State of the Union

[blahblahblah]

I have to agree that there appears to be some junk science in the global warming camp. Still, I’d like to see the US become a leader in clean energy. That will be a good worldwide market in the 21st century when the Chinese and Indians get tired of choking on car exhaust fumes. If the US sponsored a new “Apollo project” for clean and renewable energy, it could pay big dividends in the next few decades just like the original one did in the 60s and 70s (computers, aircraft technology, etc…).

And whether or not humans are causing it, the planet’s climate is changing, snowpacks are shrinking, and farms are struggling for lack of water in many areas; new technologies to help manage water supplies will also be in big demand.

[sdnativeson]

I never said there was a specific study based upon an exactitude of studies supporting both sides, I don’t think I even implied it. Suppose there are 10,000 articles and publications questioning and/or denying it (with the premise that it is a solely man-made phenomenom). maybe there are 15,000 saying it is scientific fact (based upon those premises). Because it’s adherents are more prolific writers means nothing in terms of validity.

I agree with the RS’s first statement, as I read the rest of it I see it in the context that it is meant to have, about continental drift and plate tectonics, it doesn’t address anything to the quotes supplied by ucodegen “the perception that CO2 as a cause of anthropogenic global warming is largely supported by the scientific community came out of a paper written by Naomi Oreskes. The methodology behind this study was found to be seriously flawed and possibly forged”. Still, I can see how RS’s statement applies to both sides of the climate change argument.

With all due respect, you (lindismith) don’t supply anything that provides a truly valid argument. Again, you use the label denialists, as I said, dissenting opinions do not necessarily warrant that label. By using it you are closing the door on any type of objectivity that is supposed to be a basis for science.

Yes, Bush has jumped on the bandwagon, who knows why? I would find it unlikely he had an epiphany and has suddenly, unquestioningly embraced the “inconvenient truth” global warming rhetoric. IMHO, it’s because he is trying to find something to give him a modicum of poltical revelence. It won’t.

Now, tell me something more about the science behind our recent ice-age…….

[lindismith]

ucodegen,
Peiser’s letters were rejected by the editors of Science for good reason. Peiser has conceeded that his survey contained some errors, and he no longer doubts that “an overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous.”

I pulled this from 5 minutes of research on Wikipedia, btw.

Sdnative,
I don’t have to provide any valid arguments for Climate Change. The science is in. It might not be unaimous, but there’s concensus, and that’s all that is needed within the scientific community. It is like when you go to the doctor. He doesn’t have all the answers, but he’s pretty sure, based on consensus and scientific study that if you overeat, and don’t exercise, you are setting yourself up for a heart attack. It’s not proven that all fat people will die of heart attacks, but there is consensus that it’s bad to be overweight.

[sdnativeson]

wikipedia….I really don’t consider that a valid source. If you have to ask why…

A scientific absolute it’s (global warming due to humans) not, a theory, yes, that is about it. Climate Change and Global Warming (in the inconvenient truth context) are not synonymous terms. You ask for specifics but then turn around and say you have to provide nothing.

What your doctor has at his disposal would be the results of long term studies under tightly monitored and controlled conditions. Global warming (in the context it’s being presented in) cannot provide any type of long term absolute result with the brief and incomplete data it’s based upon.

[PD]

Great, since there was concensus that we invade Iraq, it must have been the right thing!

[sdnativeson]

lindismith is this what you are referring to:
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/Censorship.htm

[sdnativeson]

PD, Touché

[PerryChase]

Concho is right. There is no need to debate if global warming is caused by humans. It’s happening.

There’s real demand for clean industries/technologies. As a country, we need to position ourselves as the leader in the field. Look at Ford and GM. They got fat and happy on gas gluzzlers. They are now going bankrupt and will eventually need a taxpayer bailout. Toyota and Honda are a generation ahead in terms of technology.

I would retrofit my house with solar panels if the technology were cost effective. That would be an investment in our future well-being. Wouldn’t your children be happy to inherit a house that came with no utility bills?

If anything, green technologies will provide us a clean, pleasant environment to live in.

Remember the acid rain and smog alerts of the 1970s and 1980s? If it weren’t for the environmental movement, those problem would still be with us today. Thanks to environmental regulations, we have fairly clean cars and industries today. The problem that we need to tackle now is the CO2.

[ucodegen]

lindismith:
I wouldn’t take too much force in this publication on Wikipedia. I checked the history
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benny_Peiser&action=history
and I see that during the past 3 months, that entry (the exact one you quoted) has been edited and changed several times. The reference I gave you was from Peiser’s own site. I take the site owners reference of his own material over wikipedia. In fact, the entry you quote was added after Nov 25, 2006 and not added by Peiser, but by someone under the alias Kim Dabelstein Peterson. ( less than 1min) NOTE: I may just bump this one up to Peiser to comment on for his own entry into the wiki. I also bookmarked Tim Lambert’s page..

Considering the emotional charge behind the subject, I reiterate, I would take the authors reference over the wiki’s which is publicly edited. In addition, the wiki is not a valid source for scientific papers.. but I do have to admit that it is a good start. College papers that quote wikipedia have received failing grades. (See reference on deletion of items with respect to NAR’s president in the wiki)

Another question would be at which point was the consensus shift and whether it was bandwagon jumping (as you suggested that I do at the end of your first reply). The emphasis on not rocking the boat and agreeing to concensus was noted on either the second or third reference that I gave you.

Again, I also reiterate.. and probably should have stated in the following manner: Science is NOT a voting machine. It does not work on the premise that the ‘results are in’ or ‘the science is in’. Note that even in your first quote above, which is from the wiki “However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous”. If a hypothesis has notable flaws in its projections, it is subject to review. Scientific work does not operate on the bulk number of papers, but on validating or invalidating conjectures, hypothesis(s), experiments, models etc on previous papers and in many cases proposing alternates. Note: The global warming models/hypothesis indicated ocean warming, but recent facts indicate the opposite has happened. This does not prove that the opposite of the hypothesis is true, but it indicates that the hypothesis of global warming through the action of CO2 is either incorrect, or incompletely understood.

Subnotes: I worry about papers whose justification is along the lines of “scientific uncertainties in predicting…that hinder aggressive policy making” (Fernau ME, Makofske WJ, South DW:Review and Impacts of Climate-change Uncertainties) it is too much of a cart before the horse problem.

One sub-paper I did like and will pursue when I have spare time is “Hudson JG: Journal of Applied Meterology 32(4): Apr 1993) – Cloud Condensation Nuclei.. which is also along the lines of a Russian paper on cosmic ray cloud ‘seeding’. Indeed the knowledge on CCN is insufficient. (Cloud formation also changes the light/IR absorption characteristics of water).

[PD]

Regardless of what is going on with the weather, we do need to invest in clean technologies.

[PerryChase]

There was no concensus on Iraq. It was politically correct to acquiesce to the “use of force” at that time. There was no vote for the war, just a resolution giving Bush the leeway to do what was needed to stop terrorism. Bush chose war.

It’s the medical concensus that it’s bad to be fat. It’s also politically correct to say that “fat is beautiful” and that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

[ucodegen]

Here is the link on NAR deleting entries in the wiki..

http://davidlereahwatch.blogspot.com/2006/12/nar-deleting-criticism-of-david-lereah.html

wiki page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lereah
History
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Lereah&action=history
History of changes showing the reinsert..
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Lereah&diff=94282072&oldid=94087715
Here’s the delete.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Lereah&diff=94087715&oldid=90948165

Wikipedia is not an absolute reference.. and not 100% trustworthy.

[Anonymous]

Perry: “…There is no need to debate if global warming is caused by humans. It’s happening…”

Ah, the big, fundamental difference between libs and conservatives: humans and the earth are perfectible, according to libs; humans and earth are flawed and are to be lived with as is, according to conservatives.

Perry, if global warming is happening, and it’s caused by sun spot activity/natural solar cycle, you think puny humans are going to have much effect? How long did that naturally occurring last Ice Age last?

Live with it, man. Or, start praying. ‘Cause you overestimate what humans can do.

I now know what ‘compassionate conservative’ means: somewhat soft-headed and somewhat liberal, like his father. Another damn country club Republican. That’s why he latched onto alternative energy.

[ucodegen]

Article on G.W. censorship.. good find.

[Anonymous]

ucodegen, it goes without saying, but like sns, I’ll say it anyway: thanks for the reasoned discourse and substantiated argument.

[Author]

Posts