Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I mean, you and I know that you actually have to learn how to read a scientific study.
Yes, which is one of the reasons I don't like the idea of this petition's BS qualifiers. I'm not saying that folks with only a BS cannot dive into the literature, especially those that have been working industry for a long time. But for me, it wasn't until grad school where I was formally trained to rip papers apart. I had one class where that's all we did. It was very similar to a journal club, but rather we would have to go through 5 papers a week rather than say one a month. Oh, and the bologna we found! Honestly, some of creative stats in a few papers shouldn't have found its way into a publication.
Quote:
It makes me nuts when the media just gloms on a number that sounds dramatic, splashes it across the headlines, and takes advantage of the fact that most people don't understand how it was derived or its actual statistical significance.
X increases your risk of cancer by 30%!!!!! Yeah, well, if your original risk was 0.0003%, a 30% increase is hardly newsworthy...but there you go. And I notice the media never talks about NNT (number needed to treat). I don't expect the drug companies to, but the media is supposed to be 'unbiased.'
Well, I have to wonder if those reporting in the media really understand what they're reporting any way. Add to that all the talking heads who really don't understand the science and it confuses people all the more.
Quote:
Frankly, I have not been exposed to any data regarding global warming that would lead me to believe that it isn't part of the natural cycle of cooling and warming the earth goes through (or influenced by recent increased sun activity). That being said, I think we as a species are incredibly wasteful and dirty and could really work on that.
Agreed. If anything, and this is what I tell my father who is always ranting about global warming, a lot of the pollutants thought to play a role on the man-made global warming side are contributors to local issues we're dealing with every day. For example, methane was brought up a few years ago as a possible culprit. Whether it is or not, I don't know. What I do know is that this methane release largely comes from maneur lagoons and these lagoons have solid correlations in local farming communities for wretched water pollution. From there, we've been seeing increased childhood cancers for a couple of decades.
Or, smog is a good one or residences near airports. Just the other day I was driving while listening to the news and communities near our airport are reporting significant increases in a particular cancer. We are killing ourselves with our pollution. In my mind, that's enough reason to deal with our behaviors. If I were a CT (and I'm not) global warming could be deemed as an excellent ruse.
Frankly, I have not been exposed to any data regarding global warming that would lead me to believe that it isn't part of the natural cycle of cooling and warming the earth goes through (or influenced by recent increased sun activity). That being said, I think we as a species are incredibly wasteful and dirty and could really work on that.
There you have it, in a nutshell.
We should be as clean, efficient and environmentally friendly as we can for one reason: It's the right thing to do.
We should be as clean, efficient and environmentally friendly as we can for one reason: It's the right thing to do.
I agreed here too, whats the harm it bettering yourself?
That being said, I am skeptical of AGW only for the reason that I think the media and certain biased groups are prematurely claiming "concensus". And area of science that wants to deter scrutiny needs more! Braunwyn and stan, I agree with both of you completely. From a scientists' eyes, you don't need to be able to do the inital research, but when you look at the IPCCs models on their website (the same ones everyone is using as Gods truth) the * at the bottom says the models leave out....ready for this....water vapor. This is to say the formation of clouds and the effects of the clouds are left out of the models, which is one of the largest factors in the planets climate. It also clearly illustrates a +/-500% error margin, which is not exactly good.
All this concludes that we are doing a good job in trying to understand and trend our climate, but it shows us that we are not near perfect or even in conclusive zones and can in no way talk about "case closed" and "consensus".
Clobal climate has been warming for about 10,000 years or so with a couple of dust induced cooling periods. the warming acellerated with the introduction of CO2 from burning coal starting in the 1500's. Even I can see the positive correlation between greenhouse gas emissions and global climate. I wound why this is so hard to understand?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
