|
On January 31 2012 21:36 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 22:07 Euronyme wrote:On January 30 2012 20:43 TanGeng wrote:
If it were that simple, and isn't even a good argument against oil combustion. Where do we get oil? Out of rock formations buried millions of years ago, which happens to be inside the "closed ecosystem."
Cleaning up pollutants is a matter of priorities. It's not common sense to identify carbon dioxide as the first priority. It isn't common sense to force people live miserably when cutting back on energy use to reduce carbon dioxide (it's not making the world a nicer place to live). And don't conflate reduction of oil consumption with reduction of pollution. Most common forms of bio-fuel burn more dirty than oil.
Just because some people like the clarity of black and white doesn't mean that the issue is really that dumb. We get it from bound coal and oil in the ground hundreds of meters below us, and bring it up into the atmosphere.... What the hell are you talking about making people live miserably? Compare the living standards in US and Scandinavia, and then compare pollution per capita. Bio gas fuel burns more dirty than oil? Yeah, whatever you say... Biofuels burn more dirty than oil especially when looking at the margins. Waste vegetable oil fuels is the most economical and usually mixed with fossil fuels. Go for it. Most forms of ethanol production are so heat intensive that they require a huge percentage of oil to cook, ferment, and produce. Factor in the entire production chain and land usage and it burns worse. And the most common form of biofuel is biomass in the form of burning wood. Deforestation, soot pollution, and smoke inhalation, just daddy.
Another problem with bio-fules is the amount of sulfur, nitrogen and other stuff inside, which poison the catalyst while forming various bad compounds during combustion.
For the oil, we have processes for the cleaning of the fuel to reach very high standards, the same processes for bio fuels have yet to be developed.
|
So, last week, the Wall Street Journal ran This article entitled "No Need to Panic About Global Warming". The articled was signed off on by 16 prominent scientists who are asserting that Global Warming fears are not necessarily based on good science.
Before anyone cries "cook", I want to at the very start here list all the scientists who signed onto the article to make the point that these are not fringe wackos: + Show Spoiler [List] +Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
Here are some of the excerpts of the article that stood out to me:
In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"
Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.
Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.
It is an interesting opinion, one that has not been expressed so publically by such prominent scientists before. It's got me thinking about not only Global Warming, but if so many of the other scientific facts that we are bombarded with daily have some level of bias to them. Is science really being influenced by politics and financial goals? And if so, how are we supposed to discern fact from bias?
This week, Forbe Magazine published This response to the WSJ article written by Peter Gleick from the Pacific Institute alledgeing that it was grossly biased itself.
But the most amazing and telling evidence of the bias of the Wall Street Journal in this field is the fact that 255 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences wrote a comparable (but scientifically accurate) essay on the realities of climate change and on the need for improved and serious public debate around the issue, offered it to the Wall Street Journal, and were turned down.
I'm interested in what you guys think, has the science world been co-opted? Have incentives for professors and researchers been allowed to sway their results? And if so, how do we tell good science from bad, and what does it mean for the issue of Global Climate Change?
|
On February 01 2012 05:23 TheToast wrote:So, last week, the Wall Street Journal ran This article entitled "No Need to Panic About Global Warming". The articled was signed off on by 16 prominent scientists who are asserting that Global Warming fears are not necessarily based on good science. Before anyone cries "cook", I want to at the very start here list all the scientists who signed onto the article to make the point that these are not fringe wackos: + Show Spoiler [List] +Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva. Here are some of the excerpts of the article that stood out to me: Show nested quote +In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" Show nested quote +Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.
Show nested quote +Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them. It is an interesting opinion, one that has not been expressed so publically by such prominent scientists before. It's got me thinking about not only Global Warming, but if so many of the other scientific facts that we are bombarded with daily have some level of bias to them. Is science really being influenced by politics and financial goals? And if so, how are we supposed to discern fact from bias? This week, Forbe Magazine published This response to the WSJ article written by Peter Gleick from the Pacific Institute alledgeing that it was grossly biased itself. Show nested quote + But the most amazing and telling evidence of the bias of the Wall Street Journal in this field is the fact that 255 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences wrote a comparable (but scientifically accurate) essay on the realities of climate change and on the need for improved and serious public debate around the issue, offered it to the Wall Street Journal, and were turned down. I'm interested in what you guys think, has the science world been co-opted? Have incentives for professors and researchers been allowed to sway their results? And if so, how do we tell good science from bad, and what does it mean for the issue of Global Climate Change?
We tell good science from bad science by ignoring Time Magazine, Forbes and the Wall Street Journal (and any other journalistic magazine) as sources. Good science is published in peer reviewed journals, not in newspapers or magazines.
Now, unless you believe there is a global conspiracy (as the WSJ article implies) to keep people from publishing scientifically sound articles doubting global warming, you should stick to scientific papers as reliable sources and consider magazine articles, blog posts and newspapers as politically influenced opinion. Of course, the WSJ article is signed by 16 scientists, but scientists are also just people and not all of them agree. The article, however, is extremely opinionated because the 16 scientists happen to be denialists (they believe global warming is a hoax). None of their scientific articles denying global warming have gotten through a peer-review process.
EDIT: in fact, looking at the list, there seem to be no actual climatologists in that list at all, except for Henk Tennekes (who was kicked out of the Dutch meteorological institute for good reason) and William Kininmonth, who is also noted as an opponent of anthropogenic global warming, although a quick search did not result in any peer-reviewed papers on the issue. In other words, despite being signed by 16 scientists, it is actually 14 people with an opinion (unless astronauts and geophysicists are suddenly considered learned climatologists) and 2 discretided climatologists.
|
(they believe global warming is a hoax)
I thought the world pretty much came into agreement that it was pretty obvious the "global warming" scare was a hoax and thats why every changed to climate change. The two terms have two entirely separate causes. One is natural and we are not doing shit to cause it, the other got a bunch of people rich by investing right before the stirred the pot.
|
On February 01 2012 23:08 jeremycafe wrote:I thought the world pretty much came into agreement that it was pretty obvious the "global warming" scare was a hoax and thats why every changed to climate change. The two terms have two entirely separate causes. One is natural and we are not doing shit to cause it, the other got a bunch of people rich by investing right before the stirred the pot.
Changing the name doesn't change the facts. Global warming refers to the fact that the planet is warming up. Climate change refers to the changing climate (droughts, rainfall patterns, more/less hurricanes, etc. etc. etc.). The supposition is that the former is a cause of the latter, but the latter is what politicians mainly need to worry about. However, the former is in no way, shape, or form considered false in the scientific community. Whether investors took advantage of the fact I cannot really say anything about as I don't know anything about that. However, global warming is not a hoax: the world is, demonstrably, warming up and if you go back 1 or 2 pages you can find some of the scientific sources I linked to as evidence.
|
On February 01 2012 05:23 TheToast wrote:So, last week, the Wall Street Journal ran This article entitled "No Need to Panic About Global Warming". The articled was signed off on by 16 prominent scientists who are asserting that Global Warming fears are not necessarily based on good science. Before anyone cries "cook", I want to at the very start here list all the scientists who signed onto the article to make the point that these are not fringe wackos: + Show Spoiler [List] +Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva. Here are some of the excerpts of the article that stood out to me: Show nested quote +In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" Show nested quote +Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.
Show nested quote +Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them. It is an interesting opinion, one that has not been expressed so publically by such prominent scientists before. It's got me thinking about not only Global Warming, but if so many of the other scientific facts that we are bombarded with daily have some level of bias to them. Is science really being influenced by politics and financial goals? And if so, how are we supposed to discern fact from bias? This week, Forbe Magazine published This response to the WSJ article written by Peter Gleick from the Pacific Institute alledgeing that it was grossly biased itself. Show nested quote + But the most amazing and telling evidence of the bias of the Wall Street Journal in this field is the fact that 255 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences wrote a comparable (but scientifically accurate) essay on the realities of climate change and on the need for improved and serious public debate around the issue, offered it to the Wall Street Journal, and were turned down. I'm interested in what you guys think, has the science world been co-opted? Have incentives for professors and researchers been allowed to sway their results? And if so, how do we tell good science from bad, and what does it mean for the issue of Global Climate Change?
As Acrofales wrote, you ignore, as much as possible, articles in WSJ and similar non-scientific journals. Furthermore when article about climatology tries to support its validity by listing a lot of scientists with unrelated fields of specialization it is a telling sign to be wary of that article and be more suspicious, as it is a standard tactic of the proponents of the so-called "oppressed" views to create illusion of authority.
Yes, you cannot trust everything that is signed by a scientist and scientist are being more influenced by companies and other groups, but science as a tool is still trustworthy enough. You just need to be aware of the dangers.
|
On February 01 2012 05:23 TheToast wrote:So, last week, the Wall Street Journal ran This article entitled "No Need to Panic About Global Warming". The articled was signed off on by 16 prominent scientists who are asserting that Global Warming fears are not necessarily based on good science. Before anyone cries "cook", I want to at the very start here list all the scientists who signed onto the article to make the point that these are not fringe wackos: + Show Spoiler [List] +Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva. Here are some of the excerpts of the article that stood out to me: Show nested quote +In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" Show nested quote +Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.
Show nested quote +Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them. It is an interesting opinion, one that has not been expressed so publically by such prominent scientists before. It's got me thinking about not only Global Warming, but if so many of the other scientific facts that we are bombarded with daily have some level of bias to them. Is science really being influenced by politics and financial goals? And if so, how are we supposed to discern fact from bias? This week, Forbe Magazine published This response to the WSJ article written by Peter Gleick from the Pacific Institute alledgeing that it was grossly biased itself. Show nested quote + But the most amazing and telling evidence of the bias of the Wall Street Journal in this field is the fact that 255 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences wrote a comparable (but scientifically accurate) essay on the realities of climate change and on the need for improved and serious public debate around the issue, offered it to the Wall Street Journal, and were turned down. I'm interested in what you guys think, has the science world been co-opted? Have incentives for professors and researchers been allowed to sway their results? And if so, how do we tell good science from bad, and what does it mean for the issue of Global Climate Change?
I don't know about the other scientists, but Claude Allegre is a former french minister that has published a book about Climate Change full of counterfactual facts, false attributions, data manipulations, and so on and so forth. To give you an idea of how big this was, several scientists from all around the world called the french newspaper and complained about blatant lies and manipulation of the data, figures and articles they had published in the past by Mr Allegre.
So I really don't see why scientists caring about the scientific validity of their conclusions would associate themselves to someone like Mr Allegre...
Furthermore, the "It's in the interest of..." argument goes both way : just have a look at the industrial lobby in the US, strongly willing to finance anything that could disprove climate change.
|
On February 01 2012 05:23 TheToast wrote:So, last week, the Wall Street Journal ran This article entitled "No Need to Panic About Global Warming". The articled was signed off on by 16 prominent scientists who are asserting that Global Warming fears are not necessarily based on good science. Before anyone cries "cook", I want to at the very start here list all the scientists who signed onto the article to make the point that these are not fringe wackos: + Show Spoiler [List] +Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva. Here are some of the excerpts of the article that stood out to me: Show nested quote +In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" Show nested quote +Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.
Show nested quote +Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them. It is an interesting opinion, one that has not been expressed so publically by such prominent scientists before. It's got me thinking about not only Global Warming, but if so many of the other scientific facts that we are bombarded with daily have some level of bias to them. Is science really being influenced by politics and financial goals? And if so, how are we supposed to discern fact from bias? This week, Forbe Magazine published This response to the WSJ article written by Peter Gleick from the Pacific Institute alledgeing that it was grossly biased itself. Show nested quote + But the most amazing and telling evidence of the bias of the Wall Street Journal in this field is the fact that 255 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences wrote a comparable (but scientifically accurate) essay on the realities of climate change and on the need for improved and serious public debate around the issue, offered it to the Wall Street Journal, and were turned down. I'm interested in what you guys think, has the science world been co-opted? Have incentives for professors and researchers been allowed to sway their results? And if so, how do we tell good science from bad, and what does it mean for the issue of Global Climate Change?
Someone has mentioned this, but ti needs to be emphasized: The WSJ is not a scientific magazine, it is a politically affiliated business magazine.
If this were in Science or any other credible scientific journal I would believe it.
|
You ignore any media owned by Murdoch at least. That's a given.
Not only for climate change btw ... climate change, international politics, 'fair' view on american politics, economics, etc. He has strong political beliefs that influence most of his media empire.
|
Expert statisticians point out the flaws in CAGW computer models? Oh, well, they're not climatologists, ignore them.
Science journals publish articles critical of CAGW methodology? Oh, well, they're not *reputable* journals, ignore them.
Actual climate scientists don't join the CAGW bandwagon? Oh, well, they might have taken grant money from an oil company once, ignore them.
Popular magazines and newspapers publish articles critical of CAGW politics? Oh, well, they're not science journals, ignore them.
British Met Office publishes a report saying that there has been no warming in the last 15 years? Oh, well, add them to the blacklist too.
|
On February 02 2012 00:19 Freddybear wrote:
Expert statisticians point out the flaws in CAGW computer models? Oh, well, they're not climatologists, ignore them.
Science journals publish articles critical of CAGW methodology? Oh, well, they're not *reputable* journals, ignore them.
Actual climate scientists don't join the CAGW bandwagon? Oh, well, they might have taken grant money from an oil company once, ignore them.
Popular magazines and newspapers publish articles critical of CAGW politics? Oh, well, they're not science journals, ignore them.
British Met Office publishes a report saying that there has been no warming in the last 15 years? Oh, well, add them to the blacklist too.
Just have a look at the above arguments: among the 16 scientists, only 2 are actual climatologists, and those two have been radiated from office for false results and bad scientific ethics.
My rule of thumb is : don't listen to someone that is not entitled to give his opinion about something.
To quote Isaac Asimov: “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
I've had enough of that, thank you  .
|
On February 02 2012 00:19 Freddybear wrote:
Expert statisticians point out the flaws in CAGW computer models? Oh, well, they're not climatologists, ignore them.
Science journals publish articles critical of CAGW methodology? Oh, well, they're not *reputable* journals, ignore them.
Actual climate scientists don't join the CAGW bandwagon? Oh, well, they might have taken grant money from an oil company once, ignore them.
Popular magazines and newspapers publish articles critical of CAGW politics? Oh, well, they're not science journals, ignore them.
British Met Office publishes a report saying that there has been no warming in the last 15 years? Oh, well, add them to the blacklist too.
Posting baseless accusations without linking the actual article is easy. I therefore challenge you to point me to a single scientific article that actually does anything that you say they do. By the way, there are plenty of scientific articles casting doubt on some aspects of the climatology surrounding anthropogenic global warming: it is a young field of science with a lot of flux in methodologies. However, as a whole, anthropogenic global warming, is the best hypothesis for explaining the data.
The British Met Office said nothing of the kind, btw. The Daily Mail (ho hum, trolololololololol) said that the British Met Office said something of that kind. What the British Met Office actually said was the following:
The ten year projection remains groundbreaking science. The complete period for the original projection is not over yet and these projections are regularly updated to take account of the most recent data.
“The projections are probabilistic in nature, and no individual forecast should be taken in isolation. Instead, several decades of data will be needed to assess the robustness of the projections.
“However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3.
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/
|
On February 02 2012 00:19 Freddybear wrote:
Expert statisticians point out the flaws in CAGW computer models? Oh, well, they're not climatologists, ignore them.
Science journals publish articles critical of CAGW methodology? Oh, well, they're not *reputable* journals, ignore them.
Actual climate scientists don't join the CAGW bandwagon? Oh, well, they might have taken grant money from an oil company once, ignore them.
Popular magazines and newspapers publish articles critical of CAGW politics? Oh, well, they're not science journals, ignore them.
British Met Office publishes a report saying that there has been no warming in the last 15 years? Oh, well, add them to the blacklist too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Tennekes
According to Gerbrand Komen, a retired KNMI researcher, Tennekes' view on climate change played a minor role. More important were[7] Tennekes' personality and his solitary views on a range of subjects. As an example Komen recalls how Tennekes objected to the increase of computing power for medium-range weather forecasting, because he considered this unnecessary. According to Komen, Tennekes supported this decision by referring to biblical texts.
Yes, ignoring them is a good idea.
|
Hey, I do not doubt that there is human-induced climat change at all, however I highly question wheter we should spend scarce resources in order to counter its effects. The costs for this would be enormous and the benefits uncertain, even while we have other problems which could be solved at significantly lower cost and would benefit us more. For instance, world hunger.
This point is supported by the Copenhangen Consensus, http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html
|
On February 02 2012 00:51 Trollk wrote:Hey, I do not doubt that there is human-induced climat change at all, however I highly question wheter we should spend scarce resources in order to counter its effects. The costs for this would be enormous and the benefits uncertain, even while we have other problems which could be solved at significantly lower cost and would benefit us more. For instance, world hunger. This point is supported by the Copenhangen Consensus, http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html
I think you misstated, I do not think you meant effects. Current proposals are all about not spending resources on effects of global warming, they are in fact trying to diminish the actual warming. If warming continues we will have to spend scarce resources in order to counter its effects if we want to or not.
|
On February 02 2012 01:14 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 00:51 Trollk wrote:Hey, I do not doubt that there is human-induced climat change at all, however I highly question wheter we should spend scarce resources in order to counter its effects. The costs for this would be enormous and the benefits uncertain, even while we have other problems which could be solved at significantly lower cost and would benefit us more. For instance, world hunger. This point is supported by the Copenhangen Consensus, http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html I think you misstated, I do not think you meant effects. Current proposals are all about not spending resources on effects of global warming, they are in fact trying to diminish the actual warming. If warming continues we will have to spend scarce resources in order to counter its effects if we want to or not.
Not really.
We can just be selfish assholes close our borders and let citizens in nations closer to equator die off.
Don't have to be humanitarian and highly moral if we chose not to ... which, you know, isn't too unlikely.
|
On February 02 2012 01:18 aebriol wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 01:14 mcc wrote:On February 02 2012 00:51 Trollk wrote:Hey, I do not doubt that there is human-induced climat change at all, however I highly question wheter we should spend scarce resources in order to counter its effects. The costs for this would be enormous and the benefits uncertain, even while we have other problems which could be solved at significantly lower cost and would benefit us more. For instance, world hunger. This point is supported by the Copenhangen Consensus, http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html I think you misstated, I do not think you meant effects. Current proposals are all about not spending resources on effects of global warming, they are in fact trying to diminish the actual warming. If warming continues we will have to spend scarce resources in order to counter its effects if we want to or not. Not really. We can just be selfish assholes close our borders and let citizens in nations closer to equator die off. Don't have to be humanitarian and highly moral if we chose not to ... which, you know, isn't too unlikely.
Ok, then you are just naive if you think there won't be harsh effects that will affect US or nearly whatever country you name.
EDIT: Norway in your case, although Norway would actually be somewhat ok probably, but since you are weak, the suffering nations can just decide to conquer you and not much you can do about it. Not even talking about extreme drop in quality of life that would follow as your imports get more pricey.
|
On February 02 2012 04:00 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 01:18 aebriol wrote:On February 02 2012 01:14 mcc wrote:On February 02 2012 00:51 Trollk wrote:Hey, I do not doubt that there is human-induced climat change at all, however I highly question wheter we should spend scarce resources in order to counter its effects. The costs for this would be enormous and the benefits uncertain, even while we have other problems which could be solved at significantly lower cost and would benefit us more. For instance, world hunger. This point is supported by the Copenhangen Consensus, http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html I think you misstated, I do not think you meant effects. Current proposals are all about not spending resources on effects of global warming, they are in fact trying to diminish the actual warming. If warming continues we will have to spend scarce resources in order to counter its effects if we want to or not. Not really. We can just be selfish assholes close our borders and let citizens in nations closer to equator die off. Don't have to be humanitarian and highly moral if we chose not to ... which, you know, isn't too unlikely. Ok, then you are just naive if you think there won't be harsh effects that will affect US or nearly whatever country you name. EDIT: Norway in your case, although Norway would actually be somewhat ok probably, but since you are weak, the suffering nations can just decide to conquer you and not much you can do about it. Not even talking about extreme drop in quality of life that would follow as your imports get more pricey.
The question isn't if it will be 'harsh effects' the question is whether or not it will cost a lot more than trying to reverse something we aren't sure if we even can reverse. Obviously it will have some effect. But it's not as obvious as some like to think what the effects will be ... we let people starve to death in Africa today, I don't really know for a fact that we just won't let that happen again.
|
On February 02 2012 16:56 aebriol wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 04:00 mcc wrote:On February 02 2012 01:18 aebriol wrote:On February 02 2012 01:14 mcc wrote:On February 02 2012 00:51 Trollk wrote:Hey, I do not doubt that there is human-induced climat change at all, however I highly question wheter we should spend scarce resources in order to counter its effects. The costs for this would be enormous and the benefits uncertain, even while we have other problems which could be solved at significantly lower cost and would benefit us more. For instance, world hunger. This point is supported by the Copenhangen Consensus, http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html I think you misstated, I do not think you meant effects. Current proposals are all about not spending resources on effects of global warming, they are in fact trying to diminish the actual warming. If warming continues we will have to spend scarce resources in order to counter its effects if we want to or not. Not really. We can just be selfish assholes close our borders and let citizens in nations closer to equator die off. Don't have to be humanitarian and highly moral if we chose not to ... which, you know, isn't too unlikely. Ok, then you are just naive if you think there won't be harsh effects that will affect US or nearly whatever country you name. EDIT: Norway in your case, although Norway would actually be somewhat ok probably, but since you are weak, the suffering nations can just decide to conquer you and not much you can do about it. Not even talking about extreme drop in quality of life that would follow as your imports get more pricey. The question isn't if it will be 'harsh effects' the question is whether or not it will cost a lot more than trying to reverse something we aren't sure if we even can reverse. Obviously it will have some effect. But it's not as obvious as some like to think what the effects will be ... we let people starve to death in Africa today, I don't really know for a fact that we just won't let that happen again.
I think you are being very irresponsible. 44% of the world's population (estimate from UN) lives in a coastal area. Letting those areas flood will cause MASSIVE migration. It will also not only affect poor areas. London, Barcelona, New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and, for you, Oslo may not be salvageable with a couple of meters rise in sea level. A lot of arable land will be lost worldwide and the additional climate change will cause all kinds of changes in crop growth. Whether or not we are able to reverse global warming? I don't know (and most models are kinda vague on that), but I don't think anybody doubts that not reversing it will have gigantic costs in human (and animal) life and welfare. Those costs ARE greater than investing in a big way in sustainable energy.
Btw, I don't feel that global warming is the only problem we face, or possibly even the greatest, but I feel ALL of them should be tackled, including global warming. Especially as any meaningful concept of sustainable takes all environmental issues into account: mining of minerals (such as neodymium or lithium, which are mined in terribly polluting manner), farming (with fertilizer runoff causing huge problems and water consumption of agriculture being one of the largest problems in the world), waste management and, of course, energy production. We are, in general, living in a manner that we cannot sustain for many more generations and we need to change to give our offspring (even if I don't have children and am not sure I plan on having any) a liveable planet.
|
On February 02 2012 16:56 aebriol wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 04:00 mcc wrote:On February 02 2012 01:18 aebriol wrote:On February 02 2012 01:14 mcc wrote:On February 02 2012 00:51 Trollk wrote:Hey, I do not doubt that there is human-induced climat change at all, however I highly question wheter we should spend scarce resources in order to counter its effects. The costs for this would be enormous and the benefits uncertain, even while we have other problems which could be solved at significantly lower cost and would benefit us more. For instance, world hunger. This point is supported by the Copenhangen Consensus, http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html I think you misstated, I do not think you meant effects. Current proposals are all about not spending resources on effects of global warming, they are in fact trying to diminish the actual warming. If warming continues we will have to spend scarce resources in order to counter its effects if we want to or not. Not really. We can just be selfish assholes close our borders and let citizens in nations closer to equator die off. Don't have to be humanitarian and highly moral if we chose not to ... which, you know, isn't too unlikely. Ok, then you are just naive if you think there won't be harsh effects that will affect US or nearly whatever country you name. EDIT: Norway in your case, although Norway would actually be somewhat ok probably, but since you are weak, the suffering nations can just decide to conquer you and not much you can do about it. Not even talking about extreme drop in quality of life that would follow as your imports get more pricey. The question isn't if it will be 'harsh effects' the question is whether or not it will cost a lot more than trying to reverse something we aren't sure if we even can reverse. Obviously it will have some effect. But it's not as obvious as some like to think what the effects will be ... we let people starve to death in Africa today, I don't really know for a fact that we just won't let that happen again.
Well, as I said you misspoke.Originally you said that current plans want to fight with the effects of global warming, which is not true, current plans want to fight with the cause of it. As you now corrected yourself it is a question whether it is worth to fight the cause of global warming or just suffer its effects. I am not arguing with that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
