Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27
  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by julieflomom
    All research requires funding. So everyone has "a dog in this fight" because everyone needs money to continue their work..
    If you want to be a rich scientist, probably the best way of making this happen is to participate in industry sponsored research and give them the answers they want.

    No one is shelling out the big bucks because they *want* to hear someone say, "This coral reef is in trouble. We shouldn't be building an oil rig here."

  2. # ADS

  3. #22
    Guest
    WOW.

    This is what I was talking about. Who said that I was slamming liberals? Who said that I didn't believe in global warming? There has been a lot of good discussion here, along with many assumptions because some are taking my question as a threat to their beliefs. I put the question out there to reinforce beliefs and to make a sound argument for global warming.

  4. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    719
    If you view somone as believing global warming is a reality as a basis for saying that they have a bias, then "good facts" are impossibe; anyone with them would believe global warming and therefore, would be too biased to be believed!

    I personally think that the most unbaised information comes from tenured professors who have research money from non-industrial sources. For example, in Canada there is the National Science and Engineering Research Council, which funds pure science research. This is as about as independent as one gets, while still being able to have money to do research.

    A google search of "NSERC global warming" led me to the websites of several resarchers looking at things related to climate change - such as Dr. David R Greenwood who is ... " the plant fossil record of western Canada in order to investigate 'deep time climate change' by reconstructing climates and environments of the geological past."

    I also found a reference to the work of Dr. Reinhard Pienitz who "says his data shows that the impacts of global warming and climate change can be strikingly varied in different regions, something he thinks should be taken into consideration when discussing this issue." This exemplifies the fact that not all scientists sing the same apacolyptic (sp?) tune, but still, there is still evidence that global warming is very real and is of a concern.

    I also found this NSERC press release summarizing some of the reserach on the artic, which clearly shows that global warming is happening. From there I bring you this quote: “The Arctic regions are considered to be the Earth’s equivalent of the miner's canary – they're expected to be the first to show signs of environmental change and to the greatest degree. And what we're showing is that since the 1800s there have been dramatic changes in the Arctic, and we think they're related to climate change,” says Dr. John P. Smol (NSERC Herzberg Medalist and Canada Research Chair in Environmental Change, Queen's University).

    My point is scientists have the information but it's all in little bits and pieces - one lake here, one receeding polar ice cap there, but the leading scientists involved in funded research generally agree that global warming is real, and is a serious problem. I do not understand why people continue to refute that. And julieflomom, i do not understand why you keep asking for the "facts". The facts are there - and yes, increased numbers of more violent hurricanes is one of them. What more "facts" would you want?

    del


    *edited becuase i hit submit too soon

  5. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    41
    I think this thread may be missing an important fact about discussion of any complicated scientific issue, ie its really not possible to simply list a laundry list of "facts" and have it make sense or tell you anything. The data which supports global climate change is listed in numerous scientific articles, the question is if you guys want to put the time into reading them and picking apart the arguement. There are no simple facts, what there is is at least 20 years of rigorous research by scientist funded niether by liberal environmental groups or the oil industry. I suggest if you are interested use google scholar to look up the reasearch articles.

  6. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    943
    Delqc (it's a q, not a g, right? I can't tell with this font) is right. Good facts are impossible. Scientific facts are always in flux. One minute we know exactly how a black hole works, and the next minute, Stephen Hawking is retracting his statement. Right now we're trying to compromise physics so that it makes sense both in the cosmos and in our very atoms.

    But, unlike with physics and things of that nature, the evidence that points to global warming should not be ignored; let's say we were wrong. Let's say we were the cause of initiatives that worked to reverse heavy pollution and whatnot-- we'd still benefit incredibly, global warming or NOT. However, I think global warming is serious and is very real, and if we wait too long until a cold hard fact comes along, there will be too much hell to pay.

  7. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    94
    The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which was at 299 ppm in the year 1900, rose to 316 ppm in 1959, a 5.6% in the 59-year period, or at an average 0.288 ppm per year.

    Measurements of the concentration of carbon dioxide since 1959 have revealed an increase to 376 ppm in 2003, a 19% in the recent 44-year period, or at an average 1.36 ppm per year.

    The concentration of carbon dioxide has increased an average of about 1.5 ppm per year over the past two decades.

    The concentration of carbon dioxide increased 2.87 ppm in 1998, more than in any other year of record.

    Records of world temperature have been kept since 1861. The last decade of the 20th century was the warmest. The year 1998 was the warmest of record; the year 2001 was the second warmest.

    About 75% of the annual increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is due to the burning of fossil fuels.

    The remaining 25% is attributed to anthropogenic changes in land use, which have the effect of reducing the net uptake of carbon dioxide.

    Anthropogenic changes in land use occur when forests are converted to rangelands, rangelands to agriculture, and agriculture to urban areas.

    Other patterns of land degradation--deforestation, overgrazing, overcultivation, desertification, and salinization--reduce the net uptake of carbon dioxide, indirectly contributing, however slightly, to global warming.

    http://globalwarming.sdsu.edu/

  8. #27
    Guest
    This has been great - I have a lot of reading to do.


 
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Remove Ads

Ads

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 61
    Last Post: 04-22-2020, 07:07 AM
  2. global warming...
    By alexia in forum Freestyle
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 08-17-2005, 07:46 AM
  3. Anyone feel like sharing their honest opinion?
    By StrikeFour in forum Girls Gone Crafty
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-24-2005, 09:49 AM
  4. Replies: 31
    Last Post: 03-03-2005, 08:56 AM
  5. Global Knitwork
    By fivedollarshake in forum Craft-Up
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-25-2005, 02:04 PM