Climate Change

[Dread Knot]

Originally Posted by Oberon

There's always one in every disaster movie.

The more the world warms, the more Kevin Bacon they will throw on to sizzle.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Webster

the other majority of true scientist say nothing we do will or has ever had any impact on it.

[Oberon]

They're not true scientists, Dowly!

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Oberon

They're not true scientists, Dowly!

Oh damn! Forgot it had to be true scientists. My bad!

[donna52522]

When the terrorists get their hands on and set off several Thermal Nuclear devices, industrial emissions will play a very small part in the deterioration of the Earths climate. It's not a question of 'if' but of 'when and where'.

And just think about what we have already done testing them in the past..This is just the USA....

The standard "official" list of tests for American devices is arguably the United States Department of Energy DoE-209 document.[5] The United States conducted around 1,054 nuclear tests (by official count) between 1945 and 1992, including 216 atmospheric, underwater, and space tests.

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

Frankly I do believe that climate change is real and it is happening and that something should be done about. The problem is what to do about it, what can be changed and how to go about changing it. Granted the planet does go though it's own natural climate changes some drastic like ice ages and some minor from such things as volcanic eruptions, like the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa (although that wasn't minor if we're honest). The biggest problem is that people either don't know, don't want to know or just plain don't care, some won't care until or even after their house is gone, swallowed by rising seas, buried in sand and dust or snow.

[Dread Knot]

Originally Posted by donna52522

And just think about what we have already done testing them in the past..This is just the USA....

The standard "official" list of tests for American devices is arguably the United States Department of Energy DoE-209 document.[5] The United States conducted around 1,054 nuclear tests (by official count) between 1945 and 1992, including 216 atmospheric, underwater, and space tests.

There is a fascinating global animation of all the atomic tests (and bombs dropped) from 1945-1998 on YouTube.

Japanese artist Isao Hashimoto has created a beautiful, undeniably scary time-lapse map of the 2,053 nuclear explosions which have taken place between 1945 and 1998, beginning with the Manhattan Project's "Trinity" test near Los Alamos and concluding with Pakistan's nuclear tests in May of 1998. This leaves out North Korea's two alleged nuclear tests in this past decade. Each nation gets a blip and a flashing dot on the map whenever they detonate a nuclear weapon, with a running tally kept on the top and bottom bars of the screen.

It starts out slow, but if you fast forward the video to the 1960's (about 4 mins in) it gets really crazy. Just bear in mind most of these tests were being conducted underground by 1963. Small comfort I know.

[ColdFront]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Those figures were debunked long ago as fraudulent.

Before someone asks me why all those peer-reviewed papers haven't been corrected if they're fraudulent, peer reviewed journals are notoriously prone to reluctance or outright refusal to publish corrections. I have a friend who is a theoretical physicist who spotted a paper in a well-known, often-cited peer reviewed journal. The paper contained numerous logical fallacies, mistakes, and outright invention of data where none existed. He reported the mistakes to the authors. No response. He sent a correction paper to the peer reviewed journal. The editor flat out refused to publish it. And he's not the only one to have had this experience: http://julianstirling.co.uk/how-can-...ont-play-fair/

I am angry. Very, very angry. Personally I have never liked how scientific journals charge us to read the research that we produce, and that we review for them free of charge. But that is another debate for another day. What I really hate is how they abuse this power to stifle debate in the name of their business interests. This is now going to dramatically affect the quality of a paper into which I poured a huge amount of effort – a critique of the (lack of) evidence for striped nanoparticles. (More information can be found here and here.)
The oft-repeated mantra is that science is inherently self-correcting, as all science is up for debate. In theory this is true. If you come up with a new shiny experiment and the data point to a new modified theory, everyone is happy: new science has corrected old science. If, however, you stumble across a shoddily written paper in a high profile journal– something with systematic flaws or a paper with poor analysis — and you try to correct the literature, now, suddenly, you are the villain. You write a paper pointing out the flaws, submit it, and journals reject it or delay its publication for years. One journal even told us that “[We] do NOT publish papers that rely only on existing published data. In other words [We] do NOT publish papers that correct, correlate, reinterpret, or in any way use existing published literature data.” Wow! So, apparently, the old guard of closed-access scientific publishers are not interested in the idea that they might have published articles with errors in. Correcting the literature is not important!

[Oberon]

[Skybird]

While I defend the scientific method in idea and conception, I have no illusions about the amount of corruption everyday science at institutions and in the publishing circus is being distorted by, from big pharma to big eco. It all is about money and careers, prestige and profits. The pressure in the individual to just to fit in, is immense. If you show up with findings or conclusions that contradict the dominant dogma everybody arranged himself with, you face an uphill battle against overwhelming odds, since you fight against everybody benefitting from leaving the system as it is, and if that dogma, in case of ecology for example, also is politically and ideologically wanted, then you are yelling alone in the desert.

Also, numerically counting opinions in favour and against something, holds no scientific value as an argument, it is no implementation of Ocam's razor since numbers supporting an opinion is no scientific argument in itselkf, and no empircal scientific find - it just is a confounding variable at best.

By chance, just today I have read this German article. Its not baout ecology but how historic truths get throwen out of the window in the name of postmodern relativism. The subject may be different, but the functional principles apply as well in other academic fields.

http://www.cuncti.net/haltbar/829-po...universitaeten

More on the issue of how politics and ideology, business and profit interest interact and cooperate to create a constant climate of fear about ecologic issues, I recommend this:

http://www.amazon.de/%C3%96ko-Nihili...6ko+nihilismus

And that author, different to so many others, indeed is an expert on the above mentioned points, who has approached the issue from both sides of the fence: from having been an extreme leftist and Greenpeace activist, to now being a staunchy critic of the eco-nihilism, as he calls it.

And a very accessible frontal attack on the hopelessly inferior methodological approach of the IPCC board and the many deficits in its methods can be found here, although that is not even the book's main focus.

http://www.amazon.de/Die-kalte-Sonne...ds=kalte+sonne

That climate is changing, nobody doubts. Its about the conclusipons and consequences that could/shopuld be drawn. And here, hopeless confusion and ideological lobbyism reign. You can already see in in this very threat again. It was said very early on already that climate change is not at doubt. Yet there are many postings giving an impression as if that would be what it all is about: that even the fact of climate changing is being doubted.

Cheap tricks, I call that.

Scientific methodology in itself is great. Unfortunately that does not make it invulnerable to getting corrupted, if somebody decides that that serves his interests. Swiss pocket knifes are great tools as well. They remain to be that even if most people would usxe them to cut other people's throats.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Gravity is only a theory.

So is evolution...and sometimes when I read GT, I do ponder...

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

The Oreilly line about tides is from him "discussing" evolution.

Indeed....

I I... missed the point didn't I?



I'll go for a lie down I think...

[Catfish]

Maybe it sounds elitist, but don't anyone think that people should at least know a tiny bit about something, before they speak of conspiracies and say it's all fraud and making money, when there is obvious. scientific. evidence.


If a hammer hits your hand, do you say it does not hurt because you want to believe the nervous system is a "fraud" ?
God i love it when such people are voted into anything important, and have to decide about things they don't have a clue about.

Ah yes i forgot it is a precondition, for politicians.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Maybe it sounds elitist, but don't anyone think that people should at least know a tiny bit about something, before they speak of conspiracies and say it's all fraud and making money, when there is obvious. scientific. evidence.


If a hammer hits your hand, do you say it does not hurt because you want to believe the nervous system is a "fraud" ?
God i love it when such people are voted into anything important, and have to decide about things they don't have a clue about.

Ah yes i forgot it is a precondition, for politicians.

"It’s funny, if you ask a Republican in Congress if they believe in climate change, they say, well, uh, I’m not a scientist. “I’m not a scientist” — that’s what they say. But when it comes to a woman’s right to choose, suddenly they’re a doctor."

[Buddahaid]

The seeds of wrath have been sown here now. All we need is gays and Muslims to round it out and sink it. Where's that deathmatch topic I started......