Text 1914, 122 rader
Skriven 2006-06-07 13:40:00 av Robert E Starr JR (2360.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Josh Hill to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <2bqb82h6e5omj29jnd6nsmoredi27p4jm9@4ax.com>
@REPLY: <L_veg.878$VE1.89@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 18:23:59 +0000 (UTC), Charlie Edmondson
<edmondson@ieee.org> wrote:

>Josh Hill wrote:
>
>Ok, I am going to regret this, again, but I can't stand it anymore...
>
>Josh,
>You have a bad habit of saying "My sources are all fair, unbiased 
>organizations with no spin or vested interest" and all contrary sources 
>are shills for the evil oil-polluter-industrial-whatever companies.
>
>What you apparently refuse to see is that the organizations you quote, 
>while large, official, and very, very authoritive, also have a HUGE 
>interest in getting the public to think this is a major issue - THIS IS 
>HOW THEY GET THEIR FUNDING INCREASED!
>
>Now, I am sure that you believe no self respecting scientist would slant 
>their research, or the interpretation of their research in to a specific 
>policy direction, but you maybe have never worked in academia, where 
>much of this research is generated.  I, on the other had, have.  If the 
>NOAA thinks that there is human caused global warming, ubetcha my 
>research will support that.  Even if the evidence is marginal at best, I 
>can always find a way to justify it.
>
>Now, I admit that I am a couple of years out of this debate, directly. 
>I got to meet and talk to a few of the researchers at the Earth Systems 
>Sciences deptartment at UCI.  Basically, the actual results are iffy. 
>There are some indications that there is human caused global warming, as 
>well as human caused global cooling! There are factors in natural 
>greenhouse gas emmisions, as well as the aircraft cloud covers that all 
>go into the models, and what you get is anyone's guess.  And the guesses 
>depend on what you want the results to be.  The grant money is in 
>verifying global warming.  What results would you report when the 
>answers you get are ambiguous at best?
>
>Also, was listening to Gore yesterday on one of the Sunday newsies.  He 
>was asked to justify some of his doom and gloom (The WTC memorial being 
>underwater) when the consenses says it won't be anywhere near that bad. 
>  His answer?  Well, the researchers don't actually KNOW it won't be 
>that bad...

Charlie, a few points:

- You /are/ out of the loop. The human contribution to global warming
was controversial a few years ago, but it isn't anymore. See for
example this excellent article that Amy just posted:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1489955,00.html

- An article that I mentioned here a few days ago had quoted a survey
that showed only a minority of climate scientists claiming there was
evidence of a human contribution to global warming 10 or 15 years ago.
If their opinions had been bought and paid for, they would likely have
expressed a different opinion.

- The article about the study of scientific integrity that someone
posted here a few months back found that a minority (15%? I don't
remember the exact figure) of scientists reported having massaged
results. But it was a minority of scientists. The vast majority of
scientists, including most or all of the scientists I've known,
studied under, and worked with, would do no such thing. They didn't go
into science to produce phony results, but because they were
interested in the truth.

I'm reminded of the time the Nazis, who detested what they called
"Jewish science," organized a presentation called "100 Physicists
Against Einstein." Einstein attended, applauding loudly, and is said
to have quipped "Had I been wrong, one physicist would have been
enough."

And then there's Galileo, who /did/ change his interpretation of his
observations to suit the powers that be, but is said to have muttered
under his breath as he left the room "But it does move."

- Even studies financed by the Bush Administration, which is warming
denial central, conclude that global warming due to greenhouse
emissions is real.

- Science quite simply would not work if most experiments were done on
a political basis: we would have Lysenkoism. But we don't. Not
infrequently, scientists who take a novel position have to scrounge
for research funds and endure the disapproval of their peers. But time
and time again, they have done just that, and inevitably their
positions have triumphed.

-- Who was right, tobacco company researchers or the researchers who
claimed that smoking caused cancer? It's simply not true that the
grants process, however biased it may be towards the majority
scientific view, exerts the same degree of influence that corporate
financing does, or suffers from motivations as venal and corrupt.

- I quite agree with Gore, having felt the same way when the science
was less certain. We have only one planet. Given the consequence of
the worst-case scenarios, the practical irreversibility of the warming
process once gases have been emitted, the years it takes for the
damage to become manifest, and the elevated cost of precipitous
action, it seems to me that the only responsible action in this case
is to cut greenhouse gas emissions with all deliberate speed.

- From another article posted today: "Warmer water, followed by
disease, has killed about one-third of coral reefs at official
monitoring sites in the Caribbean since last year."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06/05/warming.trends.ap/index.html


-- 
Josh

"I'm not going to play like I've been a person who's spent hours involved with
foreign policy.
I am who I am." - George W. Bush
          
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)