12 Responses to “Global Warming vs. “Dog Mess””

---

1. Ayschlay Says:

   July 3rd, 2007 at 4:14 pm
   Visit Ayschlay

   I sympathize, Sue, with your skepticism regarding polls. There’s all sorts of ways to “massage” the numbers.

   But some polls and polling outfits are better than others, and pollsters have gotten pretty good at determining “representative samples” of populations. The problem is the kinds of questions asked, the way they are asked, and the context in which they are asked.

   You can see other results of Ipsos Mori survey data here. Other survey questions suggest that people do find global warming to be important. For example, 36% of the British population answered global warming, and 17% said climate change, in response to the open-ended question: “What issues, if any, do you think are the most serious threats to the future wellbeing of the world?” So half of this representative sample of Brits think the threat is environmental (as compared to the 21% who said terrorism; or the 20% who said war).

   BUT, when they are asked to decide which is a bigger threat to Britain, when they are asked to compare global warming to other named threats, the British pick terrorism (40%) and population growth (33%) over global warming (23%).

   See how the public’s take on global threat varies radically with the way the question is asked?

   Now imagine you’re a representative or policymaker trying to figure out what your people want or worry about the most. . .

---

2. Sue Says:

   July 3rd, 2007 at 4:21 pm
   Visit Sue

   Ayschlay:

   Thanks for making my point in an eloquent manner.

   Each poll or polling organization has its own methods.

   I suppose this is one of the things which endeared me to President Bush. He does not govern by polls but by beliefs, facts and conviction. Whether the population agrees or disagrees becomes evident without a poll. We are not a quiet nation nor should we be and our leaders most certainly should not need a poll for them to take our temperature.

---

3. ~J~ Says:

   July 3rd, 2007 at 5:59 pm
   Visit ~J~

   I think global warming is cyclical and is caused by the sun. When I read this story today basically saying human beings were using up the sun I laughed at it and the whole argument for global warming. Here’s a quote:

   HUMANS are just one of the millions of species on Earth, but we use up almost a quarter of the sun’s energy captured by plants - the most of any species.

   The human dominance of this natural resource is affecting other species, reducing the amount of energy available to them by almost 10 per cent, scientists report.

   Researchers said the findings showed humans were using “a remarkable share” of the earth’s plant productivity “to meet the needs and wants of one species”.

   They also warned that the increased use of biofuels - such as ethanol and canola - should be viewed cautiously, given the potential for further pressure on ecosystems.

   The scientists, from Austria and Germany, who publish their results today in the journal of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, analysed data on land use, agriculture and forestry from 161 countries, representing 97 per cent of the world’s land mass.

   This showed humans used 24 per cent of the energy that was captured by plants. More than half of this was due to the harvesting of crops or other plants.

   Am I to draw the conclusion that because I eat meat and vegetables I’m “using” the sun more than I should? Do I “use” the sun when I go outside for some sunshine and fresh air?

   This argument is getting more and more ridiculous by the day.

---

4. Ayschlay Says:

   July 3rd, 2007 at 6:17 pm
   Visit Ayschlay

   I don’t know, J. There’s been a growing consensus in the scientific community that 1)there is indeed a phenomenon we call global warming and 2) that human activity contributes to this warming to a remarkable degree. Even the Bush administration, despite fiddling with EPA language in the past, has now come around to agreeing with this.

   The article wasn’t saying we use the sun by being outside, but by our agricultural and forestry practices. Plants and trees convert solar energy into other kinds of energy that animals (including us) consume. If humans affect this plant life they therefore affect energy storage and distribution.

   The bone of contention here is whether humans have affected this energy supply to such a degree that its hurting other species

---

5. ~J~ Says:

   July 3rd, 2007 at 6:58 pm
   Visit ~J~

   So are you saying humans should stop eating so animals down the chain should eat instead? If so, you go first.

---

6. ~J~ Says:

   July 3rd, 2007 at 7:02 pm
   Visit ~J~

   Oh, and humans contribute to the carbon problem. The problem with that is we are made of carbon. In fact, one company makes diamonds from the cremains of people if someone wants to pay enough.

   So, alive or dead we are destroying the earth’s balance. I don’t buy it.

   If that’s the case tell me why Mars is undergoing a similar change in climate? I’m telling you it’s the sun. Thirty years ago we were being warned about global cooling and the coming of another ice age.

   Snow in South Africa either for the first time or the first time in decades tells me there isn’t any global warming.

---

7. Big Mo Says:

   July 3rd, 2007 at 7:41 pm
   Visit Big Mo

   Actually, that “growing concensus” is not as “growing” as you might think.

   This isn’t settled science, and if there’s one thing that the scientific method instructs, is that you keep on testing. You don’t shout down contrary opinions or disregard them bcause you don’t like the source.

   For every scientist you find that says mankind is causing it, I can find one who says it’s bunk and it’s natural. That’s hardly a concensus.

---

8. Ayschlay Says:

   July 3rd, 2007 at 8:19 pm
   Visit Ayschlay

   I think part of the matter here is ‘what is natural?’ We have this strange habit of calling human actions and production as ‘man-made’ as opposed to natural–though as products of nature, you’d think we what do and build or shape is just as much a part of nature as an old growth forest.

   Still, we know that humans can do, build, and shape to such an extent as to destroy the ability of their immediate environment to sustain them. Some archeologists believe that is what explains the pretty rapid demise of the ancient Mayans. More recent examples include the heavily polluted areas of Eastern Europe or the region of Chernobl. Our Superfund sites are predicated on the idea that people (corporations) have put an area or neighborhood into high risk. The US and Canada are facing the effects of acid rain. And so on.

   If you can accept this (and I’m not sure how you could say this is fanciful), then why not accept the possibility of this happening on a grander scale–the scale of global warming?

   As for consensus in the scientific community–I guess we’ll just have to compare data. Big Mo says: “You don’t shout down contrary opinions or disregard them because you don’t like the source.” One could argue that that is what the Bush administration has done till now (not shouting, though, just excising troublesome findings). But I’ll see what I can find out about the numbers in the scientific community that accept the reality of global warming and the contention that humans contribute to it.

---

9. Sue Says:

   July 3rd, 2007 at 9:25 pm
   Visit Sue

   You guys have the serious debate. I for one just want to think the whole thing is no more than “Dog Mess.”

   Seriously, like all things scientific, I do not believe there is one right or wrong answer. As history evolves, so does science. Statistics are fine, but tomorrow someone will come up with a fresh set which will be accepted and the old statistics become yesterdays news.

   Gee, are we supposed to limit the amount of children a family can have so we do not use so many resources? Once again this is an issue on which I think everyone has their own beliefs.

   And no I do not think the Bush administration has shouted anyone down. They simply went with the information provided by their researchers early in the administration (as all Presidents do) and perhaps have used some evolving data to rethink the issue. I see nothing wrong with that approach.

---

10. Ayschlay Says:

    July 4th, 2007 at 7:29 am
    Visit Ayschlay

    “Seriously, like all things scientific, I do not believe there is one right or wrong answer. As history evolves, so does science. Statistics are fine, but tomorrow someone will come up with a fresh set which will be accepted and the old statistics become yesterdays news.”

    How very postmodern of you! Science is just another set of beliefs.

    I agree, Sue, that what we call scientific knowledge changes over time, and so we’ve gone from the medieval notion that “humors” shape our body’s health to the idea that it’s really cellular activity, or we’ve left behind the ancient Greeks’ supposition that light emanates from the eye, and now know (or should I say “know?”) that light is both a wave and particle flowing outside of us.

    But because knowledge changes doesn’t make it just a matter of opinion. I’m sure you remember your lab classes, and the steps, the rules, you followed to produce a discovery, a kind of scientific knowledge. Science is a kind of learning where we carefully test propositions in such a way that others can look at your methods, your data, your results, and repeat the test. Nothing is ever proven beyond a shadow of a doubt–conclusions are tentative, but some are much more tentative than others (e.g. chaos theory compared to the theory of gravity).

    This makes science different from political debate and discussions of religion. We may try to be scientific about politics, but at its heart it’s about who gets what, when, and how (to quote Lasswell). Religion asserts a proof (God exists. . .Salvation works this way. . ., The purpose of existence is. . .), but that proof rests on faith, a hope based on some combination of feeling and thought. Faith is a knowledge that assures the person that this is true, and that is not, without having to test hypotheses and gather material evidence (though for some Christians, faith is not enough, and they try to prove their religious beliefs with science).

    So the science of global warming is not just a group of people sitting around arguing and using whatever stats best matches their a priori position. This group of scientists agrees on a set of methods for observing and measuring this phenomenon. They agree on what makes a valid test of whether or not there is such a thing as global warming, and whether humans contribute to it. What they disagree on is the interpretation of data.

    Yes, that’s where bias comes in, but they work to eliminate or control the effect of bias. Political and religious debate is all about bias. We may try to use scientific evidence and logic to show that our political or religious bias is more justified than others, but we can’t agree on the methods for the proof; we can’t agree on what test is valid to prove we’re right. And so we keep arguing (or blogging).

    Science does not produce absolute truths, but it does come up with some dependable conjectures that enable us to shape the world and our life chances, though for sure it has also had its horrific consequences.

---

11. Guss Says:

    July 4th, 2007 at 7:37 am
    Visit Guss

    I think you’re all to damn intelligent for your own good. This isn’t something you can intellectualize over.
    When I was young I knew a man who was so intelligent that you could ask him anything and he would have an answer but when It came to simple things it boggled his mind. Global warming is a simple thing and it is happening now. I have no proof. I only have my life to look back on. This is the only comment that I will make on the subject.

---

12. Ayschlay Says:

    July 4th, 2007 at 8:08 am
    Visit Ayschlay

    A happy Fourth to you, too, Guss!