Slashdot Mirror
Lamar Smith, Future Chairman For the House Committee On Science, Space, and Tech
An anonymous reader writes "Lamar Smith, a global warming skeptic, will become the new chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Someone who disagrees with the vast majority of scientists will be given partial jurisdiction over NASA, EPA, DOE, NSF, NOAA, and the USGS. When will candidates who are actually qualified to represent science or at a minimum show an interest in it be the representatives of science with regard to political decision-making?"
I know where are mexican politics taking their ideas from
Please vote them in to office.
I hope this caused some synapses to fire.
Hall's opposition was even more pronounced. One could even say that by appointing Lamar Smith, who only attacked "one sided coverage" (vs the 88 year old Hall's direct attack on the science), that Texas may be slowly warming up to the idea... http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/12/ralph-hall-speaks-out-on-climate.html
Gently reply
Opposing something means you are interested enough in it to oppose it.
Politicians become politicians BECAUSE they're inept in every other field. Therefore politicians will never be qualified to represent .
I'm sure Gordon Freeman will be glad to know that Lamarr is in charge.
If he were merely a skeptic, that's ok; a skeptic is a person who's willing to look at the data and see what they say.
However, far too many of the people who call themselves "skeptics" are in fact not skeptics at all, but global-warming deniers: they don't care what the data is, and aren't really interested in learning. They're not really skeptical, because they already have their conclusion, and are only interested in arguments that support it.
To quote S. Fred Singer, "The deniers are giving us skeptics a bad name."
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
When will candidates who are actually qualified to represent science or at a minimum show an interest in it be the representatives of science with regard to political decision-making?
When a majority starts using their brains to vote. Which means, probably never.
Religious nut in charge of science and technology... This will not end well for the usa.
Ask not for whom the bone bones - it bones for thee.
Royally.
That's a funny way to spell "denier".
The question is whether he's a denier because he sincerely wants to believe there's not a problem, because there's money and power at stake, or both.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
The candidate (Lamar Smith) is not there to represent science, so he doesn't really need to be qualified for that. He's not there to represent NASA, EPA, DOE, NSF, NOAA, and the USGS. He's there to represent the people who elected him, and more broadly all of the people of the US. Just playing devil's advocate here. Not everyone in the US agrees with all things science.
Only those who conform to what other people think is scientific enough to be in a position of influence!
Seems to me like someone has at last made the correct choice to give the global warmies and the climate clan a bit of a hard time well done .
People like this are the reason that scientists need to be very careful to present their data in an unbiased fashion. The temptation to show "simple" or "clear" data that supports something they are sure is true needs to be resisted. Any evidence that the scientists are in any way biasing their data can be used politically to discredit the entire field.
Define "vast majority of scientists"
If you want someone who understands science better, then someone like Roscoe Bartlett should not have been voted out of office, given the fact that he holds a PhD is physiology and is a former NASA engineer. Stop voting for politicians, vote for people with real world experience and technical knowledge. Get rid of the lawyers and elect doctors and scientists.
sudo make me a sandwich
He is just there to sabotage science, technology and reason. It is as simple as that. My friend who is in local politics says it very standard practice for a person to join or chair a committee for the sole purpose of sabotaging the committee and what it stands for. Kinda like the ole fox guarding the hen house. So it's just not a matter of a poor choice, it's an agenda.
So he's skeptical of human-made global warming. How does that make him unqualified? The evidence is still inconclusive. Just because you believe it to be true doesn't mean it necessarily is. It very well may be, but we don't know for certain.
From what I've learned about the subject, I'm convinced that global warming is happening, and that it's not part of the natural warming-cooling cycles. However, it is not beyond a shadow of a doubt, let alone "proven."
Now, if he said that evolution is a lie straight from Hell, and that the world is only 9,000 years old, then I'd agree that he's unqualified. The evidence in favor of evolution is conclusive, even if it isn't absolutely provable.
Why is it that all the Republicans on the House Committee of Science, Space and Technology; Deny Science {Evolution,Global Warming, etc.}, don't understand Technology {The Internet is a "series of tubes"} and are just a waste of Space?!?
"It's an imperfect world,screws fall out..."
> When will candidates who are actually qualified to represent science ... be the representatives of science with regard to political decision-making?
You know that Steven Chu is secretary of energy, right? And that the department of energy has a Basic Energy Sciences division which gets a lot of federal science money?
And wasn't there a slashdot story about a physicist-turned-congressman lately?
I mean, yes, I'd like it if it happened more often, and I'm not defending Lamar Smith's qualifications, but it's childish and petty to pretend that it _never_ happens.
2*3*3*3*3*11*251
To all of Slashdot's out-of-US readers: On behalf of the United States of America, I apologize for this event. I do not live in Smith's Congressional district; nor would I have dare voted that anti-freedom, anti-technology SOPA author and professional monster to Congress (let alone this apparently influential committee position) if I did.
Smith has left great bruises on the certainty of a free internet and will now leave a great and lasting scar on Science and the Useful Arts. He will not endanger the science of "climate change" or "global warming", he will endanger knowledge itself.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
"When will candidates who are actually qualified to represent science or at a minimum show an interest in it be the representatives of science with regard to political decision-making?"
When more scientists step up and become congresscritters of course. Until then....
It looks like the GOP doesn't think they have done a thorough enough job of convincing us that they have all either sold out or lost their freaking minds. Or both.
Upon reading up on this Lamar Smith guy, I'm convinced he has an agenda motivated by religion. Just look at the guys schooling, views on abortion, on cannibis, etc. Looks like we'll be back in the Dark Ages again.
The platform he has on his web site says:
"Like many Americans, I am concerned about the environment. The Earth has undergone tremendous change in the past and is experiencing similar change now. Climate change has the potential to impact agriculture, ecosystems, sea levels, weather patterns, and human health.
It is our responsibility to take steps to improve the quality of our land, water and air for ourselves and for future generations. We can do this by developing and expanding clean energy technologies, relying less on foreign oil, and utilizing a common sense approach to conservation.
As a member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, I am committed to ensuring that we rely on good science to guide our strategies in dealing with the environment."
So honestly it seems that he has changed his mind on the issue, and this article seems one sided as the attached link is from 2009, and im of liberal standpoint, that doesnt mean we should be unfair...
Just because a vast majority believe a certain thing to be true does not make it so. Things all fall at the same rate, the Earth revolves around the Sun, the Earth is a spheroid, etc. None of these beliefs was held by the vast majority at some time in the past. I don't know if there is global warming or not. Some of the data show a rise in sea level and a loss of polar ice. Is this man-made, man-enhanced, or just a natural cycle that the Earth is going through? How much carbon is put into the air from forest fires, volcanoes, etc.? How does that compare to what the cars and other man-made carbon spewers put into the air? Some unbiased data would be good. It is unfortunate that big business (and government, which really is just another big business) pays for most research. It makes it very hard to publish a study with a conclusion different from what the sponsor would like. Just my $0.02.
FYI:
Congress does not represent a abstract group of people called "scientists" or this thing your naming as "science" or "interests of science".
Each representative and senator represents the majority of their districts, and Congress as a whole is theoretically representative of The People- not some kind of fabricated "group authority of experts" that often called "scientists". Its not relevant if he disagrees with your opinion, even if you choose to represent your opinion or even the opinion of a small group as "the vast majority of some such group who know everything about what is true concerning everything".
So you ask: "When will candidates who are actually qualified to represent science or at a minimum show an interest in it be the representatives of science with regard to political decision-making?"
Candidates are not supposed to represent "Science". They represent The People. Not you. Not a small group of so-called experts. And not some kind of fantasy of belief that "SCIENCE" needs to be represented at all, or merits any representation.
Finally, we'll get some sensibility and order to our so-called "science." This man will, by decree, ensure that there is no global warming, that all angles are obtuse - to avoid anyone getting poked - precisely identify how old the universe is, and declare cancer illegal, except in those cases where it brings in money for research companies and drug manufacturers. Oh, happy day! So much uncertainty will be wiped away by legislation. Imaginary numbers will no longer vex us. Glass will be neither a liquid nor a solid, or even a super-cooled liquid: it will be "magic" by God's intent. Take that you scientists with your harsh realities.
Faith-based science! Well he IS a Christian Scientist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamar_S._Smith#Personal_life
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
If you really believe that, how you managed to coordinate both of your moldy braincells long enough to stop drooling on the keyboard and post?
Oh right, paid shill. Move along.
He's also a "Christian scientist", which I'll let wiki explain
"Christian Scientists believe that sickness and disease are the result of fear, ignorance, or sin, and should be healed through prayer or introspection. Combined with a belief that the use of medicine is incompatible with Christian Science healing methods, this has led to outbreaks of preventable disease and a number of deaths. Its claim that sickness can be healed through prayer rather than medicine, its rejection of science as illusory, and its attempts to present itself as science make Christian Science a pseudoscience, in the view of philosopher John R. Searle."
The real reason for pushback against the global warmist 'consensus' is that it is frankly both scientific and political. It starts with observations of global climate, and ends up with the undeniable and unquestionable conclusion that First-World governments must do whatever it takes to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions in their countries. The entire chain of reasoning from observation to required government policy has been so sanctified that any one who questions or doubts even the tiniest aspect of it is labeled a "denier", implying that they are just as bad or worse than those who deny the Holucaust.
It's very puzzling that scientist's predictions of how an imperfectly-understood chaotic system will behave in the future, and recommendations for one particular policy approach to dealing with it, have achieved the inerrant status of Holy Writ, so that those who question any aspect of it must be burned at the stake.
Lets not forget that he is a notorious copyright troll and corporate sock puppet for the MPAA and RIAA. PIPA, that was him......
It would be good to have a skeptic, someone who won't just dive in with spending trillions and curtailing rights every time someone brings up the climate change bogeyman.
What I am worried about is this guy is in the pocket of the entertainment industry. He wanted to strengthen the DMCA's provision on anti-circumvention software, and this is THE guy who introduced SOPA.
I really hate it when the headline isn't even a complete sentence.
That's like having Michele Bachmann on the Intelligence Committee. Oh, wait.
Actually, that is an insult to ass wipes which can be quite useful in a pinch.
That's crazy! This is the worst possible person for the job in the whole fucking world! This guy isn't a global warming skeptic, he's an outright, card-carrying denier.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
You have a religious interpretation of a scientific issue. Science doesn't matter how he "feels" or what he "believes". They are orthogonal.
All that matters is what he plans to do. I think he's planning to do the right thing, with right thing defined as causing the least overall human suffering.
I really don't care which sky god told him to do it, or what jumbled up mystery bounces around inside his head. Just continue to do the right thing and I'm happy.
It would be "nice" if he was in the community of the rational, but I'll take "doin the right thing" over that any day as a pragmatic outlook.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
How about we put him in charge? Huh? Because bat shit crazy has no party affiliation.
[citation needed] I think the viewpoint of "Yes, the numbers show warming, and no, government policy should not address the problem," is somewhat rare in itself. (But maybe I'm wrong about that.) And I have never heard of anyone who says that, being labeled as a denier. Not that it couldn't happen, but..
Wait, you're saying that you have not only witnessed this 1) rare position of acknowledging the measurements 2) seen the acknowledgement mislabeled as denial 3) seen the aforementioned mislabeling done repeatedly and consistently as a pattern? (I'm trying to rule out fringe crackpots.)
You've got three pretty small probabilities being multiplied by one another. I can believe the first: an anarchist could hold that position. Maybe some libertarians, if they get over that whole someone-elses-pollution-is-a-form-of-force-against-me thing. But step 2 is something truly bizarre (i.e. crazy homeless guy territory, or maybe extreme illiteracy where they don't know the meaning of "to deny" and lack capacity to use a dictionary) and step 3 would require an organized religion of some kind. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it would sure be interesting and amusing. You really have seen it? Has anyone ever written that somewhere on the Internet?
Even literally burning ideological opponents at the stake over this, would be a less surprising reaction than the scenario you described in your first paragraph, where such opponents are being labeled as deniers.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Because on /., if one disagrees with one part of one field of science, you disagree with all science.
Which did they misspell first, lamer or Lamar?
If global warming and sea levels going up is a FACT, then why is even one cent of tax money going to rebuilding cities that are under the current sea level (New Orleans after Katrina) and rebuilding on the current coastline (New Jersey after Sandy). No matter what mitigation methods might be used, it seems to be a FACT that sea levels are going to rise. If you can't stop the huge waste of tax money on these projects, then forget about using more tax money for feel good measures. No more levees should be built to hold back the sea (could be used for seasonal rises in rivers though). Don't blame the rebuilding on the Republicans.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/20/sopa-withdrawn-lamar-smith_n_1219250.html
Is that the same lamar smith?
The problem is, smart people with degrees and experience in science and the ability to not only make reasoned, clear arguments, but to look at the evidence and weigh the matter at hand on merit of facts, do not want to enter politics.
Those most often running for office are the least qualified. Those most qualified have no interest in that wretched hive of scum and villainy. ...Xaks
Nice. I agree.
No science is ever "provable." Or can be.
And if he were skeptical, that wouldn't be a problem. But he seems to have made up his mind--not from looking at the scientific evidence, but based on economic interests. Mitigation would cost his owners money, so it can't be true. That's not skepticism.
Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
Was wondering if the smart people were just abandoning this site.
> why is even one cent of tax money going to rebuilding cities that are under the current sea level
Oh I agree you completely. This money is being wasted in a bipartisan way.
The word "skeptic" implies some rational basis for doubt,
He's a denier.
"Someone who disagrees with the vast majority of scientists" - As if this is some kind of problem. Here is a list of people who would (or did at one point) qualify for that title:
* Einstein
* Galileo
* Nicolaus Copernicus
Now I'm not suggesting that this congressman is a modern Einstein. But we should not disparage climate skeptics.
ALSO: When the government's only solution to the problem involves either a worldwide regulatory regime, or some kind of Keynesian corporatist carbon-credits program, I have no problem with government being controlled by Climate skeptics, or even Climate Deniers for that matter.
If you care about the environment. actually DO SOMETHING. Don't go crying to the government expecting them to do something about it.
IS religion believes that god won't let anything jn happen to the world, so Global Warming isn't real.
Soon to be: Global warming is gods plan.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Science doesn't matter how he "feels" or what he "believes".
I keep trying to tell various AGW fanatics that, but it never penetrates. Maybe seeing it come from somebody they can consider to be on "their side" will make them believe it. Not, of course, that it matters if they believe it or not.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
I can see the NSF starting to issue CFPs for researchers to find Noah's Ark. What nobody realizes is that it's in the same warehouse as the Ark of the Covenant.
"Imaginary solutions to real problems."
"Someone who disagrees with the vast majority of scientists will be given partial jurisdiction over NASA, EPA, DOE, NSF, NOAA, and the USGS."
This is pure, unmitigated bullshit. These are Executive Branch agencies and Congress has ZERO jurisdiction over them, outside of changing the laws, which requires the President's approval in 99.999% of cases.
He'll be able to be a blowhard, but he won't be able to dictate agency policy.
If you're too stupid to get that there can still be SIGNAL of anthropegenic global warming in the NOISE of random CLIMATE VARIATION, you don't belong on slashdot. Go argue on a reality TV show fan site or something. J@sus!
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
The ones writing scientific articles in the peer-reviewed scientific journals.
You know, the ones who have spent 10 years post-secondary science education studying the details of the physics and chemistry of the atmosphere and oceans to the level of accepted PhD thesis, then gone on to do say 5-years post-doctoral research in a relevant specialty, then conducted accepted peer-reviewed research in these fields for years or decades.
Those ones. Especially the ones that have no funding associations with the fossil fuel industry.
If you seriously have no clue as to how to evaluate the credibility of sources of information, you're in a deep morass of ignorant hurt.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Lamar Smith has one of the worst track records when it comes to science. In fact, he is probably the last person you want to get such a position. What's going on here?? All I can say is: Follow the money...
To all of you, who say great, got a man in a position to ignore Global Warming, I have to ask you. Do you think that's all NASA, EPA, DOE, NSF, NOAA, and the USGS do? Have you even the faintest, vaguest idea how important the work of these organizations are to our day to day life, not to mention the critical future of our nation competing with other nations on maintain some miniscule hint of technological leadership in the rest of this century. Have you any idea what kind of damage a Luddite at the helm of our scientific organization can do you our economic viability or the development of our youth as scientists and engineers in a future which is going to DEMAND technological aptitude.
And you BOZOs applaud? Apparently Nero fiddling while ROME burned wasn't such a bizarre thing after all.
Skepticism is key to the scientific method. For someone who supposedly pushes science, I don't see why being skeptical is such a bad thing. To declare man-made global warming as settled science is a stretch.
Let's say that global warming is real. Shouldn't the question be what to do about it? There seems to be just as big a politically charged scientific quagmire proposing, without much humility, to have THE answer. I am not suggesting that nothing be done, but there does seem to be some very costly proposals with little evidence of effectiveness. Costly in monetary terms, opportunity costs, and possible unintended consequences.
That's a great modern myth, but it has nothing to do with reality.
First, Challenger was destroyed by the explosion of its external tank while climbing to orbit after an SRB joint seal failed and a jet of flame caused the aft SRB attach point to fail
Second, the foam impact did not "nearly tore the wing in half" of Columbia. The foam impact punched a hole about the size of a basketball in the leading edge of Columbia's left wing. Had the damage been as severe as you suggest, the orbiter would likely have been destroyed by aerodynamic forces on ascent, or it would have been visible to the ground-based Air Force telescopes that examined Columbia while she was on orbit (photos of that inspection are available online... none of the images was taken at a moment when the vehicle was oriented in a way that a basket-ball sized hole at that location would be visible, so the damage was not seen). The wing was indeed lost when the structure failed during reentry due to hot plasma entering the hole and melting aluminum structural elements during reentry.
Third, it was mangers (a younger generation than the ones who were there when the system was developed... remember: it operated for 30 years) and not scientists or engineers who did not know that foam could harm a shuttle's thermal protection system. While some managers were may well have been engineers previously, once you change "hats" and become a management weenie your analytical skills get rapidly replaced by "people skills" and budget and schedule concerns. The potential for foam lost from the ET to hit and damage an orbiter's TPS was well documented in the 1970s during the system design phase and there were proposals to have the crew carry a repair kit but the technology for such a repair kit was not available at the time so it was decided to minimize the possibility of damage in the first place to the extent possible while still ending up with a system that could fly. The documentation of all of this is in NASA's own archives, some of which are online. Of course, if you get your news from places like MSNBC and Comedy Central you do not know these things.
Well, knowledgeable people are divided on every topic. The question is divided how? If it's 50-50 or even 60-40, I can see some ambiguity. If it's 95-5 or thereabouts (which actually seems to be the case) then it's much less so.
Ah... but WHO are those people? A HUGE number of the "scientists" who support AGW and are often cited with the IPCC materials are not actually scientists of the sort we all generally associate with the term "scientist". Many are not researchers, but are instead, glorified clerks or science journalists, or government officials who hold science degrees etc. and nearly all either make money or stand to make money of AGW is "true" or "settled science" (whether or not it is actually true)
And maybe it's just me, but my mind doesn't go to "holocaust denier" when the term "denier" comes up. I've been hearing the term with regard to global warming for some time, and your post is the first time I've ever seen anybody try to draw that connection, and it certainly wouldn't have occured to *me*.
The you must have an extremely poor history education. The term "Holocaust" was not originally tied to any massacre of Jews; it was a typical word with a specific definition that could be applied where appropriate like any other word... just like the term "denier". The word "Holocaust", however, moved into a special category after it was applied (as no other word seemed more-appropriate to those who encountered the event first-hand) to the systematic NAZI massacre of the Jews. In the years after WWII, profoundly evil people around the world (mostly muslims and/or NAZIs and/or skinheads) sought to deny a history that the entire world had seen... and these people were termed "deniers" (thus moving the term "denier" into the same category as "Holocaust" as a term that we would now associate with "Godwin's law"). The people who started applying the term to anthropogenic global warming (AGW) skeptics openly admitted (and often with glee on their websites) that they were using the term specifically as a political effort to push their political opponents into the NAZI column.
Please pay more attention to both history and current events... as those who forget them are doomed to repeat them
Our founders gave us a very small central government with very limited power over the people, structured as a republic with somewhat democratic electoral processes; the left, however, dreams of ever-larger centralized governments with power over more and more, structured as a "democracy" with an ever-increasing "voter pool" of the ignorant.
Newsflash: As governments grow and get involved in every area of life, every area of life becomes political... and many people find that they can better achieve their ends through politics and government force than through individual acts of productive and responsible activity. Oh, and that "democracy" thing is just formalized mod-rule... So that big shiny "democracy" you dream of is actually your worst nightmare... a club of powerful corrupt lawyers behaving as the meat puppets of the masses, while wielding weapons.
Science doesn't matter how he "feels" or what he "believes".
I keep trying to tell various AGW fanatics that, but it never penetrates.
No wonder: your tack is completely wrong if you interpret science as belief and feelings, and try to convince scientists that science is belief and feelings. Did you try convincing them, with, you know, plausible arguments unpinned with repeatable observations and methodology? That might just swing it.
Science needs skeptics more then fanatics. Only then do we have a chance at finding the truth. I am amazed that people think politics and beliefs are the same thing.
Just because some one has an opinion, that is justifyable, means they a kook? Is it "Global Warming","Weather","Global Cooling", "Ice Age", Mideval (sp) Warm Period, name your choice terms. Some of you educated ones out there, look at the variable star out there, and tell me as the UN and the "Warmists" say, it is not the cause of the 10 years off cooling that we have had. By reading the articles of "science?" here, the more you get to appreciate the arguements of the variable star theory. Oh, its your breath that warms the world, Oh, its your carbon footprint, that warms the world.
Realize, a justification for more war, what would it sound like. A justification for "limiting the number of carbon units" to "service". God, you idiots sound just as bad as the worst of the Nazi with their population control of the undesirables.
Stop and think of what you are becoming. Do you want to be them?.
I met this guy once in a real meeting with genuine conversation. He's actually very bright. He went to Yale for instance. I know that's no guarantee you haven't been infected with some ideology virus, but ask yourself: if you had been to Yale and wanted a lot of red meat eating, capital punishment cheering, cousin marrying Texans to send you to Congress, what sort of stuff would you have to say in public? I really think that thought is at the bottom of a lot of his stuff. I think that he'll be okay as long as the spotlight isn't too bright. We just won't see a lot of progressive science leadership from him.
Q: When will candidates who are actually qualified to represent science or at a minimum show an interest in it be the representatives of science with regard to political decision-making?"
A: when hell freezes over
The US is a nation of dopes. We get the government we deserve, the one we are dumb enough to vote for.
At least we have someone who has the common sense not to swallow the global warming thing hook, line, and sinker. T
While it is clear that the climate is changing, Hall is quite correct to question the integrity of "climate scientists" given their exposed behavior. Academia is very much an old-boys club that demands conformity. So, the fact that "95% of climate scientists agree" is not surprising. Because of the conformist nature of academia and the lack of integrity of the climate-science body of researchers, it is not possible to determine the actual causes of climate change.
I believe global warming, or "climate change" as they so put it, is happening. However, I am skeptical that a majority is the cause of humankind.
Obviously you can be skeptical if you want to. Nevertheless, the evidence of human-induced global warming (aka "climate change") is overwhelming.
Back in the '80's, the deniers said "well, the physics says that carbon dioxide will cause warming, but we don't see it in the actual global temperature measurements (yet), so it's just a theory. NOW, apparently, what you're saying is "well, I agree we see it in the data, but I don't believe in the physics."
So here's the question: what the heck WOULD be considered sufficient evidence to convince the "skeptics"? The theory, computer models, ground temperature measurements, satellite measurements, balloon measurements, vertical temperature profiles, infrared emission spectroscopy-- every measurement says that carbon dioxide warms the planet, and the amount of carbon dioxide we put into the atmosphere is known and measured. As far as I can tell, there IS no possible amount of evidence to convince the "skeptics", because they are not skeptics at all, they are people who already have their conclusion they want and aren't going to change it.
Let me point out the three things that an alternate theory must explain:
1. An alternate theory must provide a mechanism to explain how it is that carbon dioxide does NOT increase global temperature, when the theory says it should. This is theory that's been well known since 1967.
2. The alternate theory must provide a mechanism to explain why the global temperature actually IS warming (coincidentally, just exactly the amount predicted if you take Manabe and Weatherald's 1967 calculation of the effect of carbon dioxide). This mechanism has to account for the fact that we now have good measurements of parameters such as solar intensity-- you can't just handwave; the theory has to fit the measurements, and there a many, many measurements.
3. Whatever mechanism you're proposing for part 2 will include some factor that amplifies a small forcing to an effect large enough to show up in the temperature measurements. Therefore, a third thing that you theory has to explain is why this amplification DOESN'T also amplify the greenhouse forcing.
So far, NOBODY has come up with a theory that fits these three criteria, other than "the greenhouse effect works pretty much as predicted by the models."
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
I am skeptical that humankind is causing more than 50% of whatever it is that contributes to global warming. Hence, if we magically shut down everything for a year, global warming will still continue, but more than half per year of what it was before.
I am not saying that we aren't contributing to global warming. I am saying that I personally don't believe we are responsible for most of it.
However, regardless of my personal opinions, we should do what we can to reduce pollution, whether we're 100% or 0% responsible for global warming. I am for environmentalist. Not a hardcore conservation type, but reasonable.
For one thing, I favor ordinances that make it illegal to use a wood burning stove unless it's someone's primary source of heat (which could simply be due to a power outage). Gas fireplaces are a suitable replacement. The air pollution outside here can be irrating, and I am pretty sure it is someone using a wood burning stove on occasion, even during the summer.
I don't favor bans of inefficient light bulbs, but I do favor excise taxes on them. I don't favor plastic bag bans, but I do favor excise taxes on them. I also would encourage plastic bags be substituted with bio-bags, something which shouldn't be considered plastic bags when it comes to bans if they must be banned (bans I still oppose at the time of this writing).
This is the kind of conservationist I am.
What I don't get is: why bother lying about such things? Everyone knows and expects gerrymandering. It is part of the system, and there's unanimous bipartisan agreement that it should happen (though of course disagreement about who the winning and losing parties should be) and saying that it isn't the primary goal of all redistricting and reapportionment operations, is instantly recognizable as a lie. So why lie?
Republicans and Democrats: don't say you don't gerrymander. Everyone knows you do. If you lie about obvious things, you'll never fool us into believing you when it's time to tell a subtle and not-so-obvious lie.
Unless you've supported some kind of constitutional amendment to have districting done by some kind of impartial algorithm, this unfairness isn't something to be angry about. It's either a desired unfairness that the system is supposed to have, or at least an unavoidable one.
Getting mad at parties for gerrymandering is like getting mad at wasps for injecting eggs into other bugs. Parties' purpose is to win.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
That's right, the rules are the same in all fields, so someone who "disagrees" with science in one field but not in others that follow the same methods and standards is not only a denialist, but also a little bit insane.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
You misunderstand. I'm trying to get AGW fanbois to understand that Science isn't about beliefs and feelings.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Current estimates are that human emissions are responsible for 80-120% of global warming.
Personally, I have my doubts that the people claiming "Global warming is caused by burning fossil fuels, and it will kill us all if we don't STOP RIGHT NOW" folks really believe what they claim to believe.
If they believed it, wouldn't they be gung-ho to replace all our fossil-fuel-burning energy with a source capable of powering industrial/technological civilization that doesn't release CO2?
You'd think so, but (yes, there are exceptions) for the most part, those most gung-ho on the "Stop releasing CO2" thing are also the most vehement "No Nukes Shut Them All Down NOW" folks.
Instead, they pretend to believe, and ask those of us who can do arithmetic to believe, that industrial/technological civilization can be entirely powered by "sunny days when the wind is blowing" energy.
When the nuclear power plants are coming off the assembly line and being hooked up to the grid by the dozens, to the cheering of the AGW crowd (instead of omni-obstructionism) ... then I will believe that they belive it.
I am skeptical that humankind is causing more than 50% of whatever it is that contributes to global warming.
As I said, I can't stop you from calling this "skepticism," but you are basically ignoring the actual evidence, and asserting, without any sort of proof, an alternate hypothesis that there is (1) some as-yet unknown mechanism that makes human-induced warming is less than the models predict, (2) a different as-yet unknown mechanism that accounts for the observed warming matching the warming predicted by the models, and (3) yet another as-yet unknown mechanism that prevents the factors that amplify the forcing of mechanism 2 from also amplifying the greenhouse effect. Let me suggest perhaps you should exert your skepticism on that.
Saying "well, maybe human factors account for half of the warming" may sound like a reasonable compromise position-- "well, each side has points, so the true situation should be about halfway between"-- but this is in fact a logical fallacy known as "argumentum ad temperantiam", or "the fallacy of the mean." http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/middle-ground.html Turns out that the truth is not always halfway between two positions; particularly when there is extensive evidence for one side, and no evidence at all for the other.
Hence, if we magically shut down everything for a year, global warming will still continue, but more than half per year of what it was before.
If we magically shut down everything for a year, global warming would continue due to the carbon dioxide that we've already put into the air-- the effect is cumulative, and has a lag.
I am not saying that we aren't contributing to global warming. I am saying that I personally don't believe we are responsible for most of it.
Your "personal beliefs" are fine; just don't confuse "I personally believe" with "the evidence suggests."
...I don't favor bans of inefficient light bulbs, but I do favor excise taxes on them. I don't favor plastic bag bans, but I do favor excise taxes on them.
As it happens, in the United States the word "tax" is such a politically poisonous word that it is vastly easier to actually ban something than it is to tax it, even though a tax would allow greater freedom of choice and becthe preferred solution for everybody involved.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
You mean like Judith Curry?
Of course you didn't.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I'm more than aware of both the history of the Holocaust and that of "Holocaust deniers." I would agree that Holocaust deniers fall into a special category, but I see no evidence that the term "denier" was dragged along with it.
You use the phrase "Holocaust denier" and that means something to me. You say "denier" on its own and it doesn't evoke the same thing. Sorry.
You were the first to Godwin this discussion, by dragging things into it that weren't there before.
Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
Personally, I have my doubts that the people claiming "Global warming is caused by burning fossil fuels, and it will kill us all if we don't STOP RIGHT NOW" folks really believe what they claim to believe.
If they believed it, wouldn't they be gung-ho to replace all our fossil-fuel-burning energy with a source capable of powering industrial/technological civilization that doesn't release CO2?
Of course they believe it. Its just lots of people want the rainbows and unicorns solution.
You'd think so, but (yes, there are exceptions) for the most part, those most gung-ho on the "Stop releasing CO2" thing are also the most vehement "No Nukes Shut Them All Down NOW" folks.
Color me one of the exceptions. Build them nuke plants until the skyline glows, sez I. I'm not looking for rainbows and unicorns, just something that's sustainable.
Instead, they pretend to believe, and ask those of us who can do arithmetic to believe, that industrial/technological civilization can be entirely powered by "sunny days when the wind is blowing" energy.
When the nuclear power plants are coming off the assembly line and being hooked up to the grid by the dozens, to the cheering of the AGW crowd (instead of omni-obstructionism) ... then I will believe that they belive it.
Considering plenty of people on the other side of the equation can't seem to get the difference between weather and climate straight, it's not that surprising. No one's a special snowflake in this brouhaha for being completely free of cognitive dissonance.
Whoa, Time out... The Boston church of Mary Baker Eddy, which publishes the Christian Science Monitor, is a very legitimate and focused denomination. Some of their founders beliefs (from 1879) have not aged well. I'm not a member of the Christian Science Church and certainly don't share all their health care beliefs, but coming from the South I always knew it to be among the most intellectual and reasoning of the several denominations (no problems with evolution or hard science). You are going to have to be willing to deal with Christianity in Texas, and writing Christian Scientists off the congressional jury pool is not going to improve your odds of getting a reasonable scientific outcome. Even in health care, I like having someone around who questions how many drugs and hormones we are pumping into our kids... perhaps it's not on the scale of global warming, but the meds are NOT filtered out of the urine at water treatment plants, and are experimenting with the ecosystem's tolerance for all the designer drugs Christian Science questions...
Gently reply