So you agree with Blatham that scientists receiving funding from the oil and coal companies will rig the science in favor of those companies? Or can we think that those who would excessively state a mistruth in deference to their client's needs are more the exception than the rule?
However, having dealt with 'expert witnesses' for a good portion of my life, I do know you hire the witness who will say what you want said, and, when I had occasion to be one of those 'expert witnesses', I answered only what was asked and did not report everything I knew. Neither time, however, was I asked to lie about anything.
But if we go with the point of view that scientists do lie for the benefit of whomever is paying them, then wouldn't we have to throw out all science and start over with sundials or something?
Foxfyre wrote:So you agree with Blatham that scientists receiving funding from the oil and coal companies will rig the science in favor of those companies? Or can we think that those who would excessively state a mistruth in deference to their client's needs are more the exception than the rule?
However, having dealt with 'expert witnesses' for a good portion of my life, I do know you hire the witness who will say what you want said, and, when I had occasion to be one of those 'expert witnesses', I answered only what was asked and did not report everything I knew. Neither time, however, was I asked to lie about anything.
But if we go with the point of view that scientists do lie for the benefit of whomever is paying them, then wouldn't we have to throw out all science and start over with sundials or something?
My impression is that Blatham asserts that ONLY the scientists who speak out against AGW are corrupt and necessarily in the pay of evil corporations - all others are noble, trustworthy and utterly reliable. My view is that they are all very human, reflecting very well your impressions of expert witnesses.
AGW is a hot, popular issue right now. A good way to get a grant application approved; to get notoriety for a published scientific paper; or to get a moment of fame by using an already discredited numerical model to forecast the imminent demise of the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic due to glacier melting - is to cast it all in the light of this hot, popular issue. Venality is - in the normal way of human nature - well-distributed on both sides of the AGW issue.
You two have an impressive ability to construct cognitive devices facilitating a real blindness consonant with ideology.
These corporations, threatened, WILL procede precisely as tobacco proceded. They WILL find scientists willing to forward industry-friendly views. It WILL be a primary public relations strategy. It is absolutely predictable.
How much credibility do you two give to the scientists working in the pay of tobacco who challenged data on nicotine addictiveness? And the scientific voices arrayed against tobacco....equally greed driven? Give me a phucking break.
As I said earlier, and as I've provided countless examples of, there is nearly a one to one correspondence between GW skeptic scientists and organizations with funding from the energy companies.
georgeob1 wrote:Foxfyre wrote:So you agree with Blatham that scientists receiving funding from the oil and coal companies will rig the science in favor of those companies? Or can we think that those who would excessively state a mistruth in deference to their client's needs are more the exception than the rule?
However, having dealt with 'expert witnesses' for a good portion of my life, I do know you hire the witness who will say what you want said, and, when I had occasion to be one of those 'expert witnesses', I answered only what was asked and did not report everything I knew. Neither time, however, was I asked to lie about anything.
But if we go with the point of view that scientists do lie for the benefit of whomever is paying them, then wouldn't we have to throw out all science and start over with sundials or something?
My impression is that Blatham asserts that ONLY the scientists who speak out against AGW are corrupt and necessarily in the pay of evil corporations - all others are noble, trustworthy and utterly reliable. My view is that they are all very human, reflecting very well your impressions of expert witnesses.
AGW is a hot, popular issue right now. A good way to get a grant application approved; to get notoriety for a published scientific paper; or to get a moment of fame by using an already discredited numerical model to forecast the imminent demise of the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic due to glacier melting - is to cast it all in the light of this hot, popular issue. Venality is - in the normal way of human nature - well-distributed on both sides of the AGW issue.
You two have an impressive ability to construct cognitive devices facilitating a real blindness consonant with ideology.
These corporations, threatened, WILL procede precisely as tobacco proceded. They WILL find scientists willing to forward industry-friendly views. It WILL be a primary public relations strategy. It is absolutely predictable.
How much credibility do you two give to the scientists working in the pay of tobacco who challenged data on nicotine addictiveness? And the scientific voices arrayed against tobacco....equally greed driven? Give me a phucking break.
As I said earlier, and as I've provided countless examples of, there is nearly a one to one correspondence between GW skeptic scientists and organizations with funding from the energy companies.
I am not and have never been funded, or otherwise been influenced by any corporation to express my conclusions regarding the causes of global warming. My conclusions, based in part on my 1940s highschool physics and chemistry education, my 1950s undergraduate physics and chemistry training, and my 1970s graduate physics training, all occurred independently of any corporate influence. My conclusion that the 1.110 degrees Celsius (1.998 degrees Fahrenheit) increase in the average annual temperature of the earth's surface (includes both the earth's liquid and solid surfaces) between 1909 and 1998, is caused by other than human beings, is based on ten facts:
(1) Evaporated sea water is the primary source of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
(2) As the sea water warms it evaporates at a greater rate into the atmosphere, and as the sea water cools it evaporates at a slower rate into the atmosphere.
(3) Whenever it rains in a region, some of the CO2 in the atmosphere of that region is precipitated along with the H2O in the atmosphere of that region.
(4) The events described in (2) and (3) have been occurring for millions of years.
(5) Since 1909 and up to 1998, the number of sunspots on the surface of the sun has been increasing.
(6) Since 1909 and up to 1998, the intensity of the radiations from the sun to the earth have been increasing.
(7) Since 1909 and up to 1998, the trend in the average annual temperatures of the earth's surface has been increasing.
(8) Since 1998, the number of sunspots on the surface of the sun has been decreasing.
(9) Since 1998, the intensity of the radiations from the sun to the earth have been decreasing.
(10) Since 1998, the average annual temperatures of the earth's surface have decreased 0.125 degrees Celsius (0.225 degrees Fahrenheit).
Ask me nicely, and I shall again post here my sources of these facts.
...
GW, true or not, does not change my mind on the steps I feel we should take to pollute less and use renewable resources.
Fuel standard puts diesel in driver's seat
David Booth, National Post
Published: Friday, December 14, 2007
Diesels may yet get to shine in North America. Yes, that's a complete about-face compared with my opinion of just a few months ago when I trumpeted the fuel economy and sophistication of modern oil burners but lamented their ruined reputation here in Canada and the United States. So, what's changed, you ask?
Simple. After decades (the original U.S. regulations were enacted in 1975), it looks like there will finally be new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards south of the border. Like all government regulations, the actual wording and results of the new bill can get extremely complicated, but the basic gist of the deal requires that domestic manufacturers' fleets average 35 miles per U.S. gallon (fuel economy standards are all in American units of measurement) by 2020.
When you consider the typical car in Europe already averages 37 miles per gallon while Japanese fleets eke out a miserly 45 mpg, that's hardly David Suzuki-pleasing greenness.
On the other hand, the existing standards require but 27.5 mpg, and the domestic auto-makers have failed to reach even that profligate figure.
Assuming, then, that the new law contains sufficient penalties as to "motivate" the manufacturers to end their wasteful ways, Detroit will have to give the bum's rush to a significant number of its fleet. And, though the generalist media talks up an entire host of alternatives to the infernal gas guzzlers -- Tesla electric cars, hydrogen fuel cells, etc. -- almost all are so impractical or expensive that it quickly becomes a one-horse race.
Pure electric cars are simply too impractical to even discuss rationally. Hydrogen cars point to our future, but, despite recent introductions of a spate of fuel cell "prototypes," their widespread implementation is limited by the paucity of refuelling stations, something that will hinder the progress of the good car Hindenburg long past 2020.
Hybrids, at first blush, seem to make some sense. Though Prius-sized econoboxes hardly solve the problem-- their fuel economy advantages versus similar-sized, gas-powered-only compacts are simply not good enough--larger versions such as the recently introduced GMC Yukon SUV two-mode hybrid have some merit.
Nonetheless, there remain underlying and seemingly insurmountable cost issues. As everyone following the green movement knows, hybrids use both gasoline and electric motors to generate power. But, while that combination is the source of their fuel savings, it is also their Waterloo. In the most sophisticated hybrids (that is, anything not disingenuously labelled a "mild" hybrid), there are essentially two complete powertrains. The first is a gasoline engine that is generally as sophisticated --and, therefore, as costly --as any conventional automobile. On top of that, however, each must also have a complete electric motor powertrain, and the transmission required to join the engine/motor in matrimonial bliss is much more complicated (and, again, more costly) than in a typical sedan. Factor in the significant cost of the raft of batteries hybrids require and there's a cost-benefit ratio that simply can't work, especially at the lower end of the market. Yes, economies of scale will eventually reduce the cost of hybrid-related technology, but there is no possibility that a vehicle requiring two powertrains will ever compete on a price basis with a car that requires but one.
This is where the diesel engine comes in. Currently, Rudolf Diesel's toy also demands a premium. At least part of any price increase for diesel technology here in North America is marketing, plus the fact that so few diesel-powered automobiles are sold. Some of the premium, however, is justified by the extra toughness of a diesel engine's parts (because of the high-compression ratios necessary for a diesel engine to operate) and the enormously robust fuel injection systems (again, same reason).
But, unlike hybrids, which must factor in the cost of two powertrains, economies of scale can reduce the diesel's price premium by a significant degree. Diesels also use virtually the same transmissions as gas-powered vehicles. It would be a safe bet that, given sufficient development and production capacity, a diesel might cost only a few hundred dollars more than an equivalent gasoline engine, a feat all but impossible for hybrids.
Oh, a bunch of fuel pumps would have to be switched over from gasoline to diesel and we would have to become more careful about the transportation process as spilled diesel leaves a long-lasting slippery residue that is dangerous, not to mention smelly.
Nonetheless, assuming these new American regulations have some teeth, we should expect diesels to become more popular. They are the most expedient and cost-effective solution for attaining increased fuel economy from an entire fleet of vehicles.
[email protected]
maporsche wrote:
...
GW, true or not, does not change my mind on the steps I feel we should take to pollute less and use renewable resources.
The falsity of human caused global warming "does not change my mind on the steps I feel we should take to pollute less and use renewable resources"--if there actually ever be such a thing as a "renewable" resource. Nuclear fuel is not renewable and creates a serious waste disposal problem. Corn, sugar cane, other farm products, and excrement are not renewable resources. They are at best merely replaceable resources. Windmills depend on winds that do not always re-new when you need them, and must from time to time be repaired with new windmill parts when they wear out. Photo-electric cells depend on relatively clear skies that do not always renew when you need them, and must be replaced from time to time when they wear out. But there is nothing wrong with trying to develop perpetual motion machines or systems if you can afford the time and resources.
Indeed you go on in the last section to assert the one-to-one correspondence between AGW skeptics and bribery (in one form or another) by energy companies - thus claiming that all (without exception)
ican711nm wrote:
I am not and have never been funded, or otherwise been influenced by any corporation to express my conclusions regarding the causes of global warming. My conclusions, based in part on my 1940s highschool physics and chemistry education, my 1950s undergraduate physics and chemistry training, and my 1970s graduate physics training, all occurred independently of any corporate influence. My conclusion that the 1.110 degrees Celsius (1.998 degrees Fahrenheit) increase in the average annual temperature of the earth's surface (includes both the earth's liquid and solid surfaces) between 1909 and 1998, is caused by other than human beings, is based on ten facts:
(1) Evaporated sea water is the primary source of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
(2) As the sea water warms it evaporates at a greater rate into the atmosphere, and as the sea water cools it evaporates at a slower rate into the atmosphere.
(3) Whenever it rains in a region, some of the CO2 in the atmosphere of that region is precipitated along with the H2O in the atmosphere of that region.
(4) The events described in (2) and (3) have been occurring for millions of years.
(5) Since 1909 and up to 1998, the number of sunspots on the surface of the sun has been increasing.
(6) Since 1909 and up to 1998, the intensity of the radiations from the sun to the earth have been increasing.
(7) Since 1909 and up to 1998, the trend in the average annual temperatures of the earth's surface has been increasing.
(8) Since 1998, the number of sunspots on the surface of the sun has been decreasing.
(9) Since 1998, the intensity of the radiations from the sun to the earth have been decreasing.
(10) Since 1998, the average annual temperatures of the earth's surface have decreased 0.125 degrees Celsius (0.225 degrees Fahrenheit).
Ask me nicely, and I shall again post here my sources of these facts.
Ican, I truly hope you're right.
Even if you are correct and GW is proven to be solely caused by increases in the sun's radience or volcanic activity or other earthly events that man cannot control. I will STILL support transitioning my own energy use to renewable energy and vote for politicians who will do the same. The cost to do this is very small, but the benefit is GREAT. No more oil is a political goal that is as great as any in the history of our nation. It's right up there with freedom. Our freedom is in the hands of those in the middle east. As others have pointed out, our very way of life is in jeopardy of those over there who hate us.
GW, true or not, does not change my mind on the steps I feel we should take to pollute less and use renewable resources.
[...]
The effects of climate change are diverse and sometimes contradictory. In general, they favor instability and extreme events. On balance, they will tend to harm health rather than promote it.
[...]
Predictions of how global warming could affect people's health are crude. They are based on the experience of the past several decades, when there has been a small, well-documented rise in the temperatures of the planet's atmosphere and oceans. What that says about the future -- a time when warming is expected to accelerate, but people may be able to prepare for it -- is quite uncertain.
[...]
n the United States, most public discussion of global warming has been about ways to slow the phenomenon, and not about ways to dampen or prevent effects that are already inevitable.
"We are a good decade behind Europe in designing and developing adaptations that will decrease our vulnerability and increase our resilience," said Ebi, the epidemiologist.
Such planning is wise not only for the federal government and states, but for cities and towns as well, Ebi believes.
"The impacts of climate change really do depend on your local context," she said.
blatham wrote:georgeob1 wrote:Foxfyre wrote:So you agree with Blatham that scientists receiving funding from the oil and coal companies will rig the science in favor of those companies? Or can we think that those who would excessively state a mistruth in deference to their client's needs are more the exception than the rule?
However, having dealt with 'expert witnesses' for a good portion of my life, I do know you hire the witness who will say what you want said, and, when I had occasion to be one of those 'expert witnesses', I answered only what was asked and did not report everything I knew. Neither time, however, was I asked to lie about anything.
But if we go with the point of view that scientists do lie for the benefit of whomever is paying them, then wouldn't we have to throw out all science and start over with sundials or something?
My impression is that Blatham asserts that ONLY the scientists who speak out against AGW are corrupt and necessarily in the pay of evil corporations - all others are noble, trustworthy and utterly reliable. My view is that they are all very human, reflecting very well your impressions of expert witnesses.
AGW is a hot, popular issue right now. A good way to get a grant application approved; to get notoriety for a published scientific paper; or to get a moment of fame by using an already discredited numerical model to forecast the imminent demise of the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic due to glacier melting - is to cast it all in the light of this hot, popular issue. Venality is - in the normal way of human nature - well-distributed on both sides of the AGW issue.
You two have an impressive ability to construct cognitive devices facilitating a real blindness consonant with ideology.
These corporations, threatened, WILL procede precisely as tobacco proceded. They WILL find scientists willing to forward industry-friendly views. It WILL be a primary public relations strategy. It is absolutely predictable.
How much credibility do you two give to the scientists working in the pay of tobacco who challenged data on nicotine addictiveness? And the scientific voices arrayed against tobacco....equally greed driven? Give me a phucking break.
As I said earlier, and as I've provided countless examples of, there is nearly a one to one correspondence between GW skeptic scientists and organizations with funding from the energy companies.
I am not and have never been funded, or otherwise been influenced by any corporation to express my conclusions regarding the causes of global warming. My conclusions, based in part on my 1940s highschool physics and chemistry education, my 1950s undergraduate physics and chemistry training, and my 1970s graduate physics training, all occurred independently of any corporate influence. My conclusion that the 1.110 degrees Celsius (1.998 degrees Fahrenheit) increase in the average annual temperature of the earth's surface (includes both the earth's liquid and solid surfaces) between 1909 and 1998, is caused by other than human beings, is based on ten facts:
(1) Evaporated sea water is the primary source of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
(2) As the sea water warms it evaporates at a greater rate into the atmosphere, and as the sea water cools it evaporates at a slower rate into the atmosphere.
(3) Whenever it rains in a region, some of the CO2 in the atmosphere of that region is precipitated along with the H2O in the atmosphere of that region.
(4) The events described in (2) and (3) have been occurring for millions of years.
(5) Since 1909 and up to 1998, the number of sunspots on the surface of the sun has been increasing.
(6) Since 1909 and up to 1998, the intensity of the radiations from the sun to the earth have been increasing.
(7) Since 1909 and up to 1998, the trend in the average annual temperatures of the earth's surface has been increasing.
(8) Since 1998, the number of sunspots on the surface of the sun has been decreasing.
(9) Since 1998, the intensity of the radiations from the sun to the earth have been decreasing.
(10) Since 1998, the average annual temperatures of the earth's surface have decreased 0.125 degrees Celsius (0.225 degrees Fahrenheit).
Ask me nicely, and I shall again post here my sources of these facts.
I find it humorous as well that the title says "could decline" rather than "will decline." My response is -- well, do tell. Health could decline, stay the same, or increase? Great research there. Temperatures could decline, stay the same, or increase, a scientific paper is surely needed to report such startling news.
I get the impression that you didn't read more than the title of that report.
