Universal Orlando attendance down, but profit and per cap spending up

I’m not disagreeing with a lot of what Gore has to say. I think I said that in the beginning. Anyhow, I just wanted to point out that there is other science out there that contradicts a lot of what Al Gore has to say. I also wanted to point out that I think those who ask others to make sacrifices for a cause, should be willing to make the same sacrifices. Environmentalism debates are like arguing religion. Everybody has their own opinion and science to back it up. No need for me to post links…we won’t convince either side on here…our minds are made up.

As far as the ozone layer you MIGHT be correct. There is debate as to whether CFCs had anything to do with that either. Many believe the hole opens and closes on its own. There is enough data out there for any of us to find something to back our conclusion. If there is one thing I've learned as I age...science is 25% scientific method and 75% politics and funding related these days.

On a lighter note…I took my kid to see Happy Feet tonight. It has a strong environmental message that Al Gore would be proud of. It is a cute movie too.

Show me the contradictory "science" from reputable scientists, and show me how it constitutes even a significant portion of the scientific community. A half-dozen dissenters doesn't make it viable. Remember, scientists subject each other to peer review and scrutiny. It's not a political or religious process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

This seems (I've not read it all) to give all sides of the argument. I disagree that this stuff is not political. If there is one thing I've learned since I got my Biology and Chemistry degrees, the art of peer review is weak at best. Funding issues trend toward issues of the day...and there is no doubt that global warming "worst case scenerios" sell better. It is next to impossible to get funding if you wish to study the counterargument. This is why the pure numbers of scientists supporting a particular issue is often no reflection of truth in science. There was a time the vast majority of scientist professed the world was flat and silicone breast were dagnerous. Those that argued otherwise were small in numbers, but correct in the end.

I agree that global warming exists. I think most people do. The argument resides in what to do about it. There are those who would have us live in grass huts and those that would have us do nothing. I fall somewhere in the middle. I'm guessing I add less fossil fuel burnage to our enviornment than Al Gore does. Since he is the gold standard on this thread...I assume you guys would have no beef with me.

Out of curriosity...what do you guys want to see happen? We've cleaned the smog, the lakes, the rivers... We've got nuclear and wind power. Electric cars are selling like hotcakes. I think we are heading in the right direction and leading by example. What more do you want...?

Do you have to read beyond "a small but vocal number of scientists?" (And that's assuming you're willing to believe anything on Wikipedia at all... look at the daily edits.)

Al Gore has nothing to do with it... it's his message I was referring to. Let's face it, being a tree hugger has no political advantage.

As for heading in the right direction, please tell me, again, that you're joking. Have you looked around at the cars in the parking lot when you go anywhere? Is that big layer of yellow "air" over L.A. or Detroit?

I've said we will not convince each other...we could leave it at that...? Or we could dance circles too…for the fun of debate. :-)

There is a lot of information out there on all sides. That Wiki article is full of sourced links to journals, scientists, etc...many of which support Al Gore and many of which do not. I, myself, like to look at ALL sides of the argument before making judgments...and even then I remain skeptical...by nature. I must admit, I find it interesting that you are quick to denounce the many sourced documents on Wikipedia as unworthy, yet seem perfectly inclined to announce an Al Gore movie as legitimate. I prefer to scrutinize all sources…those I agree with and those I don’t. I’m certainly going to have more skepticism toward a lifelong politician making money off speeches, books, movies in terms of recognizing objectivity. Even so…I’ve admitted many times I agree with a lot of what he has to say. Not because he said it…because the science backs him up. I’ve also seen science from the opposite view that seems every bit as legitimate.

The fallacy of your present argument in my opinion can be explained like this...

1. 70% of people believe in the bible so it must be true.
2. 80% of people believe in ghosts so the must be present
3. 90% of scientists believe Silicone Breasts are dangerous so the are...

I could go on. However, quoting consensus as if it is a part of a scientific method...is flatly wrong...from a scientific standpoint. Consensus means nothing. Repeatable results mean a lot. The other interesting observation is how much scientific consensus CHANGES over time.

…anyhow…I’m tired tonight! You’ve got every right to love Al Gore and believe everything he says as gospel. You can be as green as you would like. I appreciate passion for many subjects…even when I disagree.

Nonsense. Consensus among scientists, especially when it's so far in one direction, is the closest we can get to scientific fact. Scientists don't arbitrarily throw their support behind a theory for ****s and giggles, they do so because the evidence is supportive of that theory.

And stop with the Al Gore thing. Did I mention it had nothing to do with Al Gore?

You are free to call present day scientific consensus fact...many do. I just disagree with this stance. I've offered many examples where scientific consensus...which is really nothing more than what the majority think to be true as of today...changes...often 180 degrees. The evidence, as of today, indeed shows a greenhouse effect. This evidence is based upon computer models with a lot of guesses put into controlling extraneous variables that many think have not been properly accounted for. There is a lot of room for error. I'm willing to look at both sides of the debate and realize that neither side has been able to disprove the other. If you forced me to choose today…I would say I’m 52% sure global warming is indeed a long term issue. I also would not be all that shocked if scientific data evolves over the next decade to the point in which consensus changes in the other direction. As models improve and the ability to isolate variables (many of which we probably do not even recognize exist as of today) improves, the data upon which consensus is formed will change and become more accurate. This is how scientific consensus always evolves for issues such as global warming which have so many uncontrolled variables and guesses as part of the modeling process.

I put no weight into consensus for these reasons and more. Consensus is not fact...and it is not science. Consensus is a group of people...in this case scientists...offering their opinion/conclusion based upon the data. I prefer to read the data and results...too much variance and politics gets into the picture when scientists want to get recognized by offering opinions, rather than stating results. There is a huge group think phenomenon associated with the entire scientific community...this is especially evident in the global warming debate.

Those who are brave enough to publish alternative data showing less than major global destructions as a result of greenhouse gasses are automatically ostracized from the scientific community. I'm shocked there are as many dissenters as there are. Even on this very thread, I was ostracized for daring to suggest that there MIGHT be positive effects for global warming worth studying. And this is not even a scientific forum full of egos who believe their opinions are gold. This type of alternative viewpoint, which has lead to so many scientific breakthroughs, is always frowned upon from the majority when somebody dares question the thought of the moment. Groupthink is indeed a barrier to fast progress and must always be considered, in my opinion, when determining credibility of opinions/consensus. Thank goodness, there are those out there willing to question consensus. Otherwise, scientific evolution of thought would move even slower if it moved at all. We might still live in a world where shipping lanes were out/back for fear of falling off the edge of the world.

Any how, for me...the consensus of scientists inability to debunk those "handful" (your words I believe) of dissenters is enough for me to wonder exactly how much we really know about this subject and how much is just guesses based upon worst case scenarios.

I really am tired tonight and quite busy tomorrow. What is it you want to accomplish by continuing the debate? I’m guessing we may agree more than we disagree. I do not really understand what direction you would like this conversation to go. I’ve got no power to change global warming. I’m not sure anybody does. I’ve just offered up a few opinions to spark lively conversation. I think we are going in circles now. Let me know if there is something new to discuss. I’ll get back on here when I can.

"It is next to impossible to get funding if you wish to study the counterargument."

Are you really claiming that in the business/political *environment* that exists today, that it's hard to get funding to "prove" that global warming is a bunch of hocus? I'd figure that an oil-based president could help form a partnership with Exxon-Mobil or someone to gather some stronger evidence for the "environmentalists are wackos" argument.... ;)

PURE science (the kind you are more likely to find on Mythbusters), really is more myth than reality. Today, most *research* is funded in order to "prove a point"...which really in the long run means there's very little *science* occurring...or maybe that's JUST at this particular "research institution" (i.e., UF). Doubtful, though... ;)

You've sort of got me on the first paragraph gator. I guess you can get funding from those types of sources (Exxon et al). As soon as I find out scientists are shilling for particular companies...I admit that I instantly question their results. I take it as seriously as the Universe of Energy presentation at Epcot…for example. What I was thinking and should have made clearer in my “short” :) postings is that it is hard to get PUBLIC funding for the counterargument. Much like Al Gore making money off books, speeches, and movies leads me to question the message…taking money from fossil fuel companies does so even worse.

Your 2nd paragraph is spot on in my opinion. Real science is a MYTH these days for a lot of reported results. With 24 hour media looking for a quick story the emphasis is placed upon a scientist’s opinions of research rather than the scientific results themselves. Any scientist who is “old-school” and sticks to the strict scientific method for reporting studies will find it much more difficult to obtain funding than the pseudo scientist willing to give all sorts of opinions about possible consequences of research…often having nothing to do with the results of the research itself.

The more glaring the opinion of research can be…the more media attention. For example, the scientist who believes the earth’s surface temperatures will rise 0.8 degrees C over the next two decades but cannot say with any certainty what this temperature rise means will not get the same attention as the guy who claims Florida will be under water. Media attention leads to recognition which leads to funding.

I’m not saying ALL scientists are out there doing this…because I know a few personally who believe much like me in terms of pseudo science claims. I’m just saying that the practice occurs way too frequently. Global Warming is indeed one of the areas where it has happened the most.

Anyhow, I agree with the premise that the majority believe global warming is happening. I don’t know anybody that thinks otherwise except for the most ardent of Big Oil propagandists. The question is what to do about it. I happen to think we are heading in the right direction. Does anybody really think in the next 5-10 years we won’t see the hybrid Hummer? This stuff does not happen over night. It is a drawn out process. I understand there are many who want drastic changes and they want them now. But I want a woodie in Vegas too. You guys have a much better chance of getting your hopes met before I do…:)

P.S. Looks like the Gators are going to get screwed out of a title shot should they beat those hogs. Nobody is taking the SEC champion too serious this year in the mainstream press.

*** This post was edited by Jeffrey R Smith 11/20/2006 4:37:22 PM ***

^ With Notre Dame, USC, *and* Michigan vying for the BIG bowl game... I'm beginning to think that EVEN with a *convincing* win over the Hogs (which seems exceptionally unlikely), the Gators stand the same chance of playing for the trophy as the environmentalists (like me) have of winning over the Big Oil execs...

I'm just not so sure that we have the TIME necessary to wait for 100% *proof* that global warming is a fact, or that we here in the States need to adjust OUR lifestyles accordingly...

But I feel alot better about your position now...not that I necessarily agree 100%, but I can see where you're coming from more clearly... ;)