If they have solid scientific evidence to refute the solid scientific evidence in support of global warming, then they should publish it.
They have, and do, publish their findings. And if you were actually reading the scientific journals (instead of the popular press) you would already know this.
Just because you haven't heard about it doesn't mean that it's not happening. And just because a bunch of journalists claim that a "scientific consensus" (an oxymoron if ever there was one: consensus isn't science) exists does not mean jack shit.
Sorry, but the so-called "Union of Concerned Scientists" is NOT in any way, shape or form "indepenant[sic]", let alone "truly" independent (whatever the hell that means).
This group has a LONG history of politicizing and abusing science, starting with their original agenda to kill nuclear power, much to the shock and consternation of physicists at the time.
It's almost humorous (if you have a really twisted sense of humor, anyway) that they are now sponsoring a contest for cartoons depicting the abuse of science by the government. THEY were the ones who STARTED the abuse of science by the government -- in 1988 when they engineered this whole Global Warming mythmaking in -- who else? -- Al Gore's Senate committee.
And oh, by the way, other climatologists whose work refuted the conclusions of Al Gore's Poster Boy were specifically disinvited from the hearings.
Most of the "scientists" that are comming [sic] foreward [sic] debunking global warming are funded by special interst [sic] groups.
And most of the "scientists" that are coming forward promoting global warming alarmism are also funded by special interests. These groups consist of environmentalists, Left-leaning universities and power-hungry Government bureaucracies. Hmmm, connection? Nah.
Perhaps, just perhaps, it is time to focus on the actual science instead of drawing Red Herrings across the trails with ad-hominem attacks. Dismissing a well-conducted, peer-reviewed, scientifically sound paper -- just because you don't like the people who paid for the research -- is intellectually dishonest. If the research is valid, then it's valid. Doesn't matter who paid for it. It stands or falls on whether its conclusions fit the evidence; on whether its methodology is sound; and upon a host of other things. Some of you/. readers REALLY need to learn some Critical Thinking skills.
Scientists, however, have already answered these questions -- resoundingly in the affirmative -- as represented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which comprises more than 2,000 scientists representing over 100 nations.
NO, THEY HAVE NOT.
This is one of the most widely-believed myths in the whole Global Warming controversy. Any time you see it in print, you can know with certainty that its author is entirely derelict and incompetent as a journalist. Here are the facts:
The IPCC does not "comprise more than 2,000 scientists". The IPCC is a United Nations bureaucracy that has compiled the work of a lot of scientists around the world into a series of volumes they call "reports".
Few (if any) journalists have ever bothered to actually read any of these reports. If they had done their job, this urban legend of "thousands of scientists agree" would never have gotten started.
The myth comes from the infamous Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the IPCC. The Report itself states that not enough is known about the various forcings to draw any conclusions on whether the current warming period is anthropogenic. This ISN'T what got reported in the Press.
The Report's SUMMARY (which is not a part of the report) states the complete opposite of what the report itself says, making the wild claims that have formed the basis of this myth.
The summary was written by a bureaucrat, not by scientists. Scientists around the world were livid when they saw their careful work trashed in this way: none of them knew about the summary before the Report was published, and none were ever asked whether s/he agreed with it. Yet the summary made it appear that all of the contributors were in agreement.
If journalists had done their job and actually READ the report (instead of repeating press releases handed to them) the summary author's duplicity would have been exposed rather quickly. Instead we have an enduring Urban Legend that "thousands of scientists agree" that Global Warming is 1) real; 2) caused by human activity; and 3) is going to ruin the planet. The ONLY thing that active, publishing climatologists agree on is point #1. #2 is a matter of vigorous scientific debate right now, and #3 is basically dismissed as the speculations of crackpots.
A number of responsible scientists withdrew from contributing to the IPCC's reports over this debacle. But you've never heard about any of that in the popular press.
There is nothing unusual about "secret lobbying". That is just the way that politics works. Indeed, when we were working the Open Source bill in the Oregon legislature, we lobbied in secret for months before the bill became public knowledge. And Micro$oft's lobbyists lobbied in secret to kill it after it became public knowledge. They won, of course.
If you think politics is a nice game of tiddlywinks among people who play fairly, you are hopelessly naive. Politics is about power, and the money that buys power. And that's ALL it's about.
Ken Barber author, Oregon House Bill 2892 (2003 session)
If this isn't the case, and his research is indeed flawed, saying why might make you sound better.
Did you actually READ my parent post? Did you see the part where I was at work and didn't have time to look this stuff up right then?
Most of the real scientific debate about global warming concerns the degree to which it's caused by human action, what it's effects will be on the climate, and what, if anything, can be done to stop it. The "debate" over whether it's happening at all exists only in the minds of people who desperately don't want it to be true....
Did you actually READ my parent post??? I never disputed the fact that the planet is warming; I was talking about the way the (Left-wing) alarmists are abusing the science for their own political agenda.
One more abuse of science by "liberals" (which I take to mean in the sense that the word is misused in the United States):
Dr. Arthur Kellerman. This guy is the grand-daddy of them all with his "research" claiming to show that "a gun in the home is X times more likely to kill a loved one than prevent a crime".
As I said in another post, it's strange how these "concerned scientists" were never concerned over THAT. There CAN'T be a political agenda at work, can there? Why no, these are impartial, dispassionate scientists here... <cough cough>
I can't seem to remember any offensives against science by the liberals
Then you haven't been paying attention. The last four decades are littered with the debris (or should I say hubris) of the Left's assaults on science.
Space does not permit a full accounting, nor do I have the time for research since I'm at work right now, but here's a partial list, just off the top of my head:
The attack against DDT;
The attack against nuclear power;
The pseudoscience surrounding Spotted Owls vs. responsible forest management in the Pacific Northwest (United States);
The scaremongering surrounding food preservation by irradiation;
The Alar scare;
The attack against genetically modified food crops;
And... how can we forget? The current scaremongering via the "global warming" hoax.
The Left has been doing this a LOT longer than anyone else. Not only are the Repblicans late to the game, they're not particularly good at it. Yet.
I would have no problem for expulsion of all congressmen that voted for a law that was found unconstitutional... but... half of Congress [would be] expelled....
No, not half of Congress. ALL of them, except for one person: Ron Paul. He's the only congresscritter up there that gives a damn about the Constitution.
So what are the 'core beliefs' of the right? Exploiting cheap labour, polluting the environment and enriching themselves by avoiding taxes?
Straw man.
I could chime in with what the core beliefs of the right REALLY are, but it's irrelevant. Just because the Right has their own set of stupid and dangerous core beliefs doesn't make the Left's beliefs any less stupid and dangerous.
The idea that an article about Wal*Mart must contain the frothy-mouthed babblings of the Far Left to be "neutral" shows a real bias on the part of the author.
This isn't journalism, it's propaganda. I, for one, support Wal*Mart's right to defend itself against these senseless attacks.
This kind of stuff is the reason why I seldom bother to read/. any more. Another good example is/.'s absolute refusal to deal with any science news about the global warming issue that doesn't agree with its editors' preconceived views on the subject.
This is a commonly-accepted myth. Not only are they NOT opposites, they are so similar that Winston Churchill famously remarked that he could never understand why Hitler hated the Communists so much, because there wasn't really any difference between the two.
And the widely-circulated Lawrence Britt nonsense has been thoroughly debunked. Plus, it is totally irrelevant to this thread.
In Canada it would take about 5 Earths* to sustain our current level of consumption.
"Cultural greed" my ass. This is the same old, same old "dwindling resources" myth from the Far Left: the idea that technologically advanced nations (i.e., the "greedy rich") are "raping the planet" by "consuming resources" at a pace that is "unsustainable."
All of this quackery was disproved somewhere around thirty years ago, but the Left continues spewing this nonsense. Living well in a technologically advance culture is not "greed" (at least, not in the pejorative use of the word) and does not deprive anyone else on the planet of a good life.
But it's no surprise that the criminal bastards in Nigeria use this excuse to rationalize their greed.
Who is Association for Competitive Technology?
http://www.actonline.org/aboutus.htm
While ACT members include some household names like eBay, Orbitz and Microsoft, our members are primarily small and mid-size companies. Smaller, entrepreneurial technology firms like Sax Software,
Ahhh, yes. Mike Sax. This is the dude that showed up at the committee hearing for the Oregon Open Source bill (HB2892, 2003 session) and made a total FOOL out of himself erecting strawmen to pick a fight with.
He concluded his testimony with this outlandish statement: "Red Hat's business model is to hand out free rice to [prison] inmates and then make money selling constipation medicine." As the author of that legislation, I was in the room and had a hard time keeping from busting out laughing.
But wait! It gets better... he's actually proud of having used the word "constipation" in front of an august panel of lawmakers. It's in his blog here.
Yes, folks, THESE are the people who are opposing Open Standards in government. Constipated indeed!
Slashdot Mirror
So, whomever claims that Gore is promoting "Junk Science" must publish evidence that demonstrates where the science wrong. End of discussion.
Happens every day.
If they have solid scientific evidence to refute the solid scientific evidence in support of global warming, then they should publish it.
They have, and do, publish their findings. And if you were actually reading the scientific journals (instead of the popular press) you would already know this.
Just because you haven't heard about it doesn't mean that it's not happening. And just because a bunch of journalists claim that a "scientific consensus" (an oxymoron if ever there was one: consensus isn't science) exists does not mean jack shit.
Sorry, but the so-called "Union of Concerned Scientists" is NOT in any way, shape or form "indepenant[sic]", let alone "truly" independent (whatever the hell that means).
This group has a LONG history of politicizing and abusing science, starting with their original agenda to kill nuclear power, much to the shock and consternation of physicists at the time.
It's almost humorous (if you have a really twisted sense of humor, anyway) that they are now sponsoring a contest for cartoons depicting the abuse of science by the government. THEY were the ones who STARTED the abuse of science by the government -- in 1988 when they engineered this whole Global Warming mythmaking in -- who else? -- Al Gore's Senate committee.
And oh, by the way, other climatologists whose work refuted the conclusions of Al Gore's Poster Boy were specifically disinvited from the hearings.
Most of the "scientists" that are comming [sic] foreward [sic] debunking global warming are funded by special interst [sic] groups.
And most of the "scientists" that are coming forward promoting global warming alarmism are also funded by special interests. These groups consist of environmentalists, Left-leaning universities and power-hungry Government bureaucracies. Hmmm, connection? Nah.
Perhaps, just perhaps, it is time to focus on the actual science instead of drawing Red Herrings across the trails with ad-hominem attacks. Dismissing a well-conducted, peer-reviewed, scientifically sound paper -- just because you don't like the people who paid for the research -- is intellectually dishonest. If the research is valid, then it's valid. Doesn't matter who paid for it. It stands or falls on whether its conclusions fit the evidence; on whether its methodology is sound; and upon a host of other things. Some of you /. readers REALLY need to learn some Critical Thinking skills.
Scientists, however, have already answered these questions -- resoundingly in the affirmative -- as represented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which comprises more than 2,000 scientists representing over 100 nations.
NO, THEY HAVE NOT.
This is one of the most widely-believed myths in the whole Global Warming controversy. Any time you see it in print, you can know with certainty that its author is entirely derelict and incompetent as a journalist. Here are the facts:
If journalists had done their job and actually READ the report (instead of repeating press releases handed to them) the summary author's duplicity would have been exposed rather quickly. Instead we have an enduring Urban Legend that "thousands of scientists agree" that Global Warming is 1) real; 2) caused by human activity; and 3) is going to ruin the planet. The ONLY thing that active, publishing climatologists agree on is point #1. #2 is a matter of vigorous scientific debate right now, and #3 is basically dismissed as the speculations of crackpots.
A number of responsible scientists withdrew from contributing to the IPCC's reports over this debacle. But you've never heard about any of that in the popular press.
There is nothing unusual about "secret lobbying". That is just the way that politics works. Indeed, when we were working the Open Source bill in the Oregon legislature, we lobbied in secret for months before the bill became public knowledge. And Micro$oft's lobbyists lobbied in secret to kill it after it became public knowledge. They won, of course.
If you think politics is a nice game of tiddlywinks among people who play fairly, you are hopelessly naive. Politics is about power, and the money that buys power. And that's ALL it's about.
Ken Barber
author, Oregon House Bill 2892 (2003 session)
IBM® good, Intel® bad.
If this isn't the case, and his research is indeed flawed, saying why might make you sound better.
Did you actually READ my parent post? Did you see the part where I was at work and didn't have time to look this stuff up right then?
Most of the real scientific debate about global warming concerns the degree to which it's caused by human action, what it's effects will be on the climate, and what, if anything, can be done to stop it. The "debate" over whether it's happening at all exists only in the minds of people who desperately don't want it to be true....
Did you actually READ my parent post??? I never disputed the fact that the planet is warming; I was talking about the way the (Left-wing) alarmists are abusing the science for their own political agenda.
Jeeeezzzzz.... some people's kids.
One more abuse of science by "liberals" (which I take to mean in the sense that the word is misused in the United States):
Dr. Arthur Kellerman. This guy is the grand-daddy of them all with his "research" claiming to show that "a gun in the home is X times more likely to kill a loved one than prevent a crime".
As I said in another post, it's strange how these "concerned scientists" were never concerned over THAT. There CAN'T be a political agenda at work, can there? Why no, these are impartial, dispassionate scientists here... <cough cough>
I can't seem to remember any offensives against science by the liberals
Then you haven't been paying attention. The last four decades are littered with the debris (or should I say hubris) of the Left's assaults on science.
Space does not permit a full accounting, nor do I have the time for research since I'm at work right now, but here's a partial list, just off the top of my head:
The Left has been doing this a LOT longer than anyone else. Not only are the Repblicans late to the game, they're not particularly good at it. Yet.
Isn't it queer that none of this was ever an issue when it was the Clinton Administration that was subverting and politicizing science?
Funny how all of these "concerned scientists" were never concerned when it was Left-wingers that were doing it....
I would have no problem for expulsion of all congressmen that voted for a law that was found unconstitutional... but ... half of Congress [would be] expelled....
No, not half of Congress. ALL of them, except for one person: Ron Paul. He's the only congresscritter up there that gives a damn about the Constitution.
Here's what I do when I need to back up:
It works really well, and I can almost always recover from those backups too.
Wait! No, I think you dip a camel TOE into the coffee.
Dunno how that would determine caffeine content, but it should at least make the coffee really tasty....
So what are the 'core beliefs' of the right? Exploiting cheap labour, polluting the environment and enriching themselves by avoiding taxes?
Straw man.
I could chime in with what the core beliefs of the right REALLY are, but it's irrelevant. Just because the Right has their own set of stupid and dangerous core beliefs doesn't make the Left's beliefs any less stupid and dangerous.
The idea that an article about Wal*Mart must contain the frothy-mouthed babblings of the Far Left to be "neutral" shows a real bias on the part of the author.
This isn't journalism, it's propaganda. I, for one, support Wal*Mart's right to defend itself against these senseless attacks.
This kind of stuff is the reason why I seldom bother to read /. any more. Another good example is /.'s absolute refusal to deal with any science news about the global warming issue that doesn't agree with its editors' preconceived views on the subject.
See my blog, WWJD (What Would John [Galt] Do?) for a discussion on what is REALLY behind the criticism of Wal*Mart.
They can have my Office Space when they unwrap my cold, dead fingers off of the DVD!!
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Uh, Fascism and Socialism are opposites, silly.
BZZZT! Wrong. Sorry, you lose.
This is a commonly-accepted myth. Not only are they NOT opposites, they are so similar that Winston Churchill famously remarked that he could never understand why Hitler hated the Communists so much, because there wasn't really any difference between the two.
And the widely-circulated Lawrence Britt nonsense has been thoroughly debunked. Plus, it is totally irrelevant to this thread.
The Nazi's were fascists. Crack open a history book once and awile.
I have cracked open several history books -- apparently a good deal more than YOU have.
The Nazis were socialists. Try checking out what the acronym "NAZI" stands for: it translates to "National Socialist Party".
You really need to check up on your history a little better before posting.
This could open an entirely new door in the study of atomic particles.
Or pr0n.
Rush Limbaugh? A Nazi?
Ri-i-i-i-ight... Have you ever actually LISTENED to his show? He's about as far from a Socialist as anyone can get.
Sorry, but for a joke to be funny, there has to be an element of truth in it. Name-calling just doesn't cut it.
Shouldn't that be part of a lap DANCE instead of a lap TOP?
Great idea. Advertise to 500 readers for free, or sell it on ebay to 5M readers for $1. Hmm, I think I'll take option 2.
Depends on what you're selling. I'd like to see someone successfully sell a stud horse's services or a flock of ducks on ebay.
In Canada it would take about 5 Earths* to sustain our current level of consumption.
"Cultural greed" my ass. This is the same old, same old "dwindling resources" myth from the Far Left: the idea that technologically advanced nations (i.e., the "greedy rich") are "raping the planet" by "consuming resources" at a pace that is "unsustainable."
All of this quackery was disproved somewhere around thirty years ago, but the Left continues spewing this nonsense. Living well in a technologically advance culture is not "greed" (at least, not in the pejorative use of the word) and does not deprive anyone else on the planet of a good life.
But it's no surprise that the criminal bastards in Nigeria use this excuse to rationalize their greed.
Who is Association for Competitive Technology? http://www.actonline.org/aboutus.htm While ACT members include some household names like eBay, Orbitz and Microsoft, our members are primarily small and mid-size companies. Smaller, entrepreneurial technology firms like Sax Software,
Ahhh, yes. Mike Sax. This is the dude that showed up at the committee hearing for the Oregon Open Source bill (HB2892, 2003 session) and made a total FOOL out of himself erecting strawmen to pick a fight with.
He concluded his testimony with this outlandish statement: "Red Hat's business model is to hand out free rice to [prison] inmates and then make money selling constipation medicine." As the author of that legislation, I was in the room and had a hard time keeping from busting out laughing.
But wait! It gets better... he's actually proud of having used the word "constipation" in front of an august panel of lawmakers. It's in his blog here.
Yes, folks, THESE are the people who are opposing Open Standards in government. Constipated indeed!
Ken Barber