Scientist: Consumers have role in climate change; forecast for Tahoe bleak because of less snow


By Kathryn Reed

STATELINE – While China was the No. 1 fossil fuel emitting country in 2011, what is missing from most conversations is who is consuming all the goods that country is producing.

A significant amount of CO2 emissions comes from making things. And it is people in the United States who are buying those things made in China.

This was one of the points driven home Thursday by Chris Field – that consumers have a role to play and must be held accountable, just as the polluter does and should be.

Field was the keynote speaker Jan. 10 at the Operation Sierra Storm Meteorologist Conference in Stateline. The four-day conference ends Saturday.

The scientist was part of the team that won the 2007 Nobel Prize and lead author of the study on the effects of global climate change.

Scientist Chris Field on Jan. 10 talks about climate change. Photo/Kathryn Reed

Field explained how it was thought when the 1997 Kyoto Protocols were adopted that developing nations had a long ways to go to catch the industrialized nations when it came to emissions. That theory was proved wrong.

In 2011, the top four emitters in the world accounted for 62 percent of global emissions: China – 28 percent; United States – 16 percent; Europe – 11 percent, and India – 7 percent.

But that is not the whole story.

“Per capita, China’s emissions are one-quarter what they are per capita compared to the United States,” Field told the group gathered at Harveys casino.

Based on data from the Mauna Loa Observatory he said there is proof atmospheric CO2 has increased 40 percent since the 1950s.

Beyond that, ice cores extracted from Antarctica can show scientists what was going on thousands of years ago.

To simulate how small amounts of particles can change the composition of the atmosphere, Field took two 1-liter bottles of water. Into one he inserted drops of red dye to represent the amount of CO2 released in the atmosphere during the Industrial Age.

Then he shined a red light and green light through the now pink water. The red went through, the green did not. The experiment was to show selective absorption – which is what happens in the atmosphere.

“Heat trapping gas alters climate,” Field said.

And while it has been proved fossil fuels are altering the atmosphere, which in turn changes climate, Field readily admits, “Mostly we live in a fossil fuel powered world.”

For Lake Tahoe, a diminishing snowpack and greater threat of wildfire are two of the key factors as climate change continues to take hold.

“Snowpack is vital to the economy and ecosystem. There is a clear trend of warming in mountain ranges. Snow melts earlier each spring,” Field said.

He said some models show the snowpack in the Sierra diminishing by 50 percent by the end of the century, while other models say it will be 90 percent.

This in turn will lead to greater wildfires because the brush will be so much drier. The threat is already there because the time between snowmelt and first storms is getting longer.

Another consequence of less snowpack is less water reaching the agricultural heartland of California. Farmers in the Central Valley grow crops with irrigated water – from reservoirs that have been filled from Sierra snow.

Field said it is going to take technology, leadership and cultural change to alter the course the world is on when it comes to climate change.


About author

This article was written by admin


Comments (50)
  1. John D. says - Posted: January 11, 2013

    You have conveniently ignored the timing of 2009 and 2012 peak discharge which were each earlier than average. Regardless, if you look at the long term trend the timing is getting earlier each year not every single year, but as a whole it is occurring earlier. 

  2. DAVID DEWITT says - Posted: January 11, 2013

    what a bunch of (bs)

  3. dumbfounded says - Posted: January 11, 2013

    The talk was far more revealing in what the speaker left out than what he talked about, IMHO. It was interesting none the less, and a voice speaking rather than screaming, which is refreshing.

  4. John D. says - Posted: January 11, 2013

    Your right rain97, I graphed those data from your usgs link for several rivers and those data do not show spring snowmelt is occurring earlier, instead it appears to be ocurring later each spring??

  5. tahoeadvocate says - Posted: January 11, 2013

    Climate change has happened even before man. It’s the way the Earth works.

  6. thing fish says - Posted: January 11, 2013

    Once again, people talking about climate not even knowing how many years it takes to define 1 unit of climate. If you can’t define climate, how can you talk about it?
    That’s never stopped them before, I don’t imagine it ever will. Too ignorant to know what they don’t know.

    And the same old BS, ‘well the earths climate has changed before’ cop out. Lazy.

  7. Rick says - Posted: January 11, 2013

    You are so correct “thing fish”. The darling of the many republicans and climate skeptics is the MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen. Here is his thoughts on people who claim that humans are not affecting climate change.

    Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point “nutty.” He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate.

    Attached is a rather interesting review of his position and you find out just how thin his notions are. He accepts climate change, just believes that clouds will save us – but his science is extremely weak with no real confirmation. Mind you he is regularly called by climate skeptics in congress to testify because they believe he is their most credible scientist. Hardly seems that credible when you review his whole position.


  8. Lisa says - Posted: January 11, 2013

    I always wonder how much science it will take before the deniers will actually accept the reality before us….apparently a lot.

  9. Dogula says - Posted: January 11, 2013

    And letting the likes of Al Gore and other “1%ers” control banks of carbon credits will fix the problem HOW?

  10. Rick says - Posted: January 11, 2013


    If you want to understand the effectiveness of cap and trade or a carbon tax I direct you to this piece written by Dr. Robert Stavins, Director of Harvard Environmental Economic Program. Essentially, Stavins provides a very thorough analysis on how these systems work and why they can be quite effective. He notes the most cost-effective solution requires that at some point, you have to put a price on carbon, if you want to solve the problem. If you read his blog with an open mind, you will be enlightened to the complexities of the economics and how much brain power has actually been put to creating cost-effective solutions.


  11. Joe Doaks says - Posted: January 11, 2013

    Damn those SUV’s. Now I know why the Tahoe glacier disappeared 10,000 years ago. BTW, China is having its coldest winter in 28 years and Greenland was green a 1000 years ago. Minor details maybe, but significant nevertheless.
    Many other half truths were also put forth, but what the heck he had a point to make.

  12. Rick says - Posted: January 11, 2013

    Joe, you do not seem to understand climate change and the human component. In any given year, one spot on the earth can be colder – so what. It is the average temp of the earth that has shown a consistent warming trend since the industrial revolution. And what is problematic, the significant melting of the polar ice caps creates not just a rise in sea level, but a significant change in weather patterns. The evidence is overwhelming and even the climate skeptics in congress rely on a professor who claims if you don’t accept human caused climate change you are a bit nutty. No the world is shrinking for climate skeptics and just like creationist, there argument are getting sillier and sillier. Rick

  13. thing fish says - Posted: January 11, 2013

    “Greenland was green a 1000 years ago.”

    Greenland was renamed to imply fertility by Erik The Red, as a bit of deceptive marketing. Ironic how Joe then goes on to talk about half-truths.

    The whole ‘the climate was warmer in the past/ the climate has changed before’ argument is a cop out to actually discussing the science (which is never good for a skeptic) of climate change. And if the science and data were discussed what would actually happen is that past climate variations provides even more evidence in support of anthropogenic climate change. How? Well the earth has been warming despite decreases in other factors that influenced the earth in the past.
    You can easily spot an intellectually lazy and scientifically illiterate skeptic based on if they bring up that argument. If they knew anything about climate, they would know that it only weakens their argument.

    So skeptics….. ‘how many weathers make a climate?’
    Still can’t demonstrate and understanding of that most basic concept?

    Education is the cure to the epidemic of scientific illiteracy.

  14. Joe Doaks says - Posted: January 11, 2013

    Rick, you must not have been at Fields talk. He referenced the US many, many times for evidence of man made global warming. In case you haven’t heard, turnabout is fair play. The US and China each comprise less than 2% of the earth’s surface.
    Thingfish, do you really believe what you wrote regarding Erik? Wikipedia disagrees and also states ice cores indicate wild temperature swings over the past 100,000 years. Isn’t contrary evidence annoying.
    And the models the faithful use in their computer projections fit the catagory of GIGO.

  15. thing fish says - Posted: January 12, 2013

    Yes I do stand by the influence of Erik The Red in Greenland. I believe it is on Wikipedia. Which is a terrible source to use as your primary source in this conversation. Greenland might have been slightly more ‘green’ 1000 years ago, but that change is not as significant as you want it to be.
    And then we can go look at the ice sheet data, that show something different.
    Are you trying to make the case that Greenland is not warming?
    Or is this the old ‘the climate changed in the past’ argument that I have shot down earlier?

    I really want to know if you can properly define climate and how that definition relates to weather.
    You know, sine you seem very interested in talking about climate, I think it is only fair that we both define climate properly in our own words. So, go ahead.

  16. Michael Thompson says - Posted: January 12, 2013

    Tahoe is a Glacial Lake. What doers that mean?

    I find no upside to getting into this; however I would like to introduce you to (The Tahoe Pipe Club)
    If you want to have an effect, take a look at what they have to say about the Tahoe Basin. (Low hanging fruit)

  17. Rick says - Posted: January 12, 2013

    Joe: you comment is nonsensical. I was not at Fields talk, but his reference to the US was advocating us, not to by products made in China, as they (along with India) are one of the biggest producers of green-house gasses. By not buying their products, we can push them economically to reduce the use of fossil fuels that have a clear relationship with climate change.

    Even the darling of the climate change skeptics, Dr. Lindzen, calls people who do not accept the human causes of climate change nutty.

    Since you seem to believe the predictive models used in the climate science are suspect, then I can only assume you are knowledgeable with multiple inference models derived from Bayesian and Information Theoretic approaches. Pray tell, what are your thoughts on these statistical paradigms?

    Is your knowldge derived from the publications sponsored by the hundreds of millions of dollars spent by the Koch brothers and oil industry, or is this based on your knowledge of the sophisticated science used by the 90% plus climate scientist world-wide.

    How many articles do you read a week from Science or Nature on the subject or the various climate science, ecological, or numerous other scientific journals that publish on the subject? Or is Fox and the Washington Times your science journal of choice?

    Dr. Lindzen, is the best that climate skeptics have and while he accepts the human causes of climate change, his science is weak on his believe (and the constant errors in his publications are getting extremely embarrassing) that clouds will save us has no real evidence to back us up.

    The best evidence climate skeptics have managed is to hire lobbyist, press releases and push stuff in conservative publications – nothing in the scientific literature – that should tell you something.


  18. Joe Doaks says - Posted: January 13, 2013

    Rick you speak with forked tongue. Dr. Lindzen believes maybe 2 or 3% of temperature rise is man caused. You say you weren’t at Preacher Fields talk and then write the exact opposite. He did use the warmer than normal heat last year as proof of man caused global warming as well as all the forest fires in the lower forty eight.
    He forgot to mention how the forest service has had a policy of total fire suppression for the last hundred years which has led to a very dense fuels situation in our forests. I have read articles that claimed 1/8 of California’s forests had fires every year in past times.

  19. dj short flo says - Posted: January 14, 2013

    Who still thinks climate change is a myth? Probably the same number of people who believe assault weapons dont kill people. These were the same people who were convinced we’d elect a Mormon Billionaire as leader of the free world. Prognosis: you cant fix stupid.

  20. Rick says - Posted: January 14, 2013

    Joe: You characterization of Lindzen assertions is not exactly what he has said. He actually tends to be all over the map on the issue somewhat and more recently is under fire as not being credible because of all of the fatal flaw errors embedded in his papers. He seems to be suffering from a condition that takes hold of many very smart people over their career (not all but alot). As he has gotten older, he has become less relevant and his research is no longer relevant. His iris cloud theory has been seriously discredited. So as I stated before, if he is the best the climate denyer’s can do…. You have to ask yourself, just as with creationist/intelligent design crowd, the oil company/Kock brothers sponsored work is in producing slick brochures so that lobbyist can give to congress and Fox claiming problems in climate research and yet not conducting research on their own. It is why the climate skeptics are wearing thin and no longer caring the day as much as they did a year or two ago. They simply have no credibility, just like the scientist that worked for the cigarette companies. There goal was to obfuscate reality as long as they could be make more money.

    Your characterization of climate research shows how little you know of it. There are literally thousands of publications a year discussing various aspects of climate research generated from ice cores (providing million year history of climate and carbon), to measure changing sea ice, sea level rise, global temperatures from local temps to a worldwide average, changes in distribution of plants and animals both from an elevation and latitude, fire frequency, storm frequency, changes in unsettled weather, and on and on. Predictions to how the weather may or may not change are a tiny part of the equation and admittedly the most uncertain. Does the uncertainty in the estimates negate that greenhouse gases are clearly tied to global climate change – no, simply our ability to predict with certainty what will happen from a warming planet is difficult. Considerable research has in fact shown that the reduction in the length of snowpack in temperate zones (by amount a month on average), increased instability in weather patterns, storms like Sandy, and yes fire frequency is related to changing climate driven by the production of greenhouse gasses.

    Your comment about fire frequency shows you know enough to be dangerous and simply wrong. If you were familiar with the scientific literature (again not the overviews funded by the oil comapnies/Koch brothers) you would quickly find that the increase in fire frequency throughout the west, U.S. and other places in the world (e.g., Australia), you would realize your statement lacks any credibility. I suspect your ignorance on the matter is due to the non-scientific sources you rely on. Rick

  21. thing fish says - Posted: January 14, 2013

    “Tahoe is a Glacial Lake.”
    No it isn’t. That is what you start with, Michael? Wow.

    Go figure, they fell for the Pipe Club’s pseudoscience.
    The Pipe Club is a joke. Their science is amateur at best. They pretend to be interested in conservation, yet no respectable conservationists support them or want anything to do with them.

    Their interpretation of clarity data is wrong.
    Their message on meadow/stream restoration is based on a complete lack of understanding of the research. It borders on fraud.
    Their website is littered with bad science and lies. I don’t think there is a single legitimate scientist working with them. Every other scientist I have show their website to has actually laughed out loud.

    Take your disinformation elsewhere Michael. You have been duped. Or you are ‘Tyler’ on another one of their multiple accounts.

  22. Michael Thompson says - Posted: January 14, 2013

    Oh my.

    Hey can anyone find the time range when the Glacier that covered Lake Tahoe and the surrounding area Actually melted.?
    I remember childhood books that had the lime range around 4 to 8 thousand years ago.

    Thing Fish, I must have really hit a nerve.
    You are now attacking me on a personal level. That’s quite a rebuttal to the information I linked.
    I was born in the Tahoe Basin in 1960, I remember when there was no moss on the rocks.
    Tahoe pipe club, all the listed locations and pictures of the filthy oil and gas run off into the lake, Its all a lie right?
    If you want to call someone out at least put an effort into providing some information.
    And make a veiled attempt at being civil about it! Please

  23. Rick says - Posted: January 14, 2013

    Mike it is not that simply. While glacial activity played a role in shaping the moraines around Tahoe, they by no means come close to telling the whole story.

    See below:
    Over millions of years, a complex interaction of geologic processes has shaped and carved the landscape into the vistas we see today. The geologic history of the area records periods of marine deposition, granitic intrusion, tectonic uplift, volcanic eruptions, glacial scouring, and erosion that have been repeated over a vast expanse of time.

    I direct you to the following State Publication.


  24. Michael Thompson says - Posted: January 14, 2013

    Yes Rick but when did the Big block of ICE melt this last time around.

    Its interesting that that was published widely a couple decades ago but now all the environmental geological information just skips over the whole (It was a Glacier and melted x,XXX years ago.

    Are any of the many other glacial lakes West East and South of Lake Tahoe also not glacial lakes.

    I might concede that Lake Tahoe is not technically a Glacial Lake (I think it is)
    But the look and characteristics of The Tahoe Basin and Lake Tahoe where caused by a Glacier. And Glacial activity.
    This took place until (just a short time ago) in the scheme of things.

  25. Rick says - Posted: January 14, 2013

    Mike, I am not sure of your point, but Lake Tahoe itself is not technically a glacial lake, though moraines around the lake (Fallen Leaf Lake, Emerald Bay some other lakes in the Sierra have glacial elements. Tahoe was formed by a complex issues of geological activity, shifting of tectonic plates probably one of the more significant forces, but all of the activities played a role in the what the Sierra and Tahoe Basin look like today.

    See: A glacial lake is a lake with origins in a melted glacier. They are formed when a glacier erodes the land, and then melts, filling the hole or space that they have created. Near the end of the last glacial period, roughly 10,000 years ago, glaciers began to retreat.[1] A retreating glacier often left behind large deposits of ice in hollows between drumlins or hills. As the ice age ended, these melted to create lakes. This is apparent in the Lake District in Northwestern England where post-glacial sediments are normally between 4 and 6 metres deep.[2] These lakes are often surrounded by drumlins, along with other evidence of the glacier such as moraines, eskers and erosional features such as striations and chatter marks.

    Lake Tahoe is not considered a glacial lake by any reputable geologists.


  26. Michael Thompson says - Posted: January 14, 2013

    Thanks Rick, In what you posted it says
    ” Near the end of the last glacial period, roughly 10,000 years ago, glaciers began to retreat”

    I think the end was around 4,000 years ago that Lake Tahoe went from a Solid (Ice) to water.

    Found this info on the internet

  27. Michael Thompson says - Posted: January 14, 2013

    And I guess my point is:

    The climate is always changing. Anyone who thinks otherwise is dim.

    However based on glacial periods it obvious to me that the Climate is always changing. The last North American Glacial period stated ending about 10,000 years ago. It could be inferred that the climate in this area has been warming fairly steadily for the past 10,000 years. It makes sense that as ice melts the temperature increases are dynamic.
    At some point there will be another Ice age and it will all start over.
    I have quite a bit more to say but I will defer that for now.
    Humans just aren’t (ALLTHAT) no matter what we do the Earth is going to change.

  28. Michael Thompson says - Posted: January 14, 2013

    Here is an interesting read. (I have never read this)

    It clearly describes Lake Tahoe as not being incased in a glacier. It describes Glaciers butting to the Edge of Take and depositing water and Debris.

  29. thing fish says - Posted: January 14, 2013

    Alright you stubborn person.
    “I might concede that Lake Tahoe is not technically a Glacial Lake (I think it is)”

    So, you are a geologist?
    You sir, have no respect for science. And have no place even talking about it. I am not a geologist, but I know where to look to find answers. And I knew you were wrong in the first place because I am naturally curious.

    You are 100% wrong. I am sure it that won’t prevent you from spewing your ignorance or prevent you from fall for pseudoscience. Which you obviously already have.
    “A glacial lake is a lake with origins in a melted glacier. They are formed when a glacier erodes the land, and then melts, filling the hole or space that they have created.”

    The Angora lakes, are glacial lakes.

    Lake Tahoe:

    “The Lake Tahoe Basin was formed by vertical motion (normal) faulting. Uplifted blocks created the Carson Range on the east and the Sierra Nevada on the west. Down-dropped blocks (grabens) created the Lake Tahoe Basin in between.[2] This kind of faulting is characteristic of the geology of the adjoining Great Basin to the east.

    Lake Tahoe is the youngest of several extensional basins of the Walker Lane deformation zone that accommodates nearly 12 mm/yr of dextral shear between the Sierra Nevada-Great Valley Block and North America.[12][13]”

    Spend 30 seconds in wikipedia so you don’t keep saying ignorant things like:

    “But the look and characteristics of The Tahoe Basin and Lake Tahoe where caused by a Glacier. And Glacial activity.
    This took place until (just a short time ago) in the scheme of things)”
    The uplift that enable the basin to form was 2 million years ago.
    Wrong again.

    The ‘the climate has changed before’ argument is intellectually lazy and conveniently dismisses science. And get this, when you look at the situation in more detail, the fact that the climate has changed it is even more clear that it is changing for different reasons. So it makes you even more wrong.

    The Pipe Club are liars and frauds.

    You sir are so uninformed that you aren’t even capable of knowing how uninformed you are.

    Scientific illiteracy is sad. Just stop talking.

  30. thing fish says - Posted: January 14, 2013

    Also your posts are riddled with grammatical errors, typos, random inappropriate Capitalization. That is on top of the incoherence and aversion to facts.
    Are you uneducated or just very old?

  31. John D. says - Posted: January 14, 2013

    Ok what’s the lie and fraud about pipe club? Looking at their web site they show pipes polluting the lake? They offer the solution is to bmp the roads like we all were supposed to do for our homes? This somehow thing fish is pseudoscience? No one ever reads your tirades anymore 

  32. Michael Thompson says - Posted: January 14, 2013

    I guess you did not read the 5 posts above your last. Still got that liar lair pants on fire thing goin for ya.

    Thanks for the entertainment.
    I skied today had a nice dinnner now sitting in front of the fire (BURNING WOOD) and getting somwe mild entertainment here.

    Tahoe Pipe club has the answet to slowing down lake polution rather than spending millions to make The Steet nicer infront of Lake Shore Mansions

  33. thing fish says - Posted: January 14, 2013

    First, their insistence that lake clarity is still declining. And they go on to post a graph. A few problems with that graph. 1) it doesn’t show the equation of the trendline. 2) it doesnt show the r^2 value of the trendline. 3) they used a trendline that is linear, when a polynomial equation is a better fit (high r^2 value).
    That is just the problems with their central point. They are wrong. And even if they weren’t those 3 things, in college, a professor would refuse to give a grade to that if it were a paper.

    Now that you see how amateur they are, go to their ‘science’ section. This involves some reading. Go read their paragraph, then go read the research papers they cite. I didn’t do this for more than 2 of the sections, because in both cases they completely misrepresented the science. In one of the cases they were using the citation as support for a point that the research paper didn’t even address.
    In short, they lie, and post citations knowing that anyone who was dumb enough to fall for their graph and statement on clarity, won’t read scientific research papers. Or is intellectually incapable of reading and understanding them.

    Is that enough scientific fraud for you?
    Or are you OK with that? Because that type of fraud would get someone shunned from the scientific community for life. As it should.

    Should I go on about how most of their problem pipes are actually related more to existing surface water hydrogeography and not man made diversions?

    Every scientist I have talked to who has seen their website laughs at them. As they should. Also, don’t give them money, they aren’t even registered as a non-profit.

    Sorry for the rant. I wanted to destroy something ignorant. Right Tyler?

  34. thing fish says - Posted: January 14, 2013

    Oh and they imply that there is a conspiracy in the scientific community because they don’t publish real time lake clarity data. And on the same page they talk about the annual fluctuations in clarity due to snow melt and storms. See the problem?
    Which is either manipulative and dishonest, or a further sign of how little they know about the most basic elements of limnology.

    I know intelligent people who initially fell for the Pipe Club. Upon looking into them more carefully, they changed their mind and saw through the charade.
    Which is what you can do, now that you have the information in front of you. There is nothing bad about being wrong, but continuing to be wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence or refusing to acknowledge experts, is inexcusable and deserving of ridicule.

  35. Parker says - Posted: January 14, 2013

    Wow! Some can make their points without personal attacks, and some can’t! Those that can (as opposed to those who can’t) illustrate to all who read this, confidence and security in their intellectual arguments!

  36. Rick says - Posted: January 14, 2013

    Mike, if based on your previous point that you believe climate is always changing so so what, that is simply not a rational argument and not relevant to the fact that the increase in greenhouse gases (use of fossil fuels) is resulting in a warming earth. Based on the Milankovitch cycles the world should be going through a cooling phase, not a warming phase. These are orbit and axial changes that have a major influence on the warming and cooling of the earth.

    So the number of climate skeptics is shrinking as the evidence continues to mount and eventually we may make some rational decisions to lessen the effects of human driven climate change. Just like with the cigarette companies, the influence of the Koch Brothers and oil companies well final wane.


  37. John D. says - Posted: January 14, 2013

    road runoff is natural surface water? sounds like just another claim disputing global climate change to me, didn’t see that one coming 

  38. Rick says - Posted: January 14, 2013

    John: Thanks, I missed that connection also. I wonder if Pipe club refers to some other type of pipe?

  39. Bijou Bill says - Posted: January 14, 2013

    I just got my Certificate of Achievement from the DeVry Institute’s Climate Change Science Dept. Now I can calmly, confidently and securely pretend I have a clue while intellectually denouncing the overwhelming scientific evidence staring me in the face. It’s a skillset the liberal elites will never posess.

  40. admin says - Posted: January 15, 2013

    Thing Fish and Bijou Bill,

    Tone it down or go do your ridiculing elsewhere or be banned from LTN. Your comments are off topic and instead attack the person.

    Kathryn Reed, LTN publisher

  41. DAVID DEWITT says - Posted: January 15, 2013

    It looks like all the global warming around the lake is caused by HOT AIR.

  42. thing fish says - Posted: January 15, 2013

    People who spread disinformation need to be confronted. That is all.

  43. admin says - Posted: January 15, 2013

    It’s how you confront them. Learn some civility and maybe people will learn to care about what you have to say.

    Being the bully won’t get you anywhere.

    Kathryn Reed, LTN publisher

  44. John D. says - Posted: January 15, 2013

    Who is to decide disinformation verses truth? There is no referee here, and judgement is not the goal of a forum like this. This type of forum is for the free exchange of thoughts and opinions by everyone. Even in the pursuit of truth, it’s isn’t worth it to be subjected to toxic dialogue

  45. thing fish says - Posted: January 15, 2013

    No person makes the decision, the consequences of statistical analysis on datasets are impartial. In history, literature, political science, a person makes the decisions and things aren’t black and white. But not with basic statistics and scientific disciplines. There are wrong answers. When someone knowingly makes statements contrary to the most basic conclusions, definitions, etc, they are spreading disinformation.
    The geologic classification of a lake is not a matter of opinion. The proper best fit line on a graph is quantifiable and not a matter of opinion. Only in rare cases is the lower R^2 value the proper line. Without conventions like this, science can’t go anywhere. There are wrong answers. Not to get into philosophy of science, but in some ways we can only know what answers are wrong.
    Better information leads to better decisions. Those who intentionally misrepresent information are impeding progress. That is why I care. Maybe too much sometimes.

    We lack the political will to do anything about climate change. All we can do is try to anticipate what will happen, figure out which way things are moving. Being reactionary is not wise. I don’t see how this is incongruent with ‘the earth is has always changed and we will adapt’. We will adapt, with vary degrees of success depending on our use of information. Bad information, disinformation, will decrease out success.
    I am on Team Human.

  46. Old Long Skiis says - Posted: January 15, 2013

    Okay, how about Old Long Skiis steps in on this dispute. Disclaimer, I’m not affiliated with Lake Tahoe News other than being a paid subscriber and maybe a too frequent commentater or would that be “commom tater’?”, as in potato head.
    The way I see it, it’s Kae’s web site. She calls the shots and writes the rules.If you can’t make comments without ridiculing others and calling one another liars or worse, pack it up and hit the trail!
    I like LTN and I hate to see the squabelling amongst the few that have a bone to pick with someone who has a different point of view. Agree to disagree but do so in a civil tongue.
    Okay, class dissmised. Old Long Skiis

  47. Parker says - Posted: January 15, 2013

    As granted someone who has not been perfect in expressing himself on this site-if I were to post something clearly inaccurate say-‘Contrary to what’s reported, I believe the Planet is now colder than it was during the Ice Age! The response shouldn’t be to call me names or to put me down!! It should simply be the counter argument! Period!

    And then have faith in one’s fellow man to see who’s accurate. Or put another way-disagree, counterpoint, but no need to get personal!

    Also let the record state, I chose my blogger name long before this new release movie of the same name came out :)!