that's a lot. like the vast majority - this is beyond a given at this point. Can you show 1 peer reviewed article that states that man isn't having an effect on climate?
I know there are cycles but man is having an effect on the climate - big time.
so yeah - 1 article - peer reviewed from the last 2 years
That is absolutely not true on any kind of large scale. Yes, everyone would agree that humans can have effects on the earth, the weather, whatever. But scientists don't even agree that there _is_ clearly some new kind of climate change happening now (as opposed to that which has always happened and will probably always continue to happen) - much less that this is produced by people. Also, do you know how high-pressure the research funding climate is? It's like illegal drug research, it's so politicized.
it is - the US climate report was scrubbed due to politics (it went farther that Bush wanted). And the oil companies have there reports (being proven false) and many models for climate change are being proven too optimistic (ie the polar ice caps are melting sooner and the green land ice sheet is showing cracks sooner then expected)
but yes, this is a huge politically issue - however I haven't seen anything from the other side that's gotten thru peer review in the past few years so I'm really curious to see
Now that's not to say I don't think it could be getting warmer without our help - but that's not to say we aren't helping it reach the tipping point (that's the phrase!!!).
still I'd like to see peer review (if you see something in the coming weeks when you can breath - I'd be very curious since I like to see the other side)
my father has actually been reading a ton of climate change stuff recently - no job, lots of time :/ - maybe I can call on him for some recent articles.
My personal opinion on such is that there are two pieces to this: 1) Is it getting warmer? 2) If so, is this "natural" or is it being further influenced outside of any sort of natural cycle by humans.
I have read a bunch of stuff on #1, and that seems pretty conclusively positive that it IS getting warmer. As for #2, I haven't read nearly as much stuff, but the stuff I had looked at had not yet convinced me that it was definitely outside of a normal temperature cycle...that's not to say I don't think that can be the case, but instead simply that I haven't seen anything yet that proves to me that it is.
for 2 - most of the stuff I've read typically takes the tack that while wild temp fluctuations happen, we are contributing to this pretty heavily. The nail in the coffin for non man made, to me, happened in the 90s when Europe cleaned up their particulate pollutants but not the green house gases - and they actually increased the speed of their warming trend and then after 9/11 when all the planes were grounded for several days and not only did we record a 1. something temp increase but the famous "global dimming" was seen to reverse.
Those are both huge signs the we do have a profound impact
I have very little confidence in either candidate or party. I do not trust that one or the other of them will bring good things. I think it is slightly more likely that McCain will surround himself with people who will screw things less. I think Obama will win and while I would rather listen to him talk, I would never support moves toward more socialist policies.
In my view Palin didn't crash and burn as badly as other people seem to think, but she is not ready for prime time.
What policy plans of Obama's do you consider socialist? I'm not interested in debating whether they are or not, just curious what you object to specifically.
Depends on what you mean by "know". My understanding is that scientists who study this say something like p<0.1 for the null hypothesis. That's not 100% certainty, but it's enough to warrant serious action.
i understand that science is always political, but i have trouble understanding why so many scientists would claim climate change is caused by human activity if it weren't supported by empirical research. it would be equally sensationalist for scientists to make their careers predicting the next ice age (or whatever) -- how does it benefit them to challenge the use of fossil fuels if those aren't actually causing any problems? whereas the oil industry, on the other hand, has pretty clearly entrenched reasons to resist any arguments about human-caused climate change, since it's their business on the line (until they can switch over to other profitable kinds of energy, of course). i don't buy that the causes of climate change are up in the air.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-03 01:38 am (UTC)that's a lot. like the vast majority - this is beyond a given at this point. Can you show 1 peer reviewed article that states that man isn't having an effect on climate?
I know there are cycles but man is having an effect on the climate - big time.
so yeah - 1 article - peer reviewed from the last 2 years
no subject
Date: 2008-10-03 01:46 am (UTC)Yes, everyone would agree that humans can have effects on the earth, the weather, whatever.
But scientists don't even agree that there _is_ clearly some new kind of climate change happening now (as opposed to that which has always happened and will probably always continue to happen) - much less that this is produced by people. Also, do you know how high-pressure the research funding climate is? It's like illegal drug research, it's so politicized.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-03 01:53 am (UTC)but yes, this is a huge politically issue - however I haven't seen anything from the other side that's gotten thru peer review in the past few years so I'm really curious to see
Now that's not to say I don't think it could be getting warmer without our help - but that's not to say we aren't helping it reach the tipping point (that's the phrase!!!).
still I'd like to see peer review (if you see something in the coming weeks when you can breath - I'd be very curious since I like to see the other side)
no subject
Date: 2008-10-03 01:57 am (UTC)my father has actually been reading a ton of climate change stuff recently - no job, lots of time :/ - maybe I can call on him for some recent articles.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-03 02:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-03 01:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-06 01:36 pm (UTC)1) Is it getting warmer?
2) If so, is this "natural" or is it being further influenced outside of any sort of natural cycle by humans.
I have read a bunch of stuff on #1, and that seems pretty conclusively positive that it IS getting warmer. As for #2, I haven't read nearly as much stuff, but the stuff I had looked at had not yet convinced me that it was definitely outside of a normal temperature cycle...that's not to say I don't think that can be the case, but instead simply that I haven't seen anything yet that proves to me that it is.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-06 02:22 pm (UTC)Those are both huge signs the we do have a profound impact
no subject
Date: 2008-10-03 02:41 am (UTC)It hurts me. Also.
Doggonit. Darnit. Also.
ARGH!!!!!!
no subject
Date: 2008-10-03 02:51 am (UTC)I do not trust that one or the other of them will bring good things.
I think it is slightly more likely that McCain will surround himself with people who will screw things less.
I think Obama will win and while I would rather listen to him talk, I would never support moves toward more socialist policies.
In my view Palin didn't crash and burn as badly as other people seem to think, but she is not ready for prime time.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-03 03:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-03 03:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-03 04:08 am (UTC)