|
If this is global warming...
On Feb 15, 5:45 pm, wrote:
On Feb 15, 5:13 pm, Bob Schmall wrote: Those who do NOT acknowledge GW have offered little here but sarcasm and kneejerk reaction. The weight of evidence that it exists is overwhelming. Bob Facts, schmacts. Global Warming doesn't exist, because they SAY so. Isn't that enough proof? Mike That's the okay I was looking for. From this day forward, I shall give no fiddler's fu*ck about GW. (Tinker's damn, rat's ass...whatever) I am through caring about air pollution, I haven't farted in since Kyoto and now I am going to let one fly. This is gonna get ugly. |
OT: If this is global warming...
On Feb 15, 4:11 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Steve wrote: Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, global warming causes all kinds of mayhem including the hurricanes, tornados, hailstorms, lightning storms, and lest we forget, it definitely caused Pangea to split apart. These idiots that you call scientists were the same ones, 30 years ago that were saying that we were all doomed because another ice age was coming soon. Show me a scientist who says that there is global warming and I'll show you a hundred more who say that there are only global cycles and a very dynamic planet that is constantly changing. WHoa, backup, and slowdown there Bubba. It is not "the scientists" who are idiots, it's the people who take their incomplete work and make political fodder out of it *pretending* it is science. Science in the service of politics - left- or right- - is prostitution, nothing more or less. If you respond to this prostitution of science rather than to the actual known science, then you get nowhere but into another endless debate of political ideology. If I may, let me summarize that I think the current state of the actual science is: 1) There is some global warming taking place. It is slight, in keeping with the 20,000 or so year trends since the last ice age, and far lower than all the climatology models thus far were predicting. 2) We are at local (with the last 200 year) highs in injecting CO2 into the carbon cycle of the planet. BUT ... they are not "all time" highs (that happened millenia ago) AND no one is certain that a) CO2 actually causes noticeable and uncontrolled warming or b) That global warming - however much it may be happening - is necessarily a bad thing. 3) To the extent that global warming is actually happening, there not yet an unimpeachable *causal* relationship between human action and warming. There is that suspicion, but it is not yet demonstrated. No serious scientist on any side of the scientific debate believes humans *cause* GW. The most aggressive claim is that humans are amplifying a natural process and in so doing may change the quiescent state of things drastically - sort of the straw that breaks the camel's back model. However, even if this eventually turns out to be demonstrated as being so, it is far, far, far less clear that humans could actually modify their behavior sufficiently to make a real difference. One of the reasons not to rush off and go start randomly trying to "stop" global warming is that it may well be better to use our limited resources to *adapt* to it's consequences. For instance, over the past 20,000 years, the ocean levels have risen about 600 feet. This translates to about 1 cm per year. Now, let's say that human action were to double that. It is probably a lot more socially, economically, and politically practical to adapt to a 2cm/yr rising coastline than trying to radically retool modern energy-dependent economies all at once. 5) There is also considerably more debate about this particular topic within scientific circles than the popular political discussion would have you believe. That's because politicians like to use words like "consensus" - as if scientists vote on what the laws of nature will become. But science proceeds by means of skepticism and *data* - which, to date, are insufficient to come to any final conclusions about GW, who causes it, and whether anything can be done about it. In the end, it is in everyone's best interest to preserve and protect the "commons" - the things we cannot divide up as private property that are common to us all. However, the political spewing, exaggeration, and flatout lies about the nature and severity of the problem are causing otherwise smart people to make really stupid judgments. This is not unusual. We're terrified by the thought of someone breaking into our homes and killing us while we sleep (which very rarely happens) but don't think twice about driving on highways that kill 30,000 people a year in the US alone. The disaster prophets of the political left and the deniers of the political right have one thing in common: They want to create and artificial sense of emergency in the minds of the public and then none-too-gently propose themselves as the solution. The *real* (smart) idiots are people like Gore who wants to terrify the population into electing him and insert your favorite rightwinger here who wants to terrify the population with spectre of economic meltdown if we even consider a strategy of alternate fuels and lower emissions. The fact is that the politicians are ignoring the *real* driver he Energy independence for the West would mean we could rapidly disentangle ourselves from the sewer that is the oil-producing Middle East, Africa, and South America. That's because they don't have the brains, will, or selling skills to get the public rallied behind them in a cross-partisan way. The politicians will only act if it is good for "their side", and almost never when it is just "good". The reason to hold people like Gore in complete contempt is that they both lie about what is known, and play patently obvious political games while utterly failing to address more pressing short-term threats. Bah, humug, and blech upon both the earth-worshiping pantheists as well as the commerce-at-all- costs worshiping idolators. We all - every one of us - ought to be thinking about what is in our own long term durable self-interest. It is not in our interest to "save the planet" if it means the highway death toll goes up 10x because we're all riding in tin boxes with exploding batteries. Commerce is a good thing - essential to human freedom and happiness - but it cannot be used as an excuse for justifying *everything*. Most importantly, we need to stop looking to any politician for answers on these (and most all other) issues. The fact is that Western democracies are good for defending personal liberty and very little else. The "answer" to global warming - if it is needed at all - will come from a better understanding of real science, not listening to Gore's Inconvenient Pack Of Exaggerations And Lies... Bravo! |
If this is global warming...
"Bob Schmall" wrote in message Swingman wrote: "Bob Schmall" wrote in message Every single argument against global warming that I've seen here lacks one thing: hard evidence. So does the argument for global warming, where "confusion of correlation and causation" simply, and fallaciously, replaces "hard evidence". Nice terminology, You would do well to understand it. but the evidence I mentioned is established: the world is getting warmer. You can argue causation, and I'll be with you on the cyclic vs. human causation argument (although I suspect that there is no dichotomy here), but please don't insinuate that there is no evidence. Conclusions drawn for evidence are arguable, but the evidence is indisputable. Examples of this "indisputable" evidence, please. It's really not hard to see, providing you know what to look for and take the time to do so, instead of gullibly believing what is fed to you as scientific "fact" ... which it is blatantly not. AAMOF, It provably does not even rise to the level of an "hypothesis". One other thing of much import: Much of this "opinion" (it does not qualify as a hypothesis or theory using proper "scientific method") is based upon "computer modeling". And your point is? Computer modeling based on scientific evidence is an extremely valuable tool. Your assumption that GIGO applies is just that--an assumption. There is NO scientific evidence at this point. Zero, zip, nada. Nothing but an attempt at correlating cause and effect. In a nutshell: guesswork in the algorithms, which are always being refined; insufficient/dubious data, some of it previously subjected to suspect statistical "methods" prior to input, leading to a phenomenon that has always plagued computer modeling since Babbage, "GIGO"; and last but not least, failure to use "scientific method", as above, and instead relying upon statistical methods, which can be misapplied in the rush to publish. Are you suggesting that every single scientist is motivated by the "rush to publish?" That every one of the thousands of trained scientists who support the idea of global warming are doing it for personal advancement? If that's the case, then no scientist anywhere can be trusted on any issue. You obviously do not comprehend that to which you are replying. Once again ... those who do not use establised "scienctific method", but misuse "statistics" parading as "scientific method", and they abound on this issue, do not deserve to be trusted. Case in point ... the dire predictions of hurricanes last season, based solely on computer modeling, which inarguably had no basis whatsoever in reality. GIGO! Sorry--that's short-term prediction of weather, as opposed to long-term climate. They were wrong, of course, but that does not invalidate the long-term evidence. Once again, there is NO long term evidence ... 70 years at best. As someone pointed out, ice cores reveal climate for the past millions of years, and show a CO2 level that is unprecedented. "Someone"? ... to the contrary, there is much geologic evidence that CO2 levels have been far higher in the planets history than at present. Be as gullible as you wish on either side of the issue, but use a better argument than lack of "hard evidence" to assuage that gullibility ... the point is that, as of yet, there is NONE ... for either side. I'm hardly gullible, nor do I have my head in the sand as some people seem to have. And you give not one single fact yourself. LOL ... I don't need to. It is you, and the GW "opinionist" who are trying to prove mankind induced GW, who must provide "facts". We're still waiting ... -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 2/07/07 |
If this is global warming...
On Feb 15, 12:59 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
(Nice red herring, though.) Likely mercury poisoning. HgO is often red. |
If this is global warming...
Bob Schmall wrote:
Are you suggesting that every single scientist is motivated by the "rush to publish?" That every one of the thousands of trained scientists who support the idea of global warming are doing it for personal advancement? If that's the case, then no scientist anywhere can be trusted on any issue. That's exactly what the "righteous right" would have us believe :-). -- It's turtles, all the way down |
If this is global warming...
Subject
This discussion has divided into two (2) camps. 1) Those whose head is stuck where the moon doesn't shine. 2) Those whose head is not stuck where the moon doesn't shine. The reader is left to make the appropriate choice as it applies to them. Lew |
If this is global warming...
Bob Schmall wrote:
Lobby Dosser wrote: "Robatoy" wrote: On Feb 15, 10:31 am, "Swingman" wrote: [snipped for brevity] One other thing of much import: Much of this "opinion" (it does not quali fy as a hypothesis or theory using proper "scientific method") is based upon "computer modeling". In a nutshell: guesswork in the algorithms, which are always being refine d; insufficient/dubious data, some of it previously subjected to suspect statistical "methods" prior to input, leading to a phenomenon that has always plagued computer modeling since Babbage, [snip] Swing, statistics are right 75% of the time in 4 out of 6 cases, ± 10%. (May not be valid in your state). Who does fund the research in global warming? National Science Foundation, Sometimes the US NAVY. Sometimes private foundations. Rarely private corporations. Are there never any strings attached? You better spend it the way you said you would or you'll never see another dime. You better have a grant proposal that matches the biases of the current group of grantors. Follow the money. Always! Another cynical assumption with little proof to back it up. Three years academic research. Sure scientists can be influenced--but are you suggesting that the thousands around the world who know about global warming have all been paid off? Or would take the money if offered in every case? That's ridiculous. Nobody gets 'paid off'. The Process ensures that the available funds will be spent on the research du jour. It also ensures that more and more people will jump on the wagon, because they can get grants and keep their jobs. Bob |
If this is global warming...
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:55:12 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote: In article . com, "Robatoy" wrote: On Feb 14, 8:55 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote: Gore did say, quote, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet." That is a long ways from claiming he invented the internet. That is Rove spin. Karl Rove had absolutely nothing to do with it. Gore made an ass of himself all *by* himself, without anyone else's assistance -- starting with the fact that the internet had already been in existence *long* before Gore was ever elected to Congress. You are smarter than that, Douglas: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp Regards, Tom Watson tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email) http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ |
If this is global warming...
In article , Bob Schmall wrote:
Sorry--that's short-term prediction of weather, as opposed to long-term climate. They were wrong, of course, but that does not invalidate the long-term evidence. How many wrong predictions does it take, before a theory should be considered wrong? -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
If this is global warming...
In article , Bob Schmall wrote:
On the greater scale of time, the ice ages are a recent phenomenon. They're not proof of the cyclical nature of climate. Cyclical changes in climate are not proof of the cyclical nature of climate. Right. I got it. For example, the age of dinosaurs, who needed at least a temperate lasted for millions of years in what is now the U.S. Phooey. Dinosaurs didn't need "at least a temperate climate" any more than mammals and birds do -- because, like mammals and birds, they were warm-blooded. Read "The Dinosaur Heresies," by Robert Bakker, for an excellent exposition, by a PhD paleontologist, of the overwhelming evidence of this. No major climate shifts there. You're on pretty shaky ground if you're inferring that from the longevity of the dinos. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
If this is global warming...
In article , Tom Watson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:55:12 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: In article . com, "Robatoy" wrote: On Feb 14, 8:55 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote: Gore did say, quote, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet." That is a long ways from claiming he invented the internet. That is Rove spin. Karl Rove had absolutely nothing to do with it. Gore made an ass of himself all *by* himself, without anyone else's assistance -- starting with the fact that the internet had already been in existence *long* before Gore was ever elected to Congress. You are smarter than that, Douglas: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp I'm smart enough to know that the internet existed before Gore was elected to Congress. You may be unaware of that fact -- but that doesn't make it any less a fact. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
If this is global warming...
|
If this is global warming...
In article , Bruce Barnett wrote:
(Doug Miller) writes: Nobody said that. (Nice red herring, though.) The point is that Gore claimed to have, while a member of Congress, taken "the initiative in creating" something that already existed *before* he was in Congress. The Internet as a research network existed. Only colleges and research organizations could afford to be directly connected. Essentially you had to have a DARPA contract to get connected. It wasn't until funding for the Information Superhighway did the Internet explode into commercial and home use. Gore didn't claim that he took the initiative in expanding the internet, or exploding it into commercial and home use -- he claimed he "took the initiative in creating [it]". And that is simply not true. It already existed, as you acknowledge above. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
If this is global warming...
Just Wondering writes:
OK, I'll bite. In the context of going to a world without an internet to a world with an internet, what's the difference between saying create and saying invent? As the Snopes page said - Eisenhower took the initiative in creating the Interstate Highway System. He did not invent the highway. -- Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of $500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract. |
If this is global warming...
"Lee K" writes:
Convenient isn't it? If it's hot, it's because of global warming, If it's cold, it's because of global warming. It's statistics - Standard Deviation. Bell Curve. -- Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of $500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract. |
If this is global warming...
|
If this is global warming...
In article ,
todd wrote: "Larry" wrote in message ... Just a question for those debating the issues here, would anyone care to conjecture on what motivation a scientist might have for affirming or denying global warming? ...snipped... How about a job? How about continued funding? Anyone who disputes global warming is labeled a crackpot, so there's a huge disincentive to question the conclusions at this point. todd Funding has been available on both sides though recently even some oil companies have made statements that agree with the proponents of the human-caused theories. I'm sure there are and have been scientists like those in other professions who are in it for the $$ and will change their tune to please the payer. Personally I believe that they are a small minority. There are lots of scientists who advocate increased use of nuclear power, and _that_ is hardly a popular political opinion. are -- Make it as simple as possible, but no simpler. Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf.lonestar.org |
If this is global warming...
In article t,
Lew Hodgett wrote: This discussion has divided into two (2) camps. 1) Those whose head is stuck where the moon doesn't shine. 2) Those whose head is not stuck where the moon doesn't shine. The reader is left to make the appropriate choice as it applies to them. Lew That's good, Lew! It's obvious that _every_ reader of ths ng is in category 2! -- Make it as simple as possible, but no simpler. Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf.lonestar.org |
If this is global warming...
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:26:32 -0700, "DouginUtah"
wrote: "J. Clarke" wrote in message Please identify one scientist who has received millions of dollars from ExxonMobil for publishing disinformation in a peer-reviewed journal. =========== I never said one scientist has received millions of dollars. And the deniers are not given credence in scientific journals. If they aren't then that alone is an indication that the journals are biased. I'm sorry, but when scientific journals are systematically rejecting a minority viewpoint there is something very, very badly wrong. Since you seem not to be inclined to look it up yourself , I typed : ExxonMobil global warming deniers into Google. The first item was: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feat...ke_it_hot.html It is not a scientific journal but they have facts to back up what they say. Uh huh. "News: Forty public policy groups have this in common: They seek to undermine the scientific consensus that humans are causing the earth to overheat. And they all get money from ExxonMobil." What do "policy groups" have to do with science? An excerpt: "Mother Jones has tallied some 40 ExxonMobil-funded organizations that either have sought to undermine mainstream scientific findings on global climate change or have maintained affiliations with a small group of "skeptic" scientists who continue to do so." So they admit that there are "skeptic" scientists. However, I'm sure you will not allow this to undermine your skepticism. But you were civil, so I have replied. (BTW, I have over 400 people blocked in the two newsgroups I read regularly. Chances are I won't see responses to my posts, especially if you are not civil or are an idiot, IMNSHO.) -Doug |
If this is global warming...
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 02:58:20 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
wrote: (Doug Miller) writes: Considering the political pressure behind advancing the idea that the earth is warming, scientists who affirm that conclusion are far more likely to be recipients of research grants than scientists who deny it. The peer reviewers do not get paid. Are you saying that they are all independently wealthy or that they are all subsistence farmers? They get paid by _somebody_ or else htey don't eat. And if the grant money is in research that tends to support global warming then that's what they do. Some critics take great joy in criticizing papers with unsubstantiated claims. The job of a peer reviewer is not to criticize, it's to determine whether the paper is (a) reporting something of sufficient interest to be worth publishing and (b) not so poorly done as to be worthless. |
If this is global warming...
J. Clarke writes:
Please identify one scientist who has received millions of dollars from ExxonMobil for publishing disinformation in a peer-reviewed journal. I think a more correct statement was that at least $20 million was spent by the EPA to create confusion and distortion of the scientific facts. This was sone by censorship, or by refusing to publish the reports they paid for. See http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/i.../epa-websites/ Here's another report on censorship. http://marketplace.publicradio.org/s...200701305.html "A survey of 279 federal scientists found nearly half were pressured to drop references to global warming in their research. Study author Francesco Grifo of the Union of Concerned Scientists told the panel today that the changes amount to censorship" http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2467733&page=1 "Commerce Department officials may have tried to stop a government scientist from speaking to reporters because of his views on global warming, a California congressman says." http://www.federaltimes.com/index.php?S=2519061 "Francesca Grifo, senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists scientific integrity program, told the committee that 1,800 federal scientists from multiple agencies have reported concerns about interference. She said more than 600 scientists from nine agencies reported fear of retaliation for publicizing their findings and nearly 500 scientists from nine agencies said they were barred from publishing certain results related to climate change. In a report released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists, Grifo said 150 climate-change scientists reported at least one incident of political interference with their work over the past five years. " "Some of the most questionable edits were urged by Phillip Cooney, the former oil industry lobbyist who was the chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Waxman said." -- Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of $500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract. |
If this is global warming...
On Feb 15, 9:17 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
I'm smart enough to know that the internet existed before Gore was elected to Congress. You may be unaware of that fact -- but that doesn't make it any less a fact. Is English your second language, Doug? |
If this is global warming...
In article ,
J. Clarke wrote: On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 05:41:49 +0000 (UTC), (Larry) wrote: Anyone want to start a pool on when and from which side nazis will be introduced into this thread? Too late, you just did it. well, at least I didn't pick sides.. :) -- Make it as simple as possible, but no simpler. Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf.lonestar.org |
If this is global warming...
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:26:32 -0700, "DouginUtah"
wrote: "J. Clarke" wrote in message Please identify one scientist who has received millions of dollars from ExxonMobil for publishing disinformation in a peer-reviewed journal. =========== I never said one scientist has received millions of dollars. And the deniers are not given credence in scientific journals. Since you seem not to be inclined to look it up yourself , I typed : ExxonMobil global warming deniers into Google. The first item was: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feat...ke_it_hot.html It is not a scientific journal but they have facts to back up what they say. "News: Forty public policy groups have this in common: They seek to undermine the scientific consensus that humans are causing the earth to overheat. And they all get money from ExxonMobil." You realize the irony in your statement above: "scientific consensus". Science is not about consensus, it is about theory, hypothesis, experimentation, and proof. To indicate that a theory requires consensus is to admit that it is a nebulous theory without significant substantiating facts to establish its veracity. That alone should make one suspicious of those who are affirming a scientific "consensus" of the veracity of a theory and further using that "consensus" as rationale for institution of draconian measures that will degrade the quality of life for many in the developed world. One also should look at the agenda of those proposing those draconian measures: a) many of them gain additional control over other peoples' lives and fortunes, b) many of those pushing this are agenda-driven anti-capitalist, anti-progress who view our technological society as something to be dismantled, not appreciated. What is ironic is the fact that the findings and approaches proposed by these agenda-driven activists are somehow viewed as more "pure" and valid than findings by anyone who is funded by the companies these people seek to destroy or subvert as indicated in your post below. An excerpt: "Mother Jones Yeah, there's a source that has no agenda nor bias. Would you accept a reference to a Rush Limbaugh publication? has tallied some 40 ExxonMobil-funded organizations that either have sought to undermine mainstream scientific findings on global climate change or have maintained affiliations with a small group of "skeptic" scientists who continue to do so." I've never understood why there is such a fear factor related to the fact that a corporation is funding research in order to defend itself against taxpayer-funded, agenda-driven research that seeks to undermine that company's core source of income. However, I'm sure you will not allow this to undermine your skepticism. But you were civil, so I have replied. (BTW, I have over 400 people blocked in the two newsgroups I read regularly. Chances are I won't see responses to my posts, especially if you are not civil or are an idiot, IMNSHO.) Don't know and don't care if I fall into one of those categories. The fact is that this prevailing attitude that "scientific consensus" is somehow equivalent to quantitative, substantiating, rigorous scientific evidence is disturbing. +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |
If this is global warming...
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:23:58 -0600, Bob Schmall wrote:
Swingman wrote: "Bob Schmall" wrote in message Every single argument against global warming that I've seen here lacks one thing: hard evidence. So does the argument for global warming, where "confusion of correlation and causation" simply, and fallaciously, replaces "hard evidence". Nice terminology, but the evidence I mentioned is established: the world is getting warmer. You can argue causation, and I'll be with you on the cyclic vs. human causation argument (although I suspect that there is no dichotomy here), but please don't insinuate that there is no evidence. Conclusions drawn for evidence are arguable, but the evidence is indisputable. It's really not hard to see, providing you know what to look for and take the time to do so, instead of gullibly believing what is fed to you as scientific "fact" ... which it is blatantly not. AAMOF, It provably does not even rise to the level of an "hypothesis". One other thing of much import: Much of this "opinion" (it does not qualify as a hypothesis or theory using proper "scientific method") is based upon "computer modeling". And your point is? Computer modeling based on scientific evidence is an extremely valuable tool. Your assumption that GIGO applies is just that--an assumption. As someone who makes his living using, in part, computer simulations I can also tell you that one of the other things no one has touched on here yet is the absolute uncertainty of the validity of the models being used. I know how hard it is to validate results comparing a simulation with a test when I have significant control over many (but not all) of the variables going into that test. To be able to predict specifics of a test event with certainty is a fool's errand. To come close statistically is possible, and we work to narrow the uncertainty of those statistics, but that requires a strong knowledge of the variables and interdependencies of those variables in the tests. Now, compound the complexity by taking the fact that one has absolutely no control over the variables going into weather tests and further, the fact that we may not even *know* the dependencies or interdependencies of many of the variables being simulated means that the models may not even have all of the contributors to climate prediction incorporated. What that gets you is a huge uncertainty region -- a model that is predicting warming or cooling at a rate of tenths of a degree over periods of years is nothing more than simulation noise in that instance. In order for a skeptic like myself to believe that these people have their models right, they are going to have to establish a track record. Since they insist that this isn't about predicting weather, but climate, that is going to take some time. I'm patient, I'll wait. Especially before supporting implementation of draconian, economy-shaking legislation based upon models with,thus far, no established credibility. +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |
If this is global warming...
On 15 Feb 2007 05:50:38 -0800, "Robatoy" wrote:
On Feb 15, 6:15 am, Glen wrote: Joe Bleau wrote: On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:01:25 -0800, jo4hn wrote: OK people. Think climate change rather than increases in temp wherever you might be. Some places may experience nastier or better weather but the overall change is an increase in temp with polar caps and glaciers melting. It's been happening for years now. Not gonna get better. Drive hybrid, save a polar bear. luck to all, jo4hn It has been happening for years, for eons even. Millions of years before man ever appeared the earth was warming and cooling. Drive SUVs and remember to save a tree you might think about wiping with spotted owls. Joe Hey, man, we don't want those spotted owls to go extinct. I love 'em. Taste like chicken. Glen Easy to shoot too, with a night scope. Not a lot of meat on them though, Tastes more like a blend of Condor and Blue Heron to me. I've never had Blue Heron, what's it taste like? :-) +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |
If this is global warming...
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:16:58 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote: Bob Schmall wrote: The point is that global warming is a fact--even Shrub acknowledges it--and regardless of its causes there is great potential danger for millions of people and billions of dollars in property. But will it warm us tomorrow? So, it's a good theory because Bush acknowledges it? Or we are supposed to believe it because Bush acknowledges it? Bush doesn't get everything right and has been known to do some things for political expediency -- this appears to be one of them. +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |
If this is global warming...
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 07:34:20 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message I'm willing to bet that a quality buffalo fart could keep a Coleman lantern going for a while. But never mind those buffalo- and volcanic gasses. 4 TacoBell MexiMelts and we're talking Krakatoa. Actually, reminds me of a lead singer or two I've known. When the band bus stops at a TacoBell, whoever has to stand behind a lead singer during the next show automatically gets flatulent duty pay. ... and all along you thought the drum riser was invented to give the drummer better beaver shots in the front row! I would think the drummer would prefer to be lower -- doesn't gas rise? +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |
If this is global warming...
On Feb 15, 11:29 pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 07:34:20 -0600, "Swingman" wrote: .. When the band bus stops at a TacoBell, whoever has to stand behind a lead singer during the next show automatically gets flatulent duty pay. ... and all along you thought the drum riser was invented to give the drummer better beaver shots in the front row! I would think the drummer would prefer to be lower -- doesn't gas rise? You gave that waaay to much thought....LOL |
If this is global warming...
like I said
You gave that waaay too much thought.... 3 a's, 2 o's |
If this is global warming...
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 03:36:16 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
wrote: J. Clarke writes: Please identify one scientist who has received millions of dollars from ExxonMobil for publishing disinformation in a peer-reviewed journal. I think a more correct statement was that at least $20 million was spent by the EPA to create confusion and distortion of the scientific facts. This was sone by censorship, or by refusing to publish the reports they paid for. See http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/i.../epa-websites/ Here's another report on censorship. http://marketplace.publicradio.org/s...200701305.html "A survey of 279 federal scientists found nearly half were pressured to drop references to global warming in their research. Study author Francesco Grifo of the Union of Concerned Scientists told the panel today that the changes amount to censorship" http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2467733&page=1 "Commerce Department officials may have tried to stop a government scientist from speaking to reporters because of his views on global warming, a California congressman says." http://www.federaltimes.com/index.php?S=2519061 "Francesca Grifo, senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists scientific integrity program, told the committee that 1,800 federal scientists from multiple agencies have reported concerns about interference. She said more than 600 scientists from nine agencies reported fear of retaliation for publicizing their findings and nearly 500 scientists from nine agencies said they were barred from publishing certain results related to climate change. In a report released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists, Grifo said 150 climate-change scientists reported at least one incident of political interference with their work over the past five years. " "Some of the most questionable edits were urged by Phillip Cooney, the former oil industry lobbyist who was the chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Waxman said." And despite all this censorship, not one paper opposing global warming got published? Do tell. |
If this is global warming...
Charles Koester wrote:
On 2007-02-15, J Clarke wrote: On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:46:18 -0700, "DouginUtah" wrote: "Larry" wrote in message ... Just a question for those debating the issues here, would anyone care to conjecture on what motivation a scientist might have for affirming or denying global warming? ================= Money. The deniers have been receiving millions of dollars from ExxonMobil (and others) to create a state of disinformation. Only recently has ExxonMobil been outed and they have now agreed to stop. Just like the tobacco companies and smoking. Please identify one scientist who has received millions of dollars from ExxonMobil for publishing disinformation in a peer-reviewed journal. They've spent the money, but they've failed to get it published. All those "reports" put out by global warming discreditors have been *rejected* by peer-reviewed journals. Press releases and news articles, yes. Proper scientific journals, no. A science historian at UC San Diego analyzed 928 randomly selected research papers on climate change published from 1993 through 2003, from of a pool of around 10,000. Not *one* rejected the idea that human activity is warming the planet. Zip. nada. A quote: Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. Read it for yourself: http://historyweb.ucsd.edu/oreskes/Papers/Scientific%20Consensus%20on%20climate.pdf My apologies for bringing peer-reviewed papers into the discussion. Charles Koester This is a subtle version of the "agreement" argument - if enough scientists agree, it must be true. The fact that there is, in fact, vigorous debate within the science community about just what the facts are and what they mean, but there is little peer-reviewed publication of that debate demonstrates how overtly political the funding process has become, not that science has reached a conclusion of any sort. There are two sources of funding: Government and Private Industry. Both are inherently corruptable, though government has far larger sins in this regard that even the most eeeeeevil corporations. Moreover, science has always had a pecking order and status quo, not withstanding the lofty claims of its apologists that say otherwise. Until we find a more neutral way to fund, review, and evaluate proposals for work, we are stuck with this system. For the moment, the practical reality is that it is much easier to get "scare" funding from the government especially. It plays into the political gasbags' need to become important beyond any merit they possess by appearing to "save" us. Scientists are not stupid (by definition - at least for the most part). They will gravitate to the work that pays their bills. Since GW involves very complex mathematics whose output varies wildly with very small adjustments to inputs, you can always legitimately cook up a model that predicts whatever you want - after all, no one actually knows what all the input variables need to be and to what degree of precision they need to be measured. If "tweaking" the numbers one way or the other gets you government (or eeeeeeeevil corporate) funding, why not. Your guess is as good as the next guy's. I'm not saying that scientist are, as a group, dishonest. They are merely practical when it comes to funding. You have to keep your patron happy. When the subject is so complex and dense that what is "right" is not yet known, you can cook up the model that makes your patron happy. Again: Science in the service of ideology is prostitution. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
If this is global warming...
DouginUtah wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message Please identify one scientist who has received millions of dollars from ExxonMobil for publishing disinformation in a peer-reviewed journal. =========== I never said one scientist has received millions of dollars. And the deniers are not given credence in scientific journals. Since you seem not to be inclined to look it up yourself , I typed : ExxonMobil global warming deniers into Google. The first item was: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feat...ke_it_hot.html It is not a scientific journal but they have facts to back up what they say. "News: Forty public policy groups have this in common: They seek to undermine the scientific consensus that humans are causing the earth to overheat. And they all get money from ExxonMobil." "Consensus" has no place in science. Data and repeatability of calculation/ experiment are all that matter. If you believe in consensus, you do not understand the method of science. An excerpt: "Mother Jones has tallied some 40 ExxonMobil-funded organizations that either have sought to undermine mainstream scientific findings on global climate change or have maintained affiliations with a small group of "skeptic" scientists who continue to do so." Ditto "mainstream scientific findings" - where is the inarguable data and experimental result? However, I'm sure you will not allow this to undermine your skepticism. But you were civil, so I have replied. Skepticism is the *basis* of science. A hypothesis is not even fit for consideration if it is not, in principle, falsifiable. It is laughable that the very people clinging to their version of "science" as mainstream or consensus, demand that we rid ourselves of skepticism - the very foundation of the scientific method. One more time: It does not matter how many scientists agree about any topic we could pick. Their agreement is irrelevant until/unless they can produce data, calculation, and/or experimental data to debate. Their opinions are no more important than my cat's. That's *why* we have developed the scientific method in the past few centuries: To - as best we can - eliminate human bias. But the earth worshipers especially want to throw all that away because they have a religious view of the environment and they want to jam their theology down everyone's throat worse than any Snake-Handling Fundamentalist preacher ever will... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
If this is global warming...
jo4hn wrote:
Joe Bleau wrote: On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:01:25 -0800, jo4hn wrote: OK people. Think climate change rather than increases in temp wherever you might be. Some places may experience nastier or better weather but the overall change is an increase in temp with polar caps and glaciers melting. It's been happening for years now. Not gonna get better. Drive hybrid, save a polar bear. luck to all, jo4hn It has been happening for years, for eons even. Millions of years before man ever appeared the earth was warming and cooling. Drive SUVs and remember to save a tree you might think about wiping with spotted owls. Joe Well, ignoring the cutsie bs about spotted owls and all, keep in mind that Antarctic ice cores show that the current concentration of carbon dioxide in the air is the highest that it has ever been (.3 million Not so. It is the highest it has been *in a long time*, not "ever". years). The number of REFERREED scientific papers that scoff at man aided CO2 is zero. Enough. or you might try prayer, jo4hn Now all you have to do is: a) Demonstrate that CO2 is causal for global warming (not done to date). At this point you will earn a Ph.D. b) Demonstrate that human action is causal for the increased CO2 levels (not done to date). At this point you will get tenure. c) Demonstrate that global warming's effects are severe and harm the environment (entirely speculative to date). At this point you will get unlimited funding. d) Demonstrate that mankind can actually substantially do something about it by changing behavior (wild speculation to date). At this point you might be electable to public office. Gore and the Earth Worshiping Pantheists wanna skip a-c and go right to d. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
If this is global warming...
"Bruce Barnett" wrote in message
... Just Wondering writes: OK, I'll bite. In the context of going to a world without an internet to a world with an internet, what's the difference between saying create and saying invent? As the Snopes page said - Eisenhower took the initiative in creating the Interstate Highway System. He did not invent the highway. Which isn't even close to being on point. Eisenhower was in office from 1953-1961. The Federal-Aid Highway Act was passed in 1956. So, Eisenhower can rightly claim the initiative in creating the Interstate Highway System. In contrast, Gore was not yet in office when the Internet was first created. Perhaps he could rightly say that he took the initiative to expand the Internet, but that doesn't sound nearly as good saying you created it, so being a politician, he said the latter. In the end, I don't really care. The way he said it left him wide open for jokes to be made. You can't deny that it sounds funny, can you? todd |
If this is global warming...
|
If this is global warming...
Mark & Juanita wrote:
| On 15 Feb 2007 05:50:38 -0800, "Robatoy" wrote: | || On Feb 15, 6:15 am, Glen wrote: ||| Joe Bleau wrote: |||| On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:01:25 -0800, jo4hn |||| wrote: ||||| OK people. Think climate change rather than increases in temp ||||| wherever you might be. Some places may experience nastier or ||||| better weather but the overall change is an increase in temp ||||| with polar caps and glaciers melting. It's been happening for ||||| years now. Not gonna get better. Drive hybrid, save a polar ||||| bear. luck to all, ||||| jo4hn ||| |||| It has been happening for years, for eons even. Millions of |||| years before man ever appeared the earth was warming and cooling. ||| |||| Drive SUVs and remember to save a tree you might think about |||| wiping with spotted owls. ||| |||| Joe ||| ||| Hey, man, we don't want those spotted owls to go extinct. I love ||| 'em. Taste like chicken. ||| ||| Glen || || Easy to shoot too, with a night scope. Not a lot of meat on them || though, || Tastes more like a blend of Condor and Blue Heron to me. | | I've never had Blue Heron, what's it taste like? :-) Roasted on a spit, it tastes somewhat like alaskan curlew - stewed with vegetables, it tastes just like chicken (and not at all like a spotted owl) -- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto |
If this is global warming...
In article , Tom Watson wrote:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 02:17:53 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: In article , Tom Watson wrote: On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:55:12 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: In article . com, "Robatoy" wrote: On Feb 14, 8:55 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote: Gore did say, quote, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet." That is a long ways from claiming he invented the internet. That is Rove spin. Karl Rove had absolutely nothing to do with it. Gore made an ass of himself all *by* himself, without anyone else's assistance -- starting with the fact that the internet had already been in existence *long* before Gore was ever elected to Congress. You are smarter than that, Douglas: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp I'm smart enough to know that the internet existed before Gore was elected to Congress. You may be unaware of that fact -- but that doesn't make it any less a fact. 1958 - ARPA formed in response to Sputnik launch. (note: it was not called darpa at this point.) 1967 - ARPANET design discussions held. 1969 - ARPANET commisioned by DoD for research into networking. 1970 - First publication of Host-Host protocol by ARPANET. 1973 - First international connection to ARPANET (University College Of London). Three years before AlGore's election... -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
If this is global warming...
In article . com, "Robatoy" wrote:
On Feb 15, 9:17 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote: I'm smart enough to know that the internet existed before Gore was elected to Congress. You may be unaware of that fact -- but that doesn't make it any less a fact. Is English your second language, Doug? No -- but it often appears that it *is* yours... -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:56 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter