Science

[Earniel]

Super-unions?

To quote Spaceballs: "There goes the planet."

[trolls' bane]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

What complete... idealistic pap. You didn't even answer my question re: disrupting ecosystems & breaking up natural corridors.

I'm a politician. What, you actually expect me to answer your questions!?

But frankly, there is no way to answer that. It's an unknown quantity, perhaps to be tested under controlled conditions. I believe I had an equation relating to it somewhere: the efficiency of its recycling abilities or something.

[BeardofPants]

YOU brought up the notion of transplanting humans into the oceans, I was asking how you would circumvent the potential damage & destruction to the ecosystems. You want to be a 'politician', fine, but at least be prepared to back up your claims, otherwise you're no better than those 'corporate' entities you rile against.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

I'm a land-dweller, and proud of it. It's all very well for someone who spends his time with biologists in the desert to suggest a world of chemists on the sea, but my area has an excess of both chemists and ocean, and I can tell you, it ain't purty.

[brownjenkins]

As far as ecosystems go, there is nothing as natural as extinction. While it's sad to see species go, it's probably not realistic to assume that the earth will remain a snapshot of what it is today.

[trolls' bane]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I'm a land-dweller, and proud of it. It's all very well for someone who spends his time with biologists in the desert to suggest a world of chemists on the sea, but my area has an excess of both chemists and ocean, and I can tell you, it ain't purty.

Ah, well, you didn't know that I once lived much closer to the ocean.
Depends on the chemists, too.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

As far as ecosystems go, there is nothing as natural as extinction. While it's sad to see species go, it's probably not realistic to assume that the earth will remain a snapshot of what it is today.

Of course not, but it is a shame when we cause the extinction of a species that might not have gone extinct otherwise. Sometimes I feel we interfere too much with natural processes, even though we too are natural (in that we are animals and it is in our nature to use technology.)

[inked]

Science, did you say science? Why, yes, you did! So here's........SCIENCE:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...8-3c63dc2d02cb

Gotta love it!

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Well, good. The party's back on.

And, in other good news for wastrels, http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/news/ndlazio.htm

[Nurvingiel]

From Inked's article:

In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking."

It's important to get excercise and avoid overly-refined carbohydrates to maintain a healthy body weight.

Grammar and sentence structure are your friends people.

Also, I want to look at the list but I can't find a link.

This is from a Washington Times article that quotes some of the scientists:

"I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting — a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the [U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] number — entirely without merit. ... I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."

Atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, former research director at the Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute

Quibble: This doesn't means he doesn't think climate change could be caused by humans, he simply disagrees with Al Gore.

I mean, disagreeing with Michael Moore doesn't mean you're automatically right-wing.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Grammar and sentence structure are your friends, people.

See? LOOK how helpful I am.

I mean, disagreeing with Michael Moore doesn't mean you're automatically right-wing.

No, but agreeing with him denotes something. Not sure what, but something.

[GrayMouser]

Except that many of these "prominent scientists" are not scientists at all, of those who are scientists many are not climatologists, and of those who are, many of them work for/are funded by the energy industry.(Not that proves them wrong, anymore than the fact that a doctor who denies the link between smoking and cancer is employed by the Tobacco Institute proves him/her wrong.)


http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/21/

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Thanks, GrayMouser.

It started my day cheery to know that cranky people are continuing to do real science, somewhere.

[Nurvingiel]

Thank you so much GreyMouser. Nice to know that yes, there is a consensus that climate change is happenning!

What does Inhofe’s list have to do at all with the normal scientific process? What do meteorologists and economists have to do with the normal process of climate science? Should scientists really be influenced at all by one inventor’s wild claim that nanotechnology will eliminate fossil fuels in 20 years. Or by a contrived and mistake-riddled study by geomagnetists?

How incredibly deceptive of whoever it was to lie about there not being a general consensus.

No wonder I couldn't find the list itself, the last thing they want is people actually reading it!

EDIT: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works!? They should not be having such an obvious bias. I mean, they are a government agency, not one of the current administration KWIM?

EDIT2: All I could find was "brief highlights." I expected them to highlight all the climatologists and leave the physicists and geologists to pad the list but they didn't even bother (or there really are only three climatologists that they found who disagreed.) I guess they're really banking on no one reading the thing.

Here is a breakdown of the scientists (and two non-scientists):
Those in bold might actually have a clue about what they're talking about

Meteorologists: 3
Scientists: 4
Atmospheric scientists: 1
Climate scientists: 1
Climate and atmospheric consultant: 1
Physicists*: 3
Geologists: 4
Physical geographer**: 1
Climate researchers: 1
Climatologists: 2
Paleoclimatologists: 1
Marine researcher: 1
Philosopher of science**: 1

* One is also a mathematician
** Not a scientist

Five of the twenty-three people here might actually have a clue what they're talking about. That's 21.7%. If we extrapolate that to the entire list (my estimate will be adjusted if the link to this is forthcoming), that's 87 people. Not so impressive now, is it?

Edited to include the paleoclimatologist.

[The Gaffer]

Man, one day inked will post a link that doesn't get spanked like a ginger stepchild.

All you need to know about that article is:

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member

but it is well worth the effort to index all the ways in which it distorts the facts.

[BeardofPants]

I imagine the paleoclimatologist might know a few things too, nurv.

[inked]

Gaffer! You believe in spanking?! Are you sure you are in England?

I see BoP came out of retirement to defend the paleoclimatologist.

Happy New Year, Ya'll . I'm glad you liked the article citation. It gave you something to do in the waning days of 2007.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

I imagine the paleoclimatologist might know a few things too, nurv.

Ahem. Yes. Your comment prompted me to look up what paleoclimatology actually is. Heh. Still, that doesn't change the gist of my post.

Originally Posted by inked

Happy New Year, Ya'll . I'm glad you liked the article citation. It gave you something to do in the waning days of 2007.

What would we do without you Inked? Happy New Year! Gott nytt år! And don't be a stranger now.

[Nerdanel]

Scientists regrow hearts:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-it-beats.html

[Nautipus]

Coolio!