@BrianK

Quote:

If anti-gw scientists are failing to publish their papers then they aren't doing their jobs.

Because they remain publicly silent does not infer they do not publish. Quite the contrary in fact. They understand the best way to dismiss the AGW hypothesis is to provide evidences it is unsubstantiated and unphysically based. There are skeptical papers published each months.

Quote:

They heard, equally, the Intelligent Design advocates and the Evolution scientists.

Were ID advocates hearing by Congress to prepare mitigation? I don't recall reading about it. I don't know why ID believers are not convinced by arguments of the evolution theory in USA. The religious framework is quite potent to firmly keep its believers, as I wrote in the other thread. This demonstrates simply that even if rational minds are convinced that evolution is true, some are not.

Quote:

Would you claim this evidence of 'no one knows' if Evolution is the consensus of science? I think you'd disagree with that assertion.

It seems that politicization of Science is the national sport in the USA. Thus claiming 'consensus' everywhere seems natural even if it deviously impairs Science itself. So, of course I disagree evolution is the 'consensus' even if I think there are convincing evidence that this theory is true, for the same reason I disagree AGW is 'consensus' even if I think there is no convincing evidences this hypothesis is true, and for the same reason that no other scientific theory/hypothesis is 'consensus'.

Quote:

It had been for years. It's fairly recent that the observations showed that the scientists might need to reconsider this hypothesis.

I do not recall seeing a paper where chloroplasts or mitochondria where thought to be anything else than former and ancient extracellular entities that have integrated in eukaryotic cells.

Quote:

Consensus is part of society's understanding of the state of the science.

I have no problem with this political definition. But who care of the opinion of this part of society (not the Society itself)? Because this 'scientific elite' as called by Eisenhower is trying to influence the illiterate and the gullible with abstruse words to somewhat ennoble their meaning, they can not hide their political agenda behind a 'consensus' they are alone to share because of the very fact that the definitively evolutive state of the Science is independent of their opinion. So at a time or another, they will not be in balance and in phase with the current state of Science and obviously will then be defeated (and replaced soon with some other in a cyclical and ridiculous but so human propensity towards repeating the insane). They also have the possibility to change their mind but thus also defeating the 'consensus' view itself. All in all scientifically or politically speaking, a 'scientific consensus' is a dead end.

Quote:

In your words here I've observed that you repeatedly shown a disdain for people as it appears you support a more Ayn Randian type of view of the world. It's one I discard as philosophically corrupt. In my view this is the wrong answer.

What I have observed is that you are easy to put or find negative meaning in sentences which have not. Because some people are not able (or do not want or have no time or do not care) to follow or accept paradigm shifts does not imply in my view they are handicapped or something remotely approaching. Philosophy in general and epistemology in particular provide ways to understand the surrounding world and human inhere. They are not designed to provide answer per se. If people feel that they don't need to question to be right in their mind, I absolutely have no problem with this position even if I personally think they miss what is the charm of life.

Quote:

It's that people have a lot to do. If everyone in the world was researching Climate we wouldnt have everything else. Who would build the cars or take care of the families. There are certainly more topics of interest for a human than that human could possibly partake in.

You are riding the wrong horse here. If people have a lot to do, it is because the system especially tends for people to be busy (have a job, a family, friends, hobbies, etc). When people are busy, they are not questioning this or that because the system has been thought and organized to already provide responses (scientists or political corpse for example). I am not crying 'Wolf' here because I somewhat enjoy this whole organization and also use it when it fits. I just say that the system provides what is necessary -- education for example ; note that in some countries education is not provided to especially avoid the collapse of the system -- to live inside it and does what it can to provide you distractions in order to focus your attention on all but its own deficiencies. You have to understand the system early in your life and organize to offer yourself the possibility to escape it. I recognize it is not easy because the system has also been build to not provide the means to defeat itself. But it is possible (and please refrain to reply with the usual and childish 'we are not in Matrix' style).

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

The world has gone Nutz.....Nutz......nutz

EPA finds greenhouse gases pose a danger to health

carbon dioxide a danger to health?

WASHINGTON – The EPA on Friday declared that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases sent off by cars and many industrial plants "endanger public health and welfare," setting the stage for regulating them under federal clean air laws.
the full story

to break this down: The Imperial Obama can't get the US congress to pass his tax gases scheme, so what to do? Ban the gases with the US epa that he controls.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@Interesting

Quote:

carbon dioxide a danger to health?

Sure. If you breathe nothing but that...

Anyway, it's a bit disturbing that they have such a target... Cars and industrial plants release many things that are a danger to public health and I bet my #### they are not gonna be targetted by any law resulting from this.

_________________

@Interesting

The world? No, only USA.

The best Congress can do is doing nothing (not accepting cap and trade) and let EPA passes its endangerment finding. Democrates are suiciding themselves here by taking the responsibility to raise energy price either by cap and trade or EPA (or both). To quote R. Pielke Jr: Quote:

Republicans must be drooling over the possibility that EPA will take extensive regulatory action on climate change. Why? Because the resulting political fallout associated with any actual or perceived downsides (e.g., higher energy prices) will fall entirely on Democrats and the Obama Administration. Far from being an incentive for Congress to act on its own, the looming possibility that EPA will take regulatory action is a strong incentive for Republicans to stalemate Congressional action and a nightmare scenario for Democrats.

That is what you get when your motivation is ideological only (EPA is mostly driven by environmentalists): CO² is harmless to human. In addition the problem is clearly not in USA:


I am sorry, but you are going to pay for dogmatic views and it sounds familiar: Quote:

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."

- H.L. Mencken

Edit: added the quote

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 17-Apr-2009 at 09:09 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

Interesting, runs counter to what we are usually told:



Antarctic ice grows

_________________

@Einar

Please don't include me in your "we" ;). I don't use MASS media as a source of information :).

BTW. In USA people like to think like in Heroes: "I (we) need to save the world...". So they drive SUV (8 cylinders) to work every day.



And now deep breath...someone have so filter this air.

Last edited by kreciu on 18-Apr-2009 at 03:39 AM.

_________________
I change my mind. Now when I know AmigaOS4.1 is legal... :D. Thank you Hyperion!

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Because they remain publicly silent does not infer they do not publish. Quite the contrary in fact

Then nothing to worry about IMO. Also, living in the USA the anti-GW is far far from silent.

Quote:

Were ID advocates hearing by Congress to prepare mitigation? I don't recall reading about it. I don't know why ID believers are not convinced by arguments of the evolution theory in USA.

Again this was in the Texas state government. It is important due to the population size of Texas they are the place that drives what is in school text books. The State Board of Education voted 13-2 to put in place a plan that requires teachers to encourage students to scrutinize "all sides" of scientific theories. Sounds good in theory until you you realize that the 'all sides' means they get to discuss creationism vs evolution. Just as likely they can put alternative medicine, such as homoepathy, up against scientific medicine.

Quote:

I don't know why ID believers are not convinced by arguments of the evolution theory in USA.

They claim there is no scientific consensus on evolution. That scientists are government controlled and afraid of losing their job so only look for evolution. That the science is manipulated by the political agenda of Atheists looking to destroy their religion and institute a 1 world government.

Quote:

Thus claiming 'consensus' everywhere seems natural even if it deviously impairs Science itself.

It doesn't impair science. It communicates the present state of the science. The scienists continue their work and if a new and better theory comes about the science shifts.

Quote:

of course I disagree evolution is the 'consensus'

You like Kuhn so just change the phrase to today's leading accepted paradigm. FIXED!

Quote:

They also have the possibility to change their mind but thus also defeating the 'consensus' view itself

They do have the ability to change their mind as new evidence is brought to bear. So as I said about there is no impairment. When one looks at history we see that the late 19th Century leading accepted scientific paradigm of Geosyncline theory was discarded in the mid-20th century for the newer paradigm of Plate Tectonics.

Quote:

What I have observed is that you are easy to put or find negative meaning in sentences which have not. Because some people are not able (or do not want or have no time or do not care) to follow or accept paradigm shifts does not imply in my view they are handicapped or something remotely approaching.

When you expanded here your claim of 'brain inability' to that of personal desire then yes we see a better light.

You describing the morass of daily lives that suffers all humans though adds credit to my observation that you view humans and or humanity in not the most positive light.

BTW -- I am one I find in the minority opinion that the Matrix wasn't as great as people claimed it to be.

@BrianK

Quote:

Then nothing to worry about IMO. Also, living in the USA the anti-GW is far far from silent.

On that I agree.

Quote:

they get to discuss creationism vs evolution

Well I think they played very well here and won the battle. Anuway they can call ID a theory if they wish ; until they provide evidences of their claims ID is no more than that, a claim. In the end given the evidences on the side of evolution theory, they will never win the war. The problem with religious belief is that it uses circular reasoning as a sensible reasoning, defeating the purpose of reasoning: you can not fight this behavior with reason itself.

Quote:

They claim there is no scientific consensus on evolution. That scientists are government controlled and afraid of losing their job so only look for evolution. That the science is manipulated by the political agenda of Atheists looking to destroy their religion and institute a 1 world government.

Sound familiar. At least they are smart even with no sensible reasoning practices and no evidences either.

Quote:

It doesn't impair science. It communicates the present state of the science.

It impairs Science by falsely representing its state because it is not scientists who communicate and inform, but someone else (usually with 0 scientific level) who uses this lever to push his own agenda in the name of Science. Public is then mislead in thinking that Science is frozen although this is obviously false as it is against Science paradigm itself. You never hear a politician says 'in the current state of Science', they are always definitively affirmative about Science and thus are misleading people about the 'state of Science' and Science itself. Just hear and watch the media and politic arena: do you have echo of temperatures stabilizing or cooling or that ice area is at high record level or that CO² level rise is not increasing in spite of world economical regression, etc, etc? No. All the opposite. This is not an honest representation of the state of Science.

Quote:

When you expanded here your claim of 'brain inability' to that of personal desire then yes we see a better light.

This was implicitly included in my sentence but it is possible it does not translate fully in English.

Quote:

You describing the morass of daily lives that suffers all humans though adds credit to my observation that you view humans and or humanity in not the most positive light.

No. I am a positive humanist in general. What you see in as 'not the most positive light' is my view of the system we live in not that of the entities who live in.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@kreciu

Quote:

And now deep breath...someone have so filter this air.

You might be under some misconceptions. All cars since 1975 sold in the USA have a catalytic converter. I can go into more detail but this link isdecent.

You might wish to read the part under "Regulations". See the fact is that the USA leads the world in cleaning in its regulation of exhaust.

" In Japan a similar set of regulations came into effect January 1, 2007, while the European Union has not yet enacted analogous regulations."

hope that helps you understand.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Well I think they played very well here and won the battle. Anuway they can call ID a theory if they wish ; until they provide evidences of their claims ID is no more than that, a claim. In the end given the evidences on the side of evolution theory, they will never win the war

Societies are run by people and leadership should be erroring on the side of rationality and proveability. I disagree they should be allowed to call ID a theory. My reasoning is the use of the collaqual usage of theory (any old guess) to define what's really (at best) a hypothesis it waters down and confuses it's meaning with a scientific theory (best explaination for the observed evidence).

Quote:

At least they are smart

If deception is 'smart' then this point would be true.

Quote:

It impairs Science by falsely representing its state because it is not scientists who communicate and inform, but someone else

Scienists communicate the state all the time with their actions. Significantly more GW publications occur than anti-GW. Significantly more GW discussion is had at climatologic gatherings. And the scientists themselves are asked about the state.

Quote:

Public is then mislead in thinking that Science is frozen

Not all all. Scientific consensus is what is the present state of the science. Science continues to propose, observe, and analyze and will change.

What's really the alternative here? If someone says what is Gravity do we talk about Einstein's theory or do we say 'we don't know'? Certainly getting science out from behind closed doors and communicated to the public knowning the leading paradigm is an important item of discussion.

@Interesting

Quote:

You might be under some misconceptions. All cars since 1975 sold in the USA have a catalytic converter. I can go into more detail but this link isdecent.

Ehm, so do all european cars, you cannot buy leaded fuel for vehicles pretty much anywhere anymore. That does not that the fumes from cars are harmless though, when you have a city centre with tens of thousands of cars the particles of unburnt fuel etc. add up.

_________________

@BrianK

Quote:

Societies are run by people and leadership should be erroring on the side of rationality and proveability. I disagree they should be allowed to call ID a theory.

If that were true, AGW would have not be allowed to be called an hypothesis either. A good thing all in all given the time and the energy lost for this non-problem.

Quote:

Significantly more GW publications occur than anti-GW.

This has to be backed up with evidences: the last study by Schulte in 2007 shows no such repartition and therefore contradicts this claim. Anyway quantity is not known to imply quality and the simple fact that a paper contradicting AGW hypothesis exists is enough to reject it ipso facto.

Quote:

Not all all. Scientific consensus is what is the present state of the science. Science continues to propose, observe, and analyze and will change.

As the state of Science is something rather fuzzy and moves every time new scientific papers are published and evidences are provided, there can not be logically any 'scientific consensus' by real scientists. Every field in Science can be demonstrated to miss 'consensus' due to the reason that 'consensus' has no meaning in Science: it is a political thing. It is true that non-scientists often emphasize on 'scientific consensus': this usually rings a suspicious bell in any honest scientist's brain, in mine anyway.

Quote:

What's really the alternative here? If someone says what is Gravity do we talk about Einstein's theory or do we say 'we don't know'? Certainly getting science out from behind closed doors and communicated to the public knowning the leading paradigm is an important item of discussion.

The alternative? The alternative really, is that you perhaps enjoy one tells you what and how to think to avoid your pre-encephalic neurons to do the job. It seems trivial but if someone wants to forge his opinion on something, the main way for him is to find responses himself: Quote:

"If anybody tells you in order to support his opinion that he is in possession of proof and evidence and that he saw the thing with his own eyes, you have to doubt him, even if he is an authority accepted by great men, even if he is himself honest and virtuous. Inquire well into what he wants to prove to you. Do not allow your senses to be confused by his research and innovations. Think well, search, examine, and try to understand the ways of nature which he claims to know. Do not allow yourself to be influenced by the sayings that something is obvious, whether a single man is saying so or whether it is a common opinion, for the desire of power leads men to shameful things, particularly in the case of divided opinions."

- Moses Maimonides (1135 - 1204), Medical Aphorisms

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

If that were true, AGW would have not be allowed to be called an hypothesis either.

Disliking or disagreeing with the science doesn't mean you're necessarily right.

Quote:

This has to be backed up with evidences: the last study by Schulte in 2007 shows no such repartition and therefore contradicts this claim.

You decry politicalization in the process and then wet your toast on the other side by throwing up the politicalized paper of Schulte? I suggest you treat anti-GW with the eye for error you turn on GW. Schulte's paper shows a minority of science is anti-GW, ~6%. Many of these papers are faulty counts of anti-GW claims. A few are polls of the population's view on pending disaster -- that's not climate science. Others in their conclusions stated we must reduce CO2 in the environment -- these disprove CO2 causing warming? I think not. Others commented that GW needs better models. I agree it does. Of course the need for better models doesn't mean that GW in itself is wrong. It's a request to tighten up the science.

Quote:

the simple fact that a paper contradicting AGW hypothesis exists is enough to reject it ipso facto

This statement is a bit silly. Science, as you requested before, must be backed up with evidence. A paper in itself is not enough. Other scientists must audit the work and ensure the experiments are repeatable with the conclusions of the author. Certainly papers exist contradicting Einstein and Evolution so they are now rejected too. Well and of course many papers contradicting the anti-GW hypothesis exists so they must be enough to reject anti-GW, ipso facto too. Sorry you need work on this thought. If one applies it to science it tells us that we know nothing about anything.

Quote:

As the state of Science is something rather fuzzy and moves every time new scientific papers are published and evidences are provided, there can not be logically any 'scientific consensus' by real scientists

Not true.

Quote:

'consensus' has no meaning in Science: it is a political thing

Consensus has no meaning within the certainity of experimentation on that agree. Consensus communicates the current accepted scientific paradigm.

Quote:

The alternative? The alternative really, is that you perhaps enjoy one tells you what and how to think to avoid your pre-encephalic neurons to do the job. It seems trivial but if someone wants to forge his opinion on something, the main way for him is to find responses himself.

Impossible.

@Einar

Hi Einar.. Long time no see.

I noticed no-one commented on your link as well..Saw it on Slashdot myself.

Antartica growing

Last edited by The_Editor on 19-Apr-2009 at 02:28 PM.

_________________
******************************************
I dont suffer from Insanity - I enjoy it

******************************************

@Zardoz

Quote:

That does not that the fumes from cars are harmless though, when you have a city centre with tens of thousands of cars the particles of unburnt fuel etc. add up.

I would agree wtih that. Also make some points. In the USA we don't use Diesel fuel like used in euro (nasty). Remember Diesel was a "waste fuel".

I wasn't going to say this in the public but your smart enought to research it, and find the truth for yourself. The catalytic system used in the USA went beyond just cleaning up the exhaust produced by the engine. I know this is going to sound unbelievable but some of the exhaust elements from the catalytic system are “cleaner” then the intake air the engine sucks up.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@Interesting

Quote:

I would agree wtih that. Also make some points. In the USA we don't use Diesel fuel like used in euro (nasty). Remember Diesel was a "waste fuel".

The two most polluted cities I've ever been to, Athens and Thessaloniki, in Greece, do not allow private diesel motor vehicles (only taxis, buses etc. can use Diesel) and have been using catalytic converters for years. You should remember that even the 3-way converters only work properly after the first 3-4km, as they need to be warmed up first and city journeys are often less than that.

Quote:

I wasn't going to say this in the public but your smart enought to research it, and find the truth for yourself. The catalytic system used in the USA went beyond just cleaning up the exhaust produced by the engine. I know this is going to sound unbelievable but some of the exhaust elements from the catalytic system are “cleaner” then the intake air the engine sucks up.

The US legislation enforces three-way converters but while the European legislation is lagging behind, I have found 0 information that claims that recent European cars do not use three-way converters anyway. Can you provide any links?

_________________

@BrianK

Quote:

Disliking or disagreeing with the science doesn't mean you're necessarily right.

I do not dislike or disagree with the Science. I am not convinced by the AGW hypothesis because there is no theoretical and observational evidence to back it up. I am not convinced by ID either.

Quote:

You decry politicalization in the process and then wet your toast on the other side by throwing up the politicalized paper of Schulte?

Paper of Dr Schulte has nothing to do with politic. It is a peer-reviewed paper published in a scientific journal. Or do you cry 'Wolf!' each time evidences contradict your preconception(s) or do not fit your espoused view(s)?

Quote:

Schulte's paper shows a minority of science is anti-GW, ~6%.

Nice try but you forgot to quote the entire §: Quote:

"Of 539 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers 'implicit' endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no 'consensus.'"

I need not to add anything.

Quote:

Others in their conclusions stated we must reduce CO2 in the environment -- these disprove CO2 causing warming? I think not.

Conclusions claimed with no evidence to support them. Does it thus prove AGW either? Of course not.

Quote:

Quote: the simple fact that a paper contradicting AGW hypothesis exists is enough to reject it ipso facto. This statement is a bit silly.

The following one by you just 13 posts ago, here is as silly: Quote:

[I] comment that it takes 1 strong experiment to break a paradigm and science should always be searching for this.

Quote:

Consensus communicates the current accepted scientific paradigm.

'Consensus' is a mean to falsely communicate about Science by letting think that scientists have accepted a view even if scientists have not stated their opinions, the state of Science is permanently changing or the hypothesis the 'consensus' is based on is just that, an hypothesis, that is to say an explanation still waiting for evidences. So a 'consensus' in Science is just a misrepresentation of the state of Science. Even if one wants to misrepresent the state of Science that way, that does not means the state of Science is true. In the AGW case, it is false on 3 counts.

Quote:

Quote: It seems trivial but if someone wants to forge his opinion on something, the main way for him is to find responses himself. Impossible.

And I thought it was trivial. I knew that media in general are good to format people not to think by themselves, but here you appear to give me a great example. It is thus impossible that "if someone wants to forge his opinion on something, the main way for him is to find responses himself." Impressive.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@The_Editor

Also covered here (Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking). And here (The Antarctic Wilkins Ice Shelf Collapse: Media recycles photos and storylines from previous years) you can appreciate how some media reused last year pictures and texts to give false informations and how some scientists misrepresent their field of research.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

I am not convinced by the AGW hypothesis because there is no theoretical and observational evidence to back it up

Of course there is both theoretical and observational evidence. Or do you cry 'Wolf!' each time evidences contradict your preconception(s) or do not fit your espoused view(s)?

Quote:

Paper of Dr Schulte has nothing to do with politic

You state that I take your views to harsh. So to be more accepting of your approach I must ask. You frequently stated that polls are not science but politics. Now you fronted a poll and state it's not poltics? Is this an attempt at absurbist humor?

Quote:

Conclusions claimed with no evidence to support them.

So if Schultze counted anti-GW conclusions with no evidence to support them, as you say here, then clearly his count his inaccurate.

Quote:

The following one by you just 13 posts ago, here is as silly: Quote: [I] comment that it takes 1 strong experiment to break a paradigm and science should always be searching for this.

I never said this. Readers can go the link you supplied and see I provided you what Kuhn's response would be.


Quote:

'Consensus' is a mean to falsely communicate about Science by letting think that scientists have accepted a view even if scientists have not stated their opinions, the state of Science is permanently changing

Of course it's always changing that's why consensus answers what the current accepted paradigm is. Do you not agree that the current accepted paradigm for gravity is Einsteing's equations or that evolution is the current accepted paradigm of how life changes on earth?

Quote:

And I thought it was trivial

My take on finding responses yourself can only be done by 1 means. That is replicating the experiment and purposing your own. If one wants to know the state of the science there's simply not enough hours in a lifetime to repeat every experiment ever. This approach would definitely not be trival.

Last edited by BrianK on 19-Apr-2009 at 05:51 PM.

@Zardoz

Our trucks are Euro 5 spec

_________________
******************************************
I dont suffer from Insanity - I enjoy it

******************************************