The ethanol scam

The theory of anthropogenic climate change has reached a stage where it is
generally accepted among the world scientific community as valid. Research
continues over many points still in contention, such as feedback influences.
That does not mean that there is any considerable doubt in the scientific
community that ACC is real. Those wishing to "shoot the messenger" often
resort to cherry picking facts from the various mini-controversies within the
overall research to cast doubt on the theory itself.

Scientific theory is all well and good -- but things tend to get
grossly distorted when money and humans are mixed in.

In the case of climate change, the dollars at risk are so huge --
almost inconceivably large -- that it's hard to find a scientist who
hasn't been bought and sold by one side of the debate or the other.

I'm no scientist -- I'm a businessman. As such, I can smell a "deal"
when it is at work -- and IMHO "global warming" research has been
overwhelmingly tainted by the titanic sums of money that are at risk
on both sides of the issue.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote:


Scientific theory is all well and good -- but things tend to get
grossly distorted when money and humans are mixed in.

So, on that basis you can wave away the scientific consensus on the subject?
Why bother doing any science at all?


In the case of climate change, the dollars at risk are so huge --
almost inconceivably large -- that it's hard to find a scientist who
hasn't been bought and sold by one side of the debate or the other.

That would certainly apply to the few climate scientists who work for the
energy companies. Who "buys and sells" the rest of the scientists in the
world?


I'm no scientist -- I'm a businessman.

Same here. That doesn't stop me from studying the subject carefully.

As such, I can smell a "deal"
when it is at work -- and IMHO "global warming" research has been
overwhelmingly tainted by the titanic sums of money that are at risk
on both sides of the issue.

Do you use a lawn mower to wax the floor? Why use business knowledge to
judge a scientific subject? Why not find out how science really works?

--
Dan

"Gut feeling"

Intestinologists concur that the human gut does not contain any
rational thoughts.

What the human gut *is* full of is moderately well
known.

Dan Luke wrote:

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

Scientific theory is all well and good -- but things tend to get
grossly distorted when money and humans are mixed in.

So, on that basis you can wave away the scientific consensus on the subject?

Alleged (and alleged is all it is) 'consensus' proves nothing.

I suppose you'd wave away the very well argued objections to the IPCC case ? A
convincing and scientifically sound case wouldn't need to rely on making such
claims.

Graham

"Eeyore" wrote:


So, on that basis you can wave away the scientific consensus on the
subject?

Alleged (and alleged is all it is)

Really?

======================
Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686


IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific
bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the
matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of
Sciences report, 'Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions',
begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result
of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean
temperatures to rise." The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment
is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The
IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is
likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations
accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this
issue."

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical
Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all
have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human
modification of climate is compelling.

======================

Perhaps you can offer some evidence in refutation of the above.



'consensus' proves nothing.

Correct. But to wave it away on no empirical basis is foolish.


I suppose you'd wave away the very well argued objections to the IPCC case
?

Indeed not. I have spent a good deal of time examining such objections, and
have not found any that are destructive to the case made in IPCC 4AR.

I'd be grateful if you could post links to some that you think are 'very well
argued.'


convincing and scientifically sound case wouldn't need to rely on making
such
claims.

You mean claims like the one made by deniers that all the IPCC scientists are
distorting the findings so they'll get paid?


--
Dan


"The opposite of science is not religion; the opposite of science is wishful
thinking."


- John Derbyshire

"Dan Luke" wrote in
:


"Eeyore" wrote:


So, on that basis you can wave away the scientific consensus on the
subject?

Alleged (and alleged is all it is)

Really?

======================
Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686


IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major
scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears
directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example,
the National Academy of Sciences report, 'Climate Change Science: An
Analysis of Some Key Questions', begins: "Greenhouse gases are
accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities,
causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to
rise." The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a
fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes:
"The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last
50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas
concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the
scientific community on this issue."

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society, the American
Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding
that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.

======================

Perhaps you can offer some evidence in refutation of the above.



'consensus' proves nothing.

Correct. But to wave it away on no empirical basis is foolish.


I suppose you'd wave away the very well argued objections to the IPCC
case ?

Indeed not. I have spent a good deal of time examining such
objections, and have not found any that are destructive to the case
made in IPCC 4AR.

I'd be grateful if you could post links to some that you think are
'very well argued.'


convincing and scientifically sound case wouldn't need to rely on
making such
claims.

You mean claims like the one made by deniers that all the IPCC
scientists are distorting the findings so they'll get paid?


Just in case you didn't know, Graham is a known net-kook. He spends most
of his time on usenet whining about other's behaviour and netkkoping
them, only to be TOSsed himself...



He's your standard issue facist k00k.


He is fun though! Some of the e-mails my provider has passed on to me
are just priceless.





Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:

Just in case you didn't know, Graham is a known net-kook.

I didn't, but it was becoming obvious.

--
Dan

"Almost all the matter that came out of the Big Bang was two specific sorts;
hydrogen and stupidity."

-Robert Carnegie in talk.origins

"Dan Luke" wrote in news:13a4ar220gb1q13
@news.supernews.com:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:

Just in case you didn't know, Graham is a known net-kook.

I didn't, but it was becoming obvious.

Thenk yew


Bertie

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:37:41 -0500, "Dan Luke"
wrote:

Indeed not. I have spent a good deal of time examining such objections, and
have not found any that are destructive to the case made in IPCC 4AR.

The fact that the CO2 PPMV does not coincide with the known
production added is a clue that the case is not closed.

The fact that CO2 exists in such a small proportion to the
real greenhouse gas water vapor is a big clue.

The fact that the mass of all the CO2 in the atmosphere is
not enough to capture the amount of thermal energy involved is a bigger
clue.

The fact that evaporation cools many times more than any
possible IR radiation from the atmosphere.

The fact that clouds block incoming radiation causes any
energy budget accounting to be inadequate for the task.

And the fact that some near all time record lows for the
month of July are occurring suggests there is a move toward a cooling
trend.

Eeyore wrote in
:



Dan Luke wrote:

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

Scientific theory is all well and good -- but things tend to get
grossly distorted when money and humans are mixed in.

So, on that basis you can wave away the scientific consensus on the
subject?

Alleged (and alleged is all it is) 'consensus' proves nothing.

I suppose you'd wave away the very well argued objections to the IPCC
case ? A convincing and scientifically sound case wouldn't need to
rely on making such claims.



Is da guv'ment, eh mate?



Sun reading scumbag



Bertie




Graham

To insert a message into this discussion that continues the global
warming brouhaha, but also actually has some connection -- even if
rather indirect -- to piloting (or at least, to the undesirability of
putting pilots into space, if you want to look at it that way):

============================================

WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 6 Jan 06 Washington, DC

1. POLITICAL RETRIBUTION: DEEP SPACE CLIMATE OBSERVATORY KILLED.

The deep space climate observatory satellite Triana was never able to
overcome its roots, and NASA has now quietly terminated what may have
been its most important science mission.

Critics of programs to limit emissions argue that climate change is
caused by solar variation, not by atmospheric changes. There is one
unambiguous way to tell: locate an observatory at L-1, the
neutral-gravity point between Earth and Sun. It would have a continuous
view of the sunlit face of Earth in one direction, and the Sun in the
other, thus constantly monitoring Earth's albedo.

Al Gore initiated the observatory project in 1998 to inspire school
children with a continuous view of climate unfolding on our fragile
planet. It was even given a poetic name, Triana, the sailor on the Santa
Maria who was first to sight the New World. But Triana's importance to
climate research, perhaps Earth's biggest challenge, was not recognized
until later.

With urging from the National Academy, it was finished in 2001 and given
a new name. It was still waiting to be launched when Columbia crashed.
By then we had a new President and a new "vision." It was put on hold.

The official reason for killing it is "competing priorities." The
priority now is to replace Gore's vision of the world with the Bush
vision of sending people back to the moon. We should all weep.

--------

Opinions are the author's and not necessarily shared by the University
of Maryland -- but they should be.

To subscribe to this newletter please visit:

http://listserv.umd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S...s-whatsnew&A=1

Archives of What's New can be found at http://www.bobpark.org