  |
|
| Author |
Topic |
| Will the North Pole melt away this summer? |
| YES! |
|
17% |
[ 4 ] |
| No |
|
82% |
[ 19 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 23 |
|
Jaundiced Jaffe
Ambassador
 |
 Thu Feb 04, 2010 12:21 pm    |
I realize that this is off topic, but I didn't want a mistaken comment on an issue truly important to me to go unchallenged. Pig said:
| Quote: |
| Also, it seems that NASA has given up space exploration so that it can pursue climate research full time. They can't send man back to the moon which was achieved 50 years ago, but somehow they warrant a 6 billion dollar increase in funding. |
NASA has not given up on space exploration. Rather, they intelligently decided that unmanned space exploration is much less expensive, much less dangerous, and for those reasons, much more productive than manned space exploration. For example, see this article in today's WSJ
http://online.wsj.com/article/.....TopOpinion
| Quote: |
The manned space flight program masquerades as science, but it actually crowds out real science at NASA, which is all done on unmanned missions. In 2004 President George W. Bush announced a new vision for the space agency: a return of astronauts to the moon followed by a manned expedition to Mars. A few days later NASA's office of Space Science announced major cutbacks in its important Beyond Einstein and Explorer programs of unmanned research in astronomy. The explanation was that they "do not clearly support the goals of the President's vision for space exploration." ...
All of the brilliant past discoveries in astronomy for which NASA can take credit have been made by unmanned satellite-borne observatories, and there is much more to be done. By studying the polarization of cosmic microwave radiation, we may find evidence of gravitational waves emitted in the first fraction of a second of the big bang. By sending laser beams between teams of satellites, we should be able to detect gravitational waves directly from collisions between neutron stars and black holes. By correlating the distances and velocities of many galaxies, we should be able to explore the mysterious dark energy that makes up most of the energy of the universe.
None of this involves astronauts. The cost of all these projects would be a few billion dollars—not cheap, but nothing like the hundred or so billion dollars for a manned return to the moon, or the many hundreds of billions of dollars for a manned mission to Mars.
|
JJ
|
|
| posts: 1215 | location: Massachusetts, USA | joined: 08 Jun 2000 | medals: 6 |
Pigmalia
Dignitary
|
Thu Feb 04, 2010 2:03 pm |
Yes JJ is correct I was overly facetious with my NASA comments.
It is interesting to look at the difference between Obama's 2011 budget and compare it the previous 2010 budget:
2011 Budget
2010 Budget
You'll notice a huge spike in Earth Science's ongoing budget. Also, the majority of the 'Recovery Act' dollars went into the Earth Science budget as well.
Not that there's anything wrong with that, I'm just saying...
_________________
“I enjoy crushing bastards.” Assange |
|
| posts: 4729 | location: Autonomous Inland Empire - Occupied | joined: 02 Feb 2006 |
Pigmalia
Dignitary
|
Sun Feb 07, 2010 7:48 am |
A major change in British sentiment:
|
|
| posts: 4729 | location: Autonomous Inland Empire - Occupied | joined: 02 Feb 2006 |
Minister X
Dignitary
|
Sun Feb 07, 2010 1:09 pm |
You mean Brits follow, and are influenced by the news???? I'm shocked!
BTW HERE is the link you failed to provide. Did you 'forget' because the first graph wasn't quite so dramatic?
_________________
"What a book a devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low, and horribly cruel works of nature!" - Charles Darwin |
|
| posts: 8247 | joined: 03 Jan 2002 |
Danivon
Ambassador
|
Sun Feb 07, 2010 2:07 pm |
Ah well. I forgot that science was decided by opinion poll.
_________________
World Cup 2010 -       
P 16(3) W 0 D 3 S 6(1) L 7(2) NMR 5
History |
|
| posts: 8520 | location: Rugby, Warwicksire, UK: Home of the oddly-shaped ball | joined: 15 Apr 2004 |
Minister X
Dignitary
|
Sun Feb 07, 2010 2:38 pm |
| Danivon wrote: |
Ah well. I forgot that science was decided by opinion poll.
|
Well we are in the politics forum, not the Philosophy one (where most pure science stuff goes??). The politics of the situation is probably more important than the science of it. (At least in the short run.) In any case, it's not irrelevant to show poll results. I think the public's reaction to the whole issue is a fascinating socio-political phenomenon.
|
|
| posts: 8247 | joined: 03 Jan 2002 |
Pigmalia
Dignitary
|
Sun Feb 07, 2010 2:40 pm |
| Minister X wrote: |
| Did you 'forget' because the first graph wasn't quite so dramatic? |
Actually if you look again, the forth question already provides that same information in the negative.
|
|
| posts: 4729 | location: Autonomous Inland Empire - Occupied | joined: 02 Feb 2006 |
Pigmalia
Dignitary
|
Mon Feb 08, 2010 6:51 pm |
| Quote: |
The most important is a claim that global warming could cut rain-fed north African crop production by up to 50% by 2020, a remarkably short time for such a dramatic change. The claim has been quoted in speeches by Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, and by Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general.
This weekend Professor Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCC’s climate impacts team, told The Sunday Times that he could find nothing in the report to support the claim. The revelation follows the IPCC’s retraction of a claim that the Himalayan glaciers might all melt by 2035, dubbed 'Glaciergate' by commentators.
Background
The African claims could be even more embarrassing for the IPCC because they appear not only in its report on climate change impacts but, unlike the glaciers claim, are also repeated in its Synthesis Report. |
|
|
| posts: 4729 | location: Autonomous Inland Empire - Occupied | joined: 02 Feb 2006 |
GMTom
Administrator
|
Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:24 pm |
| Quote: |
| Ah well. I forgot that science was decided by opinion poll. |
finally something we can agree upon.
Now lets put aside this whole "Consensus science" since it's the same thing after all.
and while opinion certainly does not affect the facts, it does affect the politics of the matter. A few months ago the opinions seemed to favor "warmism" now they favor "skeptism" and that's where the politics of the matter will almost always follow.
|
|
| posts: 8593 | location: Rochester, NY, North Coast USA | joined: 14 Feb 2000 |
GMTom
Administrator
|
Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:49 pm |
and the nonsense continues...
add "Africagate" to the list of crap science.
On the latest IPCC report (you know, the one with the false glacier 'science") the IPCC also reported
| Quote: |
| “By 2020, in some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%. Agricultural production, including access to food, in many African countries is projected to be severely compromised.” The same claims have since been cited in speeches to world leaders by Pachauri and Ban. |
yet the numbers were never peer reviewed, the numbers were never scientific and were pretty much made up!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t.....017907.ece
Oh, and of minor note, more "hard science" or very loose reporting made to garner attention and make people panic?
They claimed that over half of the Netherlands was below sea level and likely to be affected by rising sea levels ...turns out only about a quarter of the nation is below sea level. lot's of doom and gloom based on what if's and false information.
http://www.reuters.com/article.....VU20100205
and what about Pachauri and these 'bribes' or 'rewards' handed out to companies that supported him? he also received grants based on the incorrect Himalaya info published. the house of cards is falling!
Science works when politics and greed do not get in the way, when they do, forget about 'science' this is nothing but greed, corruption and big business under the guise of science only.
|
|
| posts: 8593 | location: Rochester, NY, North Coast USA | joined: 14 Feb 2000 |
Danivon
Ambassador
|
Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:21 am |
| GMTom wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Ah well. I forgot that science was decided by opinion poll. |
finally something we can agree upon. |
Says the guy who kept bringing up the OISM survey, which was less rigorous than an opinion poll! 
| Quote: |
| Now lets put aside this whole "Consensus science" since it's the same thing after all. |
Depends what you mean by 'consensus science'. There is a difference between a large number of random people agreeing or disagreeing with a set of simple statements, and the overwhelming majority of experts coming to a similar view on a complex subject which they have published research on. There are consensuses in science, and there are some where a small number of scientists dissent - usually in the newer areas of theory, but also some scientists are just 'different'.
However, underlying any 'consensus science' is the actual published research and theory. It's that that needs to be looked at (and the IPCC report is not the science itself, it's the starting point to go to find it - if you want science, ignore the last report - the policymakers' summary - and dig through the first three).
| Quote: |
| and while opinion certainly does not affect the facts, it does affect the politics of the matter. A few months ago the opinions seemed to favor "warmism" now they favor "skeptism" and that's where the politics of the matter will almost always follow. |
Yes, it does affect the politics. Quite often the popular will has overriden doing what we in hindsight realise was the right course of action. People are funny that way, but that's what we get for having democracy.
|
|
| posts: 8520 | location: Rugby, Warwicksire, UK: Home of the oddly-shaped ball | joined: 15 Apr 2004 |
GMTom
Administrator
|
Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:58 am |
That's kind of funny
I KEEP bringing up some opinion?
I did in fact bring it up ONE time a LONG time ago.
You pointed out it was flawed, I agreed and only mentioned it the one time and not since you brought up the flaws. I agreed and move don, I did not perpetuate things as you want others to believe.
While the warmists continue to point to the recent IPCC report asking us to ignore this and ignore that, to look for the science in it while they masked all their facts as scientific and peer reviewed. And you suggest maybe we ignore this last one and concentrate on the earlier ones? The entire body of work is now suspect thanks to the alarming rate of misinformation and down right lies being thrust upon us as science. Are you saying the early scientific work was reliable, only now are they full of crap?
|
|
| posts: 8593 | location: Rochester, NY, North Coast USA | joined: 14 Feb 2000 |
Danivon
Ambassador
|
Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:58 pm |
| GMTom wrote: |
That's kind of funny
I KEEP bringing up some opinion?
I did in fact bring it up ONE time a LONG time ago.
You pointed out it was flawed, I agreed and only mentioned it the one time and not since you brought up the flaws. I agreed and move don, I did not perpetuate things as you want others to believe. |
You have mentioned it twice on this thread alone:
http://www.redscape.com/forum/.....;start=177
http://www.redscape.com/forum/.....;start=205
The first time, I pointed out that it had already been posted as a link on a different thread, and had been shown as flawed at the time. You ignored that and posted a link a second time. You then finally accepted that the survey was flawed.
I took the opportunity to read through those posts, and through the thread that I tried to spin off it on the 'science' presented by the OISM:
http://www.redscape.com/forum/.....hp?t=49225
Jesus H Christ, that was a severe test of my patience, Tom. You lied your way through that like a trooper, and tried to blame me for your misapprehensions / wilful misdirection.
| Quote: |
| While the warmists continue to point to the recent IPCC report asking us to ignore this and ignore that, to look for the science in it while they masked all their facts as scientific and peer reviewed. |
Tom, have you actually read through the reports from AR4?Have you seen where the references are? Have you read the more detailed technical reports?
Because while the summary documents contain errors of fact, and some of the references are not scientific studies, you will find that there's a lot of it that is based on peer reviewed science.
| Quote: |
| And you suggest maybe we ignore this last one and concentrate on the earlier ones?The entire body of work is now suspect thanks to the alarming rate of misinformation and down right lies being thrust upon us as science. Are you saying the early scientific work was reliable, only now are they full of crap? |
You misunderstand me. Probably because you have not read the IPCC AR4 Reports from 2007. I meant that there are four reports in AR4:
1. Working Group I Report: "The Physical Science Basis"
2. Working Group II Report: "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability"
3. Working Group III Report: "Mitigation of Climate Change"
4. The AR4 Synthesis Report
The last is a summary really, and is not as useful. The first is the primary document in terms of the case for the case for climate change occurring, the effect of CO2, the effect of mankind's activities etc.
I would suggest that this is the place to start, because the references are to papers that you can look up, read (perhaps beyond a paywall) and if possible, debunk.
Then look at the second and third Working Group reports and so the same, as they kind of follow in sequence in the sense of looking at the questions:
1. How is the climate changing, and what causes changes?
2. What would be the effect of change?
3. What could we do about change if it is happening?
Like most people, I'd say that the best course is to look at those in turn - if we can get to the end of (1) and determine that the change happening and that the causes that come from man are not going to make much difference, then the whole issue goes away. If not, but (2) ends up that the changes will have low impact, then we can relax. If not, but (3) comes out on the balance that we can't do anything about it, then we may need to be concerned but use resources in other ways to reduce the impact on humanity and our fellow planet-dwellers
When you find something iffy, see what the effect is on the whole report of removing it or changing it.
I was not saying that you should look at the older AR1 to AR3 reports as being more definitive. If anything, I'm saying (as I've said pretty much all along) that we should do more research going forward.
By the way, I saw something interesting today about Dr Pachauri. He was the first person elected to head up the IPCC (previously the role was appointed). National governments decided who would be in place instead of apparatchiks or scientists. As a result the incumbent, Dr Robert Watson, a scientist who had worked directly on climate was replaced.
So here's a quick quiz for you guys:
1) Which way did the US vote, Watson or Pachauri?
2) Which candidate did Al "boogeyman" Gore back?
This contemporary op-ed piece in the NYT by Gore provide the answers, and this was Al's opinion as to why the Bush administration voted as it did:
| Quote: |
| Because the largest polluters know their only hope for escaping restrictions lies in promoting confusion about global warming. |
Of course, Gore could be spinning a conspiracy theory here, but it's interesting how it turned out, eh?
|
|
| posts: 8520 | location: Rugby, Warwicksire, UK: Home of the oddly-shaped ball | joined: 15 Apr 2004 |
Danivon
Ambassador
|
Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:10 pm |
| Minister X wrote: |
| Well we are in the politics forum, not the Philosophy one (where most pure science stuff goes??). |
Not sure. There's stuff in General. Philosophy is 'Philosophy and Religion', and so the main scientific debate has been around religion or areas that religion in involved in. I know that science was once called "Natural Philosophy", but there was a reason why the new name was applied - the start of the use of the scientific method.
| Quote: |
| The politics of the situation is probably more important than the science of it. (At least in the short run.) In any case, it's not irrelevant to show poll results. I think the public's reaction to the whole issue is a fascinating socio-political phenomenon. |
Yes, it is interesting. However, I am also interested in the science, and to be perfectly blunt, if the scientific case goes one way or the other, in the long run the political debate could become moot.
|
|
| posts: 8520 | location: Rugby, Warwicksire, UK: Home of the oddly-shaped ball | joined: 15 Apr 2004 |
Pigmalia
Dignitary
|
Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:19 pm |
Danivon, given that you reread everything, could you link us to some place where you've staked out your position?
|
|
| posts: 4729 | location: Autonomous Inland Empire - Occupied | joined: 02 Feb 2006 |
You cannot post new topics
You cannot reply to topics
You cannot edit your posts
You cannot delete your posts
You cannot vote in polls
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
- 0 Registered
- GoogleBot
- GoogleBot
- 0 Hidden and 7 Guests
Site redesign in progress...
Please excuse the mess!
|
