Hate to refer to my earlier point, but the links you and Walrus deploy seem to me to support the idea that the issue is completely politicized.<br><br>edit: mine too--don't want to suggest I'm unbiased. Kinda figured you knew that, though <br><br>. . . . . Here's lookin' at [color:red]you</font color=red> kid.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by yoyo52 on 08/03/06 05:36 PM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
_________________________ MACTECHubi dolor ibi digitus
You are, of course, absolutely right. Sadly, today a lot of science, and scientists, are politicized.<br><br>And this constant linking back and forth is really getting tedious.<br><br>My position is thus:<br><br>1- Global warming is ocurring<br>2- It has done so in the past, repeatedly.<br>3- Computer simulations of projected CO2 increases in the atmosphere are all highly flawed.<br>4- Climate warming may actually be beneficial in many ways.<br><br>I guess actually I should have posted my original comments in the Soapbox forum, since I never go there anymore anyway. Too political.<br><br>And as for Bush being anti-science - why do we keep spending millions of dollars on all those weather satelites when we already have the Weather Channel?<br><br>(And please disregard anything else I post here tonight - I'm off my local pub...)<br><br>[color:red]Bibo, ergo sum</font color=red>
_________________________ [red]Bibo, ergo sum[/red]
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>why do we keep spending millions of dollars on all those weather satelites when we already have the Weather Channel?<p><hr></blockquote><p>channel? sheesh, tv is so passe these days. <br><br>--<br>"I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country" --president bush on 9/27/05
Every single link in this thread is about the "controversy" and not about the science. The closest to science is the medline search papers of words like "global climate change" and the critique is that she should have used "climate change". Then there is statisticians arguing about statistics.<br><br>It's all political nonsense. On such a hot topic (don't you love my puns) it is inevitable. So what is a person to do?<br><br>1) Take 7 years off and get a PhD in climatology.<br>2) Take the word of the world class set of scientists who have been selected to advise the Congress and the President on scientific issues. That would be the National Academy of Science.<br><br>What does NAS say? They say it is likely that the rise in temperature come from man made causes.<br><br>We are in precisely the same spot that we were in when the tobacco industry heads stood in front of Congress and said their studies found no connection between smoking and lung cancer. There are still scientists who believe that. You can always find some whackos who will do anything for money.<br><br>But the consensus from well respected climatologists is that we are causing global climate change. As Yoyo said, even if it was a 1% chance we should do something. It looks like the percent is much higher than that.<br><br>I do agree with you that we should have gone nuclear power and be in the same position as the French with 80% electricity coming from nuclear power. Yucca Mountain should be opened.<br><br>
The other misconception I hear is about scientific peer review. Peer review is done on papers and grants by an anonymous set of scientists who are experts in the field or a related field. They may be buddies of the person under review but that has nothing to do with the critique. People in your field are your buds but they will cut your throat in the reviews if you are wrong. Why? Because they may be buds but they are also fierce competitors for the same funding dollar. If you destroy someone else because they are full of it there is more funding to go around for you.<br><br>That is why stupid and wrong theory does not last long. It very rarely gets in Science, Nature or other leading journals. <br><br>(There is a big Difference between "papers," reports, comments, News and Views and letters to the Editor. All can be published in Science but the papers and the reports are the science. The commentary is critical thinking but taken with a grain of salt.)<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Sorry, I disagree:<br>My personal opinion is that Nuclear Power<br>in any form, has no place on the face of the earth<br>until we know how to contain it and dispose of it safely.<br>There are too many safer alternatives that have been intentionally<br>suppressed, to go whole hog on a quick-fix that could prove disastrous.<br><br>
_________________________ . "...or am I a butterfly dreaming she's a woman?"
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>People in your field are your buds but they will cut your throat in the reviews if you are wrong. Why? Because they may be buds but they are also fierce competitors for the same funding dollar.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>That was sort of rattling around in the back of my head. Scientists . . . the mafiosi of academe <br><br>. . . . . Here's lookin' at [color:red]you</font color=red> kid.
_________________________ MACTECHubi dolor ibi digitus
many of the scientists are politicized on this issue; however, if we remove every single on of those scientists then we are only left with hundreds+ who find that global warming is occurring and that humans are largely responsible. none of the scientists who are just doing science and not getting into the politix are on bush's side of the aisle, fwiw.<br><br>--<br>"I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country" --president bush on 9/27/05
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.