The Political Denial of Science

[BethesdaWX]

Isn't it amazing how a denier can come up with a complex dissonant argument for any possible mainstream scientific bit of knowledge if that knowledge just happens to support AGW science? You're good Bethesda!

Truth hurts don't it...why use Proxy data to 1960 when we have hundreds of measurements before then? The adjust to Match the proxy?

Denier? Denier of what? Mass AGW? How Dare I, I must be a Holocaust Denier! I'm nothing but a worthless Denier Hag trying to destroy the globe with CO2! Plant food be damned! Agricultural Benefit be damned! More room for human population expansion be Damned!

We're destroying the planet!

[BethesdaWX]

Bethesda is very detail-oriented but in my opinion short on analytical ability. Analysis is part skill and part art; much of it is innate; one is either born a good analyst or one is not. Bethesda is still young; his skill set will develop in the years ahead.

Thanks.....

[Hambone]

I read the whole thing but then to my dismay find no link to its authorship. Darn I hate that. Unless Hambone is the author, it's called "plagiarism."

Nice try Sherlock, it's obviously a cut and paste. I apologize profusely for missing the byline... now why don't you speak to the issues instead of throwing up a straw man.

Here ya go.

http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/145-union-of-concerned-scientists

[WeatherRusty]

Nice try Sherlock, it's obviously a cut and paste. I apologize profusely for missing the byline... now why don't you speak to the issues instead of throwing up a straw man.

Here ya go.

http://activistcash....rned-scientists

Thank you very much. Now there's a right-wing, anti-science, anti-environment outfit for you. Just as I thought.

[Mencken_Fan]

Thanks.....

You're welcome......

I hope you're not so sensitive that at the mere age of 20 or so, you would take any offense to the notion that your analytical skills are not yet fully developed. Ten years from now you'll be aghast at how little you knew back when you were twenty!

When in my 20s I served in the USAF (NORAD) then shuffled around in various jobs until finding my niche as an analyst; in my early 30s!

I don't know your personal situation...but if you can avoid my primary mistake (failure to attend college), you'll have a leg up on people like me in today's world. And if you can match my IQ to boot....the pickings should be easy.

BTW...I wonder how much you know about Glen Echo Amusement Park? (I could tell you stories!)

[skierinvermont]

You're welcome......

I hope you're not so sensitive that at the mere age of 20 or so, you would take any offense to the notion that your analytical skills are not yet fully developed. Ten years from now you'll be aghast at how little you knew back when you were twenty!

When in my 20s I served in the USAF (NORAD) then shuffled around in various jobs until finding my niche as an analyst; in my early 30s!

I don't know your personal situation...but if you can avoid my primary mistake (failure to attend college), you'll have a leg up on people like me in today's world. And if you can match my IQ to boot....the pickings should be easy.

BTW...I wonder how much you know about Glen Echo Amusement Park? (I could tell you stories!)

I've actually read that raw analytical ability and brain power peaks in the mid 20s usually. Chess players usually peak around 30-35 I think because it is a long learning process that requires memory and experience, as well as analytical ability. Reasoning, spatial visualization, and speed of thought all decline after the late 20s. Humans weren't meant to live past 40. The brain, like the rest of the body, is a relic by that point sustained only by the life support of modern medicine and civilization.

[BethesdaWX]

You're welcome......

I hope you're not so sensitive that at the mere age of 20 or so, you would take any offense to the notion that your analytical skills are not yet fully developed. Ten years from now you'll be aghast at how little you knew back when you were twenty!

When in my 20s I served in the USAF (NORAD) then shuffled around in various jobs until finding my niche as an analyst; in my early 30s!

I don't know your personal situation...but if you can avoid my primary mistake (failure to attend college), you'll have a leg up on people like me in today's world. And if you can match my IQ to boot....the pickings should be easy.

BTW...I wonder how much you know about Glen Echo Amusement Park? (I could tell you stories!)

Yep I'm shootin for the PHD, and I'll get it too, or try my best to do so Graduated with a 4.34GPA out of Walt Whitman, and will attend college in a year or two...jus taking some time off!

And yes, I live right Next to Glen Echo Amusement park, but have never been there lol.

[BethesdaWX]

I've actually read that raw analytical ability and brain power peaks in the mid 20s usually. Chess players usually peak around 30-35 I think because it is a long learning process that requires memory and experience, as well as analytical ability. Reasoning, spatial visualization, and speed of thought all decline after the late 20s. Humans weren't meant to live past 40. The brain, like the rest of the body, is a relic by that point sustained only by the life support of modern medicine and civilization.

Yeah I heard the brain "grows" until you're 26 or something, then we begin the drop off

[Mencken_Fan]

Yep I'm shootin for the PHD, and I'll get it too, or try my best to do so Graduated with a 4.34GPA out of Walt Whitman, and will attend college in a year or two...jus taking some time off!

And yes, I live right Next to Glen Echo Amusement park, but have never been there lol.

I know three people with PHDs and though they're great to socialize with, none of 'em could fight their way out of an intellectual paper bag, (They know too much about one thing without knowing much about anything else.)

On another note....I did once make acquaintance with a gentleman who was a theoretical mathematician; and boy was I reminded how little i knew about mathematics - gasp! When I suggested we already know enough about mathematics, he looked at me as a modern geographer would look at a flat earther. Talk about being put in my place....OMG!

[Mencken_Fan]

I've actually read that raw analytical ability and brain power peaks in the mid 20s usually. Chess players usually peak around 30-35 I think because it is a long learning process that requires memory and experience, as well as analytical ability. Reasoning, spatial visualization, and speed of thought all decline after the late 20s. Humans weren't meant to live past 40. The brain, like the rest of the body, is a relic by that point sustained only by the life support of modern medicine and civilization.

That may be so......but you're missing the key point; analytical ability is innate. If you're innate ability is a 2, you'll peak at 2. If you innate ability is a 10 you'll peak at 10.

The guy/gal with 10 will, in time, deteriorate to 9, 8 and 7...while the guy/gal with 2 will slide into oblivion.

[BethesdaWX]

That may be so......but you're missing the key point; analytical ability is innate. If you're innate ability is a 2, you'll peak at 2. If you innate ability is a 10 you'll peak at 10.

The guy/gal with 10 will, in time, deteriorate to 9, 8 and 7...while the guy/gal with 2 will slide into oblivion.

Also I don't think Brain Power is the same thing as "intellectual ability". You learn more and more as you age.

Kind of like how the average dude will peak in strength around age 26, but if they continue lifting, they'll continue to grow stronger into their 40's, and maintain through the 50's if working hard enough.

[tacoman25]

I've actually read that raw analytical ability and brain power peaks in the mid 20s usually. Chess players usually peak around 30-35 I think because it is a long learning process that requires memory and experience, as well as analytical ability. Reasoning, spatial visualization, and speed of thought all decline after the late 20s. Humans weren't meant to live past 40. The brain, like the rest of the body, is a relic by that point sustained only by the life support of modern medicine and civilization.

What about evolution?

[Qaanaaq]

Whoa Nelly....

for starters: who here thinks science has the corner on truth? AND who here thinks republicans or, OR, democrats have the corner on truth?

What is science....?

If the theory is true, then the prediction is true.

The prediction is not true.

Therefore, the theory is not true.

Read Popper!

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Karl_Popper

[skierinvermont]

What about evolution?

It takes a long time to evolve. And even if humans started living longer due to improvements in technology, that doesn't necessarily mean that longevity will be selected for because they will have already reproduced (most likely in their teens and 20s). Thus there is no strong 'natural selection' for longevity because the traits do not manifest until post-reproductive age. To the extent that living past 40 allows for better care of offspring, this could be selected for, however since historically most mating has occurred at the ages of 15-25 .. most children will be reared and independent by the time the parent is 40. And having elderly weak individuals in a hunter gatherer society or in an agriculture society is a drain. So I don't see any strong selective pressure to live past 40 over the last 10k years of human history, which is a short period for evolution anyways.

Average life expectancy globally has only surpassed 40 during the course of the 20th century. Even in Great Britain it did not surpass 40 until around 1840. Life expectancy was actually highest during the paleolithic period prior to the development of agriculture, when it was nearly 35. With the development of agriculture life expectancy fell to close to 20, rising to the upper 20s in greece and rome. Medieval Britain had a life expectancy of 30. So there really hasn't been any increase in life expectancy globally until the 20th century.

And even now the genetics of these elder individuals is not usually selected for because they have already produced and raised children. Interestingly, as marriage and age at child-birth become later and later, we are probably applying a strong selective pressure for the ability to give birth into a woman's 40s. But this pressure has only existed for few generations.

These days people that live a long time actually tend to have far more children than people who live short lives. However, this correlation is tied to a 3rd factor (environment) and not to genetics, so is unlikely to lead to more evolution (Although the same type of phenomenon is leading to an increasing proportion of non-caucasian ethnicities).

[BethesdaWX]

It takes a long time to evolve. And even if humans started living longer due to improvements in technology, that doesn't necessarily mean that longevity will be selected for because they will have already reproduced (most likely in their teens and 20s). Thus there is no strong 'natural selection' for longevity because the traits do not manifest until post-reproductive age. To the extent that living past 40 allows for better care of offspring, this could be selected for, however since historically most mating has occurred at the ages of 15-25 .. most children will be reared by independent by the time the parent is 40. And having elderly weak individuals in a hunter gatherer society or in an agriculture society is a drain. So I don't see any strong selective pressure to live past 40 over the last 10k years of human history, which is a short period for evolution anyways.

Average life expectancy globally has only surpassed 40 during the course of the 20th century. Even in Great Britain it did not surpass 40 until around 1840. Life expectancy was actually highest during the paleolithic period prior to the development of agriculture, when it was nearly 35. With the development of agriculture life expectancy fell to close to 20, rising to the upper 20s in greece and rome. Medieval Britain had a life expectancy of 30. So there really hasn't been any increase in life expectancy globally until the 20th century.

And even now the genetics of these elder individuals is not usually selected for because they have already produced and raised children. Interestingly, as marriage and age at child-birth become later and later, we are probably applying a strong selective pressure for the ability to give birth into a woman's 40s. But this pressure has only existed for few generations.

haha, well, my mom was 39 when I was born, explains a few things I guess

[WeatherRusty]

Whoa Nelly....

for starters: who here thinks science has the corner on truth? AND who here thinks republicans or, OR, democrats have the corner on truth?

What is science....?

If the theory is true, then the prediction is true.

The prediction is not true.

Therefore, the theory is not true.

Read Popper!

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Karl_Popper

We utilize the scientific method because it has proven to be useful. It produces positive results.

The truth about what? If I punch a solid wall I likely will do damage to my hand. Why? Because the electron shells making up the atoms of my hand and the wall will repel one another if they get to close together like trying to press the negative poles of two separate magnets together. That's my theory and it happens to be true. Go ahead a prove me wrong!

The theory behind AGW is elegant and simple. It is very likely true based as it is on well established physics, current observations and the history of regular, pronounced climate change. It makes predictions which will take more time to verify to many people's satisfaction. Or it won't. Odds are it will as the science is quit robust, yet I can't say exactly what the global temperature will be say in 2050 or 2100 or what the exact repercussions will be in terms of climate in isolated locations.

Major disruption to water and food supplies will quite likely become pronounced if more than about 2C of warming ensues. That extinction of species will greatly exceed the natural background rate is almost certain. Science informs us that the climate system is not one of stasis, it is in a tug of war seeking a dynamic equilibrium and will temporarily settle down where the forces that cause it are balanced. By adding CO2 to the atmosphere we are changing one of several fundamental components which are in control of our climate, and we are thus forcing climate into a new equilibrium state.

[skierinvermont]

haha, well, my mom was 39 when I was born, explains a few things I guess

Well if you have any daughters then you may be proliferating the genetic traits necessary for childbirth into a woman's late 30s and 40s

[BethesdaWX]

We utilize the scientific method because it has proven to be useful. It produces positive results.

The truth about what? If I punch a solid wall I likely will do damage to my hand. Why? Because the electron shells making up the atoms of my hand and the wall will repel one another if they get to close together like trying to press the two negative poles of two separate magnets together. That's my theory and it happens to be true. Go ahead a prove me wrong!

The theory behind AGW is elegant and simple. It is very likely true based as it is on well established physics, current observations and the history of regular, pronounced climate change. It makes predictions which will take more time to verify to many people's satisfaction. Or it won't. Odds are it will as the science is quit robust, yet I can't say exactly what the global temperature will be say in 2050 or 2100 or what the exact repercussions will be in terms of climate in isolated locations.

Major disruption to water and food supplies will quite likely become pronounced if more than about 2C of warming ensues. That extinction of species will greatly exceed the natural background rate is almost certain. Science informs us that the climate system is not one of stasis, it is in a tug of war seeking a dynamic equilibrium and will temporarily settle down where the forces that cause it are balanced. By adding CO2 to the atmosphere we are changing one of several fundamental components which is in control of our climate, and we are thus forcing climate into a new equilibrium state.

-one is a testable method, AGW is not (yet)

-One has absolute certainty, while AGW has several theories to fight against.......that may change as we get smarter (assuming we do)

-One uses the scientific method, AGW doesn't... That May change

To put it in more valid terms...

If I punch a brick wall with all my strength, I'll break my hand. But depending If What I punch is Rubber, Concrete, The dude who Stole my Girl (I'd love to give him a KO), Glass, it the Carpet...AND...How hard I punch it...the damage to my hand could either require surgery, or I could be completely fine.

cheers

[BethesdaWX]

Well if you have any daughters then you may be proliferating the genetic traits necessary for childbirth into a woman's late 30s and 40s

Awesome

Now I need someone to test it out with If you have any numbers, PM them to me of Facebook them to me

[skierinvermont]

Whoa Nelly....

for starters: who here thinks science has the corner on truth? AND who here thinks republicans or, OR, democrats have the corner on truth?

What is science....?

If the theory is true, then the prediction is true.

The prediction is not true.

Therefore, the theory is not true.

Read Popper!

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Karl_Popper

1) The predictions are not failing.

2) It is odd that you would cite Popper after claiming science does not 'hold the corner on truth.' Popper himself argued that science (IE the process of deductive reasoning) alone is the source of all knowledge of the external world (as opposed to knowledge of logical relations, IE 1+1=2).

If you believe that science is not the sole source of knowledge about the empirical world, you should probably be referencing a philosopher besides Popper. Most philosophers believe that science is the sole arbiter of knowledge regarding the external world, although they have varying beliefs about how science should be conducted (empiricists vs rationalists, deductivism vs inductivism).

[nzucker]

Average life expectancy globally has only surpassed 40 during the course of the 20th century. Even in Great Britain it did not surpass 40 until around 1840. Life expectancy was actually highest during the paleolithic period prior to the development of agriculture, when it was nearly 35. With the development of agriculture life expectancy fell to close to 20, rising to the upper 20s in greece and rome. Medieval Britain had a life expectancy of 30. So there really hasn't been any increase in life expectancy globally until the 20th century.

Of course, this doesn't mean most people only lived until they were 30; to the contrary, the high infant mortality rate brought down life expectancy while those who survived their younger years often made it into the 50s and 60s.

[WeatherRusty]

So here, for that record, is a list of things Republicans now say they officially don’t believe:

• that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has skyrocketed by about 100 parts per million since 1950.

• that carbon dioxide disrupts the transfer of thermal energy through the atmosphere, trapping it and redirecting it back to Earth (otherwise known as the “greenhouse effect”).

• that the absorption of this heat has caused the Earth’s oceans to get warmer by about .302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969. When water gets warmer, it expands, resulting in rising sea levels.

• that the warming of the Earth has also has caused glaciers, ice caps and ice sheets to melt.

• that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are each losing mass at an accelerating rate. Together, they’ve lost a combined average of 475 gigatonnes a year. And that rate of loss is accelerating by about 36.3 gigatonnes every year. That water ends up in the Earth’s oceans.

• that glaciers are also retreating across Asia, threatening the water supply there and resulting in massive water runoffs and extreme flooding. In Bhutan, 66 glaciers have decreased by 8.1 percent over the last 30 years. The Himalayan glacier Chhota Shigri Glacier, in India, has lost 12 percent of its mass in just the last 13 years.

• that the addition of this water to the oceans has caused the rate of global sea rise to double in the last decade, to about 3.4 millimeters per year (as opposed to about 1.8 millimeters for the last century).

• that the warming of the planet increases the likelihood and frequency of extreme weather events — including hurricanes and intense rainfall — by raising ocean temperatures and adding energy to the Earth’s atmosphere. Since 1975, the destructive power of tropical cyclones — their duration and maximum wind speed — has increased by 70 percent.

• that the atmosphere is getting much, much warmer. 2010 is now tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record — ever. The 20 warmest years on record have occurred since 1981. The 10 warmest years on record have occurred in the past 12 years.

Source_PBS

Now of course, wouldn't you know it, the Republican denialists seek to discontinue 100% of federal funding going to PBS.

[skierinvermont]

Of course, this doesn't mean most people only lived until they were 30; to the contrary, the high infant mortality rate brought down life expectancy while those who survived their younger years often made it into the 50s and 60s.

Actually the life expectancy for those who survived their infant years was still only around 45-50 for most of the last 20k years.

Regardless, the general idea is life expectancy has not really begun to rise until the 20th century, which is too short a period for natural selection. Moreover, longevity is not subject to natural selection because it doesn't increase reproductive success.

[BethesdaWX]

So here, for that record, is a list of things Republicans now say they officially don’t believe:

• that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has skyrocketed by about 100 parts per million since 1950.

• that carbon dioxide disrupts the transfer of thermal energy through the atmosphere, trapping it and redirecting it back to Earth (otherwise known as the “greenhouse effect”).

• that the absorption of this heat has caused the Earth’s oceans to get warmer by about .302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969. When water gets warmer, it expands, resulting in rising sea levels.

• that the warming of the Earth has also has caused glaciers, ice caps and ice sheets to melt.

• that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are each losing mass at an accelerating rate. Together, they’ve lost a combined average of 475 gigatonnes a year. And that rate of loss is accelerating by about 36.3 gigatonnes every year. That water ends up in the Earth’s oceans.

• that glaciers are also retreating across Asia, threatening the water supply there and resulting in massive water runoffs and extreme flooding. In Bhutan, 66 glaciers have decreased by 8.1 percent over the last 30 years. The Himalayan glacier Chhota Shigri Glacier, in India, has lost 12 percent of its mass in just the last 13 years.

• that the addition of this water to the oceans has caused the rate of global sea rise to double in the last decade, to about 3.4 millimeters per year (as opposed to about 1.8 millimeters for the last century).

• that the warming of the planet increases the likelihood and frequency of extreme weather events — including hurricanes and intense rainfall — by raising ocean temperatures and adding energy to the Earth’s atmosphere. Since 1975, the destructive power of tropical cyclones — their duration and maximum wind speed — has increased by 70 percent.

• that the atmosphere is getting much, much warmer. 2010 is now tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record — ever. The 20 warmest years on record have occurred since 1981. The 10 warmest years on record have occurred in the past 12 years.

Source_PBS

Now of course, wouldn't you know it, the Republican denialists seek to discontinue 100% of federal funding going to PBS.

none of that is true, there are zero quotes...40% of republicans are AGW believers....BS.....just because they reject amendments that make blatant assumptions, that means they don't believe AGW? It has nothing to do with that. There are more important issues than the AGW Hypothesis, such as a crippled economy, the national defecit, unemployement, Libya, etc.

Sorry, its stupid to cripple the Economly over a HYPOTHESIS...when have stopped warming.

Republicans may have signed the amendments if the defecit wasn'tso freakin huge thanks to you know who.

[WeatherRusty]

none of that is true, there are zero quotes...40% of republicans are AGW believers....BS.....just because they reject amendments that make blatant assumptions, that means they don't believe AGW? It has nothing to do with that. There are more important issues than the AGW Hypothesis, such as a crippled economy, the national defecit, unemployement, Libya, etc.

Sorry, its stupid to cripple the Economly over a HYPOTHESIS...when have stopped warming.

Republicans may have signed the amendments if the defecit wasn'tso freakin huge thanks to you know who.

None of it is true? It's all lies? 40% of those who claim to be Republicans in the general population agree to statements saying they accept the basic idea that the world is warming and that human activities are playing a part. 100% of those Republicans who voted on the amendments to a bill designed to strip the EPA of authority to regulate greenhouse gases as a threat to human health, voted against the amendments. One of the amendments required the legislators to agree that global warming is occurring regardless of cause. They couldn't or wouldn't make that statement. Apparently the Republicans in question do not believe any of the above observations are real. Some of them are on record elsewhere stating they doubt it or even to go so far as to claim AGW to be a conspiratorial hoax.

That there are other pressing issues going on in the world has nothing to do with it. In a sense you are correct though, the right-wing conservatives place environmental concern way, way down the list of issues of importance to them. The modern Republican Party has been overtaken by the ideology of the ultra-conservative John Birch Society .

[BethesdaWX]

None of it is true? It's all lies? 40% of those who claim to be Republicans in the general population agree to statements saying they accept the basic idea that the world is warming and that human activities are playing a part. 100% of those Republicans who voted on the amendments to a bill designed to strip the EPA of authority to regulate greenhouse gases as a threat to human health, voted against the amendments. One of the amendments required the legislators to agree that global warming is occurring regardless of cause. They couldn't or wouldn't make that statement. Apparently the Republicans in question do not believe any of the above observations are real. Some of them are on record elsewhere stating they doubt it or even to go so far as to claim AGW to be a conspiratorial hoax.

That there are other pressing issues going on in the world has nothing to do with it. In a sense you are correct though, the right-wing conservatives place environmental concern way, way down the list of issues of importance to them. The modern Republican Party has been overtaken by the ideology of the ultra-conservative John Birch Society .

The globe is no longer warming...so no its not happening. But that is not even the point.

The Voting against a Political Amendment was done for Political reasons, its that simple. NONE of the republicans said they denied the world had been been warming......(I use had been for obvious reasons). The issue is related to EPA regulations ruining the economy that is already in a recession.

A Hypothesis is a Hypothesis.....there is No "denying" a Hypothesis, anyone claiming someone to be a "denier" of a hypothesis is one of the Crazies

[tacoman25]

None of it is true? It's all lies? 40% of those who claim to be Republicans in the general population agree to statements saying they accept the basic idea that the world is warming and that human activities are playing a part. 100% of those Republicans who voted on the amendments to a bill designed to strip the EPA of authority to regulate greenhouse gases as a threat to human health, voted against the amendments. One of the amendments required the legislators to agree that global warming is occurring regardless of cause. They couldn't or wouldn't make that statement. Apparently the Republicans in question do not believe any of the above observations are real. Some of them are on record elsewhere stating they doubt it or even to go so far as to claim AGW to be a conspiratorial hoax.

That there are other pressing issues going on in the world has nothing to do with it. In a sense you are correct though, the right-wing conservatives place environmental concern way, way down the list of issues of importance to them. The modern Republican Party has been overtaken by the ideology of the ultra-conservative John Birch Society .

The general American public places environmental issues way down the list of their concerns. It's not just Republicans. The economy, the federal deficit, education, healthcare, terrorism, social security, immigration, and wars are all more important issues to the majority of Americans.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145592/Americans-Congress-Obama-Tackle-Economic-Issues.aspx

[Qaanaaq]

We utilize the scientific method because it has proven to be useful. It produces positive results.

The truth about what? If I punch a solid wall I likely will do damage to my hand. Why? Because the electron shells making up the atoms of my hand and the wall will repel one another if they get to close together like trying to press the negative poles of two separate magnets together. That's my theory and it happens to be true. Go ahead a prove me wrong!

The theory behind AGW is elegant and simple. It is very likely true based as it is on well established physics, current observations and the history of regular, pronounced climate change. It makes predictions which will take more time to verify to many people's satisfaction. Or it won't. Odds are it will as the science is quit robust, yet I can't say exactly what the global temperature will be say in 2050 or 2100 or what the exact repercussions will be in terms of climate in isolated locations.

Major disruption to water and food supplies will quite likely become pronounced if more than about 2C of warming ensues. That extinction of species will greatly exceed the natural background rate is almost certain. Science informs us that the climate system is not one of stasis, it is in a tug of war seeking a dynamic equilibrium and will temporarily settle down where the forces that cause it are balanced. By adding CO2 to the atmosphere we are changing one of several fundamental components which are in control of our climate, and we are thus forcing climate into a new equilibrium state.

Well said! Before you rush to judge my position, I'll tell you that I believe humans must stop dumping their waste into the air- just like we have tried (and reduced) our waste flow into the terrestrial streams and ground.

Frankly, I believe it a sin on creation (we can discuss this over beers sometime). But, politics muck up the picture because everyone wants to use "science" to back up their assertions- In my opinion- this they can achieve quite easily through manipulation of the data.....quoting Mark Twain: "There are liars, damn liars, then there are statistics"! (read: BethesdaWx....get to school soon (you can time off when you die) - you have talent) ).

"Science" , being a human construct, is constrained and limited by the abilities, foibles and gerrymandering of clever humans. Just look back into the history of science. Yet...., yet, it is brilliant and given us so much )- it is the best thing humans have to interpret the natural world. Because I am a geologist iI'm not 't too impressed with terrestrial temperature spikes....here's an extreme: http://en.wikipedia..../Snowball_Earth a very interesting "hypothesis" and explanation for what we see in the rock record.

I suspect that the so-called "conservatives and right-wing politicians/special interests" aren't too concerned about debating AGW. They can use "science" too to counter many points at this time.

BTW I leave in 2 weeks for Greenland (2nd year in a row) escorting a friend who has spent the last 8 years documenting the effects of polar ice melt (I'll leave it others to argue the reasons) on the lives of the Inuit. Believe me they're lives have changed dramatically....

Good discussion-

[WeatherRusty]

Well said! Before you rush to judge my position, I'll tell you that I believe humans must stop dumping their waste into the air- just like we have tried (and reduced) our waste flow into the terrestrial streams and ground.

Frankly, I believe it a sin on creation (we can discuss this over beers sometime). But, politics muck up the picture because everyone wants to use "science" to back up their assertions- In my opinion- this they can achieve quite easily through manipulation of the data.....quoting Mark Twain: "There are liars, damn liars, then there are statistics"! (read: BethesdaWx....get to school soon (you can time off when you die) - you have talent) ).

"Science" , being a human construct, is constrained and limited by the abilities, foibles and gerrymandering of clever humans. Just look back into the history of science. Yet...., yet, it is brilliant and given us so much )- it is the best thing humans have to interpret the natural world. Because I am a geologist iI'm not 't too impressed with terrestrial temperature spikes....here's an extreme: http://en.wikipedia..../Snowball_Earth a very interesting "hypothesis" and explanation for what we see in the rock record.

I suspect that the so-called "conservatives and right-wing politicians/special interests" aren't too concerned about debating AGW. They can use "science" too to counter many points at this time.

BTW I leave in 2 weeks for Greenland (2nd year in a row) escorting a friend who has spent the last 8 years documenting the effects of polar ice melt (I'll leave it others to argue the reasons) on the lives of the Inuit. Believe me they're lives have changed dramatically....

Good discussion-

Thanks! It sounds like we may share a good deal of common ground, not the least of which is our desire to peer through the veil of confusion put up by those who are not necessarily seeking the "truth".

One last thought. The science of AGW presents us with a problem of risk assessment. Risk assessment weighs uncertainty versus potential for harm. Some people over emphasize the uncertainty, others the potential for harm. When faced with the reality of uncertainty inherent to all of science we are looking not so much for absolute truth, but rather the probability that we should act based on the best knowledge we have on hand in order to assess the risk.

[WeatherRusty]

The general American public places environmental issues way down the list of their concerns. It's not just Republicans. The economy, the federal deficit, education, healthcare, terrorism, social security, immigration, and wars are all more important issues to the majority of Americans.

http://www.gallup.co...mic-Issues.aspx

That's because most people have the impression that everything is just peachy clean. If you had spent some part of your life back in the 1950's as I did, and you had even then a latent interest in your surroundings, you would remember the pollution problems that were overcome by the realization that our free disposal of waist had to stop. It would be a damn shame if we start back down that same path again due to complacency.