home

March Madness! Elite 8, Day 1

My picks: Dayton +10 over Florida, Arizona -2 over Wisconsin.

Go Gators!

Open Thread.

< Tsarnaev Defense Seeks Discovery on FBI Visits to Tamerlan | March Madness! Elite 8, Day 2 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Climate change. (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by lentinel on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 07:28:22 AM EST
    Einstein said that no one can imagine their own death.
    Even with overwhelming evidence that it happens to (just about) everyone.

    I think that is what is going on with "climate change".
    The reaction by our collective governments, that is.

    No one can accept the concept that what we are doing will result in our extinction as a species.

    Governments are doing next to nothing - and I read last week that we have past a tipping point.

    It may take a century, but one of the things that scientists are predicting is drought - the absence of drinking water.

    That would just about seal the deal.

    I hope that we can collectively wake up soon - now that is.

    Because at present, the wizards running the show are spending their meager efforts on preparing for disasters - not in preventing them.

    While being fully aware of what we (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 09:13:29 AM EST
    Are doing, our greenhouse emissions have increased.   And still poor established public transportation in the richest nation in the world.

    Parent
    I so (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by lentinel on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 09:28:39 AM EST
    agree about public transportation.

    It really is the pits.

    When I read about high speed trains in Europe or Asia, I wonder why we lag so far behind.

    Add to that the rampant filth in the subway system of my beloved New York City...

    I just don't get it.

    Great public transportation should be a right.
    And it could prolong our existence on this planet for at least awhile.

    Parent

    Having reliable comfortable public (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 09:38:13 AM EST
    Transportation would make the job of being the mother of a disabled child so much easier too.  When you must pilot your vehicle, you are not available for anything else.  And it is very fatiguing, you arrive at your destination tired but your work has only begun.

    The airports are often crushing under the weight of the nation's travel demands too. I manage them fine alone, or as well as anyone else, but you throw some disability in there and the high stress...it's sad.  We have arrived at poor quality of life at this point along with destroying the planet.

    Parent

    You're (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by lentinel on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 09:59:54 AM EST
    great, MT.

    Parent
    If only more people could get (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 10:15:21 AM EST
    On our page.

    Parent
    I see people getting there (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 10:23:23 AM EST
    People who have not been as the weather becomes increasingly out of whack.  Starting to see old timers correct young republicans using the "it's nothing unusual" talking points.   The question is, is there still time.

    Parent
    Certainly we are well past (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by caseyOR on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 10:27:54 AM EST
    the time when we could stop climate change. Perhaps, if we were to act quickly and decisively, everyone would have to be onboard, we could mitigate some of the changes. Sadly, we appear to be unable to save ourselves.


    Parent
    Fireflies.... (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by desertswine on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 02:08:40 PM EST
    enjoy 'em while we got 'em.

    I suggest full screen.

    Parent

    Wow (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 02:53:02 PM EST
    Lake of the ozarks is very near me

    Parent
    I don't think we can prevent certain things (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 11:33:29 AM EST
    But we can slow it down and buy us more time to figure out how to survive.

    My BIL spent years being a denier, he seemed surprised and then a shadow of fear when he wanted to engage in the same old b.s. arguments with me at Christmas and I told him I didn't care anymore.  I can't do what needs done by myself so I quit fighting it.

    He briefly looked afraid, as if the arguments distract him from reality and if nobody is going to argue with him anymore then that only leaves reality.

    Parent

    Btw (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 05:05:08 PM EST
    I just saw what you said about reading out loud in a comment about Enders Game.  Your family sounds like a great place to be.

    Parent
    The reason we lag probably (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 10:07:04 AM EST
    Has something to do with the fact that the oil companies are making more money than any enterprise in the history of the world and are still getting tax dollars from you and me to do it.  Or why the politicians are the first to defend the horror stories about the coal industry.

    Parent
    Yes, extensive and effective (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by KeysDan on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 02:59:34 PM EST
    public transportation is a critical component of staunching environmental hemorrhage.  Moreover, a good public transportation  system is necessary to economic growth.  Metropolitan public transportation should consider elimination of the farebox- the farebox recovery rates are a fraction of operating expenses in any event, and increases in fares, flat rate or variable,  only tend to decrease ridership.    

    Parent
    I think you are on to something (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 09:29:42 AM EST
    I read something the other day that talked about two separate problems with the climate change discussion.
    One is that it has become a kind of religious discussion.  On the right because it has become an end of days thing and on the left because even supporters often fall into the trap of talking about their "belief" in climate change.  As if belief had anything to do with it.
    The other being a common tendency in humans to find it impossible to project themselves into the near/distant future.  As in seeing themselves 50 or 60 years from mow.

    It reminded me of the first time I read 2001.  I remember it being a jarring and pivitol point in my life.  Not so much because of the content of the book but because being born in 1951 I realized that in 2001 I would be 50 .   FIFTY.  At eighteen or nineteen that seem like a completely unimaginable possibility.  At first it made it seem even more like science fiction.  But ultimately it made me think about the fact that someday I would be old.  


    Parent

    Btw (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 10:04:12 AM EST
    I also agree about the tipping point.  There seems to be a consensus that we have passed it and we are buggered.  Well, not so much we, my generation, but the next and the next.   Sorry for those with children and grandchildren but I think it's only downhill from here.

    Parent
    On a les depressing note (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 11:24:51 AM EST
    Like Celtic music?

    Some one gave me this CD because they knew I did and for the last couple of weeks it has had me dancing around the kitchen while I cook.   I have a big kitchen.

    Sorry if that's a image you can't get out of your mind but it's true.

    Hope the link works

    John Whelan - Come to Dance.

    LINK

    Parent

    I just installed (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 11:49:25 AM EST
    An excellent sound system in my kitchen.   I recommend it.  Makes cooking way more fun.

    Parent
    Hope The Link Works? (none / 0) (#29)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 12:58:35 PM EST
    In case you did not know this: you can preview your comment and check the link to see if it works before posting.

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 02:48:06 PM EST
    When it hit preview then go back to post it's all gone

    Parent
    But since you mentioned it (none / 0) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 04:03:35 PM EST
    Is there a way to make the preview open in a new window that I don't know about.

    Parent
    On iPad? (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 04:20:19 PM EST
    Yup (none / 0) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 04:20:59 PM EST
    OK (none / 0) (#49)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 04:56:36 PM EST
    I tried it on my iPad...  very hard to link, but once I figured it out going to preview and then checking the link, going back to TL the comment box was intact with comment and link.

    How do you link?

    Parent

    I grab the HTML (none / 0) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 05:01:18 PM EST
    Then go to the kinky thing over the comment box, tap twice and paste.  All that works.  But if I type something to bee seen as linked text and hit the preview button when I come back whatever I typed is gone.

    I have pretty much mastered it by just being very careful what I grab and paste and sticking to something simple like LINK

    Parent

    Pfft (none / 0) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 05:01:52 PM EST
    LINKY thing not kinky thing

    Parent
    Hmmmm (none / 0) (#53)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 05:09:40 PM EST
    What browser are you using?  

    Parent
    Chrome (none / 0) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 05:23:40 PM EST
    Oh (none / 0) (#56)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 05:43:24 PM EST
    I will try it on chrome..   I am using Safari...if I have linked a text in the comment box, and I want to check it to see if the link works, I click preview, I see the comment as it will appear; the comment box with my comment is below.

    Then I click on the link in the preview box... let's say Digby..  it works, so I tap the back arrow on my browser and am back to TL.  The preview comment window with the comment box below is there as I left it.

    Then I hit post.

    Do you tap the back arrow again after your return to TL preview in order to post? That would erase your comment.  

    Parent

    That wasn't very clear (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 05:41:31 PM EST
    If I preview and TEST THE LINK when I come back whatever I typed as link text is gone.

    Parent
    Hmmm (none / 0) (#57)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 05:44:54 PM EST
    That is weird. Try it on safari? or another browser...  or live on the wild side and forget preview..  haha

    Parent
    EUREKA (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 05:54:20 PM EST
    Thanks for making me work at it I mastered getting the option of opening the test In a new window.

    Every reader here thanks you.

    Parent

    Great!! (none / 0) (#60)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 06:06:23 PM EST
    Is that the correct link? (none / 0) (#96)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 11:53:01 AM EST
    I just got an iPad and was interested in being able to open text in a new window but when I clicked your link I got 24 buttons that need to be added to Facebook.

    Parent
    That has been my path (none / 0) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 05:46:25 PM EST
    If you press the arrow pointing to the top (none / 0) (#127)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 01:29:41 AM EST
    Of your screen, one of the options is "copy."   Do that, then paste into your comment. Surround with brackets. Insert just after the first bracket "link" or however you want the sfuff you copied to be introduced. Preview. And, if it passes inspection, post. Voila.

    Parent
    The things we do (and don't do) (none / 0) (#28)
    by christinep on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 12:24:35 PM EST
    Looking at the West, specifically Colorado ... the obvious thing we see is that the (wo)man with horse has become the (wo)man with car.  Big cars.  Gas guzzling SUVs and trucks ... not just in the mountains where, arguably and really, an all-terrain vehicle is most useful; but, all over the city.  Big single-occupancy vehicles.  Even in Denver & surroundings, where taking public transportation is very doable with simply a little forethought about schedules, many people somehow consider the bus "beneath" them (a kind of throwing the bus under the people.)  

    An old story:  Denver and other cities occasionally tried to designate no-drive days in the 70s and 80s.  While we in Denver did manage to get HOV lanes--at least, to promote car-pooling--it is sad to recount the uphill and losing battle for mandatory no-drive days.  Working on the project at EPA (and my sister having participated in governor's designated state committee and writing the no-drive day proposal) was an eye-opener as we discovered the opposition/resistance primarily came from the citizenry and not the state's administrative officials.  Sad ... but, an example of the cowboy & interchangeable horse/car motif.

    The newer generations, tho, seem to have a broader genuine environmental perspective in these parts.  There is reason for hope that lifestyle changes will spread much beyond the leaving-the-car-at-home from time to time.  Then, I'll talk about rampant consumerism & all the "disposables" associated with it ... from disposable diapers to racks of disposable clothes to disposable electronic gadgets and newbies of the day.  

    Parent

    Oh poo (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 03:37:39 PM EST
    Source: American Geophysical Union

    Summary: Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase. In contradiction to those studies, new research finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

    Science Daily

    There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: "It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century." (My emphasis)

    "Extremely likely" is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines "extremely likely" as a "95-100% probability". But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been "invented" as a construct within the IPCC report to express "expert judgment", as determined by the IPCC contributors.

    These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate. As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods.

    Dr Patrick Moore

    It is a powerful convergence of interests among a very large number of elites, including politicians who want to make it seem as though they are saving the world, environmentalists who want to raise money and get control over very large issues like our entire energy policy, media for sensationalism, universities and professors for grants - you can't hardly get a science grant these days without saying it has something to do with Climate Change.

        It is a kind of nasty combination of extreme political ideology and a religious cult all rolled into one. And it's take over way too much of our thought process and way too much of our priorities. There are millions of children dying every day from preventable vitamin deficiencies and diseases and we're spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a problem that may not exist.

    More Moore

    I also expected science to banish the evils of human thought---prejudice and superstition, irrational beliefs and false fears. I expected science to be, in Carl Sagan's memorable phrase, "a candle in a demon haunted world." And here, I am not so pleased with the impact of science. Rather than serving as a cleansing force, science has in some instances been seduced by the more ancient lures of politics and publicity.

    snip

    I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

     Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

    In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

    In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.

    In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever.

     In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.

    In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.

     In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

    There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory.

     Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra.

     The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

    Aliens Cause Global Warming: A Caltech Lecture
    by Michael Crichton


    Parent

    The bridge called (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 03:41:44 PM EST
    You are late for your shift again

    Parent
    Thanks for the chuckle. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Angel on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 03:50:53 PM EST
    I need to remember this one.

    Parent
    Still I'll bite (none / 0) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 04:15:03 PM EST
    The first one is from 2009 and while that may seem like yesterday to you it's an age in climate science
    Second Patrick Moore?
    Conservative media are latching on to the climate change denial of Patrick Moore, who has masqueraded as a co-founder of Greenpeace. But Moore has been a spokesman for nuclear power and fossil fuel-intensive industries for more than 20 years, and his denial of climate change -- without any expertise in the matter -- is nothing new.
    Third you trot out a dead hack fiction writer who clung to vanishing fame by being the darling of the science deniers.

    Do better.

    Parent

    I never knew Crichton (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 09:54:46 PM EST
    was a denier nutball.....then I found out....ruined my ability to read any more of his books.....

    Parent
    BushCo (none / 0) (#69)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 10:00:23 PM EST
    In his new book about Mr. Bush, "Rebel in Chief: Inside the Bold and Controversial Presidency of George W. Bush," Fred Barnes recalls a visit to the White House last year by Michael Crichton, whose 2004 best-selling novel, "State of Fear," suggests that global warming is an unproven theory and an overstated threat.

    Mr. Barnes, who describes Mr. Bush as "a dissenter on the theory of global warming," writes that the president "avidly read" the novel and met the author after Karl Rove, his chief political adviser, arranged it. He says Mr. Bush and his guest "talked for an hour and were in near-total agreement."

    "The visit was not made public for fear of outraging environmentalists all the more," he adds.

    NYT

    Parent

    In the 90s (none / 0) (#71)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 10:25:04 PM EST
    When I worked at Digital Domain in Venice Crichton came thru for a tour.  We were instructed not to speak to him.  Of all the hundreds of celebrities who came thru there most much bigger deals than him he is the only person who were told not to talk to.

    Parent
    Oh poo (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 03:37:43 PM EST
    Source: American Geophysical Union

    Summary: Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase. In contradiction to those studies, new research finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

    Science Daily

    There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: "It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century." (My emphasis)

    "Extremely likely" is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines "extremely likely" as a "95-100% probability". But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been "invented" as a construct within the IPCC report to express "expert judgment", as determined by the IPCC contributors.

    These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate. As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods.

    Dr Patrick Moore

    It is a powerful convergence of interests among a very large number of elites, including politicians who want to make it seem as though they are saving the world, environmentalists who want to raise money and get control over very large issues like our entire energy policy, media for sensationalism, universities and professors for grants - you can't hardly get a science grant these days without saying it has something to do with Climate Change.

        It is a kind of nasty combination of extreme political ideology and a religious cult all rolled into one. And it's take over way too much of our thought process and way too much of our priorities. There are millions of children dying every day from preventable vitamin deficiencies and diseases and we're spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a problem that may not exist.

    More Moore

    I also expected science to banish the evils of human thought---prejudice and superstition, irrational beliefs and false fears. I expected science to be, in Carl Sagan's memorable phrase, "a candle in a demon haunted world." And here, I am not so pleased with the impact of science. Rather than serving as a cleansing force, science has in some instances been seduced by the more ancient lures of politics and publicity.

    snip

    I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

     Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

    In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

    In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.

    In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever.

     In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.

    In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.

     In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

    There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory.

     Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra.

     The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

    Aliens Cause Global Warming: A Caltech Lecture
    by Michael Crichton


    Parent

    Because posting it once wasn't enough? (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Angel on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 03:49:54 PM EST
    For some reason unknown to man or beast (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 04:17:34 PM EST
    sometimes my posts double.  I wish we had a delete button so that I could eliminate one, but we don't.

    And yes, I've tried AOL, Google Chrome, IE and Firefox...

    But thanks for inquiring.

    Parent

    Poo... would be correct. (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by desertswine on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 04:14:38 PM EST
    You may pay no attention to the (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 04:20:46 PM EST
    man behind the screen my little Munchkins...after all, you accept MMGW by faith and faith alone just as the religious accept their beliefs.

    But do not think that your faith will alter reality.

    I would have thought "Hope and Change" would have taught you something.

    But alas, it has not.

    Parent

    Glad to see you (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 04:25:02 PM EST
    Promoting Making Middle Grades Work

    I responded to the other version of your twaddle

    Parent

    Btw (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 04:39:09 PM EST
    If you go to that first science daily link you posted and click "climate" in the banner you get a whole list of articles - from 2014 - with headlines like

    Major increase in West Antarctic glacial loss

    Deep ocean current may slow due to climate change

    Autumn ending later in northern hemisphere, research shows

    A more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, methane emissions will leap as Earth warms

    Etc

    Parent

    Sorry (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 04:49:11 PM EST
    That would be environment then climate

    Parent
    Howdy, the issue isn't climate change (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 06:52:37 PM EST
    As even the hoaxers know the climate has been changing since Day 1.

    The issue is best stated by Dr Moore, who was concerned about the environment when, most likely, neither of us gave a hoot. But either way, harken to what he said.

     

    It is a kind of nasty combination of extreme political ideology and a religious cult all rolled into one. And it's take over way too much of our thought process and way too much of our priorities. There are millions of children dying every day from preventable vitamin deficiencies and diseases and  It is a kind of nasty combination of extreme political ideology and a religious cult all rolled into one. And it's take over way too much of our thought process and way too much of our priorities. There are millions of children dying every day from preventable vitamin deficiencies and diseases and we're spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a problem that may not exist.

    Let that sentence roll around on your tongue and bounce around in your mind....we're spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a problem that may not exist.

    And read the whole Crichton lecture. And he had no reason to challenge the theory. In fact, he would have better served himself to agree.

    That is when I pay attention.

    Parent

    Oh (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 07:14:36 PM EST
    And I would rather be shot in the face than read the whole lecture.  In the face.

    Parent
    Well, I wouldn't want to (1.00 / 2) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 11:28:21 PM EST
    cause someone to cease being willfully uninformed.

    Knowledge is such a troublesome thing.

    Parent

    I guess (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 08:15:31 AM EST
    You would know.

    Parent
    I have found (none / 0) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 08:26:25 AM EST
    that the same generation that bought into cigarettes don't cause cancer is the same ones that deny really any kind of science. Nothing earth shattering there.

    We already know that advertising has been extremely effective in confusing a lot of people but that is the intent of it when it comes to science.

    Parent

    See I don't have a problem with (none / 0) (#88)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 09:05:04 AM EST
    Cigarettes.  And if they were only killing themselves with their climate change nonsense I would be ok with that to.  Maybe if we could get ALL the climate deniers to smoke cigarettes ......

    Parent
    Would you though? (none / 0) (#89)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 09:34:26 AM EST
    Because it isn't just climate change, it's also the trashing of the earth.

    Parent
    You have a point (none / 0) (#90)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 09:46:59 AM EST
    No one hates more than me to enter a building thru a sea of filthy butts past the empty ashtray.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 09:49:43 AM EST
    for the most part around here the ones that deny climate science are the ones that smoke. So there you go...

    Parent
    "Best stated" by ... (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 07:36:39 PM EST
    ... the opinions of two lay people - "Dr." Moore (an ecologist) and a fiction writer - as opposed to the scientific studies and conclusions of hundreds of actual experts/climatologists.

    Heh.

    Parent

    Do you really want to compare resumes (1.00 / 2) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 11:22:05 PM EST
    between say... Michael Mann and Phil Jones and...

    John Michael Crichton, MD (October 23, 1942 - November 4, 2008) was an American best-selling author, physician.... switch his concentration to biological anthropology as an undergraduate, obtaining his bachelor's summa cum laude in 1964.[11] He was also initiated into the Phi Beta Kappa Society.[11] He received a Henry Russell Shaw Traveling Fellowship from 1964 to 1965 and was a Visiting Lecturer in Anthropology at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom in 1965.[11]... Crichton graduated from Harvard, obtaining an M.D. in 1969,[18] and undertook a post-doctoral fellowship study at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, from 1969 to 1970.[citation needed] .

    Link

    Really Yman, you have become such a dork.

    Parent

    LOVE to (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 08:29:44 AM EST
    Compare resumes between actual climatologists and Michael Crichton?!?

    Any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

    Just because you're a well-educated MD doesn't mean you know jack about climatology -or thousands of other fields that others spend their entire lives studying.

    But if you really want to - let's compare the research and studies on climate science published by Mann and Jones against ... what? ...

    Jurassic Park?

    Heh, heh, heh ...

    Parent

    Just tell (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 08:34:32 AM EST
    them next time they need knee replacement surgery they should call an electrician since actual knowledge about a subject or experience studying a subject apparently does not matter. I mean if a fiction author is an expert on global warming them an electrican should be fine to do a knee replacement. Right?

    Parent
    Precisely (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 08:47:27 AM EST
    I had a physics professor that was probably one of the most brilliant people in the world, let alone the country.  But if 97% of oncologists are telling me I have cancer, I'm not taking the diagnosis of my physics professor.

    Parent
    yman, you and GA are experts (1.00 / 2) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 11:35:53 AM EST
    in false comparisons.

    But then again, I am challenging your religion.. your belief as a true believer... so I am not surprised at your basic ignorance and position.

    Parent

    Entirely accurate (none / 0) (#107)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 01:13:19 PM EST
    Which is why you can't address it.

    BTW - Climatology is science, Jim.  Denialism is the religion of conservatives who - for political reasons - want to deny the thousands of scientific studies that support MMGW.

    Parent

    ROTFLMAO (none / 0) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 06:58:46 PM EST
    There is no false comparison. A fiction author talking about a subject he knows nothing about is no better than an electrician talking about knee replacements.

    Parent
    By brother-in-law says he learned open heart (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 01:11:51 PM EST
    surgery from watching the television. ;)  Who needs a college degree?

    Parent
    Angel, at least your kin folk (1.00 / 1) (#115)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 05:34:09 PM EST
    doesn't have a mechanical engineering degree while trying to claim he knows everything about MMGW.

    Parent
    Shall we start with the head of the IPCC??? (none / 0) (#101)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 12:12:13 PM EST
    He's a mechanical engineer...

    So you must immediately throw out anything he says or publishes.... Obviously a very unqualified person.

    lol...

    Parent

    Psssstttt .... (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 12:36:58 PM EST
    Dr. Pachauri is the head of a scientific committee which compiles the research performed by hundreds of actual climatologists.  He job isn't to do the research.  But you're absolutely right - we should compare the research of the hundreds of studies evaluated by the IPCC against those of your "experts".

    Oh, wait ... that's right ....

    ... your "experts" have never published a single, peer-reviewed study.

    But I do love me a good dinosaur movie ...

    Parent

    Then his job is just an educated (2.00 / 1) (#113)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 05:30:37 PM EST
    man looking at and overseeing the information presented.

    Geeeeeeeeeeeeee.

    That sounds exactly what Crichton, with a much better resume, has done.... Or do you think mechanical/industrial engineers get more training than MD's and have stricter training and oversight??

    The difference is that he is YOUR demi God and you can't admit that he is just another political hack making money off a fake theory.

    lol

    BTW.. on that peer review thingeee.

    Having an authentic name, representing a real research institution, and offering actual scientific results are apparently not required for publication in many open access journals, Science has found. A completely invented scientist--"Ocorrafoo Cobange"--who worked at a fabricated institution--"the Wassee Institute of Medicine in Asmara"--was able to get the same terribly faked paper accepted for publication in 157 journals. "My hope is that now that we have a map of at least some of the good versus bad journals, scientists can submit their paper to one of the good guys and for the same amount of money get the real deal," John amount of money get the real deal," John Bohannon, the Science correspondent who did the investigation, told NPR.

    Link

    Parent

    Apart from the fact ... (none / 0) (#122)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 06:11:55 PM EST
    ... that Dr. Pachauri is a researcher and scientist who is well-versed in evaluating scientific studies (and Crighton is not), there is that other rather glaring difference.

    The conclusions of the IPCC and Pachauri are supported by thousands of scientific studies whereas Crighton (and your) conclusions are supported by ...

    ... absolutely nothing.

    Parent

    Crichton was (none / 0) (#74)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 11:26:07 PM EST
    never a climatologist....

    Parent
    And what does that have to do with (2.00 / 1) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 11:44:09 PM EST
    anything??

    The best I can tell a "climatologist" is a cross between a statistician and some other field and specializes in selling fear to the low information voter by making dire predictions that never come true

    They've been wrong for 20 years

    while seeking government grants and getting paid for speaking to the gullible.

    Micahel Man makes 10 big the easy way

    But of course sometimes they goof up while thinking they are in private situations and tell the truth.

    I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences.

    Dr Phil Jones in a private email that was outed.

    The truth does hurt, eh?

    ;-)

    Parent

    Climatologists (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 01:37:11 AM EST
    are the experts.

    But you know that.

    You deniers asking scientists or science fiction writers about climate change is like asking a real estate lawyer to answer a tax problem.  Or asking a internist to do surgery.....

    Crichton was a conspiracy kook.....a science fiction writer.....not qualified by education or research to be an expert in climate issues....

    Let us know how your certainty that Romney would win should be evaluated in terms of whether to give any weight to your current climate opinion.

    Parent

    asking scientists "in other fields...." (none / 0) (#79)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 01:42:31 AM EST
    Then how can you believe anything (none / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 12:07:15 PM EST
    published by the IPCC whose head is a mechanical engineer??

    Parent
    Is he publishing (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 05:45:10 PM EST
    the work of climatologists?

    Did you work for an oil company?

    Parent

    And the experts have been wrong for (none / 0) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 11:33:15 AM EST
    20 years. And you don't need any "climate models" to show that.

    Here. Read again what a very smart and well educated man said.

    I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

     Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

    In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

    In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.

    In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever.

     In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.

    In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.

     In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

    There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory.

     Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra.

     The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

    Link

    Now. Tell me again about consensus.

    Parent

    HA! (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 12:03:00 PM EST
    I was going to post some quotes from the president of the Flat Earth Society, Daniel Shenton, but it turns out he thinks man made global warming Is real.  So at this point this has officially become to silly to continue with.

    In fact, Shenton turns out to have resolutely mainstream views on most issues. The 33-year-old American, ­originally from Virginia but now living and working in London, is happy with the work of Charles Darwin. He thinks the evidence for man-made global warming is strong, and he dismisses suggestions that his own government was involved with the 9/11 terrorist attacks.


    Parent
    Start the countdown (none / 0) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 12:18:54 PM EST
    To his interpreting as a justification

    Parent
    Not at all (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 08:42:14 AM EST
    The truth does hurt, eh?

    Not that you would know anything about it, since you keep using that same, old quote that (literally) means nothing.  What Dr. Jones was saying was that he would like to be around in 50 or 100 years when their climate models are proven correct to even to most obtuse lay person or fiction writer.

    The fact that this is your best argument shows just how weak your argument really is.

    Parent

    Jones said what Jones said (2.00 / 1) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 12:09:36 PM EST
    And it cannot be denied or explained away.

    He was admitting that MMGW has not happened.

    And that is fact.

    Parent

    He DID say what he said (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 12:31:19 PM EST
    He didn't say what you're claiming.

    Parent
    You can make things up all day (1.00 / 1) (#114)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 05:32:34 PM EST
    You can try and push false claims.

    You can snivel and twist.

    But the facts are he said it had not happened... but he wished it would.

    lol

    Parent

    C'mon, Jim (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 06:15:01 PM EST
    You can make things up all day

    You can try and push false claims.

    You can snivel and twist.

    Since I have the facts and truth to back up my claims, there's absolutely no need to do that.  Besides, ...

    ... trying to do that with you would be like challenging Rush Limbaugh to a pie eating contest ...

    Parent

    Your concern for vitamin (none / 0) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 07:09:09 PM EST
    Deficiencies touches me.  it's going to get much worse

    "We should expect much more political destabilisation of countries as it bites," says Richard Choularton, a policy officer in the UN's World Food Programme climate change office. "What is different now from 20 years ago is that far more people are living in places with a higher climatic risk; 650 million people now live in arid or semi-arid areas where floods and droughts and price shocks are expected to have the most impact.

    "The recent crises in the Horn of Africa and Sahel may be becoming the new normal. Droughts are expected to become more frequent. Studies suggest anything up to 200 million more food-insecure people by 2050 or an additional 24 million malnourished children. In parts of Africa we already have a protracted and growing humanitarian disaster. Climate change is a creeping disaster," he said.



    Parent
    "Poo", indeed (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 07:22:44 PM EST
    So many links, yet only one from an actual climatologist - Wolfgang Knorr.  Actually, not a link directly to his article, because that would reveal the truth of what he wrote, rather than the spin being put on it by the deniers.  Knorr was interviewed and asked about his article and the potential for it to be twisted by deniers.  His responses were very clear:

    1)  Dr Knorr is asked specifically whether his research backs up climate skeptics. Nope.:

    Climate critics will always find something, no matter what the results are. It's not an indication not to do anything and you can always misinterpret results. But I think that kind of misinformation dies out quickly, I don't see a problem.

    2)  Dr Knorr is adamant that we must still address climate change, and favors mandatory caps on emissions. He says "There is no other way".

    The Patrick Moore links (ecologist, oil/nuclear industry spokesman) are always amusing.  Not to mention the Crighton links - appropriately enough, a fiction writer.

    Parent

    The problem is (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 07:51:30 PM EST
    It is not dying out quickly.  Or at least not quickly enough.  And I used to find it amusing but it's starting it just pi$$ me off.

    What chaps me the most is to see people spreading this crap who will never live to see the disaster they helped to create.

    Parent

    Oh double pooo (1.00 / 2) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 11:25:46 PM EST
    All you can say is consensus. Yet Karl Popper didn't buy consensus and Crichton made it plain that believing in consensus as science was silly...and dangerous to the people harmed by the "establishment."

    Parent
    The establishment (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 01:40:30 AM EST
    is the oil industry that pays for quackery...

    This is just like the tobacco industry denying that smoking causes cancer....

    Parent

    Have you ever read Popper?? (none / 0) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 12:04:49 PM EST
    Evidently you have not.

    Parent
    A philosopher-mathametician (none / 0) (#130)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 02:29:06 PM EST
    and a novelist..

    Not any closer to an actual climate scientist yet..

    Parent

    True (none / 0) (#67)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 08:16:38 PM EST
    I agree with Knorr that the information and data must be published, but I also think the twisting and misstating of the data by the deniers must be dealt with whenever it happens.  Problem is, all they have to do is muddy the waters and people who don't look at the actual studies think it's an "unsettled" issue.

    Parent
    Like the late Michael Crichton? (none / 0) (#111)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 04:16:04 PM EST
    ;-D

    Parent
    Donald, I see you haven't (1.00 / 1) (#116)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 05:35:27 PM EST
    studied Popper, either.

    Figures.

    Parent

    That's the guy (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 05:45:21 PM EST
    With the penguins, right?

    Parent
    Oh, please, Jim. (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 09:53:44 PM EST
    You're hardly an expert on climate change, so stop misrepresenting yourself as though you are.

    Your initial "Oh, poo" said it all. You're just flinging it at the wall, and seeing what might stick. This isn't the freerepublic.com audience you're talking to. We're actually pretty well-educated here, and for the most part, particularly well-informed on a whole host of issues, including climate change.

    The scientific debate on this particular subject is long since over, and the conclusion is that human-induced climate change is indeed very real. That said, the political debate is obviously far from over, and to paraphrase Sec. of State John Kerry, your wholesale denial of scientific facts is tantamount to political malpractice.

    The truly sad part of your obtuseness is this: As an older adult, you will long be departed from this earth before the serious impacts of climate change are felt by most of the world's population. But your progeny -- your grandchildren, great-grandchildren and their offspring -- will most likely still be here.

    And they are the ones who will have to deal with the adverse consequences arising from your earlier colossal folly, in which you and your right-wing friends first shoved your heads up your own arses decades prior, and then told everyone ad nauseum about the tremendous view you all were enjoying.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    And here's another true scientist (none / 0) (#128)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 12:51:42 PM EST
    leaving the MMGW sinking ship.

    Hal Lewis, Professor Emeritus UCSB

    As reported by the Gateway Pundit:  Top US scientist Hal Lewis resigned this week from his post at the University of California at Santa Barbara.  He admitted global warming climate change was nothing but a scam in his resignation letter.

    From the Telegraph (because for some reason the Liberal Media here in the U.S don't like this stuff getting out).

    The following is a letter to the American Physical Society released to the public by Professor Emeritus of physics Hal Lewis of the University of California at Santa Barbara.

    Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis
     From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
     To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society
     6 October 2010

    Dear Curt:

    When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).

    Snip

    It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford's book organizes the facts very well.) I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.



    Parent
    The best part of this (none / 0) (#131)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 07:09:56 PM EST
    Is your breathlessly rostong it as if was news.  He resigned in 2010 and DIED in 2011

    Lewis's letter of resignation "vaulted [him] to celebrity status [among] conservative and contrarian Web sites and commentators."[13] The APS responded by disputing Lewis' accusations,[14] and defending its policy.[15]

    Parent

    APS Comments on Harold Lewis' Resignation (none / 0) (#132)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 07:12:09 PM EST
    WASHINGTON, D.C. -- In a recent letter to the American Physical Society (APS) President Curtis A. Callan, chair of the Princeton University Physics Department, Harold Lewis, emeritus physics professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, announced that he was resigning his APS membership.
    In response to numerous accusations in the letter, APS issues the following statement:
    There is no truth to Dr. Lewis' assertion that APS policy statements are driven by financial gain. To the contrary, as a membership organization of more than 48,000 physicists, APS adheres to rigorous ethical standards in developing its statements. The Society is open to review of its statements if members petition the APS Council - the Society's democratically elected governing body - to do so.
    Dr. Lewis' specific charge that APS as an organization is benefitting financially from climate change funding is equally false. Neither the operating officers nor the elected leaders of the Society have a monetary stake in such funding. Moreover, relatively few APS members conduct climate change research, and therefore the vast majority of the Society's members derive no personal benefit from such research support.
    On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:
    Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;
    Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and
    The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.
    On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear. However, APS continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain. In light of the significant settled aspects of the science, APS totally rejects Dr. Lewis' claim that global warming is a "scam" and a "pseudoscientific fraud."
    Additionally, APS notes that it has taken extraordinary steps to solicit opinions from its membership on climate change. After receiving significant commentary from APS members, the Society's Panel on Public Affairs finalized an addendum to the APS climate change statement reaffirming the significance of the issue. The APS Council overwhelmingly endorsed the reaffirmation.
    Lastly, in response to widespread interest expressed by its members, the APS is in the process of organizing a Topical Group to feature forefront research and to encourage exchange of information on the physics of climate.

    Parent
    Well, since you bring Knorr up (none / 0) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 05:46:39 PM EST
    And from your link:

    Basically, Bristol University scientist Knorr has discovered that the proportion of CO2 being absorbed by natural `sinks' (i.e. the oceans and forests) has stayed roughly the same, despite the amount of carbon being emitted shooting up.

    The implication is that we have more time to address climate change than some believe because more carbon has been absorbed than previously thought

    Of the course the FACT, and not "implication" is that CO2 levels aren't increasing and all the fear being pushed is as Sneider said:

    "To capture the public imagination,
    we have to offer up some scary scenarios,
    make simplified dramatic statements
    and little mention of any doubts one might have.
    Each of us has to decide the right balance
    between being effective,
    and being honest."

    - Leading greenhouse advocate, Dr Stephen Schneider
    ( in interview for "Discover" magagzine, Oct 1989)

    Link

    Parent

    One more and I'm done (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 06:06:06 PM EST
    Let's say you are right.  What is the downside? We spend a few billion bucks that would otherwise probably be spent on bombs or drones to drop them or on tax breaks for rich people or ever more sophisticated surveillance systems on weening ourselves from our dependence on fossil fuels and moving to renewable energy.  

    And then let's say you are wrong.  What is the downside?
     The entire world economy is threatened.  War over food and water shortages, millions dead hundreds of millions displaced. Loss oh hundreds of species.

    Personally I think you would have to be an idiot to think it even think it's  a close call.

    Parent

    More lies (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 06:24:52 PM EST
    And yet, despite the fact that Knorr's study showed that the proportion of Co2 being absorbed has remained relatively constant, he clearly states it does not show what the wingnuts would try to make it say ... IOW - "lie".

    Guess you're proof he was right.

    BTW - Re: Schneider's half-quote - it's funny how you always forget to include the end of the quote.  Schneider was not, as the winger deniers claim, advocating stretching or distorting scientific truths to support their theories.  Schneider was talking about the challenge scientists face trying to communicate complex, important issues without adequate time during media interviews.  The significant sections that were omitted were "This `double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each
    of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."

    This has been pointed out to you at least twice previously, yet you persist in trying to distort his words.  Actually, the first time it might be an unintentional distortion.  By the third time it's just lying.


    Parent

    So, (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by lentinel on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 02:32:05 AM EST
    you dismiss everything on which there is a consensus of opinion?

    OK.

    Thanks for the warning.

    All these round-Earthers had me thinkin' that if I took a long sea voyage, I wouldn't fall off the edge of the planet.

    I cancelled the trip just in time.

    Parent

    Actually lentienal (1.00 / 1) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 11:40:03 AM EST
    the fact that the earth is round was proven by science.... not consensus.

    And yes, I pay little attention to consensus... I voted for McCain and then Romney knowing that Hope and Change was a lie and that Obama had lied about Obamacare and Benghazi.

    Some of us are smarter than others.

    ;-)

    Parent

    "consensus" (none / 0) (#129)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 02:25:11 PM EST
    Yes, an overwhelming consensus of scientists.

    As opposed to a consensus in flies-all-over country who insist everything in the universe came to be in no more than seven days, and who believe a president should think with his gut.

    Parent

    Look on the bright side (none / 0) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 08:14:50 AM EST
    If this is all that is left for the Luddites there may be light at the end of the tunnel

    Parent
    Here is the... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by desertswine on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 10:24:26 PM EST
    IPCC report on climate change.  It's a very big read.  Go crazy.  It begins...

    Human activities are continuing to affect the Earth's energy budget by changing the emissions and resulting atmospheric concentrations of radiatively important gases and aerosols and by changing land surface properties. Previous assessments have already shown through multiple lines of evidence that the climate is changing across our planet, largely as a result of human activities. The most compelling evidence of climate change derives from observations of the atmosphere, land, oceans and cryosphere. Unequivocal evidence from in situ observations and ice core records shows that the atmos- pheric concentrations of important greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) have increased over the last few centuries. {1.2.2, 1.2.3}

    The debate about whether it's occurring or not is over. The only question is whether or not we can or will do anything to ameliorate its effects, and who will, and who will not survive it.  At present, we are doing next to nothing.

    Since you folks want to (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 11:44:33 AM EST
    compare resumes...

    The head of the IPCC was a

    Pachauri was born in Nainital, India. He was educated at La Martiniere College in Lucknow[4] and at the Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering in Jamalpur, Bihar. He belongs to the Special Class Railway Apprentices, 1958 Batch, an elite scheme which heralded the beginning of mechanical engineering education in India.[5] He began his career with the Indian Railways at the Diesel Locomotive Works in Varanasi. He joined the North Carolina State University in Raleigh, USA, where he obtained an MS in Industrial Engineering in 1972, and a Ph.D. with co-majors in Industrial Engineering and Economics in 1974.[6] His doctoral thesis was titled, A dynamic model for forecasting of electrical energy demand in a specific region located in North and South Carolina.[7] He lives in Golf Links, New Delhi.[8]

    Link

    A mechanical engineer who never got near Harvard.

    lol

    Parent

    Absolutely! (none / 0) (#105)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 01:09:38 PM EST
    Setting aside the fact that Pauchuri is the head of a scientific committee and his job isn't climate research - let's compare the resumes and expertise of the hundreds of climatologists in the IPCC report and compare them to ...

    ... a science fiction writer?

    Sometimes I think you're trying to make it easy ...

    Parent

    Until I stopped paying attention (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 03:52:43 PM EST
    to yesterday's game (11 minutes left on the clock), it seemed like U of M and Florida would be playing each other soon.

    I dont understand (none / 0) (#3)
    by Amiss on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 05:23:36 PM EST
    the 10 over Gators by Dayton.

    But I also am not good when you get into Vegas type betting.

    GO GATORS!!

    Parent

    3CM's Schlafly story share tonight (none / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 08:22:12 PM EST
    Is a feel good story.  Phyllis Schlafly married into a family of civil rights activist hand crafted beer brewers...tee hee

    Parent
    I am encouraged by BTD's pick (none / 0) (#2)
    by Towanda on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 04:57:19 PM EST
    of Arizona, after the pick of Baylor over BIG RED!

    Incredible second half so far, tied up (none / 0) (#8)
    by Towanda on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 09:21:59 PM EST
    if anyone wants to catch it on cable or live-stream.

    But if you are just getting into the game, you missed the moment when the Badgers tied it the first time.  The stands looked like State Street in Madtown, Wisconsin, USA.  The Zonans around them looked like they never had seen the like of it.

    You can see the crazee any day on State Street -- if, admittedly, it's wall to wall right now, both in and out of the bars.

    Parent

    FINAL: Wisconsin 64, Arizona 63 (OT). (none / 0) (#10)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 10:21:22 PM EST
    I thought the Badgers caught a break on that offensive foul call against the Wildcats. Yeah, Johnson pushed off, but the Wisconsin player clearly initiated the contact. Were I the official, that's not a call I'd make. At that stage of the game, unless it's flagrantly obvious, you have to let them play through it. But then, the refs gave the ball (and hope) back to Arizona on that crazy inbounds to out of bounds play, but unfortunately for the 'Cats, time ran out on them. Great win for Wisconsin.

    Parent
    Arizona had eight guys on the floor (none / 0) (#11)
    by Towanda on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 10:38:04 PM EST
    with those refs, for so many calls.  

    Re that call at end, here's the thing:  If it's taking more than five minutes to review the play to make a ruling, you don't have what the NCAA calls your indisputable visual evidence.


    Parent

    Exactly. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 12:53:20 AM EST
    At that point, if it isn't obvious, let the call on the floor stand and be done with it.

    I was a game earlier this season between Hawaii and UC-Irvine, and the referees stopped the game at a key moment in the second half for over five minutes on what clearly looked to be an offensive foul on the visitors. I mean, there was absolutely a foul, because the Hawaii player got hit in the head and decked, and the refs whistled the Irvine player for it. We all assumed that they were trying to determine whether or not the foul was flagrant.

    Meanwhile, both teams and coaching staffs were standing around the court with hands on hips, the crowd of 10,000 began to boo the officials the longer they took, and the home team was sapped of whatever momentum they had built in making a comeback. The Sheriff Center then erupted in a chorus of hostile catcalls when the officials walked away from the video monitor and announced that there was no foul at all, and gave the ball back to Irvine.

    This video review crap is ridiculous. I understand the rationale for it, because nobody wants a game decided on an official's bad call. But for heaven's sake, set a defined limit to the amount of time the officials can spend reviewing the play, and if they can't make a determination in that time span, then the call on the court should stand.

    Another rule that needs to be changed is the ten-second rule requiring the team on offense to advance the ball over the half-court line. The other night during the Arizona-San Diego State game, the Arizona player was trapped by the Aztec press in the backcourt near the end of the game, and was forced to call a timeout before the ten-sec. rule was violated.

    But after the timeout, the Wildcats got a fresh ten seconds to advance the ball out of the backcourt, even though the 35-sec. shot clock doesn't reset on the timeout. That's ridiculous. If you have the timeouts to spare at the end of the game, you could conceivably spend over 20 seconds in the backcourt on offense milking the clock, and not be called for a violation.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Re a time-limit rule on officials (none / 0) (#21)
    by Towanda on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 10:14:34 AM EST
    . . . you must have been with us for breakfast this morning, as that was the focus of discussion -- and not for the first time in this tourney, as it was almost as bad at the end of the Wisconsin-Oregon game.  The result should not ride on which team does a better job of keeping its young players from going cold during these committee meetings.  

    Us oldsters know how hard it is to stay alert in our committee meetings, when two or three idjits take over the meeting and go on and on and on -- so the NCAA ought to at least let the players get practice in doing what we do.  The players ought to be allowed to doodle -- or to pretend to be consulting the agenda on our tablets and cellphones, when we're really checking emails and blogs and FB posts.  

    So, we also think that a new rule is needed on the rulekeepers.  And the test that they take to must be a timed test, but I'd tighten up that timing and add testing of ability to make timely decisions.  

    Parent

    Dayton scares me, much more so than UCLA. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 05:40:20 PM EST
    Any true basketball aficionado who's been watching this tournament closely realizes that the underrated Flyers managed to beat both Ohio State and Syracuse despite not having their A-game.

    Well, that A-game showed up on Thursday night against Stanford. The comfortable, almost matter-of-fact manner in which Dayton controlled the court against a strong Cardinal team throughout the entire contest should rightly give Florida coach Billy Donovan no small cause for concern.

    I'm sure Donovan's warning his Gators right now that if they show up in the arena tonight thinking that they're merely there to pick up their plane tickets to Dallas, they'll be joining perennial Top Ten poseurs Duke, North Carolina, Syracuse and Kansas on the tourney sidelines before this night is done.

    I like Florida in this one, but I think it may be very close, and possibly go into overtime. And if the Gators do go on to win the national championship, they may well look back upon this particular game as the one which truly tested their fortitude and was ultimately their finest hour in this tournament. Like Wichita State last year, Dayton is for real. I'm looking forward to what should be a great game.

    Aloha.

    Thirty Consecutive Wins (none / 0) (#5)
    by Amiss on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 07:21:03 PM EST
    GO GATORS!!!

    Parent
    And it wasn't as close (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by CoralGables on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 09:09:23 PM EST
    as the final margin indicates. The Gators took control late in the first half and coasted.

    Parent
    And they hung on at the end .. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 09:23:22 PM EST
    ... and maintained their poise when the Flyers made a run at them in the final minutes. That was a quality win against a quality team.

    Parent
    Consensus (none / 0) (#108)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 02:22:51 PM EST
    "We're now in an era where climate change isn't some kind of future hypothetical," said the overall lead author of the report, Chris Field of the Carnegie Institution for Science in California. "We live in an area where impacts from climate change are already widespread and consequential."

    it's worse than we thought

    Btw (none / 0) (#109)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 02:27:40 PM EST
    That headline means a United Nations Scientific panel NOT an unscientific panel.

    I case there is any confusion

    Parent

    Turns out (none / 0) (#110)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 02:41:21 PM EST
    Jim's favorite person is mentioned in there.

    Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University who wasn't part of this report, said he found the report "very conservative" because it is based on only peer reviewed studies and has to be approved unanimously.

    The idea that it is conservative is frightening.

    Parent

    Nowadays, Cap'n, the sole qualification ... (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 04:21:27 PM EST
    ... for being a conservative seems to be one's singular ability to first shove his or her head far inside his or her own arse, and then express an unabashed admiration for the lovely view up there. Actual facts and sound logic have nothing to do with it, and anyone expressing a contrary opinion within the GOP is quickly branded either a RINO or a traitor.

    Parent
    Well Donald, while I don't do this (1.00 / 1) (#117)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 05:38:32 PM EST
    often, I bow to you having knowledge of arse's... I mean having such a perfect one available for study 24/7...

    lol

    Parent