Global warming shrinks mountains

The Classics
Forum rules
This forum is read-only
Locked
tundraline
Posts: 145
Joined: 9/17/2007
14ers: 18
Trip Reports (2)

Re: Global warming shrinks mountains

Post by tundraline » Mon Aug 18, 2008 9:29 am

sundog54 wrote:Whenever a consensus starts to emerge, as is happening regarding climate change, the internet and threads like this one will enable the LOSING side to start squawking that the "debate never happened", that they're being "stifled", etc. The losing side in THIS debate is now talking about the personal habits of Al Gore, and trying to focus on how much sea level might NOT rise, but if they had read the reports of the IPCC (yes, I have) they might be thinking about crop losses, invasive species, drought, insurance rates, etc... And, those who focus on Al Gore, sea level rise, their talk show host, etc. will be able to CONTINUE this "debate" for a hundred years, if they like. After all, it's a free society....and EVERYTHING has political bias, so NOTHING is true.

C'mon, any takers? Anyone actually read those two reports? I've got a dollar waiting for you if you can honestly say so, and have already expressed your opinion.

Sundog
A consensus (among the scientific community) regarding climate change is not "starting to emerge." It's been around for quite some time now. Reading two reports does one the Grand Vizier and Pooh Bah of Global Warming make. There is a huge body of scientific literature on the topic of global warming/climate change, and the last word on it is hardly confined to one or two selected reports or papers. Contrary to your statement that "NOTHING is true," the laws of nature and physical facts do, in fact, happen to be true. Ronald Reagan has died, and with him I wish the idea that "perception is reality" had gone as well (but of course it didn't). Much mischief has been done with this central precept of Mr. Reagan over the past nearly 30 years. Like Bush, Reagan talked about fiscal conservatism while tripling the national debt under his watch -- and no one called him on it. Climate change falls into a similar category. Rather than having a discussion on the merits and looking at the facts of this extraordinarily complicated subject, most people seem to prefer histrionics, conspiracy theories, believing in whatever it is they would like to believe, or believing in whatever is most expedient from a personal or financial perspective for themselves. Often such preferences are predictably wrapped in the American flag or sprinkled with little stars of avowed patriotism (as is the fashion nowadays). Reality and the truth regarding climate change could not be further from most people's minds.
sundog54
Posts: 90
Joined: 5/26/2006
14ers: 15
Trip Reports (4)

Re: Global warming shrinks mountains

Post by sundog54 » Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:43 am

rob runkle wrote:Sundog...

Are you serious regarding the IPCC? The "bias" is clear in the Acronym itself... [/b]
"Bias" is a bogeyman word enjoying recent celeb status. It's so easy to say that your opponent is "biased", that must mean "incorrect", therefore I can dismiss it's conclusions...

However, bias does NOT make something "incorrect".

Your logic regarding bias could be applied to any institution or effort.

If you happen to have a bias against "government" efforts, be sure to distrust all government agencies equally. Is it safe to assume you think the Pentagon is biased?

My point is that there is bias present in every human endeavor, but people choose to discount it when it fits with their prior worldview. In the end you have to choose to either trust someone, become completely paranoid, or READ THE REPORTS.
In a big country dreams stay with you /Like a lover's voice fires the mountainside / Stay alive -"In a big country", Big Country
sundog54
Posts: 90
Joined: 5/26/2006
14ers: 15
Trip Reports (4)

Re: Global warming shrinks mountains

Post by sundog54 » Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:56 am

tundraline wrote:
A consensus (among the scientific community) regarding climate change is not "starting to emerge." It's been around for quite some time now. Reading two reports does one the Grand Vizier and Pooh Bah of Global Warming make. There is a huge body of scientific literature on the topic of global warming/climate change, and the last word on it is hardly confined to one or two selected reports or papers. Contrary to your statement that "NOTHING is true," the laws of nature and physical facts do, in fact, happen to be true. Ronald Reagan has died, and with him I wish the idea that "perception is reality" had gone as well (but of course it didn't). Much mischief has been done with this central precept of Mr. Reagan over the past nearly 30 years. Like Bush, Reagan talked about fiscal conservatism while tripling the national debt under his watch -- and no one called him on it. Climate change falls into a similar category. Rather than having a discussion on the merits and looking at the facts of this extraordinarily complicated subject, most people seem to prefer histrionics, conspiracy theories, believing in whatever it is they would like to believe, or believing in whatever is most expedient from a personal or financial perspective for themselves. Often such preferences are predictably wrapped in the American flag or sprinkled with little stars of avowed patriotism (as is the fashion nowadays). Reality and the truth regarding climate change could not be further from most people's minds.
Tundraline, you've misunderstood me quite well.
I was referring to a consensus among people generally, not among the scientific community. You're correct about the scientific community, there's been a consensus among climatologists that global warming is real and anthropogenic for years now.

My main point was not that I had read the reports, my main point was my claim that no one who had already posted had read them. I think your reply may be missing a "not", but in either case I'll defend my Vizier-ship some other time.

My statement about "everything being political, therefore nothing is true", is so absurd on its face that I assumed no one would take it at face value. My mistake. It's funny how this issue makes people so serious. I'm not sure what emoticon/smiley I could have put in there, but I guess I should have done that. I was trying to convey how calling things "political" or "biased" leads to insanity if you keep going that way. Of course things are real, and perception is not reality.

The rest of your post is in agreement with what I was trying to convey.
In a big country dreams stay with you /Like a lover's voice fires the mountainside / Stay alive -"In a big country", Big Country
tundraline
Posts: 145
Joined: 9/17/2007
14ers: 18
Trip Reports (2)

Re: Global warming shrinks mountains

Post by tundraline » Mon Aug 18, 2008 11:02 am

sundog54 wrote:
tundraline wrote:
A consensus (among the scientific community) regarding climate change is not "starting to emerge." It's been around for quite some time now. Reading two reports does one the Grand Vizier and Pooh Bah of Global Warming make. There is a huge body of scientific literature on the topic of global warming/climate change, and the last word on it is hardly confined to one or two selected reports or papers. Contrary to your statement that "NOTHING is true," the laws of nature and physical facts do, in fact, happen to be true. Ronald Reagan has died, and with him I wish the idea that "perception is reality" had gone as well (but of course it didn't). Much mischief has been done with this central precept of Mr. Reagan over the past nearly 30 years. Like Bush, Reagan talked about fiscal conservatism while tripling the national debt under his watch -- and no one called him on it. Climate change falls into a similar category. Rather than having a discussion on the merits and looking at the facts of this extraordinarily complicated subject, most people seem to prefer histrionics, conspiracy theories, believing in whatever it is they would like to believe, or believing in whatever is most expedient from a personal or financial perspective for themselves. Often such preferences are predictably wrapped in the American flag or sprinkled with little stars of avowed patriotism (as is the fashion nowadays). Reality and the truth regarding climate change could not be further from most people's minds.
Tundraline, you've misunderstood me quite well.
I was referring to a consensus among people generally, not among the scientific community. You're correct about the scientific community, there's been a consensus among climatologists that global warming is real and anthropogenic for years now.

My main point was not that I had read the reports, my main point was my claim that no one who had already posted had read them. I think your reply may be missing a "not", but in either case I'll defend my Vizier-ship some other time.

My statement about "everything being political, therefore nothing is true", is so absurd on its face that I assumed no one would take it at face value. My mistake. It's funny how this issue makes people so serious. I'm not sure what emoticon/smiley I could have put in there, but I guess I should have done that. I was trying to convey how calling things "political" or "biased" leads to insanity if you keep going that way. Of course things are real, and perception is not reality.

The rest of your post is in agreement with what I was trying to convey.
Sorry I misunderstood you in such a big way. Thanks for taking the time and effort to clear up my misunderstandings. I guess we're in agreement after all. No need to defend your well-earned Viziership.
User avatar
rob runkle
Posts: 803
Joined: 6/12/2006
14ers: 58 2
13ers: 38
Trip Reports (44)

Re: Global warming shrinks mountains

Post by rob runkle » Mon Aug 18, 2008 12:04 pm

sundog54 wrote:
rob runkle wrote:Sundog...

Are you serious regarding the IPCC? The "bias" is clear in the Acronym itself... [/b]
"Bias" is a bogeyman word enjoying recent celeb status. It's so easy to say that your opponent is "biased", that must mean "incorrect", therefore I can dismiss it's conclusions...

However, bias does NOT make something "incorrect".

Your logic regarding bias could be applied to any institution or effort.

If you happen to have a bias against "government" efforts, be sure to distrust all government agencies equally. Is it safe to assume you think the Pentagon is biased?

My point is that there is bias present in every human endeavor, but people choose to discount it when it fits with their prior worldview. In the end you have to choose to either trust someone, become completely paranoid, or READ THE REPORTS.
There is NO bias in good science... PERIOD.

By rationalizing the existance of "bias", you have supported my point. Questionable Science.
sundog54
Posts: 90
Joined: 5/26/2006
14ers: 15
Trip Reports (4)

Re: Global warming shrinks mountains

Post by sundog54 » Mon Aug 18, 2008 3:18 pm

rob runkle wrote:
There is NO bias in good science... PERIOD.

By rationalizing the existance of "bias", you have supported my point. Questionable Science.
Rob, I respectfully disagree. I am a scientist (my work has nothing to do with climate change), and I would say rather, "there is no bias in PERFECT science". It's possible to reduce bias, e.g. by scoring things blind, or choosing locations randomly, but in the end the experimenter, the analyst and the author of the paper are all still PART of the experiment. There is no perfect science, because there are no perfect experiments and no perfect scientists. Furthermore, even if there were a perfectly bias-free scientist, doing the perfect experiment, chances are good that perfect scientist is still standing on the shoulders of the imperfect giants that went before her or him. Therefore, even "good" science contains bias.

Furthermore, ego infects all human endeavors, and that leads to bias in other fields.

The reason scientists are (or used to be) trusted more than other experts is because they're trained to be AWARE of the threat of bias, and to work against it. They aren't trained to be perfect. Although I'm a scientist, I'm far from an idealist about science. Indeed, I've seen creditable publications that suggest that 55% of published biomedical results are wrong.

But we live in an age when people would rather construct a complex theory - something that requires them to toss out BOTH the scientific models AND the reputations of a large number of scientists - rather than accept the simpler theory, that a bunch of people trained in a certain field, working together, might be right in the ways that matter most.

Skepticism about scientific data, and scientific theories is a good thing, but if discarding the conclusion requires a MORE complex explanation, that immediately raises a red flag. Over time, complex theories are much more likely to be shown to be wrong.

Why do we live in such an age? Maybe it's because as time has gone by, Western people have been betrayed too often by their politicians, their priests, their bankers, and their spouses. So now everyone feel the need to distrust everyone...

I don't think I've supported your point, because I haven't made any outright statements about the quality of the science in the IPCC reports. I've only implied that there may be LESS bias in the IPCC reports than in those who deny BOTH the scientific logic of greenhouse gas models AND the reputations of the scientists behind the report.

Oh - one other thing. That use of "...PERIOD." in your post kind of looks like an effort to cut off debate. You didn't want to do that, did you? :)
In a big country dreams stay with you /Like a lover's voice fires the mountainside / Stay alive -"In a big country", Big Country
tundraline
Posts: 145
Joined: 9/17/2007
14ers: 18
Trip Reports (2)

Re: Global warming shrinks mountains

Post by tundraline » Mon Aug 18, 2008 4:56 pm

rob runkle wrote:
sundog54 wrote:
rob runkle wrote:Sundog...

Are you serious regarding the IPCC? The "bias" is clear in the Acronym itself... [/b]
"Bias" is a bogeyman word enjoying recent celeb status. It's so easy to say that your opponent is "biased", that must mean "incorrect", therefore I can dismiss it's conclusions...

However, bias does NOT make something "incorrect".

Your logic regarding bias could be applied to any institution or effort.

If you happen to have a bias against "government" efforts, be sure to distrust all government agencies equally. Is it safe to assume you think the Pentagon is biased?

My point is that there is bias present in every human endeavor, but people choose to discount it when it fits with their prior worldview. In the end you have to choose to either trust someone, become completely paranoid, or READ THE REPORTS.
There is NO bias in good science... PERIOD.

By rationalizing the existance of "bias", you have supported my point. Questionable Science.
"The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences,the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to this conclusion."

"A 2004 essay by Naomi Oreskes in the journal Science reported a survey of 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers related to global climate change in the ISI database. Oreskes stated that "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. ... This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies." Benny Peiser claimed to have found flaws in Oreskes' work,but his attempted refutation is disputed and has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Peiser later withdrew parts of his criticism, also commenting that "the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous." [Benny Peiser studied Political science, English studies and Sports science in Frankfurt and previously was an historian of ancient sport at the University of Frankfort. He is a social anthropologist with particular research interest in human and cultural evolution.]

[Rush Limbaugh Limbaugh enrolled at Southeast Missouri State University and dropped out after two semesters and one summer.]

[John Coleman, who famously stated that global warming is "the greatest scam in history" and accused the "global media" of colluding with "environmental extremists" to alarm the public, has been a "TV weatherman" since he was a freshman in college in 1953. He has a bachelors degree in journalism and is not even a Certified Broadcast Meteorologist.]

See this rather informative link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
rob runkle
Posts: 803
Joined: 6/12/2006
14ers: 58 2
13ers: 38
Trip Reports (44)

Re: Global warming shrinks mountains

Post by rob runkle » Mon Aug 18, 2008 7:08 pm

sundog54 wrote:
rob runkle wrote:
There is NO bias in good science... PERIOD.

By rationalizing the existance of "bias", you have supported my point. Questionable Science.
Rob, I respectfully disagree. I am a scientist (my work has nothing to do with climate change), and I would say rather, "there is no bias in PERFECT science". It's possible to reduce bias, e.g. by scoring things blind, or choosing locations randomly, but in the end the experimenter, the analyst and the author of the paper are all still PART of the experiment. There is no perfect science, because there are no perfect experiments and no perfect scientists. Furthermore, even if there were a perfectly bias-free scientist, doing the perfect experiment, chances are good that perfect scientist is still standing on the shoulders of the imperfect giants that went before her or him. Therefore, even "good" science contains bias.
Excellent point. I should have said, "Good science attempts to remove bias." Pretty much what you said. Err on my part for sure. Intentional and accepted bias is gross in my opinion. In addition to your methods of removing bias (random, etc..), I'll add the most obvious: calibration.

PS> I applaud you on the rationale email. Thanks for "cooling me off." :P

Period just means that I take my Science serious...
User avatar
rob runkle
Posts: 803
Joined: 6/12/2006
14ers: 58 2
13ers: 38
Trip Reports (44)

Re: Global warming shrinks mountains

Post by rob runkle » Mon Aug 18, 2008 7:31 pm

tundraline wrote:[Rush Limbaugh Limbaugh enrolled at Southeast Missouri State University and dropped out after two semesters and one summer.]

[John Coleman, who famously stated that global warming is "the greatest scam in history" and accused the "global media" of colluding with "environmental extremists" to alarm the public, has been a "TV weatherman" since he was a freshman in college in 1953. He has a bachelors degree in journalism and is not even a Certified Broadcast Meteorologist.]
Not sure your point.

But...

Thank god you have Brad Pitt, Leonaro DiCaprio, Keanu Reeves, Alanis Morrissette, oh and... Rosie O’Donnell. I'm so happy for you...

8)
User avatar
1moremile
Posts: 251
Joined: 7/22/2007
14ers: 26
13ers: 6
Contact:

Re: Global warming shrinks mountains

Post by 1moremile » Mon Aug 18, 2008 7:46 pm

Oh, I wasn't saying that this thread constituted a debate. I was putting in my 'yeah, baby' with regards to the value of discussion, the free and respectful sharing of ideas.

You have me partly correct: no I haven't read that report. Or anything other than magazine articles and news stories regarding global warming. (I did watch Al Gore's entry into the save the earth sweepstakes.)

It seems that you have grouped me with those who think global warming is a lie. Truth is I have no opinion. I have lived as though global warming was true since the oil embargo of 1973, though. I won't bore this forum with a list of my 'friend of the earth' activities (I did that already on another thread and bored myself half to death) but when I take a carbon footprint test I come up with the 'We Have A Saint On Our Hands' score. I guess I was indelibly affected by that 1973 trip across country in a big ole pick-em-up truck hauling a trailer crammed with junk and ending up waiting hours each time to refill the tank. I come to this from other than a scientific, we're-all-gonna-die stance, however. I just think in terms of stewardship of the planet's resources.

My dubious sainthood aside, what I really wanted to say in this forum is this: Hey, look, it rained today. How many hikers were on the summit of Bierstadt during the thunderstorm today?
User avatar
bayouboy
Posts: 118
Joined: 6/28/2006
14ers: 13

Re: Global warming shrinks mountains

Post by bayouboy » Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:37 pm

I'm honored by all of you on taking part on this thread. I started this thread with a tongue-in-check comment. :lol:

So I must put my two cents in. I don't think we have enough information to know whether or not global warming exits. I DO think we are BAD stewards of our planet. We can recycle, reduce, reuse more than what we do. Consumerism in America and poor environmental policies in developing countries are to blame. Personally, I am wanting gas to up to $5 a gallon and stay there for a while. We need higher prices for a longer period of time to change both the consumers and producers.
User avatar
rob runkle
Posts: 803
Joined: 6/12/2006
14ers: 58 2
13ers: 38
Trip Reports (44)

Re: Global warming shrinks mountains

Post by rob runkle » Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:58 am

bayouboy wrote:I'm honored by all of you on taking part on this thread. I started this thread with a tongue-in-check comment. :lol:

So I must put my two cents in. I don't think we have enough information to know whether or not global warming exits. I DO think we are BAD stewards of our planet. We can recycle, reduce, reuse more than what we do. Consumerism in America and poor environmental policies in developing countries are to blame. Personally, I am wanting gas to up to $5 a gallon and stay there for a while. We need higher prices for a longer period of time to change both the consumers and producers.

Do WE amuse you??? :D

+1 on your comments!! =D>
Locked