Post by: J.J. Blair on January 26, 2007, 08:09:58 PM
So, he bitched to the school board who banned it. Then other people bitched about them banning it, and they unbanned it ... sorta. They said that if you are going to present a scientific argument for scientific observations, you have to present a second point of view. You know, kinda like Intelligent Warming. Maybe they can come up with a theory that all the consumption carbonated beverages, which has been proved to cause farting, is the real culprit. The sulfur and methane released from our asses is the REALLY inconvenient truth.
No offense to my born again friends who have more sense than this, but ... as a recovering born again, having grown up in that environment of literal interpretation (selectively), and superstition, this kind of thinking is an embarrassment. While we are at it, let's teach alternatives to electricity and physics! There's no gravity. It's angels holding us to the ground, so we don't drift off into space!
I'd say that the best argument against the theory of evolution is that people this stupid have survived this long and thrived.
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 26, 2007, 09:00:19 PM
Barry
Post by: Socrates on January 26, 2007, 10:08:09 PM
| J.J. Blair wrote on Fri, 26 January 2007 20:09 |
Some parent in Seattle got a bug up his ass that his kid's high school was going to make him watch An Inconvenient Truth, which apparently is required viewing in some Scandinavian countries. Was this parent disagreeing with the fact that there's global warming? No. In fact, he says that the book of Revelations warns about this. He's upset that the movie depicts humans as being responsible for it, and not God's wrath. So, he bitched to the school board who banned it. Then other people bitched about them banning it, and they unbanned it ... sorta. They said that if you are going to present a scientific argument for scientific observations, you have to present a second point of view. You know, kinda like Intelligent Warming. Maybe they can come up with a theory that all the consumption carbonated beverages, which has been proved to cause farting, is the real culprit. The sulfur and methane released from our asses is the REALLY inconvenient truth. No offense to my born again friends who have more sense than this, but ... as a recovering born again, having grown up in that environment of literal interpretation (selectively), and superstition, this kind of thinking is an embarrassment. While we are at it, let's teach alternatives to electricity and physics! There's no gravity. It's angels holding us to the ground, so we don't drift off into space! I'd say that the best argument against the theory of evolution is that people this stupid have survived this long and thrived. |
Looks like you still have a lot of resentment. Just for clarity, a second opinion for Inconvienent Truth would be a presentation by scientists who understand that the temperature of the earth goes up and down as the centuries go by and was in fact warmer 700 years ago than it is today.
Needless to say, something warmed us out of the ice age before the internal combustion engine was invented.
Post by: wwittman on January 26, 2007, 11:42:02 PM
Post by: J.J. Blair on January 27, 2007, 12:12:42 AM
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 27, 2007, 12:34:48 AM
T'ain't God's wrath. Just the weather.
And while the subject of this thread is as J.J. described, there are professional meteorologists who actually believe this warming trend is nothing more than a natural Earth weather cycle.
Don't shoot me. I'm only the messenger.
Barry
** How could we not be living in "The End Times"? Everything after Christ's ascension into Heaven has essentially been "The End Times". Maybe we should start saying "The Ender Times"...
By the way, having a "bug up one's ass" could be an important evolutionary trait! Only time will tell if it is beneficial... I wonder what the new combination will become....
Post by: Socrates on January 27, 2007, 12:41:58 AM
| J.J. Blair wrote on Sat, 27 January 2007 00:12 |
Socrates, you must not understand the science behind this. The real scientists are concerned about unprecedented CO2 levels in the atmosphere. But that's another thread. This thread is about superstitious myopians who think that we are living in the End Times. |
Hmmm, I thought that's what I was talking about. All kinds of fundamentalisms aren't there?
Post by: J.J. Blair on January 27, 2007, 12:42:13 AM
Even mainstream conservative christians have signed on with this, and are running an ad campaign. It's jus those folks who think that the world is 6,000 years old who have a problem grasping the concept, it seems.
Post by: J.J. Blair on January 27, 2007, 12:47:07 AM
| Socrates wrote on Fri, 26 January 2007 21:41 |
Hmmm, I thought that's what I was talking about. All kinds of fundamentalisms aren't there? |
Sorry if I misunderstood you. I took your post to be skeptical of the GW concept.
Ragardless, the difference between 700 years ago and now is that with ice cap and glacial conditions as they are, we don't have the luxury of enhancing what might be a natual trend. But who knows, maybe angels will come and keep the ice caps from falling apart.
Post by: Socrates on January 27, 2007, 12:47:07 AM
Well, the crisis is inescapable, but it sure is a moving target. First global cooling, then warming, then "climate extremes", and now its just the co2.
Here is the latest:
Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from about 315 ppm in 1958 to 378 ppm at the end of 2004, which means human activities have increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm or 36 percent.
Thats Parts Per Million.
Anyway, I know debating this will lead nowhere, but I do see cracks in the edifice of "scientific consensus". Word is getting out, the sceptics are being heard, and it will be a few years and there will be some sort of other crisis commanding that we do something that just so happens to fit a political agenda. As I pointed out, the crisis itself has already had to be adjusted to keep ahead of the debunking.
After a nice evening of Al Gore's film, why not curl up with a nice book like State of Fear--a medidation on the media's obsession with alarmism.
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 27, 2007, 12:57:49 AM
Global Warming: Don't worry. I get it. I am not espousing that view -- just mentioning it.
And for the record, I am against banning any art, religion, philosophy or science. I wish some things didn't exist, and I wish some things would exist, but people eventually sort it all out for themselves.
What I've never understood is: Why some people want to shelter their kids from some ideas. If you don't like what your kid is being exposed to then:
1. Remove your kid
2. Go with your kid
3. Bring the idea yourself to your kid and explain why it isn't right for you and your kid.
Why does everyone have to get bent out of shape just because...
Hiding your kid from the world, no matter what you believe, will only harm your child when she has to live in the world and deal on her own with all the crap you sheltered her from.
Barry
Post by: Socrates on January 27, 2007, 01:05:11 AM
When he was 14, my son won student of the month in an agressive defense of Christopher Columbus during his genocide trail. My son pointed out factual errors in the textbook and during cross-examination got the teacher to admit he had made prejudicial remarks to the "jury" of students. And again, my taxes are paying for this crap. The science textbook contains creation myths from other cultures.
So, I don't like fundamentalisms of any form. Group-think, peer pressure to have correct thinking, shame-based persuasion techniques, name-calling, marginalizing those who disagree. Science in the service of ideology. My dad was a scientist, so I grew up wiht this notion of scientists as truth-seekers not advocates in search of grants. I can see that it was a naive conception, and it just sticks in my craw nonetheless.
The history of science teaches that many widely-held beliefs turned out to be wrong, and I think in the current age, we like to think we are too sophisticated for that sort of thing.
Post by: danickstr on January 27, 2007, 01:16:59 AM
I am a cynic and sceptic about alarmist crap, but this is actual weather, not even science, really. The CO2 changes the weather, and it is just that simple. IF Greenland melting seems like religious fundamentalism, well then I'll see you in Waco, pass me the Kool-aid.
Post by: wwittman on January 27, 2007, 02:41:24 AM
So I understand about a one-sided political slant.
Fortunately, by that age, he already knew they were wrong about everything.
Post by: Socrates on January 28, 2007, 05:05:32 PM
| danickstr wrote on Sat, 27 January 2007 01:16 |
Socrates, just out of curiosity, did you see the film? I am guessing no because if you see the film you would have a bit better of a grasp of the severity of the situation. I am a cynic and sceptic about alarmist crap, but this is actual weather, not even science, really. The CO2 changes the weather, and it is just that simple. IF Greenland melting seems like religious fundamentalism, well then I'll see you in Waco, pass me the Kool-aid. |
I will not be seeing the film--I understand that it is quite persuasive if one is not familiar with atmospheric science. I get my information from written sources and have been following this story for years and my dad pointed out the global cooling alarmism. I also spent some time at a party chatting with a geologist who was familiar with the body of weather knowledge revealed in ice core samples which revealed wide swings in average temp over the centuries, but also relatively rapid increases and declines.
Also, I seem to recall that co2 levels were higher in the 1950s and have declined somewhat since then but rising again. The primary determinant of our weather is the sun, and its activity varies somewhat in ways we have no way of understanding. The fact that most people don't realize that is a sad commmentary on the state of our educational and media institutions.
I think I have been too confrontational on this, and I can't blame people for believing what they are told hundereds of times a year from the media, and in a politician's movie. If one wants to get other sides to the story, the internet has many sources. To be fair, the fundamentalism applies to those who refuse to consider all sides of the story. The media is pushing this story so hard, a person would have to be extremely sceptical of the media's agenda to not have a concern arising from thoughtful and responsible motives.
I debated this quite a bit on the marsh, and don't think I convinced a single person of anything they didn't already believe, so I will leave it at this post rather than offending everyone here over a relatively academic point.
As I write this, I am recalling that there has been unprecedented snow in las vegas and texas, and unusually cold temps in southern california. Every time it is unusually hot, the media touts it as proof of man-induced global warming, but when it is unusually cold that just 'proves' the other prong of the argument: "Climate Extremes."
Also, it ought to go without saying that the weather changes differently on different parts of the earth. One can focus on one spot melting and neglect to mention another spot that is freezing.
I am not saying that I know c02 is not causing warming of some sort. what I am saying is we don't have sufficient scientific certainty of this--certainly not anything to lead to the unbridled speculation of dire consequences in the future. Sure, there appear to be tens of thousands of scientists who are pushing this, and some of them are meterologists, but there are plenty who have contrary views, and they are getting zero air-time. Also, the degree to which vast numbers of scientists are dependent on government grants and tailor their public activies to ensure a stream of income is never reported in the media. Hell, we all have to make a living right? Anyone get a big raise going against the company line?
Will the earth get warmer? It certainly could. It could get colder too. The core samples show that the earth's temps can vary a lot from century to century. Will things melt? Maybe. Did burning fossil fuels make things warmer? Maybe. Now for the tough question: What realistically can be done about it?
Stop heating our houses in the winter, no more electricity, no more driving cars? Reduce the human population to 1900 levels and start wearing bear-skins and living off the land? Force developing countries to stop developing?
Now, I do like the idea of reducing fossil fuel consumption for other reasons. Fossil fuel use contributes to our national trade deficit, it ties us to the unstable politics of the middle east, and it causes pollution. I am against these things.
Like I said before, I really don't like it when journalists feel their mission is 'making a difference' through selective reporting to promote an ideology. I see science as a quest for the truth regarding physical things, and journalism as a quest to inform and educate. Both of these conceptions are hoplessly naive, but they are ideals I use to measure the real world.
As far as greenland--it was melted when the vikings saw it, hence the name.
Post by: wwittman on January 28, 2007, 05:42:53 PM
"Next week's science report will say there is a 90% chance that human activity is warming the planet,..."
I guess they are convinced because they are "not familiar with atmospheric science" in comparison to you.
right?
or they're all just "anti-business".
Some scientists are "convinced" smoking is bad for you either.
We call these "shills"
Post by: Mark Pixley on January 28, 2007, 09:12:31 PM
| wwittman wrote on Sun, 28 January 2007 16:42 |
From the UN report do out this week: "Next week's science report will say there is a 90% chance that human activity is warming the planet,..." I guess they are convinced because they are "not familiar with atmospheric science" in comparison to you. right? or they're all just "anti-business". Some scientists are "convinced" smoking is bad for you either. We call these "shills" |
Please tell me you are not quoting the UN after reading Socrates post revealing the incredible amount of money driven science?
How many UN science reports would you like?
The entire global warming debate seems a bit like asking an entire orchestra to play different pieces all the while retuning and expect everyone to end up on the same note.
Ain't gonna happen.
A very important word never mentioned in Al's wonderful movie is "parameterization"...
Until science can come up with the equivalent of A 440 then I think the best course of action is for everyone to recycle, use as few petroleum products as necessary and stay away from tossing virgins into volcanoes (which happen to be the bigger culprit in aerosol manufacturing)..(volcanoes, produce more aerosols although virgins may add to the amount of aerosols purchased they do not make them)
Reality says to wait until Feb.
Why Feb.?
Because the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will issue their report then.
Frankly the UN is no longer an unbiased source of anything, let alone science, its a bit like asking Congress if they should give themselves a raise.
Parameterization... look it up it is the key to this Pandora's box.
There is no way a scientist can determine which parameters to use without entering some sort of personal bias into the model.
Impossible.
And given that the effects of global warming are just as hard to predict as the evidence how are we certain that global warming is a bad thing?
What if global warming produces crops for starving Africans?
Is it such a bad thing?
What if the worst effect is we lose some real estate in Florida but millions of Ethiopians get to eat instead?
How do you quantify the results?
What if the hockey stick is a good thing?
Al Gore does a wonderful job creating alarm, but we still do not know if the outcome is good for the planet, it only seems bad to us because the alarm was meant to target a certain audience.
What if global warming could create a a climate in the Mideast that allowed huge crops of corn and wheat so that the current displaced young men could be working farms and saving the world by food production?
Wouldn't that be cool?
So until someone can define which parameterization we are judging this by perhaps the warning si a bit premature.
Wouldn't it be a hoot if global warming ended the wars in the middle-east?
And how can anyone prove that it won't?
Parameterization.
Lets see the equation before we judge the sum.
Post by: Socrates on January 28, 2007, 10:27:39 PM
I have been trying to think of an analogy for my skepticism, and this is what keeps coming to mind--admittedly it is clumsy, but my muse just won't let go, and I must ultimately defer to it when creative matters are at stake.
***
So, the newspaper reports that a guy finished giving a speech and then started flapping his arms and flew a mile away.
Then others dispute this, saying he only flew a half mile.
But my problem is I know that humans don't have the power of flight so I don't see much point in a dispute over how far someone flew by flapping his arms.
***
--well, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. I thought JJ blair was reasonably polite given my chesty argumentation, so I felt I would explain a bit more. I guess if you get your science from politicians, what you get is Political Science.
As for challenging people's common wisdom, well, my namesake got nothing but a cup of hemlock for his troubles.
Post by: PookyNMR on January 28, 2007, 11:25:39 PM
Fundamentalist faith in science is foolish.
Post by: dcollins on January 29, 2007, 01:50:09 AM
| PookyNMR wrote on Sun, 28 January 2007 20:25 |
Fundamentalist faith in science is foolish. |
Science does not use faith.
DC
Post by: Mark Pixley on January 29, 2007, 09:09:04 AM
| dcollins wrote on Mon, 29 January 2007 00:50 | ||
Science does not use faith. DC |
I will politely disagree.
At some point...
When the scientist encounters the unknown...
(And every scientist WILL)...
He/She/They...
Must make an assumption...
The basis of that assumption...
Is faith in something.
It may be faith in science, but it is faith none-the-less.
Post by: PookyNMR on January 29, 2007, 12:59:50 PM
| dcollins wrote on Sun, 28 January 2007 23:50 | ||
Science does not use faith. |
In my science training, it was called 'assumptions' that were written into the reports.
But those assumptions were many times indeed a matter of faith.
But my real point is that many people place a fundamentalist type faith in 'science' - when the reliablitiy of the output of science (and I use medical science as an example) has proven itself to be completely unworthy of such high levels of faith.
Post by: Socrates on January 29, 2007, 05:24:47 PM
Garbage in, Gospel out!
Post by: maxdimario on January 29, 2007, 07:22:04 PM
the girl I'm seeing these days and some other people from here have taken trips to medjiugore to see a group of people who claim to see the virgin mary on a daily basis, attracting much tourism and money in the process..
she also goes to religious meetings nearby where there are 'teachers' etc. spiritual issues etc..
it's...informing... for lack of a better word to hear what they tell her about life, god and jesus.
every word is geared towards getting whoever participates to follow blindly and never question.. the promise of eventual eternal life through spiritual evolution is the reward.
She started to recite about how the devil influences the lives of every one and how evil spirits thrive on suffering and pain of humans..how the devil acts for the benefit of what we call ego.
I asked her if she knew of any PERSON who thrives on other people's suffering and desires to exploit and enslave others for PERSONAL benefit.. there was a slight pause..
it's great to blame every crime commited on the devil, very convenient.
Post by: J.J. Blair on January 29, 2007, 07:59:39 PM
But I'm half jewish, so I only kinda half believe that.
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 29, 2007, 08:34:59 PM
Barry
Post by: dcollins on January 30, 2007, 01:25:12 AM
| PookyNMR wrote on Mon, 29 January 2007 09:59 |
But my real point is that many people place a fundamentalist type faith in 'science' - when the reliablitiy of the output of science (and I use medical science as an example) has proven itself to be completely unworthy of such high levels of faith. |
How did medicine fail us?
How can we accept the products of Science, yet reject its methods?
As of tomorrow, I believe gravity is just some creation of big-business to keep me "down." And the mass of the Electron is controlled by Kate Moss.
DC
Post by: danickstr on January 30, 2007, 01:28:04 AM
I prefer to pick battles with people who are bigger assholes than you. Not that you even are in that category at all, just that others are in it and are really big ones. I will give them more of my time. you can go about your business questioning me and others for believing al gore.
but if you ahve the chance to see it, I would be more impressed with your argument after the fact.
but if you said you dont want to see it for the reasons i wont see another mel gibson film, because you think he is a sick soul, i can understand that too. I just think al gore is a fairly good guy who wants to help. he is a bit of a geek, but that makes sense. he likes science.
Post by: minister on January 30, 2007, 02:18:39 AM
| Mark Pixley wrote on Mon, 29 January 2007 08:09 | ||||
I will politely disagree. At some point... When the scientist encounters the unknown... (And every scientist WILL)... He/She/They... Must make an assumption... The basis of that assumption... Is faith in something. It may be faith in science, but it is faith none-the-less. |
excuse me?
make an assumption?
i think you might mean, a hypothesis. something that is, publicly verifiable, testable, using publicly available methods. by 'publicly available' i mean able to be viewed and verified by others who understand the terms (the opposite of solepcism and subjectivism).
'paradigms', in the Kuhnian sense, is a set of theories or axioms that explain a set of facts. the 'shift' happens when the theories cannot explain the anomalies. this is not faith, but verifiable conclusions that lead to a system of thought. newton, as smart as he was, was only able to eplxain so much, it took einstein and a few others to re-cast the thinking based on new findings. s shift happened. it wasn't new faith.
faith is a leap. a leap over something that is not verifiable or publicly available, to a conclusion or expplanantion as to an order. i am not saying it is wrong. i am not saying that some scietists don't have faith.
you are deflating and confusing terms. there are plenty of things science cannot explain. and much it does not know. but it clearly eschews faith.
Post by: Mark Pixley on January 30, 2007, 09:24:25 AM
Ie:
What was before there was anything?
Only an assumption because by your definition there is nothing that can be verified in a lab or public.
And you are right most scientist eschew faith...which is a bit of hoot considering they are left with nothing to take the leap once you go back far enough.
And you know as well as I that on every conclusion all you have to do is go back past the realm of our capacity...after that you can eschew anything you want but the reality is a leap must be made.
Post by: studiojimi on January 30, 2007, 09:32:41 AM
| Mark Pixley wrote on Tue, 30 January 2007 06:24 |
the reality is a leap must be made. |
Right on Mr. Pixley sir....the "leap" of the faith faculty.
there is a world of Truth to be understood about our world and universe
in that science studies what is natural
but God....we're talkin SUPERnatural and Eternal
where "ALL things are possible."
Post by: Socrates on January 30, 2007, 09:49:11 AM
| minister wrote on Tue, 30 January 2007 02:18 |
...newton, as smart as he was, was only able to eplxain so much, it took einstein and a few others to re-cast the thinking based on new findings. s shift happened. it wasn't new faith... |
Congratulations on your new thesarus. In broad strokes, newtonian physics works very well in describing the behavior of bodies travelling somewhat less than the speed of light. Einstein posited a system that was far more accurate as bodies approached the speed of light. His system also showed that rays of light are not deflected gravitationally but rather by distortions in space-time caused by gravity--sounds like semantics but it is about a 2 to 1 difference in degree of deflection.
The other aspect of Einstein's work that was more interesting philosophically was the notion that for the speed of light to remain constant, or appear to, time needed to be somewhat elastic.
Of course, Newton's genius was his original leap of faith, or theory, that the forces of gravity that operated on earth (the apocryphal falling apple), would extend all the way up into space and operate on planets and stars as well.
The theories of both cosmology and quantum physics are extremely incomplete, with one glaring problem that the two of them cannot be melded together in a unified theory. Both Newton and Einstein held a strong belief in God, and felt their work was simply increasing their understanding of God's creation.
Einstein's faith in a determinate universe governed by God was such that he resisted the assertion of some quantum physicists that the position of certain atomic particles at any given point in time could not be described determinately, but rather only as a statistical likelihood. This lead him to object famously: "God does not roll dice."
So, scientists, particularly at the frontiers of knowledge, are very aware that more is unknown than known, and that which fills in the gaps can be called faith, or wonder, or mystery--but whatever it is, it is there and scientists cannot explain it.
***
Now to riff on that a bit, were one to have a mathematical model of the earth's atmosphere that was very incomplete--that is with many variables plugged with guesses--and one believed nonetheless that the model's predictions were extremely accurate--that is what I call faith.
Were one to make such assertions "as a scientist" without even understanding that the model was incomplete, that would be ignorance. Perhaps that form of ignorance could be described as the inability to distinguish faith from knowledge.
As I have said before, my only insight into this is that I know the models are very incomplete. And again, the inability to accurately predict weather a week into the future ought to demonstrate that fact to everybody.
Post by: Mark Pixley on January 30, 2007, 10:35:35 AM
If only.
The weather prediction here just changed over-nite.
The hypothesis of what the weather would do based on observable data by tenured and credentialled experts failed to appropriate the proper virgin to volcano formula.
Once again parameteration raises its snowy little head..and shakes it all over the mountains.
Post by: PookyNMR on January 30, 2007, 11:50:34 AM
| dcollins wrote on Mon, 29 January 2007 23:25 | ||
How did medicine fail us? How can we accept the products of Science, yet reject its methods? |
How did medicine fail us? Oh my..... By becoming the whore of the pharmaceutical industry to start.
I don't accept many of the products of "medical science."
Many medical scientists reject scientific methods to promote their product.
Many excellent and effective scientifically discovered products are not available to most cosumers because their is no profit.
Many hideous poisons like Aspartame and Sucralose have been released to the public becuase 'scientists' said they were OK.
Blind fundamentalist faith in the 'scientific' medical community would have you eat artificial sweetners and steer you away from MCT fats.
The scientific method is essential. But 'scientists' are not immune to the influce of external factors which can drastically skew their results.
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 30, 2007, 11:59:23 AM
Medical Profession:
Yes, the drug companies are offering us a panacea for all kinds of ill, real and imagined.
The well-respected British program, Connections, stated 30 years ago that it's impossible to tell which first improved people's health -- the rise of the medical profession or the improvement in sewer systems (thus less chance for disease). Both happened simultaneously.
Barry
Post by: Socrates on January 30, 2007, 12:31:57 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Tue, 30 January 2007 11:59 |
There is an article on Yahoo today (from the Associate Press) saying scientists are being pressured to downplay global warming. Medical Profession: Yes, the drug companies are offering us a panacea for all kinds of ill, real and imagined. The well-respected British program, Connections, stated 30 years ago that it's impossible to tell which first improved people's health -- the rise of the medical profession or the improvement in sewer systems (thus less chance for disease). Both happened simultaneously. Barry |
I noted the article, and I imagine there is pressure being exerted on both sides of the issue. This fits with my assertion that it is a political issue.
I also noted that journalists are now making sure to assert that this or that global warming report represents mainstream and not alarmist views, often claiming that sceptics have signed onto it as well. Sometimes I think there are cracks in the edifice, other times I think its an unstoppable juggernaut.
It was only in the 1960s when Rachel Carlson wrote Silent Spring which asserted, based on absolutely no scientific evidence (I was told this by a wetlands scientist who was surprised to find no studies supporting her claims), that the pesticide DDT was killing bird populations. DDT was harmless to humans, as demonstrated by one advocate who would eat a spoonful of it when speaking on the subject.
Based on nothing more than her book, DDT was banned and as a result in the ensuing decades tens of thousands have died from malaria, mostly in third world countries. Now, the ban is being lifted, but what a human toll for junk science.
Moral of the story--our society is in no respect immune from the whims of ideology that trumpets science. We like to think that we are too sophisticated for flat-earth thinking, but we are not.
Post by: PRobb on January 30, 2007, 02:23:07 PM
And the argument that since stuff happened before and wasn't our fault therefore if stuff is happening now it can't be are fault is ludicrous.
Post by: PookyNMR on January 30, 2007, 04:16:00 PM
I'm also not denying that humans are destroying the earth.
I'm definitely not denying that we need to move from talking into serious action.
I'm just not so eager to jump on the popular band wagons.
I agree with our forum mate here-->
| Socrates wrote on Tue, 30 January 2007 10:31 |
Moral of the story--our society is in no respect immune from the whims of ideology that trumpets science. We like to think that we are too sophisticated for flat-earth thinking, but we are not. |
Post by: Socrates on January 30, 2007, 04:41:36 PM
| PRobb wrote on Tue, 30 January 2007 14:23 |
I'm not sure what point the deniers are trying to make. Are you saying the globe isn't warming? Glaciers all over the world are not receding? The polar ice caps are not melting? Bears don't shit in the woods? And the argument that since stuff happened before and wasn't our fault therefore if stuff is happening now it can't be are fault is ludicrous. |
I addressed this in previous posts--your understanding of my position is extremely incomplete.
Post by: Bubblepuppy on February 01, 2007, 05:01:06 PM
The voice of reason!!!
Post by: Die BREMSSPUR on February 01, 2007, 05:09:47 PM
| Socrates wrote on Tue, 30 January 2007 22:41 | ||
I addressed this in previous posts--your understanding of my position is extremely incomplete. |
I think it's refreshing that you are using the term "denier" in this context.
How could this happen?
If you're not cynical it's mystifying.
Not that I'm not cynical...
Post by: Barry Hufker on February 04, 2007, 04:08:42 PM
Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.
The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.
The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.
Barry
Post by: Socrates on February 04, 2007, 07:47:59 PM
As a shareholder of XOM, I don't want to see them spending money hiring scientists to engage in political debates....
Anyway, here is another "clueless" denier of "The Obvious". Needless to say, one far more qualified in these matters than I am.
Anyway, 15 below zero in minnesota at noon today. It hasn't been that cold here for 5-10 years--KYOTO IS WORKING!
***
Lawrence Solomon, National Post
Published: Friday, February 02, 2007
Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists, describes the logic that led him -- and most everyone else -- to conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global warming.
Step One Scientists for decades have postulated that increases in carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect.
Step Two As if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the 20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human activities.
Step Three No other mechanism explains the warming. Without another candidate, greenhouses gases necessarily became the cause.
Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.
"In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."
Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.
All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is "incriminating circumstantial evidence," which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding "evidence of fingerprints." Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, "without other 'suspects.' " However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible "other suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming.
"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."
The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.
Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant."
The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant. In his study of meteorites, published in the prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters, Dr. Shaviv found that the meteorites that Earth collected during its passage through the arms of the Milky Way sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others. That kind of cosmic ray variation, Dr. Shaviv believes, could alter global temperatures by as much as 15% --sufficient to turn the ice ages on or off and evidence of the extent to which cosmic forces influence Earth's climate.
In another study, directly relevant to today's climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 -- instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.
CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution.
"I am therefore in favour of developing cheap alternatives such as solar power, wind, and of course fusion reactors (converting Deuterium into Helium), which we should have in a few decades, but this is an altogether different issue." His conclusion: "I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go."
Post by: Barry Hufker on February 05, 2007, 12:24:13 AM
Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming.
So if I understand you correctly it is "concrete" that is causing global warming.
I would believe it to be the sun, but the sun hasn't tried to bribe anyone.
I personally don't know what's causing global warming. It is not my field of expertise. Driving a car that gets 12mpg is.
Barry
Post by: wwittman on February 05, 2007, 02:36:35 PM
(actually her science is as good as most deniers)
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/47634/
Post by: Socrates on February 05, 2007, 07:34:10 PM
| wwittman wrote on Mon, 05 February 2007 14:36 |
... (actually her science is as good as most deniers)... |
At least as far as you can tell.
Post by: Barry Hufker on February 05, 2007, 07:53:10 PM
Max pointed out a BBC headline using the word "denier". So I looked it up on-line and sure enough -- at www.miriamwebster.com they have "denier" as a noun. My dictionary doesn't.
So, my apologies to those I scolded. I was (am) wrong.
Now, a correction I know to be true:
"and as I seez it, the group that's calling the other 'denier' the loudest is the most desperate"
In this situation, you are comparing only two groups so "most" is not appropriate. You should use "more" when there are only two things involved in the comparison. By the same principle you can't use "loudest". So it is "...the louder is the more desperate".
There... now I feel better. I'm back to being self-righteous and am being something of a prick.
Ahhhhhhhhh.....
End Edit
OK, this off-topic but it's driving me crazy.
There is no word "deniers". (Attempt to)Look it up. Deny is a verb and not a noun. What you are actually spelling is "denier" (den-yay), which is a unit of weight by which silk and nylon stockings are measured.
So..."actually her science is as good as most deniers" would be, "actually her science is as good as most of those who deny".
And now back to our regularly scheduled program.
Barry
Post by: organica on February 05, 2007, 08:20:22 PM
clearly at the very least....two groups of fine folks here are
and as I seez it ,
the group that's calling the other "denier" the loudest is the most desperate
the pissing match goes on & on & on !
ok , please resume
Post by: maxim on February 05, 2007, 09:36:34 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4733820.stm
sarah silverman is the only one with any balls in the us of a (aka, us oy vey), as far as i can tell
Post by: Barry Hufker on February 06, 2007, 12:12:29 AM
You are absolutely correct. While my dictionary didn't have it, www.miriamwebster.com does have "denier" as a noun. Now I have to go back and apologize to those whom I have chastised. I hate that!
Barry
P.S. Sincere thanks for the correction.
Post by: maxim on February 06, 2007, 01:45:30 AM
"So it is "...the louder is the more desperate".
There... now I feel better. I'm back to being self-righteous and am being something of a prick."
that's more like it...