Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Perhaps some sanity is returning to what we laughingly call "science."

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... f67ebd151c

Wait. Didn't Albert Arnold Gore Jr. just recently pick up his fat Nobel Peace Prize check? (Sure, that check is lunch money for him, but it's the thought that counts). Doesn't that prove that humanity is causing, or at least exacerbating, global warming?

That bunch of supposed int'l group of scientist mentioned in that article are probably nothing more than Bush appointees, Friends of Adam Weishaupt or Haliburton shareholders.

Certainly Albert Arnold Gore Jr.'s Nobel Peace Prize trumps a bunch of questionable scientists. Doesn't it? I mean, the secret, elite nominating invitees don't nominate just anyone for that prize.

"Yes, I know the secret of the iron mine..."

Sorry, I just saw TRP's sig and had to start singing.

TheRedPriest wrote:Wait. Didn't Albert Arnold Gore Jr. just recently pick up his fat Nobel Peace Prize check? (Sure, that check is lunch money for him, but it's the thought that counts). Doesn't that prove that humanity is causing, or at least exacerbating, global warming?

That bunch of supposed int'l group of scientist mentioned in that article are probably nothing more than Bush appointees, Friends of Adam Weishaupt or Haliburton shareholders.

Certainly Albert Arnold Gore Jr.'s Nobel Peace Prize trumps a bunch of questionable scientists. Doesn't it? I mean, the secret, elite nominating invitees don't nominate just anyone for that prize.

I love sarcasm. It's truly a higher artform.

The Bono pic reminds me of a story: U2 did a concert in Scotland earlier this year... Bono stops the music and starts slowly clapping while stalking on the stage. Finally he says "everytime I do this, a child in Africa dies."

Someone in the audience shouted out "well, stop f-ing doing that then!"

DCS wrote:

...That is, if the State keeps its nose out of the petroleum industry (fat chance).

Don't you mean if the petroleum industry keeps its nose out of the government...(fat chance).

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbc ... Y/10575140

Al Gore says global warming is a planetary emergency. It is difficult to see how this can be so when record low temperatures are being set all over the world. In 2007, hundreds of people died, not from global warming, but from cold weather hazards.

Since the mid-19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to build in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn't increased significantly for nearly nine years. Antarctica is getting colder. Neither the intensity nor the frequency of hurricanes has increased. The 2007 season was the third-quietest since 1966. In 2006 not a single hurricane made landfall in the U.S.

South America this year experienced one of its coldest winters in decades. In Buenos Aires, snow fell for the first time since the year 1918. Dozens of homeless people died from exposure. In Peru, 200 people died from the cold and thousands more became infected with respiratory diseases. Crops failed, livestock perished, and the Peruvian government declared a state of emergency.

My own view is that climate change is happening, and reasonably ought to have been widely discussed decades ago. I'm betting that our industry has contributed to the problem, but in the near term cannot markedly ameliorate the effects (apart from adaptations to them). I do not hope to "save the world" by buying new light bulbs &tc.

Insolation hypotheses so far don't convince me.

I distinguish the real inquiries from the hyperbole to which they have been turned. I'm no devotee of "the Secret" or any similar cult; I trust that things are as they are regardless of how I might like them to be.

SemajTheSilent wrote:http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbc ... Y/10575140

In Buenos Aires, snow fell for the first time since the year 1918. Dozens of homeless people died from exposure.

Again?? Or is this referring to what happened back in June or July this year? Because if it happened again, then it couldn't have been the first time since 1918 since it happened earlier this year.

In Peru, 200 people died from the cold and thousands more became infected with respiratory diseases.

Resiratory infections aren't connected with cold weather. At least, that's what the US army studies published regarding the subject. (I still think cold weather contributes to lowered immune systems and therefore increases in illness, but what do I know, I've never conducted a study on it.)

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... 63dc2d02cb


By far the SCRARIEST thing about this entire "man made" global warming movement isn't the billions (are we up to trillions yet) being siphened off tax payers around the world and dolled out to libs and those who "play ball", its not the increased in your face bully tactics of the UN and "global body" against the United States and private business (thinly vailed power grab by UN body, and massive social engineering agenda that reaches its tentacles around the world), what has to be the most desturbing is the complete pussy-fication of the academic world. Everyone's afraid to make a public stand fearing being fired from their Academic jobs, or worse! Suddenly saying your "anti-man made global warming" has the same fire and backlash as saying your "anti-jewish" or "anti-black".
And the publics lack of notice is also astounding.

"And the publics lack of notice is also astounding."

I don't think so. Those of us who haven't been in academia recently may not see the problem at first hand -- but we can recall the general tenor of "political correctness" over the past 30 years or so and assume that this is par for the course. There's nothing notably new about it.

I reckon there's money to be made in accurate assessment of the economic effects of climate trends, so there is likely always to be some funding for sound research. There may be more for attempts to find rhetorical ammo for this or that special interest (e.g., oil versus alcohol versus solar versus nuclear power industries), but again that's nothing new.

What I find most worrisome is the growth of government programs that are misguided even if one accepts the basic premises of the problems they are advertised as addressing.

We've already seen this taken to absurd extremes in the "war on terror." The most pork-packed agriculture or energy bill is to me a very minor matter next to the sacrifices of liberty in the name of "security" (leaving us naturally with less of both). As outrageous to me are policies that waste lives.

The evidence so far suggests to me that we are probably in a long-term warming trend, and that our industry has probably contributed to it. I do not conclude that every proposal bruited as "green" is therefore a good idea.

Behind a host of problems is the problem of overpopulation. I mean that neither as an attack on the "legitimacy" of anyone now living nor as a warrant for oppression. I am in the Conservative tradition in believing that the key to genuine progress lies in the character of our personal and communal relationships.

That touches on another problem. Our legacy (especially in the U.S.A.) includes a "great brain robbery." The world has seen no more radical revolution than the Industrial Revolution, yet the creed of the men who made it passes for "conservatism."

Civic virtue, patriotism, compassion, dignity ... every old value must give way to dollars and social Darwinism. We are led to see ourselves as atomized cogs in the holy machinery -- or beasts in the holy jungle -- of the supremely important Market.

We become more consumers than citizens. The old social matrix of the small town and neighborhood gets ground away. Many people invest more in "relationships" with TV personalities than with their neighbors. A challenge to the beliefs held as shibboleths in that context is a threat to the foundation of identity. "My party, right or wrong! Pundit X said it, I believe it, that settles it!" The argument ad hominem trumps all reason.

Add in a longstanding anti-intellectual bias, and it's no wonder public discourse is a shambles.

Regardless of what is correct and supportable scientifically (ie. that man has a major role in contributing to global temps rising or not) there used to be some seperation between academia and politics, scientists could just go off in their labs and be scientists without their daily views being scrutinized... Also scientists (for the most part) weren't so politically involved (being more nuetral and objective) it seems many mediocre researchers are making big names championing MMGW and have garnished great reward, this has resulted in scientists who stayed quiet their entire professions from having to jump into the frey to bring this to light, and most suck at it (and with a liberal media and plenty of politicians on both sides taking advantage of it, its not likely people will here much anyway).


It reminds me of the American Judicial System, where it used to be assumed a judge would rule objectively on the law as written regardless of his own political thoughts...that assumption no longer exists, state and Federal Supreme court have even crossed the line into creating law (through application of their rulings) everyone (including judges and scientists) thirst for rock star status, to gain fame by making this or that stand, disregarding a 200+ year old system (hell 500 year old system) that has served us well... Emotions are running high in the scientific community over this...and emotions and science don't mix well.

Just an aside... while watching TV it occured to me: if TPTB really want to cut down on the amount of warm air then someone should tell Oprah Winfrey to shut up.

Back to first principles: Our proper concern is not to silence Oprah but to exercise wisdom when (or in deciding whether) we listen to her.

Back to reality: I am predisposed to hold in high regard ideals of the past -- but that does not mean playing Pollianna when it comes to history. The "ivory tower" has always been built of mud bricks salvaged from the swamps of politics, commerce and even personal eccentricity. An offhand example: The development of fusion bombs had little appeal from a military standpoint -- but was irresistibly fun to certain experimenters. Beyond the pioneering program, plenty of scientists and engineers had pragmatic reasons not to point out that the "missile gap" in Kennedy's platform was a figment of speechwriters' imaginations.

The built-in check is that nothing so quickly advances a career as overturning the conventional wisdom. "Camelot" could not stand forever against the ambitions of History Ph.D. candidates. Einstein railed in vain against quantum mechanics.

My father ended up as neither a history professor nor a CIA analyst, but his thesis (based on then-newly examined documents) concerned Serbian covert operations leading up to the Great War. A couple of decades later, popular accounts still ignored that research. Nowadays, such an oversight would be embarrassing.

There is a difference this time though, reason has been completely thrown out the window, not just for a few academics or politicians, but on a global scale of humanity with everyone offering an opinion they are certain is correct (objective science an afterthought).
And to stand against it publically is like standing in front of a train moving at high speed.

Was it not so for Socrates and Galileo?

We have been a social longer than a scientific species. Critical thinking requires the hard development of new mental "muscles," the moreso as subjects go beyond our "hardwired" frame of reference.

Look at the confusion of "weather" with "climate." The latter context involves geographical and temporal horizons far beyond our ordinary experience. There is a stong temptation to make simplifying but misleading equations.

More immediately, one might consider our susceptibility to optical illusions. It is not easy to step outside the model that seems so viscerally "real." Many a pilot has been brought low by not trusting his instruments.

A notable difference perhaps is the degree to which education has become crucial in making sound decisions. Civilization once meant relief from the dependence on careful observation and well-learned lessons critical to a stone-age tribesman's survival. Now, ignorance about the environment of our own making can have terrible consequences.