The Dangers of Junk Science.

[PREMwriter]

Whilst I sit on the fence concerning the man-made CO2 issues, there is no way you can use 'empirical' as an adjective.

It is zillions of percent away from empirical.

In my simple mental database;

- The earth has been cooling for ten years.

- The earlier increase in temperature cannot be correlated with increases in human CO2 emissions

- The computer models that supposedly forecast future warming have all their parameters set by prejudiced quasi-scientists. Give me a true Resume of a climatologist.

- Why does no-one explain that humans are only responsible for 25% of global CO2 emissions?

I could go on but I am a searcher after truth.

Climate Change, at the moment, has about as much credibity as Genesis. Someone show me the irrefutable science. Please not Gore in a polar bear suit ( the photo was faked, by the way).

If I hve to live in a hut in my yard to save the planet from extinction, I will, but I need some more convincing evidence than the alchemists have produced so far.

Read back Elfin, I posted a statement by reaserchers who have proven beyond any doubt the effects of man over the last 100 years. It is there for anyone to examine and decide for themselves, without debating the issue here. Any science link will have the article about the lake on Baffin Island done by researchers from a Buffalo university. The evidence is there to check out.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

My understanding of "Intellegent Design" - A fraud developed by the far right, religeous nuts to push Charles Darwin off the map. From the time of the Scopes trial in the 1920's until now this has been going on. Intellegent Design was simply a new package of the old, worn out theory that God Created everything, simply leaving out the word GOD.

I think that might be truie in some cases, but overall, I think that's a little uinfair.

There are some very difficult and thorny issues in evolutionary theory that don't have ready answers yet, and Intelligent Design seems to offer a solution to these, which is a large part of its appeal for those who are not necessarily Theists. It's just that, for most scientists, the assumptions you have to make to get ID to work are worse than the thorny issues it's supposed to solve: Number One being the belief that an intelligent Creator was behind the whole shebang.

But as you study biology, you come across facts that all but defy any rational scientific explanation based on the ideas of random mutation and natural selection that Evolutionary Theory espouses.

For instance, the proteins in our bodies are formed on hundeeds of thousands of amino acids strung together in a specific order. That's what DNA does: it provides the information for how the amino acids are to be assembled to form any of the millions of proteins in our bodies.

That's not enough, though. These super-long strings and rings of amino acids then have to fold in on themselves in very precise and complex ways to make the protein useful, because proteins have specific shapes that fit in specific sites. It's kind of like throwing a long coil of chain up into the air and expecting it to form a perfect likeness of the Venus de Milo before it hits the ground.

To help the proteins fold, there are "assistant" proteins that attach temporarily to it and act as templates to guide the folding. Without these helpers, the protein is useless.

So you've got a case where (a) not only did the original protein have to come into being through random chemistry, but (b) several of these assistants also had to come into being, and each had to work in a specific way, and (c) they all had to find each other at the same time and same place for the protein to ever be useful.

You can estimate the probability of all this happening at a given time, and the numbers are staggering, simply astronomical, like one out of the-number-of-atoms-in-the-universe.

And more than this, they all had to get it right the first time, because if the protein doesn't fold right the first time it's worse than useless, it's probably toxic, and the organism that produced it will die before reproducing. So there's really no time to fool around via the eons-long trial-and-error of evolution.

(These badly-folded proteins are said to be "denatured", and that's what happens every time you cook an egg. The slimy proteinaceous albumin is denatured by the heat and forms the familiar egg white. If you want a feel for the possibility of fixing a denatured protein, ask yourself how often you've seen a cooked egg white revert back to a pile of albumin.)

(BTW, Mad Cow Disease is caused by a nasty little bit of rogue protein called a "prion" that acts as an unwelcome assistant and guides a protein into misfolding, thereby denaturing it and rendering it highly toxic.)

So all in all, when faced with this seemingly impossible amount of complexity, it's very difficult to imagine how this could have happened by blind chance, all at once, all in the same place, and perfect the first time. It's very hard to believe this wasn't created by design by some extremely ingenious and knowledgeable biochemist.

Clearly there are aspect of Evolutionary Theory that we don't understand yet, and a lot we don't know about biochemistry and the biology of the cell.

But given all this, the great preponderance of scientific evidence still comes down on the side of Evolution. It's just that, there's still a lot we don't know.

 

[Epmd607]

I've tried to find where ID explains anything, and it really doesn't even perform the minimum. The Bible doesn't really do a whole lot of explaining either. ID concentrates on devaluing scientific achievement, arguing against Darwin instead of 150 years of Evolutionary Theory. Arguing against Survival of the Fittest instead of dealing with: Adaptation, Genetic drift, Gene flow, Mutation, Natural selection, and Speciation.

I did my senior thesis on genetic drift. People have been tweaking alleles forever. Mutation has become a background character in the broader scheme of things. When there are catastrophic changes in an environment there is fundamental re-ordering, if not speciation over few generations. The catastrophic environmental changes happen to be pretty common on our planet. Proteins are as malleable when they're forced to perform or cease existing. Once you get an amino acid the rest of the story is within reach. Just like once you get a Big Bang, the rest of the physics sort of falls into place. Not that any of it is easy, but it's certainly more useful than whatever ID is.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

What puzzles me is trying to understand what the nay-sayers want as irrefutable proof of GW. What do they need to see for themselves that things are happening? A great many people of all walks of life understand it, and not from ridiculous sources either. This debate seems to rise from a refusal to accept the reality of things and want to believe their world is okay. So what will it take?

Scientific Method generally sorts out all the variables that affect weather and everything else, to discover what are and arent independent variables. Aint much you can do about independent variables except kill them.

Most of us want to shoot the real villain NOT everyone in the effing saloon.

 

[PREMwriter]

Scientific Method generally sorts out all the variables that affect weather and everything else, to discover what are and arent independent variables. Aint much you can do about independent variables except kill them.

Most of us want to shoot the real villain NOT everyone in the effing saloon.

Thanks Jim. Just trying to get a handle on why there's so much doubt about something that is too, "in your face" real to ignore. When they showed me the actual results of tests and not theories, I was convinced there was a problem and no more ambiguity was there.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Thanks Jim. Just trying to get a handle on why there's so much doubt about something that is too, "in your face" real to ignore. When they showed me the actual results of tests and not theories, I was convinced there was a problem and no more ambiguity was there.

Two weeks ago I was almost crippled, and needed a cane to get out of bed. The pain was severe. MD said it was arthritis. He should know, right?

It was a vitamin I was taking. I recalled that the pain and ambulation problem began almost as soon asw I started the vitamin. I stopped the vitamin and things improved; now I have no pain and get around like before.

My problem was confounded for the reason that several disorders have the same symptoms. MD said arthritis, Doc M said sciatic nerve, I said vitamin. This is my point about global warming. We know that CO2 is a dependent variable that has some degree of influence on the problem AND there seem to be plenty of independent variables that influence the problem, too. And no one has a theory that accounts for all the influences on weather. I mean, they cant predict hurricanes or weather 3 days from now.

 

[PREMwriter]

Two weeks ago I was almost crippled, and needed a cane to get out of bed. The pain was severe. MD said it was arthritis. He should know, right?

It was a vitamin I was taking. I recalled that the pain and ambulation problem began almost as soon asw I started the vitamin. I stopped the vitamin and things improved; now I have no pain and get around like before.

My problem was confounded for the reason that several disorders have the same symptoms. MD said arthritis, Doc M said sciatic nerve, I said vitamin. This is my point about global warming. We know that CO2 is a dependent variable that has some degree of influence on the problem AND there seem to be plenty of independent variables that influence the problem, too. And no one has a theory that accounts for all the influences on weather. I mean, they cant predict hurricanes or weather 3 days from now.

I'm accurate two days in advance with my arthritis. Maybe I should predict what's going to happen. Even with all the variables, there's definitely something going on that shouldn't be. The programm I saw last night done on Baffin Island confirmed there's something un-natural about the last 100 years. Their tests pre-date even the ice core samples by 80,000years and use micro-organisms and other biological referrences to establish their findings. Whether Co2 or methane from farting cows is the problem, somethings up and needs to be looked into quickly so we can alter the course of our own demise, if we're causing it.

 

[TxRad]

The problem ain't with junk science, it's which idiot is interpreting the data and to whose benefit.

My favorite was always the air quality in the LA Basin. Billions have been spent to clean up the air around LA. Someone forgot to ask the Indians that were there before the white man came, what they called the basin. The valley of the brown clouds. An inversion layer over the basin keeps the gas leakage from the San Andres fault pin down below the mountains. It builds up until the Santa Anna winds blow it out to sea. Then the winds shift and it blows back in. The air quality today is no different than when I lived there in the 70's.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

The world did warm up. Since the early 2000's, but then the average temperature has remained steady. However, it is warmer than it was a hundred years ago. Whether or not it is man-caused is irrelevant.

My take is that I'm not convinced that it is. However, if a genuine concern for GW is what it takes to get people to clean up the air and the ocean and to reduce our dependence on energy from unreliable foreign sources, good!

 

[Zeb_Carter]

The world did warm up. Since the early 2000's, but then the average temperature has remained steady. However, it is warmer than it was a hundred years ago. Whether or not it is man-caused is irrelevant.

My take is that I'm not convinced that it is. However, if a genuine concern for GW is what it takes to get people to clean up the air and the ocean and to reduce our dependence on energy from unreliable foreign sources, good!

But it's cooler than it was 1500 years ago, explain that.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

By which I mean the global warming denial crowd as well as the Intelligent Design crowd, among others. You know, the ones who can't accept empirical data because some rogue pseudo-scientist offers them an alternative.

How dangerous are they? I believe them very dangerous, because they bring reality into dispute and cast doubt on empirical facts.

So just because I look at the numbers and come up with a completely different answer it's junk science?

Empirical data? Ask the scientists who used and stored that data to produce it. Bet they won't? Bet they can't? When someone tells me 2 + -2 = 5 I have to 1. question their intelligence 2. question their motives.

 

[Epmd607]

But it's cooler than it was 1500 years ago, explain that.

The newest surge in levels of CO2 coincides with the beginning of the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution is the first time human beings have a real impact on the atmosphere. It's pointless talking about before the industrial revolution, while the point of discussing CO2 levels since is to find out the actual human impact. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says human beings have had an impact on CO2 levels, they won the Nobel with Al Gore. They were the ones that did the science for 30+ years.

 

[Epmd607]

So just because I look at the numbers and come up with a completely different answer it's junk science?

Empirical data? Ask the scientists who used and stored that data to produce it. Bet they won't? Bet they can't? When someone tells me 2 + -2 = 5 I have to 1. question their intelligence 2. question their motives.

what's so secretive about this? Anyone can read and respond to the world standard on atmospheric science.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.htm

 

[colddiesel]

Fool! Politicians want to get elected, they go with the flow.

Neither Merkel or Thatcher - or Obama, Sarkozy or - whatever that guy in Iran's called, have any knowledge of the science. Like Gore, it's just politicos snuffling for votes.

We need to look at this much more analytically. The science doesn't support the polemic - so far.

No Elfin, not quite true.Thatcher's position was particularly interesting. She first spoke about climate science in the 1970's and her basic position was (my summary) 'Whatever the cause we cannot afford to ignore the potential effects.'

www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=107346

Scroll down until you reach the heading 'Environment.'

This speech is from fairly late in her career, 1988 but she first referred to the emerging data on climate change when she was education minister in the Heath government (1970 -1973). I think her science training was important to her recognition of the issue.

It is even more remarkable if you recollect that Thatcher was married to the Chairman and chief executive of a major oil company(Burmah Oil) who one might have assumed would have a vested interest in avoiding the emerging debate.

When you say 'the science doesn't support the polemic so far' you may be right - but surely the real issue is, can we wait for irrefutable scientific proof taking the risk that might be leaving remedial action too late.

At least it's fun to use their goddess of the free market, Thatcher to put a spoke in Trysail and Amicus' wheel.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

The newest surge in levels of CO2 coincides with the beginning of the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution is the first time human beings have a real impact on the atmosphere. It's pointless talking about before the industrial revolution, while the point of discussing CO2 levels since is to find out the actual human impact. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says human beings have had an impact on CO2 levels, they won the Nobel with Al Gore. They were the ones that did the science for 30+ years.

Why is it pointless talking about before the industrial revolution???? That makes no sense? Why was it warmer 1500 years ago than it is today? Simple question. Man was around. The temperature was quite a bit warmer than it was now. Got milk?

And OwlGore also invented the internet and he's not a scientist, he's an idiot.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

what's so secretive about this? Anyone can read and respond to the world standard on atmospheric science.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.htm

Get the raw data that those numbers were based on and then we'll talk. Any numbers the IPCC has are now in question due to the fact the the raw data has disappeared. The two great scientists who had it and used it have lost it. So now no one can verify or disprove their numbers...now that junk science.

 

[Epmd607]

Get the raw data that those numbers were based on and then we'll talk. Any numbers the IPCC has are now in question due to the fact the the raw data has disappeared. The two great scientists who had it and used it have lost it. So now no one can verify or disprove their numbers...now that junk science.

Sounds like a masonic conspiracy. You're gonna write the next da vinci code.

Do you understand that burning massive amounts of coal affects the atmosphere differently than not burning massive amounts of coal?

 

[3113]

- The earth has been cooling for ten years.

But it's cooler than it was 1500 years ago, explain that.

Ta-DAH! See? What'd I tell you? Naming it "Global Warming" makes for all sorts of confusion even if it accurately indicates the problem. People inevitably point out that that the temperatures are colder now then some other time, so GW must be false. Even though the experts say "that global temperatures will continue to level off of fall slightly for several years before resuming a steady climb" and that we'll have ice free summers in the Arctic within 20 years.

This also supports what I said about things having to happen immediately and before their eyes. If the temperatures aren't going up by huge leaps and bounds right before their eyes, if it's a slow climb that levels, falls, then resumes, then with each level-fall they can insist, "See, ain't happening!"

Of course, assuming we do manage to do something, and that something works, then temperatures will level off and/or go down and then they'll insist it was all hooey again. Can't win.

 

[TxRad]

500 years ago we had a mini ice age and have been coming out of that. As for it being hotter 1500 years ago. I haven't seen anything on that.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Sounds like a masonic conspiracy. You're gonna write the next da vinci code.

Do you understand that burning massive amounts of coal affects the atmosphere differently than not burning massive amounts of coal?

Not my problem if your one of those conspiracy nuts floatin' around the neighborhood. I bet you believe in UFOs and Alien abductions.

The question is...prove the numbers!

As far as coal goes I don't use any. Even my electric company doesn't use any. They use NG or Natural Gas the cleanest fuel there is, even cleaner that ethanol.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

500 years ago we had a mini ice age and have been coming out of that. As for it being hotter 1500 years ago. I haven't seen anything on that.

It's called the medieval warming period - around 500 to 900 AD. All the data about 'Climate Change' ignores that data because it throws off the nice hockey stick effect on their graphs.

It's call fudging the number to make them look how you want them to look.

 

[amicus]

As a plant scientist, I am concerned that Idaho and most states are planning to limit and reduce Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions. This is being done to supposedly reduce global warming. The states are adopting the 1997 Kyoto Climate Treaty which the U.S. Senate rejected 95-0 because it would destroy our economy while exempting developing nations like China which do not control pollution.

CO2 is not a pollutant and is not causing global warming. CO2 is necessary for life on the planet, as plants utilize CO2 to produce the oxygen we breathe and the food we eat! Global warming now and cooling of the 40’s to mid-seventies is caused by solar activity. We have an active sun now! The earth has been warming for 300 years with most of the increase prior to increased CO2 levels.

Also, 279 research project reports have shown that increasing CO2 increases crop production. Higher levels of CO2 is creating a lush environment for plants and animals and will improve the health (more oxygen), longevity and prosperity of all people.

Over 20,000 U.S. scientists have signed a petition opposing man-caused global warming and the benefits of increased CO2 levels, but the mass media totally ignore them. John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel, stated that man-caused global warming is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind.

The biased United Nation’s panel and Al Gore are promoting a lie to scare us into a U.N. global government. The bottom line is that we need to produce more energy, not less. We have a 300 year U.S. supply of crude oil and unlimited nuclear power. There is no scientific reason to limit CO2 production because it is not causing global warming!

~~~

Just to level the table which is severely tilted towards misunderstanding CO2 as a pollutant. Water Vapor is the greatest green house gas by far.

Amicus

 

[PREMwriter]

~~~

Just to level the table which is severely tilted towards misunderstanding CO2 as a pollutant. Water Vapor is the greatest green house gas by far.

Amicus

I always love to see a guy contradict himself in two statements. On one hand he says Co2 is good for us and yet Co2 is poisonous to mammals over 15%. If it wasn't for trees (deciduous preferrably)we'd be dead already. They convert Co2 into oxygen and rid the air of pollutants. Cow farts produce more pollution than water vapour, and you want to industrialize the planet for comfort? What part of moron, don't you understand?

 

[R. Richard]

It's called the medieval warming period - around 500 to 900 AD. All the data about 'Climate Change' ignores that data because it throws off the nice hockey stick effect on their graphs.

It's call fudging the number to make them look how you want them to look.

The northmen arrived in Greenland in the year 985, per the sagas. The Greenland climate at that time was such that the northmen were able to establish viable farms and two colonies. Eventually, the colonies grew to a size of about 5,000 people (est.) The colonies lasted until some time in the 1400s, when the climate began to cool. Eventually, the cooling climate forced the northmen off Greenland. However, for some four centuries, the climate was warm enough to support a northmen type civilization.

 

[amicus]

Global Warming: Why Can't the Mainstream Press Get Even Basic Facts Right?




DATE: March 22, 2004

BACKGROUND: The Associated Press ran a global warming story1 this past weekend that makes the following statements:

"Carbon dioxide, the gas largely blamed for global warming, has reached record-high levels in the atmosphere after growing at an accelerated pace in the past year..."

"Carbon dioxide, mostly from burning of coal, gasoline and other fossil fuels, traps heat that otherwise would radiate into space."

"Global temperatures increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) during the 20th century, and international panels of scientists sponsored by world governments have concluded that most of the warming probably was due to greenhouse gases."


TEN SECOND RESPONSE: How many scandals does the mainstream press need before it starts routinely running stories through fact-checkers?


THIRTY SECOND RESPONSE: Faulty "news" stories like this one, which mislead people all over the world, are one of many alarmist global warming reports by the news media that do not reflect a consensus of scientists. What is more alarming than what scientists genuinely know about global warming is that a media outlet as influential as the AP would run a wire story this faulty, and that so many news editors would be gullible enough to run it.


DISCUSSION: A brief refutation:

Quote 1: The AP said: "Carbon dioxide, the gas largely blamed for global warming, has reached record-high levels in the atmosphere after growing at an accelerated pace in the past year..."

Facts: Carbon dioxide is not the major greenhouse gas (water vapor is).2

Carbon dioxide accounts for less than ten percent of the greenhouse effect, as carbon dioxide's ability to absorb heat is quite limited.3

Only about 0.03 percent of the Earth's atmosphere consists of carbon dioxide (nitrogen, oxygen, and argon constitute about 78 percent, 20 percent, and 0.93 percent of the atmosphere, respectively).4

The sun, not a gas, is primarily to "blame" for global warming -- and plays a very key role in global temperature variations as well.


Quote 2: The AP said: "Carbon dioxide, mostly from burning of coal, gasoline and other fossil fuels, traps heat that otherwise would radiate into space."

Fact: Most of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not come from the burning of fossil fuels. Only about 14 percent of it does.5


Quote 3: The AP said: "Global temperatures increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) during the 20th century, and international panels of scientists sponsored by world governments have concluded that most of the warming probably was due to greenhouse gases."

Facts: Most of 20th Century global warming occurred in the first few decades of that century,6 before the widespread burning of fossil fuels (and before 82 percent of the increase in atmospheric CO2 observed in the 20th Century7).

The Earth does not have "world governments." It doesn't even have even one, as the United Nations is not a government, but an association of nations.

If the AP is referring to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the AP should become aware that the IPCC report itself (the part written by scientists) reached no consensus on climate change. What did reach a conclusion was an IPCC "summary for policymakers" prepared by political appointees.8 Most reporters quote only the summary, being either too lazy or too undereducated to understand the actual report. This does not explain, however, why reporters don't more frequently interview scientists who helped prepare it -- scientists such as IPCC participant Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT, who says the IPCC report is typically "presented as a consensus that involves hundreds, perhaps thousands, of scientists... and none of them was asked if they agreed with anything in the report except for the one or two pages they worked on." Lindzen also draws a sharp distinction between the scientists' document and its politicized summary: "the document itself is informative; the summary is not."9

~~~

Did all this five years ago on this left leaning forum...buy ya books 'n buy ya books all you do is eat the the pages & lick the covers...geez..louise...



ami