Posted on 02/07/2007 11:35:13 AM PST by cogitator
End of the editorial:
... "What we really need is a more urgent program of research and development, focusing on nuclear power, electric batteries, alternative fuels and the capture of carbon dioxide. Naturally, there's no guarantee that socially acceptable and cost-competitive technologies will result. But without them, global warming is more or less on automatic pilot. Only new technologies would enable countries -- rich and poor -- to reconcile the immediate imperative of economic growth with the potential hazards of climate change.
Meanwhile, we could temper our energy appetite. I've argued before for a high oil tax to prod Americans to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles. The main aim would be to limit insecure oil imports, but it would also check CO2 emissions. Similarly, we might be better off shifting some of the tax burden from wages and profits to a broader tax on energy or carbon. That would favor more fuel-efficient light bulbs, appliances and industrial processes.
It's a debate we ought to have -- but probably won't. Any realistic response would be costly, uncertain and no doubt unpopular. That's one truth too inconvenient for almost anyone to admit."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
ping
Nah, more like Media's Never Ending Story:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp
Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can’t decide weather we face an ice age or warming
By R. Warren Anderson
The media is reporting what most reputable scientists are telling them.
Scientists are giving the media their best interpretation of the evidence.
But - as you and others correctly note - scientific predictions have been wrong before...many times. What you don't say is that in these matters scientific opinion is infinitely better than that of laymen. Especially laymen who would suffer economically if the scientists were believed.
What you don't say is that in these matters scientific opinion is infinitely better than that of laymen.
Science is only as good as its ability to withstand critical test of its observations. For the key is not the "scientist", nor his credentials. The key to science is being able to withstand critical test of hypothesis against observation, and nothing more.
When the "scientist" forget to keep science separate from their politics their judgement becomes as warped or more so in single minde pursuit of a goal in an echo chamber:
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."
(Steven Schneider, Quoted in Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989; and (American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996).
often becoming mercenary in their pursuit of funding:
"Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are."
-- Petr Chylek, Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, commenting on reports that Greenland's glaciers are melting. Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001
"Researchers pound the global-warming drum because they know there is politics and, therefore, money behind it. . . I've been critical of global warming and am persona non grata."
Dr. William Gray
(Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado and leading expert of hurricane prediction )
(in an interview for the Denver Rocky Mountain News, November 28, 1999)
Especially laymen who would suffer economically if the scientists were believed.
Hmmm, I notice you don't mention those "scientists" that suffer economically should they not be believed.
Science is independent of the researcher, belief in a scientist's credential's over critical test of his observations and hypothesis, reproducibility of result and reason are the only tests of science.
Especially where Billions of research dollars are in the target sites of large academic institutions and political power in the ken of political entities such as the UN/IPCC.
Now there's a big "IF." A carbon tax would raise the price of every good and service from airliners to ball point pens. The idea of such a tax producing "unexpected benefits" is the triumph of delusion over reality. The very idea that the Chinese would emulate a lemming-like leap into the sea of recession is laughable.
What makes the whole thing even more risible is that the net human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere is infinitesimal in terms of a percentage of the atmosphere at large. This governmental blunder would be a solution in search of a problem, like Carter's wasted "Synfuels" fiasco.
As I said in my first post none of this will make any difference to those who are called upon to make sacrifices. They'll continue along traditional paths until catastrophe strikes...or forever if it doesn't.
Scientists are subject to the same failings as other human beings but less so I think than most other groups by virtue of their training and calling.
You have spent much time around the political infighting for research dollars have you?
As I said in my first post none of this will make any difference to those who are called upon to make sacrifices.
One things for sure, sacrifice for sacrifice sake is not the way to go. The greater risks to society lay in declining global temperatures not warming trends. Unfortunately geological trend is for deep ice age 90% of the time.
It is totally foolish to fight the long term natural trend on this one. Lower highs and Lower lows of the geologic trend happens to be down not up.
Figure 1-2 Climate of the last 2400 years (GISP2)
Figure 1-3 Climate of the last 12,000 years (GISP2)
With the biggy waiting for the unwary:
Figure 1-5 Climate for the last 420 kyr, from Vostok ice
But that was just the camel's nose inside the tent.
The GW scamers won't be dumb enough to try to hit everyone with the full cost of their fantasy in one shot. They will do the death of a thousand cuts.
You're argument is ridiculous. At the present time no reputable scientist has to compromise his views to get funding. There's plenty of funding pro and con global warming.
One things for sure, sacrifice for sacrifice sake is not the way to go. The greater risks to society lay in declining global temperatures not warming trends. Unfortunately geological trend is for deep ice age 90% of the time.
Why do you keep posting ridiculous, pseudo-scientific evidence? After all this time, do you really believe that any reputable scientist is unaware of it, hasn't taken it into account in forming his views? The only people who'd even consider it are total ignoramouses. If IPCC scientists are wrong it won't be you who demonstrates it with stuff you found on the Internet.
Nobody's proposing sacrifice for no good reason. They're trying to avert a major catastrophe. But, as the author of the article at the head of this thread notes, the scale of sacrifice required is so great that there's no chance it will even be considered, let along adopted, under present conditions.
At the present time no reputable scientist has to compromise his views to get funding.
There's plenty of funding pro and con global warming.
Yep government billions for those that go with the flow. Concensus is what its about, not science.
Go against the flow, you can look for millions in private funding and have your work slammed for taking dollars from business interests and papers not published in "reputable" journals where the editorial boards are all so very unbiased in there stance on the issues of global warming.
Why do you keep posting ridiculous, pseudo-scientific evidence?
Hmmm, wasn't aware that ice core data published in Nature and other refree'd journals and kept in public archives were pseudo-scientific evidence. But I guess you figure such are.
After all this time, do you really believe that any reputable scientist is unaware of it, hasn't taken it into account in forming his views?
Absolutely they have, even the ones who provided those above:
|
Ice Ages & Astronomical Causes see also: Glacial Cycles and Astronomical Forcing and Origin of the 100 kyr Glacial Cycle
|
The debate is highly emotional because it has enormous consquences. People on all sides take hits...but if they're good, and tough enough to handle a good fight, they're gonna get funded.
The evidence you publish is not necessarily "pseudo". It only becomes so because of the way you use it. Contrarian views are normal in science as well as every other human endeavor. You're simply not in a position to give them proper weight. Only peers can do that...and, even then, the judgement is not always right. As you noted reality provides the only conclusive test of a theory or interpretation and policy will be irrelevant when that becomes available.
Nobody's proposing sacrifice for no good reason. They're trying to avert a major catastrophe.
Looking at the fundamental source of the bruhaha, the UN/UNEP/WMO/IPCC, the only catastrophe I see to be averted is that of empowerment of UN agendas.
A manufactured crisis is always great for garnering political power. From crisis management more central power flows my friend. What good is government if it does have something to fix?
But, as the author of the article at the head of this thread notes, the scale of sacrifice required is so great that there's no chance it will even be considered, let along adopted, under present conditions.
Especially true as this "CRISIS" is manufactured more from media hype and political overstatement than any "science" being performed on the side.
Science method does not bend to consensus, consensus is a political device. Science thrives is controversy and critical test of its hypothesis, transparency, reproducibility and above all not what amounts to closed community echo chambers, driving the show.
Not politics? Its politics whenever it drives dissenting voices away.
Indeed it does, the subjugation of free people by authoritarian self-proclaimed elites.
You're simply not in a position to give them proper weight. Only peers can do that...
ROTFLMAO!!! Lovely appeal to authority, that one. Of course it ignores who gets to referee the process. When its a political organization like the UN/UNEP/WMO/IPCC, one thing is certain it isn't science driving the show, it is consensus politics and Delphi methods driving the cart from beginning to end.
Science requires the critical test, not a vote or a board of politically acceptable "peers" to review papers judged acceptable by gateway referees.
As you noted reality provides the only conclusive test of a theory or interpretation and policy will be irrelevant when that becomes available.
Unfortunately politics move forward, regardless of any lack of test or validity of a test by science. The political goal in this has nothing to do with science, it has to do with international politics and garnering power in hands that desire it.
The patina of science is merely a means to an end in the real show. For the purposes of government, it matters not at all where reality lay or a test of science, once the regulatory infrastructure desired is in place the goal is achieved and on to the next international "CRISIS" that only government can fix.
Policy could careless about science that does not support policy goals. In politics the science is irrelevant and useful only insofar as it provides a perception of reason to achieve a goal as opposed to application of messy raw power to force its ends.
My good man, you should certainly know by now that no tax is ever repealed once enacted. It just becomes part of the accepted landscape. That's why every new tax must be vigorously resisted, and those tied to envirowackoism should be most vehemently denied, just on principle.
"Oh, I would say our conquests of Afghanistan and Iraq were serious actions."
Conquests? I suppose we are on a conquest to steal their oil in order to increase the rate of global warming.
"The increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration from the beginning of the Industrial Age is almost entirely due to fossil fuel use, and that's the cause of the concern."
Really? Prove it.
"Contrarian views are normal in science as well as every other human endeavor. You're simply not in a position to give them proper weight. Only peers can do that..."
You mean "peers" of Al Gore?
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.
