Originally posted by agrysonNo I'm still undecided as to what I think, therefore neither side agrees with me. But every paper I've read on the subject has a distinct leaning one way or the other. I've read quite a few, it was one of the first topic I had to write on in college. Although yes they don't comment on the consequences, they all imply one way or the other. Except in some of the older papers I read.
While not a scientific article per se, the following link gives an assesment of the current research. As always, it's very hard to understand what you mean by biased, I mean, most scientific articles don't make any claims as regards mankinds fate as a result of climate change, but rather report what our best understanding of the facts suggest will be the eff ...[text shortened]... definition of unbiased is a report that you agree with, then that in itself is a bias surely?
As for mister shouty over there. I had a specific question that I wanted a discussion about/answer to. Therefore I started a new thread. If I wanted to comment on someone else's opinions, or address an Issue already discussed. I'd have resurrected an older thread. Isn't that the Idea behind message boards?
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterYou're right, the IPCC statement's already been watered down.
The IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report is filled with gross inaccuracies:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba609/
http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/side%20by%20side%20before%20and%20after%20WG2%20negotiations_0.pdf
This may interest you about the Wegman report citation in your post
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/08/followup-to-the-hockeystick-hearings/
If you believe that strongly they got it wrong, write to them with your concern, and if you're right you'll be saving everyone a lot of worry.
Looking forward to reading the reply you get.
Originally posted by MexicoMy considered position is that disastrous armageddon style stuff is very very unlikely, the likely result from what I've read is simply further strain on already stressed global infrastructure. More extreme weather and rising sea levels would not mean the end of mankind, but it would certainly make things bloody annoying and very dangerous for those in areas less able to cope with the change such as the 3rd world. Maybe that's still sounding like bias to you, but the reality is that just because something seems a little sensational doesn't mean that it is necessarily biased.
No I'm still undecided as to what I think, therefore neither side agrees with me. But every paper I've read on the subject has a distinct leaning one way or the other. I've read quite a few, it was one of the first topic I had to write on in college. Although yes they don't comment on the consequences, they all imply one way or the other. Except in some of th ...[text shortened]... scussed. I'd have resurrected an older thread. Isn't that the Idea behind message boards?
Take an example...
Many people speak out about the dangers of nuclear power, that the results of irresponsible use could be devastating to mankind. This is true. The response is not to go live in a bunker with a few years of tinned food, the response is to qulaify the veracity of the claims using science rather than personal opinion, and responding appropriately. The appropriate response is to continue constructing nuclear power plants, but ensure very high levels of safety. The risks are contained while the benefits are reaped.
In the case of climate change, an appropriate response is not to go live on a mountainside wearing itchy jumpers, it is to assess the risks without recourse to personal feelings on the matter and respond appropriately, in this case using technologies and introducing policies. Live as sustainably as is comfortable, and encourage the government to make it easier to do so comfortably. (for instance, more nuclear power which would make power cheaper and clean for climate change purposes)
Yep I would tend to agree... Widespread use of modern Nuclear power would result in a tremendous cut in general emissions... We just need to be sensible about it and find someplace reasonable safe to store the waste.... Again people have no Idea, and because of 1 or 2 isolated incidents 50m years ago they jump up and down screaming against nuclear power....
- Joined
- 30 Dec 07
- Moves
- 9905
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterThat's ridiculous.
I think we're looking at this all wrong. Instead of all this gloom and doom, we should ask ourselves: What are the benefits of "global warming"? Here's my short list:
Fewer deaths from cold weather.
Oil under the Arctic easier to drill for.
More beachfront property in Arctic.
Canada becomes a wine-making powerhouse.
Longer growing season in Siberia.
We stave off next Ice Age.
Originally posted by MexicoYou're confusing unbiased with indecisive.
[[text shortened]...
As to the Unbiased paper, it would be possible to produce a paper which presents all the arguments to date in condensed form, for and against. Then provides no conclusions and simply lets us decide for ourselves no?[/b]
Originally posted by PhisI have to agree. What I thought was just a regular novel or fiction story, but Michael Crichton referances everything his characters say to real facts, documents, stat's, & charts about the environment. Quite an eye opener (and perhaps not in the way you might expect)
Try reading "State of Fear" - Michael Crichton (I think).
In addition, read the appx's in the back. They will give you some very interesting insight of mans past attempt to control nature (a big flop), as well as how society can take fear and create horrible monsters like Hitler.
Highly recommended!
Every piece of information has a bias, it cannot be avoided. While pop journalism tends to skew the scientific literature, the original articles usually provide the most accurate portrayals of the data (i.e. they aren't leaving out data points that don't fit). This has to involve a discussion of their findings as well as putting it in a broad "who gives a crap" perspective, so it can get published and people understand it. Subconsciously, there may be an effort by climatologists to make their work sound important (for more funding, recognition, respect etc.) but that doesn't make them tree huggers, as they've unfairly been portrayed. With enough careful analysis of the data, you can find inconsistencies in the numbers vs. what they claim, as many conservative pundits have done very effectively. Every scientist attempts to take "unbiased" approaches to solving phenomena, but most experiments also have a hypothesis, which is inherently biased. The ones you really need to watch out for are the "null hypotheses" where a researcher apparently undertook a large, expensive project to prove something IS NOT happening. Why would anyone do that?
On a side note: From a strict surface area to volume ratio, rising sea levels will result in LESS beaches. Furthermore, there won't be any sand on them for millions of years 😉
I also wanted to bring up the global cooling theory that originated in the 70's. Many prestigious journals and prominent scientists (including Carl Sagan) talked about an imminent doomsday ice age! (see: http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,944914,00.html).
