Stifled Voices
By Old Grumpy Guy on February 20, 2009 at 6:20 PM in Barack Obama, Current Affairs, Media, Radio, Media, Television
In response to a passing comment in an earlier piece on NQ about the debate over global warning, one of the readers responded that the issue was settled, and suggested that all independent serious scientists were unanimous in their conclusions that the “fact” of global warming could not be disputed.
Yet here is a video by a respected TV weatherman that claims that no fewer than 30,000 leading scientists dispute this supposed consensus. So why has so little been heard about these dissenting voices when so much media coverage has been given to Al Gore, who even won a Nobel prize for what could be the promulgation of dubious science?
The answer, of course, is that global warming is an issue dear to the hearts of the green lobby, which in turn is dear to the hearts of the “save the planet” Hollywood chatocracy and the left-dominated media. Meanwhile, rational and objective debate is being stifled.
But this is only the tip of the iceberg. It seems to me that there are a wide range of issues and events that continue to be swept under the carpet, or at least not conclusively investigated by the media, like the question of Obama’s relationships with some strange people (including Larry Sinclair), where his $1 billion campaign funding came from, Barney Frank’s relationships with Freddy Mac, Acorn and a whole raft of other issues.
The mainstream media silence on these questions is deafening, except for the independent media channels and Fox.
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
8% Off at $11.95, with a rare five-star ranking by 294 customers: 
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
Tin foil, tin foil, tin foil
No Quarter is well on its way to irrelevancy with pieces like this. Wow, a weatherman has an opinion. Mr. Coleman is not a scientist. He’s a TV personality. The idea that the news hasn’t had more than enough coal and oil industry gas bags spewing the same bullshit he’s spewing here is ridiculous.
is it really necessary to be so rude?
can’t you just discuss the content of the video?
Lil Mike,
How many ice ages have we had prior to the invention of the internal combustion engine? Hell, prior to the Industrial Revolution? Do you now how CO2 works, try this,,place a can of your favorite soda in your garage and another in the refrig. In 30 days tell me which one is flat?
Jalepeno, I have an experiment for you. Go out to your garage, close all the doors and windows and start your car. Sit in the garage overnight with the internal combustion engine running and answer my post in the morning.
Lil Mike-how old are you? Really.
John Coleman is a clown. His tv weather “reports” in Chicago were the comedic events of the evening.
He is no more a scientist than I am. And we are both entitled to our respective opinions. Just because he was one of the originators of The Weather Channel, doesn’t make him a genius. It makes him a business man — or lucky.
I think the point is not weather the “weatherman” is the expert but rather that 300000 competant experts are not heard on the issue….you can insult him and them all you want but it only shows how indoctrinated and zealous you are…..the truth should be the main preoccupation here. The fascists media-leftist kabbal will do anything to stiffle discussion. Why? Does that not concern you zealots. geeze louis..you people are so nasty that I am starting to fear that you guys are close to wanting litterally kill any opponent…just like Nazis, fascits and commis. Wake up people…you are making the discussion and political scene toxic. Insults won’t get you to the truth. Is the truth really what you even want?
Is Al Gore a scientist?
Lil Mike, I’m not a scientist but if you really use your brain you can see that the earth has been warming since the last ice age, which was when? Yes, the glaciers have been melting, melting since that time so many eons ago. The coastline of the Pacific was so far inland that Oregon and Washington as we know it was under water. The Blue Mountain Range in eastern Oregon was the coast of Oregon. When the waters started receding, Oregon’s climate was semi-tropic but as the centuries passed eastern Oregon became an arrid climate and remains so to this day.
So yes our climate has been warming, but now the ice in the Antarctic is growing because it is getting colder. Another ice age coming in next few centuries?
little mike showing his little brain again. What about the scientists?
I think the point is not weather the “weatherman” is the expert but rather that 300000 competant experts are not heard on the issue….you can insult him and them all you want but it only shows how indoctrinated and zealous you are…..the truth should be the main preoccupation here. The fascists media-leftist kabbal will do anything to stiffle discussion. Why? Does that not concern you zealots. geeze louis..you people are so nasty that I am starting to fear that you guys are close to wanting litterally kill any opponent…just like Nazis, fascits and commis. Wake up people…you are making the discussion and political scene toxic. Insults won’t get you to the truth. Is the truth really what you even want? It sure doesn’t seem like it is.
sorry for the typo….the point is not ‘whether’
He also has 30,000 scientist behind him. It may not be picking up steam here yet, but it is in Europe. I personally do not believe in Global Warming the way it has been presented.
I think there are many things we do to screw up the environment, but I think a lot of what is happening now is the Earth’s way of cleansing herself. It is THE very reason why she has existed for so many years. Been able to sustain life. We know she paused on her Chandler’s Wobble several years ago now, which signaled a tilt. The sun spots…We’ve had all the signs of another ice age. We’ve known that was coming since the 70’s. In fact scientist back in the 20’s warned of another ice age within the next 50 to 100 years. We are 100’s of years behind in her natural course of cleansing.
I also think environmentalist do a lot of the screwing up of nature themselves. It take mother nature years to catch up to man. Yet, what are we doing? How many plants do you have on your street that are actually indigenous to your region? How many animals after years of extinction have been taken and thrown into the mix?
You can’t plant rainforest’s where there were none. You can’t introduce a species that has been extinct in a region for 50+ years, she’s already prepared herself for that extinction. Look at the wolf populations in Yellowstone and what is happening. Perfect example.
Those things have to be done slowly or you introduce populations that go unchecked which bring what? Disease that goes unchecked. Disease that mutates and is able to cross from species to species. The extinction of other animals that previously weren’t in danger. Starling introduction to this country another perfect example.
Starlings are very intelligent birds related to the myna bird and can actually talk as well as any gray parrot. They’re learning how to get along with the other bird species here, but they were not indigenous to the USA, so they almost caused the extinction of several bird species. How many people wanted to kill them after introducing them and nature catching up and preparing herself for them? House sparrows another one. Our own government sent out recipes for how to cook Starlings. Do you know what a disaster that would have caused? Let’s introduce a species, give nature 40 or 50 years of them being here. Wait they’re causing the extinction of other birds! Oops that didn’t work let’s remove them all quickly. No, that would have cause no problems in nature. Took the Starling less time than man to learn how to live among-st other birds. Man still hasn’t learned. All these things effect nature.
Domesticated cats, do you know how many species of animals cats have singlehandedly caused the extinction of? Yet people let them wander around to do their thing. Now cats have their own form of HIV. How did that happen?
Look at the new diseases that are cropping up in deer, chickens. The bird flu has been around since the 40’s. But, wait now it’s mutated, it’s crossed over to man. It isn’t something new. Anyone that’s rescued wildlife will tell you every year you get one species of birds that do not prosper. That are ill, that you have larger death counts in. We’ve had a vaccine for the bird flu in animals since the 50’s. The problem is nature is not controlling them because of man’s interference. Sometimes the best intentions turn out to be the worse. Nature is full of checks and balances. And both sides have made major screw-ups.
Etc. Etc. Etc. Blah, blah, blah.
I do not believe in Man Made Global Warming. However, It is scientificly proven that natural global warming and cooling occur. Al Gore pushed the man made global warming theory because of the monetary rewards for him.
We all need to focus on conservation and keeping our environment clean and stop blaming mankind for the natural cycles of the earth warming patterns.
Conservatives have tried to make this point for years and were called idiots by liberals like Al Gore.
Now the new mantra is CLimate Change because global warming wasn’t taregted enough. But of course the Climate is changing!!!
Yes, we have no control… yet over cyclical natural weather patterns. But we can only imagine… seeing now the value of Madoff stock certificates… what the value then of “carbon offsets” really is. I imagine the two are worth about the same.
We won’t even talk about the hypocrites with cell phones. We’ve known for at least the past 10 years that cell phones are causing the extinction of bees. Mankind can’t survive without bees. How many trees, plants have now gone extinct because of it? But that’s ok, because they need their cell phones. That’s not an enviromental issue. It’s just a t-h-e-o-r-y.
Interesting video; I hadn’t realized that there was substantial dissent in climate change studies. Thanks for posting the information. I wanted to let you know I also enjoyed your post about Biting the hand that feeds you; I didn’t have time to comment when I read it. Great job.
James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic
Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’ & ‘Was Never Muzzled’
Gore Faces More Scientific Blowback
Washington DC: NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice President Al Gore’s closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA.
Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fears soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.” Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of anthropogenic global warming fears.
Read more at:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320
Dr. John S. Theon wasn’t Hansen’s supervisor. He oversaw the the allocation of his funding at one time. Theon retired from NASA over 15 years ago, so one must wonder what he actually knows of the pressures the Bush administration imposed on government climate scientists during the last 8. Remember the 2007 senate committee hearings that revealed the systematic suppression of scientific findings?
oh please…Bush never oppressed or suppressed anyone. If anyone is wearing tin foil its you rabid anti-bush wackos. Obviously your man made global warming nonsense has gotten out there wouldn’t you say? So how is Bush’s oppression relevant. You supposedly worry about oppression and suppression unless of course its your ideological equivalents doing the oppressing…that’s ok then right! You obsess about fascism among the republicans yet you have an enormous and obvious fascistic constiracy between the whole leftist media, information technology industry, financiers, and Obama machine….that’s ok right…no worries there eh?
The whole point of this blog is: why are the leftist kabbal suppressing the oppinions and evidence of 30000 scientists? Please stick to answering that! I know its really hard for you leftist crazies to stick to logical discussion. You love changing the subject and pointing elsewhere when you are stumped. You poeple are scary as hell.
Sorry, but the Bush administration most definitely DID suppress scientific opinion. Systematically, and on a grand scale.
Apparently you missed the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearings on the matter. There was a 16 month investigation, involving the collection of testimony from the government science community and the review of 27,000 pages of White House documents. What they determined was in no way ambiguous. Their conclusions don’t represent politically biased interpretation or opinion. Read the summary for yourself:
http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?id=1653
“The evidence before the Committee leads to one inescapable conclusion: the Bush Administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming.”
That’s the reality. Reality, alas, isn’t something you ever seem to want to deal with.
Reality is something you don’t seem to want to deal with buddy….otherwise you’d rail about and seek to explain why the Left is SUPPRESSING the opinions of 30000 scientists and vilifying. That is the topic of discussion after all.
Obviously the Lefts oppression/suppression is far more worrisome and effective than Bushs’ brand….does that worry you…no I thought not.
Those opinions haven’t been suppressed. They’ve been given consideration by the majority of the scientific community and rejected as less likely.
There sometimes comes a point when it’s necessary to draw a conclusion and act upon it, even when the opinion is not unanimous. Opinions seldom are. There were people still insisting the evidence that smoking causes lung cancer was only circumstantial long after the Surgeon General decided the majority of scientists were likely right, and it was time to look out for the public’s best interest.
Forcing minority opinion into the spotlight often isn’t done by special interests in the belief they’ll eventually be proven right. It’s done as a delaying tactic. This in no way discredits the integrity scientists who hold minority opinions. They probably sign on because they believe in their individual conclusions.
…and you would know how, mr. expert?
I’m supposed to believe that artificially pumping 34 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere per year while simultaneously removing 50 million acres of rainforest per year–an area the size of England and Scotland combined–has had no effect on global climate?
There no doubt are long-term, non-man made climate cycles that form the background. No scientist denies that.
Superimposed is another that we are directly responsible for.
We have to deal with the combined effect.
Sorry OGG, you lost me on this one. John Coleman has a degree in journalism. He is not a scientist and I have yet to see this list of 30,000 scientist who claim global warming is a scam. The only remaining question on climate change is whether it is cyclical or the result of human activities. I flew to Houston not too long ago and several miles outside the city, I could see a gummy looking yellow cloud hanging over the city. If you repeat that for every large city in the world, how can there be a doubt remaining about carbon emissions contaminating the atmosphere of the earth with potentially disastrous results. I couldn’t even wear my contact lenses there. Blaise Pascal was a mathematician who live centuries ago and he proposed a wager about the existence of God. He said, if you believe and he does exist, you will have an eternity in heaven. If you believe and he doesn’t exist, you have lived a good life and lost nothing. I’d like to propose the same wager for climate change. If we believe it is true and make an effort to change the behavior causing it, we will have saved future generation and perhaps, even humankind. If we believe and it doesn’t exist, we will still have a cleaner, healthier environment for future generations. In any case, oil is a finite resource. A geologist in the 1950s described a bell curve of availability of oil. It went up as new oil reserves were found which were easy to extract. Those for the most part have been found and as consumption has increased we have reached Hurbert’s Peak and are heading down the other side of the curve. The only fossil fuel left in abundance is coal and it’s very dirty. We can bury our heads in the sand and wait for disaster or we can get serious about finding alternative fuel and clean up the environment. The rain forests in South America provide 15% of the oxygen for the world and they are being destroyed everyday.
The list of names of scientists who have signed the petition can be found at:
http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Signers_By_Last_Name.php
I’m sorry TM, but I’m not having a lot of luck with that list. The first name, Aagaard, is a biology professor at Seventh Day Adventists University which I could not find on Wicki. The second name, Charles Aami, Google doesn’t find any info about him. The third, Roger Aamodt is connected to some group, ISBER, and the only way to information on him is to join his facebook. I only have 29,998 to go to find a real expert on this subject, but as far as I can tell, anyone can sign this petition, even a dog catcher.
There is no SDA University — there are several colleges and one or two universities — Andrews University (I think).
But if this list contains names of RELIGIOUS institutions — “Biologists” who don’t believe in evolution and do believe that the earth is about 6,000 years old . . .
Grumpy Old guy — dumb anti science subject you’ve chosen.
Oh Loma Linda University in Southern CA — is a SDA medical college — Home of the MD who used a baboon heart in a human baby (he doesn’t “believe” in evolution).
To be fair, Al Gore… Nobel Prize and all is not a scientist. It is theory. Theory is not fact. I have long had issue with Al Gore’s theory. Who is to say that if CO2 levels rise, that it won’t just encourage the growth of say… ocean algae which may use the increased CO2 and produce O2 as a result? If you want to use statistics to prove a theory… we can find scientists on either side. Expert witnesses are readily for sale. Keep up the good work OGG, question everything… especially in these times.
“Expert witnesses are readily for sale.” also, who’s funding the studies.
I understand the issue about open debate, but fish not edible because of contaminants from industries, rivers where you can’t fish and where living close to them causes higher incidences of cancer due to chemical dumping, coal plant areas where there are higher rates of asthma, human induced bovine spongiform encephalopathy, e-coli giving scallions, salmonella laced peanut butter…humans don’t have a very good record on controlling what they have proven. Global warmning theory or fact, I support Gore and the environmentalists.
Hormone altering chemicals finding the way into rivers is an issue I can get behind… but it is a separate issue. I saw the Al Gore movie, I saw the six degrees show, but I also see Al, Nancy and the gang haven’t given up their private jets… If you really believed that CO2 was causing global warming… would you fly your own jet rather than fit your schedule around a common carrier which is going that way anyhow to save the fuel? No. So, I think it is apparent from the behaviors of the “champions” of this cause… that they don’t believe it themselves. Am I against hormone altering chemicals getting into rivers, against fertilizer runoff causing dead spots in the ocean, against pharmaceutical drugs getting into our drinking water… yes I am against all of that. We know for a fact this is happening. I am not for punitively punishing people and industry for unproven theories however. No matter how many celebrities think it is a good idea.
“I am not for punitively punishing people and industry for unproven theories however.”
But the problem is that history seems to show that theories get “proven” when too many people begin to die and to many people begin to make noise about a possible correlation. Case in point, agent orange. Read an article about 3 years ago on the US soldiers. Are they lying?
Saw a program on ABC Nature’s Edge on the FLIR camera, hope they make them available for individuals so we can see what our air looks like as we walk the streets of cities, drive our cars in traffic, sit over our septic tanks on the lawn…you can actually see the gases, like smokers smoke. The sight is so disturbing it is and very probable that whether or not these unseen gases contribute to global warming would actually become secondary.
PS, totally on on Gore’s hypocrisy.
Docelder—-great point about the use of private jets!! Further proof that we need to keep open minds and a cynical eye. The fact that Al Gore is NOT a scientist is an important fact, if there’s going to be scientific finger-pointing.
But mainly, Ph.D.’s HATE people with journalism degrees. They act like journalists REALLy didn’t go to college.
Don’t dismiss the message because of the messengers, Cindy. Al Gore is nothing more than a spokesperson to get the message out since it’s not easy for a scientist to get TV time.
elise If you read my earlier comments you’d see that I said we should keep an open mind. The one thing that will kill me in this environment is people who have “the answer” and will not listen to differing views…..that makes my blood pressure soar! So, Elise, please read, then think, before you write. Deal?
good point Cindy. But it’s difficult for most people to keep an open mind when only one side gets heard.
I’m truly sorry, cindy. And you are right about open minds so I promise to think before I post.
Al Gore is not high on my list of favorite people and I didn’t hear about global warming from him the first time. It was in an environmental geology class years ago. Increased co2 levels will not encourage the growth of algae producing O2. The oceans are depleted and thousands of years of coral reef formations are dying off and the overfishing of certain species of life is changing the ecology. Besides, are you willing to gamble things will evolve in a way favorable to human beings? If you get into your car, start the engine and the garage door is shut, you will die from carbon monoxide poising. Just imagine millions of cars every day releasing this poison into the atmosphere and increasing over time until there is no breathable air left. Think about the ozone layer which protects the earth from the sun’s rays and at the same time keeps the poison from escaping into space producing a greenhouse which will raise the earths temperature, melt ice caps and cause the oceans to rise. This may not happen in our lifetime, but the majority of geologist and climatologist believe the point of no return is approaching.
I remember hearing about this nearly 40 years ago from a college biology professor.
Remember the 1973 movie “Soylent Green”? The environment backstory bears a striking resemblence to current trends: overpopulation, disappeared species, coral reefs dying, expanding oceanic dead zones, global warming, mass loss of agricultural areas to desertification… It was pretty much all there. The writer was a bit off with his timeline. The story was originally set in 2002.
I remember Soylent Green. The population was weeded out (murdered) to provide food for the younger people. What will happen if/when we reach the tipping point? The few who survive such a castrophy will be scrambling for food.
You’d have to be dedicated to truth and understand what real scientific protocol is about to acknowledge that a “theory” is not a fact.
No one in power (or their brainwashed followers) cares for either anymore…its all about ideology and seeking to achieve “moral superiority” over others in order to control them. That’s the real name of the game. Period.
I like air. I need it in order to stay alive. Call me self-serving, but I would rather err on the side of caution and go with Al Gore.
Well might I then suggest doing as Al Gore does… and not what he says. It has been reported his personal home uses 20 times the electricity per month as compared to the average home. Al has a private jet… I imagine he breaks into spontaneous “belly laughter” as he flies over us little people. We aren’t worthy to drive a SUV or eat beef. We should eat the grains we feed to cattle and get a bicycle. I imagine he really enjoys himself.
Can’t live in a bubble and not have what we do in it impact it.
To be fair we don’t live in a bubble. We have an expansive atmosphere and we have a historical track record of natural cyclical weather patterns. Should we pollute unnecessarily… no. There are more harmful things in exhaust fumes than CO2. But in reality, AL Gore has taken this to an extreme, speculating even that bovine flatulence is increasing global warming… when we have natural methane boiling up from the earth’s core since the earth was formed. I can support some even handed effort to conserve… I can. This theory is being abused. I would like to see Al have to testify in open court and answer some hard questions.
We live inside something. It’s a bubble.
You can call a turd a flower but it’s still a turd.
As a scientist, I can say that the data I’ve seen does indicate global warming. The only questions left are: 1) what is causing it and 2) can it be mitigated?
Al Gore, while a public figure and a vocal one with respect to Global warming would make a poor choice to sue because his testimony would consist of “this is what x number of scientists state in peer-reviewed papers”. The judge would then likely dismiss the case, since Gore is not a subject-matter expert and is just one of many spokesmen for the cause and not the source of the data. To put is another way, this guy wants to sue the messenger.
If this case is so easy, then why don’t these people sue the scientists? The oil companies aren’t suing. Probably because there aren’t enough real experts on the anti-Global Warming side to mount a credible case.
Al Gore has greatly reduced the electricity he uses in his house which is also his office. Although, you’re right he does use a lot of the stuff. And shame on him for using a private jet.
The problem is that the “sky is falling” outlook adds to the neo-Malthusian mindset that currently prevails and which does not help get us out of the economic doldrums.
Ginger, you gave me a good laugh. I, too, would prefer to err on the side of caution and I go with Al Gore. Elise, I agree with you. I suggest people read Plan B by Lester Brown president of the Earth Policy Institute. We are already growing short of water. And overpopulation is a real concern.
What about erring on the side of caution and try to discover the truth by hearing both sides…is that too painstaking? It must be because you’ld rather put your faith in some bafoon without a degree and hence give the idiot huge power over you rather than hear and understand the data out there.
Isn’t putting your “faith” in something or someone without inspecting the facts just like a religious experience…I thought you leftist hate religion…but you’ld rather put your faith in a university drop out than in God….I see I see. That makes sense totally. Not.
Before you give full license to demogogue to have power over how you live your life, don’t you think erring on the side of caution would be to get an understanding of all the data out there?
Having “faith” in a university drop out and a bunch or activist scientist….wow I’m shocked. I thought you leftist hated religion….I thought you guys only had faith in science. If so then you should know that good science is made up of analysis and discussion of all data…not just the data that fits your doctrine.
A good scientist should be able to explain why opposing data is the way it is……today though they just cover it up and pretend it doesn’t exist and vilify those who came up with it. SOUNDS LIKE THE INQUISTITION TO ME OR AT LEAST WHAT THE CATHOLIC SUCH DID TO GALILEO ETC. Mmm, I wonder if there’s a lesson here….but I’m sure its lost on you fools. Please wake up people and learn to think critically rather than cynically. You’re making the world a toxic place.
Sorry, OGG - I’ve worked on atmospheric modeling for a substantial portion of my rather long adult life. The consensus
on climate change is universal among climate experts, and the evidence is overwhelming. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something.
If you’ve worked on atmospheric modeling for a substantial portion of your rather long adult life, then it is very likely you’ve wasted most of your adult life.
Climate change is an evident, absolute truth. The problem at hand is whether or not global warming–an anthropogenic process–can be considered valid due to Earth’s record of massive temperature swings in the past, long before humans.
And the environmentalists are not trying to sell something?
Climate change has always existed. We have had much hotter temperatures for millions of years before man came out of his cave. So yes we can all agree in climate change, just not the source.
Not to mention that global warming or climate change helped end the last ice age. It was this warming that allowed our species to thrive.
After an ice age, there’s only one way for the climate to go and that’s warmer. But normal cycles don’t explain the speed in which the ice caps are melting now. Or the fact that Antartica is warming which wasn’t anticipated. The thing about Climate Change, once everyone becomes convinced we are altering the normal cycles with our activities, it will be too late to stop the progression.
From the UK.
Artic Ice refuses to melt as ordered.
http://tinyurl.com/5sma3z
LMAO. Their entire knowledge of science would be placed in a beaker-full of water and not displace enough of it to cause an overflow.
global warming - “Global Warming - 5 Facts ”
By: George Christodoulou
Global warming is happening and some people still think it’s not happening which is just fine, but even they have to admit the climate is changing. The planet constantly altering, we have to decide what we will do to adapt. Animals and plants are already changing the way they act by blooming and migrating sooner. With technology constantly changing, new variables are added to this equation of global warming that pessimistic scientists must take into consideration before they doom the planet. Now, for all those skeptics who think global warming doesn’t exist, here are 5 facts about global warming.
1. The Planets Temperature Has Increased And Average of 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 of a degree Celsius) in the last 100 years. With the increase in green house gasses, the suns rays stay trapped and increase the world’s temperature. It is predicted that the temperature will increase in coming years because more and more of the suns heat remains trapped here on earth.
2 The cause of the increase of climate change is Human activity producing pollution and green house gasses according to many scientists. Heavy industry vigorously emits carbon dioxide, Nitrous Oxide, Ozone, and other gasses. With an increase in competition to create the most products of the best quality comes an increase in the production of green house gasses, but with new laws and filters, the amount of these gasses being emitted into the air has decreased.
3. If the temperature of the planet increases to a certain point, methane from the ocean can be released into the air and drastically increase the temperature of the earth to dangerous levels. This is not to scare anyone and may not even have to do with global warming or human green house gas production, however scientists believe methane released from the ocean ended the Permian era, killed off countless land and sea creatures, and raised the temperature of the planet considerably.
4. People say that deforestation is a contributor to global warming right? According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), deforestation occurs at a rate of 53,000 square miles per year. This can negatively affect the atmosphere since trees are 50% carbon as well as cause environmental problems for the land which is used to having large forests on it.
5. There are more than 50 things you can do to stop or slow global warming including, lowering your thermostat, choosing energy efficient appliances and, taking showers instead of baths. Every little thing you can do to prevent energy from being wasted can help decrease the effect of human interaction with the earth’s climate. Global warming or not, preventing the waste of energy doesn’t hurt anyone.
Weather you believe humans are causing global warming or it is a natural occurrence that will pass, you still have to be aware of its effect on the world. Do some homework and learn about both sides of the debate. Now is the time when this topic is at its peak so it will help you to know a few facts.
This article gave me pause regarding this issue:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
If Mars is experiencing global warming, is it possible that the climate is changing because of the sun?
Here is a bit from the above article:
Just something to think about. There is a lot of money to be made if we can lay the blame solely on humans. The Green Movement is another industry.
Yes, “carbon offsets” is a business. Al Gore is in business. Business has been good. None of this means he was right.
There’s a lot more money to be made by big oil and big coal if people can be convinced not to worry about the adverse effects of their activities.
Let’s not forget who the special interests actually are here: industries concerned primarily with maintaining a status quo that produces maximum profit margins.
Climate scientists, on the other hand, are focused on the collective interests of all inhabitants of the planet.
You could make the argument though that anybody entering that field may have a personal viewpoint going into it that may make their opinions somewhat less than neutral. You may make the same assumption about petroleum geologists probably, if they didn’t believe the world should be using the oil… they may have become climatologists instead. I am not against conservation at all. I do feel this particular cause has been hijacked. I think the climatologists probably are coming from a good place, and they probably believe what they are saying. I don’t think the politicians who are championing them and their theories share the same virtue.
Yeah, I’ll certainly concede the point to you about politicians.
Thank you for the link TM. The author says the theory is controversial and not accepted by mainstream scientist. The changes in planet climate is generally related to the wobble of the axis, not changes in the temp of the sun. He is also predicting a drastic cooling in 15-20years. If such a thing occurred do to changes in the sun, I guess the best thing we could do is party on until the party is over.
I’ve also read several articles indicating warming on Mars. Even Pluto. Seems the sun is up to no good. Now obviously there are no coal factories or SUV’s beyond this planet. At least, not that we’re aware of. It is curious and should at least raise an eyebrow.
I don’t have the background in environmental science to make a judgment call. But there’s no doubt that there is pushback to the whole Global Warming movement. And the movement has something of a religious fervor to it. I always consider that “you-must-believe” edge, regardless of the issue, dangerous. And often wrong.
I read a piece over at Huffington bemoaning the fact that because the media was “allowing” skeptics to voice their views, the disinformation had skewed public opinion–only 40% of the American public believes in human responsibility for climate change.
Guess the true believers would rather install chips in our heads, so we’d agree. To everything.
It’s sad when debate and discussion is frowned upon, no matter what the subject.
Thanks for that interesting little morsel…very interesting.
Notice how no one else seems to care? It just doesn’t fit with the doctrine and is hence of no use. That’s todays science for ya…you betcha!
Stifled? Hardly. Paid for their lobbying efforts, yes. Stifled, no.
The Weather Channel founder is a meteorologist, not a climatologist. And look what he did, build a MEDIA mini-empire. Every significant outlier event adds up to revenue for him via advertising dollars. So he could care less, I think.
That list of 30,000 “skeptics” has been shown to be bogus, like much of the skeptics’ works. Behind most of the skeptics is clients like energy and transportation giants.
Sorry, OGG there is no rational debate on this. The Green Lobby isn’t padding their estate portfolios from selling recyclable tote-bags at the grocery. They are pumping as much of their money into advocacy.
Al Gore lives in a large estate. Yeah, gee willikers. He’s a former Vice President of the US. Go figure. And his office and his wife’s office is in the house, so comparison’s to the “average” home just don’t jive.
And Climate Change being a “theory”…yeah, and gravity is only a theory. This is basic high school science terminology. But we have pretty darn good tools to sample, analyze and model PATTERNS.
I’m sick of hearing “oh gosh, the fruitbat lefties talk about global warming and it just snowed eight inches in my backyard. They’re nuts.” Well, duh, it’s winter, Snow Happens. But ice cores from say 10,000 years ago tell us a better story.
To all the climate change deniers: Why are you afraid of agreeing with the science put forth by the majority of Climatologists? Is it knee-jerk reaction to anything coming from the left? Don’t want to admit your SUV may not be the best choice for the long term HEALTH of our species? The Bible? Because Rush told you so?
Just search up “western conifer forest bark beetle” and read up on how the rise in annual average temperatures is allowing the beetle to devastate our western forests. Forest Smokey the Bear or logging, the biggest threat is higher temperatures throughout the year allowing the insect to thrive…where 20-30 years or so ago, it couldn’t.
I say C Sharp or B Flat…or we’re all in Treble.
“Global warming has become the favorite cause of the Greens, because “remedies” for it would require a scale of government intervention that strikes at the very heart of the free market system.” This quote was pulled from an article written more than eighteen years ago in the Nov. 1990 issue of “The Freeman” by Robert James Bidinotto. Kind of prophetic wasn’t it? The main thrust of the article is that radical environmentalists seek to crush individual liberty, undermine modern society, and eventually reduce and eliminate mankind completely. Of course the complete elimination of mankind is the goal of only the most extreme Greenies, but they do exist. The main battleground in this effort is the manufactured threat of global warming catastrophy.
Twenty years ago Dr. James Hansen got the ball rolling by stating to Congress that it was his OPINION that the greenhouse effect had been detected. Since that time the environmental movement, working in concert with governments seeking greater control of our lives, have funded and promoted countless studies to prove AGW. Almost all of the studies are fundamentaly flawed from a scientific perspective because the funding for them was linked to predetermined outcomes and conclusions. Researchers were compelled to cherry-pick data that supported possible AGW and ignore the rest. I’m sure that AGW proponents will claim that oil and coal companies do the same thing, and they would be correct. I suggest double blind research to prevent bias from contaminating the scientific process. Nevertheless, there are more and more experts that are independent of financial incentives and restraints who are voicing deep and educated skepticism of AGW.
The biosphere, atmosphere, and Earth are all far too infinitely complex for us to ever comprehend. Our climate is affected by forces as small as bacteria and as large as the Solar system. It is impossible to plug all of the influencing factors into a computer model so that it can accurately predict what the climate will be a week from now let alone 100 years from now. At this point AGW is all smoke and mirrors. Money and manpower would be far more effeciently spent dealing with the consequences of possible climate change than it would be if spent in a pointless effort to prevent changes that are beyond our ability to control.
The problem with holding this belief is that you’re so busy looking over your shoulder all the time that you can’t see what’s in front of you.
It’s this sort of paranoia that makes otherwise rational people into seemingly blathering fools.
Your response is typical of a person that has been cornered and has to resort to an ad hominem attack rather than engage in a thoughtful debate. By doing so you have revealed a profound and impenetrable ignorance that demonstrates that you’re not willing or able to rise above your primitive and dim vision of reality and consider plausible alternatives.
Put more simply for your obviously limited mental capabilities, ces, stay out of the deep end.
This is my last response to you because I’m sure that any further effort at educating you is a complete waste of time, something that all you’re previous teachers are well aware of.
————– The party is downthread.
Basing your criticism of climate change scientists (not the skeptics, mind you) almost solely on a fear of “radical environmentalists” does nothing toward ‘engag[ing] in a thoughtful debate.’
On one hand you say the global climate system is too complex for science to measure it, but then on the other hand, there are these other scientists who are skeptics that can measure this and say it’s hogwash…and we might just want to listen to Them. So, please, which is it? Can humans measure climate change or not? Sincere question.
The party is downthread. You’re welcome to stop by.
Ces, your problem, and the reason why it is pointless to engage in a debate with you, is that you either distort, misinterpret, or misstate the context of a post, then you frame your rebuttle based upon your own distortion, misinterpretation, and misstatement. You’ve done that three times now regarding my first post.
This is the most obvious of one of your strawman arguments: You wrote, “On one hand you say the global climate system is too complex for science to measure it, but then on the other hand, there are these scientists who are skeptics that can measure this and say it’s hogwash…and we might just want to listen to Them.”
First, since your ability for comprehension is obviously very weak, please re-read my post several times and try to find where I wrote that the climate system is too complex for science to measure it. I would never make such a stupid statement. I AM a scientist and I’m well aware that if scientists are superb at anything, measuring things is at the top of the list. What I actually wrote is that the climate system (biosphere, atmosphere, and Earth) is far too complex for us to COMPREHEND, big difference.
Second, where did I write that the skeptical scientists can measure this and say it’s hogwash? Again, you’ve distorted my post beyond recognition and then you ask me to defend or explain myself as if your distortion was my position. That’s bizarre.
Third, this is not the first time that I’ve noticed your disturbing habit of distorting and mangling posts then arguing the about the problems with your own distortion. I’m not sure why you even bother reading posts when your first response is to completely twist the concepts around to be stawmen that you can knock down and then smuggly pat yourself on the back for your debating skills. Why don’t you just pretend that someone has said something that you dissagree with and then have an argument with your imaginary friend. I would recomend that you go to a quiet room to engage in your rhetorical masterbation, and stop displaying it on blogs.
Andrew,
Firstly, “try to find where I wrote that the climate system is too complex for science to measure it”:
Conclusion: You implied we, as humans, can’t build a computer model to describe the global climate system. At least a model we’d understand.
Secondly, “where did I write that the skeptical scientists can measure this”:
Conclusion: You’re stating we should also listen to these skeptics, are you not? By logical conclusion, if they are skeptics, they understand the claim and the data and have come to different conclusions. You want us to listen to and believe the skeptics, right? My question to you is, why believe them over the people doing the original research? Why preface the whole post with a verbal cloud about radical environmentalists playing politics with climate change research? That was what you’re saying, right?
Thirdly, insults don’t advance the “debate”. Perhaps pointing out where my conclusions about your intent are wrong might be more helpful. So next time, please address the questions/thoughts I pose, instead of making assumptions yourself.
Thanks for your time. Good day.
You couldn’t possibly have written a post that displays the way you distort, misinterpret, mangle intent, and pose ludicrous conclusions, if you tried. Even my teenage children are getting a chuckle at your strange rhetorical contortions.
Speaking of a strawman argument.
I questioned your position and instead of defend it, you’ve attacked me repeatedly.
Well done.
My positions are clearly stated, what you repeatedly question and ask me to defend is your distorted interpretations of my statements.
And now you’ve shown that you apparently don’t know the difference between a strawman argument and an ad hominem tactic.
Again, stay out of the deep end of the pool, in your case, the ces-pool.
Have a wonderful day, Andrew.
And please spare me your indignation at being “insulted”. Your first response to my post clearly implies that you consider me a paranoid blathering fool. Rather insulting, don’t you think?
Actually, if you reread your own post, Andrew, you were referencing someone else’ statement. It was that to which I was referencing, and using the general “you” … as in if You believe that way, it makes you appear paranoid.
Not once did I say YOU, Andrew, are a fool. In fact, even if the statement were applied to you, it compliments you as being otherwise rational, but “seemingly” a fool. But again, the statement was not directly applied to you.
If that’s the core misunderstanding, then yes, that’s on me, but please call me on it then, so we can get back to the issue at hand.
I did call you on it, immediately, by calling it an ad hominem attack. You did not refute this so by implication I was correct in believing that the insult was directed at me.
You can either believe me that it wasn’t or stay mad.
The choice is yours.
Again, have a great day.
I’m not mad, never was, I’m amused by the confusing and rat’s-nest-like nature of your thought processes.
Boy, this thread sure got heated
My father-in-law is one of the scientists who has signed the document. He is now 85 years old and has spent a distinquished career in the sciences as a physiologist specializing in hypothermia. His funding was from NASA and the NIH and besides his academic career at a state university, the bulk of his research was done in Wood’s Hole, Ma. for the marine biological labs and the aleutian islands in Alaska. Science is his life and his passion, and at his age he is still extremely interested in all aspects of his field. I do not know the answer about global warming but I do not he would not sign a document unless he felt sure that he had ample evidence to support his viewpoint.
Thank you, Jenny, for sharing about your father-in-law being one of those who signed the petition.
CES (above poster) claimed the signatures were “bogus” and he called the signers “skeptics” as opposed to scientists. Some folks just don’t want to consider that there might be more to the story than what Al Gore put out there.
My brother has a PhD in high-energy particle physics. He wouldn’t have the first clue about how to analyze crash test data.
Just because someone has a degree and experience in a field of science DOES NOT make them particularly knowledgeable or thoroughly versed in the data/analysis.
I say BOGUS not to impugn any signatory’s intelligence, but to suggest they might have signed without due and appropriate experience this the specific field of CLIMATOLOGY.
I would never expect my daughter’s pediatric doctor to immediately be proficient in the intricacy’s of brain surgery. Both doctors, yes. Same field, same ability to comprehend the full context. Absolutely NO.
So their being “skeptics” is NOT based on the science, but something else.
And methinks you cling to your distrust/disgust of Al Gore a bit too much to hear his message without bias.
I’m a tad skeptical about the proposition that a question concerning scientific concensus can be somehow resolved in a court of law.
It goes to court because the agencies responsible for generating the research aren’t allowed to use the data they come up with.
The policy makers then disregard laws stating the application of said data, institute their own conclusions (oft times counter to said data and even other laws/oversight/regulation) and then it gets to the courts.
Again, it goes to court because the agencies either don’t or aren’t “allowed” to implement data-driven policies because of industry influence.
I had a physiology professor maybe 24 years ago as I count back the days in St. Louis… he was a NASA scientist and had worked in hypothermia… Dr. W. had the most interesting stories.
Grumpy Guy—Thank you for the video and the post.
Hubby and I just spent FIVE THOUSAND dollars on a new air-conditioning unit, because the copper tubing apparatus that needed to be replaced in the old unit is no longer manufactured. None of the parts of any of it are made now because everything has to meet the “green” code. And the old unit isn’t even that old! But the greens people have determined what is obsolete….FIVE THOUSAND $$$ worth! So, when I see the hypocrisy of Obama, Gore, Pelosi, and the rest of the gang that couldn’t shoot (or talk) straight, I am outraged. My family and I recycle religiously and use as many “green” household items as we can afford. And we buy local organic produce, and grow our own. And we don’t fly around in private jets!!
We had to replace our, too. They didn’t make it anymore. But gosh, go figure, it was 18 freakin’ years old. We could fix it, but why not INVEST in a new machine that would save us money down the line…
Sometimes they don’t make it anymore, because well, they learned how to make it better…as in more efficient…as in less money out of your pocket each month in energy costs.
Would you buy a new car today that only had technology that was new 18 years ago? Or try going to the movie store and get a Beta tape, or heck, a VHS tape to rent. Better go back to that Compaq 88MHz PC, cuz gosh cann’t let those lefties make you get a iMac.
If you want to throw away money each money just to stick it to Al Gore, please send it my way.
I don’t know what you’re talking about, but you must be very young and naive, because you don’t seem appreciate the ability to fix things that still have some use. That’s what “conservation” is all about. NOT being wasteful.
I hope you do realize that ‘conservation’ in the “green” context means to sustain something to the point that it can still be used indefinitely.
Like maybe the planet itself?
With humans or not, the planet itself will continue to exist and natural and biological cycles would continue. But of course, us humans have such a huge impact upon the Earth that we cannot seem to fathom the planet without humans.
No, I could not fathom the planet without humans, but I COULD fathom the planet without people who “know what’s best for us” (like Fascists).
Would you agree?
To be quite honest, I would rather imagine a world without Liberals.
Actually, I can easily imagine it. Our successors may already be appearing. Consider the rapid evolution of the Honda P series:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_P_series
Or the REEM-B:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REEM-B
As a footnote, I’ll add that just this month a UK scientist in Aberdeen–Christopher MacLeod–announced the development of a self-programing robotic brain, capable of rewriting and complexifying it’s own software in response to enhancements made to the physical mechanism it operates. Our successors have been given the capacity for adaptive evolution.
What’s wrong with that (conservation)?
I apologize, Cindy. My initial comment was not meant to attack you in any form.
Conservation is generally only practiced when it involves the environment. Things such as logging and fishing are conserved because it is in the economic interest of industries in that field.
When it comes to machinery, it becomes a little difficult to clarify the validity of ‘conservation’ because they can become old, rust, and soon obsolete.
ThisIsNotaTest:
I understand. Thanks. But, this society is notorious for finding excuses to throw away old things. (especially society’s old people!)
I still have a gorgeous hand-held blow dryer (for hair) that I got with Green Stamps in 1959. And it still works!
You’ll have to pry it from my cold dead hands!
Hey, I’m all for companies fixing things or having parts available. I’d much rather fixed my old VCR by buying a new belt, instead of buying a new one. But guess what, the company doesn’t sell the parts BY THEIR CHOICE. Parts don’t make money for them, new units do.
Don’t blame “Greens” for this consumption/disposable driven “free-market” society we have. I won’t touch SC Johnson products, because they are ALL about ONE use and toss. That’s utter BS.
And don’t make assumptions about me, m’kay?
And wasteful is not just about throwing something out, or your money…it’s about WASTING energy. Think of it this way, a mere small analogy: you can’t afford enough water to feed your family and pets and keep your yard healthy. But your neighbor can. But he can afford so much that he “accidentally” leaves a leaky hose turned on…wasting water. You can see it going down the drain. Should that person be held accountable for wasting a public resource? Shouldn’t we all be held accountable for being wasteful in all its forms?
Or think of it this way. If you’d just fixed your older, less efficient unit, you’d be using more energy than needed. By you using more, you’ve artificially increased demand for that energy. So now, I’m paying more for energy bill, even though I might have a more efficient unit. Your waste causes me money. — If the roles were reversed and it were a welfare mom using up your resources (taxes) and you as a taxpayer, I think you might see why I’m concerned with inefficient systems (despite your claims you can afford to fix or pay for the higher energy bill.)
Your so damn angry go for a run or look in the mirror just for a laugh for goodness sake lighten up and stop preaching what one should do…
hell if your so concerned pay Cindy 5 grand for her new air con for gods sake.. I am sure she will be happy with your donation..
yes! And I’ll take it in small unmarked bills!
If I had the money, and knew she needed it, I would.
I’m not telling her what to do, other than to not make assumptions about me (ahem) and to not blame “green” folk for her not being able to fix her AC. It seemed to me she was the one made about it and the anger was misplaced. In my opinion.
Thanks for the Dr Phil session, where should I send the check?
to me and throw in another grand for me to deliver I need the air fare….
Cool ~~ LOL
Boy, 20%…you must be a lawyer…
I’ll send it right on, just let me first check under the cushions on the couch for that change… har har.
Well there is always hope that u find it … Glad to see your more relaxed. You made some great points in your posts… some things I would not of thought of but money doubles if you get uptight again ok
Damn, does that mean I have to clean out the car seats, too?
(It’s not anger really, it’s exasperation.)
ces— please read comments with care. I am not blaming my new ac on the greens. I was saying that the hypocrisy of Al Gore, Pelosi, et al, makes buying a new ac leave a bad taste in my mouth. Why do all of us “little no-count people” have to do all of the heavy lifting in this society? Why don’t the Big Greens have to live green too, like they demand of the rest of us? And a law is a demand…. a really big demand. Cappicce?
This is what I read, Cindy:
But really, I agree with the bigger point about little guy vs big guy/gal. Just in a different way, sorta… I’m always fighting against the Industry and their self-interest (greed) that always manages to trump the good of the many. Now, I hope that doesn’t sound fascist. It’s not, I don’t think. Sound science shouldn’t take second fiddle all the time to corporate profits.
So yes, we’ve seen the two-faced Pelosi say she’s fighting for the little guy, but then take the corporate money and run. Gore, I can forgive somewhat, because he sincerely believes what he is doing is right and is helping. And again, he’s a former VP, that is a special case. I don’t even begrudge W. he extra cost of his ranch, new Dallas home, and rumored S. American estate…or yes, even Cheney.
And I don’t know how much it is, but Gore, at least, buys carbon offsets. I don’t know if that really works, but if it does, it’s something. Ideally, the US would have a better rail system, which is a win win win all over, except for some time in across country trips.
And Cindy, I didn’t mean any offense to you. I don’t know you and you don’t know me. I was using your situation as an example and was trying (perhaps poorly..it is late) to show you it might have been industry’s fault, not mine, not Pelosi’s fault that you had to get a whole new machine. Trust me, we spend $3700 and had a daughter on way. It’s not fun. I’d love to redo our windows but it costs too much up front right now. But would it be better in the long run….sure, if we were staying here in this house for 20 years….
I wish I had the money to build an energy efficient house like that family on This Old House. (drool)
ces- I don’t think anyone here is rabidly against green alternatives that actually do something constructive.
I offer this link for your viewing pleasure: http://www.core77.com/competitions/GreenerGadgets/projects/4609/
But there is still a debate going on among the world’s scientists about the subject of climate change. So, listening to opposing views (without ridicule) might be enlightening.
And my point is that nobody on the Right waits to see what it constructive. The immediate reaction is to stifle, if I may use that phrase, any reasoned approach to quality of (the Circle of) Life issues. The only consideration, when talking to my conservative friends and family is, will it make money. There are way to make money and be green. that’s been my rallying cry for decades (thank you very much), and it’s taken until now for cost of goods, etc to get so high that companies have to recycle more, etc to trim the fat of their budget.
I’m all about revolutionizing our industries to be more efficient and more self-dependent. Pump money into energy efficient technology so we don’t buy so much bloody foreign oil NOR pollute our air with coal. As an aside, I’m a self-described tree hugger, but dammit, I believe Nuclear is a big part of the solution IF DONE RIGHT. But these things take public buy in and government support. People have to let go of their fear of the government telling them what to do long enough for these new, much better technologies to gain a foot hold. And yes, the enviro-Nuts stopped nuclear are partly to blame, but so are the privatized companies that cut corners in site selection and maintenance.
Moreover, I am listening to opposing views. That’s why I’m here at NQ, and have been for more than a year. But on energy or global resources issues, all I’m hearing is, “I know someone who signed the thingy” and “pelosi made me buy a new HVAC unit.” Those are emotional responses, which if they were coming from someone on the “left” would be criticized by the people on the Right. I’m pushing back to make people rethink their own positions.
The reason there is still a “debate” among those experienced in climatology is because there is big money being thrown at it by big industry to keep it going. Moreover, it’s appropriate for us to continue talking about it on some level, because new data and new models come in all the time.
And please point out where I’ve ridiculed anyone on this thread. I’ve pointed questioned their positions, but not them personally. There’s a difference. My points have been rhetorical. In fact, I’m the one that was accused of being young and naive…with a little “I don’t want to conserve” for icing. I haven’t called anyone names. If you want to hear ridicule try being a Green Weenie (while still being a moderate on the whole)…if you say you’re an environmentalist, you instantly labeled as some peacenik hippy lovechild who waxes poetically while smokin’ a joint up in a redwood. Sorry, some of us are more reasoned about things, but are frustrated at the bias heaped against us.
Lastly, if you bring data to the table, and we can debate that. I make no apology for having my opinions and trying to make my point. After all, this is No Quarter, right?
I don’t mean to beat a dead horse here… I have already said what I think. Think about this, there are numerous harmful chemicals emitted from burning fossil fuels. I have acknowledged that above. CO2 is not one of them. CO2 is natural in the atmosphere, it is a product of our respiration and is needed to sustain plant life on this planet. It is not a pollutant. A cleaner environment and measures to reduce actual pollutants, I would certainly welcome. These are candidates for technology and “clean” measures. The whole notion of CO2 being a pollutant and the UN mandating to us measures that affect business… yes business not because I am a capitalist… just because I recognize we all need jobs… anyway, the mandates based on unproven theory… I am not alright with that and further, I question the motives. We can all disagree though. No worries, I am not going on anymore. My work here is done.
No problems. See, it’s cool, because I understand we all need jobs. Making money isn’t the problem, per se. I’m for a shift toward smarter tech. I mean, we run our business efficiently right? Why not our cars, etc, too? It would save money and we’d all have a better QOL-Quality of Life.
Now on the CO2 (not to be mean to that horse down there) but that is like thinking about water. We drink our 80 oz a day like good folks are told by our doctors to do…that’s good. But be a college frat pledge and drink several gallons…not so good.
As the science gets better we can fill in the historical data gaps. We can figure out how much CO2 (and other gases) is OK.
It is just hard for me to get past all the early indicators that something isn’t right. Even if we didn’t cause it, can’t we try to help?
I believe that the US can and should be leaders in this emerging alternative energy network. We’ve been beholden to the Middle East for far too long. And I’d also like to see our wild areas stay that way; it’s part of what makes America great. If we ramped up our industry to take on the Axis in the 1940s, we can do it again for the next century.
But I understand that for some, the fear of change or the appearance of losing one’s control of their life is very strong in most people. And that includes the green left’s resistance to nuclear power.
Thanks Docelder for at least seeming to try to find a balance.
Squiggly things under the rock, eh ces?
waxes poetically while smokin’ a joint up in a redwood
…while listening to Santana perform live…
“never smack”
Walking to class at Humboldt State and SMELLING the Plazoids hanging out under the tree outside the front door of Founders Hall…
Ah, gotta love that Redwood Curtain…good for a chuckle or two, or something…
Alumni 86.
Was a semester away from having most of a MS in ‘00 but got a job in Oregon through contacts there.
Interesting place. Dreadlock vs. Bark jumper. It’s just screams reality TV show.
LOL
And yes, I was in Humboldt when Julia Butterfly Hill was up in Luna. And when the Humboldt County Sheriff dabbed pepper spray directly into the propped open eyelids of some peaceful protesters.
I was never taken to dancing with the fairies by the full moon or to sit in a tree, yell and dance for a slogan or even inhale. I’m a numbers and data guy, something I can hold in my hand. Not the “just cuz I want it this way…” route.
It’s all connected.
Sorry for the thread hogging. Hope everybody’s toes are ok in the morning.
G’nite.
ces–
We forgive you, my child.
Go and sin no more.
Thanks, Mom.
LOL…..you’re welcome, kiddo
That the climate is changing is NOT the point (it obviously is)….its whether man is responsible and hence whether major intervention in our private lives by the Goverment is warranted and necessary or if its just a scheme to lord over us and control us. It’s something you may not fear because you have no ability to imagine the terrors of real goverment oppression, but I and other certainly do (I’m former soviet citizen). Before I give these idiots license to fiddle in my affairs I sure as hell want to know that it will even make a difference. But interestingly, the leftists don’t want us to inspect or understand ALL the data and its significance….
That’s the point!!! You get it? I’m sure you don’t, you never do. Can’t you people think logically anymore! Its getting scary to be surrounded by illogical zombies. I’ve been there before but I didn’t think America would come to this: the less educated are smarter and more logical than the educated…wow.
One of my favorite pastimes for years has been reading about various conspiracies theories. I don’t consider myself a nut; I just appreciate unconventional points of view. During the 90s, I came across a number of publications that asserted that the government has serious concerns about various solar, magnetic, galactic and other physical cycles that could catastrophically affect the earthly environment. The Vatican’s inordinate interest in building an astronomical observatory on Mt Graham near Tucson has been suggested to indicate the seriousness of these concerns. There have also been fictional works, such as the late Michael Crichton’s very interesting novel, “State of Fear”, which challenges in impressive fashion everything about manmade global warming. Another category of publications has proposed that people like Mikhail Gorbachev and other New World Order types intend to use environmental concerns to promote their socialist ideologies. And if people cannot be convinced in that manner or the Al Gore manner, then it has been asserted that the government would use peoples’ religious beliefs to manipulate mass populations under an impending disaster. I tend to believe that the natural climatic cycles predominate over manmade climatic disruptions. In any case, use of renewable, locally controlled energy sources makes the most sense to me. Use of coal doesn’t make much sense under any circumstances…unless you are from Wyoming and want to make all your contributers richer. Totally agree with OGG, “rational and objective debate is being stifled.”
I agree
That the climate is changing is NOT the point (it obviously is)….its whether man is responsible and hence whether major intervention in our private lives by the Goverment is warranted and necessary or if its just a scheme to lord over us and control us. It’s something you may not fear because you have no ability to imagine the terrors of real goverment oppression, but I and other certainly do (I’m former soviet citizen). Before I give these losers license to fiddle in my affairs I sure as hell want to know that it will even make a difference. But interestingly, the they don’t want us to inspect or understand ALL the data and its significance….Doesn’t that scare you people even a bit?
Anyway that’s the real point! You get it? I’m sure you don’t, you never do. Can’t you people think logically anymore? Its getting scary to be surrounded by so many illogical wanna be intellectuals. I’ve been there before but I didn’t think America would come to this: the less educated are smarter and more logical than the educated. Wow.
Its scary that so many of you have so little regard for your rights, safety, survival, prosperity and liberty…and give it so readily to those who have shown to you over and over again that they are incapable of caring and helping you. What is wrong with you people. You must think that you’re above such concerns because you’re American. Americans and intellectual masterbators are not impervious to the evils of governemnt you know. You constantly over think everything but miss the real salient issues as if they don’t concern you. They do.
Your warped and new age sense of morality over such issues does not elevate you from having to deal with every day problems like the rest of us (fearing for our freedom and security)… it also doesn’t protect you from the forces of oppression inherent in any government when you lose control over it.
Your sense of morality is not superior to that of others….if you truly care for people as you pretent to, then you would at least give respect and time to those who oppose you…they always have a valid reason for their views…espicially when there’s hundreds of millions of them and many of them with equal if not superior education/experience to yours. Who are you to dismiss them!
You’re equivocating on this one. Scientists are not the government and vice versa. Frankly, as a scientist I don’t care what the government or even what lay people think. I look at data and let them do the talking, so to speak. There is global warming–only the cause and course of action have yet to be determined. The cause is in the realm of science; the course of action is for everyone to determine.
This isn’t about morals or superiority; rather it is about inductive logic, i.e., science, which must be isolated from questions of the sort you bring up. Any externally-driven bias in science mean it becomes something other than science, i.e., junk.
Just in case this hasn’t been mentioned, a weatherman, no matter how good at the profession, is not a climatologist. They study two remotely-related areas. One is micro (weather) and the other is macro (climate) in both a temporal and spatial sense. Moreover, the sum of the weather does not equal the whole of the climate, due to temporal considerations.
Old Grumpy Guy said:
Ah, yes. Larry Sinclair. This is the NQ I know and love. The world where the really important issues are the ravings of a convicted con-man. Here’s what Grumpy Old Guy is worried isn’t getting investigated:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/18/obama-accuser-larry-sincl_n_107900.html
There’s no more efficient way to destroy your credibility than to say you find Larry Sinclair credible.
To the contrary, there is and you linked to it. You just destroyed what little credibility you might have by linking to HuffnPuffPo, the last bastion of Kool-Aide drinkers, sexists, and obamabots.
Good morning, Mr. Twist.
Morning, Karl.
Good Morning Ferd! Nice to see a bright shiny poster up and at it so early!
Good morning, PK. I’ve been in and out for awhile. The bots from the left and right are out in full-force this morning, with more than their usual package of petulant putrescent pontificating. They all appear to be suffering from a long Friday evening, as it were.
Who has more credibility, obama or sinclair?
http://americanpumainitaly.blogspot.com/2008/07/who-has-more-credibility-obama-or.html
AGI said on her own blog:
This is just sad.
Your blog post provides a very depressing demonstration of how your mind works:
* Larry Sinclair is more credible than Obama because Obama lived in Indonesia as a child;
* Obama “changed his name” from “Barack Obama” to “Barack Hussein Obama” (or vice versa), and that’s less credible than the 13 aliases recorded in Sinclair’s criminal records;
* A TV station’s publication of an anonymous accusation that Stuart Levine engaged in “all-night sex parties” lends credibility to Sinclair’s story, because Levine is–in your words–an “Obama associate.”
This isn’t the product of a strong mind.
it is a comparison of their backgrounds. looking at both men, who i don’t know from adam, and neither do you. Those are points I brought up because people tried to use them to discredit Sinclair, ie different names, and where they lived. (Obama has gone by at least four aliases)
And, yes, Levine was involved in the Rezko mess, and Rezko and Obama are friends. I don’t find it hard to believe that if one of Rezko’s friends threw drug and sex parties that more of his friends joined in those parties.
Go ahead and insult me. It’s the typical MO of Obama supporters.
You don’t know Obama any better than I do. And, sorry, but I don’t disregard someone just because they did drugs in their past, or have been convicted of petty crime. Obviously people have tried to discredit Sinclair. That is what opposition does. One only need to look at rape cases from 10 years ago for proof of that.
Living on the down-low is a real occurence. It isn’t a made up thing. It is not impossible that a politician engaged in a gay affair. As you read in my post, it happens A LOT.
I don’t hold, at the time I wrote that, a virtual unknown (Obama) in any higher esteem than someone like Sinclair. Obama hasn’t earned my respect, or faith. And I won’t trash Larry, who very well could be telling the truth.
And unless you have stood by Obama’s side every day for the last 20 years, you have absolutely no idea if this is true, or not.
Just ask Bill Clinton or John Edwards.
This still doesn’t explain how Levine is an “Obama associate.” Those are your words, which you used to justify Sinclair’s story.
Look, I know people who have met Obama, and I’ve eaten armadillo. By your logic, that makes me an “Obama associate” and makes it likely that Obama has eaten armadillo.
That kind of thinking is just nonsense.
I don’t remember. I can’t remember if it was just the association of being at parties together, or the Hospital Planning Board appointment, or the Hospital Construction scam, or the Operation Board Games. Or if it had something to do with the charges against Rezko and Levine, and Obama being the unnamed person in the indictment. They were associated, but I forget exactly, beside Levine tesitfying that Obama was at the party he said he wasn’t at.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/rezko/894559,CST-NWS-rezko15.article
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/obama_mentioned_at_rezko_trial.html
So…
Levine saw Obama in a gathering of people, which makes him an “associate,” which makes Obama guilty of whatever Levine is accused of? And because Levine is anonymously accused of having “sex parties,” that proves Obama had his own sex parties with Larry Sinclair?
Your argument is still nonsense. You should just let go of this obsession, because the facts about Levine *do not* validate your feelings about Obama. You’re “remembering” stuff that never happened.
It’s amazing the lengths you’ve gone to to knit together an excuse for taking Sinclair seriously. “Aliases.” “Sex parties.” “You wouldn’t stake your life that it’s not true.”
And you can’t prove the moon landings weren’t faked, either.
That right there is the explanation for NQ in a nutshell. Any bizarre theory can be rationalized if it fits our prejudices. Obama is a British citizen. The birth certificate is fake. The Hawaii state officials who confirmed his birth certificate are lying. Michelle and Louis Farrakhan made the Larry Johnson video. Secret Muslim. Secret terrorist. Secret Communist. Secret homosexual.
Two of which, according to you, are “Barack Obama,” and “Barack Hussein Obama.”
Most people have a middle name, and most people introduce themselves, sign checks, etc., with just their first and last name. That’s not using different “aliases.”
Using 13 different names to facilitate a long string of frauds — as Larry Sinclair did — is not equivalent to not saying your middle name at every opportunity. But you’re bending over backwards to try to convince yourself that Sinclair is more credible than Obama.
It’s sad to see you make this kind of non-factual stretch and embrace a character like Sinclair because it reinforces your feelings about Obama.
where are you getting 13 names for Sinclair?
“But you’re bending over backwards to try to convince yourself that Sinclair is more credible than Obama.”
I don’t find Obama credible. On anything. What has he done that makes him credible?
From the news reports about Sinclair’s extensive criminal background:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11164.html
You just don’t want to give up your belief that Sinclair really did have sex with Obama, do you?
it was a blowjob, not sex. and i don’t know if is true or not, but it could be. just as easily as not. but, i said more below.
The audacity of hope.
Then what about these suspicious similarities you conveniently forgot to mention:
- Sinclair is a mammal. Obama is a mammal
- Sinclair breathes oxygen. Obama breathes oxygen.
- Gravity holds Sinclair against the surface of the earth. Ditto with Obama.
What does *that* say about the credibility of Sinclair’s story…hmmm?
And when this kind of non-thinking is challenged, you defend it by arguing that no one can ever be absolutely certain that Obama isn’t a closeted gay who has random sex with low-life strangers.
That’s technically true. But it’s also true about any accusation you can possibly imagine. So your defense doesn’t make Sinclair’s story any more valid than, say, a story that Obama is a secret cannibal. People *do* eat human flesh, you know, and unless you’ve done a DNA test on every morsel Obama has ever put in his mouth, you can’t say for sure that it’s not true.
Can you see that this is all just fueled by your underlying emotions about Obama?
see my reply below.
so, if Sinclair were an upstanding citizen, say…a politician, you would believe him? but because he did drugs, and petty crime, he is not credible?
He sounds like a lot of politicians I know.
Touche
There’s no more efficient way to destroy your credibility than to quote the Huffington Post.
What did Larry Sinclair say in his press conference (video on the Huffington Post website I linked to) that you find credible, OGG?
Was it the fact that Sinclair’s “lawyer” wore a kilt to the press conference that gave Sinclair credibility in your eyes? Or was it the lawyer’s statement to the national media that he (the “lawyer” — not Sinclair) has a gigantic penis?
Come on, Grumpy…what is it about Sinclair’s circus that you find so important and credible?
You’re ducking the issue you raised. Criticizing HuffPO is a dishonest attempt to avoid defending your own words.
so, Sibley wearing a kilt makes him not credible? Kind of insluting a whole slew of people with that one. Sibley was being Sibley. That is who he is. I don’t think there are a lot of, what you would deem *respectable* lawyers out there banging down Sinclairs door, willing to represent him.
But, I also think that there might have been people who would have benefited from Sibley being discredited, as well. Perhaps times got a little tougher when the media turned their attention on Sibley, back when he was threatening to release the Little Black Book of the DC Madam, and the names of 10,000 Washington DC Clients.
I don’t think any scam artist should be able to come out of the closet, and make claims on soemone, and slander them, or whatever. But, I also don’t think that people should be threatened with their lives, when they make a charge against a public person.
What if something ever happened to you, like, I dont’ know… someone famous ran you over. And you tried to tell the world, and all the world did was rumage through your trash, post lies about you, discredit you, threaten to kill you, and call you a liar, and totally ignore you.
If Larry said that he was married to Obama, and they had five kids together, and Obama owed him child support, ok. We could pretty much prove that he was lying. But the charges he is making are NOT nutty or beyond the realm of possibilty. What if, just what IF, he is telling the truth?
would you swear on your life that it isn’t true? literally lay down your life?
See my response above.
All I am saying is that the Sinclair allegations do not seem to have been fully investigated, like a lot of other issues surrounding Obama.
OGG, when anyone holds a consuming belief, they are not likely to investigate or consider evidence that is contrary to their comfortable view of the world. It is not human nature for someone to dig for evidence that could demonstrate that their position is wrong. Just like the Larry Sinclair issue, the opposing side is unwilling or unable to even consider the possibility that LS has credible evidence, so the debate is halted. I’m afraid that any efforts to reveal the fraudulent nature of the Obama Presidency will be met with harsh retaliative measures, so for the moment keep your powder dry. The best way to defeat the Obama power grab is to expose him for what he is, a spineless, pathetic, needy little boy, who couldn’t run a kool-aid stand, unless his mindless supporters were lined up to fill his coffers.
You see, I am a “scientist” (epidemiologist) and I’ve worked with scientists involved in gov. policiy for many years. My experience reveals that so very many of such “experts” are nothing more than weak minded activists and often tend to be self absorbed, self righteous, and elitist. Almost all are wanna be philanthropists to make up for their foibles and most can’t even look a regular guy (esp. disadvantaged minority) in the face, let alone understand and solve their problems. Most go around secretly knowing that they are imposters and try to cover this up by pretending to care about the downtrodden or whatever annoying cause. Most are in their self created fields and have animosity for the world because they couldn’t get into medical school or the like…those that can’t get into medical school are the worst kind of zealots and peddlers of mediocrity.
They are usually petty little shyts who rarely care or even know about “real” science because it takes an iron stomach to deal with data that doesn’t fit your ideology or your grant proposals…real science is not for the weak minded and indoctrinated types yet most scientist today are just that. I like to think of most scientists as middle class welfare recipients–they’ll say or do anything for that next grant handout from you the tax payer. They get addicted to it and eventually all scientific principals fly out the window…along with real science.
In the last few years I’ve been focusing on revealing how scientists today get away with very very poor scientific method. Many really just don’t know any better even after attending the best schools. My conclusion: Most are charletans and are undeserving of any public respect.
.
I’m sorry you feel that way. My take is just the opposite. The national labs are doing a pretty good job at the bench-level.
There’s that broad brush, again. You’re letting your opinions shade the data. As with all areas of endeavor, there are good scientists, not so good ones, and truly wretched ones. I recognize that simple truth but don’t throw the entire system out the window due to the actions of the few.
Since you find me and my fellow scientists, middle-class welfare recipients, I’d say that you, as part of a policy group, was an upper-class welfare recipient, making decisions based upon data, which you have already stated categorically came from biased scientists and then making flawed policy due to the use of said data. If this were really the case, you should have made your opinions public and not participated in policy making. In fact, it was your duty to have done such. Did you? And if you did, kindly provide a link, because if what you say is true, this is a scandal.
Finally, your use of the word “like” indicates that your opinion isn’t based so much on fact or data as in preconceived notions. Sorry, but that is not science.
Hey I’m one myself too. And yes its an opinion founded on 26 years of experience. Broad stroke, sure it is but my opinion of my profession keeps me honest and rigorous. I don’t partake in self congratulation like so many of them do. Sorry for offending you it was not my intent. But when I see so much trash passing for science it sickens me– especially when I know that policies which effect us all are based upon it everyday.
Of course you find stellar scientists everywhere but as OGG asks, why aren’t they being listened too?
If their data is peer-reviewed, it has been “listened to”. If it hasn’t been peer-reviewed, it is not ready for public dissemination. If rejected, it isn’t worth releasing. One does not release unreviewed data without risking embarrassment. To give an example, the “cold-fusion” experiment a few years back, which was released prior to review, had results which could not be duplicated.
Science is not a democracy and results are not based upon “polling”, as it were.
But if it has to be peer reviewed and accepted to be acceptable, then it does seem like a democracy and polling.
No more than with engineering reviews of calculations. I certainly would not want an unreviewed set of calculations used to build a bridge-would you? That is not democracy or polling.
The reason we don’t have more stupidity like the cold-fusion experiment gone awry is that there are rules for science, the most of important of which is reproducibility or verifiability. That isn’t democracy or polling, but rules.
Most of the crap coming from GW naysayers is unreviewed, unsubstantiated hogwash, much like the comments by Sally earlier. They’re building a bridge with unreviewed calculations, to continue the analogy from above.
As I have said many times, GW is real–only the cause and mitigation remain to be determined.
Now you show your idiocy and agressive side buddy, along with your naivety….I never said I disputed climate changes but rather policies based on ideology not science which aggressively assert that we started it and hence can fix it….at what expense to our freedoms and rights and with what expected result? Does this really not concern you? Right now most of you are putting faith in the GORES etc as one would in God…blind and dogmatic. Don’t you guys say you hate religion for the reason. Hypocrites as usual.
Not to mention your naive denial of the politics of science. You don’t like to think independently do you? Typical of you dorks to polarize rather than seek to understand your opponents. So very bloody typical, especially when ultimately looking over your comments we believe the same thing. Anyway…
I am not policy maker or upper class anything…so whatever you’re talking about below doesn’t apply to me.
I simply am a drone like you are but with lots of experience in watch the “upper class welfare recipients”/the political class make crappy decisions based on crappy data that suits their crappy purposes with our tax money. Sue me, I’m jaded.
Sue you? There’s a succinct answer to my questions. You really should shy away from facts not in evidence. I’ve only pointed out the flaws in your data upon which you based your feeling of “like”. I am not compelled to go any further than that.
I totally disagree with all of the comments disputing global warming based not only on all of the changes we have experienced in the past few years but also the fact that a vast majority of scientists agree that it is real.
Even if it is not totally caused by humans, what harm can be done in doing those things that will lessen its impact on our lives? Even if it is a totally bogus theory, which I very much doubt, developing methods of cleaner energy can only help us and our planet and wean us off foreign oil.
Of course, if we disown the likelihood that global warming exists, and we are wrong, then we are totally screwed. Better safe than sorry. Oh yeah, although I can’t stand Obama, that doesn’t necessarily translate to disliking all Democrats. I still respect, admire and love Al Gore.
That has been part of my point all along. The evidence is there. The only questions left are the source and the way it might be mitigated. The first is in the realm of science; the second involves everyone.
….all that to say that we agree on the issue at hand.
God you people don’t deserve Democracy….you’d be just as happy in a dictatorship it seems. “what harm can it do if the problem doesn’t exist”…..every harm in the world you $*&*%–especially if its used to control people’s lives, remove our individual rights and destroy our economies all for the sake of some made up crisis. There really is no way to wake you dough heads up, is there?
And then I’m the bad one for trying to preserve your stupid ass’s freedom–something you obviously don’t value.
God please help them!
“The evidence before the Committee leads to one inescapable conclusion: the Bush Administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming.”
From the offical report of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, dated 12/12/2007, following a 16 month investigation.
http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?id=1653
Many of the arguments above have valid points, but too many mix pollution with climate change. Both are individual problems. Pollution is manmade, climate change may not be. We can become a cleaner nation but let’s quit reinventing the wheel. This country has become a great nation because of energy. Windmills are unreliable, ethanol will never be feasible. Let’s use what works but clean it up. We have approximately 500 years worth of coal, 250 years worth of natural gas, and lord knows how much oil. If you’re worried about CO2, build nuclear. More people have died in the US cleaning solar panels than have died of reactor accidents. So for the sake of argument, I’m going with this as the basis of my beliefs……….
http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?s=5d2328068b39f5abc21a2e9141bea549&act=ST&f=10&t=2050
Oil and coal ARE solar energy (and to some degree nuclear energy). It was solar energy that drove the photosynthesis that created the vegetable matter that was buried and became coal and oil. Oil needed to be “cooked” by heat from the interior of the Earth, heat that is caused by nuclear decay. Oil and coal are therefor like batteries that have stored the Sun’s energy for hundreds of millions of years. And I can proudly boast that my Chevy truck is solar powered!
That is a fairly good analogy, although another is that oil represents a vast carbon sink, as well.
Limestone is a vastly greater carbon sink, one that is virtually left intact. Nevertheless, the whole argument that CO2 is a major factor regarding the greenhouse effect is making a mountain out of a molehill. It has a very minor effect, and that effect reduces logarithmically with higher and higher concentrations of CO2, until it reaches a point where it has it’s maximum ability to contribute to global warming. Higher and higher concentrations of CO2 have no greater effect past a certain concentration, and we’re almost there. However, taking earths history as a whole, CO2 concentrations at present levels are low. There have been times where it is believed that CO2 levels were ten times what they are now. Al Gore needs to be whacked with his hockey stick.
Actually. I think there is evidence that the CO2 levels may be higher than your post would let on. I am a chemist and not a climatologist but I do know a great deal about carbon dioxide and that it is indeed an effective insulator. That being said, I do not argue with climatologists about their field of endeavor much as I would expect the same of them about mine. GW is real, as I’ve said in other comments but that the source(s) remain to be determined and potential mitigation. And Al Gore is only the messenger and is not a scientist.
I think this thread shows that, at the very least, the question is still wide open (except to closed minds of course)
A thousand thanks for your good works, sir.
And to the site administrators, who apparently recognize the high quality of same.
I’m with Sally on the scientists being for sale. They don’t think they are, but the pressure is on them for the next grant, and the universities don’t care about the integrity of the research because they get a percentage of every grant. That money is not accounted for and goes into Administrative coffers. The people doing the bench work are hard working and honest, but the problem is who gets to decide how to analyze the data. I’ve worked on NIH Grants where the raw data has to be sent to the mother ship. Presumably it is to keep individual researchers from doing their own thing with it, but who is watching the others?
About global warming. I’m open to hear the arguments from either side. I think humans are affecting the environment but I don’t know if Al Gore is exaggerating or not. I voted for him, but did not watch his movie given all the hype about it. I wanted to hear the critics’ replies. I’m waiting for a proper discussion. If we’re messing it up that bad maybe we should go extinct. But I’m waiting till they fire up that atom smasher in Switzerland and see if it sucks us all into a black hole.
About research being published in peer reviewed journals. Sounds good, but as a peer reviewer for several journals in the past, I and other reviewers can figure out who the author is, does it fit the theory du jour, and if it should get published. All of those have political implications (professional and administrative). If you are not mainstream or have just shot down someone whose work had them poised for fame, you are out unless you get a real editor. I got saved by one.
Thanks for the support.
The argument is essentially over about whether it is real or not. The only disagreements center around cause and potential mitigation. Moreover, asking Al Gore about GW is akin to asking a commercial actor about the product he is selling. The people one needs to discuss the issues with are the scientists involved in the research, and I am nor referencing meteorologists but climatologists.
OK. You’re right. I’ve seen the graphs. I was referring to being open to the discussion about causes and mitigations. But I’d also like to know more about the cyclical nature of our warming and cooling over the ages. Repeated ice ages suggests warming cycles in between. Just curious.
I hope you weren’t offended by the tone of my comment. I sometimes write a bit tersely. If you were offended, my apologies.
That is a good thing. There is a lot of information out there, particularly on sites devoted to the sciences. I would shy away from the obvious politically-motivated ones and there are a lot of them on both the right and left.
Helen,
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202005/ComingPresentIceAge.pdf
13 pages, including charts back 180,000 years, discussion, refrences
Hope this is helpful.
I believe climate change is real, but I don’t believe in man made global warming.
I will be the first to admit that I don’t know enough about the science but I do have to say, and laugh at me if you want, but it can’t be good to continually be breaking up the ice at the North Pole. This is what I would call man made if anything:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w5LrFx-wdY&feature=related
There’s a great article critical of the professional relationship of doctors and drug companies. It gives insight into how some scientists behave. It’s by Dr. Marcia Angell in the New York Review of Books at
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22237. The next two issues have replies.
Warning about NYRB: The editors and writers are right alongside Chris Matthews with tingling up their legs over Obama, and they just can’t get enough pin-up photos of their sweetheart, but the article by Angell is worth wading through the sludge.
I read about that, as did my husband. As a physician he is now as disgusted in his profession as I am in mine and I hardly blame him. This is bad.
That is a shocking but not particularly surprising report.