Posted on 02/26/2006 11:12:43 AM PST by alumleg
As I've explained several times. My post was not to defend or attack GW. It was to question the wisdom of political operatives making scientific decisions.
Many here have little interest in free-inquiry. The arrogance at freerepublic.com is breath-taking.
5% of climate scientists agree with you. But the other 95% have an "agenda"?? Take a look in the mirror, if you can stand the face of hypocrisy.
Go ahead, squelch the voices that disagree with you. And pat yourselves on the back for being "open-minded". The sad thing is that we all share the same planet, but you can't see past your own short-sighted self-interest. Yep, the GW crowd has an agenda allright. But it's not distribution of wealth by getting everybody to buy bicycles. It's trying to get this country to look at her problems other than through the emerald-tinted spectacles that only see fear of losing some money.
But no -- the GW crowd's secret plan is to use the "fear of destroying the world" as a way to do social re-engineering! Take a look around folks. What was the fear of communism? The fear of nuclear war? The fear of Islam? Gimme a break.
(But don't you think it's even a legitimate question to ask whether the U.S. has a right to consume an amount of oil way beyond our proporational population, leaving none left for others when they industrialize to the point we're at -- Africa, for instance?) Nah, I guess not. The greed and hypocrisy on the political right these days is just amazing -- and you justify it all with an stunning amount of pseudo-rational, arrogant, put-downs. I feel sorry for such lonely people as most of you here.
(One question -- when you wipe my account off the face of freeper land, does this whole thread go with it? -- am I that threatening?)
Are you here to listen and learn, or just to present GW dogma? I believe many people here are open-minded, if you want to cherry pick a few that aren't, then fine, just don't whine about it.
(One question -- when you wipe my account off the face of freeper land, does this whole thread go with it? -- am I that threatening?)
LOL! No and no. Your thread stays along with dozens just like it: newbie comes on board, repeats GW dogma but insists he is open-minded. Accuses "many" here of being closed minded (don't you think they might be a little tired of arguing the exact same arguments with every single newbie?) Anyway newbie is really open-minded, forum won't consider his views, wants to censor the truth etc. Doesn't want to attack the administration, yet accuses them of censorship when in fact they do the opposite - spend billions supporting junk science on the this very issue. Like I said, do your own research, look up forcing and then come back and explain how CO2 "forces" more water vapor into the air which then causes GW. Also look up the spectral absorption of CO2, methane, H2O, etc. Learn about curve smoothing and hockey sticks, learn how proxy data can have biased surface measurements appended to it to make the claim that recent years were the warmest in the last 100, 1000, 10k, or 100k years.
Look at the raw data yourself and see if that is really supported (ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/contributions_by_author/) or read this: http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Proxies.htm and the opposing sides (e.g. Mann) and decide for yourself. Please don't come back and say "millions of scientists can't be wrong, they all agree" because we've heard that one before too. Look up appeal to authority. Thanks for reading, hope you stay and join a fun thread, like guns or something.
I think it's also been explained that the article is an accusation that political operatives made scientific decisions when in fact that's generally not the case. But any time you have someone spouting crap like Hansen does, you will get cries of censorship any time he is reviewed in any way. See http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/779fgpcf.asp:
Climate action advocates skillfully exploited the Bush administration's clumsy moves to limit the public statements of NASA's chief climate scientist, Dr. James Hansen, and landed panicky stories about climate "tipping points" and scientific censorship on the front pages of the New York Times and Washington Post.
It's all about politics and publicity, not science. Here's an earlier quote from Hansen:
"The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change."
http://www.cse.org/informed/issues_template.php?issue_id=451 Anyone who is that indecisive and inconsistent about an issue should be fired, not just censored.
No, it's not a legitimate question. We have a right to consume exactly as much oil as we can pay for.
L
You've published hundreds of scientific articles? What is your field? I should be able to find them using that info and Kirkwood, I would imagine?
Look, I know if I say something directly insulting I can get canned here, so I won't. But if I were speaking to someone NOT on this forum and that person said what you have written I would reply the gentleman/woman was either a liar or a fool.
To be published in Science not only means you have met the highest level of peer review, it also means your work has implications so broad that not only specialists such as yourself need to hear about it, but it is also relevant to the scientifically-informed non-specialist.
What journals are typically quoted in MSM (which, by definition, implies the widest dissemination and hence, for a science journal, prestige): Science, Nature, JAMA.
Are there no honest scientists on this board who will back me up on this elementary point?
"I would say understanding my position might be helpful on your part. I did not come here to post support of GW. Doing that on this forum would be senseless. Rather, I thought this was a good forum to discuss the advisability of having political appointees make scientific decisions."
And you got your answer. Everyone on FR knows that science is very politicized, but they know that it is politicized in the opposite direction from what you believe. Most of science is biased strongly to the left wing because scientists have this weird idea that democrats support their work more than republicans. In fact, republicans tend to support the sciences more than democrats, but they don't like seeing hard-earned tax dollars thrown down a black hole.
There are plenty of honest and respected scientists on this board. The main problem is that they are not reading this thread. The second problem is that they don't consider being quoted by the MSM to be a badge of prestige. Mostly the MSM is interested in keeping their audience and selling commercials so they won't have a particular bias for or against many stories. But there are more than a few liberals and leftists in the MSM who will push any story they here from any source as long as it fits their agenda. A recent one that comes to mind is the quote from a study I heard on the radio that the past year's temperatures were the warmest in 100,000 years. That very statement is so ridiculous as to be newsworthy in of itself. Only a complete shill for GW or an idiot could read that on the air and believe it.
See this article, for example.
Dr. Kennedy doesn't seem to be aware that the US doesn't contribute to emission of greenhouse gases. The research showing the US to be a net absorber of greenhouse gas emissions is almost 8 years old.
Since you are losing the argument you decide to start calling me names? I said you were naive, but I didn't call you a liar or a fool. You will never win an argument that way. Let's face it, you are in over your head. You think FR is just a bunch of rednecks and you refuse to believe that many of the FReepers are leaders in their fields.
By the way, those journals are quoted only because they have full time promotional departments who send out press releases. Bet you didn't know that, did you? Sure, lots of scientist would like to be published in any one of those journals if their primary motivation was to promote themselves. Let's look at the stated goals of AAAS:
1. Publish Science magazine (have you noticed that it is now more often called a magazine and not a journal?).
2. Host the AAAS meeting.
3. Help scientists advance their careers & get jobs.
4. Promote science to the public.
5. Monitor issues (funding and politics) which affect the scientific community.
Not much there about actually doing good science. Science magazine has become a tool of self-promotional among the science elite.
Everybody stop having babies! Quick!
While researching DDT spraying and Bald Eagle nest counts between 1942 and 1980 in southern Florida I discovered a remarkable thing:
The nests went from a high of 92 counts in 1947-48 to a low of 28 in 1950-51; the first aerial spraying took place in Aug, 1949 after the count had already dropped to 48 signifying a dramatic downward trend.
Looking elsewhere to explain this, I decided to research all the category 3-5 hurricanes that had a direct or significant effect in the area (Naples) and discovered that from 1942-46 there were zero, but in 1947 a Cat5 went straight through the area; in 1948, 2 Cat3s went across; in 1949, one Cat4 struck; in 1950 the west coast was relieved to see a Cat3 and a Cat4 strike the sw coast and go up the state.
From 1952 to 1963, nothing larger than a tropical storm went even close to Naples and from 1964 to 1966 there were two Cat3s and two Cat4s that caused very little damage. 1967 saw a lapse of major storm activity reaching past 1975.
This small self-study, while highly suggestive, is certainly less than conclusive, but it does make me wonder when respected researchers who are already on record as having concluded a certain factor is significant, then go out of their way to use only that data that superficially, at least, seems to support their earlier conclusions.
My 2 cents worth.
CORRECTION: "in 1950 the west coast was relieved to see a Cat3 and a Cat4 strike the se coast and go up the state."
I meant the southeast coast for 1950, and am reposting the corrected version below for my records.
"While researching DDT spraying and Bald Eagle nest counts between 1942 and 1980 in southern Florida I discovered a remarkable thing:
The nests went from a high of 92 counts in 1947-48 to a low of 28 in 1950-51; the first aerial spraying took place in Aug, 1949 after the count had already dropped to 48 signifying a dramatic downward trend.
Looking elsewhere to explain this, I decided to research all the category 3-5 hurricanes that had a direct or significant effect in the area (Naples) and discovered that from 1942-46 there were zero, but in 1947 a Cat5 went straight through the area; in 1948, 2 Cat3s went across; in 1949, one Cat4 struck; in 1950 the west coast was relieved to see a Cat3 and a Cat4 strike the southeast coast and go up the state.
From 1952 to 1963, nothing larger than a tropical storm went even close to Naples and from 1964 to 1966 there were two Cat3s and two Cat4s that caused very little damage. 1967 saw a lapse of major storm activity reaching past 1975.
This small self-study, while highly suggestive, is certainly less than conclusive, but it does make me wonder when respected researchers who are already on record as having concluded a certain factor is significant, then go out of their way to use only that data that superficially, at least, seems to support their earlier conclusions.
My 2 cents worth."
Thanks for the additional baloney. Is anybody paying attention to this guy?? Here are the "stated goals" of AAAS:
Every one of these (except possibly the penultimate) clearly relates to "actually going good science." Your argument is a total joke. You've moved from trying to smear Science magazine to smearing all of AAAS. If it weren't so scary (and typical of the tactics used on FR) it would be hilarious.
LOL!!!
Dude, I took this list from the AAAS website!!!!!! Go and see for yourself. And you are calling the AAAS BALONEY!
ROFLMAO!!!!
Thanks for making my point. This is priceless!! LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.