tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post6607592353130646058..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: 'And if you order today, we'll send you this free climate science...'mregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-79841042402162739142013-11-28T07:12:20.016-05:002013-11-28T07:12:20.016-05:00If scientists were mainly concerned with helping h...<i>If scientists were mainly concerned with helping humanity, they would give their grant money to public health projects in third world countries.</i><br /><br />You seem to think grant money is wired to a scientist's bank account and she can do with it as she sees fit. If so, I have some news for you. There would also be a slightly larger colony of retired scientists on the Cayman islands than is currently the case. <br /><br />Happy thanksgiving to you US scroungers while us Europeans toil away!troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-55683116126218724512013-11-27T22:11:11.232-05:002013-11-27T22:11:11.232-05:00Trish,
The IPCC is a political organization, whic...Trish,<br /><br />The IPCC is a political organization, which issues compromise reports not even based on consensus (meaning majority agreement) but on the absence of vetoes from member states, such as Saudi Arabia.<br /><br />Having the IPCC is a plus, but it does take a conservative outlook, not making projections (such as sea level increases due to the melting of Greenland or Antarctic ice sheets) if the science isn't there.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-30245385483174417692013-11-27T22:02:01.245-05:002013-11-27T22:02:01.245-05:00Michael,
Broadly speaking, virtually everyone is ...Michael,<br /><br />Broadly speaking, virtually everyone is doing science, whenever they make an observation, formulate an hypothesis to explain the observation and then set out to test (to disprove) the hypothesis by making further observations.<br /><br />And this includes people without formal science qualifications, such as Edward Jenner who noticed that cow maids were relatively insusceptible to smallpox and wondered whether it was exposure to cowpox that was the explanation.<br /><br />Science led to sanitation, provision of safe drinking water, insecticides and vaccines. It's an ongoing business, because we'll never know everything that there's to know (an exception to my previous statement that statements with 'never' are almost always not true).<br /><br />The 3 million African children saved yearly by the prevention of deaths due to diarrheal diseases makes science even more necessary. The increasing African population means that there will be more encroachment on African jungles, risking a new pandemic similar to HIV, but more lethal. So surveillance is vitally important.<br /><br />And only science can do this.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-22400815583410814092013-11-27T21:45:27.833-05:002013-11-27T21:45:27.833-05:00Troy,
Cool response, son. Exactly what I would e...Troy, <br /><br />Cool response, son. Exactly what I would expect from you. Put the penny in and watch it laugh.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-26137983929814510772013-11-27T20:45:41.997-05:002013-11-27T20:45:41.997-05:00What I think is that it hardly sounds devoted to c...What I think is that it hardly sounds devoted to climate science at all. <br /><br />TRISHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-45996788376325390182013-11-27T19:30:18.992-05:002013-11-27T19:30:18.992-05:00This came up once in a medical school debate I had...This came up once in a medical school debate I had with a human embryonic stem cell researcher. He said that the use of hesc's for research was essential for helping humanity. I pointed out that taking his research grants and using them to buy water purification filters for third world villages would save far more lives immediately than hesc research would save even hypothetically. 3 million babies die of diarrhea from dirty water each year in Africa alone. <br /><br />Actually, science per se has had much less benefit to humanity in terms of lifespan than we generally think. Proper sanitation, separation of waste water from drinking water, and relatively inexpensive vaccines and pesticides have been largely responsible for extending life. <br /><br />People who build sewage systems in Africa save a hell of a lot more lives than all of the neurosurgeons in the world. <br /><br />If scientists were mainly concerned with helping humanity, they would give their grant money to public health projects in third world countries. mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-45909856466141943592013-11-27T18:11:03.341-05:002013-11-27T18:11:03.341-05:00TRISH, what do you make of Egnor's accusing th...TRISH, what do you make of Egnor's accusing the journal of being dishonest? It isn't a journal devoted exclusively to climate science; it covers policy as well. Do you think Egnor might be a little bit off? <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-443741162346667212013-11-27T17:26:23.100-05:002013-11-27T17:26:23.100-05:00I've seen some of this even in my own field of...<i>I've seen some of this even in my own field of work, which is hydrocephalus and cerebral blood flow research. Scientists become involved in politics and trying to "educate" the public on the perceived value of their work, to drum up funding, increase prestige, etc.</i><br /><br />Why do you only mention funding and prestige as motives for scientists to get involved in politics? I think that says more about you than about the scientists. Has it occurred to you that those scientists might actually care about the future of humankind?<br />troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-71197440747237675492013-11-27T17:15:37.337-05:002013-11-27T17:15:37.337-05:00Sorry, not her bio but her essay on Rethinking Cli...Sorry, not her bio but her essay on Rethinking Climate Advocacy.<br /><br />TRISHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-7746360374308455772013-11-27T17:10:16.306-05:002013-11-27T17:10:16.306-05:00I may have to read Ms. Framboise's book. I fin...I may have to read Ms. Framboise's book. I find it interesting that this comment has been up since 6:25 this morning and no one has even tried to refute it.<br /><br />Sounds like the IPCC is pretty disreputable as organizations go. How can anyone take them seriously?<br /><br />TRISHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-2761629270400281372013-11-27T17:08:39.034-05:002013-11-27T17:08:39.034-05:00Maybe she is a manager, not a climate scientist. B...Maybe she is a manager, not a climate scientist. But she clearly claims in her bio to be a scientist. So if anyone is lying it's Amy Luers. <br /><br />Read the bio again, Hoo. She clearly refers to herself as a scientist. <br /><br />TRISHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-7121736208680485162013-11-27T16:56:08.503-05:002013-11-27T16:56:08.503-05:00So you think that a peer reviewed paper in a reaso...So you think that a peer reviewed paper in a reasonable journal isn't worth much? Actually, that's true for much of which is published (also including books, music, motion pictures, television shows, etc).<br /><br />I work on the assumption that 10% of journal articles are first-rate, the remainder serving as filler.<br /><br />The paper deals with how AGW is communicated to the general population. It's similar to how the health hazards of cigarette smoking is communicated to the general public. You can only go so far with epidemiology, pathology and internal medicine. Eventually, the public switches off from the detail and denies everything, particularly if there's a well funded organisation attempting to prove the opposite.<br /><br />AGW isn't anything radical. The climate has changed, often greatly, in the past, due to variations in solar output, level of greenhouse gases, changes in Earth's albedo and in the long term changes in Earth's orbit and axial tilt (Milankovich cycles) and distribution of the continents.<br /><br />Humans burning enormous amounts of fossil fuels isn't doing anything that hasn't happened in the past (albeit for 'natural' reasons, such as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum 55 MYA or the end of Permian mass extinction 250 MYA).<br /><br />Climate change, if it's fast enough (and the PETM was a global warming of 7 degrees Celsius over 25,000 years) results in mass extinctions. We're in the process of releasing a similar amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to that of previous mass extinctions.<br /><br />And you don't want to live through a mass extinction, because your species might survive (humans are pretty resourceful), but you might not.<br /><br />Agreed. Replacing the energy we currently obtain from fossil fuels (and the amount of energy needs to increase enormously owing to the increasing global population and the need to extend energy supplies to the billions who currently don't have much) will be difficult.<br /><br />But hoping that steadily increasing reserves of fossil fuels will be discovered that will be recoverable cheaply and quickly enough to fuel the increasing global demands for energy is foolish.<br /><br />And that's even before considering whether AGW is going to have dire effects. We might finish up with a situation where we have to adapt to climate change without the required energy to do so. For example, it might be possible to adapt to famine in one part of the world by shipping grain from other areas (such as the new crop lands of Northern Canada?). But if there's no oil to fuel the cargo ships? Or it's very expensive?<br /><br />bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-80631461244721342802013-11-27T16:27:25.825-05:002013-11-27T16:27:25.825-05:00Cool story bro.
This ancient and NEVER ONCE (sane...Cool story bro.<br /><br /><i>This ancient and NEVER ONCE (sanely) refuted argument is the reason most people believe in something rather than nothing.</i><br /><br />Hahahatroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-89958621876111166642013-11-27T13:53:35.833-05:002013-11-27T13:53:35.833-05:00Hoo,
The 'God thing' is not a lie. It is...Hoo, <br /><br />The 'God thing' is not a lie. It is the best reasonable explanation for the reality that faces us.<br />The lie is the one whispered to people since the dawn of human memory: 'You will be like gods', deciding what is good and what is evil. <br />The lie is perpetuated today by the very same disciples of hubris that it always has been, including and increasing number of arrogant cultists in lab coats. It is a lie loved by people so entrenched in their material lives that they cannot face anything beyond. By dupes and the truly evil alike. <br /><br />Further, it is not a 'couple of billion people' who believe in God, transcendence, and/or the immaterial world. It is the VAST majority of all people alive and all those who have ever lived. <br />That does not make the 'God thing' true, however. <br />Reality is what makes it true. The cosmos makes it true.<br /><br />Let me break it down for you, in a very simple and reasonable fashion that also happens to be irrefutable. <br />All things that come to exist (ie have a beginning) have a cause (efficient - not simply material). The Cosmos exists. Therefore the Cosmos has a (efficient) cause. <br />This ancient and NEVER ONCE (sanely) refuted argument is the reason most people believe in something rather than nothing. This observation is a major (if not THE keystone) cornerstone of the metaphysical foundations that allow for reasonable inquiry. Put more simply: This is the reason any argument, inquiry, or philosophical question -EVER - has had any meaning what-so-ever.<br />Without meaning and cause (efficient) there is no purpose to anything anyone has ever done. <br />That <i>includes</i> science, BTW. <br />Dispute those facts? There is only one way to do so, and it is a self refuting mess of circular logic. To dispute efficient causes you must be a material nihilist. You must assert there is no real objects, people, or natural events. That's the only way outl. To assert that only basic, fundamental particles that are past eternal and always will exist <i>truly</i> exist, and the reality were experience is illusory. <br />Simply put: You must dispute your own existence and are a victim of a branch of that insane philosophy known as nihilism. <br />You either exist and have a both a cause and may generate purpose (beyond the material), or you don't because you don't and cannot. <br />It is a web of inescapable logic. The only way out is to discredit your own experiences, reality, and hence the very argument itself. <br /><br />The 'God thing' is a natural inference from those facts. The most reasonable and natural explanation. He is posited the 'first cause'. The external, efficient cause of what we call reality, the universe, the cosmos or what have you. <br />Then you can add revelatory and experiential relations with the creator. <br /><br />Now when you add those rational and logical arguments to the history of revelations and religious traditions that have predicted the above LONG before CBR, the big bang, quantum physics, or even the nature of time-space (still largely a mystery), etc etc. were even considered.... and the 'God thing' becomes a little more tangible. <br />Soon, and with intelligent reflection, it is not the 'couple of billion' (again, actually the massive majority of all humanity, ever) that seem to be the dupes. Instead it starts to look like it is the monistic materialists who come of as dupes,<i>metaphysically blind</i>, evil, or simply full of shit. <br />I would not put you in those last categories, Hoo... and the first two are completely curable. <br />I know that all to well from my own personal experience. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-87770187462612841052013-11-27T10:27:41.243-05:002013-11-27T10:27:41.243-05:00You'll be smiling in your grave, having not le...You'll be smiling in your grave, having not learned that the God thing was the biggest lie perpetrated on a couple of billion people. <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-4307559640685613982013-11-27T10:24:53.808-05:002013-11-27T10:24:53.808-05:00Hoo, you just got blown out of the water and didn&...Hoo, you just got blown out of the water and didn't even bother to acknowledge it. You just moved on to your next irrelevant point. I guess love means never having to say you're sorry. Big Richhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13222433855783705707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-65575022757497182642013-11-27T10:22:05.102-05:002013-11-27T10:22:05.102-05:00@KW:
I'm still waiting for you science apocal...@KW:<br /><br />I'm still waiting for you science apocalyptics to apologize for eugenics, overpopulation hysteria, pesticide hysteria, global cooling and heterosexual aids in the West. <br /><br />Perhaps in the future I'll have to apologize, just as people like me (devout Catholics and Protestants) might have had to apologize for their opposition to eugenics if eugenic apocalypticism turned out to be right. <br /><br />You need to apologize now. mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-64097329238928809072013-11-27T10:01:50.246-05:002013-11-27T10:01:50.246-05:00He'll be dead.
HooHe'll be dead. <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-4010190334050130202013-11-27T10:01:04.641-05:002013-11-27T10:01:04.641-05:00And if it turns out that 20-40 years from its abun...And if it turns out that 20-40 years from its abundantly clear that you were dead wrong, what are you little fossil fuel industry puppets going to do? Say “sorry”?<br /><br />-KW<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-27917389785822527962013-11-27T09:18:50.752-05:002013-11-27T09:18:50.752-05:00"As a scientist I have...""As a scientist I have..."mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-12324036683953814482013-11-27T07:46:04.008-05:002013-11-27T07:46:04.008-05:00Egnor: Honest scientists don't publish papers ...Egnor: <i>Honest scientists don't publish papers talking about how to manipulate the public, and honest journals and scientific disciplines don't tolerate it. </i> <br /><br />Another bait and switch. This time our host tries to make an impression that a science journal has published a political paper. <br /><br />He is wrong. <i>Climate Change</i> is "an interdisciplinary, international journal devoted to the description, causes and implications of climatic change." It isn't a pure science journal. It deals with science and policy. <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-13763682718979744322013-11-27T07:39:09.952-05:002013-11-27T07:39:09.952-05:00She is manager. Not a climate scientist.
HooShe is manager. Not a climate scientist.<br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-36413137057308317782013-11-27T07:37:05.295-05:002013-11-27T07:37:05.295-05:00And who is Donna Laframboise? Well, she is "a...And who is Donna Laframboise? Well, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Laframboise" rel="nofollow">she is</a> "a Canadian feminist journalist, writer, and photographer" with a degree in women's studies. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but that could explain why she can't put two and two together. <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-81964114457565273032013-11-27T07:36:00.642-05:002013-11-27T07:36:00.642-05:00Hoo:
[Nowhere in that paper you will find Luers c...Hoo:<br /><br />[Nowhere in that paper you will find Luers calling herself "a scientist."] <br /><br />Amy Luers:<br /><br />"As a scientist who has led climate advocacy campaigns and now directs a climate funding program, I seek to integrate..."<br /><br />Oops.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-10511849974533798452013-11-27T07:33:38.263-05:002013-11-27T07:33:38.263-05:00From Luers's bio:
Amy Luers has worked for o...From Luers's bio: <br /><br /><i>Amy Luers has worked for over two decades at the intersection of environment and economic development. She joined the Skoll Global Threats Fund as Director of Climate Change from Google, where she was the Senior Environmental Program Manager. </i> <br /><br />A scientist she is not. Your shenanigans are quite transparent, guys. <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com