News Has Kristen Uncovered More Inconvenient Truths?

[edward]

Edward, do you really believe that environmental groups aren't lobbying and paying for research to back their cause?

Environmental groups don't have anywhere near the funding capability that big energy does.

But my point was that if big energy thought there was no GW, why would they have spent that kind of money to discredit it. And yes, Exxon does have it's own environmental scientists and climatologists.

There are fanatics and fraud on both sides. I dated a climate scientist and he told me that human pollution is too insignificant to change the world's climate. Pollution can cause problems in limited areas but it is not enough to change the world's climate. People just don't understand what it would take to accomplish something of that scale.

I have looked closely at both sides and I think the jury is still out on AGW ,but not on GW. Something is melting all of that ice. The worst case AGW scenario is that we would have to switch to clean energy. Sure that would come at a tremendous cost, but it would also create a whole new industry and the jobs that go with it. It also could be done over time taking some of the sting out of the cost. And again I think that the general pollution from fossil fuels worries me the most.

Personally I was a great fan of the late Carl Sagan. He was the first person that I remember mentioning global warming.

Anyway it beats the hell out of worrying about a nuclear winter.

 

[Skyhunter]

As far as your judgments on the scientific community or judgments on AGW? Because if you're saying that you can judge AGW on a lifetime of experience (are you even half a century old?) then you're looking at too small of a sample period.

If you're saying you have more experience in the scientific field and understand the politics well enough, then extrapolate on that in the academic section of PF, tell me about the politics of my future career and academia...

I was referring to my more intimate understanding of the political atmosphere during the Carter/Reagan/Anderson election campaign. It was my first presidential election as an adult. There is no substitute for personal experience. You can ride in a car and watch someone drive a thousand times, but until you do it yourself, you don't know how.

Kirsten was implying that Carter was anti-oil because he did not get money from oil companies. I don't know for certain but I would guess that Jimmy Carter at some point in his career got campaign money from oil companies, the majority of national politicians do.

The campaign really hinged on the Iran hostage crisis.

George H. Bush, Reagans running mate, led a delegation that met with the Iranians and made a deal to have the hostages released...After the election though, not before. And the deal was for weapons, and the money was used to arm the Contra rebels in Nicaragua.

Some of the key players in Iran Contra are now back, in the current administration.

 

[phoenixy]

Edward, do you really believe that environmental groups aren't lobbying and paying for research to back their cause?

And what cause would that be? Environmental groups are trying to save lives and preserved a home for our future generation. Unlike certain industry, they are not footing the bills as a mean to generate more bills. Of course, we also have to take into the quality and the quantity of research into account.

I said "trying to save lives" instead of simply "save lives" because some environmental groups can make what I considered as mistakes. As such, they could very well be counter-productive and ended up moving further away from their cause. For example, I have huge issue with Greenpeace's anti-nuclear stance.

There are fanatics and fraud on both sides.

So is evolution VS. creationism, big bang VS. 6000 year old earth, etc. These sorts of "two sides to the story" are only somewhat evenly matched in the political arena, and for the most part, only in USA. In the scientific community the match is not even closed. If we accept that fraud is inherit and cannot be avoided, then it comes down to signal to noise ratio. Perhaps I can stomach more fraud from the skeptic community if it originates more credible and scientific research.

I dated a climate scientist and he told me that human pollution is too insignificant to change the world's climate. Pollution can cause problems in limited areas but it is not enough to change the world's climate. People just don't understand what it would take to accomplish something of that scale.

I can assure you humanity has the mean, the capability, and in the last 50 years, even the desire to terminate all live form on Earth through change in world climate and pollution. Yes, I'm talking about a nuclear winter. It is not that far stretch to imagine that some other non-natural climate-changing method would also exist.


PS: show of hand. Who thinks Thank You for Smoking is an awesome movie of industrial lobbyist VS. health advocate lobbyist?

 

[Skyhunter]

Let ME see...Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon are Harvard-Smithsonian Center astrophysicists. They point out that "only tree growth record over a single region is used in the SPM reconstruction for the crucial period." This is a legitimate criticism. It's always best to use mutiple proxies to check, balance and strengthen your case.

See: Climate History and the Sun, by Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon, Washington Roundtable on Science and Public Policy, George C. Marshall Institute, June 5, 2001.

Using the extremely lame and tired excuse of the American Petroleum institute does demonstrate a flagrant ad hominem. I guess it is easier to make these trite comments that attack the presenters of ideas, than to discuss the merit
of their ideas.

NQ

Sorry, I guess do tend to get a bit hyperbolic.

Criticism is one thing, and accusations of fraud are quite another.

Mann was being accused of fraud, he has been acquitted by his peers and I just get irked when this study is thrown up as exposing Mann, Bradely, and Hughes as frauds, which they are not. The study itself has been widely criticized. That is not to say that it did not raise valid issues, just that their intent, or at least the intent of the API was to discredit Mann and the hockeystick.

Which the study failed to do.

 

[Kirsten-B]

Mann basicly retracted his own study before congress and they still use it in computer models.

 

[Pythagorean]

There are fanatics and fraud on both sides.

Mann was being accused of fraud, he has been acquitted by his peers and I just get irked when this study is thrown up as exposing Mann, Bradely, and Hughes as frauds, which they are not. The study itself has been widely criticized. That is not to say that it did not raise valid issues, just that their intent, or at least the intent of the API was to discredit Mann and the hockeystick.

This is the kind of thing that makes me not even want to bother trying to understand what's going on right now. There's way too much political interest, on both sides. I have definitely seen oil propaganda living in Alaska, without a doubt, so I know oil companies aren't as innocent as people make them out to be sometimes.

Environmental groups don't have anywhere near the funding capability that big energy does.

A general counterargument to that is that this gives environmental groups more support from the masses (voters and certain politicians). With Al Gore involved, you can't really deny that the concept of AWG has just as much political power on the other side (I mean we're here, right, debating it, it's a hot topic, only the fools and the wise people are certain about what's going on, and I'm neither)

So there's a lot of political pressure from both sides on this project, data is going to be slashed, edited, discredited and replaced, while the interpretations of data will always be geared towards political motive if you follow the line of benefits and costs involved.

Don Grayson evaluated kill sites in North America and his take on it was that there were only about 14 that were viable.

Man and mammoth were not associated in Siberia so the overkill hypothesis falls down there. My view is it is a climate change driven extinction, with massive methane hydrate releases a key factor, but there is a new hypothesis materializing that proposes an airburst by a comet over North America (see AGU conference abstracts May 2007). Conveners of session:
James Kennett, LuAnn Becker, Rick Firestone and Allen West.

To be clear, I wasn't making an argument about GW or global population of mammoths. I think that in Alaska, mammoth hunting contributed significantly (as well as harsh temperatures) to local mammoth extinction.

 

[Hurkyl]

But my point was that if big energy thought there was no GW, why would they have spent that kind of money to discredit it. And yes, Exxon does have it's own environmental scientists and climatologists.

If GW was real, why would they have spent that kind of money to discredit it? Which of those reasons fail to apply if GW is not real?

 

[Andre]

Impressive fight here. I guess it confirms that reason will never be able to overcome passion. So we probably have to wait for the moment that we all see that this cycle of natural global warming cycles has ended in 2002 and we can make up for the battle of the coming ice ages hype.

Problem is that from that moment on, there is no incentive left for the masses to have anymore belief in science, that conned them into cutting emissions to prevent global warming. So, there is no reason whatsoever to think green, they are not going to be dragged into it anymore. What left is pure survival in a dire energy crises following the folly and climate science will be dead.

 

[NileQueen]

Pythagorean


To be clear, I wasn't making an argument about GW or global population of mammoths. I think that in Alaska, mammoth hunting contributed significantly (as well as harsh temperatures) to local mammoth extinction.

Do you have a reference? What is your source for this view?

 

[Andre]

Not a strawman, a poor choice of words.

You are claiming that there is no net positive feedback evident in the ice core data. I don't believe you to be qualified to make that claim.

This has been addressed in the appropriate thread.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=162192

 

[edward]

Do you have a reference? What is your source for this view?

I don't think that there is definite proof that mammoths were hunted into extinction. They were ,however, definitely hunted in North America. Since we did hunt the bison into near extinction I think it was presumed that man did the same with the mammoth.

The culture is named for artifacts found near Clovis, New Mexico, where the first evidence of this tool complex was excavated in 1932. Earlier evidence included a mammoth skeleton with a spear-point in its ribs, found by a cowboy in 1926 near Folsom, New Mexico. Clovis sites have since been identified throughout all of the contiguous United States, as well as Mexico and Central America.

http://www.crystalinks.com/clovis.html

The intriguing mystery is the massive sudden disappearance of the mammoth in Siberia which Andre has mentioned.

I think someone has mentioned that horses also existed in North America.
Recently in clearing ground for a new Walmart in the phoenix area, the skeleton of a camel was found.

 

[edward]

Impressive fight here. I guess it confirms that reason will never be able to overcome passion. So we probably have to wait for the moment that we all see that this cycle of natural global warming cycles has ended in 2002 and we can make up for the battle of the coming ice ages hype.

We could blame it all on science itself. Without the satellites with their impressive data and the technology to study ice cores, we would be sitting around with nothing to do.

Problem is that from that moment on, there is no incentive left for the masses to have anymore belief in science, that conned them into cutting emissions to prevent global warming.

People have always been skeptical of new science, especially scientists. But I do see your point, if AGW turns out to be a false alarm, people may feel that science has betrayed them.

So, there is no reason whatsoever to think green, they are not going to be dragged into it anymore. What left is pure survival in a dire energy crises following the folly and climate science will be dead.

We have used fossil fuels for over two hundred years. If there is no incentive to find clean energy, it won't be found. Remember the old saying: "Necessity is the Mother of Invention".

I don't see a dire energy crisis unless the conversion to new energy sources is manipulated by unscrupulous people.

 

[Pythagorean]

Do you have a reference? What is your source for this view?

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF7/772.html

I work at an arctic science institute. I don't study biology or climate (I study physics and infrasound) but I hear a lot about it, so I'm expressing the local view. Remember that I said 'I think' and not that 'i know'.

'i know' that Mt. Erebus is active (because that's what I study, professionally, with infrasound and wave-analysis technology.)

you can go here:

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/

and enter search term, "mammoth" to see more information about research on the Alaska mammoth.

 

[NileQueen]

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF7/772.html

I work at an arctic science institute. I don't study biology or climate (I study physics and infrasound) but I hear a lot about it, so I'm expressing the local view. Remember that I said 'I think' and not that 'i know'.

Your source is written by a seismologist and at the very least he is careless. It is possible he knows something about paleontology, but he talks about Paul Koch and David Fisher at U Mich.
Sorry, there is no David Fisher at U Mich. That is likely Daniel C. Fisher, the tusk expert/geologist/paleontologist there. They are using high magnification
microscopes to find butcher marks, but I have not seen anything that refutes the Grayson paper.
Here is this abstract by Fisher, dating to 1984
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/geology/mastodon/journals/butcher2.htm
but refers to mastodonts in the Michigan area, not Alaska.
Also 1984, D.C. Fisher
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/geology/mastodon/journals/butcher3.htm
He cites "compelling evidence" for paleoindian butchery of mastodons

Grayson paper, 2003
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-02/uow-eac022403.php
Evidence acquits Clovis people of ancient killings, archaeologists say

"Of the 76 localities with asserted associations between people and now-extinct Pleistocene mammals, we found only 14 (12 for mammoth, two for mastodon) with secure evidence linking the two in a way suggestive of predation," write Donald Grayson of the UW and David Meltzer of SMU in the current issue of the Journal of World Prehistory. "This result provides little support for the assertion that big-game hunting was a significant element in Clovis-age subsistence strategies. This is not to say that such hunting never occurred: we have clear evidence that proboscideans (mammoths and mastodons) were taken by Clovis groups. It just did not occur very often."

What is the state of the research on mammoths/mastodons in Alaska I wonder? It was largely unglaciated at the LGM.

'i know' that Mt. Erebus is active (because that's what I study, professionally, with infrasound and wave-analysis technology.)

When was the last time it erupted, and what type of volcano is it? (I find it interesting).

you can go here:

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/

and enter search term, "mammoth" to see more information about research on the Alaska mammoth.

searching for "mammoth hunting" only brings up one article (the one you cited) on humans and hunting. That's a good site. I've read some of Ned Rozell's stuff.

 

[Andre]

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF7/772.html

I work at an arctic science institute. I don't study biology or climate (I study physics and infrasound) but I hear a lot about it, so I'm expressing the local view.

Curiously enough, the local view should be generated by the local autority, which is Dale Guthrie. I have never hear him propagate overkill. On the work with the horses he did make a strong case for climate change

 

[Pythagorean]

Your source is written by a seismologist and at the very least he is careless. It is possible he knows something about paleontology, but he talks about Paul Koch and David Fisher at U Mich.
Sorry, there is no David Fisher at U Mich. That is likely Daniel C. Fisher, the tusk expert/geologist/paleontologist there.

You may have a bias against him, I didn't pick up that Fisher was from U of Mich, here's the direct quote of the sentence, I can see how you misinterpreted it:

David Fisher and Paul Koch of the University of Michigan

Is that the only discredit you had for him?

What is the state of the research on mammoths/mastodons in Alaska I wonder? It was largely unglaciated at the LGM.

I must admit I'm not that interested in extinction or mammoths so I have little exposure to the state of research. I'm largely here (in this discussion) to study the AGW debate itself, and how people argue about science that's polluted with politics. I have made no real conclusions myself, but I do probe with an argument occasionally to study people's motives.

When was the last time it erupted, and what type of volcano is it? (I find it interesting).

I'm not sure. I'm studying data from January of this year. I'm not a volcanologist (nor do I want to be) I'm just a physics undergrad taking any physics job I can get. I'm more interested in the wave analysis (being able to identify and filter digital signals via techniques like Fourier transform and wavelet analysis) because it's a powerful tool that carried into many different fields of physics.

Even the group I work with aren't really volcanologists, they're an infrasound group. The volcanologists probably use our data though and we collaborate with them.

this is the cite to see for Mt. Erebus:
http://www.ees.nmt.edu/Geop/mevo/mevo.html

searching for "mammoth hunting" only brings up one article (the one you cited) on humans and hunting. That's a good site. I've read some of Ned Rozell's stuff.

I just meant to look up 'mammoth' for general info, wasn't really pushing the extinction by human hunting point. As I said before, there's no doubt harsh weather contributed too. I really can't say which was more significant, but cold weather is in every square foot during the winter (at least); humans only occupy about three square feet each, so It's not beyond my reasoning that weather was more significant.

 

[Andre]

We could blame it all on science itself. Without the satellites with their impressive data and the technology to study ice cores, we would be sitting around with nothing to do.

I'm very grateful for the ice core studies etc It helps us to understand that the world is completely different.

People have always been skeptical of new science, especially scientists. But I do see your point, if AGW turns out to be a false alarm, people may feel that science has betrayed them.

That's the idea. BTW For a lot of people, including me, that "if" is a "when".

We have used fossil fuels for over two hundred years. If there is no incentive to find clean energy, it won't be found. Remember the old saying: "Necessity is the Mother of Invention".

But you need true necessity not a red herring or it will backfire. remember that the Margaret Thatcher approach of Global warming was to push nuclear energy and get rid of the coal riots. Energy security is the name of the game. You don't want to become hostage of instable energy source regions

I don't see a dire energy crisis unless the conversion to new energy sources is manipulated by unscrupulous people.

Here in Europe we are working very hard on it. Highly inefficient wind turbines, three times less effective at best, have priority above all. I still wonder if their life cycle is long enough to produce the energy that was required to build, maintain and decommision them. Nuclear reactors, the only hope of adequate future energy, are still phased out. Carbon taxes will cripple the economy further.

 

[Pythagorean]

But you need true necessity not a red herring or it will backfire. remember that the Margaret Thatcher approach of Global warming was to push nuclear energy and get rid of the coal riots. Energy security is the name of the game. You don't want to become hostage of instable energy source regions

This points is absolutely valid, but don't you think it would be damaging the other way too. If AGW had some significance and the oil companies knew it and fought it vehemently?

I guess the difference is that we really know that we need oil, so we'll still buy from the oil companies even if we don't like them. The public can chose to ignore scientists because not everyone sees the benefits of having them. In fact, many people already don't like science as it is, but practically everybody needs oil (myself included).

 

[NileQueen]

P:You may have a bias against him, I didn't pick up that Fisher was from U of Mich, here's the direct quote of the sentence, I can see how you misinterpreted it:

Quote:
David Fisher and Paul Koch of the University of Michigan
P:Is that the only discredit you had for him?

I don't have a bias against him; I don't know him. If "David Fisher" is not
from U Mich. then the author needs to tell where he is from. The fact that Daniel C. Fisher IS at U Mich. AND has worked on this study seems to demonstrate that the author was careless.P: I must admit I'm not that interested in extinction or mammoths so I have little exposure to the state of research. I'm largely here (in this discussion) to study the AGW debate itself, and how people argue about science that's polluted with politics. I have made no real conclusions myself, but I do probe with an argument occasionally to study people's motives.

The quest for truth is a challenge.P: this is the cite to see for Mt. Erebus:
http://www.ees.nmt.edu/Geop/mevo/mevo.html

Looks like a great link, but appears to be under construction.

 

[Pythagorean]

I don't have a bias against him; I don't know him. If "David Fisher" is not
from U Mich. then the author needs to tell where he is from. The fact that Daniel C. Fisher IS at U Mich. AND has worked on this study seems to demonstrate that the author was careless.

I'm assuming because it's a local forum and Daniel C. Fisher is already known for his interactions with the local scientists.

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF15/1545.html's where it brings up that he's a Glaciologist from Canada.

He's with the http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/glaciology/national/activities_e.php" :