Reefkeepers Tackling Global Warming

[MCary]

Whatever, like I said this a dogma for you. It's like trying to prove the Earth is more than 5000 years old to a Southern Baptist.

I have an open mind. I look at data and put it in the pro and con column. I ask myself these questions:

Is Global Warming real?
Is it bad?
Are we causing it?
Can it be reversed?
What is the cost of reversing it vs the damage it does?
What can I do personally besides worry about it?

The data breaks pretty evenly on both sides, where I end up leaning against is when I get lied to. Then suddenly all data becomes suspect. I also gt a little suspect when the contrary data is reworked until it fits. And like I said before, I hold 3 science degrees and a masters. I know how to read data.

Mike

 

[MCary]

This is real science. Do you claim that Global Warming theory follows these scientific guidlines?

1. Strength (is the evidence so large that we can easily rule out other factors?)

2. Consistency (have the results been replicated by different researchers and under different conditions?)

3. Specificity (is the evidence associated with a very specific cause as opposed to a wide range of causes?)

4. Temporality (did the observed condition precede the problem?)

5. Gradient (are increasing levels associated with increasing temps?)

6. Plausibility (is there a credible scientific mechanism that can explain the association?)

7. Coherence (is the association consistent with the natural history.)

8. Experimental evidence (does a physical intervention show results consistent with the association?)

9. Analogy (is there a similar result that we can draw a relationship to?)

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8801020#post8801020 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
Whatever, like I said this a dogma for you. It's like trying to prove the Earth is more than 5000 years old to a Southern Baptist.

I have an open mind. I look at data and put it in the pro and con column. I ask myself these questions:

Is Global Warming real?
Is it bad?
Are we causing it?
Can it be reversed?
What is the cost of reversing it vs the damage it does?
What can I do personally besides worry about it?

The data breaks pretty evenly on both sides, where I end up leaning against is when I get lied to. Then suddenly all data becomes suspect. I also gt a little suspect when the contrary data is reworked until it fits. And like I said before, I hold 3 science degrees and a masters. I know how to read data.

Mike

I ask those questions too, I just some up with different answers. And no, the data doesn't break evenly on both sides. We've played that game before, and all the "data" you get is from right wing think tanks that don't do research, it's simply spin and doubt cast on real scientists. As far as you having 3 degrees is concerned, so what? All that education, yet clueless concerning ecology.

 

[MCary]

Of course data is going to lean your way if you discount all opposing data by contributing it to "right wing think tanks". I sited science and nature magazine this time and you ignored that. All of my other post had links to nasa and other various scientific organizations. Whenever I do read right wing organizations I follow their links to the source. I never take their word for it.

You make comments like John Daly is Dubious at best. I don't know anything about the guy. So once I read your post I looked him up. Where do you get the impression that he is dubious? Do you have some information or site you can send me too or do you just not like what he says?

Mike

 

[billsreef]

Gentleman,

We seem to be starting to head down that slippery path of the argument going from arguing the point to getting personal, and we all know what happens then. So perhaps it's a good idea to step back from the keyboards for a bit

 

[HippieSmell]

Hi Bill. Yeah, time to step back for a bit. No hard feelings Mike, here's a good ol' eHug for ya.

Merry Christmas, happy holidays, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Festivus, or whatever label of celebration you choose. Personally, I'm just glad the winter solstice is here, I need more sunlight.

 

[MCary]

Bill, You mistook the tenor of my post. I feel no anger or aggrevation. I enjoy a good back and forth with Hippy. And I was trying not to get into the merits of Global Warming. I believe the Global Warming debate breaks people into two camps. Those that believe the Global Warming theory and those that aren't sure yet. Those that believe absolutely that there is no possibility of Global Warming are, to be kind, uninformed.

The only reason I broke in to this debate at all was to be informative. A poster was concerned that melting polar ice was going to flood coastal areas. I was merely pointing out that this wasn't happening. This does not reflect on the validity of Global Warming as I pointed out. It only informs of the weather pattern on the continent of Antartica. Just as occasion floods and droughts here in the US do not negate or support the theory.

I believe if someone is going to be an activist or "warrior" for a cause, they need to have a complete understanding of what they are fighting for. Hippie of course seems well informed, but other tend to parrot what they've heard form a sensational media or a friend of a friend.

Last year after the devestating hurricanes I remember one of the first interviews on TV where they talked to a scientist at the national hurricane center. They asked if the hurricanes were a result of Global Warming. He stated quite clearly, no. They were a cyclical event that were easily predicted. He showed graphs of previous events to illustrate his point. Following that event, I heard numerous claims by scientists outside the hurricane field, activists, and celebrities using the hurricanes to site the dangers of global warming. Many of them claimed that this year would even be more devestating. Of course this year we had none.

My point is, before someone worries themselves into a thrombo, get a clear understanding of what you're talking about. Do not accept things because the great George Clooney or Bill Maher said it. Me and Hippie may disagree on alot of things, but I give him credit for one thing. He never sites Fox news or Rosie O'Donnell as one of his sources.

ok, I'm done

Mike

 

[antonsemrad]

Could both of you two tell me what your opinion is of this is.

Thanx
Anton

 

[ReefBuddha]

ask yourselves this:

in the absence of certainty, doesn't it make sense to choose the path that is safest? In other words...it can't hurt to reduce greenhouse emissions etc. if we are wrong, but it can hurt if we ignore the possibility of climate change, and it turns out to be real. So the only smart path is the safe one regardless of outcome.

and, doesn't it make sense to let the best scientific minds on the planet figure out the predominant theory, ajd not a bunch of aquarium nerds like us? The best minds in the worldwide scientific community have declared climate chang eot be a plausable risk, so who are we to question them from our couches? Lets leave the climate science to the actual climatologists at Harvard and Cornell.

At least this is a welcome topic here at RC, and it's nice to see responsible reefkeeping get its own forum. TRT is another story unfortunately.

 

[samtheman]

"So the only smart path is the safe one regardless of outcome."

So show me a "safe" way to reduce o2 emissions by 75% in 10 years. Show me the plan and lets see how many jobs are lost and how many companys close. But before you do that, show me the proof that man is causing global warming. I am educated enough to know the difference in a decision made by voting and one that is based on data. Why don't we need a consensus on the theory of gravity?

 

[ReefBuddha]

well I think you completely missed the point, and judging by that response we're not going to get anywhere, but I'll try once more.

1) The potential cost of being wrong is much greater than the potential cost of being right.

2) Leave the real climate science to the real climatologists....don't be naive enough to believe some fish geeks on their computers have the answers that the best minds in the worldwide scientific community missed.

This blog cites lots of articles and studies on climate change and coral reefs. use the search feature.

www.reeflabs.com

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9004681#post9004681 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ReefBuddha
Leave the real climate science to the real climatologists....don't be naive enough to believe some fish geeks on their computers have the answers that the best minds in the worldwide scientific community missed.

I don't agree with this statement. Why shouldn't we discuss GW? Why blindly follow? Why be sheeple? It's always good to discuss issues like GW because it leads to the general public having better understanding, and normal people have to do something about the problem, not simply rely on ivory tower researchers.

 

[ReefBuddha]

discussion is fine. Independent thought and critical analysis is good. In fact its what science is about....but keep things in perspective....nobody here is a climatologist from Cornell. We can guess, we can speculate, we can imagine, but we're not trained to even try and make actual judgments based on anything. Professional climatologists are qualified, not reefgeeks, lol. What makes you think any of the armchair scientists here know anything that the entire worldwide scientific community missed?

It's just plain naive to think we know more than the best scientific minds across the globe over the past 40 years...and the global scientific community in climate science have stated the predominant theory....so i don't know what you mean by 'blindly' following, if we're listening to the best minds on the subject.

re: the 'ivory tower' generalization - casual stereotyping and over-generalizations like this tend to be a big indicator of perspective, or a lack thereof, and can only bog down effective debate, imo.

 

[HippieSmell]

So, I suppose researchers should simply stop publishing their work in popular publications? I mean, what's the point, none of the readers have climatology degrees from Cornell. And 'blindly' following means going along with an idea without understanding the idea. So yes, join the herd by all means, but leave me out of your humble apathy movement, 'buddha'.

Excuse me if I sound harsh, but you pushed my buttons by jumping in and basically telling me and everyone else that we're stupid and that we should just listen to our 'betters'.

 

[ReefBuddha]

stop publishing? I'm sorry but I'm not following your logic. In fact the open publication of data allows the scientific community the opportunity for critical analysis. Your responses are steeped in sarcasm and are making less and less sense to me unfortunately.

Compared to professional climatologists, YES, we're all relatively 'stupid' here on that subject. I don't see why that's a problem. But I gotta move on. I bid you all good day.

new scientist site .

* Wikipedia Entry
*he debate Behind Global Warming
* end of the debate
* All about climate change
* Climate science by Climate Scientists

plenty more too..

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9007098#post9007098 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ReefBuddha
stop publishing? I'm sorry but I'm not following your logic. In fact the open publication of data allows the scientific community the opportunity for critical analysis. Your responses are steeped in sarcasm and are making less and less sense to me unfortunately.

Compared to professional climatologists, YES, we're all relatively 'stupid' here on that subject. I don't see why that's a problem. But I gotta move on. I bid you all good day.

new scientist site .

* Wikipedia Entry
*he debate Behind Global Warming
* end of the debate
* All about climate change
* Climate science by Climate Scientists

plenty more too..

Wow, you come off as even more elitist than I do. You linked wikipedia, cnn, and my old school's student newspaper, big deal. Don't think that you can call us stupid, post some articles, and think that's the end. I've been working on some of these hard-cases (no offense) for some time now, and they deserve an explanation, not simply insults and links.

stop publishing? I'm sorry but I'm not following your logic. In fact the open publication of data allows the scientific community the opportunity for critical analysis.

*Sarcasm on* Scientists should stop publishing in POPULAR publications (Science, Nature, etc) where the general populace is the reading audience. *Sarcasm off* It's an important link between research and normal people. My point is that decisions of this magnitude shouldn't be handed down from scientists without taking the time to explain it to the people it will impact. You seem to feel that we shouldn't try to UNDERSTAND what is happening, we should just accept it. I find that both absurd and boring.

 

[ReefBuddha]

You seem to feel that we shouldn't try to UNDERSTAND what is happening, we should just accept it. I find that both absurd and boring.

actually no, that is not at all what I implied, and I'm sorry if it came across that way. Maybe someone else who understands what i am saying can explain it differently, sorry.

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9009795#post9009795 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ReefBuddha
actually no, that is not at all what I implied, and I'm sorry if it came across that way. Maybe someone else who understands what i am saying can explain it differently, sorry.

I figured there was some miscommunication, thank you for clarifying your stance.

 

[awestruck]

Hi, been tagging along, haven't contributed lately, so I'll take the chance and hope I don't get slaughtered. First, HippieSmell, throughout this entire thread I have agreed with your viewpoint. FWIW, I too am a tree hugger (all groans will be ignored). On the other hand, I feel that Reefbuddah makes a valid point if we listen carefully to what s/he is saying. This is going to be wordy, and, well, oh well. Example #1: Many RC members understand saltwater chemistry-----BUT-----do we understand it in its entirety (at least almost) as Dr. Holmes-Farley does? I truly doubt it. And why? Well, he is a VERY highly educated, VERY intelligent man who knows his subject matter. Could he sometimes be wrong? Of course, he's human. But, I would estimate that he is usually correct. Now, let's not argue about comparing chemistry science with "global warming" science, correlations, causality, etc. OK, example #2: Last year I had brain surgery. The first neurosurgeon I consulted with told me she could do the surgery necessary to save my life; however, she said, "Jeanna, I want you to go to someone better than me, and someone who has been practicing longer than I have". I ended up going to the University of Wisconsin, Madison--the chair of the neurosurgery department operated, and was able to save me when I coded on the table. My point you ask? Well, many people understand environmental issues, health problems, etc. And, it's great that we laypeople do our research to try to better understand issues such as GW. BUT, generally speaking we aren't experts in these fields. I have a masters degree and I sure as he11 am bright enough to know that I do not know, even with my research, as much as many, many of the experts. So should I quit trying to learn? Of course not. But am I an expert? NO.

 

[Hunterx]

Look Stop fighting,
Hippy Global Warming is still a Theory and one with crappy observations. It's not because it's wrong or right or we just don’t know but because we can’t test it in a controlled environment (Key Word) because of the obvious impracticality. Control is the very foundation of science, there is NO vagueness in this and once you said that doesn’t matter you lose a LOT of credibility.

It may come to a surprise to you but even phenomena like gravity are a theory same thing goes with Evolution, because we can't test it. Sounds crazy right? Well it's not, a theory is based on many observations unlike a hypothesis which is an educated guess to a problem. I myself would say the observations are really crappy considering we have been living on this planet for less then 1/8th of its history and only have really been recording it's history for less then 1/12. That's not taking in consideration the past events that have happened over the course of Earths history a few billion years that is Quite Frankly if super computers can't accurately predict short term weekly forecasts then they are sure as hell not aint going to be able to predict Long term climate change.
20 or so years ago going at turbulent time along with many other needless hysterias (The War on Drugs©, Nuclear war and Communism now replaced by "The War on Terror©), we actually believed that our planet was going to get Cooler Yea that's right sounds familiar kinda like a "Trend" a word that's used alot by the GW people First it was getting too cold now it's getting too warm, What's next? Global (insert random Phenomena here)? Or better yet something we already have Global stupidity.

Lets face it Humanity and the world itself is more likely to kill its self from it's own self generated Hysteria when nothing was really going to happen in the first place. If only we would LISTEN

Look take anything you hear with a grain of salt on BOTH sides of the issue because there is ALOT of propaganda out there.