More republican attacks against science
Many scientists and some of Mr. Barton's Republican colleagues say they were stunned by the manner in which the committee, whose chairman rejects the existence of climate change, demanded personal and private information last month from researchers whose work supports a contrary conclusion. The scientists, co-authors of an influential 1999 study showing a dramatic increase in global warming over the past millennium, were told to hand over not only raw data but personal financial information, information on grants received and distributed, and computer codes.
Re: More republican attacks against science
Hell; all you gotta do is look at a current weather map or heat index(paritially joking; I know GW can also mean cooler temps). Also ; HOW many tropical storms have we had so far this year? 4? 5? HELLO.
Re: More republican attacks against science
Well, while it's ridiculous to assert that humans have had no effect, it must be added that this stuff does happen naturally, too. One look at an ice core from Greenland or Antarctica will tell you that Earth's climate has always been in flux. For example, over 20 glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last 2 million years.
If the term "ice age" is used to refer to long, generally cool, intervals during which glaciers advance and retreat, then we are still in one today. Our modern climate represents a very short, warm period between glacial advances (Incidentally, it's global warming that usually kicks off a glacial advance, oddly enough).
If this guy rejects the existance of Climate change, I wonder what existances he does accept... Bet ya a dollar it's something supernatural.
Re: More republican attacks against science
Not to fully support an extremist position that human activity is having NO effect on global climate, but ...
Much or the scientific 'data' being used to support a global warming theory is based on surface temperature readings taken near big cities, which show a fractional degree increase. However, simultaneous temperature readings taken by weather balloons and more recently by satellite infrared detectors do not corroborate the big city surface temperature readings. This leads to a new theory that waste heat from cities and solar absorption/reradiation by city structures is causing LOCALIZED increases in temperature which do not extend far beyond the city limits. However, certain 'scientific' organizations have attempted to blow off the weather balloon and satellite infrared data, presumably because that data does not corroborate the original global warming theory based solely on ground temperature readings.
As many 'scientific' organizations do receive funding from 'less than objective' sources (famous example Tobacco Research Institute), I see no reason that such info should not be requested by the committee. Americans have a right to know whether 'scientific' data/analysis from a particular source has behind the scenes political/financial pressure being exerted to draw a particular conclusion and/or to reject other data/analysis results which do not corroborate that conclusion - and particularly so when any gov't action taken as a result of 'scientific' recommendations will have profound effect on the country's economy.
I find it quite sad that today's 'science' news now seems to be becoming just as politicized as other news.
Re: More republican attacks against science
Since we all agree that human activity ishaving some effect...and the "cities" problem is spread wider with every development, strip mall and new paving/building project in rural areas (take a thermometer to black pavement on a sunny day, then to a spot under a tree and tell me this reflected heat has no impact)...doesn't it follow we should accept our species ability to impact the climate and do our best to minimize the negative impact?
Re: More republican attacks against science
Quote:
doesn't it follow we should accept our species ability to impact the climate and do our best to minimize the negative impact?
Obviously yes from a theoretical standpoint. However, IMHO it makes very little sense to cause vast disruption in the US economy/social structure to reduce a 5% global contribution, while at the same time doing absolutely nothing about the 95% global contribution coming from Chinese coal fired power plants, an increasingly defoliated Africa and South America, smokestacks of Eastern European industries and on and on. This of course is the hypocracy of Kyoto treaty advocates.
Re: More republican attacks against science
Ah yes, we must protect the economy... just a picture from my hurricane chasing in Florida early this month...
Re: More republican attacks against science
" Hurricane timeline: 1900 to 1950
Sun-Sentinel
The most intense and the deadliest hurricanes in U.S. history occurred during this period as forecasters began to understand the danger of flooding and storm surge.(snip)"
Logically speaking, if the global warming theory is true and is linked to hurricanes, the hurricane history of 1950-2000 should have been worse than the history from 1900-1950, which is NOT the case.
Re: More republican attacks against science
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
" Hurricane timeline: 1900 to 1950
Sun-Sentinel
The most intense and the deadliest hurricanes in U.S. history occurred during this period as forecasters began to understand the danger of flooding and storm surge.(snip)"
Logically speaking, if the global warming theory is true and is linked to hurricanes, the hurricane history of 1950-2000 should have been worse than the history from 1900-1950, which is NOT the case.
It is only logically speaking if you are using only those postulates in your line of reasoning. Add in glacier melts, record heat waves, droughts in some areas - floods in others - there is a little more data to take into account!
Re: More republican attacks against science
again I don't mean to be a butt-pain, but glacier melts in some areas also have offsetting reports of glacier thickening in other areas. You're absolutely right that there is MUCH more data to be taken into account ... which brings us back around to the original point of the Committee's requests for additional information which could shed more light on both the 'objectivity' and 'political motivation' behind researchers and the conclusions they have drawn.
Re: More republican attacks against science
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
again I don't mean to be a butt-pain, but glacier melts in some areas also have offsetting reports of glacier thickening in other areas.
Depends on where the melting ice is, Mel, rather than where the thickening ice is. If it's in the north atlantic and a bunce of fresh water is being dunked in massive quanitities into the north atlantic, it can change the salinity levels there which, if drastic enough, would fuck up the Deep Ocean Conveyor. That would have dire consequenses for the North American and European climate, at least.
The Deep Ocean Conveyor is propelled by the sinking of cold, salty (Translation: denser) waters in the North Atlantic Ocean. That creates a void that pulls warm, salty surface waters north. The ocean gives up its heat to the atmosphere above the North Atlantic Ocean, and then winds carry the heat east to warm up Europe (god knows it needs some heat over there). If too much fresh water from glatial melt gets dunked into the North Atlantic, its waters could stop sinking. The Conveyor would then stop, eh, conveying. Heat-bearing Gulf Stream waters would no longer flow into the North Atlantic, and European and North American winters would become a lot worse, which in turn means the whole climate year round is fucked up... For the USA and a really big chunk of it's allies...
Here's a pic of how the Deep Ocean Conveyor works... It really does stretch across the planet. Not a terribly bright thing to be screwing with considering it moves warm surface water all over the world.
http://img318.imageshack.us/img318/2626/ocean5wo.gif
Re: More republican attacks against science
The U.S. is doing an outstanding job with regard to protecting our environment. What environmentalist wackos need to concentrate on is terrorizing China, Russia, and others who are heavy poluters of the air. We do not need more money and resources to protecting the environment.
Maybe we ought to shift resources into that milleniums-old technology of irrigation, so these federally subsidized farmers can quite crying about what the drought is doing to their crops. The earth is covered with only 70% water, so there shouldn't be any water complaints anywhere.
Re: More republican attacks against science
Quote:
The U.S. is doing an outstanding job with regard to protecting our environment. What environmentalist wackos need to concentrate on is terrorizing China, Russia, and others who are heavy poluters of the air. We do not need more money and resources to protecting the environment.
That was the essence of my point. It makes very little sense for the US and Western Europe to commit 'economic suicide' in pursuit of further 'last decimal point' improvements in their 5% each global contribution to these problems, while at the same time China, Russia, Eastern Europe, India and most of the southern hemisphere are contributing the other 90% without major effort/investment to mitigate the situation.
Re: More republican attacks against science
Quote:
Originally Posted by two-timer
Maybe we ought to shift resources into that milleniums-old technology of irrigation, so these federally subsidized farmers can quite crying about what the drought is doing to their crops. The earth is covered with only 70% water, so there shouldn't be any water complaints anywhere.
Well, considering that the earth is 70% water, why is it that there is a drought? Hmmm? Most of the water in earth is salt water, anyway, you'd have to get rid of the salt before using it for watering crops.
Re: More republican attacks against science
^ My old hometown, a tiny place of about 10,000 people, is building a desalinization plant at a cost of $3 million. And that's for potable water, not agricultural use.
Re: More republican attacks against science
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casual Observer
^ My old hometown, a tiny place of about 10,000 people, is building a desalinization plant at a cost of $3 million. And that's for potable water, not agricultural use.
I wonder how much it is going to cost to run that thing. Any ideas on the tech they are going to be using? Saudi Arabia uses filters and if they didn't have the oil money that place would be shut down for inefficiency.
Re: More republican attacks against science
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
...which brings us back around to the original point of the Committee's requests for additional information which could shed more light on both the 'objectivity' and 'political motivation' behind researchers and the conclusions they have drawn....
The is not typically how scientific research works or progresses. Science has developed a methodology for the advancement of knowledge through an openeness of research methods and results, a lengthy peer review process of research and finally when judged to be worthy after carefull examination by a number of unnamed leaders in the particular field (unnamed except to the staff of the publication), the research is published. Science inches ahead. The process is apolitical and always has been.
Generally a peer-reviewed journal publication includes a sufficient amount of information so that another researcher could duplicate the research and reach the same results. Any research effort whose goal is peer-review publication is already "audited" by this generations old process. The source of the funding is always reported, but is irrelevant to the peer-review process and worthiness of the results for publication. The same goes for the use of the money. If a research group's efforts are fruitless and unrecognized as valid within that community of scientists, funding will go elsewhere. If the team blew all the money on a wild week in Vegas but still managed to get publication in Nature or Science (by far the most respected peer-reviewed journals in any field), then no one funding the research will give a damn, because the results of their funding were spectacular. This is why peer review publication has and does remain the best means for avoiding political influence, or funding bias.
The problem has been that politically partisan media organizations frequently cite unrecognized scientists or research as worthy of the same consideration as research that has passed the rigorous process of peer review.
The author of the non-peer reviewed article about global warming you cite is one of these fringe scientists, whose only respect seems to be from unlearned Energy industry mouthpieces and the general legions of dittoheads that pine over every breath of their hero. Take note that the researchers criticized in that article published their results in Nature. This may reek of elitism, but it is the mature process in place. No alternative is recognized.
That said, it is possible your boy is right and the field leaders are not, but the odds are heavily against it.
For a much more detailed examination of peer review and this time honored process of how science slowly and carefully enters the domain of accepted knowledge see:
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/PDF/peerReview.pdf
Re: More republican attacks against science
stant, that is exactly what I was thinking. Thank you for explaining it so well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deogol
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...072201658.html
Many scientists and some of Mr. Barton's Republican colleagues say they were stunned by the manner in which the committee, whose chairman rejects the existence of climate change, demanded personal and private information last month from researchers whose work supports a contrary conclusion. The scientists, co-authors of an influential 1999 study showing a dramatic increase in global warming over the past millennium, were told to hand over not only raw data but personal financial information, information on grants received and distributed, and computer codes.
Doesn't this just reek of witchhunt?
Perhaps we should check out Mr. Bartosn's personal information and see whether he belongs to the Flat Earth Society?!?
Re: More republican attacks against science
As Mad pointed out, we're due for an ice age any day now. I keep wondering if anthropogenic climate change will counteract and stave off the inevitable global cooling....????
Re: More republican attacks against science
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicolina
As Mad pointed out, we're due for an ice age any day now. I keep wondering if anthropogenic climate change will counteract and stave off the inevitable global cooling....????
God, those big words make me hot... }:D
Re: More republican attacks against science
Quote:
Originally Posted by colleen
Doesn't this just reek of witchhunt?
Why yes, it certianly does