it back to the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, October 22nd, 2007 9:45am PDT - save requested by eric3579.

I just have to say, my upvote was for Rugae being a Sift newbie. Your going to have to earn my next vote. The save was forced upon me by a debt I owe. Personally I dont see whos getting rich by saying global warming is caused by man, but I have seen money being paid to people, by oil companies, whom happen to have the view that global warming is not caused by man. BIG RED FLAG. With enough money, which the corporations and government have, you can get most people to believe anything. Thats just my take on it, as of now.

We're fucked.

Greed and profit have trumped all.

:-) Earning votes is a funny concept.

Are there scientists paid to give specific opinions? Yes.
Are these limited to dupes of BIG EVIL OIL? No.
Do kind, altruistic, peace loving, environmental scientists make money off of this debate? Yes.

I am almost done with my Ph.D. in an "environmental" field. I believe that mankind is making the problem worse, not better. Honestly, I am not sure where "better" falls at this point. I also know that with the current funding climate, it is nearly impossible to get funding from "standard" sources if you do not show how your project helps establish the proof of man-made global climate change. The question "Why if it isn't real are there so many studies showing that man is causing global warming?" is easily answered by, if you want to get grants and keep your job your proposals for funding must show that you believe man is the single agent responsible for global climate change. Is that a universal truth? No. Some scientists are so highly regarded that they can get funding despite what they say or believe.

I am not attempting to change anyone's opinion in this venue. It's impossible to discuss fact in what is basically a venue for reactionaries. The very essence of forums on the internet is that solid, thought provoking discussion only lasts until the first troll rolls out of the woodwork and totally highjacks the thread. What I am trying to suggest is that nothing about global climate change is clear cut. Just watch all the material, read all the viewpoints, and think critically for yourself. Don't be a sheeple.

Damnit, dude. Don't say sheeple anymore. There are at least 4 signs to a bad argument, making up words is like #3 and name calling is #2.

(I need to finish reading all your comments...give me a moment before getting offended at this next bit.)

Have you read John Christy's paper in Science? Have you any scientific peer reviewed paper on this subject?

I have. I am telling you with absolute authority: There is no scientific data that indicates the globe is not warming. Moreover, the majority indicates that the cause is anthropagenic(caused by people).

Warning.... extremely long post below. :-D

Mycroft, I reread my post to try and understand your first paragraph. I see where you get that "name calling" bit and I realize how it might seem I am calling someone here a sheeple. Believe me when I say that this was not my intent. So far, everyone here has been capable of having rational discourse and that generally means they are not in fact sheeple. As for the making up words part, I highly suggest that before you begin hanging logical constructs on sheeple not being a word you do just a tiny bit of research. I'm sure if you had done that in this case, you would have found that sheeple is indeed an accepted word in the internet/urban lexicon. Would I publish it in "Nature"? No. But in this venue it is a perfectly acceptable word and clearly not one which I have "made up". I am trying to understand why the tone of your message is so antagonistic in tone. You feel the need to explain anthropogenic to me when I have tried to show that I am relatively well educated. The tone of your comments appears to call my scholarship in question and seems to imply that any arguments I have made are “bad”. Please note that I am not trying to push a viewpoint here, nor am I attacking anyone’s golden calf. I am merely stating my opinions and asking that everyone learn about all sides of an argument before choosing a side to believe. Thus, my reference to “Don’t be a sheeple.”

Ok, with that bit of business out of the way I can address the actual meat of your comment. I do not understand why you ask if I have read any peer-reviewed literature. You might remember from my previous post how I stated that I had nearly completed my PhD in an “environmental” field. I would hazard a guess to say that I am as conversant with recent literature as probably more than 95% of the US population. I’m not trying to claim to be a genius or anything; just that because of my impending dissertation defense that I have paid a bit more attention to the literature than most. In regards to the question if I had read “the paper in Science” by John Christy, I have to ask… Which one? I have read a couple of papers recently in which John R. Christy was an author as well as a number of Letters to the Editor credited to him. I’ll withhold comment until I am sure which one you are referencing.

I am impressed by your willingness to state with “absolute authority” that there is no evidence that the globe is not warming. For the most part, scientists scrupulously avoid absolutes like that. I’m not going to question your absolute authority just because I don’t want to be the jackass of the group and dig out some obscure citation to "prove" you wrong. Seems like every conference I've been to has that one guy that likes to sharpshoot your presentation with a paper from the Journal of Really Crappy Science. I am not that guy. In fact, I happen to agree with you, the globe is warming. (See those other comments above) I will also stipulate that I think man is playing a part in the warming of the planet. I will however stand by all of my arguments in the comments above. I invite you to argue against any of them and will gladly read anything you have to say. I do not discount your or anyone’s opinions and am always open to learning more about the subject matter.

Fact: There is a trend to indicate a rise in average temperatures globally.

Fact: The a vast majority of areas that are seeing the most dramatic increases in temperature are around uninhabited and rural areas not highly populated.

Fact: The Scientific community as a whole has NOT confirmed it is a result of man made emissions or pollutants.

Conclusion: We don't know the cause, protecting the environment is not a bad thing. But popular culture and over zealous hippies are quick to blame humanity for the cause, why? Because it's comforting to think that we can control it. It's convenient to believe that we can change a world wide catastrophe.

Hmm....

Fact 1: Agreed. Don't think many people can argue this one, although I have seen people make the attempt.

Fact 2: Not sure what to make of this. If you can provide us a reference, then we can look at the data ourselves. I will make the note that greenhouse gases are not thought to be a localized effect, so you wouldn't necessarily expect to see heavily industrialized areas affected more than others. I would also caution against looking at relatively small areas and making large assumptions. Large rises or falls in a small area are more likely attributable to a point source or climatological effects than due to a global warming trend.

Fact 3: Agreed. This is the root of the problem in my eyes. The global climate has so, so many variables it is not likely that the effects of any one of them will ever be confirmed. The mistake that is often made among environmentally active people is assuming that you can say "CO2 is killing the planet!" and not be challenged.

Conclusion: I agree that protecting the environment is a good goal and one for which we should all strive. I think that the "think globally, act locally" slogan is actually a good one with a lot of truth in it. If we all work on fixing the environmental problems that we KNOW man is causing and that we are affected by every day, by the time we fix those we will have a better understanding of what the next problem is and how we attack that one. Personally, I eat 5 or more servings of fish a week and I can honestly tell you that I constantly think about all the crap we are pouring into the water. I'm much more immediately interested in what the new LNG plant they are building here is doing to the bay than I am interested in how much CO2 said LNG plant is going to produce.

Reference to my second fact comes from a C-4 documentary Which has been posted many times on the sift but has never made it out of the queue.

It was a show titled; The Great Global Warming Swindle.

My antagonism is based on the fact that I am tired of people making intelligent comments and then ruining it by naming calling... It was just frustration.

However, I maintain that sheeple is not a word(See red squiggly). Other words could have expressed your viewpoint equally as well, and not, in my opinion, trivialized you comment.

This is his paper, which is widely regarded as one of the very few(if not the only) papers which presents data that suggests the globe is not warming.

SPENCER RW, CHRISTY JR
PRECISE MONITORING OF GLOBAL TEMPERATURE TRENDS FROM SATELLITES
SCIENCE 247 (4950): 1558-1562 MAR 30 1990

It was followed by a subsequent paper, which calls into question his conclusions and analysis. I can get that reference for you as well.

And actually there was another paper in Science

LETTERS
Consensus About Climate Change?
Roger A. Pielke, Jr.; and Naomi Oreskes (13 May 2005)
Science 308 (5724), 952. [DOI: 10.1126/science.308.5724.952]

which reiterates my comment. There has been absolutely NO peer reviewed published data showing that the globe is not warming(which has not been subsequently called into question or repealed). In most cases, I would never say anything so unequivocable, but what I have said is true. Or at least was true the last time I checked the literature. If you can find a citation which shows data that the globe is not warming, I would love to see it.

I see that you agree, that the globe is warming. I would still argue that the at least 75% of the published data suggests that the cause is anthropagenic. [Roger A. Pielke, Jr.; and Naomi Oreskes, Science 308 (5724), 952]

I managed to bork my original response... :-(

Anway, the gist of it was this: Yes, I have read it. And yes I have read his later "Letters" where he attempts to defend his calculations. I especially like the one in 2003 where he gets downright testy that he is being questioned. I think that work like this clearly points to an absolute requirement that as scientists we all are COMPLETELY TRANSPARENT in our calculations. While it is obviously not possible to present complete datasets in a journal, I think it is clear that in cases such as this there should be an online resource where everyone can see (not edit of course) the original source data. Then, it is your responsibility in your methods to explain clearly how you reach your numbers. In cases of satellite data, this is easily done and that's why the authors get so many questions about their work. But I think this is absolutely necessary to prevent absolutely uninformed people being told half the story and then going off on a rant "ZOMG! So and so LIED! GLOBAL WARMING IS TEH F4kZ0RS!" We must police ourselves and I think all of the responses the authors received demonstrate that at least some people are committed to that.

And if by the red squiggly you mean Word and its helpful spell check... If I remember correctly, Mr. Gates lets me know that immunohistochemistry, clupeidae, sciaenops, and otolith are not words as well. I should really let my advisor know about that if it's true.

So, you disagree that the sea level will rise significantly in the 100 years?

Furthermore, I think you have the problem backwards. The issue is not that people are doing too much to deal with global warming, the issue is that not enough is being done. I am not advocating a global freakout, but at this point the science needs to be taken seriously and assination and politically motivated pieces like these need to stop. My impression, and this could be wrong, is that in the US there is an overwhelming opinion that Science is wrong when it comes to global warming. And I believe that is ridiculous, without any proof otherwise people are taking it on FAITH that science is wrong.

I believe you are mistaken about scientists recieving political pressure to confirm or disprove a result, it may happen but if it does it is extremely rare. If it was prevalent, then NIST, which is headed by a Bush appointee, would never have come out so strongly in the case of global climate change. Have you had personal experience in this matter? My guess is no. Because that is not how grant writing works. In my experience in physics(myself) and biology(my fiancee), when we write grants we explain the proposed theories or experiments and state the possible outcomes, but a grant is never submitted stating the conclusion ahead of time.

And the squiggly...

lol. Tous Chez.

Significantly is a funny, funny term and I expect that you know that already. If I were to posit that the global mean sea level were to rise an unbelievable 1m over the next century (and that really is an unbelievable amount), who do you ask if that is significant? In the Bay of Fundy for instance, that would be a substantial rise but hardly significant. On a Pacific atoll however, 1m would be HIGHLY significant. I expect that between thermal expansion and the melting of the permafrost in the higher latitudes, there will be a marked rise in global mean sea level. Do I think it will drown millions of people? No. Will it cause people to move to higher ground? Maybe. See New Orleans and Amsterdam for more info.

I think your second paragraph is where we differ. You believe that it is a "problem" and that there needs to be "action". I believe that we don't know enough at this time to justify absurd "plans". I'm a staunch advocate of fixing the man made problems that we can all point a finger at and say "that has to stop." Should we be cutting the tops off of mountains in West Virginia to make coal mining easier? No, we should stop that. Should we allow long-lining in American territorial waters? Nope, we should stop that too. Should every industrial/agricultural user of fresh water in the US be required to justify their use and return any used water in a cleaner state than they received it? Absolutely. See where I am going here? I'm not arguing global climate change at all. I am stating factually that I do not know and I don't believe anyone knows if man is causing global warming or not. I am suggesting that we fix those problems which we DO know we are causing and allow the science behind global climate change to develop further. I have never suggested that people are doing too much to deal with global warming. What I have stated before is that right now, we are all arguing differing conclusions based on the same set of data/publications. I am of the opinion that those who are most concerned about the environment are arguing based on their FAITH that they are right vs. those who have other primary concerns and have FAITH that they are right. See what I did there? I took your apparent jab at people of faith and showed that even among those in the environmental movement there is faith. Maybe not in a higher power or divine will, but faith nonetheless. From the OED: Faith - Belief proceeding from reliance on testimony or authority. All I ask is that people think for themselves and take no man’s word as the gospel (Ooooh look! I did it too! Well, kinda.).

On the last… I’ll make my response short. I think that there is political pressure placed on scientists. I offer no facts nor anecdotes. I merely state that I think it happens. This is just based on my experiences (and yes, I have written a number of proposals going all the way up to international proposals) nothing more. I don’t ask that you accept it. I laughed and I will stipulate that proposals don’t include conclusions. But if I remember correctly, basically every single proposal I have written includes a section labeled something like “Expected Results.” Depending on the proposal, I normally have to write another section on how I will “deal” with unexpected results.

I agree with what Dag said, I post global warming videos all the time and a debate always brews up.

Who Cares if its real or not. I want the fucking corporations to stop dumping shit into our air, lakes and rivers. If the global warming movements stops them, power to em.

You fight against Global Warming, you fight against pollution. Thats fine with me, who cares if if its not real and we might be calling the end of the world, but you know what? It's win-win. We make the Earth healthier (for ourselves) and we get a warm feeling in our tummy.

Besides, the rapture ISN'T COMING, so we have to make our own salvation.

Discarding this video. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 4 days.