NEW! Google Custom Search

Loading
Napie's picture

Hummm?? (post #48793)

I wonder how we got in the position of 90% of Westerners being carefully taught the opposite of the truth.  It is very common for intelligent, educated people to be almost completely misinformed on very large important issues, even where actual data is readily available.


 



  • What they believe:  man is destroying the environment by overpopulation.  The truth:  Western man is depopulating.

  • What they believe:  man is destroying the environment by CO2 emissions.  The truth:  man creates just 5% of all CO2 emissions.  Approximately equivalent to the contribution from Moose Farts.

  • What they believe:  man is destroying the environment causing polar bears to go extinct.  The truth:  there are more polar bears than in 1950.  Or 1900.  It's a good time to be a polar bear.

 

ashleyd's picture

Some selective stuff there. I think you'll find overpopulation will affect the whole planet, not just the parts that are depopulating. As for the "it's not happening yet" scenario it's a bit like saying that somebody jumping off a tall building is perfectly fine, right up to the point of impact.


For those who want to read a more balanced view try the New Scientist which looks at 25 common myths and misconceptions.



Age is unimportant unless you’re a cheese.

Age is unimportant unless you’re a cheese.

gmunger's picture

References?

 


There are 2 kinds of people in this world; those who believe there are 2 kinds of people, and everyone else.

 

We are truly what we eat, and too many people are fast, cheap and easy. Who owns your food owns you, and it is unwise to let that power rest in the hands of a very few wealthy corporations.
Napie's picture

The WSJ.  It was just a few items that I thought were funny.  I understand they are not a complete study but let's face it, both sides make the numbers mean what they want them too.  

samchang's picture

You of all people should know the dangers of partial statistics. And the items you mention are filled with them.

>The truth: Western man is depopulating.< But the earth does not discriminate between Occidental and Eastern humanity.

>The truth: man creates just 5% of all CO2 emissions.< A slight change in percentage is all that is required to change the balance. In any case, the number is deceptive: oceans are by far the largest source of carbon dioxide (it is also the largest carbon dioxide sink), but the equilibrium point is now not favoring us. Because solubility is directly related to temperature, the warmer the oceans (and they are warming), the greater the carbon dioxide release. Warming oceans of course means the greater absorption of carbon dioxide as well, and this, too, is not a comforting thought. With a cycle of about 200 years for carbon, the oceans have been absorbing carbon ever since the Industrial Revolution. The oceans are now more acidic than before, effecting the solubility rates of minerals vital for marine growth. Already gastropods are reported with thinner and weaker shells, and if you believe that the food chain is a delicate construction where a slight shift in populations at the low end can cause huge consequences at the high end, this is not a good harbinger of things.

>The truth: there are more polar bears than in 1950. Or 1900.< Polar bear populations in the 50s, much less the 1900s, were a wild guess. What they did know in the 60s was that polar bear populations were in trouble because of massive harvests. Back then, polar bears were shot from airplanes, ships, even self-triggering guns, with the result that by the 1970s, an international treaty was signed to severely restrict polar bear harvests.

PeterDurand's picture

"The truth: there are more polar bears than in 1950. Or 1900.< Polar bear populations in the 50s, much less the 1900s, were a wild guess. What they did know in the 60s was that polar bear populations were in trouble because of massive harvests. Back then, polar bears were shot from airplanes, ships, even self-triggering guns, with the result that by the 1970s, an international treaty was signed to severely restrict polar bear harvests."

So it is still global warming's fault?

Methinks that all folks use statistics up to the point where they aim to prove an idea. One accuses a person of using partial stats only to perhaps substitute their own "whole"? stats. Which will in turn, I can assure you, also be called partial by a third party with yet more stats. The new "whole" picture. And on it goes.

Cheers


Edited 10/29/2007 1:57 pm by PeterDurand

samchang's picture

Not quite sure how to answer that. There are places (in Nunavut, I think) where locals are reporting up to a 25% increase in polar bear populations. But they are also the ones reporting a later and less intensive winter freeze, the effects of which on polar bear populations will not be felt for some time yet. But I believe it will be felt. The polar bear is so dependent on marine life and spends so much time on frozen sea ice that it is technically listed as a marine mammal.

thecooktoo's picture

With my already developed reputation for creating hate and discontent on this forum I should really stay away from this topic. But I just can't.


Napie, I don't know where your stats came from, don't care.  I think  you and the stats are absolutely right.


I am totally convinced that the hoax of global warming is just that, an absolute hoax promulgated primarily by those who benefit most from the fear they develop.  And Al Gore is top among the fear mongers.


There are just as many scientist who dispute the theory that global warming is created by man as there are that believe it.  But the media, in their constant search of things to scare us, continue to force feed us a whole lot of baloney.


Saw a report recently that said we really need to be concerned about a coming mini-ice age, because the last time the same set of circumstances occurred, it led to just that.  A cooling of the earth that lasted for a hundred years.


Jim

TracyK's picture

Wow, do you also believe the earth is flat?


Seriously, I do not think I have ever seen even one speaker on global warming posit that man is 100% responsible for the effects. But the truth is, it's happening. And whether or not it's a natural cycle, mankind contributes to it. So where is the harm in taking the necessary steps to reduce our impact?


CT poster in bad standing since 2000.

thecooktoo's picture

No, I'm not a member of the flat earth society.  But I am old enough and been around long enough to recognize a hoax when I see one.


Remember the hole in the ozone layer that was going to have all of us die of cancer by the end of the last century.  What ever happened to that?  Oh, and it was also going to melt the Antarctic Ice Pack and flood the world...yet now the Antarctic Ice Pack is thicker, larger and more dense than it has ever been.  Wonder why?


We can argue the stats all we want.  But do you really think that we can cut off enough carbon emissions in this country to make a difference.  it's not us...our industries spend more money than the rest of the world combined to reduce carbon emissions.  But that's not being done in India, China or any other of the hundreds of nations polluting the atmosphere all the time. 


What is your stance on nuclear power...should we build more plants or not.  Should we go to power only 12 or 18 hours a day in order to cut back on emissions from coal and oil fired plants.  Should we build more highways so we can move traffic more efficiently with less polution.  Exactly what steps should we take to cut down on carbon emissions.  Buy carbon footprint credits like Al Gore says he does, great lot of good that does.  But it gains a lot of publicity for him.


My advice (which is free to all) is to take anything you read or hear in the media in this great country of ours with huge grains of salt. 

Jean's picture

I agree with the 'green' movement, only because I believe we should be good caretakers of the garden in which we've been placed.


Other than that I don't worry too much because I believe that
"The earth is the LORD's, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. For he hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods..."
Science will never know all there is to know about how the universe functions, and the more we discover the more we find that we can't explain, from outer space to the inner workings of the atom. We live in an awesome world.  So the 'sky is falling' scares no longer rattle me. I do what I can and trust God for the rest.  




Birthdays are good for you. The more you have, the longer you live.
http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/

A  clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.
http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
help to provide free mammograms for women in need
CookiM0nster's picture

Interesting way to think about it. Please don't take offense as I mean this in all sincerity, but do you ever wonder if we're heading for a repeat of Noah?

Jean's picture

No, not when I see a rainbow. :)  Have you seen Evan Almighty?


I thought I would hate it, but ended up being quite amused.




Birthdays are good for you. The more you have, the longer you live.
http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/

A  clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.
http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
help to provide free mammograms for women in need
CookiM0nster's picture

No, but it's on my list. I've got to rent it some time when DH is out of town.

moxie's picture

I thought that was a charming movie. We all watched it a couple of weekends ago at a family reunion celebrating my grandmother's 90th, and it was one of those rare movies that entertained everyone.

"I have always relied on the kindness of strangers." - Blanche Dubois

chiquiNO's picture

Boy!! I couldn't have said it any better!!!

Chiqui from way down yonder in New Orleans

 

thecooktoo's picture

This is probably the most appropriate comment made by anybody in the entire thread. 


Read it again folks, this is the world the Lord has made, let us rejoice in it and be glad !!


Thanks for reminding us Jean.


Jim

TracyK's picture

That's all well and good if you believe it, which not everyone does.

CT poster in bad standing since 2000.

TracyK's picture

Hee:




CT poster in bad standing since 2000.


Edited 10/30/2007 10:50 am ET by TracyK

PreviewAttachmentSize
dilbert2036667071030.gif
dilbert2036667071030.gif24.56 KB
Heather's picture

Don't you love Dilbert!

thecooktoo's picture

I love Dilbert! 


Jim

MadMom's picture

I saw that this morning and immediately thought of the people who believe global warming does not exist.  Nope, you won't find "just as many scientists" who believe it's a myth.  You may find a few, but they are few and far between.  Even our backward unintelligent administration has finally come around.  There are only a few naysayers left, and probably they are the same people who frequent museums which show dinosaurs with saddles.



Not One More Day!
Not One More Dime! Not One More Life! Not One More Lie!

End the Occupation of Iraq -- Bring the Troops Home Now!

And Take Care of Them When They Get Here!

Adele's picture

Nope, you won't find "just as many scientists" who believe it's a myth.  You may find a few, but they are few and far between. 


Actually, they are not few and far between, they are just not in the mainstream media hyping fear.  


Not that I don't agree we can't help the environment instead of hurting it, I just feel that 'global warming' is a natural trend.  Wonder who caused the ice age and resulting warm up?  LOL


 


But, but, it's SUPPOSED to taste like that!

But, but, it's SUPPOSED to taste like that!

gmunger's picture

Never mind.

 


There are 2 kinds of people in this world; those who believe there are 2 kinds of people, and everyone else.

 

We are truly what we eat, and too many people are fast, cheap and easy. Who owns your food owns you, and it is unwise to let that power rest in the hands of a very few wealthy corporations.
thecooktoo's picture

Wait - don't give up now, this is just starting to get good!


Jim

Ozark's picture

Wait - don't give up now, this is just starting to get good!


Very typical. They never want to confront actual facts that might disprove their point. They deal with sound bytes and emotion.


Here is a list of the judge's problems with Gore's film for those that might wants to see them. He is an idiot.


http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html


Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report


Consensus ? Hardly


http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_originals/peerreview.html


 


 I have made a lot of money in my life. Most of it I spent on women and boats. The rest I simply wasted!!

 

Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional!

gmunger's picture

They never want to confront actual facts that might disprove their point. They deal with sound bytes and emotion.


Actually, right now I'm spending an hour a week in a group discussion on this very topic. With real live scientists. Learning lots.


I simply can't take the time necessary to argue the science, right now. Maybe soon.


I am emotional, and it often gets in the way of making sound arguments. But I deplore sound bites. And I have graduate-level science training, and write scientific literature reviews for a living. So I know a thing or two about sorting facts.


 


It is as if we are living inside of a dream, sleepwalking toward oblivion, while self-serving, shortsighted interests encourage our slumber with managed news, celebrity culture and other weapons of mass distraction.

 

We are truly what we eat, and too many people are fast, cheap and easy. Who owns your food owns you, and it is unwise to let that power rest in the hands of a very few wealthy corporations.
PeterDurand's picture

I agree.

The National post ran a long series of articles about very well respected scientists who have different views than Mr Gore.

Here is a link, which includes sub links to the articles and curriculum vitae of those gentlemen. It is worth it to start with the first one and work through sequentially. And no, these are not "big oil mouth pieces" Inconvenient indeed for certain parties.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af

Cheers,

Peter

p.s. check out the CV of the individual at the end of each article.


Edited 10/30/2007 2:28 pm by PeterDurand

shywoodlandcreature's picture

This is not an Al Gore issue. Al Gore did not invent climate change, and I'm getting a little tired of people pointing to some British judge's assessment of the number of errors in his film, and using that to dismiss the concerns altogether. So what if there are errors in that movie? It's called "An Inconvenient Truth", not "An Immutable Truth". His errors do not negate the very real evidence that there are serious climatic problems, and they have to be addressed. While we worry about what the price of oil will do to the price of gasoline, water is in increasingly short supply, and that is much the more serious problem. Oil we can live without (though not easily) but without water we all die. We may be able to cope quite well without polar bears, but what about the rising pH levels in the oceans that are affecting the supply of krill, the stuff that feeds the stuff that we eat?

I don't know the science - I don't know to what degree human activity is responsible for climate change, and I accept that there can be disagreement among scientists over that issue. However, it seems pretty apparent to me that if we are to survive as a species, we're going to have to learn to cope with climate change and start thinking about how to accommodate our needs and wants to the reality of what the earth can realistically and sustainably provide.

Why does this discussion always get sidetracked by right/left ideologies? Socialist, capitalist, pacifist, warrior, and everything in between, we're all in this together.

"the meat was prime,/the produce sublime,/but nevertheless/the dinner was/a horrible mess."
Samchang, 2007


Edited 10/30/2007 2:52 pm by shywoodlandcreature

CookiM0nster's picture

Brava, Sandra.

Edited to add info on the thickening of the Antarctic ice sheet, which tct mentioned. This is really interesting, and I hadn't heard of it before, nor would I have known if he hadn't brought it up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4565935.stm


Edited 10/30/2007 2:58 pm by CookiM0nster

assibams's picture

I might regret getting involved in this thread, BUT:


I do not know if or how humans are involved in global warming (not a scientist), but there sure are indicators we are part of the problem. Yes, there have been ice-ages and hot times, but from what I've seen these cycles seem to get shorter for whatever reason.


Why even take the chance of leaving things as they are as long as there's a chance we're part of the problem? Pollution is bad as it is, we are poisoning the earth we live on, whether it gets hotter through us or not, IMO it is our obligation to not abuse what we have. Kant's categorical imperative sums up pretty much the ethics we need to live by - and, sadly enough, obviously don't.


Oops, of course this isn't directed at you, Cookie, meant to be for ALL



Be yourself. Everyone else is already taken.


Edited 10/30/2007 3:46 pm by Assibams

"A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort."
Herm Albright