New study on climate change

You know I can understand why a person would go to a smokers site and act like a troll, those smokers make it uncomfortable for everyone, blowing their stinking toxic fumes in my air.
But I fail to understand what a gas guzzler driver is doing on a Prius site. I'm not too sure how a Prius owner hurts a gas guzzler driver. If they drive too slow and hold you up, they wouldn't drive any faster in a Silverado or F150 but at least you can see around the Prius to pass. They leave more gas for you to use so what is your problem? I address this question to all the people who come to PC preaching excess consumption like it's a good thing not just BigFoot.

1.) If a Prius owner is getting off doing his thing, why worry about it?

2.) How does it hurt you?

3.) What do you really think you can change?

4.) Would your time be better spent writing to GM asking when the supercharges 9 litre V8 range is going to hit the streets?

5.) Would your Porsche, Corvette or truck go any faster if the was no Prius?

6.) What do you think would happen to the price of gas if all vehicle owners around the world had car that got 16 miles to the gallon? Why do you believe that?

 

Removed post

 

Your post happened to be the one on the page not from a Prius owner. The questions were directed at anyone coming into PriusChat to stir the pot, so to speak.

If I had a fast car I'd be on a fast car forum, a 4x4, a 4x4 forum, into knitting, a knitting forum, or I'd be doing my thing. I'm just trying to work out why non prius owners who aren't interested in owning a Prius would come to PC and why some seem to think they have to make it their mission to convert Prius owners or make them feel foolish. No you're not the worst offender but I still can't work out why you are here.

 

Mine too.

 

All of your responses have been sincere and I am honestly baffled by the lashing out of some. Two direct question I have for you are:
1) Do you belive that the increasing CO2 concentations are due to man made effects or something else? (Assuming the raw CO2 data is not a point of contention.)
2) That the increasing CO2 Concentrations have no effect on the environment?

This is obviously my effort to figure out what makes you tick.

 

Because everything about his presence reeks of confrontation and antagonistic behavior. His name, His avatar, His location, His posts, His sig, His sign-up timing, etc.

 

I've seen this "he who pays the fiddler calls the tune" argument a lot, but it's really not as true as a lot of people would like to think. Don't get me wrong, it's good to go through life with a healthy dose of skepticism, to look for potential biases, and to delve deeper into the research than what the popular media and youtube might deliver... but on the whole, scientists and universities aren't as corrupt as many people imply.

There can definitely be a bias in corporate-funded research, or with scientists (or advocacy group/think tank "researchers") who have something to gain or lose from the results of their research (stock options, patent rights, etc).

But some of the better granting agencies (NSF, NSERC, NIH, CIHR, etc) are quite unbiased and will fund just about anything that has a solid methodology, etc., regardless of the author's hypothesis (of course, the committee also has to believe that the author is willing to reject their hypothesis if the evidence doesn't support it). You're more likely to get a grant rejected because you got obnoxiously drunk at an international conference (hey, grant committees are human too) or because you took time off to have a kid and have a big gap in your publication record than because you have a non-mainstream hypothesis in your proposal.

Even corporate-funded research can often lead to relatively unbiased results. When we get into the final stages of getting funding from a company, the lawyers come out of the woodwork to make sure that the scientists will have free hand to report on whatever they find, even if its negative for the company. Then the company lawyers try to get an approval right before any publication, then our lawyers say that just gives you a way to sh**can research you don't like, then they propose a 1-year publication blackout if they don't like a result so they can gear up to deal with the fallout, file for patent protection, and try to negotiate finer points of wording with us before publication. We agree to that as a reasonable compromise, we shake hands, and cash a cheque. Granted, some bias will still exist there since there's an incentive for a scientist to come to a conclusion pleasing to the company so that they can get more funding in the future -- but scientists stake their lives and reputations on being objective, rigorous, and methodical, which is why we tend to hedge our statements and opinions, even on semi-anonymous chat forums

For global warming in particular, that statement leads me to ask: who is out there funding pro-anthropogenic global warming studies then? Who stands to make money from findings like that? Where is the global warming industry? Just about the only industry I can think of that could stand to gain from fears of global warming is the nuclear power industry. The wind/solar industry didn't really have enough money to fund any research until after most global warming research was started already, and the "Land more than 10 m above present sea level" real estate holders aren't really much of a conglomerate, though they might have their eyes on a panic selling of coastal real estate. Many governments (esp. the Bush and Harper gov'ts) would prefer to not have to deal with the mess if they could sweep it under the rug and ignore it.

Conversely, how many industries stand to gain from ignoring global warming/CO_2 output? How many research studies have they funded? How many of those were hacked to bits for their obvious bias or flawed methodologies? Some of those companies have even started to go against their inherent bias and come out saying that global warming is an issue.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020902081.html
(sorry, can't find a better source, help appreciated)

 

Thanks for that Holypotato.

I'm still relatively new to field work but hanging out with scientists both on campus and in the field I can honestly say that most are driven by the pursuit of knowledge and not the bottom dollar. There have been many times when I've made a comment concerning a find and mentioned something like global warming or similar hot-topic only to be reminded that we cannot jump to conclusions based on a single bit of evidence. While I know how many of them personally feel about a given subject, they are very careful not to allow their personal feelings to cloud or taint the data they collect. A few years ago I found this annoying because it made me feel like as arse but now I agree with them and I do the same when I am collecting data.

The point being, most scientists in the fields I am interested in are very honest people driven by the joy of attaining knowledge and understanding. They are very unlikely to accept money for falsifying documents or following bunk theories just to get paid. That has been my experience anyway.

 

Companies, governments, and interest groups commission many studies, they simply bury the ones that don't conform to the line they are pushing.

They also know the researchers who will be inclined to conform to their requirements without being influenced by money.

 

The link in your point 2 uses a widely discredited source, a film called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" as its primary data source. That film basically made up and invented some of its data, as reported by The Independent:

A Channel 4 documentary that claimed global warming is a swindle was itself flawed with major errors which seriously undermine the programme’s credibility, according to an investigation by The Independent.​

The Great Global Warming Swindle, was based on graphs that were distorted, mislabelled or just plain wrong. The graphs were nevertheless used to attack the credibility and honesty of climate scientists.​

… Other graphs used out-of-date information or data that was shown some years ago to be wrong. Yet the programme makers claimed the graphs demonstrated that orthodox climate science was a conspiratorial “lie” foisted on the public.​

Channel 4 yesterday distanced itself from the programme, referring this newspaper’s inquiries to a public relations consultant working on behalf of Wag TV, the production company behind the documentary.​

If Mr Durkin had gone directly to the Nasa website he could have got the most up-to-date data. This would have demonstrated that the amount of global warming since 1975, as monitored by terrestrial weather stations around the world, has been greater than that between 1900 and 1940 - although that would have undermined his argument.​

“The original Nasa data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find,” Mr Durkin said.

Now even a climate sceptic whose dissenting views were used by the film- makers to bolster their claims about the "lies" and "swindles" of global warming has accused the documentary of promulgating falsehoods.

Eigil Friis-Christensen, director of the Danish National Space Centre, has issued a statement accusing the film-makers of fabricating data based on his work looking at the links between solar activity and global temperatures.
​

http://www.celsias.com/2007/03/20/channel-4-distances-itself-from-global-warming-documentary/​

or​

http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article2521677.ece​

Channel 4 itself, which broadcast the film, reports: Two of the scientists who took part in the film, have made public complaints about the way the film was made. They claim that the way the film was edited gave a misleading impression of critical data and their own viewpoints. In August 2007, Mike Lockwood of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory published a study which may have put the final nail in the coffin for the anti-CO2 brigade. He has shown than since 1985, solar activity has run in the opposite direction to global warming and therefore cannot explain rises in average global temperatures. If this study turns out to the true, then the arguments presented in this film lose much of their strength.

For an actually scientific discussion of the issues present in that film, such as CO2 driving, try RealClimate.

And PriusChat welcomes the members of Z06corvette forums.

 

Figures you'd find the source Scott. I have Bigfoot and others on ignore so I didn't see the articles they are linking to.

Thank's for that. They don't even hang out on the good Corvette forum. lol My old truck made more HP than I see reported in their sigs and they come here to bash on Prius drivers. Poor souls.

I especially liked the comparison of the Zo6 freeway milage to that of a fully loaded Prius. Ummmm 28mpg vs 47mpg?

 

It's not imminent doom. I'm sure the scientists who railed against smoking were considered alarmists. Maybe they were a little. Obviously not everyone who smokes dies from it, but every year in US alone, 400k die from smoking related diseases and 20k die from secondary smoke. Is this apocalyptic? No, but it is significant. It should be especially important to people who continue to harp on the 3000 people who died in 9/11.

Global warming will not wipe out humanity, but it will likely cause climatic changes that will affect people. As a rich nation, we will able to cope. For poor nations who are barely getting by as it is, they will suffer more drought and disease. If global warming is caused by CO2 emissions, then we a responsible humans should address it.

 

Maybe that friend that referred you is

Oh. You mean I could search the internet and find a lot of nonsense BS like that in The Great Global Warming Swindle? I'm shocked. How could it have gotten there.

You should try looking at some real info Bigfoot. From scientists rather than bloggers or journalists. Try Realclimate.org. They can even fill you in on that "Global Cooling" myth.