How many Prius owners believe in Global Warming theory?

are we discussing contribution or effect?? because anything less than 100% consensus on contribution is ludicrous. then again, why am i in this discussion?

 

OK, back again. Notice you spent some more time on this thread getting riled up but still not solidifying your concepts. I'll first respond to the post that you completely changed: the one which you first just said "Yeah, I'll vouch for your BS". So is it lies or BS that I'm somehow making up? Let me know when you decide. To me, I seem to be asking relevant questions to knock down your straw men.

Yes, that's a logical question, since you only seem to be fighting fire with fire. Your first argument was that a majority of climate scientists do not believe air polution is contributing to climate change. You tried to back up this claim with 90% of all Japanese "scientists" say so (with what turns out to be one impression from an impression: not an actual poll).....that and the 31,000 online "scientists" are the numbers you're trying to use.

So far, the only evidence I've seen from you is an opinion from Dr Maruyama that he's skeptical of how much polution is contributing to current climate change.....as well as an opinion from Dr Seitz: that actually CO2 rates are indeed rising at a drastic rate, but that will actually help both climate and the environment. That right there shows a lot of discrepancy.

Because I'm waiting for you to provide evidence that the majority of climate scientists do not believe that man is contributing to global warming.

OK, this is obviously going nowhere, but I'll bite. Fossil fuels came from long extinct biomasses in the ground. Of what relevance does that have with excess CO2 and CO in the air now??? Are you trying to say that extra carbon is going to somehow find itself back in the ground and break down through unnatural means, and within a lifetime that mankind will see?? Since this argument has nothing to do with your main assertion, I'll move on.

It seems that you're saying that you don't believe the extra CO2 and CO being put in the air is pollution. So whether some GW skeptics are acknowedging that man does make air polution...but it's in an insignificant manner, vs some GW skeptics that think extra CO2 is good for the environment; that's all immaterial to you. Right, have fun with those beliefs. Me, since I see that man is depleting biomass...while at the same time, adding to CO2 levels....that seems like enough evidence that there is such a thing as air pollution.

 

Thanks for the link.
I wonder if the funding money distorts this poll which just counts publications.
Theres been like $50 Billion over the years spent on climate change research.
How could anyone skeptical publish the same quantity without that same funding.
I would prefer a simple survey of beliefs ,using explicit questions(while attached to a lie detector).
But I suppose any climatologist who is paid to prove that global warming exists,will be jaded anyway.
Funny that 50% of meteorologists surveyed do not believe in AGW.
Meteorologists work with computer models as do climatologists ,but they also witness the success /failure rate of the computers predictions on a daily basis.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/science/earth/30warming.html?hp

"Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

 

Science doesn't work that way. It is not driven by an agenda. Tabloid journals, news channels, and special interest groups certainly are, though. Funny you ask for one solid survey: you're given one....and now suddenly all climate scientists have an agenda. Most are actually studying effects of extra CO2 in particular ecosystems, and trying to measure particular rates. They are not creating websites saying "please sign this if you're a scientist [wink/wink]".

More tabloid journalism I see. Your article says that it's 50% of TV Weathermen that are more likely to not believe in global warming. And only half of those have a degree in meteorology:

The only thing you can infer from this article is that most TV weathermen who do not believe in global warming, or that man is contributing to it, are not meteorologists. So in no way is it refuting that "scientists" are in more of a consensus that global warming is real and man is contributing to it.

Lastly, meteorologists do not study the same thing as climatologists....so how would they have the same computer models? Meteorologists study short term weather patterns for getting a forecast. Climatologists study weather for an averaged period of time.

 

I don't see how wasting billions of dollars gets us anywhere either. Or cheating and lying. If we are to stipulate that this money is all wasted, and that learning things doesn't matter, then there's nothing more to say. Should we NOT study the situation, and just guess at our future? Or just hope really hard that the status quo will see us through?

But it does make me wonder... how does wasting the 1+ billion dollars per day that leave the US economy for oil accomplish our goal? Just what IS the goal do you suppose?

So there's good news here, at least. (if only it were true)

 

Some here may be interested in reading about how some ecologists view the issue of communicating their work to the wider public. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment posts their special issues freely online. Here is the latest one:

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Much of the primary literature is behind 'paywalls', because publishers seek to profit from the business they are in. But your local friendly librarian can help with that.

I do follow the literature of earth system science, as much as possible, and must say that many recent reports do not paint an optimistic picture. This, of course, comes from a person with confidence that the process of scientific research and publication leads us closer to the truth. But how to communicate that, and how to contribute to improving (or at least limiting the detriment) to humans and the environment? No easy thing, as the "Frontiers' authors above would attest. I'd like to suggest reading Gene Liken's article at least. He has been through this at least twice before, by which I mean getting governmental policies aligned with the best that science can teach us.

I don't know quite what we can settle here at PriusChat, but I hope that it remains a generally amicable place to exchange points of view.

 

Looks like I made a mistake with that link. Here I try one level higher, from which you would click on the most recent special issue

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment - Issue

 

Since there is only 24 hours in a day, I have to limit my significant climate education to Science (the magazine) articles and reports. The really interesting aspect is the amount of research going into figuring out what the climate was over the earth's history and what caused all the effects. One of the latest was using cave deposits to figure out above ground climates. It looks like we cannot really figure out what the details of our future climate will be without also figuring out what the past climate was.

What is really relevant is that a lot of mysteries of civilization advances and retreats are starting to correlate with past climate changes. Some of these climate changes actually look to have been drivers for some civilizations to change foods drastically to survive.....may still be the case now.

 

I do not believe in Global Warming Theory, nor do I subscribe to Depleted Resources Theory.

.

 

Oh how timely. A couple days ago a regional climatologist that I most trust just slammed that industry -- again: Cliff Mass Weather Blog: TV Weathercasters.

While Mass is solidly in the AGW camp, he is not shy about calling out its supporters who misrepresent and overstate it -- Mis-communicating Global Warming:

"But sometimes I am driven to distraction by the crazy claims of some individuals and organizations who feel it is necessary to "enhance" the threat or to make dire threats without any scientific basis. Perhaps such individuals and groups do it out of some idealistic drive to "save the world," but in reality they are damaging the credibility of the scientific community. And the media who mindlessly repeat this fluff deserve particular opprobrium.

"Want an example? A recent release by the National Wildlife Federation is a prime example of misinformation ... "

 

BBC News - Obama to add solar panels to White House


Oh, is this the poke I refered to?

 

You believe we have an infinite amount of petroleum?

 

I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.

 

It is not limited to just environmental science but all empirical-based, scientific studies.

Food safety, drug safety, and for that matter, a number of systems established to protect us from the misguided and thieves selling nonsense . . .

Bob Wilson

 

Climate - Global Warming - Ecosystem change is natural, but . . . the earth has never had 7 billion humans before, consuming ecosystems and pumping carbon into the atmosphere. Efficiency and conservation are the most cost effective way to "pay it forward." No credible person "believes" (an act of faith) in climate change. It must be based on reproducible, falsifiable, testable evidence, preferably published in peer-reviewed journals such as Science or Nature.

 

There are none so blind as those who will not see...

So how do you believe petroleum comes into existance?

 

Well...

How do you feel about air so polluted it's unbreathable?

Water, so contaminated by pollutants washed out of the air by rain that it's undrinkable?

Soil, so full of chemicals that nothing will grow in it?

Oceans so depleted of oxygen due to agricultural runoff that hundreds of miles of it are barren of all life forms?

 

If the thread is transitioning from global warming (?) to peak oil (?), then we'd probably want to take a look at the published scientific research on that.

Or if not, at the studies done by governments and militaries on how they might cope with reduced petroleum supplies and higher costs in the future.

The two fields do have parallels. The 'pro' information is compiled and discussed at affinity web sites that are dismissed by the "anits' as junk. The 'anti' websites have a few scientific publications to go on (search abiotic hydrocarbons), along with a whole lot of blogs and youtubes. The latter strike me mostly as noise, but I do not pretend that my impartiality would satisfy all.

Anyway, if oil reserves are underestimated, and/or if we burn most/all the coal and shale hydrocarbons, I suggest that the atmospheric CO2 will rise to a level bringing quite unpleasant consequences. The two fields are closely linked.

 

Please tell me that you're just stirring the pot. I'm not sure what the "Depleted Resources Theory" is... Does this mean that you believe we have limitless supplies of all the resources we use? Wood? Oil? clean water? Clean air? Lithium?

Stirring the pot, right? I mean nobody can believe that. They can be ignorant of the situation certainly, but can't actually believe it - which implies some level of thought.

 

How do you believe petroleum comes into existence and how do you explain these reports . . . ?

Oil Fields Are Refilling...Naturally - Sometimes Rapidly There Are More Oil Seeps Than All The Tankers On Earth

Oil Reserves Are Increasing by George Crispin

THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS: OIL WELLS THAT REFUSE TO RUN DRY

Fossils From Animals And Plants Are Not Necessary For Crude Oil And Natural Gas, Swedish Researchers Find

Sustainable oil?

Are Old Oil Fields Refilling? || kuro5hin.org

The Mysterious Origin and Supply of Oil | LiveScience