PDA

View Full Version : Astrosphere for July 6, 2007



Fraser
2007-Jun-06, 07:51 PM
Let's head out into the astrosphere and see what we can see.

Read the full blog entry (http://www.universetoday.com/2007/06/06/astrosphere-for-july-6-2007/)

mike maddox
2007-Jun-07, 03:05 AM
Isn't anyone uncomfortable with how this played out and how it affects the spirit of scientific inquiry?
It is depressing and disheartening to see such enthusiasm for forcing someone to apologize for their scientific opinion. From scientists who call for meteorologists who question the mainstream GW dogma to be decertified by their professional associations to demands that public officials dishonestly parrot mainstream GW thinking as their own, it is clear that scientific principles of respect for counter research and opinion has been replaced by ideology.

Remember also that the same dogmatic anti nuclear power advocates who guaranteed our current level of dependence on fossil fuels are telling us again that only they speak for the public interest and everyone else are energy company prostitutes. You would think that being so very wrong with such obvious consequences would discredit the same voices, but not in this "scientific" community.

almagest
2007-Jun-07, 05:24 PM
Yes, I was fairly irritated by the throwaway "the retraction he should have made earlier". His comments were fairly moderate and sensible, I would have thought.

As it happens, I think the GW stuff is some of the worst science I have seen. If you take the trouble to look at the models, read the reports, it is all wild speculation with even the most basic things on the slenderest evidence. If you are cynical you put it down to money, but no doubt there are plenty of worthy folk who actually believe all this nonsense they are peddling.

But assuming you accept all the absurd computer models etc, one of the oddest things is that given the well-known persistence of CO2 in the atmosphere, we could condemn the 3rd world to poverty, impoverish the west etc and still only postpone the supposedly unpleasant climate by 10 years (from say 2100 to 2110). The whole thing is totally irrational. The last thing we need is for the censors and self-righteous to move in ....

Fraser
2007-Jun-07, 06:46 PM
I don't think it was his scientific opinion. I think it was his political opinion.

Most people who deny global warming seem to do it from an instinctive approach. They distrust the "scientific consensus", and think Al Gore has some kind of political rationale for raising concerns.

I agree that there has been scaremongering and misinformation by some members of the environmental community, but if you peel that away and look at the calm rationale of the scientific community, it's a different story.


If you take the trouble to look at the models, read the reports...

You see a scientific consensus, with disagreement about the details. So, either you think it's a conspiracy by scientists to invent a fake controversy and stuff their pockets, or they actually think that something's happening.

Is that what you think? Scientists are out to enrich themselves at everyone's expense? Or do you think they're all deluded, locked in some kind of groupthink.

mike maddox
2007-Jun-07, 11:56 PM
"I don't think it was his scientific opinion. I think it was his political opinion."

This is a perfect illustration of what I see from the GW community. He disagrees with the GW CW so, *of course*, his is a political, not scientific opinion. Must discredit the heretics! (Al Gore, of course, expresses only scientific opinions about GW!)

"Is that what you think? Scientists are out to enrich themselves at everyone's expense? Or do you think they're all deluded, locked in some kind of groupthink."

Ahem. That is exactly what the GW community are saying about scientists who disagree with them. And if you don't think that scientist's careers are affected by the amount of funding and support they get within the heavily liberal academic community, then I'm lost for words to convince you. You might ask yourself why the GW scientific community is so willing to toss scientific principles of open inquiry aside to attack fellow scientists if the GW science is so unquestionable? Common sense would say that the dogmatics are the ones who need to explain the motives for their dogmatic attacks.
And of course, the other shoe has dropped as we learn from GW scientists that not only will there be a rise in temperatures directly attributed to the US, but that they have calculated how many tens of millions of deaths in Africa will directly result. And so we are told that any attempt by the US to bargain with the international GW community must include reparations for those deaths and the hundreds of billions needed to help Africans deal with rising temperatures.

No, of course, how could politics or ideology possibly play a role within the GW community. That's just ridiculous and insulting.

And I'll add, I'm 53 and old enough to remember the
"scientific consensus” that warned us of the coming man made ice age resulting from the increasing use of fossil fuels. Same people, same consensus, just a “difference in details”.

Fraser
2007-Jun-08, 12:31 AM
He disagrees with the GW...

But he doesn't disagree with global warming. Here's his quote:


I'm aware that global warming exists. I understand that the bulk of scientific evidence accumulated supports the claim that we've had about a one degree centigrade rise in temperature over the last century to within an accuracy of 20 percent. I'm also aware of recent findings that appear to have nailed down — pretty well nailed down the conclusion that much of that is manmade.

So, he's convinced that global warming is happening and manmade.

He's at the head of an organization spending hundreds of millions of dollars in research on the problem. He's convinced by the science.

He just doesn't think we need to do anything about it, because it's arrogant to think that we live in the perfect climate right now.


I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today.

You're not even convinced it's happening.

mike maddox
2007-Jun-08, 07:00 AM
What I'm convinced of is that environmentalists regularly lie and misstate opinion as fact, without apology, inorder to advance the "correct" view. I've lived long enough to see it in action, along with its devastating results. You won't see environmentalists apologizing for the deaths of tens of millions over the phony DDT scare. Nor will you see any stories about the "scientific consensus" that environmentalists cited repeatedly to convince impoverished countries to refuse anti-malarial assistance.
Even a teenager can remember the repeated attacks by GW spokespersons on Bush for his "not signing Kyoto", which was rejected by the US Senate 97-0 during the Clinton administration. (chuckle) The GW dogmatists are calling for draconian measures and wealth transfers to solve a problem that they refuse to openly debate. I am skeptical when the same people insist that only they represent legitimate views.
I don't trust that there is a "scientific consensus" about GW and its causes and effects when there is such shameful pressure and threats against those in the scientific community who question the dogma. It should scare the hell out of you, if you believe in the scientific process, that environmentalists are not calling for further research, but instead demanding the call be made already and research restricted to GW scenario supporters among scientists.
But be proud. You won a great victory against scientific dissent.

Jerry
2007-Jun-08, 02:20 PM
...
I don't trust that there is a "scientific consensus" about GW and its causes and effects when there is such shameful pressure and threats against those in the scientific community who question the dogma. It should scare the hell out of you, if you believe in the scientific process, that environmentalists are not calling for further research, but instead demanding the call be made already and research restricted to GW scenario supporters among scientists.
But be proud. You won a great victory against scientific dissent.

Two bad you were not around a few decades earlier. When the global warming theory was launched, it was a-political - scientists doing the science thing. We learned - the hard way, that tweaking with mother nature has unpredictable side effects. It was largely the liberals in congress who pushed the massive reclaimation projects, and the conservatives who opposed them. But it was the scientist who discovered DDT was killing off the raptor population - the same population who gave us the pesticides. If the warning had been ignored, we would have super DDT resistant flys and no American eagles.

In America, there has been a tremendous loss of faith in scientists. This is ironic, given our total dependence on the technologies we have developed. There is a curious clamour against evolution, an attempt to line-up the population against scientific prospectives. This is a fundmentalist attack on the scientific process, and it is evil. It is a misplace of trust to use the technological tools we have developed, and ignore the warnings given by the technology developers. Our best scientists told us that the polar bears would soon be starving, and they are. Who is next in line for mass extinction?