then there's the guy who got fewer votes than the other guy but wound up president.

Dear Draginol,

Thank you for this reply. Many in the hard sciences think as you do regarding researchers working in the soft sciences. While it is true our data is soft, relying on empirical referents to quantify, it is no less solid application of the scientific method. For example, all advanced research in the soft sciences such as social work or psychology rely on research methods that attempt to control for internal and external validity; we use control groups, and make every effort to not generalize beyond what the experiment allows from the sample selection method.

As you know, even in the hard sciences, direct causal relationships are nearly impossible to assert. In medicine, we might say smoking causes cancer, but this is technically untrue and cannot be literally taken as fact. What is true is the association of cigarette smoking to cases of lung disease including cancer. This association is high and the probility the cancer is caused by something other than smoking is very low. So, as a matter of convenience and for speaking to those unschooled in science, we say smoking causes cancer.

Now, I cannot speak to thye data or experiments used over the years to conclude CO2 increases have caused "global warming". It appears there is an association from the data that I have seen in the Gore foilm, his book, and the reports from the IPCC.

The Nobel Peace prize is almost always controversial as I pointed out earlier, I think. It is alsost always going to piss off someone, especially someone wedded to the Social Darwnist strain of human thought. Martin Luther King was a poor choice to some, as was Arafat and Jimmy Carter to others. Yet, with the exception of Arafat, the people selected truely did work on behalf of a more peaceful and less conflictual world, King, Carter, and now Gore, included.

I do not think this prize is a joke. I think it is the Nobel committee's willingness to engage from their ideological perspective and frankly, that seems to be what all of us do. Even scientists absorbed in a Lockean sort of mindset.

See ya!

Hey Charles, good to see you. You are correct. I have focused on Gore, but please understand, I am totally in awe by the IPCC's work and their collective efforts. Individual scientists, their funding organizations, their labs and the lab rats who work in them are very special sorts of people. My daughter is a researcher. Her PhD is also from Case, but in neuropharmacology. She currently conducts research as St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis. We are very proud of her choice of career and her choice of a post doc at that facility. I know how long and hard she works. I also know that Marlow Thomas gets a lot of credit for the work done there. Is she a researcher? No. Does she deserve the limelight, absolutely.

The point of my post really was to look at the differences in how people use intelligence. But I guess the controversial nature of the two persons has caused a bit of a deviation.

Coulter is a brilliant woman who works tirelessly for her cause. Gore, in my opinion, is a brilliant man who also works tirelessly for his cause. I see one working for humanity and one working hard to separate and divide our nation into spiteful and fearful little groups.

When I was working on trauma survivor research, I found a nifty little list of survivor syndromes. These are ways in which people attempt to cope with psychological trauma. One of the ways is through a sort of paranoia, the "mental illness" model, so to speak. Another is through something called "prosocial humanitarianism." In this strategy, people attempt to find ways to heal through making a difference in their world. They might join a women's organization, support a battered women's shelter, or work on behalf of peace. All of the others were on the list were essentially negative, drugs, isolation, etc.

Not knowing Coulter's background in terms of psychological trauma, it does appear from her biography, that something happened. She has relationship issues, she has paranoid tendencies, she is radical and fundamental in her approach (translate as black and white thinker), and she is divisive. Of course such theorizing is not wise. I only say these things to point out symptoms clusters in the two syndromes.

Be well.

Hey there MM, So, you are suggesting that the science behind Gore's film is wrong and that the IPCC's force of 2500 scientists are all duped?

Do you have a reference?

Be well.

Hello Draginol, could you elaborate on this text from Wikipedia?

Anthropogenic greenhouse gases

Global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions broken down into 8 different sectors for the year 2000. The projected temperature increase for a range of greenhouse gas stabilization scenarios (the coloured bands). The black line in middle of the shaded area indicates 'best estimates'; the red and the blue lines the likely limits. From the work of IPCC AR4, 2007.

Per capita greenhouse gas emissions by country for the year 2000 including land-use change.The concentrations of several greenhouse gases have increased over time.[6] Human activity increases the greenhouse effect primarily through release of carbon dioxide, but human influences on other greenhouse gases can also be important.[7] Some of the main sources of greenhouse gases due to human activity include:

burning of fossil fuels and deforestation leading to higher carbon dioxide concentrations;
livestock and paddy rice farming, land use and wetland changes, pipeline losses, and covered vented landfill emissions leading to higher methane atmospheric concentrations. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the livestock industry is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalent, a higher share than transportation.[8] Many of the newer style fully vented septic systems that enhance and target the fermentation process also are major sources of atmospheric methane;
use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in refrigeration systems, and use of CFCs and halons in fire suppression systems and manufacturing processes.
agricultural activities, including the use of fertilizers, that lead to higher nitrous oxide concentrations.
The seven sources of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion are (with percentage contributions for 2000-2004)[9]:

Solid fuels (e.g. coal): 35%
Liquid fuels (e.g. gasoline): 36%
Gaseous fuels (e.g. natural gas): 20%
Flaring gas industrially and at wells: <1%
Cement production: 3%
Non-fuel hydrocarbons: <1%
The "international bunkers" of shipping and air transport not included in national inventories: 4%
Greenhouse gas emissions from industry, transportation (1/3 of total US global warming pollution)[10] and agriculture are very likely the main cause of recently observed global warming.[11][12] Major sources of an individual's GHG include home heating and cooling, electricity consumption, and transportation. Corresponding conservation measures are improving home building insulation, cellular shades, compact fluorescent lamps and choosing high miles per gallon vehicles.

Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and three groups of fluorinated gases (sulfur hexafluoride, HFCs, and PFCs) are the major greenhouse gases and the subject of the Kyoto Protocol, which entered into force in 2005.[13]

CFCs, although greenhouse gases, are regulated by the Montreal Protocol, which was motivated by CFCs' contribution to ozone depletion rather than by their contribution to global warming. Note that ozone depletion has only a minor role in greenhouse warming though the two processes often are confused in the popular media.


[edit] The role of water vapor

Increasing water vapor at Boulder, Colorado.Water vapor is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas and accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% [14]. Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not directly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales (for example, near irrigated fields).

Current state-of-the-art climate models include fully interactive clouds[15]. They show that an increase in atmospheric temperature caused by the greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic gases will in turn lead to an increase in the water vapor content of the troposphere, with approximately constant relative humidity. The increased water vapor in turn leads to an increase in the greenhouse effect and thus a further increase in temperature; the increase in temperature leads to still further increase in atmospheric water vapor; and the feedback cycle continues until equilibrium is reached.

sodaiho,

I can't speak for MM, but I'll field this from my perspective.

One flaw of modern science is that it accepts too many hypotheses as facts. This is not just true of climatology, but of anthropology and other scientific disciplines. The result is poor science.

We have less than 100 years of consistent, carefully measured empirical data on which we are basing the projections on global warming. Less than 30 years of consistent satellite images. Before that, measurements were localized, not always consistently recorded, and often subjective.

Every climatological anomaly is automatically attributed to global warming, no matter how disconnected it may be. Without proof that global warming is a consistently predictable man made phenomenom.

It's been pointed out to you and others who exalt Al Gore and IPCC that 30 years ago, we were in a cooling trend and scientists predicted a new ice age. This, by the way, was in a time when greenhouse gases were FAR more unchecked than they are now, and environmental laws were in their infancy. If 30 plus years of very dramatic changes have done nothing to stop global warming, nothing we do from here on out is likely to help either.

Another issue with global warming is that it is assumed all of the factors involved are occuring here on the planet. It ignores the fact that global warming is an issue on other planets within our solar system, planets where the human factor is a nonexistent variable. Solar flares and other activities of our sun affect warming trends greatly, and that has nothing to do with the greenhouse gases we produce.

I will give Al Gore proper credit for keeping us continually aware of our environment. But I don't appreciate the faux science "doomsday" approach he employs. If global warming is such an imminent catastrophe, why are we not helping developing countries advance without the mistakes we made when the industrial revolution was in its infancy? They don't need to go through the cycle of damage, then repair, that characterized our own development.

The fact is, many Americans lead pretty environmentally responsible lives (ironically enough, your icon, Mr. Gore, does NOT). We nay not be perfect, but we're not the planet wrecking monsters Gore and the IPCC would have us to be. And even if we are, isn't extinction of various species part of the evolutionary process? Let 90% of our population become extinct, and the problem will self correct!

Come on, kids.


nataliedee.com

Gid: We have less than 100 years of consistent, carefully measured empirical data on which we are basing the projections on global warming. Less than 30 years of consistent satellite images. Before that, measurements were localized, not always consistently recorded, and often subjective.


Actually, we do have data on atmospheric CO2. Its contained in those marvelous glaciers. The measurement analysis you are suggesting is subjective is subject to trend analysis which typically takes into account threats to its validty. Not always, I am sure, people are people, but we must look at the trends.

As you say, others have pointed out the issue of the proported coming Ice Age and use this as an example par excellence of why we should take bonafide scrience with a grain of proverbial salt.

To quote Carl Sagan: The technological perils that science serves up, its implicit challenge to received wisdom, and its perceived difficulty, are all reasons for some people to mistrust and avoid it. There's a reason people are nervous about science and technology...But we can't simply conclude that science puts too much power into the hands of morally feeble technologists or corrupt power crazed politicians and so decide to get rid of it. The Demon-Haunted World, P. 11.

Radical environmentalists, working in tandom with the United Nations, more interested in protecting the planet and curbing global warming

I have few questions to all those who think that Global Warming is a leftists' loony idea.

What exactly is a left-or-right view in this issue? what do leftists gain or achieve (as leftists) from this issue? is this a social issue to support lazy bums too? or is it a tax-the-rich-and-give-it-to-nondesrving druggies issue?

Actually, the leftists would love the earth to get warmer ..... for the homelss people''s benefits, the poor people wouldnt suffer from unheated homes, and all kinds of other warm-weather goodies that help those non-working lazy people.

So why do those looney-leftists bother to raise this issue and bother the good-and-sensible people of the rigth? what is there for them and their wacky ideas?

anyone have an answer?

The left has an emotional need to blame humans and more particularly the United States for every problem in the world.

You would have to ask a psychologist as to why the left is this way.

But I would say that it boils down to self-esteem. Left wingers seem more inclined to build their self esteem based on holding beliefs that make them belief that humanity, as a whole, as the power to do anything.

Whether it be weather or individual success, they think humans are capable of it all. They see our capability as infinite.

The right, by contrast, does not think so.  The right does not tend to think people are capable of doing it all. Some can do more than others. But our capability is finite.

The message of the left is more inspiring, more seductive because it makes one feel good about oneself.  The message of the right can be depressing and is harder to deal with. 

 

Gid was referring to temperature, not CO2.  CO2 is higher now in parts per million than it has been in recent times.

So what? CO2 makes up less than 0.03% of the atmosphere.

It's not even a very good green house substance compared to say water vapor or methane or any number of other things.

There are also more parking lots now than there have ever been. Let's blame global warming on that.

The CO2 hypothesis is just so...poor.  I have a hard time taking people seriously who seriously belief that human produced CO2 is causing a world wide temperature increase.

In another decade or two when it becomes patently obvious that CO2 from humans isn't the cause, i wonder how those who have pushed this nonsense will weasel out of responsibility.

So - why is it up to me do do analysis on data for you.  Aren't you the one who has faith in the CO2 global warming hypothesis?

We produce many tons of CO2. About 14% of the CO2 generated each year comes from burning fossil fuels.

CO2 accounts to .03% of the Earth's atmosphere.  That's not 3%, it's 3 thousands of one percent. There's more argon in our atmosphere than CO2.

As green house gases go, CO2 isn't particularly nasty.  Water vapor is much worse (ironically, the output of hydrogen powered cars).

I'm not even sure what point you were trying to make with your copy and paste from Wikipedia.

Well, Dragonal, I thought you were the expert in deciding what science is good and what is bad. I wasn't trying to make any point. Greenhouse gasa are climbing, there is a relationship between this and global warming, or so say those who hold it to be so, as in the Wiki reference. I just wanted you to teach me something rather than speaking from your ideological base.

Have you even ever heard of interactive effects? Do you have a clue how complex this problem is to solve or are you just sort of ideologue with your own axe to grind? Arsenic kills, but of itself, in small does, no problem. But the interactive and cuulitive effects are a serious hard. My bet is that is the same with CO2 and a host of other compounds we create and release into this environment of ours.

Be well.

Lula: Humanism is any philosophy or religion which leaves out the supernatural. In this case I used the word "environmental" humanist meaning the environment is their religion.

There is no such thing as supernatural. As soon as something we call "supernatural" occurs, it must be, ipso facto, natural. Now, what do you mean by religion? It seems fundamentalist of whatever sort like to toss this label out on just about anyone who doesn't go along with them, with the exception of course, to paganism.

Do we need a God to have religion? I don't think so, that's a western understanding and is more akin to theism that religion. Can the environment be our God? I don't know. There are some that hld the planet is essentially, a living organism. And from a Buddhist point of view, I would have to agree with this. But a god? Don't think so, anymore than Buddha was a god or Jesus was a god.

See ya.

You are correct. I have focused on Gore, but please understand, I am totally in awe by the IPCC's work and their collective efforts.

Well maybe you should spend more time show how much in awe you are by the IPCC and less time about a man who creates more CO2 than the average person while going around telling people not to create so much CO2. Think about it So Daiho, how could I be a good example for my son when I tell him he should not do something while I do it all the time? I sometimes get upset with myself because I spend the better half of my time with my kids telling them not to curse at each other while I am constantly cursing. Talk about a hard habit to break but it's kinda hypocritical of me to say anything to them and I also confuse them in the process.

then there's the guy who got fewer votes than the other guy but wound up president.

Hmm, and here I thought it was the electoral votes that made someone a President. Guess I must bee losing my focus.

Nope, that's a common myth. Electoral votes only count when the party you LIKE gets elected. When someone you DON'T like gets elected, you can keep protesting long after the contested term has ended!

Good to see read your chime here, LW.

Charles, I think I addressed the Gore "hypocracy" above.

Lastly, may the JU gods be damned for selecting this simple post for being featured. Just kidding about the damned part.

I've claimed no such expertise. I simply have enough confidence in my own scientific knowledge and education to do my own analysis.  But I don't use Wikipedia as my primary research forum.

There is nothing you posted that implies a causation between CO2 levels and temperature.  Historically, CO2 levels have not followed temperatures but rather have grown in response to a temperature change.

So that's your argument? We should latch on to human produced CO2 as a cause of global warming because it's a complex issue and those who disagree have an ideological axe to grind?

Please tell me, what ideological axe to grind would I have?  Unlike most people, I can afford any sort of CO2 regulation that one might fathom. 

I am also perfectly willing to provide services to those who think CO2 causes global warming (our new program, TweakVista is the first utility of its kind to tell you your PC's carbon foot print).

I simply do not see any evidence to indicate that human produced CO2 emissions are affecting the weather in any way.

Drag: I think your ideological axe is conservativism and the exposing of demons on the left. My sense is that anything a lefty come up with or supports will automatically be suspect in your mind. I understand this as mine leans toward the other side, though I am in most cases quite centrist. Ideologically, science has been mired in the empirical POV. As if the observer has no influence on the observed. My sense is you are in that ideological camp. Show me the facts, ma'am, asnd nothin' but the facts! sort of guy. Yet facts are always subjective, always, as they are rendered sensible by a mind in interaction with a universe not always present (in the form of memory or desire).

BTW, I use XP, My Little Honey bought a new machine with Vista...she detests it. I mean really hates it. I have't seen her respond this way since we switched from WordStar to WordPerfect and then again to Word.

I cannot imagine a laptop has much of a print. Is there a typical footprint?

See ya!

Draginol, I think you giving the left more credit than it deserve regarding this. I really believe that. and you also dont give enough credit to the rigth regarding ambitions and belief in our capabilities as individuals and as a Nation.

I remember in the 70's it was almost the same thing but it was Air, water and Land pollution. It was a good right-winger who actually listened to the science and did something about it. You know who was that? Nixon no less.

i remember when many of our good rivers were just a dump for chemicals and trash, remember Love Canal?. now our rivers are back and have fish in them too.

I agree that some of the left go far out of their way. But that is not the main-stream politics. Global warming IS a Problem. please dont argue about it. it is a fact .... go see the Poles. I really mean it. I am sure you can afford the trip. the argument should be about what to do about it.

Let me assure you of one thing and I hope you take my word for it. I really have no stake in either direction at all. But doing the right things to decrease our human effect on Global warming is a great opportunity for us, the USA Businesses, to create a whole new industries and new technologies.

Look around you now and see how many people are getting rich and prosperous from businesses related to Air, water and land pollution abatement and clean-up activities. I hope you encourage that regarding Global-warming abatement not fight it. It is one area that we can dominate and lead.

Of course it will increase business expenses but it will increase existing profits and generate new profit centers. That is the way it is done Draginol .... get in on this new ventures or at least encourage it. It will be good for all. Trust me.

comon Draginol .... i am sure you know better than to say that. just think a little and you will discover that, yes it affects it at least in the immidiate area.

More parking lots, more water evaporation, more water vapour in the air and you got your answer. a little for sure. but multiply that by many many acres of paved lots and the effect is noticeable.

Even the water collected in the draining basins is creating more still water for more evaporation. and you know what else makes it even worse? to keep the water in basins fresh and also add to the beautification of the site, they now install fountains that spray the water way up high in the air ...... more evaporation. you get the picture i am sure.

btw: tell me the truth, Dont you feel bad that Toyota almost won the Hybrid-Car race? as a bus. man you should. I am very upset. I wish it was one of the Big Three. Too bad. And guess what, Toyota is now helping the big-3 to stay behind. Toyota is against raising the MPG standard in the USA, that is to be achieved by 2020, while they are at that standard now. you think Toyota is dumb? i dont think so.

Forthose who don't see the connection between global warming and peace:

Link

What does water evaporation have to do with Co2 emissions? All water evaporates, TA. ALL WATER. From the oceans to your toilet bowl. It all comes back down, too. As rain, snow, dew... Been that way for billions of years. You're concerned about it now...why?

You know, I was actually looking at TA's reply and I couldn't figure out his point? I mean, water stands still everywhere, pavement, dirt, sand, glass, cement, rocks, trees, branches, leaves, cars, etc. But here's the irony, all those hurricanes that rush across the Atlantic ocean come from Africa, the water that evaporates from the land and ends up drying up the place till the next rainy season. How come is it he all of a sudden is worried about something that's been going on for millions of years and is part of nature? Does he really believe that somehow parking lots creating vapor is a bad thing and worse than Africa?