Page 45 of 111 FirstFirst ... 3540414243444546474849505595 ... LastLast
Results 881 to 900 of 2209
  1. #881  
    Hobbes, I enjoy learning about new science just like you. I think we both know its ignorant to fight it, much better to try to understand it.
  2. #882  
    Well, I think that's the point. If you don't understand it, how the heck you think you can reverse (fight) it.
  3. #883  
    the point is that science is not an adversary, it is an asset. Choosing to ignore science because it does not fit your politics only hurts you in the long run.
  4.    #884  
    State professor disputes global warming is human-caused

    Bill Gray has been preaching GW common sense for awhile now. Other scientists are too worried about their grant money to listen.
  5. #885  
    I didn't say science was an adversary. I was actually trying to convey the opposite. Sorry if I was not clear.
  6. #886  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    Now even the energy companies are admitting it.

    http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?...tentId=7007103

    Reminds me of when the cigarette companies, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, finally had to admit there was a link between tobacco and cancer.
    This says nothing; when was the last time a corporation told you the truth? My guess is that some market research study told them they could repair their bad public image if they jumped on the global warming bandwagon.
  7. #887  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    the point is that science is not an adversary, it is an asset. Choosing to ignore science because it does not fit your politics only hurts you in the long run.
    Sorry, cell, I'm really not trying to pick on you. But I think the point here is that the problem is not with "science". Science is just a study. The problem, or at least part of the problem, is that while individual scientists may not be overtly political, large groups of scientists, like any large group, are political (political in the strict sense of the word). What you present as "science" is nothing more than an aggregate of information interpreted and presented by large political groups.
  8. #888  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man View Post
    State professor disputes global warming is human-caused

    Bill Gray has been preaching GW common sense for awhile now. Other scientists are too worried about their grant money to listen.
    Here's the link without typo: http://www.reporterherald.com/Top-Story.asp?ID=6894

    And here's some interesting parts in it:

    ***************************************************
    Colorado State professor disputes global warming is human-caused
    Views ‘out of step’ with others are good for science, academic says

    ...

    Gray’s view has been challenged, however.

    Roger Pielke Jr., director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said in an interview later Monday that climate scientists involved with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that most of the warming is due to human activity.

    “Bill Gray is a widely respected senior scientist who has a view that is out of step with a lot of his colleagues’,” Pielke said. But challenging widely held views is “good for science because it forces people to make their case and advances understanding.”

    “We should always listen to the minority,” said Pielke, who spoke from his office in Boulder. “But it’s prudent to take actions that both minimize human effect on the climate and also make ourselves much more resilient.”

    But Pielke said it makes sense to reduce humans’ impact on the climate.

    “There are uncertainties. It’s not like you change your light bulbs today, you’re going to have better weather tomorrow,” he said. “It’s even better if those actions you’re taking make sense for other reasons, like getting off Middle Eastern oil or saving money.”

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

    It's good to listen to the minority, but you should not confuse a lone voice with the broad consensus. Start moving away from dependency on Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil, even if only for the sake of your soldiers.
    Last edited by clulup; 09/21/2006 at 04:08 AM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  9. #889  
    hooves, I am sorry but the scientific consensus on global warming is not a political conspiracy. I stand by my last post and also I encourage everyone to try to understand the science for themselves.
  10. #890  
    Quote Originally Posted by sblanter View Post
    I didn't say science was an adversary. I was actually trying to convey the opposite. Sorry if I was not clear.
    Science is not an adversary but science is an adversarial system. A states a hypothesis and presents evidence in support of it. B challenges the hypotheis or the evidence.

    It is not legitimate in science to attempt to deal with criticism of ones hypothesis or evidence by attempting to silence or discredit their critics.
  11. #891  
    "Lockyer Sues 'Big Six' Auto Makers
    Says Emissions Harm Californians
    KGO By Nannette Miranda

    Sep. 20 - KGO - California is going after the six largest U.S. and Japanese auto makers over global warming. Attorney General Bill Lockyer says emissions from those cars are damaging our environment, our health and costing taxpayers millions. So he's taking the car makers to court."

    It is not clear from the report what remedies the state seeks. However, the report does speak of costs incurred by California citizens dealing with emissions.

    Seems to me that if California wants to tax the auto makers, it ought to do so by legislation rather than litigation.
  12. #892  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    "Lockyer Sues 'Big Six' Auto Makers
    Says Emissions Harm Californians
    KGO By Nannette Miranda

    Sep. 20 - KGO - California is going after the six largest U.S. and Japanese auto makers over global warming. Attorney General Bill Lockyer says emissions from those cars are damaging our environment, our health and costing taxpayers millions. So he's taking the car makers to court."

    It is not clear from the report what remedies the state seeks. However, the report does speak of costs incurred by California citizens dealing with emissions.

    Seems to me that if California wants to tax the auto makers, it ought to do so by legislation rather than litigation.
    AG Bill's (Democrat) concerns about my health, pocketbook, and environment are touching.

    Oh wait. Isn't there an election coming up in 6 weeks?

    Color me cynical.
  13. #893  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post

    But Pielke said it makes sense to reduce humans’ impact on the climate.

    “There are uncertainties. It’s not like you change your light bulbs today, you’re going to have better weather tomorrow,” he said. “It’s even better if those actions you’re taking make sense for other reasons, like getting off Middle Eastern oil or saving money.”

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

    It's good to listen to the minority, but you should not confuse a lone voice with the broad consensus. Start moving away from dependency on Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil, even if only for the sake of your soldiers.
    I think that guy just made my point. I think these groups should skip the preaching and just give us the science.
  14. #894  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    hooves, I am sorry but the scientific consensus on global warming is not a political conspiracy. I stand by my last post and also I encourage everyone to try to understand the science for themselves.
    I'm not calling it a conspiracy. I'm just saying that these groups tend to be political and, in my view, they mingle the politics and science in how they interpret what the science tells us.
  15. #895  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    "Lockyer Sues 'Big Six' Auto Makers
    Says Emissions Harm Californians
    KGO By Nannette Miranda

    Sep. 20 - KGO - California is going after the six largest U.S. and Japanese auto makers over global warming. Attorney General Bill Lockyer says emissions from those cars are damaging our environment, our health and costing taxpayers millions. So he's taking the car makers to court."

    It is not clear from the report what remedies the state seeks. However, the report does speak of costs incurred by California citizens dealing with emissions.

    Seems to me that if California wants to tax the auto makers, it ought to do so by legislation rather than litigation.
    Well, I heard Lockyer on TV this am. You will not be surprised that it is about the money. If Lockyer gets what he wants, California will own the auto industry. We will see how well he can run it.
  16. #896  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man View Post
    State professor disputes global warming is human-caused

    Bill Gray has been preaching GW common sense for awhile now. Other scientists are too worried about their grant money to listen.
    “I think we’re coming out of the little ice age, and warming is due to changes to ocean circulation patterns due to salinity variations,” Gray said. “I’m sure that’s it.”
    Sounds more like speculation than scientic proof to me...
    At least the other research had something to back up their claims with..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  17. #897  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT View Post
    “I think we’re coming out of the little ice age, and warming is due to changes to ocean circulation patterns due to salinity variations,” Gray said. “I’m sure that’s it.”
    Sounds more like speculation than scientic proof to me...
    At least the other research had something to back up their claims with..
    Science is adversarial. Evidence may be "convincing" but is rarely conclusive. We can count the "laws" of phyics on our fingers and toes. In meteorology we have lots of models, even convergence among some of them, but we have no laws. This is true, in part, because we have relatively sparse direct observation. We have direct observation data for a little more than a century, even that sparse. The best we have beyond that is what we infer from indirect evidence. It is time for us to measure, to defer conclusions, and, in the meantime, act conservatively.

    It is not by accident that we call it "Conservation." Conservatively is how a prudent man acts in the face of uncertainty.
    Last edited by whmurray; 09/25/2006 at 10:21 AM.
  18. #898  
    The aim of science it to create conclusive and repeatable proof of a theorie.
    However with certain things practical limitations (like time driven issues like evolution and global warming) this cannot be achieved.

    The recent brittish study used 350+ years of data to come to its conclusion.
    This professor uses no data just his idea's by the sounds of it..
    I tend to believe the theory that is backed up by lots of data..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  19. #899  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT View Post
    The aim of science it to create conclusive and repeatable proof of a theorie.
    However with certain things practical limitations (like time driven issues like evolution and global warming) this cannot be achieved.

    The recent brittish study used 350+ years of data to come to its conclusion.
    This professor uses no data just his idea's by the sounds of it..
    I tend to believe the theory that is backed up by lots of data..
    You're making an unsubstantiated claim. You have no idea what data he has or how he drew his conclusions. You question his credibility because he uses the word "think," as scientists properly do, instead of talking in certain terms like "proof," as non-scientists prefer.
  20. #900  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT View Post
    ..........The recent brittish study used 350+ years of data to come to its conclusion. This professor uses no data just his idea's by the sounds of it..I tend to believe the theory that is backed up by lots of data..
    All other things equal. However, in terms of global climate change, 400 years of data is not very much. Both measurement and recording were sparse for most of that time.

    The significance of this study is in how consistent it may be with other studies.

    Indirect evidence is fairly convincing that climate changes gradually over tens of thousands of years. The issue before the house is whether or not what we have observed over "350+" years is part of one of those trends or whether we have somehow de-stablilized one of those trends and are approaching a "tipping point" that will result in "sudden" climate change. Here, it seems to me that the answer is not yet obvious.

    As I have said, in the presence of doubt, I think that we should act conservatively. Some people seem to think that the evidence is sufficient to demonstrate the need for precipitous action. I might be willing to join them in "viewing with alarm" if I thought that anyone knew what we should do that we are not doing and if I thought that sustained alarm ever got us anywhere.

Posting Permissions