| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 12:06 am Post subject: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack? |
 |
|
On Jun 1, 2:08 am, "Jonathan" <w...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
...
How could it be possible that NASA, the primary agency
for monitoring climate change, not be involved in this new
White House initiative for controlling greenhouse gasses?
|
Huh?
"We study global climate change, that is in our authorization,
we think we do it rather well I'm proud of that, but NASA is not
an agency chartered to quote "battle climate change."
-- Mike Griffin.
There you have it. Mike advocates that NASA will study the
climate change and provide objective and accurate scientific
information.
Policy based on that science, is not his baliwick. Too
bad we don't have more politicians who accept their role
to make policy based on the science, rather than try
to control the science to produce results supporting
their policy preferences.
| Quote: |
It should be obvious, this White House doesn't ask
any of their agencies for policy advice.
They inform the agencies.
This White House politicizes everything.
With the results being lousy policies
that fall apart just sitting there.
|
Yes.
--
FF |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jonathan
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 1:46 pm Post subject: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack? |
|
|
"Stan Marsh" <therocketman@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:S1M7i.7443$%T3.4769@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
Duh-bya's space exploration "Vision" is just like his new climate
initiative. They're both feeble, underfunded efforts to leave a legacy.
I'm pessimistic that either one will amount to a hill of beans.
|
Ya, and the Euros are pretty upset about Kyoto, I think Bush is
waving some paper to placate them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Scott Hedrick
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:36 pm Post subject: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack? |
|
|
<fredfighter@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:1180727766.373699.196100@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
On Jun 1, 1:13 am, "Scott Hedrick" <dinehnmNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
With Mars and even Neptune showing signs of warming, yet both totally
lacking in SUVs, seems like at least part of the explanation lies with
the
most common factor, which would be the Sun.
DAGS "11 year suspot cycle".
So you've chosen to conclude that solar activity has increased over
the last 6 years, despite direct evidence to the contrary, simply
because you would prefer it to be true, right?
|
*I* have made no conclusion at all. To the contrary, as I've made clear in
other posts, there isn't enough data to warrant conclusions. There is no
*conclusion* to my comment about the sun, simply a logical inference. Logic
is the *beginning* of wisdom. To draw a conclusion would require more data,
including, but not limited to, actual solar activity. Unfortunately, far too
many people, if they manage to get beyond confusing correlation with
causation, then assume that a logical inference is itself a conclusion.
I'm aware of 11, 22, 44 and 88 year cycles. I haven't heard of any longer
ones.
I've also become aware of glaciers evaporating here on Earth in areas where
the temperatures have *dropped*. Glacial reduction in and of itself does not
prove warmer temperatures- lower humidity *also* causes increased
evaporation for a given temperature. But there's no need to confuse the
Earth worshippers with the real world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 2:43 am Post subject: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack? |
|
|
On Jun 2, 7:36 pm, "Scott Hedrick" <dinehnmNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:1180727766.373699.196100@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 1, 1:13 am, "Scott Hedrick" <dinehnmNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
With Mars and even Neptune showing signs of warming, yet both totally
lacking in SUVs, seems like at least part of the explanation lies with
the
most common factor, which would be the Sun.
DAGS "11 year suspot cycle".
So you've chosen to conclude that solar activity has increased over
the last 6 years, despite direct evidence to the contrary, simply
because you would prefer it to be true, right?
*I* have made no conclusion at all. To the contrary, as I've made clear in
other posts, there isn't enough data to warrant conclusions. There is no
*conclusion* to my comment about the sun, simply a logical inference.
|
It seems that you inferred an increase in the solar constant despite
clear evidence to the contrary.
--
FF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Scott Hedrick
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 5:33 am Post subject: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack? |
|
|
<fredfighter@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:1180824231.934909.147230@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
On Jun 2, 7:36 pm, "Scott Hedrick" <dinehnmNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
*I* have made no conclusion at all. To the contrary, as I've made clear
in
other posts, there isn't enough data to warrant conclusions. There is no
*conclusion* to my comment about the sun, simply a logical inference.
It seems that you inferred an increase in the solar constant despite
clear evidence to the contrary.
|
Based *only* on the data I mentioned, that other planets are getting warmer
as well, then the logical inference *is* that a common factor is involved,
and that common factor is the sun.
That's a logical inference, *not* a conclusion, because, as I said, more
data is necessary. It's entirely possible that the actual cause *is* the
sun, but that the effects of the solar flux was delayed. If we see a cooling
trend when solar activity is increasing, it would add support to the idea
that the sun is responsible but the solar cycle and the temperature cycle
are not in sync.
The problem simply isn't as easy as some folks want to believe. Even Phil
Plait has jumped onto the humans-are-evil Al-Gore-worshipping bandwagon. He
has definitely stated that human-created greenhouse gases are the cause of
global warming, when there simply isn't enough data to show that. Increasing
temperatures *does not necessarily mean* that humans- that is, the United
States- is at fault. As a scientist *and* a skeptic, he should know better.
I happen to think that we should do a great many of the things that are
being pushed as cures for global warming, not to stop said warming, but
because they are good ideas.
Do-gooders stopped a lot of controlled burns because "burning is bad"-
notice how many more wildfires we have now. I can talk from personal
experience about the fire in Los Alamos several years back- which happened
as a *direct result* of stopping the controlled burns. I use this analogy
with global warming- until we know a great deal more about it, including
both its causes and its results *plus* the results of stopping it, I'd
suggest being very careful. Will we make things worse in the long run, as
the save-the-trees-by-any-means crowd did by stopping the controlled burns?
Here are the 4 important questions again: Is it real? Is it a problem? Can
we do anything? Should we do anything? We don't have enough data to answer
those questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 6:42 pm Post subject: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack? |
|
|
On Jun 3, 1:33 am, "Scott Hedrick" <dinehnmNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:1180824231.934909.147230@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 2, 7:36 pm, "Scott Hedrick" <dinehnmNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
*I* have made no conclusion at all. To the contrary, as I've made clear
in
other posts, there isn't enough data to warrant conclusions. There is no
*conclusion* to my comment about the sun, simply a logical inference.
It seems that you inferred an increase in the solar constant despite
clear evidence to the contrary.
Based *only* on the data I mentioned, that other planets are getting warmer
as well, then the logical inference *is* that a common factor is involved,
and that common factor is the sun.
|
One supposes that you might have checked to see if actual
measurements of the solar flux agreed with what you were
being told. Remember, the people making up the "Mars is
warming too it must be the sun" argument are the same
people promoting "Intelligent Design" and young Earth
cosmologies.
| Quote: |
That's a logical inference, *not* a conclusion, because, as I said, more
data is necessary. It's entirely possible that the actual cause *is* the
sun, but that the effects of the solar flux was delayed.
|
Well, yeah, that is what they say, right? Slight warming initiated
greater than normal rates of sublimation back in the 1990s and now
the Martina Greenhouse effect is extending that, right?
| Quote: |
...
The problem simply isn't as easy as some folks want to believe.
|
Agreed. That is why when somebody says, hey Mars is warming too
it must be the Sun, you really ought to check to see if they are an
idiot or not.
| Quote: |
Even Phil
Plait has jumped onto the humans-are-evil Al-Gore-worshipping bandwagon. He
has definitely stated that human-created greenhouse gases are the cause of
global warming, when there simply isn't enough data to show that. Increasing
temperatures *does not necessarily mean* that humans- that is, the United
States- is at fault. As a scientist *and* a skeptic, he should know better.
|
Maybe as a scientist *and* a skeptic he knows better than you?
| Quote: |
...
Do-gooders stopped a lot of controlled burns because "burning is bad"-
notice how many more wildfires we have now. I can talk from personal
experience about the fire in Los Alamos several years back- which happened
as a *direct result* of stopping the controlled burns.
|
And yet one of the proposed 'solutions' to this problem is to
selective
thinning, removing the largest trees, leaving the small stuff. As I
am
sure you understand that worsens the fire risk. To reduce fire risk
they should remove the understory and leave the largest trees. The
proposal is a sham, the promoters simply want the wood. Those
are ALSO the same folks who told you Mars was warming because
the solar flux was increasing.
| Quote: |
Will we make things worse in the long run, as
the save-the-trees-by-any-means crowd did by stopping the controlled burns?
|
Or will we make ti worse in the long run as the 'thin-the- forests'
crowd
want to do?
| Quote: |
Here are the 4 important questions again: Is it real? Is it a problem? Can
we do anything? Should we do anything? We don't have enough data to answer
those questions.
|
Some people disagree with you. Mike Griffin disagrees with you on
#1.
I disagree with you on 1, 2, and 3. Regarding 4, I am not clear
that
we have adequate theory to predict the long-term effects of our
actions.
--
FF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Rand Simberg
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:01 pm Post subject: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack? |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 07:42:11 -0700, in a place far, far away,
fredfighter@spamcop.net made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
| Quote: |
Based *only* on the data I mentioned, that other planets are getting warmer
as well, then the logical inference *is* that a common factor is involved,
and that common factor is the sun.
One supposes that you might have checked to see if actual
measurements of the solar flux agreed with what you were
being told. Remember, the people making up the "Mars is
warming too it must be the sun" argument are the same
people promoting "Intelligent Design" and young Earth
cosmologies.
|
So? They probably also promote the idea that drinking milk is healthy
for children. You can't draw any conclusions about the validity of an
idea from who is promoting it, per se. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Scott Hedrick
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 8:11 pm Post subject: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack? |
|
|
<fredfighter@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:1180881731.789763.257820@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
On Jun 3, 1:33 am, "Scott Hedrick" <dinehnmNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:1180824231.934909.147230@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 2, 7:36 pm, "Scott Hedrick" <dinehnmNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
*I* have made no conclusion at all. To the contrary, as I've made
clear
in
other posts, there isn't enough data to warrant conclusions. There is
no
*conclusion* to my comment about the sun, simply a logical inference.
It seems that you inferred an increase in the solar constant despite
clear evidence to the contrary.
Based *only* on the data I mentioned, that other planets are getting
warmer
as well, then the logical inference *is* that a common factor is
involved,
and that common factor is the sun.
One supposes that you might have checked to see if actual
measurements of the solar flux agreed with what you were
being told.
|
Which I *would have done* if I wanted to draw a conclusion. You were wrong
when you claimed I drew a conclusion. Please admit your error and get over
it.
Remember, the people making up the "Mars is
| Quote: |
warming too it must be the sun" argument are the same
people promoting "Intelligent Design" and young Earth
cosmologies.
|
Are you drawing the conclusion then that *only* the people who are promoting
"Intelligent Design" and young Earth cosmologies are claiming that the sun
is the cause of warming? Moreover, can you prove to a scientific certainty
that the solar flux is *not* the cause, or even the major contributor? Just
as important, are you going to assume that, merely because I raised the
question, that I believe it to be so?
| Quote: |
Well, yeah, that is what they say, right?
|
"They" who?
Slight warming initiated
| Quote: |
greater than normal rates of sublimation back in the 1990s and now
the Martina Greenhouse effect is extending that, right?
|
Is it? Do you have clear, verifiable data either way?
| Quote: |
The problem simply isn't as easy as some folks want to believe.
Agreed. That is why when somebody says, hey Mars is warming too
it must be the Sun, you really ought to check to see if they are an
idiot or not.
|
If they are drawing a conclusion based solely on that, then yes. If they
draw a logical inference from that- and it *is* a logical inference- then
maybe, since there isn't enough information to draw a conclusion.
| Quote: |
Even Phil
Plait has jumped onto the humans-are-evil Al-Gore-worshipping bandwagon.
He
has definitely stated that human-created greenhouse gases are the cause
of
global warming, when there simply isn't enough data to show that.
Increasing
temperatures *does not necessarily mean* that humans- that is, the United
States- is at fault. As a scientist *and* a skeptic, he should know
better.
Maybe as a scientist *and* a skeptic he knows better than you?
|
Then he should be able to provide verifiable data to that effect. This would
require temperature data taken from hundreds of places over thousands of
years. He *does not* have that data. *There isn't sufficient data to draw
the conclusion that humans are responsible*. We don't know enough about the
planet to draw any such conclusion. We've only been collecting reliable data
on a global basis for around 200 years. If the most extreme Creationist view
was accepted, that the Earth was created about 6000 years ago, that means we
only have data for about 3% of the time. If you take the view provided by
the geologic evidence that the Earth is over 4.5 billion years old, the
paucity of data is even worse. Make no mistake, "global warming", regardless
of its scientific validity, has become a religion. Just *try* to get a grant
to show that humans *aren't* the cause. *Science* has increasingly less and
less to do with the solution- notice the increase in "consensus" when it
comes to talking about science. *Science* does not involve *consensus*-
politics does. The *consensus* was that Galileo was wrong. The *consensus*
was that physical traits, such as a lost limb, were passed on to offspring.
The *consensus* was that life arose through spontaneous generation.
Something is right or wrong scientifically because the data from a repeated,
appropriate experiment says it is, not because a bunch of people agree on
it. In this case, I use the term "appropriate" to represent an experiment
that is actually testing what is intended and which does not have a
mechanical or other failure in the test apparatus that compromises the data.
Sometimes an experiment can be designed to test a given hypothesis but
because of bad design actually measures something else, and the results
misinterpreted.
| Quote: |
Do-gooders stopped a lot of controlled burns because "burning is bad"-
notice how many more wildfires we have now. I can talk from personal
experience about the fire in Los Alamos several years back- which
happened
as a *direct result* of stopping the controlled burns.
And yet one of the proposed 'solutions' to this problem is to
selective
thinning, removing the largest trees, leaving the small stuff. As I
am
sure you understand that worsens the fire risk. To reduce fire risk
they should remove the understory and leave the largest trees. The
proposal is a sham, the promoters simply want the wood. Those
are ALSO the same folks who told you Mars was warming because
the solar flux was increasing.
|
Who told me that?
| Quote: |
Will we make things worse in the long run, as
the save-the-trees-by-any-means crowd did by stopping the controlled
burns?
Or will we make ti worse in the long run as the 'thin-the- forests'
crowd
want to do?
|
Exactly. What we do about the climate will have effects for centuries. It's
hardly a denial of the problem to ask that we stop and think about what we
are going to do before we do it, rather than simply do what seems to be
faddish at the moment. Look at the previously mentioned compact florescents-
they will certainly reduce energy use, but they *will* introduce more
mercury into the environment. Should we rush to change our bulbs, or wait a
little longer until LED lighting is improved to the point where it's
affordable, and save even more energy while producing less pollution?
| Quote: |
Here are the 4 important questions again: Is it real? Is it a problem?
Can
we do anything? Should we do anything? We don't have enough data to
answer
those questions.
Some people disagree with you. Mike Griffin disagrees with you on
#1.
|
In what way, since he doesn't know what I think about it?
| Quote: |
I disagree with you on 1, 2, and 3.
|
In what way? How can you disagree with me without knowing what I think about
those questions?
Regarding 4, I am not clear
| Quote: |
that
we have adequate theory to predict the long-term effects of our
actions.
|
Hence, the reasonable, rational, scientific person would not rush into
changing things. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 9:22 pm Post subject: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack? |
|
|
On Jun 3, 4:11 pm, "Scott Hedrick" <dinehnmNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:1180881731.789763.257820@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 3, 1:33 am, "Scott Hedrick" <dinehnmNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:1180824231.934909.147230@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 2, 7:36 pm, "Scott Hedrick" <dinehnmNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
*I* have made no conclusion at all. To the contrary, as I've made
clear
in
other posts, there isn't enough data to warrant conclusions. There is
no
*conclusion* to my comment about the sun, simply a logical inference.
It seems that you inferred an increase in the solar constant despite
clear evidence to the contrary.
Based *only* on the data I mentioned, that other planets are getting
warmer
as well, then the logical inference *is* that a common factor is
involved,
and that common factor is the sun.
One supposes that you might have checked to see if actual
measurements of the solar flux agreed with what you were
being told.
Which I *would have done* if I wanted to draw a conclusion. You were wrong
when you claimed I drew a conclusion. Please admit your error and get over
it.
Remember, the people making up the "Mars is
warming too it must be the sun" argument are the same
people promoting "Intelligent Design" and young Earth
cosmologies.
Are you drawing the conclusion then that *only* the people who are promoting
"Intelligent Design" and young Earth cosmologies are claiming that the sun
is the cause of warming? Moreover, can you prove to a scientific certainty
that the solar flux is *not* the cause, or even the major contributor? Just
as important, are you going to assume that, merely because I raised the
question, that I believe it to be so?
Well, yeah, that is what they say, right?
"They" who?
Slight warming initiated
greater than normal rates of sublimation back in the 1990s and now
the Martina Greenhouse effect is extending that, right?
Is it? Do you have clear, verifiable data either way?
The problem simply isn't as easy as some folks want to believe.
Agreed. That is why when somebody says, hey Mars is warming too
it must be the Sun, you really ought to check to see if they are an
idiot or not.
If they are drawing a conclusion based solely on that, then yes. If they
draw a logical inference from that- and it *is* a logical inference- then
maybe, since there isn't enough information to draw a conclusion.
Even Phil
Plait has jumped onto the humans-are-evil Al-Gore-worshipping bandwagon.
He
has definitely stated that human-created greenhouse gases are the cause
of
global warming, when there simply isn't enough data to show that.
Increasing
temperatures *does not necessarily mean* that humans- that is, the United
States- is at fault. As a scientist *and* a skeptic, he should know
better.
Maybe as a scientist *and* a skeptic he knows better than you?
Then he should be able to provide verifiable data to that effect.
|
I would prefer a sound theoretical basis for predicting the future.
| Quote: |
This would
require temperature data taken from hundreds of places over thousands of
years.
|
I disagree. Gathering data on climate change from periods of time
when conditions on the earth were much different from today is
useful,
but not so useful and one cannot so without it.
There is no known analog to today's situation in the known geological
past.
| Quote: |
Just *try* to get a grant
to show that humans *aren't* the cause.
|
I should hope that if you try to get a grant to show that humans ARE
the cause you will also be rebuked. Any grant proposal that
predicts,
its conclusion in advance of actually doing the work should be
rejected.
| Quote: |
...
Here are the 4 important questions again: Is it real? Is it a problem?
Can
we do anything? Should we do anything? We don't have enough data to
answer
those questions.
Some people disagree with you. Mike Griffin disagrees with you on
#1.
In what way, since he doesn't know what I think about it?
|
Oh, my apologies, I was inferrring from scant data.
| Quote: |
I disagree with you on 1, 2, and 3.
In what way? How can you disagree with me without knowing what I think about
those questions?
Regarding 4, I am not clear
that
we have adequate theory to predict the long-term effects of our
actions.
Hence, the reasonable, rational, scientific person would not rush into
changing things.
|
However, we can and should change those things where the long-term
effects are understood. Slowing deforestation is one. Reducing
Carbon
emissions is another.
--
FF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 12:59 am Post subject: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack? |
|
|
On Jun 3, 3:01 pm, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 07:42:11 -0700, in a place far, far away,
fredfigh...@spamcop.net made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
Based *only* on the data I mentioned, that other planets are getting warmer
as well, then the logical inference *is* that a common factor is involved,
and that common factor is the sun.
One supposes that you might have checked to see if actual
measurements of the solar flux agreed with what you were
being told. Remember, the people making up the "Mars is
warming too it must be the sun" argument are the same
people promoting "Intelligent Design" and young Earth
cosmologies.
So? They probably also promote the idea that drinking milk is healthy
for children. You can't draw any conclusions about the validity of an
idea from who is promoting it, per se.
|
Agreed. That's why you should check what they say.
--
FF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Rand Simberg
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 1:22 am Post subject: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack? |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 13:59:43 -0700, in a place far, far away,
fredfighter@spamcop.net made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
| Quote: |
On Jun 3, 3:01 pm, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 07:42:11 -0700, in a place far, far away,
fredfigh...@spamcop.net made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
Based *only* on the data I mentioned, that other planets are getting warmer
as well, then the logical inference *is* that a common factor is involved,
and that common factor is the sun.
One supposes that you might have checked to see if actual
measurements of the solar flux agreed with what you were
being told. Remember, the people making up the "Mars is
warming too it must be the sun" argument are the same
people promoting "Intelligent Design" and young Earth
cosmologies.
So? They probably also promote the idea that drinking milk is healthy
for children. You can't draw any conclusions about the validity of an
idea from who is promoting it, per se.
Agreed. That's why you should check what they say.
|
They are not different in that regard than anyone else. I'm wondering
why you brought them up, if not to argue a fallacy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Scott Hedrick
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 5:49 am Post subject: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack? |
|
|
<fredfighter@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:1180891339.265189.315000@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
Then he should be able to provide verifiable data to that effect.
I would prefer a sound theoretical basis for predicting the future.
|
That doesn't seem to be necessary for the global warming True Believers.
| Quote: |
This would
require temperature data taken from hundreds of places over thousands of
years.
I disagree. Gathering data on climate change from periods of time
when conditions on the earth were much different from today is
useful,
but not so useful and one cannot so without it.
|
How can you calibrate the models without data?
| Quote: |
There is no known analog to today's situation in the known geological
past.
|
Ol' Pat seems to think that ice cores are teh answer to everything.
| Quote: |
Just *try* to get a grant
to show that humans *aren't* the cause.
I should hope that if you try to get a grant to show that humans ARE
the cause you will also be rebuked. Any grant proposal that
predicts,
its conclusion in advance of actually doing the work should be
rejected.
|
Should be, yes, but isn't. Even if some wants to do it right, if they don't
get the "right" conclusions, they don't get another grant. Global warming
isn't the only issue to be treated this way.
| Quote: |
...
Here are the 4 important questions again: Is it real? Is it a problem?
Can
we do anything? Should we do anything? We don't have enough data to
answer
those questions.
Some people disagree with you. Mike Griffin disagrees with you on
#1.
In what way, since he doesn't know what I think about it?
Oh, my apologies, I was inferrring from scant data.
|
You were drawing conclusions. Learn the difference.
| Quote: |
I disagree with you on 1, 2, and 3.
In what way? How can you disagree with me without knowing what I think
about
those questions?
Regarding 4, I am not clear
that
we have adequate theory to predict the long-term effects of our
actions.
Hence, the reasonable, rational, scientific person would not rush into
changing things.
However, we can and should change those things where the long-term
effects are understood. Slowing deforestation is one. Reducing
Carbon
emissions is another.
|
I think we should do a lot of things because we can and because they are
good ideas. I think we should reduce CO2 emissions- by we, I mean *the
entire planet, including the developing nations*, not merely the United
States- or find some way to use them, not because of global warming, but any
waste is inefficient. It's time to build more nuclear plants, *as well as*
increase the use of wind (even if it's in sight of Ted Kennedy's patio) and
solar *as well as* put more oil wells off the coast of Florida. We need to
find ways to make vehicles more fuel efficient *without* making them less
safe by reducing their weight. We need to build desalinisation plants *as
well as* develop more efficient plumbing and better ways of processing
waste. We need to greatly increase recycling, even if it costs us a bit
more-if we already paid to get stuff out of the ground or to make stuff, it
doesn't make sense to throw it away if we can use it again in a new way. We
also need to build transmissions lines and pipelines to make better use of
what we have so we don't have to build more plants simply because we can't
get what we have to where we want it- that is a lot of the problem
California has. Mostly, we need to find a way to show that "green"- *real*
"green", not simply "fashionable green"- is commercially viable. We need to
do these things, not because of global warming or other environmental
reasons, but because they are good ideas and the way we do a lot of things
now are wasteful and, damnit, where it's practical to make something more
efficient, we *ought* to do it- even if it *doesn't* fix global warming.
What do you infer from that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jim Oberg
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 6:22 pm Post subject: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack? |
|
|
Fred, you jump to place silly notions into the mouths and minds of people
who disagree with you. It is a very bad gimmick that will make you feel
omniscient
but make you look and sound like an ass.
Example -- assuming that postulations of solar impact on planetary climate
depend on and only on variations in the 'solar constant'.
You did make that asssumption, but it was a half-assumption... it only
showed your lack of imagination and knowledge.
JimO |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
kT
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 6:50 pm Post subject: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack? |
|
|
On Jun 3, 8:49 pm, "Scott Hedrick" <dinehnmNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
What do you infer from that?
|
That you are a right wing fascist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
kT
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 6:51 pm Post subject: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack? |
|
|
On Jun 2, 8:33 pm, "Scott Hedrick" <dinehnmNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Here are the 4 important questions again: Is it real? Is it a problem? Can
we do anything? Should we do anything? We don't have enough data to answer
those questions.
|
*YOU* don't have enough data, because you are an idiot as well as a
right wing fascist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
215 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
