Posting from work. I'll still make good on my research, but a point comes to mind when reading about funding issues:
Industry has no other reason to fund science than to improve its own profitability, which makes me much more concerned about attempts to manipulate results. There is NO reason for industry to fund unbiased science.
On the other hand, funding from organizations like NSF and NIH is overseen by academics who's reputations would be severely compromised by funding projects with biased outcomes. When work is peer reviewed it generall becomes know quickly if results have been manufactured- repeatability is one of the hallmarks of good science.
I realize that you may not trust the government and blowhard politicians like Al Gore (I swear to god that guy did more to muck up this issue than to help the situation) but you shouldn't be so quick to assume that all academic researchers are bought and paid for.
Like I said before, if a scientist could provide solid data that anthropogenic greenhouse emissions were NOT and important part of current climate issues I'm pretty sure they would be headed for a Nobel prize. It has happened before- the guy that said Helicobacter pylori caused gastric ulcers was a laughingstock until his work was repeated and the data was found to be solid (yes he got the Nobel for this).
You call yourself a skeptic- and I consider myself a skeptic as well. All ethical scientists are skeptics- the very method that they live by requires them to constantly question and reevaluate their own ideas. Of course there are "sellouts" that make their living telling people what they want to hear just like "expert witnesses" in the courtroom. As much as you don't seem to like looking at the funding issue in this debate, I think looking at the motive of people providing money for research is important.
I stand by the assertion that academic research scientists have nothing to gain from finding anything other than the truth, while industry funded scientists have a very clear cut agenda.
Will try to get by the library later today, all i have is pubmed at work.
Edit: spelling
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
Posting from work. I'll still make good on my research, but a point comes to mind when reading about funding issues: Industry has no other reason to fund science than to improve its own profitability, which makes me much more concerned about attempts to manipulate results. There is NO reason for industry to fund unbiased science. On the other hand, funding from organizations like NSF and NIH is overseen by academics who's reputations would be severely compromised by funding projects with biased outcomes. When work is peer reviewed it generall becomes know quickly if results have been manufactured- repeatability is one of the hallmarks of good science. I realize that you may not trust the government and blowhard politicians like Al Gore (I swear to god that guy did more to muck up this issue than to help the situation) but you shouldn't be so quick to assume that all academic researchers are bought and paid for. Like I said before, if a scientist could provide solid data that anthropomorphic greenhouse emissions were NOT and important part of current climate issues I'm pretty sure they would be headed for a Nobel prize. It has happened before- the guy that said Helicobacter pylori caused gastric ulcers was a laughingstock until his work was repeated and the data was found to be solid (yes he got the Nobel for this). You call yourself a skeptic- and I consider myself a skeptic as well. All ethical scientists are skeptics- the very method that they live by requires them to constantly question and reevaluate their own ideas. Of course there are "sellouts" that make their living telling people what they want to hear just like "expert witnesses" in the courtroom. As much as you don't seem to like looking at the funding issue in this debate, I think looking at the motive of people providing money for research is important. I stand by the assertion that academic research scientists have nothing to gain from finding anything other than the truth, while industry funded scientists have a very clear cut agenda. Will try to get by the library later today, all i have is pubmed at work.
I see no difference between the corruption of government funding than industry funding. Government has a vested interest in making itself bigger, stronger and more powerful -- government tends to attract people who want more government. The dollars follow accordingly.
there is more money flowing from goverments (all with a vested interest in making their power grow) than from all the industries that would be harmed by proposed global warming policy. The amount of money isn't close.
History bears me out. The Soviets used to say the same exact thing taht you are -- that the profit motive is corrupting, and the motivs of government are not. was soviet science better than our science? Nope.
Either way, show me your evidence and then please deal with all counter evidence with better evidence that disproves the counter evidence. leave motives out if this, because all are equally suspect.
By the way I never responded to your request for information about scientists HATING government intervention. Try looking at this page from the Union of Concerned Scientists. Their last major petition to keep any political agenda out of research has 12,000 signatures last i checked.
Also, you never responded you my request about your research experience? I'm assuming because you have such a vocal position about this issue and because you seem to flatly reject the peer reviewed literature on the topic that you've worked in a lab with different findings?
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
By the way I never responded to your request for information about scientists HATING government intervention. Try looking at this page from the Union of Concerned Scientists. Their last major petition to keep any political agenda out of research has 12,000 signatures last i checked. Also, you never responded you my request about your research experience? I'm assuming because you have such a vocal position about this issue and because you seem to flatly reject the peer reviewed literature on the topic that you've worked in a lab with different findings? What is your research background?
nah, I'm just your average polymath. My training is in economics. I study everything. I merely don't accept peer reviewed "consensus" as reason to believe. I look at the actual evidence myself, and determine accordingly. I also never accept a theory as true until it makes accurate predictions, which this one hasn't.
So far, as far as I can see, carbon dioxide doesn't lead to global warming, global warming leads to an increase in carbon dioxide (through the ocean release increase during planetary warming periods). Those warming periods are generated by solar activity, which we can do nothing about. Ice core samples are what set this who debate in motion, and the ice core samples show the warming temperature occurs BEFORE the increase in carbon. This makes sense as well, since warming the ocean takes time, and the ocean is the largest contributor of carbon dioxide.
Going by the current theories, it seems that it has been cooling when it should be warming. That means the theory is flawed. However if we look at solar activity and climate change, we find that they track much better.
One need not be a researcher to be correct. Peer reviewed consensus has been wrong time and again. Science has always had a tendency -- I just feel the current politization of science has corrupted the whole process, and peer review is less trustworthy than ever.
Either way, make your case, whenever you can.
Now, as to that union of concerned scientists piece. That kinda proves my point. If science wasn't political, would there be a need for such a position?
What you have there however, is also knot precisely what i was looking for -- that's a list of scientists hating government intervention IN SCIENCE. I am talking about scientists that believe in a free market capitalist system and are against government approaches to solving problems in society that they have "discovered."
EDIT: also as a humorous aside: Vocal Position? You obviously don't know me very well. I have a vocal position on everything! Or rather, if I have a position on something, I tend to be vocal about it (turtles vs tortoises for example is something I have no position on, or pirates vs ninjas).
Compared with other issues, I am quite quiet about this one.
Interesting position, I'm willing to listen.. can you cite your sources?
I don't know if you looked carefully enough at the union of concerned scientists site- That is a group that exists for no other reason than to fight ANY imposed bias on scientific research, government or otherwise.
Also, why would pure science ever be funded by industry? The risk that payoff from the research would be negligible or too remote to be profitable would be too great.
Market driven APPLIED science is fantastic. Just look at the evolution of computers. But market driven pure science? Doesn't really exist.
By the way I gave a concrete example myself above of a consensus being wrong (just google Helicobacter pylori) but I'd want some kind of compelling evidence before I rejected a scientific consensus.
I'll wait to see your sources but are you suggesting that you are better qualified to interpret paleoclimatological data than the researchers in the 928 papers reviewed by the IPCC?
Edit- fixed a typo. Well, we may not agree on much but debating things with you is fun.
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
Interesting position, I'm willing to listen.. can you cite your sources? I don't know if you looked carefully enough at the union of concerned scientists site- That is a group that exists for no other reason than to fight ANY iposed bias on scientific research, government or otherwise. Also, why would pure science ever be funded by industry? The risk that payoff from the research would be negligible or too remote to be profitable would be too great. Market driven APPLIED science is fantastic. Just look at the evolution of computers. But market driven pure science? Doesn't really exist. By the way I gave a concrete example myself above of a consensus being wrong (just google Helicobacter pylori) but I'd want some kind of compelling evidence before I rejected a scientific consensus. I'll wait to see your sources but are you suggesting that you are better qualified to interpret paleoclimatological data than the researchers in the 928 papers reviewed by the IPCC?
I began to cite sources and you called them industry tools
Bias doesn't have to be imposed, government funding of science will however invariably lead to a bias in favor of government.
There is no pure science. There is nothing pure in this world. Government poisons everything, so there is no way to get pure science out of government. Government is the product of politics. That makes it impossible for anything pure to come out of it.
THAT is where MY expertise lies.
With me, I want compelling evidence before I accept any "consensus." I also demand accurate predictions.
EDIT: I am not asserting I am better qualified to interpret any data than anyone else for anyone else. I am on;y the best qualified person for ME to decide MY opinions.
If you want to prove something to ME however, saying a billion people agree with me is not impressive in the least. Show me the data, show me contary evidence, show me that contrary evidence destroyed by better evidence. Then show me how what your position has in terms of predictive value, and I will change.
I am not trying to change YOU. YOU are trying to change ME. Do so.
Well I'll still get you the papers that represent the state of the science but I'm beginning to see that you are unlikely to accept any evidence as compelling.
I can't prove to you that cigarettes cause lung cancer. But there is a lot of compelling data to that effect.
On an entirely different subject- so government poisons everything? What are you an anarchist? I'll warn you- I think Ayn Rand was quite possibly the most naive thinker of the 20th century : )
If neither industry NOR government can be counted on to support pure scientific research, is our option then just to sit around and hope that great thinkers attempting to get rich will accidentally stumble upon discoveries that benefit the entire species and magically embrace philanthropy over greed?
Edit: typo
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
There are so many logical fallacies in the arguments on both sides in this thread it is amazing.
That said, I am glad to see many of you also do not subscribe to one side or the other.
Thank you for this very useful and insightful post. It is a great contribution to the discussion. Have a nice day.
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
Well I'll still get you the papers that represent the state of the science but I'm beginning to see that you are unlikely to accept any evidence as compelling. I can't prove to you that cigarettes cause lung cancer. But there is a lot of compelling data to that effect. On an entirely different subject- so government poisons everything? What are you an anarchist? I'll warn you- I think Ayn Rand was quite possibly the most naive thinker of the 20th century : ) If neither industry NOR government can be counted on to support pure scientific research, is our option then just to sit around and hope that great thinkers attempting to get rich will accidentally stumble upon discoveries that benefit the entire species and magically embrace philanthropy over greed? Edit: typo
I am a small "L" libertarian. I believe that government has no place in funding science. We are witnessing the results right here inthis discussion. Government funding leads to the politization of science, and that leads to bad science.
We'll have to agree to disagree over Rand as well (although I have disagreements with her), but I am beginning to see where you are coming from more and more, and why you subscribe to the positions you do. Interesting however is economics and specifically political economy IS my field of expertise, so I am in YOUR position here. I won't however attack your lack of qualifications as you did mine. I'll disagree and move on.
In terms of cigarettes, the compelling data is also predictive -- people who smoke DO get cancer more than people who do not. Not so with global warming.
I don't need you to "prove" anything. Go back and look at my words. I want to see your case. I do however want to see predictive value in your theory.
Again there is no pure science. That's just reality. To believe otherwise is naive, in my opinion.
Well I'll still get you the papers that represent the state of the science but I'm beginning to see that you are unlikely to accept any evidence as compelling. I can't prove to you that cigarettes cause lung cancer. But there is a lot of compelling data to that effect. On an entirely different subject- so government poisons everything? What are you an anarchist? I'll warn you- I think Ayn Rand was quite possibly the most naive thinker of the 20th century : ) If neither industry NOR government can be counted on to support pure scientific research, is our option then just to sit around and hope that great thinkers attempting to get rich will accidentally stumble upon discoveries that benefit the entire species and magically embrace philanthropy over greed? Edit: typo
I am a small "L" libertarian. I believe that government has no place in funding science. We are witnessing the results right here inthis discussion. Government funding leads to the politization of science, and that leads to bad science.
We'll have to agree to disagree over Rand as well (although I have disagreements with her), but I am beginning to see where you are coming from more and more, and why you subscribe to the positions you do. Interesting however is economics and specifically political economy IS my field of expertise, so I am in YOUR position here. I won't however attack your lack of qualifications as you did mine. I'll disagree and move on.
In terms of cigarettes, the compelling data is also predictive -- people who smoke DO get cancer more than people who do not. Not so with global warming.
I don't need you to "prove" anything. Go back and look at my words. I want to see your case. I do however want to see predictive value in your theory.
Again there is no pure science. That's just reality. To believe otherwise is naive, in my opinion.
Hmm.. I think we need more research. After lunch I'll go out and look for an earth like planet with a preindustrial human population. We can run some models then seed a few technological innovations and see how the climatological data matches the model as they start buring fossil fuel.
Better go on a beer run, this may take a while.
Seriously though, I see more where you are coming from as well. The thing that worries me is the unpredictability of a multivariable system. We know CO2 is a big player in planetary temperature, and we know human activities have dumped unprecedented (in recent geologic time ) amounts into the system. There are undoubtedly checks and balances in the system that might prevent immediately visible changes.. so finding a reliable index is tough. Point remains we are altering an important paramerter in our ecosystem, and like it or not we depend on the stability of that ecosystem for survival.
Seems to me like the conservative thing to do (even if there WERE no research on the subject) would be to try to mitigate any major ecosystem alterations until we have a much better understanding of what is going on.
I have found in the past that the phrase "things will probably be fine" can be the scariest in the english language.
Data will still be forthcoming.. even the pop culture links from google have got me to diagrams that seem pretty convincing but I understand you want to get into the methodology before you accept anything.
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
Well I'll still get you the papers that represent the state of the science but I'm beginning to see that you are unlikely to accept any evidence as compelling. I can't prove to you that cigarettes cause lung cancer. But there is a lot of compelling data to that effect. On an entirely different subject- so government poisons everything? What are you an anarchist? I'll warn you- I think Ayn Rand was quite possibly the most naive thinker of the 20th century : ) If neither industry NOR government can be counted on to support pure scientific research, is our option then just to sit around and hope that great thinkers attempting to get rich will accidentally stumble upon discoveries that benefit the entire species and magically embrace philanthropy over greed? Edit: typo
I am a small "L" libertarian. I believe that government has no place in funding science. We are witnessing the results right here inthis discussion. Government funding leads to the politization of science, and that leads to bad science.
We'll have to agree to disagree over Rand as well (although I have disagreements with her), but I am beginning to see where you are coming from more and more, and why you subscribe to the positions you do. Interesting however is economics and specifically political economy IS my field of expertise, so I am in YOUR position here. I won't however attack your lack of qualifications as you did mine. I'll disagree and move on.
In terms of cigarettes, the compelling data is also predictive -- people who smoke DO get cancer more than people who do not. Not so with global warming.
I don't need you to "prove" anything. Go back and look at my words. I want to see your case. I do however want to see predictive value in your theory.
Again there is no pure science. That's just reality. To believe otherwise is naive, in my opinion.
Hmm.. I think we need more research. After lunch I'll go out and look for an earth like planet with a preindustrial human population. We can run some models then seed a few technological innovations and see how the climatological data matches the model as they start buring fossil fuel.
Better go on a beer run, this may take a while.
Seriously though, I see more where you are coming from as well. The thing that worries me is the unpredictability of a multivariable system. We know CO2 is a big player in planetary temperature, and we know human activities have dumped unprecedented (in recent geologic time ) amounts into the system. There are undoubtedly checks and balances in the system that might prevent immediately visible changes.. so finding a reliable index is tough. Point remains we are altering an important paramerter in our ecosystem, and like it or not we depend on the stability of that ecosystem for survival.
Seems to me like the conservative thing to do (even if there WERE no research on the subject) would be to try to mitigate any major ecosystem alterations until we have a much better understanding of what is going on.
I have found in the past that the phrase "things will probably be fine" can be the scariest in the english language.
Data will still be forthcoming.. even the pop culture links from google have got me to diagrams that seem pretty convincing but I understand you want to get into the methodology before you accept anything.
Hmmm. I find the "we better DO this or we will perish" to be much more dangerous than "things will probably be fine." Almost every dictator in history has taken power through an apeal to fear, not through complacence.
have to do actual work now, but one last thing- I think the only thing I'd like to see is an attempt to reduce our output of CO2.
At the very least wouldn't you admit that CO2 is a big player in a system that we don't fully understand?
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
Enkindu, I think just giving up at this point would be best. Fishermage obviously doesn't want to be convinced. I gave him a very simple experiment he could do on his own that many scientists have conducted on various 'greenhouse gases' that, after trial experiments, indicate the affects CO2 and other gases that are heavier than O2 and N2 retain ambiant energy more so than O2, and N2. While these test don't 'conclusively' prove global warming is due to these gases, it proves that raising the amount of these gases that are in our atmosphere will cause it to retain more engergy (heat) the higher the make is.
Major or Current Characters AC - The Brute lvl 85 macer -HG (retired) SWG - Lihone Su'alkn Master Ranger/ MCH - Flurry (Retired) EVE - Sulone - Cruiser Lover (Retired) LOTRO - Sandric lvl 50 Burg (and others)- Brandywine (Retired) GW2 - Sandric lvl 80 Thief - Dragonbrand (Retired) NeverWinter - Sandric lvl 60 Rogue - Dragonshard (Retired) Archage - Sandric lvl 50 everything - Naima (Active) Others (Lots) (Retired)
have to do actual work now, but one last thing- I think the only thing I'd like to see is an attempt to reduce our output of CO2. At the very least wouldn't you admit that CO2 is a big player in a system that we don't fully understand?
Of course, but is it a big enough player to make it worth impoversishing nations over? in giving up national sovereignty over? in causing the developing world to live in poverty longer?
First and foremost, everyone needs to stop acting like the government is all big and anti corporation. Corporations have far more rights and support than people do in the U.S. and abroad (exceptions in parts of E.U., non-state corporations in some Socialist states).
Second, Corporations are out to make money. Being conservative (resource usage term not political opinion terms) does not make money. You make more money by exploiting resources as much as you can for as little as you can. If there was nothing to check that, we would see massive deforestation which causes various enviroment changes (see Amazon new grazeland) that of then leads first to massive erosion and often to loss of moisture. Comm companies used cheap rockets in China to place satellites in orbit, part due to red tape in U.S., part due to more costly U.S. launches, and part from limited and controlled launch windows. Result: Several million dollars lost in failed launches and equipment (rockets blew up on pad or did not reach enough altitude), several hundred milion dollars of technology China 'Did Not' steal, and a significant loss in the 'Tech Gap' we had over China.
Moreover, everyone is boo! big government is bad!. Anyone remember the Great Depression? Or the 1980's Recession? Both were caused by no governmental oversight, and were allowed, as Free Market Fundamentalists call it, to be fixed by the 'Invisible Hand'. This caused the market to tank even more, and neither showed Improvements until government intervention (and to mock all you Free Market peoples, it was Reagan and later his proteges which shaped that intervention). It is also notable that one of the greatest minds in the Free Market, George Soros has said "Markets are designed to allow individuals to look after their private needs and to pursue profit. It's really a great invention and I wouldn't under-estimate the value of that, but they're not designed to take care of social needs." Enviromentalism is most def. a Social Concern. It irritates me that Free Market Fundamentalist firmly believe that the free market is the end all and be all when people like George Soros and Joseph Stiglitz say, no, it is not all there is.
Major or Current Characters AC - The Brute lvl 85 macer -HG (retired) SWG - Lihone Su'alkn Master Ranger/ MCH - Flurry (Retired) EVE - Sulone - Cruiser Lover (Retired) LOTRO - Sandric lvl 50 Burg (and others)- Brandywine (Retired) GW2 - Sandric lvl 80 Thief - Dragonbrand (Retired) NeverWinter - Sandric lvl 60 Rogue - Dragonshard (Retired) Archage - Sandric lvl 50 everything - Naima (Active) Others (Lots) (Retired)
First and foremost, everyone needs to stop acting like the government is all big and anti corporation. Corporations have far more rights and support than people do in the U.S. and abroad (exceptions in parts of E.U., non-state corporations in some Socialist states). Second, Corporations are out to make money. Being conservative (resource usage term not political opinion terms) does not make money. You make more money by exploiting resources as much as you can for as little as you can. If there was nothing to check that, we would see massive deforestation which causes various enviroment changes (see Amazon new grazeland) that of then leads first to massive erosion and often to loss of moisture. Comm companies used cheap rockets in China to place satellites in orbit, part due to red tape in U.S., part due to more costly U.S. launches, and part from limited and controlled launch windows. Result: Several million dollars lost in failed launches and equipment (rockets blew up on pad or did not reach enough altitude), several hundred milion dollars of technology China 'Did Not' steal, and a significant loss in the 'Tech Gap' we had over China. Moreover, everyone is boo! big government is bad!. Anyone remember the Great Depression? Or the 1980's Recession? Both were caused by no governmental oversight, and were allowed, as Free Market Fundamentalists call it, to be fixed by the 'Invisible Hand'. This caused the market to tank even more, and neither showed Improvements until government intervention (and to mock all you Free Market peoples, it was Reagan and later his proteges which shaped that intervention). It is also notable that one of the greatest minds in the Free Market, George Soros has said "Markets are designed to allow individuals to look after their private needs and to pursue profit. It's really a great invention and I wouldn't under-estimate the value of that, but they're not designed to take care of social needs." Enviromentalism is most def. a Social Concern. It irritates me that Free Market Fundamentalist firmly believe that the free market is the end all and be all when people like George Soros and Joseph Stiglitz say, no, it is not all there is.
Big corporations have always been the creation of big government, whether it be the British east India Tea Company or Microsoft. Every economic disaster has been caused by government, mostly easy money leading to a boom, to be followed by a bust when the bill came due. This led to either depression or inflation.
The exploitation of resources of the third world has occurred because socialist governments sold their people out to corporations made powerful by knowing how to play the big government game.
George Soros is a socialist who cashes in by speculating on currency. he isn't a capitalist in the least -- he plays governments.
If you care about social concerns, DO something about it. That is no excuse to take the gun of government and put it to the heads of others. Sorry, not one of your arguments has any relation to how things actually happened in the real world. You've got the nature and causes of things mostly backward and a little sideways, to boot.
Oh, and by the way, even most "market fundamentalists," which is the new epithet from the socialists, believe that government has a role, in fact, is a necessary evil in protecting rights and property. In fact, they have a compelling role in the environment especially, since "common goods" such as the air ca't be assigned provate ownership.
That being said, we "market fundamentalists" believe that government is generally a blunt instrument, and must be used with great care. If not, it leads to unintended consequences that are far, far worse than the original problem. That is what caused the Great Depression, and that is what caused the current crisis,
We who urge caution and skepticism on this global warming (excuse me, climate change -- my how you guys like to shift words when the old words don't work for you) scam do so because history backs us up, not you.
As you sit and watch your television, as the ice caps get smaller and smaller , glaciers all over the world disappear (because people are too lazy to walk two blocks to get milk from the shop; preferring to ride around in their destructive SVUs because they are the only vehicles big enough to fit their dozey arses); I will continue to endevour to do my best to keep this planet as beautiful as I can for myself and for those that follow me.
There are a number of cycles of the Sun and Earth that alter Earth's temperatures. Some of them are millions of years in length. However this does not mean that we are suddenly in one.We are slowly moving into a warm period between ice ages. Global warming is a major issue we have to face.
It may not be so apparent in other countries but here in Australia it is already showing. As the driest continent our major river systems are drying up. We are in severe droughts lasting decades in some places. In other areas are floods, bushfires, cyclones and extremes in weather breaking many records.
Look at the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu which is being engulfed by water. Even now with major king tides the water will cover the land almost submerging the whole island. Very soon the whole country will be gone. The first country ever to be destroyed by humankind all because people feel a need to drive everywhere, amongst other reasons.
The destruction to the atmosphere made in Americas is all being paid for in the South Pacific.
Just an update: I've decided to be really fair here and look just as hard for good science on both sides of this issue. Trouble is I've found so much political hype and BULLSHIT on BOTH sides that I'm going to wait until i can actually get hold of the original papers through a real literature search at a real university library, and I don't have a good natural sciences library closer than two hours away, so I'd like to ask that people stay tuned until I can make a road trip.
I'm starting to realize that there's so much spin and bullshit in climate science these days that unless a person is capable of looking at the raw data in a paper and making their own decisions about the researchers' analysis that there is NO WAY to be sure about the conclusions drawn.
Let me make clear that I still believe anthropogenic global warming is a real and important phenomenon, and I still believe that the scientists that signed off on the IPCC consensus are on the whole honest and ethical. But this is a good debate and I want to do it justice. Stay tuned.
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
Just an update: I've decided to be really fair here and look just as hard for good science on both sides of this issue. Trouble is I've found so much political hype and BULLSHIT on BOTH sides that I'm going to wait until i can actually get hold of the original papers through a real literature search at a real university library, and I don't have a good natural sciences library closer than two hours away, so I'd like to ask that people stay tuned until I can make a road trip. I'm starting to realize that there's so much spin and bullshit in climate science these days that unless a person is capable of looking at the raw data in a paper and making their own decisions about the researchers' analysis that there is NO WAY to be sure about the conclusions drawn. Let me make clear that I still believe anthropogenic global warming is a real and important phenomenon, and I still believe that the scientists that signed off on the IPCC consensus are on the whole honest and ethical. But this is a good debate and I want to do it justice. Stay tuned.
Good luck. I'm telling you, it's all "political" science. been checking this out since they were predicting the ice age
Actually, I remember reading the important papers in the field back when I was a grad student but I can't seem to get any of them with full text online (without paying for access) and there are a LOT of papers. I'm going to try to stay away from review articles.
On an entirely different note, fishermage if you think all government is evil, then should you just let evil people have governments? What if we had all been tooling along doing our own thing during WWII and the cold war? Would you have been happier with Tojo, Hitler, or the old CCCP running the show? I tend to think theyd be a heck of a lot less tolerant of your personal philosophy and I'm pretty sure without the federal government someone else would be running the show at this point.
I'm a big believer in "that government is best which governs least" but I don't believe "rational self promotion" is enough to keep the truly dangerous movements of mankind in check.
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
Comments
Here's a nice article from John Stossel that sums up my feelings on this issue fairly well:
abcnews.go.com/2020/Story
fishermage.blogspot.com
Posting from work. I'll still make good on my research, but a point comes to mind when reading about funding issues:
Industry has no other reason to fund science than to improve its own profitability, which makes me much more concerned about attempts to manipulate results. There is NO reason for industry to fund unbiased science.
On the other hand, funding from organizations like NSF and NIH is overseen by academics who's reputations would be severely compromised by funding projects with biased outcomes. When work is peer reviewed it generall becomes know quickly if results have been manufactured- repeatability is one of the hallmarks of good science.
I realize that you may not trust the government and blowhard politicians like Al Gore (I swear to god that guy did more to muck up this issue than to help the situation) but you shouldn't be so quick to assume that all academic researchers are bought and paid for.
Like I said before, if a scientist could provide solid data that anthropogenic greenhouse emissions were NOT and important part of current climate issues I'm pretty sure they would be headed for a Nobel prize. It has happened before- the guy that said Helicobacter pylori caused gastric ulcers was a laughingstock until his work was repeated and the data was found to be solid (yes he got the Nobel for this).
You call yourself a skeptic- and I consider myself a skeptic as well. All ethical scientists are skeptics- the very method that they live by requires them to constantly question and reevaluate their own ideas. Of course there are "sellouts" that make their living telling people what they want to hear just like "expert witnesses" in the courtroom. As much as you don't seem to like looking at the funding issue in this debate, I think looking at the motive of people providing money for research is important.
I stand by the assertion that academic research scientists have nothing to gain from finding anything other than the truth, while industry funded scientists have a very clear cut agenda.
Will try to get by the library later today, all i have is pubmed at work.
Edit: spelling
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
I see no difference between the corruption of government funding than industry funding. Government has a vested interest in making itself bigger, stronger and more powerful -- government tends to attract people who want more government. The dollars follow accordingly.
there is more money flowing from goverments (all with a vested interest in making their power grow) than from all the industries that would be harmed by proposed global warming policy. The amount of money isn't close.
History bears me out. The Soviets used to say the same exact thing taht you are -- that the profit motive is corrupting, and the motivs of government are not. was soviet science better than our science? Nope.
Either way, show me your evidence and then please deal with all counter evidence with better evidence that disproves the counter evidence. leave motives out if this, because all are equally suspect.
fishermage.blogspot.com
By the way I never responded to your request for information about scientists HATING government intervention. Try looking at this page from the Union of Concerned Scientists. Their last major petition to keep any political agenda out of research has 12,000 signatures last i checked.
Also, you never responded you my request about your research experience? I'm assuming because you have such a vocal position about this issue and because you seem to flatly reject the peer reviewed literature on the topic that you've worked in a lab with different findings?
What is your research background?
Edit: This one is even better.
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
nah, I'm just your average polymath. My training is in economics. I study everything. I merely don't accept peer reviewed "consensus" as reason to believe. I look at the actual evidence myself, and determine accordingly. I also never accept a theory as true until it makes accurate predictions, which this one hasn't.
So far, as far as I can see, carbon dioxide doesn't lead to global warming, global warming leads to an increase in carbon dioxide (through the ocean release increase during planetary warming periods). Those warming periods are generated by solar activity, which we can do nothing about. Ice core samples are what set this who debate in motion, and the ice core samples show the warming temperature occurs BEFORE the increase in carbon. This makes sense as well, since warming the ocean takes time, and the ocean is the largest contributor of carbon dioxide.
Going by the current theories, it seems that it has been cooling when it should be warming. That means the theory is flawed. However if we look at solar activity and climate change, we find that they track much better.
One need not be a researcher to be correct. Peer reviewed consensus has been wrong time and again. Science has always had a tendency -- I just feel the current politization of science has corrupted the whole process, and peer review is less trustworthy than ever.
Either way, make your case, whenever you can.
Now, as to that union of concerned scientists piece. That kinda proves my point. If science wasn't political, would there be a need for such a position?
What you have there however, is also knot precisely what i was looking for -- that's a list of scientists hating government intervention IN SCIENCE. I am talking about scientists that believe in a free market capitalist system and are against government approaches to solving problems in society that they have "discovered."
EDIT: also as a humorous aside: Vocal Position? You obviously don't know me very well. I have a vocal position on everything! Or rather, if I have a position on something, I tend to be vocal about it (turtles vs tortoises for example is something I have no position on, or pirates vs ninjas).
Compared with other issues, I am quite quiet about this one.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Interesting position, I'm willing to listen.. can you cite your sources?
I don't know if you looked carefully enough at the union of concerned scientists site- That is a group that exists for no other reason than to fight ANY imposed bias on scientific research, government or otherwise.
Also, why would pure science ever be funded by industry? The risk that payoff from the research would be negligible or too remote to be profitable would be too great.
Market driven APPLIED science is fantastic. Just look at the evolution of computers. But market driven pure science? Doesn't really exist.
By the way I gave a concrete example myself above of a consensus being wrong (just google Helicobacter pylori) but I'd want some kind of compelling evidence before I rejected a scientific consensus.
I'll wait to see your sources but are you suggesting that you are better qualified to interpret paleoclimatological data than the researchers in the 928 papers reviewed by the IPCC?
Edit- fixed a typo. Well, we may not agree on much but debating things with you is fun.
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
I began to cite sources and you called them industry tools
Bias doesn't have to be imposed, government funding of science will however invariably lead to a bias in favor of government.
There is no pure science. There is nothing pure in this world. Government poisons everything, so there is no way to get pure science out of government. Government is the product of politics. That makes it impossible for anything pure to come out of it.
THAT is where MY expertise lies.
With me, I want compelling evidence before I accept any "consensus." I also demand accurate predictions.
EDIT: I am not asserting I am better qualified to interpret any data than anyone else for anyone else. I am on;y the best qualified person for ME to decide MY opinions.
If you want to prove something to ME however, saying a billion people agree with me is not impressive in the least. Show me the data, show me contary evidence, show me that contrary evidence destroyed by better evidence. Then show me how what your position has in terms of predictive value, and I will change.
I am not trying to change YOU. YOU are trying to change ME. Do so.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Well I'll still get you the papers that represent the state of the science but I'm beginning to see that you are unlikely to accept any evidence as compelling.
I can't prove to you that cigarettes cause lung cancer. But there is a lot of compelling data to that effect.
On an entirely different subject- so government poisons everything? What are you an anarchist? I'll warn you- I think Ayn Rand was quite possibly the most naive thinker of the 20th century : )
If neither industry NOR government can be counted on to support pure scientific research, is our option then just to sit around and hope that great thinkers attempting to get rich will accidentally stumble upon discoveries that benefit the entire species and magically embrace philanthropy over greed?
Edit: typo
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
There are so many logical fallacies in the arguments on both sides in this thread it is amazing.
That said, I am glad to see many of you also do not subscribe to one side or the other.
Thank you for this very useful and insightful post. It is a great contribution to the discussion. Have a nice day.
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
I am a small "L" libertarian. I believe that government has no place in funding science. We are witnessing the results right here inthis discussion. Government funding leads to the politization of science, and that leads to bad science.
We'll have to agree to disagree over Rand as well (although I have disagreements with her), but I am beginning to see where you are coming from more and more, and why you subscribe to the positions you do. Interesting however is economics and specifically political economy IS my field of expertise, so I am in YOUR position here. I won't however attack your lack of qualifications as you did mine. I'll disagree and move on.
In terms of cigarettes, the compelling data is also predictive -- people who smoke DO get cancer more than people who do not. Not so with global warming.
I don't need you to "prove" anything. Go back and look at my words. I want to see your case. I do however want to see predictive value in your theory.
Again there is no pure science. That's just reality. To believe otherwise is naive, in my opinion.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I am a small "L" libertarian. I believe that government has no place in funding science. We are witnessing the results right here inthis discussion. Government funding leads to the politization of science, and that leads to bad science.
We'll have to agree to disagree over Rand as well (although I have disagreements with her), but I am beginning to see where you are coming from more and more, and why you subscribe to the positions you do. Interesting however is economics and specifically political economy IS my field of expertise, so I am in YOUR position here. I won't however attack your lack of qualifications as you did mine. I'll disagree and move on.
In terms of cigarettes, the compelling data is also predictive -- people who smoke DO get cancer more than people who do not. Not so with global warming.
I don't need you to "prove" anything. Go back and look at my words. I want to see your case. I do however want to see predictive value in your theory.
Again there is no pure science. That's just reality. To believe otherwise is naive, in my opinion.
Hmm.. I think we need more research. After lunch I'll go out and look for an earth like planet with a preindustrial human population. We can run some models then seed a few technological innovations and see how the climatological data matches the model as they start buring fossil fuel.
Better go on a beer run, this may take a while.
Seriously though, I see more where you are coming from as well. The thing that worries me is the unpredictability of a multivariable system. We know CO2 is a big player in planetary temperature, and we know human activities have dumped unprecedented (in recent geologic time ) amounts into the system. There are undoubtedly checks and balances in the system that might prevent immediately visible changes.. so finding a reliable index is tough. Point remains we are altering an important paramerter in our ecosystem, and like it or not we depend on the stability of that ecosystem for survival.
Seems to me like the conservative thing to do (even if there WERE no research on the subject) would be to try to mitigate any major ecosystem alterations until we have a much better understanding of what is going on.
I have found in the past that the phrase "things will probably be fine" can be the scariest in the english language.
Data will still be forthcoming.. even the pop culture links from google have got me to diagrams that seem pretty convincing but I understand you want to get into the methodology before you accept anything.
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
I am a small "L" libertarian. I believe that government has no place in funding science. We are witnessing the results right here inthis discussion. Government funding leads to the politization of science, and that leads to bad science.
We'll have to agree to disagree over Rand as well (although I have disagreements with her), but I am beginning to see where you are coming from more and more, and why you subscribe to the positions you do. Interesting however is economics and specifically political economy IS my field of expertise, so I am in YOUR position here. I won't however attack your lack of qualifications as you did mine. I'll disagree and move on.
In terms of cigarettes, the compelling data is also predictive -- people who smoke DO get cancer more than people who do not. Not so with global warming.
I don't need you to "prove" anything. Go back and look at my words. I want to see your case. I do however want to see predictive value in your theory.
Again there is no pure science. That's just reality. To believe otherwise is naive, in my opinion.
Hmm.. I think we need more research. After lunch I'll go out and look for an earth like planet with a preindustrial human population. We can run some models then seed a few technological innovations and see how the climatological data matches the model as they start buring fossil fuel.
Better go on a beer run, this may take a while.
Seriously though, I see more where you are coming from as well. The thing that worries me is the unpredictability of a multivariable system. We know CO2 is a big player in planetary temperature, and we know human activities have dumped unprecedented (in recent geologic time ) amounts into the system. There are undoubtedly checks and balances in the system that might prevent immediately visible changes.. so finding a reliable index is tough. Point remains we are altering an important paramerter in our ecosystem, and like it or not we depend on the stability of that ecosystem for survival.
Seems to me like the conservative thing to do (even if there WERE no research on the subject) would be to try to mitigate any major ecosystem alterations until we have a much better understanding of what is going on.
I have found in the past that the phrase "things will probably be fine" can be the scariest in the english language.
Data will still be forthcoming.. even the pop culture links from google have got me to diagrams that seem pretty convincing but I understand you want to get into the methodology before you accept anything.
Hmmm. I find the "we better DO this or we will perish" to be much more dangerous than "things will probably be fine." Almost every dictator in history has taken power through an apeal to fear, not through complacence.
I hope to see your data later.
fishermage.blogspot.com
have to do actual work now, but one last thing- I think the only thing I'd like to see is an attempt to reduce our output of CO2.
At the very least wouldn't you admit that CO2 is a big player in a system that we don't fully understand?
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
Enkindu, I think just giving up at this point would be best. Fishermage obviously doesn't want to be convinced. I gave him a very simple experiment he could do on his own that many scientists have conducted on various 'greenhouse gases' that, after trial experiments, indicate the affects CO2 and other gases that are heavier than O2 and N2 retain ambiant energy more so than O2, and N2. While these test don't 'conclusively' prove global warming is due to these gases, it proves that raising the amount of these gases that are in our atmosphere will cause it to retain more engergy (heat) the higher the make is.
Major or Current Characters
AC - The Brute lvl 85 macer -HG (retired)
SWG - Lihone Su'alkn Master Ranger/ MCH - Flurry (Retired)
EVE - Sulone - Cruiser Lover (Retired)
LOTRO - Sandric lvl 50 Burg (and others)- Brandywine (Retired)
GW2 - Sandric lvl 80 Thief - Dragonbrand (Retired)
NeverWinter - Sandric lvl 60 Rogue - Dragonshard (Retired)
Archage - Sandric lvl 50 everything - Naima (Active)
Others (Lots) (Retired)
Of course, but is it a big enough player to make it worth impoversishing nations over? in giving up national sovereignty over? in causing the developing world to live in poverty longer?
Of couse not.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Global warming or not we need a more efficient energy source.
Having governments step in and force things on businesses is not the way to go about it
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
First and foremost, everyone needs to stop acting like the government is all big and anti corporation. Corporations have far more rights and support than people do in the U.S. and abroad (exceptions in parts of E.U., non-state corporations in some Socialist states).
Second, Corporations are out to make money. Being conservative (resource usage term not political opinion terms) does not make money. You make more money by exploiting resources as much as you can for as little as you can. If there was nothing to check that, we would see massive deforestation which causes various enviroment changes (see Amazon new grazeland) that of then leads first to massive erosion and often to loss of moisture. Comm companies used cheap rockets in China to place satellites in orbit, part due to red tape in U.S., part due to more costly U.S. launches, and part from limited and controlled launch windows. Result: Several million dollars lost in failed launches and equipment (rockets blew up on pad or did not reach enough altitude), several hundred milion dollars of technology China 'Did Not' steal, and a significant loss in the 'Tech Gap' we had over China.
Moreover, everyone is boo! big government is bad!. Anyone remember the Great Depression? Or the 1980's Recession? Both were caused by no governmental oversight, and were allowed, as Free Market Fundamentalists call it, to be fixed by the 'Invisible Hand'. This caused the market to tank even more, and neither showed Improvements until government intervention (and to mock all you Free Market peoples, it was Reagan and later his proteges which shaped that intervention). It is also notable that one of the greatest minds in the Free Market, George Soros has said "Markets are designed to allow individuals to look after their private needs and to pursue profit. It's really a great invention and I wouldn't under-estimate the value of that, but they're not designed to take care of social needs." Enviromentalism is most def. a Social Concern. It irritates me that Free Market Fundamentalist firmly believe that the free market is the end all and be all when people like George Soros and Joseph Stiglitz say, no, it is not all there is.
Major or Current Characters
AC - The Brute lvl 85 macer -HG (retired)
SWG - Lihone Su'alkn Master Ranger/ MCH - Flurry (Retired)
EVE - Sulone - Cruiser Lover (Retired)
LOTRO - Sandric lvl 50 Burg (and others)- Brandywine (Retired)
GW2 - Sandric lvl 80 Thief - Dragonbrand (Retired)
NeverWinter - Sandric lvl 60 Rogue - Dragonshard (Retired)
Archage - Sandric lvl 50 everything - Naima (Active)
Others (Lots) (Retired)
Big corporations have always been the creation of big government, whether it be the British east India Tea Company or Microsoft. Every economic disaster has been caused by government, mostly easy money leading to a boom, to be followed by a bust when the bill came due. This led to either depression or inflation.
The exploitation of resources of the third world has occurred because socialist governments sold their people out to corporations made powerful by knowing how to play the big government game.
George Soros is a socialist who cashes in by speculating on currency. he isn't a capitalist in the least -- he plays governments.
If you care about social concerns, DO something about it. That is no excuse to take the gun of government and put it to the heads of others. Sorry, not one of your arguments has any relation to how things actually happened in the real world. You've got the nature and causes of things mostly backward and a little sideways, to boot.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Oh, and by the way, even most "market fundamentalists," which is the new epithet from the socialists, believe that government has a role, in fact, is a necessary evil in protecting rights and property. In fact, they have a compelling role in the environment especially, since "common goods" such as the air ca't be assigned provate ownership.
That being said, we "market fundamentalists" believe that government is generally a blunt instrument, and must be used with great care. If not, it leads to unintended consequences that are far, far worse than the original problem. That is what caused the Great Depression, and that is what caused the current crisis,
We who urge caution and skepticism on this global warming (excuse me, climate change -- my how you guys like to shift words when the old words don't work for you) scam do so because history backs us up, not you.
fishermage.blogspot.com
As you sit and watch your television, as the ice caps get smaller and smaller , glaciers all over the world disappear (because people are too lazy to walk two blocks to get milk from the shop; preferring to ride around in their destructive SVUs because they are the only vehicles big enough to fit their dozey arses); I will continue to endevour to do my best to keep this planet as beautiful as I can for myself and for those that follow me.
There are a number of cycles of the Sun and Earth that alter Earth's temperatures. Some of them are millions of years in length. However this does not mean that we are suddenly in one.We are slowly moving into a warm period between ice ages. Global warming is a major issue we have to face.
It may not be so apparent in other countries but here in Australia it is already showing. As the driest continent our major river systems are drying up. We are in severe droughts lasting decades in some places. In other areas are floods, bushfires, cyclones and extremes in weather breaking many records.
Look at the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu which is being engulfed by water. Even now with major king tides the water will cover the land almost submerging the whole island. Very soon the whole country will be gone. The first country ever to be destroyed by humankind all because people feel a need to drive everywhere, amongst other reasons.
The destruction to the atmosphere made in Americas is all being paid for in the South Pacific.
Just an update: I've decided to be really fair here and look just as hard for good science on both sides of this issue. Trouble is I've found so much political hype and BULLSHIT on BOTH sides that I'm going to wait until i can actually get hold of the original papers through a real literature search at a real university library, and I don't have a good natural sciences library closer than two hours away, so I'd like to ask that people stay tuned until I can make a road trip.
I'm starting to realize that there's so much spin and bullshit in climate science these days that unless a person is capable of looking at the raw data in a paper and making their own decisions about the researchers' analysis that there is NO WAY to be sure about the conclusions drawn.
Let me make clear that I still believe anthropogenic global warming is a real and important phenomenon, and I still believe that the scientists that signed off on the IPCC consensus are on the whole honest and ethical. But this is a good debate and I want to do it justice. Stay tuned.
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
Good luck. I'm telling you, it's all "political" science. been checking this out since they were predicting the ice age
fishermage.blogspot.com
Actually, I remember reading the important papers in the field back when I was a grad student but I can't seem to get any of them with full text online (without paying for access) and there are a LOT of papers. I'm going to try to stay away from review articles.
On an entirely different note, fishermage if you think all government is evil, then should you just let evil people have governments? What if we had all been tooling along doing our own thing during WWII and the cold war? Would you have been happier with Tojo, Hitler, or the old CCCP running the show? I tend to think theyd be a heck of a lot less tolerant of your personal philosophy and I'm pretty sure without the federal government someone else would be running the show at this point.
I'm a big believer in "that government is best which governs least" but I don't believe "rational self promotion" is enough to keep the truly dangerous movements of mankind in check.
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)