If this is global warming...

Page 9 of 16  
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 21:51:02 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett

It may be clear to you, but to most of the rest of us "a minority opinion in scientific journals" is not a "popular misconception".
Perhaps you should write what you mean instead of expecting the rest of us to read your mind?

No, I would consider that to be "debunking popular misconceptions".

Be that as it may, the fact that the majority of scientists believe something doesn't make it a "popular misconception" and proving them wrong does not constitute "debunking". I think that most physicists would look at you like you were nuts if you described Einstein's initial paper on General Relativity as "debunking popular misconceptions".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes:

Is it my turn to sigh for effect? Please look up the word "popular" in the dictionary. You'll see that it does not apply to a number of scientists. If you meant something else, I suggest you use words that say what you mean. I suggest you substitute "widely-held scientific beliefs" for "popular misconceptions". Apparently, you believe these are synonymous, but they aren't.
todd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

While if unqualified, popular means the masses, but in many cases "popular" is qualified by mentioning the group in question.
If one is popular in High School, that doesn't mean that the entire world thinks that person is popular.
If I said a cartoon was popular among pre-schoolers, that doesn't mean the entire world watches.
If I was at a conference, and said a partitular topic was popular, it would be clear that I was referring to those attending the conference.
I acept your criticism, but in this case I thought in was clear that when I said "popular" and talking about research papers, it was implied to be "among scientists."
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Oh, please.

That wasn't at all clear -- and it still isn't. The phrase "popular misconception" has a well-understood meaning, which is considerably at variance with the manner in which you say you meant it.
Language has meaning. If one uses the word "black" to mean "white", or "up" to mean "down", one can hardly blame one's readers or listeners for not understanding.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:08:57 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett

Then you should have so qualified it if you were going to use it.

Clear as mud.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You realize the irony in your statement above: "scientific consensus". Science is not about consensus, it is about theory, hypothesis, experimentation, and proof. To indicate that a theory requires consensus is to admit that it is a nebulous theory without significant substantiating facts to establish its veracity. That alone should make one suspicious of those who are affirming a scientific "consensus" of the veracity of a theory and further using that "consensus" as rationale for institution of draconian measures that will degrade the quality of life for many in the developed world. One also should look at the agenda of those proposing those draconian measures: a) many of them gain additional control over other peoples' lives and fortunes, b) many of those pushing this are agenda-driven anti-capitalist, anti-progress who view our technological society as something to be dismantled, not appreciated. What is ironic is the fact that the findings and approaches proposed by these agenda-driven activists are somehow viewed as more "pure" and valid than findings by anyone who is funded by the companies these people seek to destroy or subvert as indicated in your post below.

Yeah, there's a source that has no agenda nor bias. Would you accept a reference to a Rush Limbaugh publication?

I've never understood why there is such a fear factor related to the fact that a corporation is funding research in order to defend itself against taxpayer-funded, agenda-driven research that seeks to undermine that company's core source of income.

Don't know and don't care if I fall into one of those categories. The fact is that this prevailing attitude that "scientific consensus" is somehow equivalent to quantitative, substantiating, rigorous scientific evidence is disturbing.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
DouginUtah wrote:

PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message

foundation
topic
produce
no
scientific
bias.
The state of education in this country has never more apparent than when the supposedly "educated" simply can not grasp, or, very likely have never even been exposed to, the above.
The stated goal of our HISD schools here in Houston is to "... produce a student who is educated to the extent that he/she can gain employment in a corporate environment".
That the proponents of that endeavor are starting to reap the benefits of a society educated thusly is painfully apparent from the number of folks here who are willing to have the wool pulled over their eyes by pseudo-science and statistics.
Robbing them of the ability to think for themselves has got to be one of the most insidious crimes ever foisted upon the people of this country.
This thread is, if nothing else, chilling to the bone ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/07/07
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think a more correct statement was that at least $20 million was spent by the EPA to create confusion and distortion of the scientific facts.
This was sone by censorship, or by refusing to publish the reports they paid for.
See
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/epa-websites /
Here's another report on censorship.
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/01/30/PM200701305.html
"A survey of 279 federal scientists found nearly half were pressured to drop references to global warming in their research. Study author Francesco Grifo of the Union of Concerned Scientists told the panel today that the changes amount to censorship"
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id $67733&page=1
"Commerce Department officials may have tried to stop a government scientist from speaking to reporters because of his views on global warming, a California congressman says."
http://www.federaltimes.com/index.php?S%19061
"Francesca Grifo, senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists scientific integrity program, told the committee that 1,800 federal scientists from multiple agencies have reported concerns about interference. She said more than 600 scientists from nine agencies reported fear of retaliation for publicizing their findings and nearly 500 scientists from nine agencies said they were barred from publishing certain results related to climate change. In a report released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists, Grifo said 150 climate-change scientists reported at least one incident of political interference with their work over the past five years. "
"Some of the most questionable edits were urged by Phillip Cooney, the former oil industry lobbyist who was the chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Waxman said."
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 03:36:16 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett

And despite all this censorship, not one paper opposing global warming got published? Do tell.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah - amazing isn't it? Even with a $20 million budget, they were unable to find any scientists willing to LIE for them.
Did you check out the link:
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/epa-websites /
This points to several grants the EPA funded:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/gcrp/globalresearchprojects.cfm?detype=project&excCol=archive http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2004-5/ocp2004-5-epa.htm
Where are the results of these grants?
Between 1999 and 2001 the EPA published 37 issues of Global Change Research News.
And since then?
Go to
http://cfpub.epa.gov/gcrp/globalnewsletters.cfm?detype=document&mlf_id9&incsub=newsletter&pgType=NEW&excCol=archive
and check it out yourself.
The last annual report was 2002. They didn't even publish any papers DISPROVING global warming. Ask yourself why.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:32:09 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett

See how you yourself are attempting to enforce political correctness?

Dunno. You're the expert on climate, where are they?

Is that a peer reviewed journal? I'm sorry, but personally I don't give a damn of the government decided to quit spending money on an agency newsletter.

Why should I care what an agency newletter contains?
Sorry, but you're singling out a a particular publication that is not as far as I know a generally recognized peer-reviewed scientific journal and from that making a sweeping generalization.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Their newsletter is not a peer reviewed journal. It is an account to the US people on how they spent our $20 million.
Apparently the EPA can waste $20 million a year and you are perfectly happy about that. I am not.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 11:31:34 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how deciding not to waste money publishing a newsletter constitutes "wasting $20 million a year".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 05:32:14 +0000 (UTC), snipped-for-privacy@sdf.lNoOnSePsAtMar.org (Larry) wrote:

I don't know many scientists, so it's a wild-assed guess.
But could it have something to do with a scientist studying something like global warming depends on government funds for grants to pursue their research, and somebody has a politically motivated say on who gets that money and who does not? Even without overt pressure, I could imagine some unconcious skewing in the data to help ensure next year's grants.
They're not making or developing a product, so that money has to come from somewhere. I can't imagine that many industries are footing the bill for people who stand up and yell that they are the root of all that is evil in the world.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You would have a strong argument if climatologists studied global warming. They do not. They study climate and climate change. Global warming is a conclusion culled from that study.
Climate would still be studied even if the conclusions were more mundane.
Surely there is a tendency for a scientist to hype the importance of his work, he/she HAS to 'hype' it as a routine part of the grant proposal process. So you do have an argument in that respect.
For a scientist to bias his results in order to obtain more funding is a different matter. That would be like a doctor faking test results in order to treat a patient for the wrong illness.
Unconscious bias is always a concern, indeed, in science the word bias is defined broadly, to include all systematic effects, known and unknown, that confound a conclusion. We certainly have seen 'epidemics' of caesarian sections and multiple personality disorder sweep through the medical industry. But historically we have also seen scientists criticized for hyping the dangers of smoking, silicosis, nonsterile surgical conditions, hiv/aids, and for promoting fluoridation, immunization, and pollution abatement.
What separates the grain from the chaff? Left to to its work, science does.
One of the most 'popular' alternatives to anthropogenic causes that is suggested for global climate change is variation in the solar constant. Even a casual web search shows that research in that area is funded and published. No fewer than five (5) satellites have contributed to the data base.
I agree that one should regard with skepticism a scientist who hypes global warming, but the same skepticism should be applied to equally vocal people who hype the opposite. Fund the vast quiet (not silent, but quiet) majority and they will do the hard work to sort things out.
--
FF




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

5) By what possible mechanism does human action on Earth cause the recently observed shrinkage of the polar ice caps on ***MARS*** ?
That, alone, is more than enough to discount the entire notion that the Earth is warming due to human activity.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Feb 15, 8:23 am, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

Why?
--
FF



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

Because if Mars is warming, it's pretty clearly due to increased solar output; if solar output has increased, that would explain warming here too -- in fact, it would make warming here pretty much unavoidable.
Or perhaps you're prepared to posit some mechanism by which human activity on Earth causes global warming on other planets too?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Feb 17, 12:40 am, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

The solar output as measured near the Earth has been decreasing during the same period as when warming was observed on Mars. Do you suggest that a different sun shines on Mars than on the Earth?
Would you agree that the great Martian Dust Storm of 1971 was not anthropogenic?
Does that prove that the Depression era dustbowl was also not anthropogenic?
Or perhaps you're prepared to posit that the Earth and Mars can have similar trends for entirely different reasons?
--
FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.