Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The OT' started by Buzz112, Feb 8, 2007.
I got a good deal on Agent Orange, need some?
He was presented with the evidence and made a decision.
The article states that his name is included as an author because he read the report and pointed out ERRORS. The IPCC used his information in the revised report and his name was therefore added and he received a portion of the prize.
Me, too. Actually, it's always been safe. In fact, a professor that lectured on DDT would eat some during his lectures. He did that for 40 years. And in DDT testing, they actually found therapeutic uses, treating jaundice for one. It should also be noted that hundreds of millions of people have been exposed to DDT around the world since the 1940s without any records of serious illnesses.
But it's that dang consensus that makes people believe things that just aren't true...and never were.
Not what the quote said ... although the quote is rather odd.
40 million people that died due to the incorrect "consensus"
Sounds like the consensus killed 40 million people.
Proven by our former Vice President every day.
Updated process and technology are more efficient, reducing costs. So, in many cases it makes sense to upgrade, from a financial standpoint. But if you're forced to fully upgrade so that you're compliant with the latest legislation, then the cost of upgrading would far excede the benefit you would receive from the greater efficiency. Since the cost far outweighs the benefit, there's no incentive to do it. But since minor upgrades can improve efficiency and drive down cost, it makes sense to continue to make it voluntary.
I have no issue, btw, with requiring the tougher air standards for new plants. But for old ones, either you require that they be upgraded or you really do grandfather them in (or at the very best, you only require that their upgrades meet some standard).
I had issue with many of Clinton's policies on this front because I don't think their real goal was improvement of the environment - I think it was to look good. It's the reason he signed Kyoto, and then recommended that the Senate reject it.
Edit - Think of it this way. What if the government passed much more stringent clean air standards for cars - say they required implementation of new technology that significantly reduced polutants from your car. Say they required that all new cars meet this new standard, but grandfathered in existing cars. Now, say further, that the government said 'your existing cars are grandfathered in, unless you make ANY change to your car - in which case you're going to be required to fully make your car compliant.' Imagine then that the auto industry came out with a new, oh, I don't know, air filter that improved your cars gas mileage by 10%. Would you go for it? Well, that depends. The air filter may be cheap, and the extra mileage would be welcome, but if the cost of making my car fully compliant with the new clean air standards is too high, it wouldn't be worth me upgrading my air filter. Chances are, the benefit I get from improved gas mileage would be far outweighed by the cost of fully upgrading my car. Hence it's unlikely I would do it.
How stupid I am. I thought this was a discussion about global warming. How could I have ever thought that. This is an I hate Al Gore thread and will disagree with anything he supports.
Perhaps global warming would be more acceptable if those scientific wizards Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh supported the theory.
And I do agree with all those here who say that consensus does not make something true. But the scientific facts, evidence and truth about something does eventually create a consensus. The facts, evidence and truth have convinced a sufficiently high percentage of scientists to create that consensus.
jpl: As I said before, I do understand your point, but so far, any upgrade to an exempt plant could only improve air quality by chance. Improvements would be made to reduce operation costs and with an exemption this could actually mean higher emissions couldn't it?
Since you used cars: gas mileage improvements had to be legislated to change. When these were "relaxed" and there were tax deductions for over 6,000 LBS vehicles, there became an over abundance of Hummers and SUVs that get below 10 MPG.
Again, I see you point about "all or nothing", so maybe it should be scaled instead.
I also think "exempt" should have some limit or there is no incentive to change.
No, it isn't.
The British courts didn't rule based on Mr Gore's involvement, they ruled based on the evidence presented.
Go back to the beginning of the thread and read it all over again. It seems that you have conveniently forgotten the other side of the argument. There are answers for most of what you have written already in the thread.
Consensus does NOT create fact.
It is as bad as watching Family Feud ... 100 people surveyed the top answers on the board ... Does that guarantee the correct answer #1? Does that guarantee that the #1 answer is the most popular answer among the entire population (not just the 100)? There isn't even any qualification on the CV of the 100!
Global warming is a scientific THEORY ... not a scientific fact.
PS: If global warming is "proven" why hasn't the study won a Nobel prize for SCIENCE instead of PEACE?
Perhaps it's because there isn't one:
The Nobel Prize
Every year since 1901 the Nobel Prize has been awarded for achievements in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature and for peace
lest we all forget - Al Gore is not an Earth Scientist. He is a messenger, a lecturer. He gets his information from scientists, and printed info -- just as we do. He obviously has communicated some incorrect information -- probably from being misinformed himself. Get over it.
As to how much the sea will rise in the next 20 or 100 years, it's pretty much conjecture. Much depends upon how quickly the polar ice cap and the glaciers of Greenland melt. (An it is a fact that they are melting).
It's also a fact that the clearcutting of the Amazon rain forest is having an effect on the climate, both in South America and the world as a whole. Why? Because the Amazon rain forest is the largest mechanism for converting Carbon Dioxide to Oxygen on earth. As it shrinks in size, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases proportionately.
Physics would be nice.
Literature would be acceptable too!
I think the global warming issue is just a control issue, someday in the not to distant future I can see the consenses telling me:
How much gas/ power I can use. What kind of car to drive
What type of bulbs I will be forced to buy.
Oh they are all ready doing this and soon to be forced on us.
If man is the cause of climate change (Global warming) Then does that mean the climate never chaged before man??
I remember in grade school being told an ice age is coming whatever happen to that? Couldn't it be a good thing if man stopped the ice age. after all we are causing the earth to heat up.
Are heard that Mars has been heating up too did we cause it??
This is no way attributed to the sun. Just man?
If you are actually interested, watch the show I posted about in #415.
There may be responses to what I have said but a response is not necessarily an answer. It reminds me of the Monty Python argument clinic. You can't just say 'No, it isn't.' and consider that an answer.
I also wish you would read what I have written before you respond. I did not say that consensus creates fact. I said exactly the opposite. I stated that it is the overwhelming amount of facts that have created the consensus. When something becomes so obvious that it is happening then a consensus will result. It's not a vote, its just a general agreement.
Scientists do not form an opinion based on a list of answers given by Family Feud. A scientist will study all the available facts and search for more proof until he reaches an opinion based on the facts. Usually this involves a few who do most of the research and then write papers, give speeches and print articles. By reading, listening, discussing and observing the scientist will make up his mind from the best available facts. Not all scientists will agree and further discussion will result since a true scientist is never 100% satisfied with the answer and more research and tests will always provide more information. At some point the information will lead the majority of scientists to believe approximately the same thing. This is a consensus; not a vote, and not a final answer. As more and more information is provided or discovered or some 'facts' are disproved, the consensus may swing to the other side.
In the case of global warming, the majority of scientists have been convinced. A few have not been convinced and will remain skeptics. A few 'facts' have been disproved but others have been added and proven. The vast majority of scientists believe that global warming does exist and any number of people saying 'No, it isn't' does not create a reasonable argument to the contrary.
It depends what you consider "reasonable".
Things are so polarized that one side says man made Global Warming exists and will not listen to anything else because no argument is good enough.
The other side says man-made global warming does not exist, has listened to the theories, and does not agree because there are too many unknowns to consider before reaching a consensus like that.
In fact, theories and consensus are all the skeptics have to listen to day in and day out. Every day they are bombarded with it. By not agreeing, skeptics are immediately catagorized as un-reasonable, closed minded, money hungry, etc.
I personally have a difficult time with someone telling me that this is the way it is and don't argue. Like others have said earlier, we must agree to disagree.
The term theory is used often in this thread. Since this is a discussion about science it is important that there is an understanding of the term theory.
The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.
In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation and general relativity.
In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statement "It's not a fact, it's only a theory." True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis.
Those who support the theory of global warming do so under the first definition. Those who oppose the theory conveniently appear to be using the second definition. There is very little difference between scientific theory and fact.
By 'reasonable' I mean having some facts to back up one's opinion. Disagreeing with something in the Monty Python argument clinic method is not reasonable. Disagreeing with scientific theory just because someone doesn't like the theory or wishes it were not true is not reasonable.
'Yes, it is.'
'No, it isn't.'
You proved my point. Thank you. Unless there is science involved, any argument is not reasonable. Guess common sense doesn't account for anything huh?
I see what you're saying - you have to be smart about these things. There are stupid ways to implement these changes, and smart ways. Also, exemptions aren't totally absolute - I may not be required to make my power plant follow the latest legislation, but I don't have the right to make it dirtier. You can craft the law such that: 1) older plants are exempt, 2) exemption doesn't mean that you can make things worse, 3) any upgrades that you do make have to meet some basic standard.
I was simply countering the one argument made - that Bush made the environment worse by making some of these standards voluntary. He did no such thing. In fact, those changes made sense. The laws, as crafted by the prior administration, ran counter to human nature - and thus created a disincentive for improvement. In response to the comment that people try to corner a market, one economist wrote "markets have no corners." Meaning that human nature will be human nature - successful legislation/regulation takes that into account. Create laws that run counter to human nature, and you get burned - people will alter their actions to the greatest extent possible to accomodate that change. One example was the luxury tax that was imposed several years ago on boats, planes, and luxury cars. It was quickly scrapped on boats and planes, and then eventually got pulled from cars as well. The reason? The assumption was that people who bought yachts would ALWAYS buy yachts, and therefore they would be forced to pay those extra taxes. The reality? Yachts, personal jets, and luxury cars are not necessities - the people who were buying those items stopped buying them, and those industries got slammed. As a result, the blue-collar workers who worked for those companies ended up getting laid off. You can't run counter to human nature.