On Feb 15, 8:20 am, firstname.lastname@example.org (Doug Miller) wrote:
Neither should receive funding. The last comment I heard from a
NASA scientist on the study of "Global Warming" was an adhomition to
us to refer to the study of "Global Temperature Change", reminding to
avoid presuming a conclusion.
Now, if a scientist wants funding to study some factor that can
global change she doesn't write a proposal to prove a particular
she writes a proposal to measure that factor and evaluates it's effect
on global change.
This is not like English composition where the author presumes a
conclusion and then 'proves' it by writing about ti.
Money. The deniers have been receiving millions of dollars from ExxonMobil
(and others) to create a state of disinformation. Only recently has
ExxonMobil been outed and they have now agreed to stop. Just like the
tobacco companies and smoking.
To stop what? Manufacturing hydrocarbon based products so you could do
things like brush your teeth and drive to work this morning? Were you
comfortable in your cozy house last night up there in Utah with the heat on?
_If_ there is a culprit, don't blame anyone but the guy you see in the
They've spent the money, but they've failed to get it published.
All those "reports" put out by global warming discreditors
have been *rejected* by peer-reviewed journals.
Press releases and news articles, yes. Proper scientific journals, no.
A science historian at UC San Diego analyzed 928
randomly selected research papers on climate change
published from 1993 through 2003, from of a pool of around 10,000.
Not *one* rejected the idea that human activity is warming the planet.
Of all the papers, 75% fell into the
first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly
accepting the consensus view; 25%
dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking
no position on current anthropogenic climate
change. Remarkably, none of the papers
disagreed with the consensus position.
Read it for yourself:
My apologies for bringing peer-reviewed papers into the discussion.
Are you actually suggesting that EVERY ONE of the scientists who believe
in the facts of global warming is doing so to make money? Please provide
And are further suggesting that EVERY ONE of the very few scientists who
disbelieve in global warming is incorruptible?
And who, exactly are the "patrons" who stand to gain from all this
cooking of the books by advocates of GW? Exxon? GM? Utilities? Truckers?
Big Oil? Oh, sorry--they're the Other Guys.
Unless you can provide hard evidence of your position, like maybe 10.000
scientific papers to offset those that have been published, your
argument is completely invalid.
Please note that I don't know you and we might well be good friends if
we met--I am only discussing your arguments, not your persona.
Send that one to the Bush Administration, which has been quashing
science that disagrees with its ideological position. See
Scientific American's recent editorial--sorry I no longer have the
Scientific American hasn't been a credible publication for a long time. Pretty
much ever since John Rennie took over as editor, their selection of what to
publish has been obviously driven far more by a leftist political agenda than
by any scientific considerations.
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
No - I am suggesting that the reason that the full debate about GW is not
being held in the refereed journals is because it currently serves more
people to preserve the claimed scientific orthodoxy than not to. The models
are so complex and multi-variate that there is no "fact of GW" there is simply
a variety of positions to explain currently observed phenomena - none of which
is indisputable or clearly refutes the other. My objection is not to the study
of GW and its causes/effects. My objection is the vast overstatement about
just how much we really *know* about it. To listen to you and others, one would
thing there is little left to debate. It's simply not so.
The government has a lot more money to spend on research than the big eeeeeevil
oil companies. Government with lots of money is a recipe for corruption.
No - *your* position is bogus. Science is NOT about consensus or who
has the most papers published. It is about *data*. The fact that there
remains a vibrant discussion among serious scientists about these issues
but that this debate is NOT being published ought to give you a hint as to
how corrupted the GW debate has become by politics.
And you can send it to Gore and his crowd who by every measure have been
far worse in their prostitution of science of political gain. The Bush
administration are pikers by comparison. Gore's global whining campaign
bears no resemblance to science, data, or logic, but gets lots of traction
among he earth worshipers.
Tim Daneliuk email@example.com
No, it's not about _data_, it's about figuring out how the world
around us works. One needs data to do that, but data alone doesn't
tell us much. It's not until you have a falsifiable model that you
can test against that data that you are doing science. Until that
time you are merely cataloguing.
The trouble with the notion that human activity causes global warming
is that the model is hideously complex and the amount of data
available for the purpose of testing it is exceedingly small. And
it's difficult to get more data by research since to conduct a
half-assed test one needs data spanning 10,000 or more years and to
conduct a thorough one one needs data that covers the entire period
from from the beginning of a series of glaciation cycles to the
beginning of the next period of glaciation cycles, and to collect
_that_ data will take _millions_ of years, and we don't have any way
to obtain such data globally in detail except to wait for it. At
least not unless there is some breakthrough method of determining the
data from the geological record.
A problem with this discussion is that the global warming advocates
are asserting that no contrarian results are being published, however
is that indeed the case or are they lying about that? I don't have
the time or means to conduct a comprehensive literature survey of
climatology, so don't expect me to answer that question.
Uh, what's wrong with being an "earth worshiper"? We do _live_ here
That's Hawkings idea.
I propose that we take really, really good care of the one we have until
we are CERTAIN we have found another and KNOW how to get there.
I don't call that 'earth worship' ... but simple prudent stewardship.
Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one
rascal less in the world.
Nothing, unless you begin to believe that unaltered nature is more
important and valuable than human life or society- which is what that
particular slander stems from.
I believe in keeping my area clean as I can, and trying to be kind to
the other living things around me- but I'll be damned if I would
consider knocking down my own house to plant trees for the birds to
live in, or any other such nonsense. I support the parks and forest
and water conservation- but I also support new power plants and
parking lots. Everything has it's place- and that includes us. The
damn frogs just are not more important to me than my own family and
neighbors, and that's the way it should be.
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.