Mars Rovers

[thenry]

Also, given a free-enterprise driven space exploration free-for-all, do you really think you would be finding out any information sooner? Do you think you would be getting pictures for free? Do you think any of a theoretical multiple of competing programs would share with each other and prevent waste on duplicating science?

One of the major complaints the US had with the USSR's space program was that much of the safety information they learned the hard way was shared with no one and hidden even from their own population. The USSR even had a launchpad fire because of an over-oxygenated capsule just like Apollo 1.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I don't know how relevent this is to the current discussion, but the soil of mars is full of iron superoxide created by the barrage of uv from the sun. It was the superoxide that was the culprit when they first got those signs that there might be life in the soil, back in the 70's(?). It wasn't life; it was this super oxygen-rich dirt.

Iron superoxide isn't just dirt. It's like very reactive, very destructive dirt. Sitting in the vaccum of space is probably a picnic compared to trying to crawl through this super-fine destructive grit. Kind of like having your bot crawl through an acid-soaked pit of emery powder.

Personally, I think the probes are pretty interesting. I think the idea of a manned mission is just ridiculous though.

---dr. Z

 

[amicus]

thenry....

Perhaps if a consortium of typewriter manufacturers bought up and suppressed all knowledge of computer keyboards and word processing systems.....and if the coal miners, steel workers, automobile unions been able to keep robotic technology from the mines and factories.... if those who wish to control the market place had been successful, we would still be living 18th century style.

Which to many, of the 'pastoral' bent, would be a good thing.

Many dislike the hurley burley atmosphere of a free market place because it indeed can be crass and shrill and ripe with corruption.

But I am not unhappy that men such as Bill Gates, Andrew Carnegie, early Rockefellers and Mellons..and many more made huge fortunes by creating goods and services that people want and need.


Heinlein did a book, I think, "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" that addressed the issue of private enterprise in space rather than government. However the early research into rocketry, in the Goddard 30's was supplanted by the military as world war two approaced.

The Wright Brothers...along with many others in a fledgling aircraft industry at the beginning of the last century operated for a large part in a free market environment...until of course war came along and aircraft engineers went into the military.

It was perhaps necessary for government in coordination with the military and commercial scientists...to foot the bill for early space exploration...perhaps...I can not say for certain.

There is also the matter of copyright protection and industrial secrets...competition is the key to a free market and there is great reward if one is successful. Can these things hold back progress? Can they create near monopolies with inflated costs and corruption in the financial dealings of large corportations? Yes, they can and sometimes do.

The 'space race' between the United States and the former Sovit Union was filled with secrecy for reasons of National Security for both countries..the Cold War was more than an empty statement, the doomsday clock was running.

Dr. Mab....thanks for the information on the iron superoxide, I had not read that before...however, for years before hand NASA tested those vehicles on earth in similar conditions created to simulate conditions on Mars and the surface of the Moon.

As for a manned mission to Mars...it will happen, likely about 2018 I read....but if tomorrow they asked for volunteers to take even a one way trip to planet Mars, I would be first in line.

Yes, I know, you would offer to drive me to the launch pad and bid me good riddance....I don't mind.

regards...amicus

 

[SnoopDog]

Snoop, NASA's work falls under the category of basic research .

Def.
research that advances scientific knowledge but does not have specific immediate commercial objectives.

Without basic research, we could not have applied science. It is extremely vital to the advancement of mankind's knowledge and technology. To complain that there is no practical application is to entirely miss the point.

I don't see money spent in the pursuit of knowledge as being a waste. Not only does that money bring knowledge, it brings many things that have helped mankind here on earth. Sattelite communications, GPS, minitureization, computers, even Tang. The money spent by Nasa has produced not only knowledge, but things we use every day.

-Colly

Well I both give you that. A lot of technological research was developed by Space Travel.
However, I think that is a job that could be done without spending gazillions of dollars on pointless space travelling missions.
Plus in the recent years technological developement has shifted towards companies rather than goverment issues.

And to say that Space Travel is necessary in order to proof that somewhere, somwehow life once existed or to try and silence fundamentals is a BIT thin, don't you think.

Snoopy

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

thenry....

Perhaps if a consortium of typewriter manufacturers bought up and suppressed all knowledge of computer keyboards and word processing systems.....and if the coal miners, steel workers, automobile unions been able to keep robotic technology from the mines and factories.... if those who wish to control the market place had been successful, we would still be living 18th century style.

Which to many, of the 'pastoral' bent, would be a good thing.

Many dislike the hurley burley atmosphere of a free market place because it indeed can be crass and shrill and ripe with corruption.

But I am not unhappy that men such as Bill Gates, Andrew Carnegie, early Rockefellers and Mellons..and many more made huge fortunes by creating goods and services that people want and need.


Heinlein did a book, I think, "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" that addressed the issue of private enterprise in space rather than government. However the early research into rocketry, in the Goddard 30's was supplanted by the military as world war two approaced.

The Wright Brothers...along with many others in a fledgling aircraft industry at the beginning of the last century operated for a large part in a free market environment...until of course war came along and aircraft engineers went into the military.

It was perhaps necessary for government in coordination with the military and commercial scientists...to foot the bill for early space exploration...perhaps...I can not say for certain.

There is also the matter of copyright protection and industrial secrets...competition is the key to a free market and there is great reward if one is successful. Can these things hold back progress? Can they create near monopolies with inflated costs and corruption in the financial dealings of large corportations? Yes, they can and sometimes do.

The 'space race' between the United States and the former Sovit Union was filled with secrecy for reasons of National Security for both countries..the Cold War was more than an empty statement, the doomsday clock was running.

Dr. Mab....thanks for the information on the iron superoxide, I had not read that before...however, for years before hand NASA tested those vehicles on earth in similar conditions created to simulate conditions on Mars and the surface of the Moon.

As for a manned mission to Mars...it will happen, likely about 2018 I read....but if tomorrow they asked for volunteers to take even a one way trip to planet Mars, I would be first in line.

Yes, I know, you would offer to drive me to the launch pad and bid me good riddance....I don't mind.

regards...amicus

Privatization, free-market economy will save anything. Ayn Rand. Capitalism. Buzzword 1. Buzzword 2. Buzzword 3.

Listewn, ami. I know you love freemarket capitalism and that's a wonderful love and I expect that during lonely nights, that system brings you reasonably priced love and affection for extra, but what it has to do with NASA is...well nothing.

NASA is a scientific organization with government funding. Like the Center for Disease Control, all University research labs, and a thousand other private groups who receive some government funding for their work. It exists to try and advance science and to test theories. Currently the NASA engineers are exploring the chemical composition of Mars, the probability of life on an earlier version of Mars, the principles of the Mars Rover system, the possibility of terraforming and where would be the best spot to, and a thousand other things. They do this because someone didn't look at the quarterly budget and said that it wouldn't be cost-effective this week. It's the purest form of R&D.

It exists as a government agency rather than private because too many people don't know science, can't think more than a year into the future, and demand results now if not sooner. Believe me, as soon as rocket travel or a terraformed colony is proved feasible, the free-market will swarm over the idea like locusts and we will see Honest Fred's used rocket dealer and otehr marvels of open-market capitalism. Until then, it's just boring non-cost-effective science. And before you tell me you think that's a bad thing, you better be able to give up everything and anything designed by a group of men in a government or university lab and speaking as one who knows how much is created there, you really don't want to do that.

In conclusion, let NASA work. They might come up with something amazingly useful (like they have many a time) and if we continue to play with global warming and nuclear warfare, they might just save humanity from extinction. Criticize bad science if you recognize it and until then stay out of science's way.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Well I both give you that. A lot of technological research was developed by Space Travel.
However, I think that is a job that could be done without spending gazillions of dollars on pointless space travelling missions.
Plus in the recent years technological developement has shifted towards companies rather than goverment issues.

And to say that Space Travel is necessary in order to proof that somewhere, somwehow life once existed or to try and silence fundamentals is a BIT thin, don't you think.

Snoopy

For me, at this point, anything that has the potential to split the united front the Fundys are presenting is worth its weight in gold.

I'm a big fan of space exploration. I just like to know things. I find the fact that Venus is the only planet in the solar system with a retrograde rotation and has such a slow rotational period that the planet produces almost no magnetic field fascinating. the question of why is so intrigueing to me.

I don't understand the reasoning that we should remain ignorant of the universe around us. If it is your opnion that this knowledge isn't worth having and the massive number of advances in scinece and technology that are by products of the wish to know don't sway you, there isn't much to be said.

For me, knowledge is priceless. I devote a lot of my time to gaining all I can. I suppose it's just a presonal opinion on what is worth knowing and what isn't. For me, the solar system we live in is worth knowing about.

-Colly

 

[amicus]

Lucifer.....I advocate a free economy you advocate a command economy...are those 'buzz' words also?

I do not hesitate to defend a free economy on what ever level one chooses to attack. However in the discussion it is sometimes nice for those who advocate a 'command econony' to justify its existence, ethical and moral foundation and to provide examples of the success of the system.

you said, "NASA is a scientific organization with government funding."

NASA is a Government Agency that hires civilian scientists and uses Military personnel.

you said, "It exists as a government agency rather than private because too many people don't know science, can't think more than a year into the future, and demand results now if not sooner."

Global Warming...are you still beating that dead democrat? There is NO, repeat NO scientific evidence of any warming trend resulting from human created 'greenhouse gases'.

No evidence, Luc..none at all. Climatic change is cyclical, weather patterns are cyclical and 'natural' and there will no doubt be another Ice Age...but if you think for one moment that the puny efforts of man have any effect at all on global weather...then...well...to each his own, I guess.

amicus
You may 'tout' Government as the Fountainhead of all things new, and perhaps you can mislead a few.

Every major invention in the past century from Electricity to the Telephone from Transistors to Computers has come from the Private sector, not Government.

This forum gives voice to those who question the efficacy of the Government in Iraq. I question government in almost every aspect, I think government involvement in Social Security is a travesty, that it is simply a law-enforced theft of funds from private citizens.

I feel that way about Public Education at all levels, farm support and subsidies, ecological disasters licensed and approved by government agencies, financial fiasco's fostered by corrupt regulators...the list of ills perpetrated by government is nearly endless.

Some good news...the private sector will launch its first near earth orbit vehicle tomorrow, June 21st. NASA announced just today that the agency will begin 'outsourcing' much of what it now does and that NASA will turn to the private sector for much that is now being done by government employees.

 

[amicus]

"For me, knowledge is priceless. I devote a lot of my time to gaining all I can. I suppose it's just a presonal opinion on what is worth knowing and what isn't. For me, the solar system we live in is worth knowing about."

-Colly


__________________


Nicely said....I too support the quest for knowledge. I just do not want Government involved.

The recent disclosures of 'failure to communicate' between the various 'intelligence' agencies in the Federal Government should be a prime example of the inability of government to function in terms of providing results.

It should also be an indicator that the same ineptness displayed by the FBI and associated agencies, runs rampant in all departments and agencies.

Far too much 'pure' research funded by the Federal government is directed by political reasons. For the length of an administration, emphasis is placed in one political direction. When the administration changes, emphasis changes...the net result is somewhere near zero.

NOt good.

amicus

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Lucifer.....I advocate a free economy you advocate a command economy...are those 'buzz' words also?

I do not hesitate to defend a free economy on what ever level one chooses to attack. However in the discussion it is sometimes nice for those who advocate a 'command econony' to justify its existence, ethical and moral foundation and to provide examples of the success of the system.

you said, "NASA is a scientific organization with government funding."

NASA is a Government Agency that hires civilian scientists and uses Military personnel.

you said, "It exists as a government agency rather than private because too many people don't know science, can't think more than a year into the future, and demand results now if not sooner."

Global Warming...are you still beating that dead democrat? There is NO, repeat NO scientific evidence of any warming trend resulting from human created 'greenhouse gases'.

No evidence, Luc..none at all. Climatic change is cyclical, weather patterns are cyclical and 'natural' and there will no doubt be another Ice Age...but if you think for one moment that the puny efforts of man have any effect at all on global weather...then...well...to each his own, I guess.

amicus
You may 'tout' Government as the Fountainhead of all things new, and perhaps you can mislead a few.

Every major invention in the past century from Electricity to the Telephone from Transistors to Computers has come from the Private sector, not Government.

This forum gives voice to those who question the efficacy of the Government in Iraq. I question government in almost every aspect, I think government involvement in Social Security is a travesty, that it is simply a law-enforced theft of funds from private citizens.

I feel that way about Public Education at all levels, farm support and subsidies, ecological disasters licensed and approved by government agencies, financial fiasco's fostered by corrupt regulators...the list of ills perpetrated by government is nearly endless.

Some good news...the private sector will launch its first near earth orbit vehicle tomorrow, June 21st. NASA announced just today that the agency will begin 'outsourcing' much of what it now does and that NASA will turn to the private sector for much that is now being done by government employees.

Listen dude, I'm working here at UCSD right now. If you want global warming facts and data, we could deliver it to you on a wheelbarrow or twelve so don't give me that no evidence claptrap. As far as your ludicrous proposal that the only inventions come from the private sector, then buddy, you've never read a science journal in your life. All those pretty components, new sciences, and all those pretty little scientific advances that make the next great invention possible are all made in a boring little university laboratory. I admit that when the public sector invents something amazing that they rush headlong into the private sector to sell it. The new company set up by (forgot her name) at UCSF over her new discovery of a particular hormone suppressant that has so far extended lifespans in rats with no outward side-effects is one such example. Listen, the marketplace of money has its place. Scientists don't usually know economics, good business practices, and advertising. These things are needed to help bring the benefits to the people.

Until then, though, there is needed the marketplace of ideas. This means unfortunately government funding for boring sciences. The world is filled with tiny inventions and new sciences that were made by little buggers at some university somewhere. I know what I'm talking about here because I'm immersed in it.

I know you are physically incapable of dividing the world into anything but Ayn Rand free-market capitalism vs communism, but there are other factors in the world. Inventing a cool robot laser arm is an invention that a company will make. Inventing the principles of optics, laser focusing, which materials create the best lasers, how to make a lighter-weight housing polymer, how to make robotics run cleaner, the principles of elecrophysics, etc. are things done by the academics back in the unclean world of government funding. I'm not talking control of things by the government, I'm talking about science free to explore into the minutae that aren't cost-effective. Just because scientists don't wish to live for the bottom line and instead embrace a curious pursuit of knowledge doesn't make them communist goons or wastrels. It makes them real scientists like are alluded to in most science fiction novels.

In conclusion, I am not advocating governemental control, I am advocating science free to do the little things that the non-science people go "what the fuck is the point" to. Think. We would not be able to talk here on this forum without the boys at the universities. The internet and all of its predecessors were all built by them.

 

[amicus]

Lucifer...


Random House Unabridged, my 14 pound dictionary:

"bu-reau-crat: An official of a bureaurocracy, an official who works by fixed routine without exercising intelligent judgement."

Therein lies the rub, my friend.

The last 30 years has seen the decline of research results coming out of University laboratories. The new cutting edge technology and basic research, R&D, has moved out of the classroom into the Corporate boardroom.

That is a paraphrase..from memory of a statement contained in the foreword, I believe of the book, Jurrasic Park (sp)...

I was somewhat surprised to read that..but it follows. Higher education is a huge business. With the increasing dependence of Federal Loans to students and Government grants you also get the mentality of the 'bureaucrat' as defined above.

Universities, in large, have become 'diploma mills', providing paper as a status symbol and a 'politically correct' entrance into the market place.

There is no such thing as a 'classical education' anymore. The University system may as well be called a 'trade school' for future government workers, lawyers and business majors.

We debate, you and I, on a small stage here. I do not expect ever to change a single thought you advocate.

However, some innocent passer by may follow our discussion and suddenly holler, "Holy Jumping Jesus Jehosophat!" when the light bulb goes off in their head, that there is an alternative way to think of comptemporary issues.

amicus

 

[Tanuki]

amicus, are you seriously quoting Jurassic Park to support your point? The data for global warming is overwhelming, you simply choose to put your head in the sand. No debate is necessary, I think your mind is made up.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Lucifer...


Random House Unabridged, my 14 pound dictionary:

"bu-reau-crat: An official of a bureaurocracy, an official who works by fixed routine without exercising intelligent judgement."

Therein lies the rub, my friend.

The last 30 years has seen the decline of research results coming out of University laboratories. The new cutting edge technology and basic research, R&D, has moved out of the classroom into the Corporate boardroom.

That is a paraphrase..from memory of a statement contained in the foreword, I believe of the book, Jurrasic Park (sp)...

I was somewhat surprised to read that..but it follows. Higher education is a huge business. With the increasing dependence of Federal Loans to students and Government grants you also get the mentality of the 'bureaucrat' as defined above.

Universities, in large, have become 'diploma mills', providing paper as a status symbol and a 'politically correct' entrance into the market place.

There is no such thing as a 'classical education' anymore. The University system may as well be called a 'trade school' for future government workers, lawyers and business majors.

We debate, you and I, on a small stage here. I do not expect ever to change a single thought you advocate.

However, some innocent passer by may follow our discussion and suddenly holler, "Holy Jumping Jesus Jehosophat!" when the light bulb goes off in their head, that there is an alternative way to think of comptemporary issues.

amicus

You're right. We will never be able to agree or change each other's minds. Here's the short of the why. You are a free-market advocate that believes that everything and anything that isn't invented in the corporate boardroom muct not exist. I am currently a phD student in the biotechnology program at UCSD and am surrounded by the scientists that you denegrate as bureaucrats. I am surrounded by the men who send their works to the science journals, who do all those little tasks, and make all the little inventions that don't make the six o' clock news. We are from two different worlds, surrounded by two different types of people.

So, you believe that universities are wothless blights and we should all join the daily "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" race for profit. Fine. Okay. Sure. Believe that. Just don't go to a hospital because those are our tools that will keep you alive. Don't talk on this forum because that invention was made from the "diploma mills". And don't you even think about reading science-fiction because the great scientific discoveries that inspired them came mostly from the bureacracy known as NASA. Our "diploma mills" have done a lot.

P.S. I believe most innocent passer-bys are wondering why a free-marketer and an academic are fighting so vehemently over where science belongs. Hopefully most of them are thinking that science belongs with scientists whereever they may be, because scientists are the only ones that really understand it.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Amicus is entitled to his opinion, but facts are another matter.

To take but one example or practical products coming out of government-funded research, the entire atomic energy industry was developed by the US Government, starting with the Manhattan Project and extending into the modern day. I worked at Argonne National Laboratory, a government laboratory associated with the University of Chicago about twenty miles from here, originally funded by the AEC and later by the Department of Energy. Argonne's work was primarily about reactor safety and design, but we also did environmental work, solid state physics, and pure research. The nuclear power industry was the direct beneficiary of our work.

There are tons of other examples of technological advances that were and are being developed by public funding and then lisenced out or just given away to industry, but this is the one I know the most about, since I was paid directly by the US givernment.

---dr.M.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Private industry does nothing without a profit motive. Baring being able to claim the moon, or mars or what have you, there would be no reason for private industry to invest the massive sums of money needed to go to the moon, or send rovers to Mars.

If they did, the information gleaned would be thier property, not the property of everyone. i far prefer that a government agency heads up space research & exploration, farming the work out to private enterprise.

-Colly

 

[amicus]

The Myth of Global Warming

http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
Science Has Spoken:
Global Warming Is a Myth

by Arthur B. Robinson and Zachary W. Robinson
Copyright 1997 Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
Reprinted with permission of Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
The Wall Street Journal (December 4, 1997)


Political leaders are gathered in Kyoto, Japan, working away on an international treaty to stop "global warming" by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The debate over how much to cut emissions has at times been heated--but the entire enterprise is futile or worse. For there is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures. What's more, carbon dioxide emissions have
actually been a boon for the environment.

The myth of "global warming" starts with an accurate observation: The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising. It is now about 360 parts per million, vs. 290 at the beginning of the 20th century, Reasonable estimates indicate that it may eventually rise as high as 600 parts per million. This rise probably results from human burning of coal, oil and natural gas, although this is not certain. Earth's oceans and land hold some 50 times as much carbon dioxide as is in the atmosphere, and movement between these reservoirs of carbon dioxide is poorly understood. The observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide does correspond with the time of human release and equals about half of the amount released.

Careful Tests

The global-warming hypothesis, however, is no longer tenable. Scientists have been able to test it carefully, and it does not hold up. During the past 50 years, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen, scientists have made precise measurements of atmospheric temperature. These measurements have definitively shown that major atmospheric greenhouse warming of the atmosphere is not occurring and is unlikely ever to occur.


The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average.

In science, the ultimate test is the process of experiment. If a hypothesis fails the experimental test, it must be discarded. Therefore, the scientific method requires that the global warming hypothesis be rejected.

So we needn't worry about human use of hydrocarbons warming the Earth. We also needn't worry about environmental calamities, even if the current, natural warming trend continues: After all the Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without ill effects.

Arthur Robinson and Zachary Robinson are chemists at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Knowing that you have been bombarded from every angle by the 'Global warning myth' The Greenhouse Effect, Ozone layer concerns....you may be surprised at the above and a host of other 'Science based' authorities that debunk the continuing hysterical outcries of 'establishment scientists.'

This is not the best source..but the first one I ran into. There is a very interesting study by Swedish Scientists that reached the same conclusion:

"Global Warming by human activity cannot be justified as a scientific observation."

 

[amicus]

The Myth of Global Warming

http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
Science Has Spoken:
Global Warming Is a Myth

by Arthur B. Robinson and Zachary W. Robinson
Copyright 1997 Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
Reprinted with permission of Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
The Wall Street Journal (December 4, 1997)


Political leaders are gathered in Kyoto, Japan, working away on an international treaty to stop "global warming" by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The debate over how much to cut emissions has at times been heated--but the entire enterprise is futile or worse. For there is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures. What's more, carbon dioxide emissions have
actually been a boon for the environment.

The myth of "global warming" starts with an accurate observation: The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising. It is now about 360 parts per million, vs. 290 at the beginning of the 20th century, Reasonable estimates indicate that it may eventually rise as high as 600 parts per million. This rise probably results from human burning of coal, oil and natural gas, although this is not certain. Earth's oceans and land hold some 50 times as much carbon dioxide as is in the atmosphere, and movement between these reservoirs of carbon dioxide is poorly understood. The observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide does correspond with the time of human release and equals about half of the amount released.

Careful Tests

The global-warming hypothesis, however, is no longer tenable. Scientists have been able to test it carefully, and it does not hold up. During the past 50 years, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen, scientists have made precise measurements of atmospheric temperature. These measurements have definitively shown that major atmospheric greenhouse warming of the atmosphere is not occurring and is unlikely ever to occur.


The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average.

In science, the ultimate test is the process of experiment. If a hypothesis fails the experimental test, it must be discarded. Therefore, the scientific method requires that the global warming hypothesis be rejected.

So we needn't worry about human use of hydrocarbons warming the Earth. We also needn't worry about environmental calamities, even if the current, natural warming trend continues: After all the Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without ill effects.

Arthur Robinson and Zachary Robinson are chemists at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Knowing that you have been bombarded from every angle by the 'Global warning myth' The Greenhouse Effect, Ozone layer concerns....you may be surprised at the above and a host of other 'Science based' authorities that debunk the continuing hysterical outcries of 'establishment scientists.'

This is not the best source..but the first one I ran into. There is a very interesting study by Swedish Scientists that reached the same conclusion:

"Global Warming by human activity cannot be justified as a scientific observation."

 

[amicus]

The Myth of Global Warming

http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
Science Has Spoken:
Global Warming Is a Myth

by Arthur B. Robinson and Zachary W. Robinson
Copyright 1997 Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
Reprinted with permission of Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
The Wall Street Journal (December 4, 1997)


Political leaders are gathered in Kyoto, Japan, working away on an international treaty to stop "global warming" by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The debate over how much to cut emissions has at times been heated--but the entire enterprise is futile or worse. For there is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures. What's more, carbon dioxide emissions have
actually been a boon for the environment.

The myth of "global warming" starts with an accurate observation: The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising. It is now about 360 parts per million, vs. 290 at the beginning of the 20th century, Reasonable estimates indicate that it may eventually rise as high as 600 parts per million. This rise probably results from human burning of coal, oil and natural gas, although this is not certain. Earth's oceans and land hold some 50 times as much carbon dioxide as is in the atmosphere, and movement between these reservoirs of carbon dioxide is poorly understood. The observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide does correspond with the time of human release and equals about half of the amount released.

Careful Tests

The global-warming hypothesis, however, is no longer tenable. Scientists have been able to test it carefully, and it does not hold up. During the past 50 years, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen, scientists have made precise measurements of atmospheric temperature. These measurements have definitively shown that major atmospheric greenhouse warming of the atmosphere is not occurring and is unlikely ever to occur.


The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average.

In science, the ultimate test is the process of experiment. If a hypothesis fails the experimental test, it must be discarded. Therefore, the scientific method requires that the global warming hypothesis be rejected.

So we needn't worry about human use of hydrocarbons warming the Earth. We also needn't worry about environmental calamities, even if the current, natural warming trend continues: After all the Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without ill effects.

Arthur Robinson and Zachary Robinson are chemists at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Knowing that you have been bombarded from every angle by the 'Global warning myth' The Greenhouse Effect, Ozone layer concerns....you may be surprised at the above and a host of other 'Science based' authorities that debunk the continuing hysterical outcries of 'establishment scientists.'

This is not the best source..but the first one I ran into. There is a very interesting study by Swedish Scientists that reached the same conclusion:

"Global Warming by human activity cannot be justified as a scientific observation."

 

[amicus]

The Myth of Global Warming

http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
Science Has Spoken:
Global Warming Is a Myth

by Arthur B. Robinson and Zachary W. Robinson
Copyright 1997 Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
Reprinted with permission of Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
The Wall Street Journal (December 4, 1997)


Political leaders are gathered in Kyoto, Japan, working away on an international treaty to stop "global warming" by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The debate over how much to cut emissions has at times been heated--but the entire enterprise is futile or worse. For there is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures. What's more, carbon dioxide emissions have
actually been a boon for the environment.

The myth of "global warming" starts with an accurate observation: The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising. It is now about 360 parts per million, vs. 290 at the beginning of the 20th century, Reasonable estimates indicate that it may eventually rise as high as 600 parts per million. This rise probably results from human burning of coal, oil and natural gas, although this is not certain. Earth's oceans and land hold some 50 times as much carbon dioxide as is in the atmosphere, and movement between these reservoirs of carbon dioxide is poorly understood. The observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide does correspond with the time of human release and equals about half of the amount released.

Careful Tests

The global-warming hypothesis, however, is no longer tenable. Scientists have been able to test it carefully, and it does not hold up. During the past 50 years, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen, scientists have made precise measurements of atmospheric temperature. These measurements have definitively shown that major atmospheric greenhouse warming of the atmosphere is not occurring and is unlikely ever to occur.


The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average.

In science, the ultimate test is the process of experiment. If a hypothesis fails the experimental test, it must be discarded. Therefore, the scientific method requires that the global warming hypothesis be rejected.

So we needn't worry about human use of hydrocarbons warming the Earth. We also needn't worry about environmental calamities, even if the current, natural warming trend continues: After all the Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without ill effects.

Arthur Robinson and Zachary Robinson are chemists at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Knowing that you have been bombarded from every angle by the 'Global warning myth' The Greenhouse Effect, Ozone layer concerns....you may be surprised at the above and a host of other 'Science based' authorities that debunk the continuing hysterical outcries of 'establishment scientists.'

This is not the best source..but the first one I ran into. There is a very interesting study by Swedish Scientists that reached the same conclusion:

"Global Warming by human activity cannot be justified as a scientific observation."

 

[amicus]

The Myth of Global Warming

http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
Science Has Spoken:
Global Warming Is a Myth

by Arthur B. Robinson and Zachary W. Robinson
Copyright 1997 Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
Reprinted with permission of Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
The Wall Street Journal (December 4, 1997)


Political leaders are gathered in Kyoto, Japan, working away on an international treaty to stop "global warming" by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The debate over how much to cut emissions has at times been heated--but the entire enterprise is futile or worse. For there is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures. What's more, carbon dioxide emissions have
actually been a boon for the environment.

The myth of "global warming" starts with an accurate observation: The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising. It is now about 360 parts per million, vs. 290 at the beginning of the 20th century, Reasonable estimates indicate that it may eventually rise as high as 600 parts per million. This rise probably results from human burning of coal, oil and natural gas, although this is not certain. Earth's oceans and land hold some 50 times as much carbon dioxide as is in the atmosphere, and movement between these reservoirs of carbon dioxide is poorly understood. The observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide does correspond with the time of human release and equals about half of the amount released.

Careful Tests

The global-warming hypothesis, however, is no longer tenable. Scientists have been able to test it carefully, and it does not hold up. During the past 50 years, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen, scientists have made precise measurements of atmospheric temperature. These measurements have definitively shown that major atmospheric greenhouse warming of the atmosphere is not occurring and is unlikely ever to occur.


The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average.

In science, the ultimate test is the process of experiment. If a hypothesis fails the experimental test, it must be discarded. Therefore, the scientific method requires that the global warming hypothesis be rejected.

So we needn't worry about human use of hydrocarbons warming the Earth. We also needn't worry about environmental calamities, even if the current, natural warming trend continues: After all the Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without ill effects.

Arthur Robinson and Zachary Robinson are chemists at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Knowing that you have been bombarded from every angle by the 'Global warning myth' The Greenhouse Effect, Ozone layer concerns....you may be surprised at the above and a host of other 'Science based' authorities that debunk the continuing hysterical outcries of 'establishment scientists.'

This is not the best source..but the first one I ran into. There is a very interesting study by Swedish Scientists that reached the same conclusion:

"Global Warming by human activity cannot be justified as a scientific observation."

 

[amicus]

My apolgies...I have no idea why that posted 4 times...it was not intentional and it will not let me delete....amicus

 

[dr_mabeuse]

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has all the signs of being a right-wing front kept alive by donations from industry to shill for their dubious science. They have a faculty of 6 (yes, six!) and the scientists who wrote this report are not even atmospheric scientists. One's a protein chemist and I think the other one's an M.D.

Here's the link:

http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p15.htm

I'm not convinced that the climactic change that we're seeing iis due to greenhouse gases, but I sure as hell wouldn't take the words of this broom-closet "institute" on anything.

(You might also be interested in purchasing their books on how to survive a nuclear war. It's that kind of institute.)

---dr.M.

 

[amicus]

Research Debunks Greenhouse Theory: EDMONTON JOURNAL,12 November 2003 - Too many scientists have based their research, their reputations and their incomes on the greenhouse theory. So rather than debate the growing evidence that the greenhouse theory is fundamentally flawed, many greenhouse-believing scientists have begun viciously attacking those who question its conclusions and denouncing any agnostic as a heretic -- especially ones presenting uncomfortably challenging proof.

Man-Made Global Warming: Unravelling a Dogma [new]



http://www.multi-science.co.uk/gen_books.htm

by Hans Labohm, Simon Rozendaal & Dick Thoenes

These three Dutchmen - respectively an international relations expert, a scientific journalist, and a chemical engineer (past chairman of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society) - form part of that growing body of reasonable and qualified people who feel unease at the claims of 'scientific consensus' on climate change, and wonder at the policies flowing from those claims. If the science is flawed, plainly the policies are too. Worldwide, billions of public money will be mis-spent, unnecessary costs placed on existing industry, new industrial development hampered. Together, these three authors are well-placed to point up the weaknesses in the scientific argument that global warming is a man-made phenomenon, and are able to analyse that murky place where the needs for recognition, research grants and votes all come together. Could it really be the case that the 'global warming crisis' is really as much about careers and power as anything else?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Hey Mab...here are some more sources for you to debunk. There are thousands of links...some good some not so good.

The point being, the issue of Global Warming as a result of human action, is under serious debate.

Is it a myth? If so, why?

amicus

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Amicus, you so need to visit my campus. I mean you really really need to visit us.

Also, please give me an article from Science Magazine or one of the other top journals of the scientific community in which the theory of global warming is bunk. Those are the ones that matter more than anything presented in any news source or in any editorial. The scientific journals have high standards for proof and if it can get published there then the theory or point has merit. Please use those sources as your proof. Everything else (at least on a scientific topic) has absolutely no merit (scientifically speaking).

P.S. If you even suggest that the "reputative scientific journals" are mere shills interested more in politics than science, then I will have to find some wolfsbane and track you down. So don't even go there.

 

[Carl East]

Well, I can only speak for myself, but I have absolutely little interest in discovering Mars as I don't think it will give mankind anything useful at all.
Snoopy

On this point Snoop, you couldn't be more wrong. The fact is we will one day colonize mars and terra-form it, which will take approximately one hundred years. There are no buts or maybe's here, because when our sun starts to expand (some few million years from now), Mars will become a very fertile planet.

When the sun becomes too much even for mars, we'll have to have left this solar system behind. All of which has everything to do with the mars rovers, because the experiments being conducted their will pave the way for a better understanding as to what we are going to come up against in the future.

What really sucks for me, is that I'm going to miss it all. lol

Carl

 

[amicus]

You are absolutely right Mr. Carl...it will all happen and we will not be around to witness...

Perhaps that is why reading and writing science fiction is a balm for our mortality...in fiction, we can truly walk the surface of Mars and envision the time when it has clouds and blue sky and water flowing...

regards...amicus..