Silence of Dissent

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

I've found lots of people tend to intertwine the global warming issue with rising carbon dioxide levels and feel that if one exists then the other must as well. As I said in another thread, it's a lot like how people can't recognize the independence of abiogenesis and evolution. =/

Yeah, I too find it hilarious how some folks buy into CO2 being the sole bringer of evil. For starters, it's one of the *least* altering greenhouse gases. If you'd want to try pointing fingers, it'd have to be at water vapor.

If the increase of one gas in the atmosphere altered climate as predicted, we'd have weather prediction down-pat. Fear-mongering and propaganda is essentially the best way to put it. I talked to a number of folks in my department and my feathers got into a ruffle over something...

This one fella (in my department and major whose personality is almost a carbon copy of mine) actually *believes* in global warming. I find this horribly strange given that we've had largely the same educational background. When I started talking facts to him, he started spouting off word-for-word lines from a documentary he watched. He's got a freakishly perfect memory and was pretty much reciting part of the script from this Global Warming show he saw on Discovery channel =p I debunked almost all the points he brought up then tied it off with how everyone has their aims, and this is just the politicizing of science. I told him that even the famous Discovery Channel wasn't unbiased. He refused to believe this and got quite angry with me.

Then a person in the department who I always deemed as very intelligent chimed in. He started talking about usage of lead-based paint and how it somehow correlated to temperature climbs. I remember talking to him about six months prior about global warming (he's about ten years older, and seems very knowledgeable in comparison to myself at times) and he mentioned that he didn't have a viewpoint. But lo and behold, after having his "eyes opened" by the "Inconvenient Truth" movie, he magically has a stance.

Many folks are cementing their views off of a recent news article or two, but this global warming debate, both scientific and politically, has been an interest of mine for almost eight years now. I've read so many works, seen unsullied experiment data-sets, etc that I can say with confidence that I am cemented on my stance with this topic. I have yet to be thoroughly thrashed in a debate on the topic, and I've had chats with PhD holders on the subject. One in particular who I worked with for a while (as an undergrad assistant) agreed with me but published the exact opposite. Why? Well, he wouldn't get grant money otherwise.

Shortly thereafter, I worked under a professor who analyzed aerosol particles and production of clouds. He took a stance on global warming at a meteorological conference and lost funding. In addition to this, after Tom DeLay (who championed 75% of our grants) got in trouble, we lost 3/4 of our funding. It was "more interesting" to focus it all on global warming. My professor that I worked under is a younger fellow who has the same view as myself on the topic. I had to quit shortly thereafter (I saw myself as a bit of a leech, since we had to sit on our hands most of the time with money-flows now gone), but I hear he is still sticking his head above ground-level and not budging on his stance.

What you see going on right here is a prime example of what some call "sheeples". It's one thing when you get into politics... Everyone is different. We all have our viewpoints. But when you pick a side in a scientific debate and don't know shit about it other than what you've been spoon-fed by "Discovery Channel", it's an insult to anyone who has taken the topic into serious concern... And someone who saw a special on CBS has the nerve to tell me I'm wrong, based on their minute exposure on the subject, delivered by a biased source. It really curls my graw.

You have two sides throwing data at eachother, just like a normal scientific debate. There's ultimately a right and a wrong side... But there are underlying problems, such as how this Man-Made Global Warming has caused a huge job market niche. It's incredibly popular and has made jobs in a number of areas. If you could just come out and ultimately debunk Man-Made Global Warming, then you'd put a shitload of people out of work. As a result, scientists of credible standing that oppose it are threatened and censored. Those who like their job stability keep their heads down and go with the flow.

Brady -- I'll have to give that film a look at some later date. It's rare that I get to see a film talking about the dirty politics behind this topic.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

We didn't agree because the Kyoto Treaty seemed to exist just to cripple the US' economy and production sector. It would've approached China with kid-gloves since it deemed it as a "developing nation", if I'm recalling right. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Anyhow, ~80% of China's energy is from coal. If you want to nail someone for CO2 levels (even though I don't see it as a linear contributor to warming), go after China. Their local pollution and the like is very obvious. Plus, I'm sure that Japan's current pollution troubles are somewhat overcroppings from China.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Well, there's the off-chance that if temperatures continue to climb, the peat bogs could dry out before the methane escapes into the atmosphere. If that happens, the Methane (CH4) will oxidize into CO2 and leave water in its stead.

CH4 + 2*O2 => 2*H20 (water) + CO2

Otherwise, the doom-sayers will say "mankind is at fault" and the masses will agree with the statement. Damn Clathrate gun hypothesis. But there was an article I saw a while back that had some interesting facts. Maybe the Methane burps are an effect and not a cause, hmm?

Linky.

I still like to think that the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are way too small in amount to affect the temperature like folks say. Methane in itself only has a life in the atmosphere of around 9-10 years. It undergoes a reaction with hydroxyl radical, and across this time, is broken down to CO2 and H2O. Sure, those still affect the atmosphere, but not nearly as powerfully. But hey, that's my opinion.

In other news, the world is doomed!

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Article

Over 4.5 billion people could die from Global Warming related causes by 2012, as planet Earth accelarates into a greed-driven horrific catastrophe.

Bibliographic reference courtesy of Brad Arnold who has an extensive resrarch background on Global Warming.

I lol'd.

Edit:: Just noticed a typo in there, too. Bolded for emphasis.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?