Consider me an expressive grandfather, father, husband, son, and friend. Although I'm an Air Traffic Controller by trade, I enjoy research, good stories, motorcycle riding, family/friend fun, sushi, and the Anaheim Angels (or is it the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim?). Theologically speaking, I'm a Christian who considers God to be sovereign, balanced, just, and rational. Thus a proper study of the Bible (objective, contextual, historical, and logical) reveals absolute truth to worship and live b
Southwest Airlines sunset departure
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Required Reading for Kyle
Although this is required reading for my son, Kyle, I thought I’d post it for others’ enlightenment.
global warminig, humm somebody else must be married to an Economou. You know what causes global warming. I do. Spicy foods, beans, some milk products. Economou men.
Hiii... I'm part of your family; you just don't know it. I'm Alicia's Target-found-friend Beth.
I thought this was an interesting article and emailed it to my friend Jenn, who is currently getting her MA in Geography. She had some comments... thought you might be interested. I know little to nothing about this topic, sadly. [But I can correct your grammar if you're ever interested! ;)]
--- This scientist is not convinced; however, the rest of the world is. Just a few things that I see wrong with his argument.
1. First of all, he states that only 20 mammalian species went extinct in the past 2 million years or whatever. My question for him is: Were you there to document it? Are you really arguing that we know of every single species that has ever existed and went extinct? If you are, I would like you to talk to some of the biologists that work in the rain forest and discover new species every day.
Common knowledge within geography states that over 126 species go extinct each day in the rain forest--species we don't even know about. So to state that global warming is or is not at fault is not even the point. This scientist can't claim that he "knows" how many species (all encompassing) went extinct.
2. The only citation in his article is a PhD from Oxford. He doesn't tell us anything about her statistics. All he says is that she didn't find correlation between rising temperatures and increased diseases. I promise you that any African will tell you that as temperatures warm, the fluctuation of the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone increases, which brings more rain for longer periods of time. Both the tsetse fly (kills cattle) and the mosquito love this, for their range widens. This is scientific fact as illustrated by any number of articles.
Not to mention the problem with "correlation." The author tells us nothing of her significance valuesz: 90%, 95%, 99%? He also doesn't tell us her sample size, so as a scientist I have no way to measure or test her results. Within statistics itself there is constantly a risk of being wrong. So if Oxford said, "I am 99% confident that there is no correlation between diseases and temperature increase," I would ask what her "r" value was. There is always that 1% chance that she is flat-out wrong; we call this a type 1 fallacy.
If I were this researcher, I would have tested for correlations between precipitation and diseases. When considering tropical diseases, the warmer the temperature, the more air that rises and the more precipitation you have. Basic physical geography (which apparently this biologist/ecologist forgot to take in college).
3. A team of experts from Princeton, in a separate study, have argued that there are zero models or facts that prove that global warming isn't occurring at a rate that will disrupt out lifestyle. They do argue that there are a large amounts of unknown (or not yet to be proven) factors, as well as several that prove that global warming will have such effects. The author of this article mentions nothing about oceanography. What do the oceanographers have to say? If temperatures continue to rise, there is a possibility that the ice will shift the ocean currents (Gulf Stream and North Atlantic Currents) south, turning Europe into an ice sheet. Ask the Parisians how they feel about global warming.
4. Biologically, he may or may not be right. I'm not a biologist, or an ecologist; however, I am a geographer and I know what could happen as a result of rising temperatures if nothing is done about it.
5. Yet, this is all science and I'm examining it from a scientific view point, not considering anything other than the hard science... which can truly never be proven--only assumed, with a certain level of probability, that what we perceive to be true is actually true.
4 comments:
wow--is that public school that requires that? I'm impressed.
Actually that's the problem. The public school would not even conceive of requiring such reading, thus, it's required by his father....ME!
Have a great time in SoCal!!!
global warminig, humm somebody else must be married to an Economou. You know what causes global warming. I do.
Spicy foods, beans, some milk products.
Economou men.
Thats my take.
Hiii... I'm part of your family; you just don't know it. I'm Alicia's Target-found-friend Beth.
I thought this was an interesting article and emailed it to my friend Jenn, who is currently getting her MA in Geography. She had some comments... thought you might be interested. I know little to nothing about this topic, sadly. [But I can correct your grammar if you're ever interested! ;)]
---
This scientist is not convinced; however, the rest of the world is.
Just a few things that I see wrong with his argument.
1. First of all, he states that only 20 mammalian species went extinct in the past 2 million years or whatever. My question for him is: Were you there to document it? Are you really arguing that we know of every single species that has ever existed and went extinct? If you are, I would like you to talk to some of the biologists that work in the rain forest and discover new species every day.
Common knowledge within geography states that over 126 species go extinct each day in the rain forest--species we don't even know about. So to state that global warming is or is not at fault is not even the point. This scientist can't claim that he "knows" how many species (all encompassing) went extinct.
2. The only citation in his article is a PhD from Oxford. He doesn't tell us anything about her statistics. All he says is that she didn't find correlation between rising temperatures and increased diseases. I promise you that any African will tell you that as temperatures warm, the fluctuation of the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone increases, which brings more rain for longer periods of time. Both the tsetse fly (kills cattle) and the mosquito love this, for their range widens. This is scientific fact as illustrated by any number of articles.
Not to mention the problem with "correlation." The author tells us nothing of her significance valuesz: 90%, 95%, 99%? He also doesn't tell us her sample size, so as a scientist I have no way to measure or test her results. Within statistics itself there is constantly a risk of being wrong. So if Oxford said, "I am 99% confident that there is no correlation between diseases and temperature increase," I would ask what her "r" value was. There is always that 1% chance that she is flat-out wrong; we call this a type 1 fallacy.
If I were this researcher, I would have tested for correlations between precipitation and diseases. When considering tropical diseases, the warmer the temperature, the more air that rises and the more precipitation you have. Basic physical geography (which apparently this biologist/ecologist forgot to take in college).
3. A team of experts from Princeton, in a separate study, have argued that there are zero models or facts that prove that global warming isn't occurring at a rate that will disrupt out lifestyle. They do argue that there are a large amounts of unknown (or not yet to be proven) factors, as well as several that prove that global warming will have such effects. The author of this article mentions nothing about oceanography. What do the oceanographers have to say? If temperatures continue to rise, there is a possibility that the ice will shift the ocean currents (Gulf Stream and North Atlantic Currents) south, turning Europe into an ice sheet. Ask the Parisians how they feel about global warming.
4. Biologically, he may or may not be right. I'm not a biologist, or an ecologist; however, I am a geographer and I know what could happen as a result of rising temperatures if nothing is done about it.
5. Yet, this is all science and I'm examining it from a scientific view point, not considering anything other than the hard science... which can truly never be proven--only assumed, with a certain level of probability, that what we perceive to be true is actually true.
-----------------------
Lots to ponder!
*B
Post a Comment