Need Bees Removed?
International
Beekeeping Forums
September 20, 2014, 06:55:49 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: ATTENTION ALL NEW MEMBERS
PLEASE READ THIS OR YOUR ACCOUNT MAY BE DELETED - CLICK HERE
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar bee removal Login Register Chat  

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: IPCC and Politics  (Read 5315 times)
BlueBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4213

Location: Mid Michigan


« Reply #20 on: March 29, 2012, 11:15:17 PM »

Zippelk, a problem is the Republicans give all the big bucks to the bankers and oil men; not to the scientists and engineers in Detroit.  What are the odds of a banker or an oil exec re-inventing the internal combustion engine?  Answer:  less than me willing megamillions!  And yet the Republicans keep giving away more and more tax payer money to big oil  huh http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/29/politics/oil-subsidies/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Logged
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15151


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #21 on: March 29, 2012, 11:17:49 PM »

is 150 years a good time frame to determine anything on a planet this old?  

Quote
(b) to suggest that the vast majority of climate scientists (since the vast majority agrees with anthropogenic climate change) is creating false data is absurd, it’s just not possible.

it is human nature to wish for "facts" to fit preconceived notions.  it would also explain why they are using 150 year of data and largely ignoring millions of years of info available from archeology, anthropology, geology .....

the earth has been both warmer and colder than it is now, and most of that history, absent man.  historically, warmer periods were also periods of prosperity and growth of civilization.  now that they are talking about the coming cold age, i think we'd all be wise to light off our slash piles and breath heavy!

Quote
So, if the people in charge who are supposed to be looking out for our well-being want the safe outcome (prepare for what the climate experts tell us is coming), then they need options that achieve that outcome (transition from fossil to sustainable fuels) without giving the masses any sense of lost income, options, or pleasure. No easy task, but isn’t that why we pay them the big bucks?

"well-being" is kind of subjective.  what they think is for my good, may not be what i think is for my good. with that in mind, i am not pleased to have them waste my tax dollars on solar panel plants, and dangerous little green cars.  i do believe that people would be happy to use alternate forms of energy.  when the market makes a workable and affordable form, it will be embraced.   until then, the government does more harm than good when they force things on people and back loosers.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
BlueBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4213

Location: Mid Michigan


« Reply #22 on: March 29, 2012, 11:24:32 PM »

i am not pleased to have them waste my tax dollars on solar panel plants, and dangerous little green cars.  

Chevy Volt earns top safety rating:  http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/03/autos/nhtsa_volt_five_star/index.htm
Logged
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15151


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #23 on: March 29, 2012, 11:28:53 PM »

blue, you need better sources of info.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43005721/The_Unintended_Consequences_of_Stripping_Big_Oil_Subsidies

and, btw, dems voted against it too.  remember, they have the majority.  try not to just read headlines.

obama hates fossil fuels.  he'll do what he can to destroy them no matter how the consumer is hurt.  do you think this would help the consumer?
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15151


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #24 on: March 29, 2012, 11:31:30 PM »

right.  government run auto gets good rating from government run testing.  even if that were true, they are still subsidized by tax dollars and no one wants them.  speaking of tax subsidies.....

i noticed that when obama blathers on about to much profit in the oil industry, he never mentions companies and industries who have much higher profit margins and also get those corporate tax breaks. 
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
BlueBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4213

Location: Mid Michigan


« Reply #25 on: March 29, 2012, 11:34:18 PM »

Takes a super majority of 60 to defeat the “just say no” Republicans.  

KathyP, I’m actually on your side in this debate!  I’m just pointing out the logic deficiencies in your arguments  grin
Logged
beyondthesidewalks
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 286


Location: Very rural Navarro County, TX

I need a shave


« Reply #26 on: March 30, 2012, 10:15:58 AM »

"“scientists do skew findings to further their own goals” - I think that is so exceptionally rare as to be a non-issue."

I think that your view here is somewhat naive.  Science, as we know it today, is more of a religion than what it was in the 1800s.  Most of what we call scientists today were called naturalists back then and they were after facts that they could prove.  Today it's more like a religion where they have an entire belief set and all of their observations are tainted by that set of beliefs.  One only needs to look at evolution and how it is treated in or schools and universities.  It is only a theory and has just about as much contrary evidence as it does proof that supports it, yet it is taught as if it is truth.  Anyone who doubts is belittled and called names.  It's pretty much the same with the climate crowd, calling those who don't agree climate change skeptics and belittling them.

"So your hypothesis is that, over the 150+ years of temperature data the IPCC has, the obvious recent increase is the mere result of more thermometers being placed at airports in the 100 or so years since the airplanes (and presumably at some point thereafter, airports) were invented, and that scientists the world over are not clever enough to figure that out?  I’m gonna say that seems unlikely, no statistics necessary."

There is only plentiful temperature data since WWII, when aircraft started dominating the military theater.  Prior to that it is very lean and probably not very trustworthy, definitely not worthy of scientific study and changing our entire way of life.  That is exactly what I am saying and it is not a theory.  Read their emails.  These folks were looking for data that supported their conclusion.
Logged
BlueBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4213

Location: Mid Michigan


« Reply #27 on: March 30, 2012, 12:38:26 PM »

Well said, BeyondTSW.  While scientists are probably more objective than most; they are still human and prone to stubbornness.  If you examine the scientific beliefs before a major discovery, the majority of scientists at the time were WRONG.  The structure of the atom is a good example.  Until Rutherford shot alpha particles at a thin foil of gold, nobody on Earth ever dreamed the atom was mostly empty space with a nucleus of positive charges.  Neils Bohr then devised quantum mechanics to explain the bizarre dynamics observed by Rutherford.   However even Einstein rejected some of the fundamental tenants of quantum theory.  So if Bohr and Einstein couldn’t agree after seeing the same data, what are the odds that all these CO2 greenhouse advocates are 100% correct?

I still think one has to keep an open mind on this topic since we DON'T HAVE ALL THE DATA.  The data from the Sun is lacking and the data from Plantary Albedo is lacking (thanks to Bush Jr canceling that satellite).
Logged
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15151


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #28 on: March 30, 2012, 08:59:23 PM »

http://www.infowars.com/climate-change-skepticism-a-sickness-that-must-be-treated-says-professor/

this is not a place i'd go for most of my info, but this chick is from oregon and has been a prof down south at a state school.  that means she's been able to indoctrinate a new generation of "scientists" with her prejudice.
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
bwdenen
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 79

Location: South Central Ohio


« Reply #29 on: March 30, 2012, 09:17:01 PM »

Beyondthesidewalks...Really!  From what I have read of yours on this forum I would never had guessed you would take that position.

I’ll add this one last bit.  It’s an abstract from an article from a scientific peer review organization.  Peer reviewed articles are about the only ones I put any real faith in because they are, well, reviewed by scientific peers and the junk tends to get weeded out a bit more than in the trash people try to shove down our throats on the blogs.

This article cites falsification in scientists’ publications at a low of 2% with the incidence as high as possibly 34%.  IMHO, “exceptionally rare” would be more in the .02% range.  But that’ just me I guess.  Great discussion though.

Cite: Daniele Fanelli:Plosone, Publication of Peer Reviewed Science http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005738

A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behavior of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words “falsification” or “fabrication”, and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct.
...several surveys asking scientists about misconduct have been conducted to date, and the differences in their results are largely due to differences in methods. Only by controlling for these latter can the effects of country, discipline, and other demographic characteristics be studied in detail. Therefore, there appears to be little scope for conducting more small descriptive surveys, unless they adopted standard methodologies. On the other hand, there is ample scope for surveys aimed at identifying sociological factors associated with scientific misconduct. Overall, admission rates are consistent with the highest estimates of misconduct obtained using other sources of data, in particular FDA data audits [11], [18]. However, it is likely that, if on average 2% of scientists admit to have falsified research at least once and up to 34% admit other questionable research practices, the actual frequencies of misconduct could be higher than this
Logged
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15151


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #30 on: March 30, 2012, 09:32:58 PM »

more tidbits

http://www.whitman.edu/content/magazine/in-their-words/dearmrpresident/norgaard

who is Holdren?
http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/03/holdren-obama-science-opinions-contributors_0203_ronald_bailey.html
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

told you fascist is a better descriptor for this admin.....

who is hansen?
a grad of colombia, which might be all you need to know, but...

you can find lots of stuff from and on him with google .  he's a true believer.
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15151


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #31 on: March 30, 2012, 09:36:09 PM »

bwdenen , the problem is that in this case, they intimidated their "peers" into not reviewing and not allowing review of dissenting opinions.  this was not honest science with honest differences of opinions.  this was pseudo-science tailored to fit a preconceived notion.
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
bwdenen
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 79

Location: South Central Ohio


« Reply #32 on: March 30, 2012, 09:55:22 PM »

kathyp...Granted. I didn't say I have full faith in peer reviewed studies, just more than the alternative. 

But dishonesty is dishonesty whether it's using pressure to repress opposing views, following uproven or know non-standard methods, or just plain lying about the results.  Science is supposed to pure and I don't think that is the case in an alarming number of instances.  Like BTSW said, I used to have a lot of faith in scientific research, not so much anymore.  Too much at stake other than facts.

I guess I did get off topic a bit but my point was that scientists, given strong enough motivation, will say what they want you to hear and not say what is contrary to the point they are trying to make.  That's all. 

Admittedly, this dishonesty is going on on both sides of the climate issue. I'ts hard to get through the noise.
Logged
beyondthesidewalks
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 286


Location: Very rural Navarro County, TX

I need a shave


« Reply #33 on: March 31, 2012, 02:20:20 AM »

"Beyondthesidewalks...Really!  From what I have read of yours on this forum I would never had guessed you would take that position."

That has me guessing what you had guessed about me.  I'll say this.  I'm probably the greenest member of Beemaster.  If not the greenest, pretty near the top.  I lived entirely off the grid for 7 years until my wife couldn't stand it anymore.  It's a lifestyle that requires constant attention and intervention.  We raise as much of our own food as possible, milking a cow, processing our own chickens and cattle, even making our own wine.  I'd love to go to Bud4, burning copious amounts of fossil fuel to get there, but cannot swing it because of my domestic obligations.  I also cannot stand frauds trying to control my life with junk science.  I guess I would have been happy living in the pre-industrial age but cannot be truly sure of that.  I think that is where these folks want to take us.  I guess I border on libertarian because it seems like I have the government interfering with just about every aspect of my life and I've grown tired of it.  I only see more of it in the future and I believe that pendulum needs to swing in the other direction.
Logged
sawdstmakr
Galactic Bee
******
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 3049


Location: Jacksonville FL


« Reply #34 on: March 31, 2012, 06:10:05 AM »

Beyondthesidewalks,
 applause fishhit applause cheer
If the pendelem doesn't swing soon, we all may be off the grid and not by choice.
Jim
Logged
zippelk
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52

Location: Hopelessly Lost


« Reply #35 on: March 31, 2012, 11:11:18 AM »

problem is the Republicans give all the big bucks to the bankers and oil men

This, to me, represents the single greatest problem with our government today, that it is for sale. Big industry has big money and can afford to buy unlimited lobbyists, influence, and politicians themselves. That there is such a thing as a lobbyist in this country is embarrassing, infuriating, and a destroyer of trust. I am not necessarily for less government, just less corrupt government. An effective government could protect us from extreme capitalists who would trade our safety, security, and well-being for cash, not help them do it. Subsidies to big oil, carte blanche to wall street, and sure, why not, pizza counts as a serving of vegetables for school kids. Should there be an IQ/logic requirement for presidents, or should it be for sale to the guys who can afford elevators for their cars?
Logged
zippelk
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52

Location: Hopelessly Lost


« Reply #36 on: March 31, 2012, 11:18:37 AM »

is 150 years a good time frame to determine anything on a planet this old?  

Of course. This is the history of the industrial revolution. What other time frame would you look at to study the impact of the revolution? Of course they have looked at much older data as well to decipher trends, but the past 150 years is key.

it is human nature to wish for "facts" to fit preconceived notions.  it would also explain why they are using 150 year of data and largely ignoring millions of years of info available from archeology, anthropology, geology .....

It is human nature to wish that reality bent to conform to ego? Actually, I think that is called psychosis. As I said above, no one is ignoring the rest of the historical data. Read the papers.

the earth has been both warmer and colder than it is now, and most of that history, absent man.  

Yes, we already established in this thread that climate change is natural in history; what is questionable is how quickly it is changing in the recent past and the role of human activity.

historically, warmer periods were also periods of prosperity and growth of civilization.  

(a) I don’t think so, and (b) are you now arguing that even if we are causing changes, they will probably be beneficial? That’s not what the science says, but if it makes you feel better…

now that they are talking about the coming cold age, i think we'd all be wise to light off our slash piles and breath heavy!

Who is talking about a coming ‘cold age’? Are you talking about the next natural ice age? You want to just start throwing heat at it in an uncontrolled/uncontrollable fashion? That doesn’t sound very clever.

"well-being" is kind of subjective.  what they think is for my good, may not be what i think is for my good.

The ability of the planet to sustain life with some sort of quality is not subjective.

with that in mind, i am not pleased to have them waste my tax dollars on solar panel plants, and dangerous little green cars.  

Waste? Do you want to completely surrender in the technology/innovation war? All hail China. You prefer that your tax dollars go to big oil companies and wars to protect their assets?
Logged
zippelk
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52

Location: Hopelessly Lost


« Reply #37 on: March 31, 2012, 11:20:17 AM »

obama hates fossil fuels.  he'll do what he can to destroy them no matter how the consumer is hurt.  do you think this would help the consumer?

Really? That’s news to me. He’s as big an oil junkie as any of the rest of them; I think most greenies are very disappointed in him. How has he hurt the consumer?  Huh.
Logged
beyondthesidewalks
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 286


Location: Very rural Navarro County, TX

I need a shave


« Reply #38 on: March 31, 2012, 11:21:25 AM »

The whole bunch, executive, congress and justices are pretty much corrupt, doesn't matter which party.  Have been ever since the government experiment was started.  The first bunch that risked their lives to start it may have been the only honest ones we've ever had and even they couldn't get along.  Look how long it took to get a constitution and then the father of the constitution, George Mason, refused to sign it.  I don't know if there's a better way.  Most average Joes cannot tell you the details of any major piece of legislation but they are keeping up with the Kardashians.  Pretty much sums it up.  We're all frogs in hot water.   About to boil.
Logged
zippelk
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52

Location: Hopelessly Lost


« Reply #39 on: March 31, 2012, 11:29:04 AM »

I think that your view here is somewhat naive.  Science, as we know it today, is more of a religion than what it was in the 1800s.  ... Today it's more like a religion where they have an entire belief set and all of their observations are tainted by that set of beliefs. 

Oh my goodness. Sorry, but you know absolutely nothing about me or about science. (a) I am a scientist of 20 years, so please don’t call me naïve and tell me how science works; (b) science and religion are exactly opposites. Religion, by definition, is based on FAITH and things that cannot be directly validated. Scientists have no room for faith in our work, we believe in what we can see and measure, taking nothing on faith, questioning and testing everything. We are not married to any ideology other than truth, gladly changing our current beliefs for new ones when new/better data suggest it is warranted. We go to great extremes to remain objective in our search for new information. I am pretty sure that this is the exact opposite of religion, as I understand it.

One only needs to look at evolution and how it is treated in or schools and universities.  It is only a theory and has just about as much contrary evidence as it does proof that supports it, yet it is taught as if it is truth.  Anyone who doubts is belittled and called names.  It's pretty much the same with the climate crowd, calling those who don't agree climate change skeptics and belittling them.

Evolution is truth. If you believe in dogs and colds, you believe in evolution. FYI, ‘theory’ in science means fact, so I agree with you; perhaps you meant to say hypothesis, in which case you would be wrong. Sorry. I am not trying to belittle you or calling you names, but you are just wrong (is wrong a name?). We can discuss evidence that gene pools change over time in a separate thread, if you wish. But they do.

There is only plentiful temperature data since WWII, when aircraft started dominating the military theater.  Prior to that it is very lean and probably not very trustworthy, definitely not worthy of scientific study and changing our entire way of life. 

This is your opinion, and exactly the opposite of most informed people. Since you have so little faith in science, can I ask, do you reject modern medicine too? Just curious.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Beemaster's Beekeeping Ring
Previous | Home | Join | Random | Next
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 1.294 seconds with 22 queries.

Google visited last this page September 04, 2014, 07:45:25 AM