Nothing good about Ethanol

"Roger" wrote in message
...
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.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/


However when even our current leader aknowledges it and our
contribution, it must be serious. :-))

That's funny!!

On 2006-06-04, LWG wrote:
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.

I think you are greatly mistaken: there is an ENORMOUS amount of money
for the global warming deniers - the entire oil industry for starters,
which is more profitable than ever.


--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
On 2006-06-04, LWG wrote:
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.

I think you are greatly mistaken: there is an ENORMOUS amount of money
for the global warming deniers - the entire oil industry for starters,
which is more profitable than ever.

Okay, how about a cite of one prominent denier who has accepted a research
grant from the oil industry?

Oh, and tell us how they fabricated their data.

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

"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?

You have read each and every study that concludes their is human influence on
climate? Man, you *are* efficient!

Do you think real scientists actually get away with that sort of thing on
a large scale?

Yes.

That is quite a remarkable claim. It seems you are accusing climate
scientists world wide of mendacity in the service of a left wing agenda, and
that the normal peer review checks on such things aren't working--is that
right?

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.

You persist in this patronizing tone. Why?

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 .

Does that mean you don't have any?

And that is a truly astonishing claim: that the very foundation of scientific
error correction has been rendered void!

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

Some of the "refutations" of the IPCC findings have initially sneaked past
peer review, only to be caught later:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...t-do-not-post/

--

Dan

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=2952

Some of the "refutations" of the IPCC findings have initially sneaked past
peer review, only to be caught later:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...t-do-not-post/


Michael Mann? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

What else can you pull out of your ass.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=2952

Some of the "refutations" of the IPCC findings have initially sneaked
past peer review, only to be caught later:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...t-do-not-post/


"Thus, while un-peer-reviewed claims should not be given much credence, just
because a particular paper has passed through peer review does not
absolutely insure that the conclusions are correct or scientifically valid.
The "leaks" in the system outlined above unfortunately allow some
less-than-ideal work to be published in peer-reviewed journals. This should
therefore be a concern when the results of any one particular study are
promoted over the conclusions of a larger body of past published work
(especially if it is a new study that has not been fully absorbed or
assessed by the community).

Indeed, this is why scientific assessments such as the Arctic Climate
Impact Assessment (ACIA), or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) reports, and the independent reports by the National Academy of
Sciences, are so important in giving a balanced overview of the state of
knowledge in the scientific research community."

Guess you didn't read the Q&O article, huh?

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

Guess you didn't read the Q&O article, huh?


Guess you didn't read the rest of the article, did you?

Still waiting for you to back up your assertion that anthropogenic factors
are nothing but noise in global climate change.

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

Guess you didn't read the Q&O article, huh?

Did you read the Q&O article?


Guess you didn't read the rest of the article, did you?

After three pages of schizophrenia, I gave up.

Still waiting for you to back up your assertion that anthropogenic factors
are nothing but noise in global climate change.

I'm still waiting for you to read the article and respond to the sixteen
points I already made.

Until then, I'm not going to waste any more time with your typical evasion.

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

Guess you didn't read the Q&O article, huh?


Guess you didn't read the rest of the article, did you?

Still waiting for you to back up your assertion that anthropogenic factors
are nothing but noise in global climate change.

Who are you going to refer to after nutjob Michael Mann?, Michael Moore? Are
you going to tell me his movie was viewed by 18 million people?

Peer review by a bunch of bought lackies?

Hey, using your other analogy, all the creationist **** was "peer reviewed".

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

Some of the "refutations" of the IPCC findings have initially sneaked past
peer review, only to be caught later:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...t-do-not-post/

Here's your thoroughly discredited Michael Mann
http://www.john-daly.com/peerrev1.htm