I hate politics. They muck up everything and make it hard for me to learn the truth.
Right now, I am inclined to be suspicious of global warming folks, especially the extreme apocalyptic alarmist version.
I am apt to believe that global warming will be good for some people and bad for some people. However, when it is uniformity bad. Something is wrong.
I also dislike oil interests getting energy subsidy, or refinery cannot be built, and stuff like that. I knew that the higher price of oil will drive technological research for energy efficient.
I also thought the current pollution and emission crisis? have much to do with the government building roads all over the place, encouraging automotive usage instead of letting transportation evolved naturally.
Something is wrong with this debate. Especially if people are calling others unscientific for adherence to one side of the debate. This is not the bible contradicting the words of evolution, people.
It's my understanding that the EPA's 1993 study on second hand smoke was only able to achieve its desired result by redefining the previously accepted statistical threshold of "scientific truth". If that's indeed the case (I don't know or exactly care, since I'm just plain allergic to it) then calling it "junk science" is only speaking the truth.
I only skimmed this article; I sure hope it doesn't try to deny that a lot of science, and most especially a lot of medical science, is highly politicized and often just plain wrong. If you've been following Official Truth on fats for the last 4 decades as I have you can discern for yourself that something is seriously amiss.
Worse, if the people who excessively slammed fats pushed people to carbohydrates and thus diabetes (I think this is only speculation now, but it's hopefully getting a serious look) then they have a lot to answer for.
Heck, how about the previous US Official Truth that babies should be placed on their stomach for sleep. Oops, that may have had a significant effect on SIDS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_sleep
I think it was a meta-analysis (a study using multiple original studies) and I recall 95% being a number of significance. As in it was either the previous or new, improved and of course lower threshold of "truth" (or rather statistical significance or whatever). I'm going by a 2nd or 3rd hand report, but the reported details are simple and easily falsifiable.
(ADDED: Or maybe it's 90% and they used 85%??? Anyway, that should give you enough to search on if you want to follow it up.)
Epidemiology is hard. When it's about a politicized topic (and almost all are nowadays) I've learned to just not pay much attention to any one study, at least until others have a chance to tear it apart.
I really don't like the recent conflation of contrarianism with skepticism.
Skepticism should be the default stance of all scientists. That does not mean that their conclusions will be at odds with the initial idea simply because they are skeptical.
"A handful of US scientists have made names for themselves by casting doubt on global warming research. In the past, the same people have also downplayed the dangers of passive smoking, acid rain and the ozone hole. In all cases, the tactics are the same: Spread doubt and claim it's too soon to take action."
Global warming (global cooling, climate change) is starting to sound like a religion. I always start to question things when:
1) It's about the money. The same people that claim that global warming is a problem are also invested in carbon credits (including Al Gore). Not to mention the fact that governments use it to fill their pockets with billions of dollars in tax revenue (we need a TV, radion, and Human tax because we emit carbon dioxide).
2) Any scientist that even hints at mis-information regarding global warming (and backs it up with stats) is immediately attacked and discredited.
3) Those emails that circulated were pretty damning, yet supports still won't believe it. They falsified information and many universities and organizations came out (before anyone investigated) to admit that yes, they were also using this info.
"With his sonorous voice, Fred Singer, 86, sounded like a grandfather explaining the obvious to a dim-witted child."
For a minute, I thought this article was on the onion.com
Gore's investment in carbon credits was originally part of him trying to put his money where his mouth was, not just pull a fast one on everyone. But you can always find a devil if you look long enough.
"Gore's investment in carbon credits was originally part of him trying to put his money where his mouth was, not just pull a fast one on everyone. But you can always find a devil if you look long enough."
so...he's not hiding the fact that he's doing it for the money? Well played Mr. Gore.
The point is that he is supporting a push for carbon credit laws in which corporations will be forced to purchase carbon credits from companies that he has funded (and will see a return on the investment).
Why again should I listen to a guy that will stand to make a killing from this?
I love how the people on the left rail against the pharmaceutical companies for making insane profits, yet when it comes to green energy, look the other way,
He invested in a firm whose purpose is in trading a security that has no value currently, but which will be immensely valuable if the government passes laws requiring people to buy them... and for which Al Gore is actively campaigning to get government to pass said laws. This is the very essence of corruption.
You're intentionally confusing the genesis of his interest in the topic with the timeline of his investments to make your point.
It has nothing to do with corruption. He has publicly discussed his business interests, they are common knowledge, and he is in part using it a case study for the good economic opportunities behind sustainable technology and policy. Corruption is pushing for changes that benefit you without acknowledging it, or obscuring your intentions.
"It has nothing to do with corruption. He has publicly discussed his business interests, they are common knowledge, and he is in part using it a case study for the good economic opportunities behind sustainable technology and policy. Corruption is pushing for changes that benefit you without acknowledging it, or obscuring your intentions"
Ok, it's not corruption. It's just plain unethical.
If Bush had come out and said to the American people that he was going to profit from the Iraq war, would it then make it okay?
I guess the next time I'm going to commit a crime or do something unethical, I should let everyone know my intentions. This will make it okay.
"he is in part using it a case study for the good economic opportunities behind sustainable technology and policy"
a "case study". Really? Really?? I call a billion dollars in personal profits enforced by the government more than a case study.
I'm really not a monumental Gore fan or detractor, but I find your insistence that he's unethical puzzling. Usually the left is decried for not taking business considerations into account. Gore is doing the opposite, and being pilloried here even though he's publicly stated his intentions have been to make investments and start companies that would encourage actual change in the market. He's asking for government intervention because thats a major piece of the puzzle, but not focusing solely on it. I'd think that a reasonable business person would be able to appreciate this effort as holistic.
This is the general approach of our era; if there's a vision for the world it had better have a relationship to economy, or it won't amount to much beyond piecemeal charity.
"I'm really not a monumental Gore fan or detractor, but I find your insistence that he's unethical puzzling. Usually the left is decried for not taking business considerations into account. Gore is doing the opposite, and being pilloried here even though he's publicly stated his intentions have been to make investments and start companies that would encourage actual change in the market."
I'm all for business. If he wants to invest in carbon credits, I'm happy for him. However, pushing to get cap-and-trade laws passed that would require companies to buy carbon credits from many of the companies he is invested in just sounds down right unethical to me. One then has to question: is he doing it to help the environment or line his pockets?
"He's asking for government intervention because thats a major piece of the puzzle, but not focusing solely on it."
Why would he want people to notice the fact that these laws will make him a billionaire?
"I'd think that a reasonable business person would be able to appreciate this effort as holistic."
I suppose organizations such as the RIAA/MPAA might appreciate his efforts, but not me.
Your ridiculous talking points are well overplayed. Let us start with the e-mails - point out where they were "damning" and where information was "falsified", hint: it didn't happen, you're a fish swallowing a hook.
There were several long discussions about this on this very site at the time, and many of us remember those discussions, so it's going to be difficult to spread FUD about them.
"point out where they were "damning" and where information was "falsified", hint: it didn't happen, you're a fish swallowing a hook."
No, you are. You are supporting the push to take money out of your pocket to support the nonsense that is global warming (which has changed names 3 times now).
> According to a US study, 97 percent of all climatologists worldwide assume that greenhouse gases produced by humans are warming the Earth.
This is a lot like saying "97 percent of all feminists believe that patriarchal oppression is holding women back."
You don't go into climatology unless you think it's a big deal. See, I think global warming (1) exists, (2) is a mix of man made and natural cycles, (3) is not a big deal at all. Apocalyptic global warming just seems obviously false based on everything I've looked at.
Now, perhaps I'm mistaken. I didn't make this comment to argue the case - what I wanted is to point out that because my layman's understanding is that it's not a big deal, I don't go into the field. You'd expect anyone in the field to think it's a big deal.
Right now, I am inclined to be suspicious of global warming folks, especially the extreme apocalyptic alarmist version.
I am apt to believe that global warming will be good for some people and bad for some people. However, when it is uniformity bad. Something is wrong.
I also dislike oil interests getting energy subsidy, or refinery cannot be built, and stuff like that. I knew that the higher price of oil will drive technological research for energy efficient.
I also thought the current pollution and emission crisis? have much to do with the government building roads all over the place, encouraging automotive usage instead of letting transportation evolved naturally.
Something is wrong with this debate. Especially if people are calling others unscientific for adherence to one side of the debate. This is not the bible contradicting the words of evolution, people.