I believe people are slaves to innuendo. I think we sometimes have Pavlovian responses to certain words and phrases. How do you react mentally when a statement is prefaced with the phrase "some scientists believe"? Why does the statement "a study shows" give credence to a belief when we have no knowledge about the parameters of the study? Are we programmed to believe all scientists are somehow endowed with ultimate knowledge? Why is it hard to understand that "studies" are often manipulated to reflect personal beliefs? I'm just curious about how and why people react to certain "hot button" words and phrases. Why are we so willing to allow other people to imprint their beliefs over our beliefs?
Ted
Well, I, for one, am not so easily impressed. I not only want to read the actual study, I also want to know who funded it.
The size of the sample and the duration of the study can make a big difference in the veracity of the data. I've seen studies where the actual data did not at all support the published conclusions.
The size of the sample and the duration of the study can make a big difference in the veracity of the data. I've seen studies where the actual data did not at all support the published conclusions.
Interesting thought. I usually hear such reports on the news or whatever and say, "huh." That's what I say. Then I usually disregard it. If it was a subject that was extremely interesting to me or possibly life-changing then I might seek out more info such as the actual published report with data. Knowing who funded the study is also important in weighing the results.
I have more of a problem with short "health" articles in magazines that don't cite their sources or point you to actual studies. They just report vague generalities and make assumptions. It would be better to not include the article at all than not cite further reading.
I have more of a problem with short "health" articles in magazines that don't cite their sources or point you to actual studies. They just report vague generalities and make assumptions. It would be better to not include the article at all than not cite further reading.
-
DoubleDogFarm
- Super Green Thumb
- Posts: 6113
- Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:43 pm
-
rainbowgardener
- Super Green Thumb
- Posts: 25279
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 6:04 pm
- Location: TN/GA 7b
Ditto!Kisal wrote:Well, I, for one, am not so easily impressed. I not only want to read the actual study, I also want to know who funded it.
The size of the sample and the duration of the study can make a big difference in the veracity of the data. I've seen studies where the actual data did not at all support the published conclusions.
Ted
-
DoubleDogFarm
- Super Green Thumb
- Posts: 6113
- Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:43 pm
-
microcollie
- Green Thumb
- Posts: 319
- Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 5:17 pm
- Location: Western MA
They actually did studies to find which such phrases garnered the best response from the public. So studies show that people do indeed respond to them. 
-
stella1751
- Greener Thumb
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:40 am
- Location: Wyoming
The use of "some scientists believe" is audience- and purpose-specific. Frequently, the most detailed published studies have several different authors. Were the journalists to say, "According to Drs. Kipple, Jones, Samuels, Askinowski, Prespiorkalino, Begillinoni, Kemel, Smith, Wellington, Johnson, and Brite of Harvard University Medical School, West Campus, such-and-such is occurring," much of their audience would be in the kitchen, rummaging through the fridge, before they got to the heart of the news snippet.
Worse, in the time it took to list all these credentialled scientists, a $100,000 ad could have run, marketing a new cell phone powered by technology invented by a whole 'nother slew of scientists. When time or space is of the essence, the credentials are the first thing to go.
I have a bigger problem with the proof surrogate fallacy and its mysterious "they say." Who is "they"? As a case in point, "They say the neon lights are bright on Broadway / They say there's always magic in the air." Who is "they"? I'll give them the bright lights; that's almost like stating the obvious. However, "magic" is a highly subjective term. What kind of magic: "That Old Black Magic" or "White Magic"? I'd seriously like to see some credentials on that one.
I'd also like to know where in heck is this Broadway. Is it in the same general vicinity as the Boardwalk under which they say people frequently hang out? "They say" raises all kinds of thorny issues concerning ambiguity of sources, but when the news location is equally obscure, the news is hardly worth a listen
Worse, in the time it took to list all these credentialled scientists, a $100,000 ad could have run, marketing a new cell phone powered by technology invented by a whole 'nother slew of scientists. When time or space is of the essence, the credentials are the first thing to go.
I have a bigger problem with the proof surrogate fallacy and its mysterious "they say." Who is "they"? As a case in point, "They say the neon lights are bright on Broadway / They say there's always magic in the air." Who is "they"? I'll give them the bright lights; that's almost like stating the obvious. However, "magic" is a highly subjective term. What kind of magic: "That Old Black Magic" or "White Magic"? I'd seriously like to see some credentials on that one.
I'd also like to know where in heck is this Broadway. Is it in the same general vicinity as the Boardwalk under which they say people frequently hang out? "They say" raises all kinds of thorny issues concerning ambiguity of sources, but when the news location is equally obscure, the news is hardly worth a listen
-
stella1751
- Greener Thumb
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:40 am
- Location: Wyoming
Ted, yes, I agree with you that we are slaves to innuendo, as you so aptly put it. I would rather crack wise, though, than start in on my personal pet peeve, a diatribe about Corporate America, how perhaps a dozen major corporations are setting social norms for the rest of us, telling us how to dress, how to speak, what to eat, what to do, and so on. Ask yourself who is funding the studies that manipulate our behavior and push our hot buttons.tedln wrote:Okay Stella, I think I agree with you; but I'm not sure if you agree with me or not. You know many more scientists and big words than I know.
Ted
I don't like it. I don't like it one little bit. In particular, I resent their influence on our language. Unfortunately, there's not a thing we can do about it.
-
Charlie MV
- Greener Thumb
- Posts: 1544
- Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 11:48 pm
Hey cuz! Can I go to Vermont with you? I sure would like to see Vermont. I want to get some maple syrup right from the tree. Do you have a big kettle and some wood we can make a fire with? Spring isn't that far away. Maybe we can make some maple snow candy.Charlie MV wrote:I'm in South Carolina. We have no scientists. Fox is the bible here. I am moving to Vermont as soon as we can tie up our loose ends.
Ted
Late to the party here, but...
"Some scientists" will be followed by "new studies show that..." which will then be followed by "a meta-analysis of studies on... shows that..." and so forth.
Just look at the reputation of coffee over the past few years. Initially, coffee was BAD: the caffeine it contained (over five times as much per cup as black tea) was said to be injurious to the heart and to induce jitters, the acid was bad for the stomach, and so on.
Then, a few years ago, coffee was possibly GOOD: it contained anti-oxidants! Who'da thunk it? These anti-oxidants (popular at the time, remember?
) were the answer to almost everything that ails us.
As of now, it has been demonstrated that there is no negative effect from a small amount (1 to 2 cups) of coffee daily. There are mild anti-oxidant benefits. A large amount of coffee (5 cups or MORE
) daily is still believed to be injurious to good health and habituates the body to the presence of that amount of caffeine, which can lead, on withdrawal, to rebound headaches--a good duplicate of migraines. A loss of such a high amount of caffeine can also lead to unexpected drowsiness (consider the alertness level of a driver who has just decided to go cold turkey from a 5-cup-a-day habit).
I'm waiting for next month's study....
The above examples have been taken from journals/science magazines that we subscribe to: Science, Science News, Scientific American, and on-line sources that DH trolls in his daily work.
Cynthia H.
Sunset Zone 17, USDA Zone 9
"Some scientists" will be followed by "new studies show that..." which will then be followed by "a meta-analysis of studies on... shows that..." and so forth.
Just look at the reputation of coffee over the past few years. Initially, coffee was BAD: the caffeine it contained (over five times as much per cup as black tea) was said to be injurious to the heart and to induce jitters, the acid was bad for the stomach, and so on.
Then, a few years ago, coffee was possibly GOOD: it contained anti-oxidants! Who'da thunk it? These anti-oxidants (popular at the time, remember?
) were the answer to almost everything that ails us.As of now, it has been demonstrated that there is no negative effect from a small amount (1 to 2 cups) of coffee daily. There are mild anti-oxidant benefits. A large amount of coffee (5 cups or MORE
) daily is still believed to be injurious to good health and habituates the body to the presence of that amount of caffeine, which can lead, on withdrawal, to rebound headaches--a good duplicate of migraines. A loss of such a high amount of caffeine can also lead to unexpected drowsiness (consider the alertness level of a driver who has just decided to go cold turkey from a 5-cup-a-day habit).I'm waiting for next month's study....
The above examples have been taken from journals/science magazines that we subscribe to: Science, Science News, Scientific American, and on-line sources that DH trolls in his daily work.
Cynthia H.
Sunset Zone 17, USDA Zone 9
-
stella1751
- Greener Thumb
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:40 am
- Location: Wyoming
LOLCharlie MV wrote:I'm in South Carolina. We have no scientists. Fox is the bible here. I am moving to Vermont as soon as we can tie up our loose ends.
I don't know what I was thinking. We have no scientists here, either. Western Horseman is the Bible here. I would be surprised to learn they have any scientists in Vermont, either. I think all the scientists come from New Jersey, Massachusettes, and California.One thing to remember is that studding things is a way of learning and the human race always learns new things and we change and grow according to what our collective understanding of the nature of things is. The world is a complex place and many things can be true at the same time but as individuals we want simple answers. No one person can know every thing (unless they are a teen ager).
Tom, we do need the scientists performing research, but I find it disconcerting when opposing groups of scientists reveal studies with totally opposite conclusions. My brain tells me both studies probably have a political agenda so how do I determine the truth when the "experts" don't agree. Without making a political statement, remember the same scientists who so ardently advocate for human caused global warming, were advocating the approaching ice age not many years ago. I believe global warming is occurring, but I question the causes science advocates. I believe people should use their minds and make some decisions themselves without simply echoing the voices of "scientists".
Ted
Ted
-
rainbowgardener
- Super Green Thumb
- Posts: 25279
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 6:04 pm
- Location: TN/GA 7b
I hope it is an OF COURSE that everyone should think for themselves.
AND science, that is careful observation, recording data, using comparison/ control groups, testing hypotheses, is the main way human beings learn things. The development and better understanding of the scientific method in the 1700's is responsible for the huge explosion of technology including medicine and agriculture that has happened since then (and therefore for the huge explosion of population since then). The level of technology and the state of knowledge existing in the early 1700's was very little different from what the Greeks and Romans had 2000 years before that. Every thing human made we see around us now, we owe to science.
AND that doesn't mean simply invoking the name of science should make us believe it. What science means/ stands for is EVIDENCE. So ask to see the evidence.
But what I hate is the people whose minds are so closed that you can show them tons and tons of hard evidence, well designed peer reviewed studies, careful observations recorded by many different people over periods of decades (I.e. receding glaciers) etc etc and they STILL say "it doesn't match what I grew up believing, what my minister tells me, what Fox news tells me (or whatever) so I don't believe it." Opinions are NOT data! I am a big believer in DATA!
PS it is simply not true that "the same scientists who are advocating global warming were advocating the coming ice age a few years ago." I have been reading the global climate change literature since the 1970's. It is true (and a good thing) that knowledge advances, so what science knows does change over time and sometimes what science knows is later shown to be wrong (or more often only partly true as we develop a fuller understanding). In the field global climate change, there are some people who believe that the ULTIMATE outcome of global warming may paradoxically be (because of evening out global ocean temperatures, thus stopping the circulation of ocean waters like the gulf stream and other causes) triggering a new ice age. That does NOT mean they don't believe in global warming. And of course no one knows for sure what might happen after runaway global warming - another good reason to avoid it if we can.
There are not opposing camps of scientists on global climate change as Fox News and others would have you believe. There are scientists who almost universally understand the data of global climate change and there are propagandists mostly paid by the automobile and petroleum industries who are putting out reams of pseudoscience to make it LOOK LIKE there are two opposing camps..... That's part of the think for yourself, examine the evidence part. Look to see what the data is and where it is coming from and who is paying for it. Learn to distinguish between opinion and evidence!
AND science, that is careful observation, recording data, using comparison/ control groups, testing hypotheses, is the main way human beings learn things. The development and better understanding of the scientific method in the 1700's is responsible for the huge explosion of technology including medicine and agriculture that has happened since then (and therefore for the huge explosion of population since then). The level of technology and the state of knowledge existing in the early 1700's was very little different from what the Greeks and Romans had 2000 years before that. Every thing human made we see around us now, we owe to science.
AND that doesn't mean simply invoking the name of science should make us believe it. What science means/ stands for is EVIDENCE. So ask to see the evidence.
But what I hate is the people whose minds are so closed that you can show them tons and tons of hard evidence, well designed peer reviewed studies, careful observations recorded by many different people over periods of decades (I.e. receding glaciers) etc etc and they STILL say "it doesn't match what I grew up believing, what my minister tells me, what Fox news tells me (or whatever) so I don't believe it." Opinions are NOT data! I am a big believer in DATA!
PS it is simply not true that "the same scientists who are advocating global warming were advocating the coming ice age a few years ago." I have been reading the global climate change literature since the 1970's. It is true (and a good thing) that knowledge advances, so what science knows does change over time and sometimes what science knows is later shown to be wrong (or more often only partly true as we develop a fuller understanding). In the field global climate change, there are some people who believe that the ULTIMATE outcome of global warming may paradoxically be (because of evening out global ocean temperatures, thus stopping the circulation of ocean waters like the gulf stream and other causes) triggering a new ice age. That does NOT mean they don't believe in global warming. And of course no one knows for sure what might happen after runaway global warming - another good reason to avoid it if we can.
There are not opposing camps of scientists on global climate change as Fox News and others would have you believe. There are scientists who almost universally understand the data of global climate change and there are propagandists mostly paid by the automobile and petroleum industries who are putting out reams of pseudoscience to make it LOOK LIKE there are two opposing camps..... That's part of the think for yourself, examine the evidence part. Look to see what the data is and where it is coming from and who is paying for it. Learn to distinguish between opinion and evidence!
I agree with scientific evidence that global warming is happening. I don't believe the evidence can be ignored. I believe it is harmful to the life we are accustomed to living. I also believe we are polluting the environment and it is harmful to us and other living organisms. I believe all forms of environmental pollution should stop. I believe we should stop destroying our planet to obtain the raw materials we need. I don't believe science has conclusively proven that pollution and global warming are intricately linked. It doesn't mean it isn't linked. It simply means I don't believe the science has been presented which proves the link exists. One persons science is another persons pseudo science.
Everyone has an opinion on the subject and I think it is great that they do. I have an opinion, but I don't think it is important to me or the world for someone else to agree with me. My thoughts and my beliefs won't change the world. My actions may be a very small part of changing the world. For that reason, I attempt to limit the damage my existence causes to the environment. Collectively, we may make a difference even if it is for different reasons.
Ted
Everyone has an opinion on the subject and I think it is great that they do. I have an opinion, but I don't think it is important to me or the world for someone else to agree with me. My thoughts and my beliefs won't change the world. My actions may be a very small part of changing the world. For that reason, I attempt to limit the damage my existence causes to the environment. Collectively, we may make a difference even if it is for different reasons.
Ted
-
stella1751
- Greener Thumb
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:40 am
- Location: Wyoming
While reading a student paper on GMO's yesterday, I came across a nugget of new information I thought ideally suited to Ted's thread on genetic engineering. The student cited a study that suggested Monarch butterflies suffered when their habitat was exposed to the pollen of bt corn, corn that has been engineered to withstand insect predation. If memory serves, either Applestar or Rainbow or both invest a great deal of time studying and saving this species.
Reasoning that this was exactly the eye-opening material Ted needed to right his wrong-thinking, I decided to do my own research on the topic. However, instead of finding just the right source to convince Ted that GMO's are a poison too lethal to swallow, I wound up supporting his concern expressed in this thread, the one where same topic + different studies = widely different stances.
Listed chronologically, in 1999, the highly respected Cornell University concluded that Monarch butterfly populations suffered adverse effects from exposure to bt corn pollen, publishing its results in [url=https://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/May99/Butterflies.bpf.html]"Toxic Pollen from Widely Planted, Genetically Modified Corn Can Kill Monarch Butterflies, Cornell Study Shows."[/url]
In 2004, the Agriculture Research Service (ARS), the watchdog of the USDA, published its counter to Cornell's study, arguing that the disruption of the Monarch's caterpillar stage is neglible at best in its certainly biased [url=https://www.ars.usda.gov/is/br/btcorn/]"Q&A: Bt Corn and Monarch Butterflies."[/url]
In 2008, just in case people were unconvinced by the ARS Q&A, Iowa State University, in a study that appears to have been funded by the ARS, conducted and published a survey in support of the ARS Q&A, this one titled [url=https://agribiotech.info/details/Hellmich-Monarch%20Mar%208%20-%2003.pdf]"Monarch Butterflies and Bt Corn."[/url]
Finally, in 2010, my personal favorite for gardening advice, the Colorado State University Extension office, published its highly informative and immensely readable [url=https://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/crops/00707.html]"Bt Corn: Health and the Environment."[/url] In this factual and, in my opinion, unbiased article, bt corn is said to have a decidely adverse effect on the caterpillar stage of the Monarch butterly, but that adverse effect is said to be less detrimental than that of traditional pesticides.
You say tomatoes; I say tomahtoes. All of the foregoing studies tend to concur: Yes, bt corn does adversely affect the Monarch butterly during its caterpillar stage. However, the manner in which they are presented vary a great deal. The first suggests this adverse effect is environmentally untenable. The second two concentrate on minimizing the adverse effects. The final one, issued by one of my favorites, so I myself may be biased in favor of it, seems to take the pragmatic approach: Give the reader the facts, and let the reader make his or her own determination on the matter.
Interesting, huh?
Reasoning that this was exactly the eye-opening material Ted needed to right his wrong-thinking, I decided to do my own research on the topic. However, instead of finding just the right source to convince Ted that GMO's are a poison too lethal to swallow, I wound up supporting his concern expressed in this thread, the one where same topic + different studies = widely different stances.
Listed chronologically, in 1999, the highly respected Cornell University concluded that Monarch butterfly populations suffered adverse effects from exposure to bt corn pollen, publishing its results in [url=https://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/May99/Butterflies.bpf.html]"Toxic Pollen from Widely Planted, Genetically Modified Corn Can Kill Monarch Butterflies, Cornell Study Shows."[/url]
In 2004, the Agriculture Research Service (ARS), the watchdog of the USDA, published its counter to Cornell's study, arguing that the disruption of the Monarch's caterpillar stage is neglible at best in its certainly biased [url=https://www.ars.usda.gov/is/br/btcorn/]"Q&A: Bt Corn and Monarch Butterflies."[/url]
In 2008, just in case people were unconvinced by the ARS Q&A, Iowa State University, in a study that appears to have been funded by the ARS, conducted and published a survey in support of the ARS Q&A, this one titled [url=https://agribiotech.info/details/Hellmich-Monarch%20Mar%208%20-%2003.pdf]"Monarch Butterflies and Bt Corn."[/url]
Finally, in 2010, my personal favorite for gardening advice, the Colorado State University Extension office, published its highly informative and immensely readable [url=https://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/crops/00707.html]"Bt Corn: Health and the Environment."[/url] In this factual and, in my opinion, unbiased article, bt corn is said to have a decidely adverse effect on the caterpillar stage of the Monarch butterly, but that adverse effect is said to be less detrimental than that of traditional pesticides.
You say tomatoes; I say tomahtoes. All of the foregoing studies tend to concur: Yes, bt corn does adversely affect the Monarch butterly during its caterpillar stage. However, the manner in which they are presented vary a great deal. The first suggests this adverse effect is environmentally untenable. The second two concentrate on minimizing the adverse effects. The final one, issued by one of my favorites, so I myself may be biased in favor of it, seems to take the pragmatic approach: Give the reader the facts, and let the reader make his or her own determination on the matter.
Interesting, huh?
Ted as you like to debate I feel you will take this well. You keep bringing up the subject of global warming. This may give you some more information to base an opinion on or at least a different perspective. You are obviously thinking about it and trying to come to a conclusion as you keep bringing up the subject of global warming.
You say you get your news from Fox. I know some one who works for Fox News as an on the air weather man here in Portland. I had a talk with him on how Fox local news does not appear as slanted as the national news. His reply was that news on the local stations is less controlled by Fox. He also felt that Fox news is biased. This is just a word from a person who is an insider and works for them. 90% of all the news is owned and controlled by just a few people and they can tell you what they wish to. It is often not what you are told as what you are not told that is a twist on the truth.
Perhaps when the majority of scientists say global warming is a fact and the science is very understandable but may create a situation where uncontrolled consumption may be called into question and affect profits there may be quite a bit of disinformation put out in order to protect the profit margin. Then it may also be that no matter how many facts some people are given they will ignore them. I think there is quite a bit of cherry picking of facts going on here.
You made the statement that the same scientists predicting global warming had predicted the Earth was going to cool. I so often hear this from people that are in denial of the damage the additional CO2, methane, deforestation and urbanization is doing to the Earth. It has become a slogan repeated but not researched. How can you say they are the same people? Do you know their names? A little understanding of what the cooling prediction is based on may help.
The Earth goes around the sun in an elliptical orbit and the Earth’s rotation around its axis changes. This change is predictable and we are supposed to be going into a cooler period. The combination of fluctuation in the orbit around the sun and the rotational angle of the Earth affect the climate. The main reason for this is that most of the land mass is in the northern hemispheres and when less sunlight hits the land mass it losses heat faster than the sea. As heat is lost snow covers more area and this snow reflects sun light back in to space causing further cooling.
Now this is a predictable natural cycle but the Earth is warming; does this not make one think? If we are supposed to be cooling but are warming perhaps the problem is worse than people think! Now here are some more scary facts to think about. When you put ice into water it cools the water so as the ice caps melt the energy required to melt the ice slows the rate of warming of the oceans thus keeping the ocean currents flowing closer to normal and slows the rate of the Earths warming. When the ice finishes melting then the rate of warming rapidly increases.
Next there are large deposits of methane under the permafrost and under the oceans when the temperature melts the permafrost and releases the methane the rate of warming will greatly increase, as methane is a very powerful green house gas. The other issue is the ocean’s currents, a change in temperature will change their flow thus changing climate further. Global warming should be called climate change as some places may get wetter but most will get dryer and the changes will not be even.
Long ago when the effect of an increase in green house gasses was realized it was predicted weather would become unstable and fluctuate wildly due to the disruption in normal climate patterns; this is one of the things we have been seeing.
Now for another good question; this year many of you have talked about the dry or stormy year and how it effected your gardens, in the NW we had a wet spring and our gardens were late. What happens when the weather becomes so unpredictable and more areas get much less rain? The obvious answer is crops will fail.
With out food people will starve; starving populations tend to go to war to take the limited resources left. We are armed with some very powerful weapons! So the question is what we have to lose?
You say you get your news from Fox. I know some one who works for Fox News as an on the air weather man here in Portland. I had a talk with him on how Fox local news does not appear as slanted as the national news. His reply was that news on the local stations is less controlled by Fox. He also felt that Fox news is biased. This is just a word from a person who is an insider and works for them. 90% of all the news is owned and controlled by just a few people and they can tell you what they wish to. It is often not what you are told as what you are not told that is a twist on the truth.
Perhaps when the majority of scientists say global warming is a fact and the science is very understandable but may create a situation where uncontrolled consumption may be called into question and affect profits there may be quite a bit of disinformation put out in order to protect the profit margin. Then it may also be that no matter how many facts some people are given they will ignore them. I think there is quite a bit of cherry picking of facts going on here.
You made the statement that the same scientists predicting global warming had predicted the Earth was going to cool. I so often hear this from people that are in denial of the damage the additional CO2, methane, deforestation and urbanization is doing to the Earth. It has become a slogan repeated but not researched. How can you say they are the same people? Do you know their names? A little understanding of what the cooling prediction is based on may help.
The Earth goes around the sun in an elliptical orbit and the Earth’s rotation around its axis changes. This change is predictable and we are supposed to be going into a cooler period. The combination of fluctuation in the orbit around the sun and the rotational angle of the Earth affect the climate. The main reason for this is that most of the land mass is in the northern hemispheres and when less sunlight hits the land mass it losses heat faster than the sea. As heat is lost snow covers more area and this snow reflects sun light back in to space causing further cooling.
Now this is a predictable natural cycle but the Earth is warming; does this not make one think? If we are supposed to be cooling but are warming perhaps the problem is worse than people think! Now here are some more scary facts to think about. When you put ice into water it cools the water so as the ice caps melt the energy required to melt the ice slows the rate of warming of the oceans thus keeping the ocean currents flowing closer to normal and slows the rate of the Earths warming. When the ice finishes melting then the rate of warming rapidly increases.
Next there are large deposits of methane under the permafrost and under the oceans when the temperature melts the permafrost and releases the methane the rate of warming will greatly increase, as methane is a very powerful green house gas. The other issue is the ocean’s currents, a change in temperature will change their flow thus changing climate further. Global warming should be called climate change as some places may get wetter but most will get dryer and the changes will not be even.
Long ago when the effect of an increase in green house gasses was realized it was predicted weather would become unstable and fluctuate wildly due to the disruption in normal climate patterns; this is one of the things we have been seeing.
Now for another good question; this year many of you have talked about the dry or stormy year and how it effected your gardens, in the NW we had a wet spring and our gardens were late. What happens when the weather becomes so unpredictable and more areas get much less rain? The obvious answer is crops will fail.
With out food people will starve; starving populations tend to go to war to take the limited resources left. We are armed with some very powerful weapons! So the question is what we have to lose?
Tom,
You articulate your points well, but I believe you are preaching to the choir with a few of your points. I agree with them as you state them.
1. Is Fox News biased? Absolutely! Undoubtedly, Fox News is biased. It is my belief that since they employ many more liberal pundits than other outlets employ conservative or middle of the road pundits, they are less biased than other news outlets. I actually watch CNN and other outlets as much as I watch Fox. I do not watch MSNBC because their "reporting" is comedic.
2. Is global warming real or imagined? Global Warming is absolutely real based on scientific fact. Where I differ with most true believers is the question of cause. I am not prepared to say we are not causing it, but my personal belief is that it is following a natural cycle which we mere humans have no control over. I question the wisdom of using all of our resources to stop global warming instead of using the resources to prepare our society for the effects of global warming. Maybe we need to be raising levees, or investing in more climate controlled crop growing structures. It is my belief that long after I am dead, the natural cycle will reverse and future generations will be able to concern themselves with global freezing again.
3. Is pollution bad for our environment? Absolutely! Will long term problems grow from polluting the air, water, and earth. You betcha. The problem I see with global treaties to stop pollution is the fact that the emerging industrial nations like India and China and Mexico are more than happy for the United States to spend trillions of dollars reducing global environmental pollution. We will be purchasing the green equipment from them. They have no intention of reducing their pollution because they can't. Those nations have to expand their pollution in order to have and use polluting energy sources to grow their industrial base. They must grow their industrial base in order to employ and feed a rapidly expanding population. For them the option to pollution is civil war.
China is rapidly expanding their use of green technology to capture wind and solar energy. Some people think China is doing it out of concern for the environment. They are doing it because they can not expand the availability and use of fossil fuels fast enough to meet demand.
As a mere 350 million people in a world of 7 billion people, the United States should clean up its act, but not for the reasons most people think. I want a cleaner environment for my grand children and great grand children, but I don't believe driving a prius or chevy volt, or using paper bags over plastic bags, or many other common beliefs will make any difference. Solar panels and wind energy will make a difference, but not as much as people think. We need to make the solar panels and wind turbines in this country where we can at least control the amount of pollution emitted from their manufacturing processes.
I think we are intimately tied to the use of fossil fuels for the foreseeable future for the majority of our energy and raw material needs. We should be more concerned about how to use them wisely instead of how to stop using them.
Thats my two cents worth.
Ted
You articulate your points well, but I believe you are preaching to the choir with a few of your points. I agree with them as you state them.
1. Is Fox News biased? Absolutely! Undoubtedly, Fox News is biased. It is my belief that since they employ many more liberal pundits than other outlets employ conservative or middle of the road pundits, they are less biased than other news outlets. I actually watch CNN and other outlets as much as I watch Fox. I do not watch MSNBC because their "reporting" is comedic.
2. Is global warming real or imagined? Global Warming is absolutely real based on scientific fact. Where I differ with most true believers is the question of cause. I am not prepared to say we are not causing it, but my personal belief is that it is following a natural cycle which we mere humans have no control over. I question the wisdom of using all of our resources to stop global warming instead of using the resources to prepare our society for the effects of global warming. Maybe we need to be raising levees, or investing in more climate controlled crop growing structures. It is my belief that long after I am dead, the natural cycle will reverse and future generations will be able to concern themselves with global freezing again.
3. Is pollution bad for our environment? Absolutely! Will long term problems grow from polluting the air, water, and earth. You betcha. The problem I see with global treaties to stop pollution is the fact that the emerging industrial nations like India and China and Mexico are more than happy for the United States to spend trillions of dollars reducing global environmental pollution. We will be purchasing the green equipment from them. They have no intention of reducing their pollution because they can't. Those nations have to expand their pollution in order to have and use polluting energy sources to grow their industrial base. They must grow their industrial base in order to employ and feed a rapidly expanding population. For them the option to pollution is civil war.
China is rapidly expanding their use of green technology to capture wind and solar energy. Some people think China is doing it out of concern for the environment. They are doing it because they can not expand the availability and use of fossil fuels fast enough to meet demand.
As a mere 350 million people in a world of 7 billion people, the United States should clean up its act, but not for the reasons most people think. I want a cleaner environment for my grand children and great grand children, but I don't believe driving a prius or chevy volt, or using paper bags over plastic bags, or many other common beliefs will make any difference. Solar panels and wind energy will make a difference, but not as much as people think. We need to make the solar panels and wind turbines in this country where we can at least control the amount of pollution emitted from their manufacturing processes.
I think we are intimately tied to the use of fossil fuels for the foreseeable future for the majority of our energy and raw material needs. We should be more concerned about how to use them wisely instead of how to stop using them.
Thats my two cents worth.
Ted
-
Charlie MV
- Greener Thumb
- Posts: 1544
- Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 11:48 pm
Here is a web link which partially verifies the relationship between excessive atmospheric co2 and global climate change.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-heat-was-on-atmospheric
The study pinpoints a pre-historic event during which high co2 and climate change coincided. What it doesn't indicate is the level of co2 required to initiate the change or the origin of the co2. Since humans didn't exist during the period, we couldn't have caused it. It still leaves the question of "is fluctuating atmospheric co2 levels a normal, long term; cyclic event?" open.
Ted
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-heat-was-on-atmospheric
The study pinpoints a pre-historic event during which high co2 and climate change coincided. What it doesn't indicate is the level of co2 required to initiate the change or the origin of the co2. Since humans didn't exist during the period, we couldn't have caused it. It still leaves the question of "is fluctuating atmospheric co2 levels a normal, long term; cyclic event?" open.
Ted
I felt the problem with the CO2 treaty is that the so called 3rd world nations were not held to it, why just move the problem there.
China puts a little over 22% of the man made CO2 in to the air and they are the number one producers in the world.
The US with as you said only 300 million people puts about 19.9% and we are the second largest producers. But we also consume a lot of goods from China.
India puts out 5.5% to be the third producer of CO2.
I think Russia is next with about 5.4%
Washington DC puts out 32% of the nations hot air.
Fox puts out the rest.
Sorry Ted,
I would think at a garden forum people would be very aware of the weather, climate and the ability to grow crops.
China puts a little over 22% of the man made CO2 in to the air and they are the number one producers in the world.
The US with as you said only 300 million people puts about 19.9% and we are the second largest producers. But we also consume a lot of goods from China.
India puts out 5.5% to be the third producer of CO2.
I think Russia is next with about 5.4%
Washington DC puts out 32% of the nations hot air.
Fox puts out the rest.
Sorry Ted, I would think at a garden forum people would be very aware of the weather, climate and the ability to grow crops.
-
DoubleDogFarm
- Super Green Thumb
- Posts: 6113
- Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:43 pm
Washington DC puts out 32% of the nations hot air.
Fox puts out the rest. Sorry Ted,
A little off topic.
Some greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes and human activities.
If my brother farts in the propagation greenhouse, is he part of the Greenhouse Gas problem.
Eric
Eric,
You know your brother better than I do. I would say if you need to leave the room when he is flatulent, then he is probably contributing. If he is flatulent and the only reason you know is because you have excellent hearing, he probably isn't contributing.
PHHHeeeeww! I hope that is a good answer.
Ted
You know your brother better than I do. I would say if you need to leave the room when he is flatulent, then he is probably contributing. If he is flatulent and the only reason you know is because you have excellent hearing, he probably isn't contributing.
PHHHeeeeww! I hope that is a good answer.
Ted
-
stella1751
- Greener Thumb
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:40 am
- Location: Wyoming
-
Charlie MV
- Greener Thumb
- Posts: 1544
- Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 11:48 pm