Posted on 03/31/2008 3:05:08 PM PDT by Crazieman
I have made many personal changes in an attempt to be a better steward of our aggregate Earth-based resources. I am, by training, both a Physician, and a Nuclear Engineer. The international issues of use and misuse of energy are of great interest to me. It is a Conservative ideal to Conserve.
Google has set itself up as an impartial arbiter of information
I use that data daily.
The best way they can help this discussion is to be themselves
Let Politicians be politicians,
Google does best when it gives all available data as efficiently as possible
Not by attempting to direct policy
Natural variation has dwarfed that even alleged to have occurred as a result of AGW.
And if the noise is greater than the signal, you're screwed.
Cheers!
Please give citations -- and then the evidence that there are both
a) sufficient qualifications on the part of each group cited (WTF does the Supreme Court know of meteorology and magnetohydrodynamics?)
b) sufficient evidence of no ulterior motives or conflicts of interest (NOAA stands to get a LOT more funding if they propose doomsday scenarios).
If you allow yourself the liberty to dismiss the work of Exxon scientists out of hand (or Phillip Morris, or Schering-Plough, or...), and act as though the mere name-dropping is disposative of the issue, you're going to get it right back.
Cheers!
Time to ungoogle.
Yup, Google's name is derived from zeros for followers.
The {World-Wide Web} {search engine} that indexes the greatest number of web pages - over two billion by December 2001 and provides a free service that searches this index in less than a second. The site's name is apparently derived from "{googol}", but note the difference in spelling. The "Google" spelling is also used in "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams, in which one of Deep Thought's designers asks, "And are you not," said Fook, leaning anxiously foward, "a greater analyst than the Googleplex Star Thinker in the Seventh Galaxy of Light and Ingenuity which can calculate the trajectory of every single dust particle throughout a five-week Dangrabad Beta sand blizzard?"
Yup, I googled this info.
This lefty has been here since 2001, believes that he who governs least governs best, supports the right to bear arms, stands at the polls for Republicans in every election, and has a dartboard with Bill Maher’s face on it. I don’t want to go back to the stone age, or even see the US adopt a carbon market. I do however, want to take serious issues seriously—and I won’t bury my head in the sand because I am scared or because liberals got to the issue first.
Not sure I am ready to dictate to Google when it should be socially conscious—but I am impressed by your background and commitment, and appreciate the respectful nature of your post. Best regards.
If you don’t already know the difference in credentials between the Academy of Science and Exxon, I can’t help you. Do you think comparing NOAA or the Natural Academy to the tobacco “scientists” is some kind of a zinger? The Supreme Court case is Massachusetts v. EPA (2007). I think the Justices do a good job of identify the issues, especially Justice Roberts. He’s a pretty bright guy. If you seriously doubt what the majority of scientists think, go to anything national conference where the sponsors don’t hide behind a discreet foundation or institute. At the same time the Heartland Circus in New York had no non-anonomous corporate sponsors, WIREC was supported by just about every major energy company, state, and nation. You don’t need a degree in magnetohydrodynmics to understand why.
Recall the IPCC and how many of the scientists claim that the boilerplate conclusions on the outside contradicted their own findings on the inside. The mere imprimatur of some organization on the outside is not enough, for me, to guarantee objectivity on such a topic where the flow of grant $$$ is likely to be affected.
The general rule is, "The more someone knows about a subject, the greater the potential for conflicts of interest."
This goes in *both* directions, with governmental funding as well as corporate funding, as government is just as anxious to increase its power and scope, as a company to maintain market share and prevent regulatory costs.
The Supreme Court case is Massachusetts v. EPA (2007).
Can you give me a link? Did the Supremes act as "finders of fact" or handle arcane legal points? -- choosing between Massachusetts and the EPA (on its face) seems like choosing between Hillary and Obama.
If you seriously doubt what the majority of scientists think, go to anything national conference where the sponsors don’t hide behind a discreet foundation or institute. At the same time the Heartland Circus in New York had no non-anonomous corporate sponsors, WIREC was supported by just about every major energy company, state, and nation.
Ahh, argument by consensus, or argument by authority?
The mere presence of a majority is not a valid scientific argument; the state of the art in climatology is not at a point where the relative importance of all the variables are agreed upon, let alone correctly modeled (e.g. cloud formation acts to either increase or decrease temperatures, depending on which behaviours of clouds are being considered); and open sponsorship by companies and nations could just as well be hoping to advance agendas dependent upon acceptance of global warming, as evidence of the 'truth' of the phenomenon.
I have not heard a call from any of the usual suspects asking for drastic reductions in emissions by India, China, or the rest of the Third World, despite their increasing consumption of fossil fuels; nor any consideration of the relative *inefficiency* of ethanol to fuel automobiles.
If the supporters of the AGW hypothesis didn't jump on every anti-Western solution as a matter of course, and if they were more critical of proposed solutions, to see if the proposals would actually be cost-effective, it would be easier to accept that they were motivated by trying to "save the planet". But even then, the admissions of outright exaggerations and lies, justified in order to perform 'consciousness raising', lead me to believe that they are guided primarily by ulterior motives.
Hint: if we're really at "peak oil" as so many of the self-annointed seem to claim, then AGW is self-limiting.
Cheers!
NAS - political
Bush Admin - political
NOAA - maybe
Overwhelming majority of scientists - not even.
SCOTUS - Huh??? And they know Earth Science, how?
Look, when the solutions proposed are real solutions that involve money laundering (transfer), getting rich off of nothing, and destroying the lifestyle of the middle class and poor, then I will believe GW. How does “transferring credits” actually slow down or reduce greenhouse gases?? Company A gives Company B money for its credits. Company is still producing too much greenhouse gas and Company B now has the money to increase production which will just produce more gas!!
GW
Your post makes a lot of sense. Note that I, like you, don’t favor a carbon market. I am not a fan of the UN or the IPCC by extension—but most of the contradictions came from a small minority of vocal individuals. I hate to say this, but the easiest way to pull the Mass v. EPA decision is to just google those terms plus “supreme court.” There is, in fact, a growing cry for some third world reductions, but there is a problem with us telling them that they can’t have our standard of living because we got there first. I am in full agreement that any efforts to “save the planet” must be circumspect and fair. I just think that it benefits us all to acknoweledge that there is a potential problem with AGW.
I want to think carefully how to respond, lest I ruin a good thing.
Cheers!
Fortunately for her, but not for you, today is my daughter's birthday and I will be leaving for festivities soon.
I promise I have not forgotten your post -- can you wait until this evening?
Cheers!
Take your time. I hope the ankle improves quickly.
Placemarker.
Bookmark for belated reply #2
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.