This article is nothing but a rehash of a political document. I don't give it much credence.

Asking tenured professors, who are recognized experts in their field, is actually a very reliable thing to do. Discrediting them because of the political climate in their city is ridiculous. I know very few true scientists who allow political views to influence their scientific findings, as much as the conservative press likes to pretend that it does.

And note that I was asking him for what his colleagues nationally believed, not what was believed just here in Madison.

Plus this particular department is very highly regarded in national rankings. If they allowed political biases to influence their science, it would hurt them academically.

Since most of us here are over the hill, I don't think there is much question about our impending doom. I was almost nailed by a tree branch on my bike ride this afternoon

For anyone interested in this topic, here is a link to a fascinating paper on this subject, written by a person who was previously a skeptic in the 1990s:

https://www3.brookings.edu/views/pape...k/20060517.pdf

Of all of the groups on BF, the one that will be least impacted is this group.

Unless we are talking about impacts with trees, road surfaces, and vehicles.

The Truth?

My reply to the local newpaper that had an article by Dr Thomas Sowell on that Channel 4 story. Believe it or not our local newspaper is called "The Laramie Daily Boomerang." Perhaps the only newspaper in the country named for a mule.


What Dr. Sowell Didn’t Tell Us

Dear Editor:

I have to admit that I get a kick out of reading Thomas Sowell’s opinion pieces in the Boomerang. As one of today’s leading Contrarians, he publishes, shall we say, interesting views on a variety of subjects. Recently in the Boomerang it was global warming
I am not an expert on global warming nor is Dr. Sowell (he is an economist), but he does have strong opinions about it, calling it a, “crock” and a “swindle.” His diatribe on the subject is based on a TV documentary from Britain’s Channel 4. Dr. Sowell indicates that the documentary is based on the testimony of many renowned experts.
There are some things, however, that Dr. Sowell did not tell us. Foremost among these is that the producer of the documentary is Martin Durkin. This is not Durkin’s first documentary on such issues. His previous environmental piece, also appearing on Channel 4 in 1997, was so widely criticized for misquotes and taking other quotes out of context that after it ran, Channel 4 issued a public apology.
Nor did Dr. Sowell tell us that Durkin is at it again. Already one of the scientists interviewed in the latest documentary has complained. Dr. Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology says he had been “completely misrepresented” by the program, and “totally misled” on its content.
Dr. Sowell also did not tell us that Channel 4 does not even agree with the documentary it ran. On their web site they state, “Little doubt exists among the scientific community that human activity is changing the climate.”
Dr. Sowell is correct that there are scientists who disagree on the subject. But he did not tell us that the large majority now agree that humans are a leading cause of the current warming.
Finally, Dr. Sowell did not tell us that unlike him and Mr. Durkin, scientists who work for the American taxpayers have their views on the subject edited to “align these communications with the administration’s stated policy.” We learned this recently from Conrgressional testimony by the former Chief of Staff, White House Council on Environmental Quality (who resigned under fire and now works for Exxon Mobil).
Dr. Sowell should tell us the whole story.



Kim Viner

You miss the point entirely. We are doing 1000% better than the Chineese and we are the Anti-Christ in this issue? Makes me want to puke.

OK. I believe in global warming. Just what do you think we should do about it?

I personally am going to follow Algore's example: be an energy hog and buy carbon credits.

But what do YOU think we should do about this mess?

A very interesting article. I wish there could be more of this sort of rational study then the "sky is falling" "no its not" facts being thrown at us by both sides.

Amen, and pass the potatoes.

+2

As in any debate involving unknowns, the first step is for each interested party to admit, "I don't have all the answers; I am willing to listen to cogent, rational arguments and to share my beliefs and my reasoning behind them respectfully and constructively."

First, what are (or should be) our objectives? Mine would be to preserve the natural environment, including a rich diversity of species in varied habitats, to lead a materially comfortable "first world" lifestyle, to protect and enhance my health and the mental, physical, and emotional health of those around me, and to try to leave the world a better place for my sons and their eventual progeny, for many generations to come.

Second, what do we know? We lack absolute proof, but we have very strong circumstantial evidence that anthropocentric global warming is real at some level, and we can present ample rational physio-chemical evidence.

Third, what should we do? As always, look for the win-win, such as an energy-and-materials efficient, conservation-oriented lifestyle. Specifically, avoid those short stop-and-go trips in the car when you can reasonably walk, jog, or ride your bike. Underheat and undercool your house. Install thermal and/or photovoltaic solar panels where it makes economic sense to do so. Buy a more fuel-efficient car, perhaps a hybrid, next time around. Switch to double-paned windows. Support nuclear energy research and development, fission for the short term and fusion for the long term, in addition to research in carbon sequestration.

What is my "carbon" allocation? Defined/specified by whom? Who establishes/determines the allowance parameters/crieria?? At what point (carbon units expended) will the purchase of carbon offsets be recommended/required??? Oversight and monitoring of carbon offsets will be performed by??? Will carbon offset vendors be domestic or international?? Licensed & bonded?....by whom???
How much of YOUR individual freedoms are YOU willng to forfeit for another political/special interest oriented CRISIS??
Follow the DOLLARS!!!

Yup. I argued initially that global warming is real and suggested we may have F'ed up our own planet. I still believe humans are contributing to the greenhouse gasses, but I'm not sure there's much to be done. Our reduced use of fossil fuels will occur for other reasons anyway. It's entirely possible we are in a cycle of increasing CO2 anyway. Humans may have meerly given it a healthy push.

The theory I had accepted that attempted to explain glaciation cycles was: "gradual global warming eventually caused sufficient ice sheet meltwater to disrupt ocean currents causing climate changes in Europe and NA conducive to continental glaciation --which eventually restored ocean currents leading again to gradual global warming, etc, etc,.."

These cycles are tens of thousands of years and more. Statistically, our species will be lucky to last long enough to see any measurable piece of such cycles. And we certainly have time to adapt to the changes.

So I am going to avoid establishing future family estates in low lying coastal areas, tend to hang near large freshwater systems, and otherwise: ride, eat pie, repeat.

As with all complex problems, we attempt to find simple answers. The chicken little's of global warming take the simple approach that we humans are to blame, and therefore, we humans can fix the problem. Rather egotistical in my opinion.

The parameters I measure this with began with high school and college science courses in the mid-70s -- that the earth's climate is changing and trending warmer. As the earth warms, the polar ice caps will melt, increasing the levels of our ocean and decreasing the land mass. The theory then was that this would serve to moderate warming, and eventually lower temperatures and perhaps even trigger an ice age. Since then we have become much more adept at measuring things -- and graduate students and scientists have probed ancient ice cores, tree rings, rocks, ocean sediment, etc. to measure miniscule and often mundane things. They continue to advance theories based on these new measurements, trying to make sense of a wealth of data points. Sometimes these data points connect, other times those manipulating the data try to pound that square peg into a round hole.

Good science works through trial and error, testing theories until they can be proven, and then moving on to solve the questions that arise in the process of answering the previous question. There has also been a growing trend to sensationalize the problems to attract funding, which opens the door for politics to dilute and distort science.

The trend is clear, the cause is not. And the outcome is equally unclear. There needs to be a lot more data gathered and verified, and theories validated. Doesn't mean we need to ignore the problem. But we need to be very aware of the agendas behind the power brokers in this global debate.

It is amazing how a long ride helps bring my thoughts into focus! [Have to keep some sort of biking link here, right? ]

That sizes up my thinking in a lot clearer way than I could have ever hoped to write down. Obviously, I need to be riding further.

Let's begin with a simple fact on which we all can agree - none of us are qualified to determine if global warming is man-made or not - NONE of us. Therefore, we are forced to use LOGIC rather than biased statistics and other useless information we cannot possible understand to determine the likeliness that we are the cause of this obviously very serious situation.

Here's my take:

Most all scientists with a vested interest in our government, or big oil all share one commom thread. They say that global warming is not man-made. There is no doubt about it - global warming is NOT man made.

Scientists with no such vested interest most all have a completely opposing opinion of global warming. They say that it is clearly a man-made situation, and therefore, we MAY have the power to fix/help it.

Again, I don't know the truth about global warming, but I can clearly see which side is backing which side of the argument. That, in itself, is pretty telling to me.

Please do not preach that you KNOW that global warming is man-made, or not. It's quite obvious that there are some scientists with the education to state one way or the other. However, you're not one of them. Instead, just try to follow the money. It's usually a pretty good path to start.

... Brad

+1

Here you go ... a massively long Global Warming Bike Tour!

https://www.rideforclimate.com/usa/

TRUTH ??

There is bright side to everything especially for us optomists. I forsee significant short term economic/financial opportunities. Now the challenge is determining the process/venue to capitalize/participate.

read my page on future of transportation https://funnyfarmart.com/HPVpagetwo.htm

First .... " ... no such vested interest ..." -- really?? Well, 'following the money' one could equally well argue that those who promote the 'man-made global warming' view have every bit as much a vested interest: peer reputation, career security/prospects, success in research grant applications, etc. etc. These kinds of 'vested interests' are every bit as real, and every bit -- ultimately -- as 'financial' as, say, those of a salaried scientist at Shell or Exxon. Put another way, a Greenpeace activist's motivations are just as likely (or not) to be financial. Al Gore is a different kind of example; now that most of us have forgotten that he invented the Internet, he needed a new 'brand' to get himself back into public view. Have to admit (vide: Academy Awards) he's been very successful -- all power to him!

My take:
1. As above, what we have right now is a mass (morass, perhaps better) of conflicting data AND conflicting opinion, some of which is genuinely held, some of which cynically. Seems to me that, in fact, at this point 'we' really just don't yet know whether human activity in/of itself has created a global warming effect.
2. Unarguable (I think): we've done a pretty good job of f----g up our environment in many areas, more or less severely, at least on a local/national level, BUT at least in North America/Western Europe, some regulatory and voluntary measures do seem to be having a salutary effect on this. That, unfortunately, is not the case in the hyper-industrializing nations, like mainland China and India.
3. Also unarguable, I think, is the fact that the 'end of the world' community has an on the whole not very impressive track record in its predictions (others have commented on this above). The fact that 'science' took over the leadership position in this community, superseding religion, has not improved this in the slightest.
Consequently, while I do think that specific measures to address specific environmental problems can and should be pursued at a national/local level, I also think that there is simply not nearly enough evidence, and perhaps none at all, to support the kinds of 'global' measures contemplated, for example, in the Kyoto Accord which (speaking of 'following the money'), for the most part, seems simply designed to dress up wealth-transfer (First to Third World) in yet another set of clothes, thereby supporting the creation and funding of yet another useless trans-national bureaucracy, and jobs for the boys/girls.

Here endeth my rant!

+1 Bavo....very well stated!