How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Employment Application   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Employment Application

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


50 posted 07-02-2009 11:11 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     This is an increasingly interesting discussion.

     Mike, I understand that you feel convinced by what you feel to be the weight of scientific opinion.  The standard I suggested, and which I would continue to suggest, is not that of somebody who is voicing an opinion, whether they are a Gold Medal Olympic gymnast or a Nobel Laureate.  Both may have extraordinary qualifications and be praiseworthy, even very fine people.  In science, however, character isn't much of an issue.  Isaac Newton was apparently in the running for worst man alive in both the seventeenth and eighteen centuries, and he was quite the genius indeed.  Nor is science terribly democratic.  We don't vote on reality, for the most part, at least in the world of science, though that doesn't seem to stop us from trying to make it appear that one can do so.  In science we depend on data, and the data needs to follow fairly specific pathways, and usually that means it must go through peer reviewed and generally considered to be objective professional journals.  That means that other scientists have a chance to rip the data apart, criticize it and throw it out as being not well done as science.  Scientists take this process very seriously.  It is not perfect, but it does tend to cut down the amount of opinion published as science tremendously.

     If you'll go back over the material you've presented in the best of good faith, I believe, you'll notice that none of it comes from these sources.

     This doesn't mean that there is no such data from these sources.  I honestly don't know.  But I think that the amount of data that you've come up with that comes in the form of position statements and opinion suggests that actual hard science supporting your position may be a bit difficult to come up with.

     Your calling into question here of Government funding of science suggests that you are unfamiliar with the science funding mechanisms in this country over the past sixty years or so.  It is in fact privately funded research that seems as a rule to be biased.  Successfully funded governmental research is often scooped up by private companies and used as the basis of private and proprietary discoveries, for example in cancer research.

     I did mention the book [i]The Republican War on Science[i].  I offered a criticism of its bias for Democrats.  That doesn't mean that it isn't useful or interesting reading for Republicans who have any interest in having a robust science establishment in this country.  If Republicans are ever to come back in any sort of meaningful way, they will need to deal with the issues raised in this book and in this discussion of environmental degradation.  

     Nobody says that you have to agree about global climate change, but refusing to deal with reality has a limited ability to gain votes in the long run.  It's not a good national survival strategy when dealing with the economics of the 21st century, where the politics of energy, food and water will shortly be the key elements of world conflict, whether wrapped in the robes of religion or economic ideology or not.

     In the meantime, this seems like a vital but somewhat dated discussion when we really should be trying to figure a way to survive through the next hundred years.

Thoughts?

Sincerely, Bob Kaven
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


51 posted 07-02-2009 11:20 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Which scientists/officials/experts you like Mike?  Any of them?

How about Richard Littlemore?

quote:

UPDATE: we have received notes now from 45 outraged scientists whose names appear on the list of 500. We've published more quotes here.

Dozens of scientists are demanding that their names be removed from a widely distributed Heartland Institute article entitled 500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares.

The article, by Hudson Institute director and Heartland "Senior Fellow" Dennis T. Avery (inset), purports to list scientists whose work contradicts the overwhelming scientific agreement that human-induced climate change is endangering the world as we know it.

DeSmogBlog manager Kevin Grandia emailed 122 of the scientists yesterday afternoon, calling their attention to the list. So far - in less than 24 hours - three dozen of those scientists had responded in outrage, denying that their research supports Avery's conclusions and demanding that their names be removed.

This is a brief taste of some of the responses that have been copied to the DeSmogBlog so

I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite."

Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh

I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there."

Dr. Gregory Cutter, Professor, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University



I don't believe any of my work can be used to support any of the statements listed in the article."

Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford



Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!!"

Dr. Svante Bjorck, Geo Biosphere Science Centre, Lund University


I'm outraged that they've included me as an "author" of this report. I do not share the views expressed in the summary."

Dr. John Clague, Shrum Research Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, Simon Fraser University
http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-documented-doubts-about-the-heartland-institute

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


52 posted 07-02-2009 11:44 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

But I think that the amount of data that you've come up with that comes in the form of position statements and opinion suggests that actual hard science supporting your position may be a bit difficult to come up with.

Actually, Bob, I can say as equally actual hard science supporting the position of those who make their claims on carbon dioxide and the immediacy of action is as equally missing in action.

As far as government funding, isn't it interesting that Atlas Shrugged appears once more? You may remember that John Galt's mentor and professor, who John Galt almost worshipped, was shunned by Galt, Francisco and Ragnar the day that he accepted government funds for his scientific research. I know it's a work of fiction written half a century ago but what foresight that woman had! It is really mind-boggling. Her point was an excellent one. If your funding comes from the government and the government has a vested interest in having results presented in a certain way and you feel your funding would be cut off if those results conflicted with the ones the government wants or expects, you find yourself in a difficult position, no? Her contention was that science is a world within itself and should not have ties to politics or bias. I happen to think she was right on.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


53 posted 07-03-2009 04:56 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Mike,

          If you'll notice LR's posting 51 above, you might suspect otherwise.  Also, I do recommend, as I suggested earlier, The Republican War on Science.[i] because it actually does address many of these issues directly and at length.  The flaw with that book is not that it is wrong, but that it doesn't go into as much depth about the Democratic use of science, which may or may not be as wrong-headed.  I tend to think not.

     The reality of the picture painted about the Republicans seems fairly accurate and does seem worth consideration.  It is the Republicans who have been in charge of much of the science spending since the Conservative Revolution since the early 90's, and you really should have a look at what the result has been.

     I know that you feel Ayn Rand is very important and indeed in many ways prophetic.  There are areas of R & D where small companies and entrepreneurship are absolutely vital, and the nimble response of our style of economic system is a great advantage.  No doubt about it.  There is also an important place for government investment in research.  Government investment in some of these fields may well have fueled some of the economic expansion of the sixties and seventies, just as government investment in the GI bill helped provide the country with a trained and skilled workforce in the forties and fifties.

     It's too easy to settle for a single simple answer for these things.

     Once again, the peer reviewed journal is the main way that science seems to advance in general.  It keeps the crackpots without method or reproducibility in the bush leagues, where they belong, until they master the sorts of reasoning and rigor that actual science requires.  You want to look for articles in [i]Nature
and Science and the like.  I haven't seen you quote such articles, though you're good about opinion pieces.

     Sadly, when the people who have supposedly signed these opinion pieces are asked about them, as posting 51 illustrates, a distressingly large number say that their names were used without permission or that the views expressed were not accurate representations of the views the actual scientists report themselves as holding.  Surely you have experienced this sort of thing before; it's one of the difficulties that I've had in looking at much of the climate change literature that claims that there is no such thing as current problems with the climate caused by man's interaction with nature.

     Why not give the book a look, Mike?  I don't expect you to agree with everything.  I've given you a heads up about some of the flaws, and acknowledged them in advance; there may actually be some things that the books says that could prove useful to you and your thinking.

     Whether you do or not, of course, all my best.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


54 posted 07-03-2009 06:42 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
Maybe you missed this fellow... James Spann, American Meteorological Society-certified meteorologist


You mean the television weatherman from the Rick and Bubba Show?

Yes I missed that fellow, or to be more precise I ignored him, mainly because heís not a climate expert. Asking him his opinion on global climate issues would be like asking a chiropodist to perform open-heart surgery.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


55 posted 07-03-2009 08:38 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Well, at least he can rest easy that he's in good company with the thousands of other you ignored, grinch Guess they really screwed up hiring him, huh?
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


56 posted 07-03-2009 10:30 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Happy Fourth of July, Fourth of July fans.  Franks with fried peppers and onions on buns, diet Pepsi, Rebel Yell and Branch.  A fun time will be had by all!

     Even the Brits are invited to the party!  Why not!

     Great good wishes to all!
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


57 posted 07-03-2009 10:49 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Hello, Bob.  Yes, I did notice LR's post. It brings several thoughts to mind. Believe it or not, I am not that familiar with the Heartland insistute. You may picture me as a fellow with disseveled hair sitting in my easy chair at night pouring over all of the conservative websites for ammunitionbut the fact is I haven't been to that one, nor have I been to Hannity's site, Drudge's site and only twice that I can recall going to Limbaugh's. Getting back to the article, I also read the comments and one especially that said:
The article is NOT entitled '500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares' ... but '500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares'
The focus is on the peer-reviewed studies, and they are all listed here with title of the studies and then names beneath each title: http://www.heartland.org/pdf/21977.pdf
The point is not that all researchers supports all conclusions, but that different studies supports some of the conclusions. So whats the point of emailing the researchers if you do not get the point yourself?


Maybe they fudged with the heading a little to make it more tittilating? There's quite a difference between the two.  If it is the scientists' research that made the report, then they would not have to ask the scientist's' permissions as long as they could produce the reports. I also have the same question about why they e-mailed 122 of them. Why e-mail any - or why not e-mail all of them? If Heartland made up the information or used names they shouldn't have, then I agree shame on them. Playing devil'sadvocate, I can also see another side.They could have selected specific members hand-chosen, said something like, "You're name has shown up on this report attempts to contradict man's impact on global warming. We would hate to see something like that hurt your reputation or endanger your job or career in any way so, to avoid any controversies, it could be a good idea for you to publicly and strongly repudiate your inclusion in that article". So then what's a scientist who loves his job to do? You refuse to see even a small possibility insomething like that happening? So why contact only one fifth of them, Bob? Does that mean the other almost 400 had report that were valid? Or do you think coersion, threats or bribery are tactics no government agency would employ? Well, our good Democratic senator from Florida dispels that theory, trading his "no" vote on cap and trade for a few million to build a research center. To be fair, it's not a tactic limited to Democrats. All politicians do the same thing. a distressingly large number say that their names were used What represents a "distressingly large number" in your vocabulary, Bob? Is it the 45 out of 500? Less than 10% then qualifies as distressingly large?  On the other end, one could say an overwhelming majority, referring to the other 455, no?  You don;t feel that 455 scientists who have not denied having documented doubts about man-made global warming is a little distressing, in it's own right? It would appear not.

Interesting how critics of man-made global warning are demonized, ignored or targeted. Like this, for example....
According to U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe's own Web site, she and Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-West Virginia, sent a letter to ExxonMobil chairman Rex Tillerson in October of last year, demanding the firm stop funding "a small cadre of scientists" who question global warming dogma, instead insisting the heavily regulated oil company "publicly acknowledge both the reality of climate change and the role of humans in causing or exacerbating it." ExxonMobil, whose executives presumably know where gas taxes and offshore oil leases come from, cut off its funding for the Competitive Enterprise Institute last year.

Viscount Monckton, a former advisor to Margaret Thatcher, in a Dec. 11 letter to the senators protested this heavy-handed attempt to silence critics, lauding the courage of the "free-thinking scientists who continue to research climate change independently - despite the likelihood of refusal of publication in journals that have taken a preconceived position; the hate mail and vilification from ignorant environmentalists; and the threat of loss of tenure in institutions of learning which no longer make any pretense to uphold or cherish academic freedom."

The British foreign secretary "has said that skeptics should be treated like advocates of Islamic terror and denied access to the media," Doctors for Disaster Preparedness report in their January newsletter. George Monbiot wrote in England's "Guardian" that "Every time someone drowns as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned."
Grist magazine has called for Nuremberg-style war crimes trials for those who deny the internal combustion engine is about to cause a global climate disaster. Heidi Cullen, host of the weekly global warming TV show "Climate Code," has called for the American Meteorological Society to strip its certification from any weatherman (or gal) who publicly questions anthropogenic global warming.
Meantime, European Union Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas tells the BBC that people should view the battle against climate change as a war - accepting the privations of a wartime economy and expecting millions of casualties.
http://www.articlesbase.com/environment-articles/global-warming-silencing-the-critics-562890.html Is it little wonder why some critics of global warming keep their mouths shut and mind their own business?

Now I ask you, Bob, why would senators Snow and Rockefeller DEMAND that EXXON scientists who questions global warming? What are they afraid of?  Are they afraid that Gore's views will not hold up under scrutiny so the scrutiny most be stopped? Gore certainly feels that way. That's why he has refused any debates over his supposed findings. His reasoning? "anything that needs to be about man-made global warming has already been said."  Wow, how brilliant is that?

Bob, man-made global warming is a circus, created by Al Gore, run up the flagpole by his party, publicized by the party-friendly network news and romanticized by Hollywood. It bears resemblance to the Inquisition and the SalemWitch Trials. No one wants to stand up and say "It's only a birthmark" because they may be the next ones branded a witch. Instead they stand in the crowd and cheer while the witch burns. No, the global-warmers do not burn critics at the stake, they simply do their best to castrate or ostracize them or - as Mr. Grinch made clear - ignore them completely. Ding dong, the witch is dead.

Let me ask you something, Bob. On the day of the House vote on cap-and-trade, was that the headline of your local papers? It wasn't here or anywhere else I know of. ABC nightly news didn't even mention it and the other mainstream networks barely mentioned it at all. How can this be? We are talking about a bill that is designed to save the world, lengthen the lives of millions of people and purify the planet. Man, how much more importance can a news item have? It should have been the lead-in to ANY responsible news coverage or headline material for any newspaper.....and yet it was barely mentioned, if at all. Know why? For the same reason those Democratic congressmen said their offices were inundated with calls from voters demanding it be defeated. ...and the network news doesn't want to touch it, like a dirty little secret better off not mentioned. Obama is trying to ram it down the public's throat before they know the hook is even in their mouth and he has congress control to do it and politically-biased people like some here to champion it.

...and what about Gore's Oscar-winning movie filled with more holes that three pounds of Swiss cheese that no one discusses? At least it appears that England got it right by declaring that, in order to show the movie to school children, the following conditions had to be met:

     the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

How marvelous. And what are those inaccuracies?

    * The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
    * The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
    * The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
    * The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
    * The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
    * The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
    * The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
    * The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
    * The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
    * The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
    * The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.


Other links which point out the inaccuracies and lies Gore used can be found in dozens of websites like these: http://www.nypost.com/seven/03222007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/als_warming_lies_opedcolumnists_iain_murray.htm http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/gore.html

So what do we have at the end of it all?  A movement begun by Al Gore, someone not even qualified to be a pimple on a climatologist's butt, coming out with a film riddled with inaccuracies and intentional lies, a movement to stop this man-made disaster, a president using this hysteria to ram a bill through congress to stop this tragedy (while costing the average taxpayer more in taxes and price hikes, not to mention more unemployment) and people like yourself saying, "Yes, the time is now!"

If this were a movie, it would be worthy of it's own Oscar.......
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


58 posted 07-03-2009 11:24 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

So then Mike,

If 700 architectural engineers believe what happened to the WTC buildings on 9/11 were controlled demolitions does that then make you think the government planned it all? http://piptalk.com/pip/Forum6/HTML/001832-2.html#47

quote:

(CNN) -- Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. However there remains divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth sciences as to the extent of human responsibility.

A survey of more than 3,000 scientists found that the vast majority believe humans cause global warming.

Against a backdrop of harsh winter weather across much of North America and Europe, the concept of rising global temperatures might seem incongruous.

However the results of the investigation conducted at the end of 2008 reveal that vast majority of the Earth scientists surveyed agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement.  http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/



Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


59 posted 07-04-2009 12:38 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I did not read anywhere in that article where it said the amount of rise of global warming presented any danger to the planet or was anything that needed to be controlled or else would provide dire consequences to the planet. Nowhere did it substantiate Gore's scenarios of doom and destruction waiting around the corner, nor did I see any percentages of rise in global warming attributed to man-made sources. humans play a role is a far cry from the oceans rising and covering florida in the next decade or so, bringing an Ice Age to Europe or melting the snows of Mount Kilimanjaro, which Gore portrayed in his documentary and would like for us to believe.

Humans play a role. So what? What role? How big of a role? How microscopic of a role? How dangerous of a role?

There is a huge difference between man-made global warming and global warming that contains a percentage attributed by man. The man-made global warming that Gore created and Obama is trying to capitalize on suggests that we have global warming because man caused it, instead of it being the cycle of global warming and cooling that has occured since Earth's beginning. It also suggests that if we reduce man's percentage in it, tragedy can somehow be averted. Obama even has carried it further, stating that our reduction of it must begin NOW or else. One hopes he will convince India, Russia, China and all of those other countries who were exempt in the Kyoto Treaty because they were "developing nations" to follow the same procedures. Rotsa ruck.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


60 posted 07-04-2009 03:12 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K




Dear Mike,

          Not the exact stuff you wanted, but something of interest.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html


     When you look at scientific data, you don't get a prediction of  x amount in y amount of time.  What you get is a probability range of the outcome, that the theory has a thus and so  likelihood of being proven, and that the the specific prediction we have made is probably going to be accurate within a likelihood of plus or minus three points or five points or whatever.

     For example, candidate A will most likely be ahead of candidate B at this point in the election cycle.  We have put out money on candidate A.  We think, in fact, that he is fifteen points ahead in this pole.  There is a margin for error of plus or minus three points in either direction.

     There are statistical checks for how likely it is for you to have made an error in your calculations.  If you follow your generally standardized data collection and experimental design protocols, and then have you designed checked over by some folks who are willing to be destructively critical, you can pretty often get an accurate result.

     It's much more complex.

     There's a pretty good Wiki article on the Global Warming issue.  It discusses both sides ó something they do well ó and Nature magazine, one of the top science magazines in the country says that their article on the subject is as good as Britannica's.  It's longish by their standards, but worth looking at because it tries to give both sides of the issue.

     The National Review doesn't seem to like that article all that well, perhaps because it's too even handed.  But you might have a look and judge for yourself.

     I'm interested in hearing from anybody in addition to Mike, of course.  If the note was purely private, I would have e-mailed him.

All my best,  Bob Kaven
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


61 posted 07-04-2009 06:31 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
Well, at least he can rest easy that he's in good company with the thousands of other you ignored, grinch


Youíre out by quite a way there Mike. There arenít thousands of people whose opinion on global warming Iím going to discount Ė there are millions. There are also millions of people that Iím not going to allow to conduct open heart surgery on me either, itís nothing personal, I simply believe that when it comes to life threatening decisions I want to hear the opinion of experts.

quote:
Guess they really screwed up hiring him, huh?


Hiring a weatherman to read the weather reports sounds like a pretty good idea. Thatís what he does and by all accounts heís very good at ití

quote:
What represents a "distressingly large number" in your vocabulary


One could simply be an unintentional mistake. Two would raise my suspicions and 10% would lead me to believe that information given in the article wasnít trustworthy.

The title of the article?

Check again Mike. When the authors were asked to remove the names of scientists who didnít want to be associated with it accompanied by a threat of legal action the authors refused but changed the title to make litigation more difficult.

The actions of honourable trustworthy reporters of the truth?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


62 posted 07-04-2009 07:47 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

When you look at scientific data, you don't get a prediction of  x amount in y amount of time.

Really, Bob? You are comparing the evidence presented of man-made global warming to a poll then? The question begged to be asked is..if there is no prediction of x amount in y amount of time, then how do you come up with the statement of "The time is now"? With all due respect, your last response is simply a dance to avoid the questions. If there is no valid prediction, how does Obama claim that THIS is the time to raise taxes on an already suffering economy for the sake of the planet? And I would appreciate an answer to the other questions some time. Will what America cuts back on offset what Russia, China, India, etc won't? Would your answer be that every little bit helps? Americans are going to go further into debt at a critical point because every little bit helps?

Normally when one declares something dangerous one uses percentages and amounts to warn and verify. Right now there is news about the usage of acetaminophen, a drug that is extremely beneficial in many ways but now harmful to other organs in large doses. The reasonable question to ask is...how much  constitutes a dose large enough to make it dangerous? Sounds logical, doesn't it? However, it appears that with regards to carbon dioxide, they say that too much will ruin the planet but, when one asks, how much is that, the response is "you don't get a prediction of so much of an amount in so much of a time period."

Obama's rush to passage and calls for immediate action or doom consequences, with no percentages or time predictions is a baseless call, aimed to do litte more than tax the populace further, including the groups he emotionally declared he wouldn't. I don't understand how you can't see that....
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


63 posted 07-04-2009 08:05 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I do have a couple of questions, though, because my logic is limited.

First, you claim that cap and trade will not either raise taxes or cause unemployment, in your opinion. Ok, help me out on that one. The government will make companies pay for using more carbon credits than the government says they are legally allowed to use. So they pay more.How do they recoup that money? My fuzzy logic says they will probably raise the price of their goods and cause the public who uses them to pay for it. If the prices are  raised, the taxes on the purchases are also raised. In what wasy is that beneficial to the consumer.

Let's go in another direction and assume they cannot raise the prices on their services, either because the public will not buy them or that, by that time, Obama has force-fed a law through his congress, forbidding them to do so. What then? Do they (1) works at a loss until they go under,(2)outsource their labor or production needs to other countries or (3) cut back and lay off employees?

The only outcomes I see here is either more costs and taxes to consumers, company closings or further unemployment and yet your logic dictates these things won't happen. I'm all ears, and a fair amount of mouth, to hear your views..

I have another question that begs for your expertise, but it's off to work (yes, even on a holiday) and I'll get back to you later. Happy Independence day to all!
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


64 posted 07-04-2009 08:44 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

It seems that the Democrats and Obama learned well the potential for advancement of their agenda by manufactured crises.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward-Piven_Strategy
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


65 posted 07-04-2009 10:00 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Mike,

Throughout this discussion Iíve admitted that I donít know whether the climate disaster thatís being predicted is going to happen. All I can say is the evidence suggests that the majority of climate experts believe that it will and based on their expertise and opinion Iím convinced that we need to do something Ė right now.

What the majority of experts say isnít the only criteria I used to come to that decision though Just because a lot of folk say something doesnít make it right, anyone, even an expert can get things wrong.

Concentrating too much on trying to work out whoís right in a situation where either side could be doesnít get you very far. Instead of trying to work out whoís right I also tried to turn it on its head and look at the consequences of getting it wrong.

If Iím wrong all your claims of higher energy costs and billions spent on climate control are a real potential consequence.

If youíre wrong the potential consequence is that climate will spin out of control and could threaten life on earth.

Neither is very palatable but given a choice I think the second is the consequence Iíd prefer to avoid at any cost. I think Rand would too, based on long-term rational self-interest.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


66 posted 07-04-2009 10:28 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
It seems that the Democrats and Obama learned well the potential for advancement of their agenda by manufactured crises


Manufactured by whom?

.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


67 posted 07-04-2009 11:07 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Manufactured by those whom a crisis will benefit politically and financially. Follow the ideology and the money.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


68 posted 07-04-2009 11:28 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

So the idea of global warming was manufactured by American politicians and sold to the American masses.

How clever of them.

What about the Swede that discovered the mechanism, the Englishman that proved it in the 30ís and all the countries that have been trying to get the American government to accept it for years. Where they part of this global conspiracy instigated by Obama?

How did they do it?

.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


69 posted 07-04-2009 12:01 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

If we're merely to follow the money and the ideology Denise then in what direction does that take us?  That the oil companies are manufacturing confusion about anthropomorphic global climate change to protect their revenue streams and the Republicans are naturally resisting government regulation because of their ideology?

Thank you for admitting that.  It's refreshing!  
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


70 posted 07-04-2009 12:43 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

The U.S. Scientists and Economists' Call for Swift and Deep Cuts in Greenhouse Gas Emissions is a call to our nation's leaders to require immediate, deep reductions in heat-trapping emissions that cause global warming. The statement is endorsed by more than 1,700 scientists and economists with expertise relevant to our understanding of the scientific and economic dimensions of climate change, its impacts, and solutions. This marks the first time leading U.S. scientists and economists have joined together to make such an appeal.

This unprecedented list of signatories includes six Nobel Prize winners in science or economics, 30 members of the National Academy of Sciences, 10 members of the National Academy of Engineering, 10 recipients of the MacArthur Fellowship, and more than 100 members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

The letter, with the full complement of signatures, will be delivered to every member of Congress in spring 2008, as both chambers prepare for critical votes on national climate policy. In addition, several scientists and economists will personally delivered the letter and meet with their senators and staff to discuss the importance of taking action to reduce emissions while growing our economy.

U.S. Scientists and Economistsí
Call for Swift and Deep Cuts in
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/big_picture_solutions/scient ists-and-economists.html

Quotes From Scientist and Economist Endorsers

"Recent events have demonstrated the worldís
vulnerability to climate-related natural disasters. Further delaying action on climate change may make these events even more catastrophic in the future."
R o b e r t E . D i ck i n s o n
Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric
Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology; Member, National Academy
of Sciences; Member, National Academy of Engineering

"The United States worked with other nations to take on the ozone threat; so, too, must we lead the international effort to reduce heat-trapping emissions that cause climate change."
-Mario J . Molina
Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Center for Atmospheric Sciences, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego; Nobel Prize Winner in Chemistry; Member, National Academy of Sciences; Co-organizer, U.S. Scientists and Economistsí Call for Swift and Deep Cuts in Greenhouse Gas Emissions

"Economists now join climate scientists in a unified call for action to address the causes of climate change. Failure to act now is the most risky and most expensive thing we could do."
- James J . McCarthy
Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography, Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology and Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, MA; Co-chair, Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Lead Author, Arctic Climate Impact Assessment; President, American Association for the Advancement of Science;
Co-organizer, U.S. Scientists and Economistsí Call for Swift and Deep Cuts in Greenhouse Gas Emissions

"The economic and social costs of global warming could be huge. We need to act now to limit them."
- Eric Maskin
Albert O. Hirschman Professor of Social Science, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ; Nobel Prize Winner in Economics; Member, National Academy of Sciences; Kempe Award in Environmental Economics

"Physicists tend to be supercritical of strong conclusions, but the data on global warming now indicate the conclusions are not nearly strong enough."
- Leon M. Lederman
Director Emeritus, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, IL; Nobel Prize Winner in Physics; National Medal of Science Recipient; Member, National Academy of Sciences

"The new energy economy is upon us, and the states are already playing a key role in the research, development, and deployment process that will simultaneously stimulate growth and achieve our climate goals."
- Daniel Kammen
Class of 1935 Distinguished Professor of Energy; Professor, Energy and Resources Group, Goldman School of Public Policy and Department of Nuclear Engineering; Co-Director, Berkeley Institute of the Environment; Founding Director, Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley

"Evidence is mounting from many different scientific disciplines that Earthís natural systems are already undergoing rapid change. We need to act now to reduce heat-trapping gas emissions, for the sake of our children and the other species with whom
we share this planet."
- Pamela A. Matson
Dean, School of Earth Sciences and Goldman Professor of Environmental Studies, Stanford University, CA; Member, National Academy of Sciences; MacArthur Fellow; Past President, Ecological Society of America

"I think the world has never faced a problem like global warming and the enormous environmental destruction it can cause. The impacts will be felt most severely by poor people around the world, which in turn will have serious repercussions for all of us."
- Edward L. Miles
Virginia & Prentice Bloedel Professor of Marine & Public Affairs, Institute for Marine Studies; Senior Fellow, Joint Institute for the Study of Atmosphere and Oceans, University of Washington; Lead Author, Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Member, National Academy of Sciences

"The message from California to federal policy makers is encouragingówe know that a combination of political will and smart policies that promote energy conservation and technological innovation can cost-effectively reduce global warming emissions."
- Michael Hanemann
Chancellorís Professor, Agricultural and Resource Economics Department, Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley; Director, California Climate Change Center

"Adaptation for both human and natural ecosystems will likely be more difficult and costly for a faster rate of warming than for slower rates. Delaying action is an extremely risky path to continue on."
- Stephen H. Schneider
Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, CA; Co-Director, Center for Environmental Science and Policy; Co-director, Interdisciplinary Program in Environmental Resources; Member, National Academy of Sciences; MacArthur Fellow; Lead Author, Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); Coordinating Lead Author of the Third and Fourth Assessment Reports of the IPCC. Co-organizer, U.S. Scientists and Economistsí Call for Swift and Deep Cuts in Greenhouse Gas Emissions

"The future of our society depends on effectively managing and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Public and private research and development support for these efforts will allow us to transition to a carbon-neutral energy system that improves both environmental quality and economic growth."
- Gordon Rausser
Robert Gordon Sproul Distinguished Professor, Agricultural and Resource Economics Department, University of California, Berkeley; Co-founder and former Director, LECG, a global expert services company; Former chief economist of the U.S. Agency for International Development

"Preventing dangerous climate change is a great investment. It will cost between one and two percent of GDP, and the benefits will be between 10 and 20 percent. Thatís a return of 10 to 1óattractive even to a venture capitalist."
- Geoffrey Heal
Paul Garret Professor of Public Policy and Corporate Responsibility, Columbia Business School, New York, NY; Co-organizer, U.S. Scientists and Economistsí Call for Swift and Deep Cuts in Greenhouse Gas Emissions

"The consequences of global climate change constitute one of the most serious threats facing humanity. While the poor and the impoverished will suffer the most, the potential for catastrophic climate change that can adversely affect the habitability of the
entire planet is quite real."
- Jagadish Shukla
Distinguished University Professor of Earth Sciences and Global Change, and Chair, Climate Dynamics Program, George Mason University, VA; President, Institute of Global Environment and Society; Lead Author, Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

"The carbon dioxide we emit today will remain in the atmosphere for well more than a century, thus adding inexorably to the warming of the planet."
J e r ry Ma h lma n
Senior Science Fellow, National Center for Atmospheric Research,
Boulder, CO; Former Director, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory

"Investing now in energy efficiency and low-carbon technologies not only will create new business opportunities, but is also likely to be less expensive than a crash program to implement these solutions at a future date, when it will be more difficult to limit climate impacts."
A n t h o n y C . F i s h e r
Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Agricultural and
Resource Economics Department, University of California, Berkeley

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


71 posted 07-04-2009 01:01 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

There is a huge difference between man-made global warming and global warming that contains a percentage attributed by man. The man-made global warming that Gore created and Obama is trying to capitalize on suggests that we have global warming because man caused it, instead of it being the cycle of global warming and cooling that has occured since Earth's beginning.



The earth wasn't always the friendly planet we know and love today Mike.  Millions of years ago the atmosphere had a much higher carbon dioxide content, acidic oceans, and lots and lots of volcanoes.  

This carbon dioxide-rich very warm earth was a nice place for you to live if you were a plant -- and specifically types of plankton that thrived in that era because of its climate.  

But, alas -- this species played a role in sequestering the carbon from the atmosphere by breathing it in and using it (and exhaling oxygen that contributed to the development of the world as we know it today).  When these species that lived in the oceans died -- they sank to the bottom of those ancient oceans where the water was inoxic -- therefore -- they did not just decay and fade away -- they turned into the oil that we so desperately love to pump back up to the surface and burn and fertilize food with -- and increase the surface levels of carbon in our little terrarium we call earth.

So, yes -- there have been 'normal' warming and cooling cycles in the world we know -- but for the last few hundred years we've been throwing the prehistoric world back up into the sky. That is changing the delicate balance that has been conducive to the success of mammals.

quote:

One hopes he will convince India, Russia, China and all of those other countries who were exempt in the Kyoto Treaty because they were "developing nations" to follow the same procedures. Rotsa ruck.



Passing legislation now is precisely the tool the administration would like to have in it's quiver when negotiations with such countries resumes this fall Mike.

Of course -- as you are surely aware what is, in your perspective, alacrity on the part of the Congress will surely not be met in the Senate.

quote:

Really, Bob? You are comparing the evidence presented of man-made global warming to a poll then? The question begged to be asked is..if there is no prediction of x amount in y amount of time, then how do you come up with the statement of "The time is now"? With all due respect, your last response is simply a dance to avoid the questions. If there is no valid prediction, how does Obama claim that THIS is the time to raise taxes on an already suffering economy for the sake of the planet?



Both sciences use statistics to develop models Mike.  Incidentally -- the IPCC has always used the 'best case' scenarios and has avoided the 'worst case' -- unfortunately so far -- they have been off -- in that CO2 levels have been rising faster than the best cases.

So when they say they don't really know what's going to happen -- it's like an airplane crash -- we don't really know if everybody is going to die -- if the fuselage is going to burst into flames -- or if we can set it down over there in that river and everybody just walks out on the wings and gets into a boat.

Doing something NOW is aiming the plane toward that river.

And, when the Cap and Trade bill makes it's way through the Senate -- back to Congress -- and eventually to the President's desk to be signed -- it gradually phases in -- so it will be at least 2012 before any of the initiatives are implemented -- and as John's National Review article decries -- the bill GIVEs the first round of carbon credits away instead of auctioning them -- because when 100% auctions were proposed the Republicans (particularly John McCain) were screaming about that -- and now the NR criticizes for giving them away -- what a world we live in.

I hope we can continue to live in it.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


72 posted 07-04-2009 03:30 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

Dear Mike,

          I am comparing scientific method to scientific method, Mike.  One of the ways this commonly makes a public appearance is through the statistics in opinion polling.  If you are not aware of this, I'm sorry.  Making fun of me for reporting on scientific method doesn't make scientific method less reliable or me a liar.  It simply suggests that when you've been using science to bolster your points, you haven't perhaps been clear about the nature of the points you've been making or refuting.  

     The degree of certainty that you've been expecting or asserting is not possible with science.

     Nor is it possible from any other source of knowledge that I know of.  Science, however, can generally tell you the likelihood of a certain thesis being (for the purposes of our discussion here) true under specific conditions.

     If you want better that that, you perhaps want another belief system.  I've always like Greek Myth myself, since it has a lot of insight into the human condition.  Taoism is also good.  I've been working on the Microcosmic circulation for twenty years, and I have a pretty good connection with my tan tien.  I have to be careful who I talk to about these things, though, since as a social worker I know that they're supposed to be evidence of strange thinking.  I like Jungian Psychology as well.

     For you, Mike, I suggest, that you stick with scientific thinking and get used to the fact that it deals with stuff without giving you the kind of certainty that you'll get from pseudo-science or the like.  The kinds of data science supplies actually means that you need to live with paradox and uncertainty without melting down.  At this point we think light is both a particle and a wave.  That's what the evidence says.  We may know more in fifty years, but right now, that's what we know.

     If you want to get a fairly good idea of what we know about the environmental issues, read the Wikipedia article on global warming.  It gives both sides.  The folks in the scientific community think it's by and large a pretty decent article.  I believe it's Nature, one of the best peer reviewed scientific journals in the world, that says that this Wiki article is as good as the one in the Encyclopedia Britannica.  I believe it's The National Review that dislikes the article.

     In case you missed that, here's one of the world's top peer reviewed science journals, renowned for objectivity, saying, Hey, that's a pretty decent write-up, and fairly objective too; against one of the world more clearly biased and politically outspoken right wing journals of opinion with no creditability as a source for scientific information.  The subject?  A evaluation of the quality of a piece of scientific reportage for its objectivity.

     Suggestion by Bob?

     You will find information to support both viewpoints in the Wikipedia article, and you will learn something about both sides.  I believe the evidence is clearly on the let's do something about this stuff now side.  Mike might read it differently, but it's worth reading carefully by anybody, simply to get more and better information.

     It also has a wonderful bibliography, for those more interesting in learning than fighting.

     It also makes reference to The Republican War on Science by Chris Moody.  I have made reference to this on a few occasions here, and I once again suggest that this book is worth anybody's time, even the time of a loyal Republican who wants the party back on track in the future.  Even loyal Democrats will find it a fine book.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven

     I would like to remind folks that Carbon Dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas.  That in the past, all the increase in Carbon Dioxide during the cyclic fluctuations was due to natural causes, and in the last few centuries, very little of the increase in Carbon Dioxide has been due to natural causes, but mostly due to man made causes.  While the level of fluctuation may not be spectacularly different, the causation is, and any increase in the level of natural causation my, say, vulcanism, or other natural causes seems to be at this point outside the scope of the argument.  Is this correct, or do I have my information wrong?


[This message has been edited by Bob K (07-04-2009 05:06 PM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


73 posted 07-04-2009 05:16 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Iíve admitted that I donít know whether the climate disaster thatís being predicted is going to happen

That wasn't my question, grinch. If you feel like it, you can re-read my entry to see what the question is and, perhaps, try to answer it or give your views, since you didn't in the last response of yours. If you don't feel like it, well, that's ok, too.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


74 posted 07-04-2009 05:54 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Bob, you speak of "without giving certainties and also paradoxes and impossible degrees of certainty". LR speaks of best and worse case scenarios and uses the odd comparison of a plane seconds from crashing looking for a safe landing site. No one gives a reasonable explanation of why this has to be done RIGHT NOW. I don't know of any scientist who claims the world is in such an unsteady and dangerous state that absolute immediacy must be instituted to avoid disaster. I don't know of any one that claims the earth has seconds before the crash, like LR's plane - or even 5 years, or 10, or 20. As we are going through the worst recession in decades, with high unemployment, dwindling personal savings, economic uncertainty and a national debt that has tripled in the past 6 months,  I';ve seen no explanation to explain why a cap and trade bill, which will raise taxes and product costs and lead to more unemployment has to be passed immediately, with the exception of the fact that Obama demands it. I ask for some kind of proof that imminent danger is forthcoming and I get the response that scientists do not deal in certainties. Well,  taxes are certainties, as are unemployment figures, certainties we have to live with. If they are going to be increased even further, it would be good to know something more certain than a "paradox" is responsible.

Btw, Bob, if you can point out where I have "made fun of you" in an earlier reply, I'll be happy to edit it. I can't find an example....
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Employment Application   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors