| Author | |
JennGM
Forum Moderator
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17702
|
| Posted: Jan 31 2007 at 8:09am | IP Logged
|
 |
|
Can we discuss about this? I've been meaning to post this for so long. I need straight answers!
What is propaganda, what is true? Is this still a theory like evolution or a fact?
What are good, reliable sources that aren't tainted with an agenda?
I'm not in denial, as I can understand that with larger cities and our pollution there is much that has gone to the atmosphere. But are all strange climate changes necessarily global warming? Temperature records show odd patterns, and even tree rings show patterns of warm times and very cold times. Could we just be in a warm flow?
Is there some proof to explain that this is definitely the trigger of our weather?
__________________
Jennifer G. Miller
Wife to  & ds1  '03 & ds2  '07
Family in Feast and Feria
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Cay Gibson
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 16 2005
Location: Louisiana
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5193
|
| Posted: Jan 31 2007 at 8:56am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I hope I'm not in denial, Jenn. 
After Hurricane Katrina and Rita I thought something was up since the last time our area had a major hurricane was 50 years ago. Because of warnings, everyone was panicked last hurricane season that we'd have another hurricane...my mother most of all. We didn't even have a hurricane enter the Gulf, just some tropical storms.
The weather is weird. Very weird. No denying that. But when I read those Little House books and others which don't come to mind right away, I realize that people always thought it was too hot and there were always weird weather patterns...grasshopper storms, Long Winters, etc.
I don't dwell on it too much. I grew up in the 70's with the image of an old Indian and a tear rolling down his cheek coming across our television screen on a daily basis. It (and the state fines for littering) were very effective propaganda.
__________________
Cay Gibson
"There are 49 states, then there is Louisiana." ~ Chef Emeril
wife to Mark '86
mom to 5
Cajun Cottage Under the Oaks
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Theresa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Dec 27 2006
Location: Minnesota
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1042
|
| Posted: Jan 31 2007 at 10:31am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Weather and the Bible
__________________
Theresa
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MacBeth
Forum All-Star
Probably at the beach...
Joined: Jan 27 2005
Location: New York
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2518
|
| Posted: Jan 31 2007 at 10:46am | IP Logged
|
|
|
What the planet really has is a case of global hypochondria.
Back in 1989, a friend and I were teaching a group of children on a field trip aboard a marine research vessel. As we stood on the dock before boarding, we couldn’t help but notice the vast number of jellyfish in the water. My friend asked the students to guess why there might be so many jellies floating by. They made a few guesses, but when one student said “global warming,” my friend said, “Yes.” She was convinced that global warming was sending jellies into the harbor. In saying so, she not only did the students a disservice by misinforming them, but she missed an opportunity to discuss other reasons why jellies might proliferate and drift into our area.
This is the problem with the rumors of global warming today. Everything from cold weather to warm weather, from too many insects to too few insects, from driving rain to drought, from erosion to deposition, from allergies to the bird flu, all can be blamed on global warming. In fact, global warming enthusiasts have ruled out nothing--except the certainty of global warming. Like my friend, they do the world a disservice. By saying that just about anything can happen due to global warming, anything that does happen sets head nodding in agreement. “Oh, yes,” one hears everywhere from pubs to classrooms, “That’s global warming, alright.”
Recently, The Independent, a UK paper, published a frightening story about an inhabited island that has disappeared. Global warming? Not likely. The island in question, Lohachara, disappeared 20 years ago due to erosion. The island was in a delta in the Ganges, an area prone to erosion...like many river deltas around the world. That has not stopped the environmentalist hypochondriacs from perpetuating the rumor.
Is there global warming? Possibly. Are we in trouble on a planetary scale? That's a bit more far-fetched. There have been long periods of warming trends and cooling trends. We may still be coming out of the Little Ice Age. Historically, we are nearing a time of cooling, due (most likely) to the wobble in the earth's rotation. Mars is also going through a period warming, based on receding ice caps visible from earth. Most astronomers and planetary scientists blame the sun for the Martian warming trend, not Martian automobile emissions  .
Politically, it's a real problem. Being against global warming is like being against cancer--it seems like a no-brainer. The media loves it too, as it gives them an opportunity to sell their products with terrifying headlines. The NY Times ran with a warming gloom-and-doom headline in the 1930s, selling papers with scare-tactics way back then! But with the media loving the headlines, politicians know they can keep their names right on the front page.
A few weeks ago, on an environmental ed. e-group, an article was posted about Al Gore's media project giving free DVDs of his documentary to schools for science classes. These were rejected by the organization of science teachers. The promoters of the film were outraged, and accused the teachers' organization of being in the pocket of the oil industry. They kept insisting that since they were giving the DVDs away, there was "nothing in it" for Gore. But there was, and it was totally dishonest of the promoters to say there was not. Power, to a politician, is more important than money. This is not a partisan comment; it's true from both sides of the political coin, minor parties, and political wannabes. Power is what one gets when one's idea is adopted by the general public. Now, Gore himself may be sincere. He may be a true believer. In fact, I suspect he is. But those who have latched onto him are probably not so altruistic. Then there's the scientist who called for censure of those who don't promote the global warming propaganda...she is playing a small but dramatic part in the effort to stifle the opposition. Ugh.
Anyway, I digress. I am not going to say that there is no global warming, but I am not ready to point fingers every time I sneeze or work up a sweat.
__________________
God Bless!
MacBeth in NY
Don's wife since '88; "Mom" to the Fab 4
Nature Study
MacBeth's Blog 
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
JennGM
Forum Moderator
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17702
|
| Posted: Jan 31 2007 at 10:59am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Oh, thank you, MacBeth for a great answer from the scientist's perspective. You are affirming all that I was feeling, but since I don't have a great grasp of science I do doubt myself a while.
And how true -- it is a disservice to label it global warming everywhere. With that label, one can become lazy, and no longer search for the truth. It's almost like the Salem Witch Hunt!
And what I'm not hearing is actual scientific reasoning behind the theory. I want to hear the proofs and research.
I heard a news blip that there's a big push to "out" all those scientists who have felt the pressure to *NOT* use the terms "global warming" in their writings. GRRRR 
__________________
Jennifer G. Miller
Wife to & ds1 '03 & ds2 '07
Family in Feast and Feria
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Cay Gibson
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 16 2005
Location: Louisiana
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5193
|
| Posted: Jan 31 2007 at 12:04pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
MacBeth,
YOu are so good at what you know. I'm left in wonder.
Won't you please plan a trip down here one day so Corey and I can take you on a swamp tour, alligator hunt, crabbing expedition?
And my son can tell you what a geek his mother is. 
Really, I have to get you and Corey together. He'd beg you to adopt him.
__________________
Cay Gibson
"There are 49 states, then there is Louisiana." ~ Chef Emeril
wife to Mark '86
mom to 5
Cajun Cottage Under the Oaks
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Cassandra
Forum Rookie
Joined: Feb 28 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Jan 31 2007 at 12:34pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I'm coming out of just being a reader for this one  . MacBeth, I've always like what you've had to say here on this board, and I'm really glad this topic has come up. My three older kids are in school and this topic has been discussed. I'm not really great with science, but I would like to be able to send them someplace to get some reliable information. Is this point of view prevalent everywhere? I guess, I could use some self education myself. 
__________________
Cassandra
Wife to Jeremy and Mom to 5 little lambs
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MacBeth
Forum All-Star
Probably at the beach...
Joined: Jan 27 2005
Location: New York
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2518
|
| Posted: Jan 31 2007 at 1:33pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Cassandra wrote:
| I'm not really great with science, but I would like to be able to send them someplace to get some reliable information. Is this point of view prevalent everywhere? I guess, I could use some self education myself. |
|
|
There are quite a few places to look for information. First, try Roger Pielke's weblog. His is a voice of reason, and frequently has guest bloggers discus these topics. There is also the (I will not say that it is an unbiased look, but it sure counters the numerous other publications on the other side) Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming. It's an easy read (hey, Al Gore's book is written on a 4th grade reading level ), and who could resist the endearing picture of a penguin wearing a lei on the cover?
__________________
God Bless!
MacBeth in NY
Don's wife since '88; "Mom" to the Fab 4
Nature Study
MacBeth's Blog
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MacBeth
Forum All-Star
Probably at the beach...
Joined: Jan 27 2005
Location: New York
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2518
|
| Posted: Jan 31 2007 at 1:35pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Cay Gibson wrote:
MacBeth,
YOu are so good at what you know. I'm left in wonder.
Won't you please plan a trip down here one day so Corey and I can take you on a swamp tour, alligator hunt, crabbing expedition?
|
|
|
Fun!!! Someday...
__________________
God Bless!
MacBeth in NY
Don's wife since '88; "Mom" to the Fab 4
Nature Study
MacBeth's Blog
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Mary G
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5790
|
| Posted: Jan 31 2007 at 2:17pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Oh and folks it is no longer called "global warming" but rather "climactic changes" -- like THAT clears it all up! All I know is it's snowing "cats and dogs" again here but hey, we made it back and forth to Walmart, so all is good with the world
__________________
MaryG
3 boys (22, 12, 8)2 girls (20, 11)
my website that combines my schooling, hand-knits work, writing and everything else in one spot!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Kristi
Forum Rookie
Joined: May 09 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 83
|
| Posted: Jan 31 2007 at 2:54pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
MacBeth,
I couldn't get the link to the Politically Incorrect book to work so I am reposting it here Thanks for the suggestions!
__________________
Kristi
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MacBeth
Forum All-Star
Probably at the beach...
Joined: Jan 27 2005
Location: New York
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2518
|
| Posted: Jan 31 2007 at 3:32pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Kristi wrote:
MacBeth,
I couldn't get the link to the Politically Incorrect book to work so I am reposting it here Thanks for the suggestions! |
|
|
Thanks Kristi...I just fixed it.
__________________
God Bless!
MacBeth in NY
Don's wife since '88; "Mom" to the Fab 4
Nature Study
MacBeth's Blog
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Lissa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 748
|
| Posted: Jan 31 2007 at 3:51pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Here's a link to a
USCCB statement from a few years ago. An excerpt:
Quote:
Scientific Knowledge and the Virtue of Prudence
As Catholic bishops, we make no independent judgment on the plausibility of "global warming." Rather, we accept the consensus findings of so many scientists and the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as a basis for continued research and prudent action (see the sidebar: The Science of Global Climate Change). Scientists engaged in this research consistently acknowledge the difficulties of accurate measurement and forecasting. Models of measurement evolve and vary in reliability. Researchers and advocates on all sides of the issue often have stakes in policy outcomes, as do advocates of various courses of public policy. News reports can oversimplify findings or focus on controversy rather than areas of consensus. Accordingly, interpretation of scientific data and conclusions in public discussion can be difficult and contentious matters.
Responsible scientific research is always careful to recognize uncertainty and is modest in its claims. Yet over the past few decades, the evidence of global climate change and the emerging scientific consensus about the human impact on this process have led many governments to reach the conclusion that they need to invest time, money, and political will to address the problem through collective international action.
The virtue of prudence is paramount in addressing climate change. This virtue is not only a necessary one for individuals in leading morally good lives, but is also vital to the moral health of the larger community. Prudence is intelligence applied to our actions. It allows us to discern what constitutes the common good in a given situation. Prudence requires a deliberate and reflective process that aids in the shaping of the community's conscience. Prudence not only helps us identify the principles at stake in a given issue, but also moves us to adopt courses of action to protect the common good. Prudence is not, as popularly thought, simply a cautious and safe approach to decisions. Rather, it is a thoughtful, deliberate, and reasoned basis for taking or avoiding action to achieve a moral good.
In facing climate change, what we already know requires a response; it cannot be easily dismissed. Significant levels of scientific consensus—even in a situation with less than full certainty, where the consequences of not acting are serious—justifies, indeed can obligate, our taking action intended to avert potential dangers. In other words, if enough evidence indicates that the present course of action could jeopardize humankind's well-being, prudence dictates taking mitigating or preventative action.
This responsibility weighs more heavily upon those with the power to act because the threats are often greatest for those who lack similar power, namely, vulnerable poor populations, as well as future generations. According to reports of the IPCC, significant delays in addressing climate change may compound the problem and make future remedies more difficult, painful, and costly. On the other hand, the impact of prudent actions today can potentially improve the situation over time, avoiding more sweeping action in the future. |
|
|
__________________
Lissa
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
lapazfarm
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 21 2005
Location: Alaska
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6082
|
| Posted: Jan 31 2007 at 3:53pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Ok, I hate to be the one to not be in total agreement with MacBeth, but here goes.
In my understanding, the science behind global warming is pretty solid at this point. Sure, there are the odd studies out there that raise questions, but the large body of evidence is in support of this being a real phenomenon.
What is NOT exactly clear are two things:
Firts:the cause (a biggie), as in whether or not the warming trend is anthropogenic (caused by human activity), or part of a larger natural cycle.
Second: the effects. As in the example of the jellyfish MacBeth cited. We can't be sure on complex issues like that one whether or not it is an effect of global warming or other isuues. Some effects are more clear, such as permafrost melting, glaciers in more rapid retreat than typical, and many other effect more strongly felt in polar regions than other areas. The globe is an enormously complex system, and even the best models are having trouble predicting what the effects will be.
I do agree that global warming is NOT the cause of every little freak weather phenomenon, and that the issue is strongly politicised. However, to downplay the science behind it to the degree that political conservatives have is irresponsible at best, and leads one to wonder about their agendas, as well. Al Gore is not the only one with power issues, sadly.
What I think the sensible approach should be is one of caution, but also responsibility. We need to realize that lowering emission rates can ONLY do good. Leaving them the way they are? Potentially very harmful. Why not lower them and see if it helps? If not, at east we can in good conscience say we did all we could.
In environmental issues,I would take the attitude similar to the hiipocratic oath doctors take: First, do no harm.
I would love to reply more in depth to this, with links and ll, but I am out of time at the moment (I hope this is not too incoherent, I am typing as fast as I can and without editing). I will, however be back soon and provide that if wanted.
__________________
Theresa
us-schooling in beautiful Fairbanks, Alaska.
LaPaz Home Learning
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
JennGM
Forum Moderator
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17702
|
| Posted: Jan 31 2007 at 4:18pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
lapazfarm wrote:
| Ok, I hate to be the one to not be in total agreement with MacBeth, but here goes. |
|
|
I don't see your post as conflicting with MacBeth's.
lapazfarm wrote:
In my understanding, the science behind global warming is pretty solid at this point. Sure, there are the odd studies out there that raise questions, but the large body of evidence is in support of this being a real phenomenon.
What is NOT exactly clear are two things:
Firts:the cause (a biggie), as in whether or not the warming trend is anthropogenic (caused by human activity), or part of a larger natural cycle. |
|
|
If the cause hasn't been pinned down...and IF (and it's it's a BIG if) is part of a "larger natural cycle" then we do we hear that it is man's doing (or undoing of nature, as the case might be).
That is why I originally posted. If a cause hasn't been pinned down, all the campaigns for preventing global warming doesn't necessarily compute.
lapazfarm wrote:
Second: the effects. As in the example of the jellyfish MacBeth cited. We can't be sure on complex issues like that one whether or not it is an effect of global warming or other isuues. Some effects are more clear, such as permafrost melting, glaciers in more rapid retreat than typical, and many other effect more strongly felt in polar regions than other areas. The globe is an enormously complex system, and even the best models are having trouble predicting what the effects will be.
I do agree that global warming is NOT the cause of every little freak weather phenomenon, and that the issue is strongly politicised. However, to downplay the science behind it to the degree that political conservatives have is irresponsible at best, and leads one to wonder about their agendas, as well. Al Gore is not the only one with power issues, sadly. |
|
|
Well, can you have effects if you don't know a cause? Can you put a label on something that can't be pinned down? I'm being picky and not really trying to start a debate, I just really want to know. Isn't it false labeling to even have "effects" if you don't know what the cause is?
lapazfarm wrote:
What I think the sensible approach should be is one of caution, but also responsibility. We need to realize that lowering emission rates can ONLY do good. Leaving them the way they are? Potentially very harmful. Why not lower them and see if it helps? If not, at east we can in good conscience say we did all we could.
In environmental issues,I would take the attitude similar to the hiipocratic oath doctors take: First, do no harm.
I would love to reply more in depth to this, with links and ll, but I am out of time at the moment (I hope this is not too incoherent, I am typing as fast as I can and without editing). I will, however be back soon and provide that if wanted. |
|
|
From my vantage point, environmental issues should just be posed just as that. We need to be good stewards of the earth God gave us. We can see the harm in many ways man has worked and polluted and depleted the earth. There should be no apology that we should be careful of our footprint and take proper care of the gifts from God. It's our duty as children of God.
I don't agree with putting out red flags and using global warming as the (maybe false) alarm button.
Am I making any sense? Again...I'm just trying to sort things out in my head, not cause a debate. I know I'm in over my head discussing science.
__________________
Jennifer G. Miller
Wife to & ds1 '03 & ds2 '07
Family in Feast and Feria
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Rachel May
Forum All-Star
Joined: June 24 2005
Location: Kansas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2057
|
| Posted: Jan 31 2007 at 5:18pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
This thread is a very interesting read!
I recently read State of Fear by Michael Crichton. He obviously has an agenda (against global warming), but maybe this book is a sort of adult real learning tool like Little House for our children? He brings up interesting arguments about environmentalism within a fast-paced easy to read story.
He brings up the idea that Global Warming has replaced the Cold War as a way of keeping people fearful and selling news. At the end of the book (after a really gross cannibalism scene  )you see that the next step is not "Global Warming," but "Catastrophic Climate Change" which accounts for extreme cold and extreme heat and extreme storms (but not extreme calm? ). After reading the book I noticed that "Catasrophic Climate Change" is used quite frequently in the paper.
I agree with Theresa that we have to be careful to not be irresponsible as a result of disagreeing with most environmentalists. One of my brothers thinks that Hawaii does not have a trash problem because they can just put all the trash in the ocean. Obviously, that is a bad idea. I like the idea of producing less trash.
Anyway, I think this book is a nice point to get you starting thinking more about the issue. He does have a huge bibliography.
__________________
Rachel
Thomas and Anthony (10), Maria (8), Charles (6), Cecilia (5), James (3), and Joseph (1)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
lapazfarm
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 21 2005
Location: Alaska
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6082
|
| Posted: Jan 31 2007 at 5:24pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Sorry about the confusion, I'm afraid I was in a hurry (had to pick dd up from CCD) and may not have been as articulate as I would have liked.
As far as conflicting with MacBeth, I only meant that I was not in TOTAL agreement. Mostly we are in agreement. I just think I am further along in the "convinced it's real and human-induced" camp than she is. I could be wrong, of course.
Cause and effect. Here is the way I meant it:
Global warming is a phenomenon.
It has a cause (ie man, nature, whatever).
And it also has effects (sea level rise, permafrost melt, etc).
Quite honestly, I do believe that the evidence strongly supports a human cause (or at least a human component). But, I am willing to concede that these human causes may be in combination with other causes, such as natural trends. My stance is that we should eliminate the human component so as to leave no doubt.
I agree with you and also do not like the "red flag" waving that goes on. I think it gets in the way of good scientific discourse. For this reason I have refused to see Inconvenient Truth, even though I strongly agree with it's message. Al Gore is unfortunately a very polarizing figure and I think sometimes his involvement does the cause more harm than good. His scare tactics serve to turn people off I think.
__________________
Theresa
us-schooling in beautiful Fairbanks, Alaska.
LaPaz Home Learning
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
lapazfarm
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 21 2005
Location: Alaska
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6082
|
| Posted: Jan 31 2007 at 5:28pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
My dd just finished State of Fear and loved it. I am going to read it as soon as I can pry it away from her!
__________________
Theresa
us-schooling in beautiful Fairbanks, Alaska.
LaPaz Home Learning
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
lapazfarm
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 21 2005
Location: Alaska
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6082
|
| Posted: Jan 31 2007 at 5:33pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Oh, and Jenn, I don't think you are in over your head at all. You pose very important, very intelligent questions that need to be answered by science. I think they have been, but others are not convinced. And I agree that it really is a problem to find unbiased sources for this type of highly political issue.
__________________
Theresa
us-schooling in beautiful Fairbanks, Alaska.
LaPaz Home Learning
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
marihalojen
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 12 2006
Location: Florida
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1883
|
| Posted: Jan 31 2007 at 9:32pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Rachel May wrote:
| One of my brothers thinks that Hawaii does not have a trash problem because they can just put all the trash in the ocean. Obviously, that is a bad idea. I like the idea of producing less trash. |
|
|
In the middle of the Pacific there is a convergence of major ocean currents called the Toilet Bowl. All the trash that is dumped in the ocean seems to get swirled into that area - yuck!
As cruisers I hate the idea of a line of sunken tin cans in my wake. But if we seperate and clean and carry our trash to our next landfall (especially in the Caribbean) then carry it ashore to an appropriate bin to dispose of, they will take it and dump it in the ocean, right where I just came from!!! And they won't take time to smash, grind or sink it like I'm required to do.
It is a major problem, I think plastic is now the number 1 item in the ocean. More prolific than plankton even. So sad. But what do we do with it? Can't burn it, that's suppose to destroy the ozone; some places don't have recycle facilities, and those facilities frequently use more energy to recycle than to make a new item. So we try to save the plastic and end up burning the fossil fuels.
To keep to the topic of trash (not going anywhere near fossil fuels!), you can view a similar placard to the one I must display on my 35' boat regarding trash here. If we change up to 40'+ I'll need a trash management plan!
And a story of the Toilet Bowl is here. Awful picture of a Laysan Albatross at the top of the page though.  Good maps if you scroll down.
__________________
~Jennifer
Mother to Mariannna, age 13
The Mari Hal-O-Jen
SSR = Sailing, Snorkling, Reading
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
4Real Forums : Exploring God's Creation in Nature and Science
Topic: Global Warming
