Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 226 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
12/07/19 03:58 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
paul 1
True 1
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Topic Options
#17003 - 11/05/06 10:19 PM Re: Greenhouse gases hit record high
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
I read a bit of some of them ... enough to get the flavour. But when the point is quantity rather than quality I stop reading.
the problem is that you ignore the quality of those words. its not a matter of one or the other, its a case that to have max quality, you sometimes have to have a quantity of words.

the reverse is also true.

you try to say things with few words and generally dont get much said, save "your wrong"

Quote:
Because it comes with strings. Look at the current scandal in the FDA and JAMA about funding of pharmaceutical work being corrupted. For example only publishing favorable results.
and you think there is no strings attached by nasa and others that are looking for proof of global warming? global warming funding is every bit as bad as those scandals in FDA and JAMA, but the ones doing it claim that its ok for them to do it.

Quote:
In some cases it is bad. That is why I don't quote GreenPeace and some other groups where money may be corrupting objectivity. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. You seem please with industry funded research (because you agree with it) and derisive toward GreenPeace (because you don't). I don't trust either of them..
at least greenpeace is open about their corruption and the reason for it. they completely believe in global warming, and do their best to prove it and make no bones about that. others pretend that they are doing honest research, yet refuse to pay for any research that disagrees with it. how honest is that.

Quote:
They are. That is exactly what they are doing. They are responding with information from public relations departments ... not results from peer reviewed journals..
so how do you get published things in peer review journals when the editors are either hardcore global warming alarmist, or stubbornly refuse to publish data that goes against things their peer review has said was good in the first case. Many of the "attacks" use data from those journals. In some cases they cant because quoteing the articles from those journals would be counted as infringements on copywrite laws.


Quote:
That is hyperbole not fact. They gave money to someone with a reasonable expectation he wouldn't sink them with a torpedo. No one hires an attorney who will get up in front of the jury and call him a piece of trash. That is just normal human behaviour...
the same can be said of any grant given to people who say in the summery that they are going to prove global warming. The difference is that he could torpedo them, because they have no control over him. on the other hand, those with the purse strings can cut the funding on any research that does not support global warming. It just normal human behaviour to make sure that the research paper agrees with their public stance.


Quote:
If there had been a real desire for objective research they could have provided access to their facility and taken no financial position. Grad students would have gladly jumped at the chance.
only if they wanted to be labeled as oil company studgies. moble had to stop funding medical research because the researchers were being labeled as oil company studges and were having trouble getting researchers willing to go against that image. moble did not have any finaceal stake in cancer research. you used to be able to see things on tv that were sponsored by moble, but not anymore, because tv producers dont want that stigma.


Quote:
Good question ... but the truth is that they all do. So perhaps you should put that question to them. While you are at it why not ask Ford and GM, who passed the cost on to consumers, why they opposed seat belts?
dont have a clue about ford or gm, but the electric companies live in the communities they serve. what do you think would happen when the goverment put the cost of the co2 clean up on the electric companies? do you think the e.c. would eat the cost? no, it would be the people of the community that did. The e.c. would actually make more money in the long run but the cost to the community could cost many of them the life of the communtity. how would elderly people that can barely afford the electicity now be able to pay for the increase? how about the disability? what about companies that have a very slim profit margin? what about people that work for companies that would go out of buisness due to the increase in cost of operations?

the electic companies know what damage this would do to THEIR communtities. If the increase in cost hurt the goverments, they will just raise the taxes more to cover the cost of their pay increase.


Quote:
Conclusion:
Objectivity means always using critical thinking skills. It means I am as cynical and distrustful of those I agree with as with those who I detest.
The fact that I like someone or something doesn't make them right. And the fact that I dislike something doesn't make it ALWAYS wrong.
you claim to be cynical, but you accept the words they post in news articles without question. how is that cynical. being cynical would demand that you demand the facts themselves, not the words of the arthor. your only cynical of those who disagree with you. otherwise we would not have to constantly demand links to the DATA that backs up the links that you give.

you claim to be cynical, but you post politically charged news statments from political organizations, then claim they are neither political, nor that they are mere statements. you claim these statements as fact rather than give the facts that back those statements. being cynical would mean that you doubted them as much as the politically own sites that others previde you in return. but you cant do this.

you claim to be cynical, but your not. If you were cynical, you would be like rics and myself. neither of us are willing to accept either the statement that global warming is caused by man, or the statement that man has cause no damage to the enviroment.

If you wer cynical you would wonder why they are making such noise about something we can do little about, rather than making a lot of noise about things we can easily do, save that it will cost money.

ps. rics i too read what you write, and at least skim all the links people give.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
.
#17004 - 11/05/06 10:48 PM Re: Greenhouse gases hit record high
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
dehammer wrote:
"and you think there is no strings attached by nasa and others that are looking for proof of global warming?"

Lets assume there are strings attached to NASA's budget. Who put those strings there? Lets see NASA is funded by a Republican Senate and House of Representatives, is an agency reporting to a Republican President, and administered by someone who is an appointee of said Republican President. So it would seem reasonable that the strings, if they exist, would be to those who supply the money, the leadership, and the management.

That said ... please provide me with a single reference point to help me understand the Republican Party's desire to produce phony science promoting the idea that there is global warming?

Can you find it in their party platform?
In the President's State of the Union speech?
Where is it?
Inquiring minds want to know!

No matter how deep the hole ... you just keep digging: Amazing!
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#17005 - 11/05/06 11:06 PM Re: Greenhouse gases hit record high
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
wrong, wrong, wrong.

they get the money, then NASA decides how to spend it. Washington has no control over how its money is spend once its given to NASA. Its the people there that are controlling it, just as they are in other places that washington gives money too, without restriction.

no matter what people tell you, you keep trying to misdirect it away from the facts you are shown. Its really amazing that you are so political, yet never got into politics. you should have been president by now.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#17006 - 11/06/06 12:57 AM Re: Greenhouse gases hit record high
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
dehammer wrote:
"they get the money, then NASA decides how to spend it."

NASA decides? NASA doesn't have a brain (no need to take the bait Uncle Al).

This is right up there is guns don't kill people ... people kill people.

A gun, without human intervention can not kill a person. And it is people, the Administrators running NASA that make decisions. Especially when it comes to matters of budget. And every one of those administrators serves at the pleasure of the sitting President George W. Bush.

So far every accusation ever made in the press has been that the Republican administration has censored science that favored the point of view that global warming is caused by humans.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml
http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/newsletter/04292005/index.cfm
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=414

In fact there is currently a federal lawsuit before the courts charging the exact opposite of what you contend. Not a single data-point that supports you.

PS: A google search for ("NASA" and "censoring science") returns 4,070 links.

The whole is deep enough: Stop digging.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#17007 - 11/06/06 12:58 AM Re: Greenhouse gases hit record high
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Excuse me "hole" not "whole."
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#17008 - 11/06/06 03:01 AM Re: Greenhouse gases hit record high
RicS Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/26/06
Posts: 310
Loc: Sydney, Australia
G'day Dan Morgan,

I do have a quick answer to your Ford and GM question. The opposition to seat belts in the US, but not Australia, UK and much of Europe was because Ford and GM thought their US customers so stupid that they would not pay for safety. Actually they still treat US customers as being stupidier than the rest of the world with seat belts absurdly complicated because they do not think that simply saying a seat belt will save lives and letting the user put them on is good enough.

The difference, and this is a very big difference, is that Ford and GM were competing against others, including imports that had just started to raise their ugly heads in the form of terribly built but very cheap Japanese cars. If the rules for seat belts were equal the world over I don't think Ford or GM would have cared. But the proposed laws were state by state, not even US wide. They were afraid that it would affect their sales and that others could get around the same laws.

Now a coal fired power station doesn't have any of those fears. Its customers cannot say, hey, your coal is now too dear because of CO2 credits or special filters or whatever so we are going to go solar or wind or hydro. Try and get a hydro dam built in the US. Actually try and put up a wind farm or heaven forbit, import Natural Gas so that California doesn't keep on being at risk of brown outs. So the coal fired power station owner (that actually is in the business of supplying energy and probably would be just as happy if the energy came from nuclear or a wind station) has a real monopoly in the sense that any carbon credit will affect everyone in their industry US wide. And it isn't as if you can import electricity, can you?

Regards


Richard
_________________________
Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness

Top
#17009 - 11/06/06 05:00 AM Re: Greenhouse gases hit record high
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
dehammer wrote:
"they get the money, then NASA decides how to spend it."

NASA decides? NASA doesn't have a brain (no need to take the bait Uncle Al).

This is right up there is guns don't kill people ... people kill people.

A gun, without human intervention can not kill a person. And it is people, the Administrators running NASA that make decisions. Especially when it comes to matters of budget. And every one of those administrators serves at the pleasure of the sitting President George W. Bush.
the president can fire and hire the head of NASA, but only after much more political debate than even you have done here. even more than you have tried to do.

he has to choise the person from a set of canidates that is acceptable to loads of people. Once he has hired him, he still cant do a lot about the day to day things NASA does. If the guy that is in the office does something the president doesnt like, he would have a hard time taking him to task about it.

the current head was only appointed in april 05 so he has not been the one to fund most of the studies about global warming.

just because the president does not believe in global warming, that does not mean other members of his dont.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#17010 - 11/06/06 07:21 PM Re: Greenhouse gases hit record high
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
RicS wrote:
"But the proposed laws were state by state, not even US wide. They were afraid that it would affect their sales and that others could get around the same laws."

Not true. They fought against a single national standard with equal enthusiasm. And the truth is that those not fighting reality: Nissan, Toyota, etc. now are in a position to buy GM and Ford if they don't bankrupt themselves first.

"And it isn't as if you can import electricity, can you?"

Actually you can and we do. The grid shares power between the US and Canada.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#17011 - 11/06/06 07:27 PM Re: Greenhouse gases hit record high
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
dehammer just once you should try looking something up before inventing an answer: Just once!

You wrote:
"the president can fire and hire the head of NASA, but only after much more political debate than even you have done here."

http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/griffin_bio.html

Which part of "Nominated by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the United States Senate, Michael Griffin began his duties as the 11th Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on April 14, 2005." don't you understand?

This is the man with the power to hire and fire.
This is the man that controls the budget.
You just shot yourself in the foot yet again.
The hole you are digging is deep enough.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#17012 - 11/07/06 05:26 AM Re: Greenhouse gases hit record high
RicS Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/26/06
Posts: 310
Loc: Sydney, Australia
G'day Dan,

The point about NASA, is petty and nothing to do mith the science of this thread, which started out not being about any real science anyway.

Dr Hansen has come in for tremendous critiscism. Has the President fired him? I'm sure he'd like to. But the President's powers are quite limited. He can recommend appointments. The Senate then confirms them or doesn't. If the President doesn't then like the person, see how easily he can just "fire" them. You missed one side to the equation. The press.

The President does not control the budget other than at a very macro level. He can and has decided to increase funding for pure research. What happens to that funding is then decided at levels that the President has no control over. The Senate could pass laws to control distribution but once again you have the press.

This is why in Australia we don't have this probelm. We don't have a President. Those that agree with Global Warming as an absolute fact think our Prime Minister is reprehensible because he has not allocated billions to fighting global warming nor did he sign Kyoto. But funnily enough even he, with more power day to day to interfere than the US President cannot tell organisations such as the CSIRO what to do with their money in more than very macro terms.

In Britain they have the argument that the BBC, government funded, is anti-government and often very left leaning in their views. Funny but despite the government funding them and appointing their chairpersons, they have not been able to really fix this. We have the same in Australia with our ABC. If governments cannot exercise any control over the general political persuation of their news organisations funded fully by them, how do you expect your President to do any better with science funding?


Richard
_________________________
Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness

Top
#17013 - 11/07/06 08:35 PM Re: Greenhouse gases hit record high
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
RicS wrote:
"Dr Hansen has come in for tremendous critiscism. Has the President fired him? I'm sure he'd like to."

Hardly. The tremendous criticism has been from NASA's actual scientists, not political hacks, who are hacked off that real science is being censored by White House appointees.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.