If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Nothing good about Ethanol
Even mainstream science will have pro and con. Although there has been a shift to accepting first global warming and the accepting mankind's contribution as being significant there is still a strong camp that say it aint so. Hogwash! http://www.physorg.com/news11710.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html http://talk.ocregister.com/showthrea...&mode=threaded http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...04_red_jr.html The debate still rages. Because there is so much money to be made in this and every endeavor, it's hard to be sure what is correct. It's more a matter of choose a belief and then find the evidence. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Nothing good about Ethanol
Just 20+ years ago Newsweek was running stories about the impending Ice Age
which was upon us. The worry was Global Cooling. The "scientists" read the same archival data and came to the conclusion that the Earth was cooling at an alarming rate. Where I sit was once a jungle. It also was once covered by thousands of feet of ice. Isn't it just a bit presumptuous for us to think, "Ok, *I'm* here now, so all you little natural processes can just stop." Why should we expect that the temperatures today are the same as yesterday? "It's a right!." "I'll sue!" "We'll see what the ACLU has to say about this!" What about the measurements that show the sun is hotter the past few years than it was before? The OP's comment about money is right on. There's plenty of money out there for those who read the tea leaves to see "global warming," with extra bonus points if my SUV is responsible. There is nothing for someone who argues that there is no warming, or that other natural processes are responsible. The discourse has been so poluted by ideology and money that I think the science is almost worthless. wrote in message news:Y0ugg.2384$9f2.1277@trnddc04... On 2-Jun-2006, Roger wrote: Even mainstream science will have pro and con. Although there has been a shift to accepting first global warming and the accepting mankind's contribution as being significant there is still a strong camp that say it aint so. Hogwash! -Elliott Drucker |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Nothing good about Ethanol
"LWG" wrote: Just 20+ years ago Newsweek was running stories about the impending Ice Age which was upon us. The worry was Global Cooling. The "scientists" read the same archival data and came to the conclusion that the Earth was cooling at an alarming rate. Magazines such as Newsweek are in the business of pumping up subscriptions to sell ad copy. What they said 20 years ago--or yesterday--has nothing to do with scientific consensus. Where I sit was once a jungle. It also was once covered by thousands of feet of ice. Isn't it just a bit presumptuous for us to think, "Ok, *I'm* here now, so all you little natural processes can just stop." Why should we expect that the temperatures today are the same as yesterday? "It's a right!." "I'll sue!" "We'll see what the ACLU has to say about this!" What's all that got to do with science? What about the measurements that show the sun is hotter the past few years than it was before? A red herring used by ideologues. The OP's comment about money is right on. There's plenty of money out there for those who read the tea leaves to see "global warming," with extra bonus points if my SUV is responsible. There is nothing for someone who argues that there is no warming, or that other natural processes are responsible. Then why do energy industries lobby so hard for those ideas and against massive scientific consensus against them? The discourse has been so poluted by ideology and money that I think the science is almost worthless. In the popular media, yes. Real science is much drier and harder to understand, so most people don't bother with it. -- Dan 'Gut feeling' Intestinologists concur that the human gut does not contain any rational thoughts. What the human gut *is* full of is moderately well known. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Nothing good about Ethanol
"Dan Luke" wrote in message ... "LWG" wrote: Just 20+ years ago Newsweek was running stories about the impending Ice Age which was upon us. The worry was Global Cooling. The "scientists" read the same archival data and came to the conclusion that the Earth was cooling at an alarming rate. Magazines such as Newsweek are in the business of pumping up subscriptions to sell ad copy. What they said 20 years ago--or yesterday--has nothing to do with scientific consensus. Just so you know, _consensus_ is a political term, not a scientific one. (IOW, your ass is showing...oh, get real indignant now!!!) Politics vs. Science: Science Method 1) Gather all pertinent FACTS 2) Analyze 3) Reach conclusions Political Method 1) Establish pre-ordained conclusions 2) Cherry pick "facts" that (maybe) pertain to predetermined conclusion (or spin the hell out of them) 3) Draft press release or Congressional testimony 4) (Optional) Loudly and shrilly condemn critics as fascists an racists. 5) (Optional) Bury data sources and data streams |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Nothing good about Ethanol
"Matt Barrow" wrote: Just so you know, _consensus_ is a political term, not a scientific one. (IOW, your ass is showing...oh, get real indignant now!!!) Oh, please, Matt. I ain't Green Peace. Politics vs. Science: Science Method 1) Gather all pertinent FACTS 2) Analyze 3) Reach conclusions Political Method 1) Establish pre-ordained conclusions 2) Cherry pick "facts" that (maybe) pertain to predetermined conclusion (or spin the hell out of them) 3) Draft press release or Congressional testimony 4) (Optional) Loudly and shrilly condemn critics as fascists an racists. 5) (Optional) Bury data sources and data streams I have no argument with any of that. The former is what real scientists do; the latter is what I hear on talk radio and TV every day. But I am a layman with a business to run; at some point, I have to decide: shall I return to university and become thoroughly educated on climatology, or shall I judge by what the preponderance of peer-reviewed science has concluded? What do you conclude about the issue of anthropogenic climate change? Why? -- Dan C172RG at BFM |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Nothing good about Ethanol
"Dan Luke" wrote in message ... "Matt Barrow" wrote: Just so you know, _consensus_ is a political term, not a scientific one. (IOW, your ass is showing...oh, get real indignant now!!!) Oh, please, Matt. I ain't Green Peace. Politics vs. Science: Science Method 1) Gather all pertinent FACTS 2) Analyze 3) Reach conclusions Political Method 1) Establish pre-ordained conclusions 2) Cherry pick "facts" that (maybe) pertain to predetermined conclusion (or spin the hell out of them) 3) Draft press release or Congressional testimony 4) (Optional) Loudly and shrilly condemn critics as fascists an racists. 5) (Optional) Bury data sources and data streams I have no argument with any of that. The former is what real scientists do; the latter is what I hear on talk radio and TV every day. Really? The second is what I hear in the MSM and news releases from academia. As for 4) and 5), I think you're "stretching". But I am a layman with a business to run; at some point, I have to decide: shall I return to university and become thoroughly educated on climatology, or shall I judge by what the preponderance of peer-reviewed science has concluded? The "peer-reviewed" reports are supposedly running 100% in favor of HAGW. Not even evolution gets that high of "consensus". I suggest you be a little more skeptical of your own "pre-ordained conclusions". I, too, have a business to run and I highly suspect it's a bit larger and more diverse than yours, but I manage to dig through both sides of the issue and one side is psychopatically stunted. Guess which side. (Hint: see the latter method above) What do you conclude about the issue of anthropogenic climate change? Why? In a nutshell: GW is real. It's CYCLICAL. Anthropogenic factors as down at the level of "noise". I notice, too, that all the studies that show the leftist/PC end of things conveniently cherry-pick around the data. Main Point: In science, you NEVER cherry pick your data. The name for that is FRAUD. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Nothing good about Ethanol (moved for topic)
"Matt Barrow" wrote: But I am a layman with a business to run; at some point, I have to decide: shall I return to university and become thoroughly educated on climatology, or shall I judge by what the preponderance of peer-reviewed science has concluded? The "peer-reviewed" reports are supposedly running 100% in favor of HAGW. Not even evolution gets that high of "consensus". If that is true, (where'd you get that number?) what does that mean to you? I suggest you be a little more skeptical of your own "pre-ordained conclusions". You, of course, are utterly objective. I can only aspire to reach that level of critical clarity some day. I, too, have a business to run and I highly suspect it's a bit larger and more diverse than yours, Dear me--I'm in awe! but I manage to dig through both sides of the issue and one side is psychopatically stunted. I can't tell if you're talking about scientific papers or political journals. It sounds like the latter. Which side are most--and I mean a large majority--of scientists currently on? Are they all deluded leftists doctoring the data to suppress the truth? Do you think real scientists actually get away with that sort of thing on a large scale? I will remind you that that is exactly what the creationists claim about biologists. Guess which side. Depends on where you look. If you want political bias on a scientific subject, it certainly is to be found across the ideological spectrum. Or are you claiming one side is free of such spin doctoring? (Hint: see the latter method above) What do you conclude about the issue of anthropogenic climate change? Why? In a nutshell: GW is real. It's CYCLICAL. Anthropogenic factors as down at the level of "noise". I notice, too, that all the studies that show the leftist/PC end of things Now there's a real scientific term for you. conveniently cherry-pick around the data. Are you seriously claiming that rightists aren't doing exactly the same? And, again: are you speaking of scientific papers or political journals? Main Point: In science, you NEVER cherry pick your data. The name for that is FRAUD. Indeed. But you have made the definite assertion that human influence on climate is down at the level of "noise". What's peer reviewed studies are you basing that on? -- Dan C172RG at BFM |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Nothing good about Ethanol (moved for topic)
"Dan Luke" wrote in message ... "Matt Barrow" wrote: But I am a layman with a business to run; at some point, I have to decide: shall I return to university and become thoroughly educated on climatology, or shall I judge by what the preponderance of peer-reviewed science has concluded? The "peer-reviewed" reports are supposedly running 100% in favor of HAGW. Not even evolution gets that high of "consensus". If that is true, (where'd you get that number?) The IPCC report on Climate The Road from Rio to Kyoto: How Climate Science was Distorted to Support Ideological Objectives , Dr. Fred Singer Statement Concerning Global Warming Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Presented to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, July 10, 1997 (He refers to the same source). Facts about CO2 , L. Van Zandt, Professor of Physics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana I have about 30 of these documents stored, should I send you a ZIP file so you can read them at your leisure? what does that mean to you? Like I said in the original, such "consensus" is bogus. I suggest you be a little more skeptical of your own "pre-ordained conclusions". You, of course, are utterly objective. I can only aspire to reach that level of critical clarity some day. I, too, have a business to run and I highly suspect it's a bit larger and more diverse than yours, Dear me--I'm in awe! You have no prblem making up your mind on half-baked data, so your "awe" is evidently aimed at the "authorities" that tell you what you want to hear. but I manage to dig through both sides of the issue and one side is psychopatically stunted. I can't tell if you're talking about scientific papers or political journals. It sounds like the latter. You still don't get it that in todays world, the two have been *******ized. Which side are most--and I mean a large majority--of scientists currently on? You still don't get it either that the (real) scientifc world doesn't work that way. Are they all deluded leftists doctoring the data to suppress the truth? Well, when each and every report DOES use a lot of doctored data, made up "facts", etc., what would YOU think? Do you think real scientists actually get away with that sort of thing on a large scale? Yes. I will remind you that that is exactly what the creationists claim about biologists. I notice, too, that creationists are pretty flakey (to say the least) "data". Okay, Dan, here's the clincher and it pertains to the original topic: **** the claims, show me the data, and anyone with even high school science/physics can make a proper assessment. I do have time to peruse articles that persent DATA, but not time to give you lessons in epistomology or critical thinking. If you want to rely on press reports, have at it. Again, get past the notion of claims, especially the ones using the logical falacy of "Arguments from Authority". oss the ideological spectrum. Or are you claiming one side is free of such spin doctoring? (Hint: see the latter method above) What do you conclude about the issue of anthropogenic climate change? Why? In a nutshell: GW is real. It's CYCLICAL. Anthropogenic factors as down at the level of "noise". I notice, too, that all the studies that show the leftist/PC end of things Now there's a real scientific term for you. conveniently cherry-pick around the data. Are you seriously claiming that rightists aren't doing exactly the same? And, again: are you speaking of scientific papers or political journals? Main Point: In science, you NEVER cherry pick your data. The name for that is FRAUD. Indeed. But you have made the definite assertion that human influence on climate is down at the level of "noise". What's peer reviewed studies are you basing that on? Aside from the fact that "peer review" is bogus on any issue that has been taken over by politics . Here's a good summary: The climate change doomsayers are always quick to point out that the IPCC climate change report was signed by more than 2,000 scientists. That's true, as far as it goes, but, there are scientists, and then there are scientists. In the case of the IPCC report, the vast majority of the scientists were, in fact, political representatives of their countries, with degrees in social sciences. While social sciences might be an important field of study, they do not provide the holder of doctorates with any particular expertise about global warming. And, of those representatives who signed the report, only 78 of them were even involved in the 1996 IPCC conference that produced the report. As James Hogan relates in his book: [T]he world was told there was a virtually unanimous scientific consensus on the existence of a clear and present danger. On July 24, 1997, President Clinton held a press conference at which he announced that the catastrophic effects of man's use of fossil fuels was now an accepted scientific fact, not a theory. To underline this, he produced a list stated as being of 2,500 scientists who had approved the 1996 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report preparing the ground for Kyoto. That sounded conclusive, and most of the world at large accepted it as such. However, upon further delving, things turn out to be not quite that simple. For a start, by far the majority of the signers were not climate scientists but political representatives from their respective countries, ranging all the way from Albania to Zimbabwe, with degrees in the social sciences. Their listing as "contributors" meant, for example, that they might have been given a part of the report and asked to express an opinion, and even if the opinion was a negative one they were still listed as "reviewers." 162 Only seventy-eight of the attendees were involved in producing the document. Even then, to give it even a hint of supporting the global warming position, the executive summary, written by a small IPCC steering group, was purged of all politically incorrect skepticism and modified-after the scientists had signed it!-which caused an uproar of indignation from the qualified atmospheric specialists who participated. [Atmospheric scientist] Fred Singer later produced a paper entitled "The Road from Rio to Kyoto: How Climatic Science was Distorted to Support Ideological Objectives," which couldn't have put it much more clearly. 164 The IPCC report stated the twentieth century to have been the warmest in six hundred years of climate history. Although correct, this avoided any mention of the Little Ice Age that the twentieth century was a recovery from, while going back just a little further would have brought in the "medieval optimum," which was warmer than today. Another part of the report told that increases in carbon dioxide in the geological past were "associated with" increases in temperature. This is disingenuous in that it obviously aims at giving the impression that the CO2 increases caused the temperature rises, whereas, as we've seen, the temperature rises came first. If any causation was involved, there are stronger reasons for supposing it to have been in the opposite direction. These are just two of twelve distortions that Singer's paper discusses, but they give the general flavor. Two phrases edited out of the IPCC report were, "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases" and "When will an anthropogenic effect on climate be identified? . . . [T]he best answer is, 'we do not know.' " Frederick Seitz, former head of the National Academy of Sciences and Chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, wrote (Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996), "But this report is not what it appears to be-it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page. . . . I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report." Yet a year later it was being cited as proof of a consensus by the scientific community. So how did atmospheric physicists, climatic specialists, and others with scientific credentials feel about the issue? To find out, Dr. Arthur Robinson, president and research professor of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, also publisher of the newsletter Access to Energy, in February 1998, conducted a survey of the professional field by circulating a petition calling for the government to reject the Kyoto agreement of December 1997, on the grounds that it would harm the environment, hinder science, and damage human health and welfare; that there was no scientific evidence that greenhouse gases were or were likely to cause disruption of the climate; and on the contrary there was substantial evidence that such release would in fact be beneficial. After six months the petition had collected over seventeen thousand signatures. At about the same time the German Meteorologisches Institut Universitat Hamburg and Forschungszentium, in a survey of specialists from various branches of the climate sciences, found that 67 percent of Canadian scientists rejected the notion that any warming due to human activity is occurring, while in Germany the figure was 87 percent, and in the US, 97 percent. Some consensus for Kyoto! http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=2952 So, do you want the ZIP file? It has the links to the originals so you can follow up? -- Matt --------------------- Matthew W. Barrow Site-Fill Homes, LLC. Montrose, CO (MTJ) |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Nothing good about Ethanol
On Sat, 3 Jun 2006 08:34:49 -0500, "Dan Luke"
wrote: "Roger" wrote: Even mainstream science will have pro and con. Although there has been a shift to accepting first global warming and the accepting mankind's contribution as being significant there is still a strong camp that say it aint so. Cite for the latter, please? I'll have to hunt for it, but there is a group of scientists that have formed a group. There is a web site with a listing of their outstanding members. Now as to how many of them are "real scientists"? I don't know. However when even our current leader aknowledges it and our contribution, it must be serious. :-)) Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Any good aviation clip-art? | zingzang | Piloting | 2 | August 11th 05 01:32 AM |
We lost a good one.... | [email protected] | Piloting | 10 | May 28th 05 05:21 AM |
Good morning or good evening depending upon your location. I want to ask you the most important question of your life. Your joy or sorrow for all eternity depends upon your answer. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good | Excelsior | Home Built | 0 | April 22nd 05 01:11 AM |
HAVE YOU HEARD THE GOOD NEWS! | [email protected] | Soaring | 0 | January 26th 05 07:08 PM |
Commander gives Navy airframe plan good review | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | July 8th 03 09:10 PM |