Help support TMP


"Darwin Day" Topic


1657 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Remember that you can Stifle members so that you don't have to read their posts.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Animals Plus Board

Back to the Science Plus Board


Areas of Interest

General

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Featured Ruleset


Featured Showcase Article

Red Sable Brushes from Miniaturelovers

Hobby brushes direct from Sri Lanka.


Current Poll


Featured Book Review


47,749 hits since 2 Feb 2009
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP23 May 2010 10:45 a.m. PST

What happnes when the page numbers reaches the end of the page,

I'm guessing we "only" have 10-13 pages before we crash into the side of my monitor

RockyRusso23 May 2010 12:29 p.m. PST

Hi

I visit the FEZ if I have time during the coffee break while reading TMP.

so I haven't seen the lack of outrage at the Fez.

Give me a few I will try to read the thread and be outraged. ID has no place in even the discussion of religion, but the "why I hold that" belongs on the fez!

Rocky

Last Hussar23 May 2010 2:18 p.m. PST

Let us not go to the Fez.
It is a silly place.

crhkrebs23 May 2010 8:02 p.m. PST

Replacing actual science with ID as "science" is right out. I don't believe that TX is doing this….

Then you would be wrong, Doug. It's part of the "teach the controversy" BS of the current Republican State Governor and the Legislature.

Some of the details were brought up by me, somewhere on this thread a while back. God knows where.

Ralph

crhkrebs23 May 2010 8:18 p.m. PST

Oh ya, the Fez is a totally awesome place!

Especially if you think Anne Coulter's "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" hits the nail on the head when she states, "Darwinism is a Bogus science" and an "obsession of the Left".

Right on, Ann!

138SquadronRAF24 May 2010 8:03 a.m. PST

It doesn't bother me to teach ID of Creationism in public school: AS PART OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF, inclusive of all the major religious beliefs/myths of how the world came into being. Replacing actual science with ID as "science" is right out. I don't believe that TX is doing this….

That's how it is currently done in the UK where they have relgious education in schools. Even there you get the odd wingnut who want to use it as an excuse to prosthelytise. (Thank you Mr Whitehead I still carry the scars – we also had corporal punishment in my day). In the US you can see the social conservatives at the prospect of being allowed a relgious education class in schools.

Teaching myth as science is something that is totally inappropriate.

Teach the controvacy is now being slipped in with school standards under the heading of 'critical thinking' when the social conservatives start adding ID and global warming, thus being able to say to the courts; 'We're not attacking just Darwinism, but the "Theory of Global Warming" too!'

Daffy Doug24 May 2010 9:30 a.m. PST

@Ralph: I know that SOME individuals in TX are pushing for ID/Creationism as a replacement in the classroom for science. But they are, I am confident, in the minority and will fail. Even if for a season they actually get text books brought in that promote their religio-political agenda they will not succeed. Ultimately it would come down to a confrontation with secession or following the Constitution. And that, if followed to a worst-case scenario, would be contemplating armed resistance (civil war); not TX against the Union, but Texicans vs Texicans. It won't happen. Not over something as amorphous and unsupportable as ID/Creationism! The world is getting brighter not darker. The IDers are shrinking in numbers not increasing. By the time of some hypothetical inevitable confrontation in arms, the IDers would be a tiny gang vs EVERYBODY else….

RockyRusso24 May 2010 9:51 a.m. PST

Hi

Sadly, while evolution is objectively demonstrable, man caused global warming has been having data problems.

I say this while it is snowing!

Rocky

Daffy Doug24 May 2010 2:18 p.m. PST

"Sadly", uhuh. Snowed out our way too, in the middle of the valley. If this had been in early March it would have laid down half a foot. As it was, the sun came out and the c. 2" was gone in half an hour. I can hear the grass saying "Ah"….

crhkrebs25 May 2010 3:56 a.m. PST

…..man caused global warming has been having data problems.

Only according to those that don"t belief it in the first place. And a "Belief system" it surely is.

Look, I know very little about climate science. I therefore, rely on the argument from authority. Therefore:

1) I see that the overwhelming amount of peer reviewed research supports man made warming.

2) I note that every single important scientific association and society contains a policy statement supporting man made global warming.

The few associations that balk at man made warming that Terrement comes up with on the Fez, do not survive deeper analysis. Most are so inanely all-inclusive that I could be a signatory to them!

Hardly the Royal Society or the National Academy of Sciences.

3) I do notice that the anti-warming groups employ similar tactics to the IDiots.

For example, if two climatologists disagree on some of the data, this is grounds for throwing out the entire theory that there is man made global warming.

This is similar to the Discovery Institute claiming that evolution is wrong because of the battle between gradualists and punctuated equilibrium supporters. The controversies have been over exaggerated to make political NOT scientific points.

4) While resistance to evolution and man made global warming can be found everywhere, ground zero is in the US. Plus, it is the exclusive domain and hobby horse of one of the political parties. That in itself should raise some red flags.

I say this while it is snowing!

Surely you know enough to grasp that snowfall in a mountainous region in May is not out of the ordinary, and proves nothing.

Maybe the last word on global warming hasn't been said yet. Until then, I'll side with the scientists rather than the Fezians. Once the Royal Society comes out and claims that all the research and data is inconclusive, I'll say my "mea culpas".

Ralph

crhkrebs25 May 2010 6:11 a.m. PST

The IDers are shrinking in numbers not increasing.

Doug, do you have evidence of this? I think the Iders are becoming more politically savvy and thereby are becoming more of a threat. Texas is just in the crosshairs now because they fired their previous science textbook supervisor.

Ralph

Daffy Doug25 May 2010 9:26 a.m. PST

1) I see that the overwhelming amount of peer reviewed research supports man made warming.

I see the overwhelming amount of peer review as politically dependent and motivated. The largest amount of dissent on the "consensus" comes from the USA.

2) I note that every single important scientific association and society contains a policy statement supporting man made global warming.

I note that even in the USA the Gov't interests want MORE control not less, so that even our universities cowtow to the powers that be. Individuals within the various associations and societies are vocally expressing doubts in increasing numbers: but the actual policy statements of said-societies and associations cannot risk professional suicide by moving against the tide of popular opinion.

3) I do notice that the anti-warming groups employ similar tactics to the IDiots.

Some do some don't. Like everything else.

Surely you know enough to grasp that snowfall in a mountainous region in May is not out of the ordinary, and proves nothing.

The June National Geographic cover has "Greenland, Ground Zero for Global Warming". And the article isn't anymore apropos of global warming than a late May Rocky Mountain snow storm! In fact, inclusive in the article are repeated comparisons to the LAST TIME it was warm like this: when the Vikings settled Greenland. On this thread I have seen arguments that evidence for this previous warming trend is lacking, vis-a-vis comparing of THIS warming period to that one. Yet even though the title to the NatGeo article would give the reader the impression that Greenland is some kind of harbinger ("As Greenland goes, so goes the world"), there isn't the first snippet of internal evidence cited to that effect. All anyone can positively say is that melting is occurring as warming continues; and that the fishing and farming are affected thereby. Nothing whatsoever can be pointed to as manmade warming in Greenland. Not even the oil that Greenland's coastal waters hide, that will provide a huge economic boom and independence for Greenlanders.

The fact is, warming has occurred many, many times in the past without any human cause. The sole claim to AGW this time is the asserted speed of the warming trend: yet for the last most of a decade the warming has abated/slowed, while the increase in oil use and population has increased. The indicator is that man's contribution is a minor component: hardly worthy of the blame we are being accused of, and absolutely NOT of so serious a nature that we require all manner of international sanctions, proscriptions, taxations and threats and boycotts, etc….

Daffy Doug25 May 2010 9:41 a.m. PST


The IDers are shrinking in numbers not increasing.

Doug, do you have evidence of this? I think the Iders are becoming more politically savvy and thereby are becoming more of a threat. Texas is just in the crosshairs now because they fired their previous science textbook supervisor.

Ralph


Are the number of homosexuals increasing? I think the "Gay lobby" are becoming more politically savvy and thereby are becoming more of a threat. Mormons are in the crosshairs now because they spent millions supporting Prop 8 in CA recently. (see you in a couple of weeks)

No. I don't have any global evidence, but neither do I see ID/Creationism increasing around me – and this is a very fundie-sort of packed religious environment hereabouts. ID/Creationism as advanced by the biblical inerrency advocates is completely at odds with all the mounting physical scientific evidence, ergo is doomed. So no matter how much the protagonists in TX may seem to be overturning a century of scientific advancement the main populations of TX do not agree. I have half of my wife's side of the family living down there – they've all moved to TX in the last five years. TX is not some monolithic consensus of religious fundamentalism preferred over informed/educated thought….

RockyRusso25 May 2010 10:14 a.m. PST

Hi

I am not a climate scientist, my first training was archeology.

When the GW discussion started making the political press, my observation was the consensus always involved selective evidence. Warming since the 14th century…yup. But no coincident with the cause of the industrial revolution.

Coincident with cattle? Well no evidence that grazing cows produce more than grazing buffalo.

Or as doug does, Greenland. Archeology, this "warmest" period has only recently exposed some of the earliest "viking" sites. EARLIEST. The archeological problem was that it was assumed that further inland would be later, but it wasn't because, the land was clear and richer inland.

I have followed the "hockey stick" argument. But again, the math doesn't hold up for several reasons. AND this is the best part, the "fixes".

So, GW happening, yes. Man made is not "man influenced" and no one is doing a cost benefit analysis. And if you are going to tar the objections to other people you do not like, then the argument is again "religious".

In this last case, you have people like "Five Metals Holder" who is in the administration, has long career of being wrong on his malthusian theories AND is an open advocate for reducing the human population to under 70 million or so.

he is right, that is A solution that will "solve" the "hocky stick"….is that the price you will pay?

Rocky

crhkrebs25 May 2010 1:15 p.m. PST

I see the overwhelming amount of peer review as politically dependent and motivated.

I call BS and challenge you to show me a sample of research in a peer reviewed journal that displays a conclusion unsupported by it's internal data and observations and is "politically motivated".

I won't hold my breath.

……but the actual policy statements of said-societies and associations cannot risk professional suicide by moving against the tide of popular opinion.

Utter BS! Substantiate this.

The fact is, warming has occurred many, many times in the past without any human cause.

True, but not the topic.

The sole claim to AGW this time is the asserted speed of the warming trend: yet for the last most of a decade the warming has abated/slowed, while the increase in oil use and population has increased. The indicator is that man's contribution is a minor component: hardly worthy of the blame we are being accused of, …..

Not supported by the findings, sorry.

So, GW happening, yes. Man made is not "man influenced" and no one is doing a cost benefit analysis. And if you are going to tar the objections to other people you do not like, then the argument is again "religious".

I haven't tarred anybody. The objections are not evidence based. They do not come from the scientific community, where a clear consensus exists.

I'm sorry Rocky I can't follow how the hockey sticks and cattle overturn the scientific consensus.

Ralph

crhkrebs25 May 2010 1:32 p.m. PST

Are the number of homosexuals increasing? I think the "Gay lobby" are becoming more politically savvy and thereby are becoming more of a threat.

What threat are they posing? The demand for equal treatment by the Law?

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP25 May 2010 1:46 p.m. PST
crhkrebs25 May 2010 2:24 p.m. PST

Great link Gunfreak, I am qualified to sign that petition too. Doesn't mean I "fully understand" the topic. Also it doesn't make me a "scientist".

Ralph

Daffy Doug26 May 2010 10:11 a.m. PST

What threat are they posing? The demand for equal treatment by the Law?

Special laws of recognition and protection? Many heteros view homosexuality unchecked/unpunished (illegal) as the direct assault on the family and society….

Daffy Doug26 May 2010 10:31 a.m. PST

I call BS and challenge you to show me a sample of research in a peer reviewed journal that displays a conclusion unsupported by it's internal data and observations and is "politically motivated".

I won't hold my breath.

(that reads like a double negative – I think you meant "supported")

Can't see the forest for the trees, Ralph? Virtually all scientific societies/associations involved in the consensus are beholden to government powers. Their very livelihoods are so bound up with approval that maverick individuals are rare. "Group think" is the status quo. The non consensus to AGW is the non agreement to multinational government controls on the economy: of course it is going to be comparatively rare. They are the ones "calling B S" on the consensus and pointing out the inconsistencies – what Rocky calls selective evidence. But the mass of common readers is more impressed/worried by the majority noise….

RockyRusso26 May 2010 11:25 a.m. PST

Hi

So, the evidence of greenland exposing JUST NOW farms that were in operation 1000 years ago isn't evidence?

One cannot both claim "hottest now, man caused" when just exposing farms covered for 1000 years ago is also happening. If they said "as warm".

That is the "selective" part. Warmist in 500 years? Absolutely, but you will notice that the CAUSE is man made, but the industrial revolution hasn't happened yet.

"consensus" cannot involve selecting the "proof" such as "in the last 500 years. Quoting reduction of the Greenland icesheet as proof is fine, unless you ignore that it happend 1000 years ago.

But THIS time it is all caused by man.

Now, 40 years ago, the oceans were dying..it was consensus…and the solution was world government and a reduction of life style to pre-industrial levels. Then 30 years ago, it was suggested that a new ice age was coming and the solution was a world government and a reduction of life style to pre-industrial levels. In the last 20 years is is man caused global warming, and the solution is world government and a reduction of lifestyle to pre-industrial levels.

It is bad science that the solution is always the same, and the problem is always the same no matter what the premise is.

Has it been warming for since 1385? Yup. But the man caused part cannot be the issue until at least 1850.

This science "consensus" looks suspiciously like "observer bias", just not the way I was trained to do science.

And ralph, that you are so dismissive of every objection and even discussion suggests a religious level of trust.

Rocky

138SquadronRAF26 May 2010 4:13 p.m. PST

On the subject of evolution, this was interesting:

link

138SquadronRAF26 May 2010 4:16 p.m. PST

On the subject of global warming here is something we haven't considered:

link

crhkrebs26 May 2010 4:55 p.m. PST

(that reads like a double negative – I think you meant "supported")

No, it's "unsupported". There is no double negative. I'm totally NOT surprised that you didn't understand.

Virtually all scientific societies/associations involved in the consensus are beholden to government powers. Their very livelihoods are so bound up with approval that maverick individuals are rare.

UTTER BS!!!

The scientists selected for the NAS and the Royal Society are already fully tenured senior scientists, whose livelihoods aren't threatened by anything. They are NOT beholden to government.

You are totally, fully, irrevocably out to lunch here.

Ralph

crhkrebs26 May 2010 5:41 p.m. PST

Now, 40 years ago, the oceans were dying..it was consensus

Not that I recall……if it was in the policy statements you will have no problem finding them for me. Show us.

Then 30 years ago, it was suggested that a new ice age was coming…

Haha! Ice Ages are always coming. I don't remember any scientific organization claiming one was coming soon. I'm prepared to look at any evidence from thirty years ago regarding policy statements of these bodies. Again, show us.

And ralph, that you are so dismissive of every objection and even discussion suggests a religious level of trust.

Your limited reading skills are failing you again. I haven't dismissed anything (as a quick read above will show) except for your fatuous remark about it snowing. I thought I made myself very clear:

I have no formal training in this field beyond some reading.

I have no dog in this race.

I'm going with the "argument from authority" and the consensus of that authority. I have insufficient training to do otherwise.

I am aware that around 95% of all climactic peer reviewed research indicates evidence for anthropogenic global warming. (Instead of wasting your time typing, look it up yourself)

The position papers of almost every major scientific society, association and organization also confirms the policy statement of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007. This states: "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system… There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion since the American Association of Petroleum Geologists adopted its current position in 2007.

References for above two statements:
A)Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, IPCC, January 2007

B) Eos 87 (36). Retrieved 2007-01-23

C)DiMento, Joseph F. C.; Doughman, Pamela M. (2007). Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren. The MIT Press. p. 68. ISBN 9780262541930.

To be fair, some organizations hold non-committal positions

This science "consensus" looks suspiciously like "observer bias"……

I'm not prepared to be the pot, calling the kettle black, like you Rocky. Here is a little thought experiment:

Rocky supports the Theory of Evolution. So does the scientific community. The consensus is good.


Rocky supports the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar system. So does the scientific community. The consensus is good.


Rocky supports the Theory of Gravitation. So does the scientific community. The consensus is good.


Rocky supports the Atomic Theory. So does the scientific community. The consensus is good.


Rocky does NOT support the Theory of AGW. But the scientific community apparently does. The consensus is now "observer bias".

Now who is the ideologue?

…..just not the way I was trained to do science.

Would that be your archaeology? I thought one got a BA in that.wink

Ralph

crhkrebs26 May 2010 6:25 p.m. PST

By the way, the IPCC has just completed it's 5th Assessment Report of the available research in 2009.

To counteract the "group think equals the status quo" crap from Doug and the "observer bias" labelling from Rocky, the IPCC has asked for an independent review of it's findings and statements.

"……an independent review of the IPCC's processes and procedures is now under way by the InterAcademy Council (IAC).
The IAC announced on Monday 3 May 2010 the 12 members of the review panel, to be chaired by economist Harold T. Shapiro, former president of Princeton University."

Maybe one should pay attention to their findings.

Ralph

crhkrebs26 May 2010 6:38 p.m. PST

Doug,

Just to put a name to the scientists whose "very livelihoods are so bound up with approval…." that make up the NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, Division on Earth and Life Studies, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. Every country has a similar group.

Google them individually. You'll be disappointed.

PAMELA A. MATSON1 (CHAIR)
Chester Naramore Dean
School of Earth Sciences
Stanford University
Stanford, Calif.

THOMAS DIEZ (VICE CHAIR)
Professor of Sociology and Crop and Soil Sciences, and
Assistant Vice President for Environmental Research, and
Director
Environmental Science and Policy Program
Michigan State University
East Lansing

WALEED ABDALATI
Associate Professor of Geography, and
Director
Earth Science and Observation Center
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences
University of Colorado
Boulder

ANTONIO J. BUSALACCHI JR.
Professor
Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, and
Director
Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center
University of Maryland
College Park

KEN CALDEIRA
Scientist
Department of Global Ecology
Carnegie Institution of Washington
Stanford, Calif.

ROBERT W. CORELL
Global Change Director
H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment
American Meteorological Society
Washington, D.C.

RUTH S. DEFRIES1
Denning Professor of Sustainable Development
Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Biology
Columbia University
New York City

INEZ Y. FUNG1
Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, and
Founding Co-Director
Berkeley Instiute of the Environment
University of Calirfornia
Berkeley

STEVEN GAINES
Director of the Marine Science
Institute and Professor of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology
University of Calirfornia
Santa Barbara

GEORGE M. HORNBERGER2
Distinguished University Professor
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, and
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences
Vanderbilt University
Nashville, Tenn.

MARIA CARMEN LEMOS
Senior Policy Scholar
Udall Center for the Study of Public Policy
University of Arizona; and
Associate Professor of Natural Resources and Environment
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor

SUSANNE C. MOSER
Researcher
Institute of Marine Sciences
University of California
Director and Principal Researcher
Susanne Moser Research and Consulting
Santa Cruz, Calif.

RICHARD H. MOSS
Vice Preident and Managing Director for Climate Change
World Wildlife Fund
Washington, D.C.

EDWARD A. PARSON
Joseph L. Sax Collegiate Professor of Law, and
Professor of Natural Resources and Environment
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor

A.R. RAVISHANKARA1
Atmospheric Chemist, and
Director
Chemical Sciences Division
Earth System Research Laboratory
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Boulder, Colo.

RAYMOND W. SCHMITT
Senior Scientist
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole, Mass.

B.L. TURNER II1
Gilbert F. White Professor of Environment and Society
School of Geographical Sciences
Arizona State University
Tempe
WARREN M. WASHINGTON2
Senior Scientist and Head
Climate Change Research Section
Climate and Global Dynamics Division
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Boulder, Colo.

JOHN P. WEYANT
Research Professor
Department of Management Science and Engineering, and
Director
Energy Modeling Forum, and
Deputy Director
Precourt Insititute for Energy Efficiency
Stanford University
Stanford, Calif.

DAVID A. WHELAN2
Vice President and Deputy General Manager
Phantom Works; and
Chief Scientist
Boeing Defense, Space, and Security
Boeing Co.
Seal Beach, Calif.

RESEARCH COUNCIL STAFF
IAN KRAUCUNAS
Study Director
1 Member, National Academy of Sciences
2 Member, National Academy of Engineering

Daffy Doug26 May 2010 8:16 p.m. PST

To counteract the "group think equals the status quo" crap from Doug and the "observer bias" labelling from Rocky, the IPCC has asked for an independent review of it's findings and statements.

"……an independent review of the IPCC's processes and procedures is now under way by the InterAcademy Council (IAC).


"My crap", uhuh. Obviously the IPCC is viewed by a lot of skeptics as an integral "arm" of the UN, and not to be trusted without a thorough checking out. I don't know anything about the background of the members of this IAC: they could be rounded up BY the IPCC, behind locked doors for that matter. Don't know, how can I?

Obviously you are ready to trust the future to the findings of international special interest groups like the IPCC/UN. When it can be clearly proven that consensus isn't being bought under the table I will be less skeptical.

Your assertion that the world's scientists are free of political entanglements can't be shown by making long lists of names and their universities. All universities operate on gov't grants: they VIE for them.

And I don't have any problem at all with organizations that are non commital on the issue of AGW. It's those who have lined up and claim it that I have a problem with….

crhkrebs27 May 2010 5:59 a.m. PST


"My crap", uhuh. Obviously the IPCC is viewed by a lot of skeptics as an integral "arm" of the UN, and not to be trusted without a thorough checking out. I don't know anything about the background of the members of this IAC: they could be rounded up BY the IPCC, behind locked doors for that matter. Don't know, how can I?

Well that sounds like a real sensible comment, Doug. I'm thinking grassy knoll for some reason.

There is a big difference between being skeptical of a proposal and being contrary to a proposal. Being skeptical and waiting for the evidence is admirable. Being contrary despite the evidence…..not so much.

As to the scientists, you can google their places of work. They are not behind locked doors. In fact they are very approachable. All faculty members have their email addresses published at the University and Faculty websites. E-mail them and ask them questions. I have found that they are responsive to intelligently worded questions, even ones that contain opposing views.

Your assertion that the world's scientists are free of political entanglements can't be shown by making long lists of names and their universities. All universities operate on gov't grants: they VIE for them.

Then that would be a good thing to ask them, wouldn't it?

Here, I'll help you. Here is Dr Matson's (Chair of the NRC Committee)website, with 2 e-mail addresses even!!

link

You can ask why she prostitutes her scientific prestige to tow the governmental party line and resort to "group think", when it is clear to all that AGW is bogus.

BTW in the interest of being consistent, are you suspect of all the medical advice your MD gives you, just because he went to a Medical School at a University that received government research grant? Do you refuse to take the medicines, because they were co-developed by medical research labs at the same universities that also accepted government funding?

Of course not, because you believe in modern medicine and pharmacology. Therefore the universities, the researchers, and the government granting procedures are all golden.

But because you don't believe in AGW, the universities are corrupting their science departments, the researchers are duplicitous and intellectually dishonest and the government has some power to mold research to it's own political whims. All this despite the fact that international peer review would see through this in a second.

I'm sure this has something to do with the Illuminati!

Ralph

Daffy Doug27 May 2010 10:10 a.m. PST

Being skeptical and waiting for the evidence is admirable. Being contrary despite the evidence…..not so much.

I'm not contrary to anything about this issue other than the huge "bandwagon" response that the USA, China, et al. the developed and developing nations, are responsible for GW and ergo must "pay" through Gov't interventions and added taxation. That is no solution to the problems this consensus presents: it is gov't control going global/international, with the proponents standing to reap enormous personal profits from the proposed changes. That the scientists just might get some kickback from implemented changes is the part that would be behind closed doors. I am confident that if I emailed one them who was complicit, that I would never be able to tell by any response of theirs.

You can ask why she prostitutes her scientific prestige to tow the governmental party line and resort to "group think", when it is clear to all that AGW is bogus.

As I said, if she WAS towing some "party line" it wouldn't be obvious and she would deny it. But in fact in the USA there is no party line. The "party line" is international, through the UN. I would rather ask "her" some other questions regarding her position on the powers/influence of the UN. If she proved favorable on what the UN is trying to do via the IPCC, or even more to the point, she agreed that the UN "constitution" ought to supercede the US Constitution, then I would dismiss her without further consideration of anything else.

BTW in the interest of being consistent, are you suspect of all the medical advice your MD gives you, just because he went to a Medical School at a University that received government research grant? Do you refuse to take the medicines, because they were co-developed by medical research labs at the same universities that also accepted government funding

I don't visit the docs, I have no MD. If I get really sick, e.g. with pneumonia, I get some antibiotic. If I am in pain I take pain meds. I absolutely do not trust the meds and treatments that many people afflict themselves with, trusting to a cure: too many times I have seen lifelong dependency or absolute failure. We all die. If medical wonders could actually prolong life indefinitely then I would have a different attitude about fighting so hard to stick around. But it is useless. I reckon on going when my body can't fight off the next bout with cancer or whathaveyou. That's my time. (tangent over)

But because you don't believe in AGW, the universities are corrupting their science departments, the researchers are duplicitous and intellectually dishonest and the government has some power to mold research to it's own political whims. All this despite the fact that international peer review would see through this in a second.

I believe that the causes of GW are far too incompletely understood and complex for any single researcher to be able to state with accuracy that man is behind it this time. The "consensus" has been built out of specialists' bits and pieces. At the same time that the bits and pieces were being "assembled" under the aegis of the UN the individual scientists became aware of the political momentum of the thing. It grew. Now, a scientist is merely a human beign with self-interest, FIRST: altruism, maverick independency and heroism, if at all, a distant second. Silently each scientist made his/her decision to keep mum on the growing monolith of AGW theory and held a "wait and see how the wind is blowing" attitude: this went on for a long time, until it was obvious that the "bandwagon" was AGW, not man as contributor-only. At what point would a given scientist become an unwilling prostitute? Or at what point would a scientist break away and start saying "hold on here, let's state what we really know: and we don't KNOW that GW is caused by us". The questioners are increasing in number rather than the so-called consensus increasing. Why is that?…

crhkrebs27 May 2010 10:48 a.m. PST

I would rather ask "her" some other questions regarding her position on the powers/influence of the UN. If she proved favorable on what the UN is trying to do via the IPCC,….

What's stopping you? The email addresses are right there.

…….or even more to the point, she agreed that the UN "constitution" ought to supercede the US Constitution, then I would dismiss her without further consideration of anything else.

Oh.

My.

Gawd.

Where does this UN crap come from? She is a member of the NRC and the NAS!! Those are American! She is an American. Hello?

I don't visit the docs, I have no MD

Sigh. You missed my point. Again.

Now, a scientist is merely a human beign with self-interest, FIRST: altruism, maverick independency and heroism, if at all, a distant second. Silently each scientist made his/her decision to keep mum on the growing monolith of AGW theory and held a "wait and see how the wind is blowing" attitude: this went on for a long time, until it was obvious that the "bandwagon" was AGW, not man as contributor-only. At what point would a given scientist become an unwilling prostitute? Or at what point would a scientist break away and start saying "hold on here, let's state what we really know: and we don't KNOW that GW is caused by us". The questioners are increasing in number rather than the so-called consensus increasing. Why is that?…

One long unsubstantiated piece of fiction. Mind reading now are you? And you refused to answer the question. You are morphing into TJ!

Ralph

RockyRusso27 May 2010 10:58 a.m. PST

Hi

So, Ralph, your assertion is that my opinions agree with the consensus on some issues, I must agree on all issues?

The reading skills you assert I don't have, seem to be evident with you as well. Try to follow THIS:

1)GW is man caused, that cause is the industrial revolution based on fossil fuels.

2)GW has been happening since 1385.

3)the Industrial Revolution starts effectively with James Watt.

4)the big actor in this is the US, which was not effectively industrialized until 1850

5)therefore, GW should have been evident from the 19th century, but not since 1385.

6)archeologically, we have a great many examples of heating and cooling cycles, but only THIS one is man caused.

7)Archeologically, the retreating ice shelf is expannding the field of work exposing sites covered for the last thousand years…but this time it is man caused.

8)"Hocky Stick" is real but doesn't equal "man caused" but rather man affected. HOWEVER, the solutions don't involve actually addressing the problem. The solutions DO involve a world government that transfers wealth and technology from the "haves" to the "have nots".

This last issue is my real issue. The transfer of wealth to the third world to bring them into the 21st century does not reduce our carbon footprint, but merely transfers it.

rocky

Daffy Doug27 May 2010 10:59 a.m. PST

I think we should stop saying that there is a consensus on AGW. If there ever was, it isn't around anymore.

Rocky is right in his assessment of what "popular science" was saying 30 and 40 years ago. (it was never "consensus", true, but then that word has been misapplied here to AGW) I was hearing the same things. And that's all that this round of assertions is: another "popular science" wave. The trouble with this one, this time, is that it is blatantly political and being used for a global power grab (money IS power)….

Daffy Doug27 May 2010 11:05 a.m. PST

What's stopping you? The email addresses are right there.

Because I don't care what an individual's position is. What am I supposed to do: email every climatologist (or related field scientist) and grill them? then compile my "findings" and decide on that basis? I already know that they don't agree on a lot of things. Their personal politics being one of them, I would only find out (if they answered candidly) if they are UN "lovers" or USA "lovers".

Where does this UN crap come from? She is a member of the NRC and the NAS!! Those are American! She is an American. Hello?

"American" doesn't mean squat, Ralph. Our Nation is riddled with pro-UN types: they love the UN over our own Gov't of the People. But apparently you don't know that.

Mind reading now are you?

How is watching the number of increasing voices of dissent mind reading, exactly?

And you refused to answer the question.

You didn't ask a question, if you'll go back and look at what I was responding to….

crhkrebs27 May 2010 12:21 p.m. PST

So, Ralph, your assertion is that my opinions agree with the consensus on some issues, I must agree on all issues?

Not at all. I'm asserting that these educational, governmental and scientific institutions seem so effective and efficient when expanding the scientific understanding of the world around us. I'm sure you agree.

However, these very same institutions are now morally bankrupt, intellectually dishonest and under sinister government control when it comes to global warming. Does that not sound odd? Pray tell, are there any other scientific topics that these institutions are striving to misinform us about?

It's like calling the members of the Supreme Court "brilliant" because they render a decision that you may be in favour of. But then, those same justices are called "idiots", and that "the Supreme Court is an outmoded and corrupt institution", simply because you don't agree with their next verdict.

That is what I am asserting.

The reading skills you assert I don't have,…..

There you go again. I never said that.
You stated:

And if you are going to tar the objections to other people you do not like, then the argument is again "religious".

May 25, 10:15

And:

And ralph, that you are so dismissive of every objection and even discussion suggests a religious level of trust.

May 26 11:25

I answered both times that I said no such thing. I haven't been dismissive to any objection at all and I haven't tarred anyone. These ideas either wholly exist within the imagination of Mr Russo, or Mr. Russo misread my statements.

I have been dismissive of some dumb things that have been said (see above) but never to an anti-AGW argument.

Now speaking to your 8 point argument, I'll confess it is wasted on me. I actually cannot see how it undermines the current scientific argument. For instance, how does the fact that Greenland being verdant and warm 500 years ago contradict AGW?

Instead of convincing fellow wargamers, why don't you use the link I provided and get in touch with the current head of the FRC Committee? One of her areas of interest are:

"Vulnerability Analyses and Metrics"

Different human-environment systems respond differentially to the influence of climate changes, policy changes, and other interacting factors; some are more likely to suffer harm than are others. Our research team has focused on developing frameworks for vulnerability analyses in agricultural and coastal environments, and in developing metrics that allow identification of those areas most vulnerable.

I'm sure your arguments would be of great interest to her. Let us know how that turns out.

Ralph

crhkrebs27 May 2010 2:02 p.m. PST

You didn't ask a question, if you'll go back and look at what I was responding to

You were stating that you were suspicious of University professors as they are not free of political entanglements and how that should taint their findings. You correctly stated, "All universities operate on gov't grants: they VIE for them." However, I find this logic flawed.

I asked, "….are you suspect of all the medical advice your MD gives you, just because he went to a Medical School at a University that received government research grant?"

It sounds like a question to me.

I don't care if you don't see a Doctor and refuse treatment. It's not my business. I wanted to know if you thought less of your Doctor (if you had one) or are you suspicious of the high blood pressure medication you should be taking, simply because the University from which both came from got research grant money from the government. Your answer was off topic.

OK, on a side tack here: as a health care professional can I convince you to take at least the small 81mg ASA kiddie pill, once per day? If you care for your family at least consider taking this. It's a miracle drug and will add 10 good years to your life. Then we both can continue these edifying conversations.

Ralph

Daffy Doug27 May 2010 4:00 p.m. PST

"….are you suspect of all the medical advice your MD gives you, just because he went to a Medical School at a University that received government research grant?"

It sounds like a question to me.


Oh, that one. I answered it. Obliquely it seems. No trust from me for the medical profession. I do trust the researchers for the most part, just not the dispensers of the "wonder" products. Most of them are incompetents and fools, just like most of the rest of humanity in ANY profession: if achieving a doctorate weeded out the incompetents and fools I wouldn't have this attitude.

OK, on a side tack here: as a health care professional can I convince you to take at least the small 81mg ASA kiddie pill, once per day?

Whatinheck is that? Never heard of it. Ooo! a special wonder pill that adds ten years to my healthy existence. BS.

Wow, a big chunk of what I said up there got ignored:

"I believe that the causes of GW are far too incompletely understood and complex for any single researcher to be able to state with accuracy that man is behind it this time. The "consensus" has been built out of specialists' bits and pieces. At the same time that the bits and pieces were being "assembled" under the aegis of the UN the individual scientists became aware of the political momentum of the thing. It grew. Now, a scientist is merely a human beign with self-interest, FIRST: altruism, maverick independency and heroism, if at all, a distant second. Silently each scientist made his/her decision to keep mum on the growing monolith of AGW theory and held a "wait and see how the wind is blowing" attitude: this went on for a long time, until it was obvious that the "bandwagon" was AGW, not man as contributor-only. At what point would a given scientist become an unwilling prostitute? Or at what point would a scientist break away and start saying "hold on here, let's state what we really know: and we don't KNOW that GW is caused by us". The questioners are increasing in number rather than the so-called consensus increasing. Why is that?

"I think we should stop saying that there is a consensus on AGW. If there ever was, it isn't around anymore.

"Rocky is right in his assessment of what "popular science" was saying 30 and 40 years ago. (it was never "consensus", true, but then that word has been misapplied here to AGW) I was hearing the same things. And that's all that this round of assertions is: another "popular science" wave. The trouble with this one, this time, is that it is blatantly political and being used for a global power grab (money IS power)"….

crhkrebs28 May 2010 5:24 a.m. PST

I ignore the nonsense Doug, not enough hours in the day.

Whatinheck is that? Never heard of it. Ooo! a special wonder pill that adds ten years to my healthy existence. BS.

Pretty strong words for someone who doesn't see a Doctor and doesn't know what ASA is. It's kiddie aspirin. It is the primary preventive measure for Coronary Artery Disease and Cerebral Vascular disease (stroke). Epidemiological studies show about an 8-9 years decrease in morbidity and mortality rates.

Doug, you don't listen to most of what I tell you. Make an exception here. Show this writing to your family and maybe they won't be as appreciative of your flippant response.

Ralph

Daffy Doug28 May 2010 8:24 a.m. PST

Ah, I see. Aspirin. Even the "kiddie" dosage is supposed to compromise my kidneys or liver or both, iirc, with continuous use. So, which is it? 10 years added on? or crapped out vitals from aspirin abuse? You see my problem, I trust: conflicting information/advice from the "professionals" – much like conflicting theories from the scientist-priests….

Daffy Doug28 May 2010 8:31 a.m. PST

Let me preempt you, Ralph: you'll come back with, "In the correct amounts aspirin is beneficial in treating Coronary Artery Disease". But in order to do this right I have to regularly see "my" MD, so that s/he can keep tabs on my vital signs, to assure that the aspirin intake is the right balance. And I will live years longer that way. And I will pay through the nose and other orifices of my body for the privilege of having said-orifices probed and reamed for every centavo that I can scrape up. No thank YOU! "When we go, we go". That's the best this world has to say on the subject of "being there". No stay of venue. No increased quality of life. The medical profession is in it for the money, first of all; any distant second motivation isn't worth the mention.

As I said: when in pain I go get pain killers. When assaulted irreversibly by viral attack I take antibiotics. That's all I ask of the medical pros. They're good at killing pain and fighting off "bugs". The rest of it is for those afraid of dying. (Oh, I will allow that some repairs are sometimes effective: but even there, I know too many victims of exploratory/experimental surgery to have any confidence in such "cures"….)

RockyRusso28 May 2010 10:46 a.m. PST

Hi

Ralph, again, you don't understand. I didn't say "greenland 500 years ago" I said "greenland 1000 years ago".

Let me specify. You have been told "warmest in history" and other "proof" which is pointed to let the government mandate carbon taxes. This argument is similar to saying "you are the oldest you have been.".

Or "warmest today".

There has been a general warming trend since the little ice age of 1385. Thus, it is no argument to say "warmest in 500" years. that is a selecive argument. And "warmest in history" only works if you hold that people weren't writing weather history.

Or "man caused"….as the warming is NOT coincident with the level of industrialization, or the dates of industrialization.

As for "go tell"… we are chatting here, I am not debating elsewhere. As an aside, remember "cold fusion"? My wife was a scientist with the university doing this work, and one of my jobs was doing department analysis and writing the grant proposals. AND, I offered to Fleishman and Pons that their numbers didn't work. I was dismissed because I am not a physicist or a mathematician. But I proved out to be right!

I am chatting with you Ralph. GW is a demonstrable fact. Man Caused is the problem. And the recent Copenhagen accords don't work mathematically as a solution. The math isn't that complex, really. So, with Pons, he ignored the numbers because of wishful thinking. I suspect that the IPCC does the math and has chosen to either indulge in wishful thinking or they have a wider agenda.

Since the mid 19th century, there has been a stong movement among the educated to buy into the platonic version of how government should work. That government should be run for the greater good by the philosopher kings of our time. When the numbers to the solution do not work, then I suspect that the motive is simply transfer of power..

Rocky

RockyRusso28 May 2010 10:50 a.m. PST

Hi

doug, you don't understand asprin or the antipathy expressed towards it. It is other pain killers that do the harm you suggest. Asprin is opposed philosophically by physicians for the following simple reason. Physicians prefer to solve problems with narrow solutions with minimal system side effects. Aspirin as a vasodialator has a whole system effect. Thus, while is it an excellent analgesic, it actually makes changes all over your body. The blood thinning and all follow with a simple headache solution.

Thus, not liked.

Rocky

Daffy Doug28 May 2010 1:53 p.m. PST

Ralph likes aspirin and evidently he's in the medical profession….

crhkrebs29 May 2010 7:45 a.m. PST

Even the "kiddie" dosage is supposed to compromise my kidneys or liver or both, iirc, with continuous use. So, which is it? 10 years added on? or crapped out vitals from aspirin abuse? You see my problem,

Yes I see your problem, it's patently clear.

See your little "iirc"? That's where your argument fails. You are confusing acetaminophen with asa. That's common as they are both common analgesics. Listen to your friend Rocky.

You should see your MD for 81mg ASA, but an Rx is not required, and there is no "right balance" necessary, so the anti- medicine harangue is unnecessary and off topic. Hopefully, you already know if you have asa allergies, ulcers, clotting problems, etc., right?

As I said: when in pain I go get pain killers. When assaulted irreversibly by viral attack I take antibiotics. That's all I ask of the medical pros.

Good I wasn't drinking coffee while I read that this morning. Let us know how the antibiotics do against your viral infections. BTW, if you were assaulted "irreversibly" by viruses, would you still be around to type about it? May I add a third clause?

"When I'm of sufficient age (45+) that my blood becomes more viscous and my arteries lose some of their elastic properties, leaving me susceptible to coronary artery disease and cerebral vascular accidents, I take a very very small amount of mild anticoagulant to decrease my mortality and morbidity rates."

Rocky, ASA is a poor vasodilator. In fact low dose ASA is given routinely with nitrovasodilators for post stroke patients and those with Transient Ischemic attacks. ASA is never used as a sole anti-angina medication. I fact the theobromines in your daily coffee are much more potent and long lasting vasodilators. It is the anti-platelet and antithrombotic properties that are at issue here.

Also please indicate where the medical profession is "opposed philosophically" to the use of low dose ASA for the reasons given. That's news to me.

Ralph likes aspirin and evidently he's in the medical profession….

Ralph knows that the efficacy of ASA in fighting your headache and (in smaller doses) extending your quality of life is well documented and the treatment of choice the world over.

I take it for a means to control my high blood pressure. So it's not so much that I LIKE aspirin, I just like to be around a little longer to enjoy friends and family, and of course, finish painting my pile of lead.

Doug, let me appeal to your guilt once again. Show these posts to your wife and children. Show them your responses, despite the obvious holes in your medical understanding and your lack of preventive health care. Then imagine having a serious stroke. Imagine living the last 15 years of your life as a vegetable. Imagine the emotional and financial strain that would put on your family and friends. Sure, ASA can't guarantee you a perfect healthy life anymore than your seatbelt can. But they are both excellent, cheap, preventive measures to avoid more serious injury. You use seat belts don't you?

Or is this all just another UN plot?wink

Ralph

Daffy Doug29 May 2010 12:04 p.m. PST

Hopefully, you already know if you have asa allergies, ulcers, clotting problems, etc., right?

Yes, I think I would.
Let us know how the antibiotics do against your viral infections…

I confuse them. Typical layman ignorance. "But if it ain't broke don't mess around with it".

How is pneumonia, bronchitis, etc., NOT viral? (It's a real question.)

Then imagine having a serious stroke. Imagine living the last 15 years of your life as a vegetable.

Imagine getting smacked off my bike. Imagine falling down the stairs. Imagine getting run down by a car. Imagine passing out in the shower and hitting my head. Imagine… If that's the best you can come up with as an inducement, Ralph, then I will bid you have a happy day and "Next?" to your lineup of patients. I have lived my whole life without pills of any description, doubting their efficacious capacity is superior to their meddlesomeness (lack of precognition vis-a-vis the individual patient: prescribers get it wrong all too often – and I have seen all too often how the first regular medication leads to side effects/complications, requiring a different medication to counteract said-side effects, and finally you are joined hip and thigh to the medical profession and you start each day with a round of pills!). I am not going to start taking any pills for any symptoms that don't cause me sufficient discomfort to make me wish life a rapid conclusion. In short, I will not be taking anything "preventive" other than air, water lots of sleep and good wholsesome food and physical activity.

Seatbelts: the quintessential comparison of rice and the price of steel. OTHER people/morons share the road with me. If it was just me I worried about, no, I wouldn't bother to belt up, unless I planned on racing (pushing the envelope of my limitations). That, and it is against the "Law" to not belt up (a stoopid law if there ever was one: kids in the car? yes, you're responsible for their safety: but your own life is yours to risk or not….).

crhkrebs29 May 2010 3:22 p.m. PST

How is pneumonia, bronchitis, etc., NOT viral?

Pneumonia is an infection of the lungs, bronchitis is an infection of the bronchial tubes, the airways leading to the lungs. The suffix "-itis", indicates "infection of" or "inflammation of" whatever word is ahead of it.

It depends on the causes.

Pneumonia can be caused by viruses, bacteria, or fungi. Thats why a medical exam is necessary. Antibiotics wont work on viruses or fungi.

Brochitis tends to be viral, from a previous upper respiratory infection like the common cold or from influenza. Some are bacterial secondary opportunistic infections after the initial viral infection. And some are caused by mechanical irritants, eg smoking.

Imagine getting smacked off my bike. Imagine falling down the stairs. Imagine getting run down by a car. Imagine passing out in the shower and hitting my head. Imagine… If that's the best you can come up with as an inducement, Ralph,…….

Well, we developed rules of the road, reflective biking gear, bicycle helmets, railings and hand holds, crosswalks, traffic lights, etc. all as preventive measures to what you just brought up. Taking preventive medications is no different.

I am not going to start taking any pills for any symptoms that don't cause me sufficient discomfort to make me wish life a rapid conclusion.

I thought you took pain pills and antibiotics?

In short, I will not be taking anything "preventive" other than air, water lots of sleep and good wholsesome food and physical activity.

Then you've been lucky so far. That won't continue. Things will start to malfunction as the body ages. So if you found out, like myself, that you have high blood pressure, would you not take any medicine to correct it? High BP has no symptoms, that is why it is known as the "silent killer".

Seatbelts: the quintessential comparison of rice and the price of steel.

Wrong again. Both middle age and a highway are potential dangerous minefields that we have to enter. Both ASA and seat belts are preventive measures to avoid bigger potential problems. It's like a form of insurance. I note that I wear seat belts because of that reason, and not because it is the law.

….but your own life is yours to risk or not…

Well, I have my family to consider also. Best wishes to you Doug.

Ralph

BravoX30 May 2010 7:26 a.m. PST

Wow 32 pages!

Daffy Doug30 May 2010 10:47 a.m. PST

Brochitis tends to be viral, from a previous upper respiratory infection like the common cold or from influenza.

Interesting. The prescribing of antibiotics is enormous: indicating, I suppose, that the viral component is in the extreme minority: while the bacterial is far and away the most common contributor to these diseases? That would mean that pneumonic Plague would be unfazed by antibiotics, but bubonic Plague could be defended against with antibiotics?

So if I caught the Plague from inhaling someone's sniffly sneeze germs I would be toast?

Taking preventive medications is no different.

With one notable exception: handrails do not cause side-effects. Meds very often do.

I thought you took pain pills and antibiotics?

That's what I just said: I don't take anything at all until I feel like the walking dead.

Then you've been lucky so far. That won't continue.

Agreed. "Lucky" is a word that means good genetics, good immune system, good fortune at staying undamaged. You're so right! Death awaits us all.

So if you found out, like myself, that you have high blood pressure, would you not take any medicine to correct it?

Correct. I would get advice on diet, exercise, mental exercise included. I would not take any meds for it.

Both ASA and seat belts are preventive measures to avoid bigger potential problems.

Again, seatbelts do not come with any side effects; aspirin does over time.

Well, I have my family to consider also. Best wishes to you Doug.

Doing my level best to "stick around" AS myself, not some increasingly medicated, patched-up, moribund version. "When we go, we go", is a good attitude, imho. My children and wife and friends will just have to do without me someday. That is the bald fact. So why angst over putting it off?

Best wishes to you and yours as well, Ralph….

RockyRusso30 May 2010 10:47 a.m. PST

Hi

Ralph, the local internal medicine dox in my circle dislike using asprin for the reason indicated. Your specific cardio/vascular exception is an exception. If you just have aches and pains from a cold and are 30, they prefer you not use aspirin.

In another conversation with a Flight Surgeon, he used to love discussing "if you were wrecked on an island which two drugs would you prefer to have survived the crash. Aspirin, of course, was one of them because of the whole system nature of the thing.

You need to accept that making a basic explanation to Doug about these things is always going to be subject to quibbles from special concerns.

Another problem might be in this conversation is the failure of our system. That is, the average guy isn't educated in this subject in any meaningful manner. It is unacceptable in a republic to end political discussion with the Platonic "Philosopher King" response in "I am a scientist, trust me and do what I tell you".

Rocky

Daffy Doug30 May 2010 10:49 a.m. PST

Hey man! Have we EVER posted at exactly the same time on TMP before? Good morning to you!…

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34