Posted on 11/11/2002 4:48:58 PM PST by dila813
Global Warming
I can hardly pick up a newspaper anymore without seeing one story or another making reference to so called Global Warming.
This term provides me with a daily irritation for its wide spread misuse that relies more on its connotation than its actual meaning. By relying on a word’s connotation rather than its actual meaning, a statement can be made and accepted as fact or agreeable by a wide range of professional groups. Other people reading works with references to these terms would take this to mean that these professional groups (Not having publicly disputed the work and using the same terminology themselves) have endorsed this particular view or statement.
Global warming describes a phenomenon of the global mean temperature increasing. This term appears in all kinds of works as Global Warming not global warming. I don’t know when this started to occur but the results demonstrate a mass miss-communication that is currently driving politics and activism on a global basis.
I have in my frustration frequently searched the internet and library resources for the term, “The Global Warming Theory”. Those familiar with accepted scientific methods know that before something can be referred to as a scientific fact it had to be proved out as a theory first. Since no one has ever submitted a formal paper defining this theory the term seems to have appeared out of thin air. Each work published seems to rely on a previous works use of the term.
When people read articles and they see the term Global Warming they take this as a synonym to Green House Theory (a theory that Green House Gases cause heat to be trapped in the atmosphere causing increases in global temperature).
This has caused a huge communication problem between the public, activists, journalists, and the scientific community. Journalists reporting for the public ask the scientific community if Global Warming is a fact and if it is occurring. The scientific community interprets these terms using the literal meaning and answer in the affirmative that this is a fact. The journalists then report this to the public as a whole and the headline usually ends up saying something like, “Global Warming is Real!” The public, upon reading this and previous articles they have read, believe this is confirmation of the Earth warming being caused due to Green House Gases released into the atmosphere by man.
When the scientific community publishes data that shows what they think global warming over the last 100 years has been based upon ice core samples or whatever, it tends to be reported in the newspapers as, “Global Warming responsible for Temperature Increases over Last Hundred Years!” The public again interprets this to mean that the Green House Gases released by man over the last 100 years are responsible for the increases in temperature being reported.
I think the reason that this bothers me so much is that I care about the planet so much because I want to ensure a good quality of life for my children. As long as people are talking apples and oranges, we can not have an intelligent discussion about what is happening in the environment.
I believe that the reason that this has continued so long is that many in the scientific community realize that the public is misinterpreting the information and that activist groups are reinforcing this with misinformation, but with this flood of concern came a flood of research dollars. Since they don’t feel they have violated any scientific ethics in their release of data they don’t feel the need to go out and try to correct these misconceptions. I hear some of them justify this because their job is research not trying to get involved in what they view as politics.
I wish someone would fix this so that when someone puts together the headlines for news articles that they choose better terminology instead of global warming.
If people realized how much we don’t know about this phenomenon, they would push their elected representatives to prepare for the coming climate change instead of trying to resist it with expensive strategies that may or may not be worth it.
Absolutly correct. People are afraid of things they do not understand.
Why do I not worry about some melted sand from our first Atom Bomb in my own home? Because, it was giving off less radioactivity than my kitchen table.
What are the main health hazards associated with breathing in Mercury?
Do you understand the concept of DOSAGE?
If you eat 50 lbs of Aspirin in 24 hours, it would probably kill you.
Taking 3 Aspirin pills for a headache does not kill.
Why is that?
They've known it for at least a hundred years now I believe.
1. Alter Earth's orbital path around the sun.
2. Change the synthesis of plants in the ocean. The bulk of the planet is water after all.
Obviously, neither of these things are going to happen.
Kind Freeper, that has been my point all along tonight.
If you can not prove your case with scientific facts, then why do should we continue to listen to the psuedoscientific propaganda of the Environmentalists?
Simple concepts like dosage, seems to be a concept beyond the abilities of the psuedoscientific mentality. Why is that?
If this is not for a political agenga, then we should be able to honestly debate simple scientifics facts.
Until convinced otherwise, I will continue to ask simple, but often difficult questions.
BTW, you still have not aswered my original question:
What has the EPA and other government programs actually achieved since 1970?
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand that poison is bad for you. If you eat, drink, or breath poison, it WILL harm you. If you like to play Russian Roulette, hey, that's your decision. Don't include the rest of us in your game though..
What has the EPA and other government programs actually achieved since 1970?
I've already provided you a link to that answer. In case you didn't see it, I'll post it again..
Those are now illegal in the United States.
DOSAGE! A concept beyond the abilities of an Environmentalist to comprehend.
Remember kind Freeper, I have been working very hard for over 30 years to actually improve our environment. This old fart is not exactly ignorant.
Tonight, I am asking difficult questions to make you think. Are you actually helping the environment, or following a political agenda?
Glad you reminded me; your mom wants you to call home.
If I have any agenda, it is to cause people to think about things that they might otherwise simply ignore. If I've caused you to learn something, then maybe I've actually accomplished something here. If not, oh well, at least I tried.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.