Dr. Gray disputes Global Warming is human caused

[LaBreeze]

[kevin]

How come everything in science is meant to be a working theory, yet certain theories have seemly became certainties, that are defended with all the zeal of zealots defending their extreme religious beliefs? I belong to the Church of Made Man GW, or I belong to the Church of Natural GW, or even I belong to the Church of Anti-GW. Isn't there any room for a medium, more moderate position? Maybe GW is a natural cycle, that man made activity is impacting? In any regard these debates really suck the air out of the room, if you know what I mean.

No. Aristotle was discarded four hundred years ago. The golden mean is not always correct. Global Warming is manmade. There isn't room for compromise because it is one of the most dangerous things people have ever done. There isn't room for compromise because the way and speed with which we are doing it, combined with a decrease in biodiversity the world over, may be irreversible.

We won't destroy life on earth, but life on earth still has enough muscle to destroy us without thinking.

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

Thanks you demonstrated my point very clearly.

[kevin]

You might have realized I was agreeing with you. There is science that says this is manmade (to some degree). There is big business that says it either (a) doesn't exist or is (b) mainly cycle. Now big business is lying, and science is being honest. You can either choose to be decieved or look at things sensibly. So yes there are two camps.

We know for a fact, which is beyond question that the earth is getting warmer. We know for a fact, beyond question, what can cause the earth to get warmer. Dumping tons and tons of warming chemicals into the atmosphere, destroying ecologies, and replacing them with methane producing cows in the hundreds of millions, is an easy recipe for manmade global warming.

One doesn't have to go half and half. On this it is clear to those who have studied it honestly that manmade global warming is a reality.

[wc is my initials]

Its not like the Chinese are doing nothing
Why do you think they built the three gorges dam???
There's a place called Loess plateau in China, you'll be amazed at how many trees were replanted there.
Don't know about the indians though

[x-y-no]

How come everything in science is meant to be a working theory, yet certain theories have seemly became certainties, that are defended with all the zeal of zealots defending their extreme religious beliefs? I belong to the Church of Made Man GW, or I belong to the Church of Natural GW, or even I belong to the Church of Anti-GW. Isn't there any room for a medium, more moderate position? Maybe GW is a natural cycle, that man made activity is impacting? In any regard these debates really suck the air out of the room, if you know what I mean.

I don't agree that this is what's going on in the science at all.

I think a good analogy for Dr. Gray vs. the preponderance of climate science today would be Sir Fred Hoyle and the preponderance of cosmological science in the mid-20th century. The idea emerged that the universe was expanding uniformly and that therefore at some time billions of years ago, the entire universe was concentrated in a single point. This was enormously controversial at first and lots of research went into challenging or confirming the idea and gradually it became the scientific consensus. But Hoyle, one of the greatest cosmologists of the century, never accepted the idea. He coined the term "Big Bang" specifically to ridicule the notion. He worked on steady-state alternatives until his death.

Does that mean that there was total equivalence between Hoyle's view (and that of a few other contrarians) and that of the consensus of cosmological science? Does that mean that all those cosmologists were unthinking members of the "church of the big bang" and Hoyle was a member of the "church of steady state?" No. Hoyle was wrong. He was a great man, and a great scientist, but he was wrong. And the consensus science was not merely a matter of faith - it was a matter of research and rational analysis.

That's how it's done in climate science too.

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

This is just so great. Look like I really touched a nerve with this one, and boy oh boy is she ever twitchin'. It is very interesting seeing what a hybrid of science and belief can become in cases like this. When both sides KNOW they are RIGHT and the other is WRONG. When every scrap of evidence becomes UNQUESTIONABLE proof. From a sociological/cultural stand point it is fascinating.

[Jim Hughes]

How come everything in science is meant to be a working theory, yet certain theories have seemly became certainties, that are defended with all the zeal of zealots defending their extreme religious beliefs? I belong to the Church of Made Man GW, or I belong to the Church of Natural GW, or even I belong to the Church of Anti-GW. Isn't there any room for a medium, more moderate position? Maybe GW is a natural cycle, that man made activity is impacting? In any regard these debates really suck the air out of the room, if you know what I mean.

I don't agree that this is what's going on in the science at all.

I think a good analogy for Dr. Gray vs. the preponderance of climate science today would be Sir Fred Hoyle and the preponderance of cosmological science in the mid-20th century. The idea emerged that the universe was expanding uniformly and that therefore at some time billions of years ago, the entire universe was concentrated in a single point. This was enormously controversial at first and lots of research went into challenging or confirming the idea and gradually it became the scientific consensus. But Hoyle, one of the greatest cosmologists of the century, never accepted the idea. He coined the term "Big Bang" specifically to ridicule the notion. He worked on steady-state alternatives until his death.

Does that mean that there was total equivalence between Hoyle's view (and that of a few other contrarians) and that of the consensus of cosmological science? Does that mean that all those cosmologists were unthinking members of the "church of the big bang" and Hoyle was a member of the "church of steady state?" No. Hoyle was wrong. He was a great man, and a great scientist, but he was wrong. And the consensus science was not merely a matter of faith - it was a matter of research and rational analysis.

That's how it's done in climate science too.

I thought you might have done something by now. It is as good a time as any. Quiet season....Not winter yet. Fits well here.

[x-y-no]

I thought you might have done something by now. It is as good a time as any. Quiet season....Not winter yet. Fits well here.

Sorry, Jim, I kind of dropped the ball. I read through your post a couple of times and started thinking about some comments and questions, but then I had the whole hassle with registering over there and then other stuff kind of intervened.

BTW, somewhere along the line I did finally get approved on the other board. Don't know what the hangup was.

[kevin]

This is just so great. Look like I really touched a nerve with this one, and boy oh boy is she ever twitchin'. It is very interesting seeing what a hybrid of science and belief can become in cases like this. When both sides KNOW they are RIGHT and the other is WRONG. When every scrap of evidence becomes UNQUESTIONABLE proof. From a sociological/cultural stand point it is fascinating.

No. I find many of the things offered as evidence of Global Warming on the news or by this or that scientist as highly questionable. People exagerate and misapply. What I do know for a fact is that Global Warming exists. That's right, it does, because the earth has been getting warmer. Now the question arises, why? I do not know this with certainty. All I know are things that cause warming in a closed system such as the atmosphere, and these go along with what we are currently putting into said atmosphere. So from there I find myself a highly reasonable line of reasoning.

Then I look at the corpus of thousands of papers published in respectable and most importantly peer reviewed journals. And I see that over the years more and more consensus, and stronger and stronger data comes behind humanity as the cause or chief instigator of the warming trend.

And I consider that in the past geological history of the earth mass extinctions have occured because of warming or cooling trends around this level. And I know that there are methane hydrates beneath the oceans which if disturbed sufficiently by warmth will release into the seas, bubble up into the atmosphere, rapidly accelerating the process. I know that white surfaces reflect heat, and that dark surfaces absorb heat. I also know that blue absorbs heat better than white snow. So as the earth becomes less covered with ice, the earth will retain more heat.

So I enter all these little bits of information in my head, examine some of what the models are saying, and temper myself with the knowledge that these things have in the past caused mass extinctions. And whether the earth is being warmed by mankind or natural processes, it becomes extremely worth following. Mostly because we cannot sustain ourself agriculturally on a world which is experiencing a climate shift. So we have a potential crisis to not only our standard of living but our civilization.

Under those circumstances, I am not going to follow the usual "Its both! Cycles and humans. How much, who knows?" because even if it was 100% cycles, it needs to be addressed. Neither am I going to go Business and say "We have to study the issue more" because there are in fact very very strong indications that Global Warming is human related. It is in everyone's long term interests that the earth not warm, and that actions be taken to stop it with minimal cost.