 #1 "... before undergoing critical peer review."
No "critical" peer review exists when the only peers it was submitted to are those who already agree with the basic tenant.
Science only advances by being a skeptic. Remember that bit of nonsense with Pons and Fleishman?
Oh and the IPCC report undergoes INTERNAL review. Sort of like a thief on trial where the jury is composed of thieves.
And thank you for trotting out the term "deniers." Is that some kind of "Borg" thing? "We are the Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile."
Read my lips, "science is a skeptic". In the field of logic this would be a case of:
If a then b.
Not b, then not a.
#2 see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC129389/?log$=activity
Not so grounded in science are we? "In fairness I had a quick look." Bubba, science is NOT about quick looks, but rather hard critical examination of the evidence. Once again, science is a skeptic.
#3 Once again you got it wrong. You confused "adaptability" with "viable mutations resulting in a new specie". Homo sapiens is NOT 1 million years old. Then consider bacteria adaptability resulting in antibiotic resistance within the last few decades. Using my location as an example of adaptability, non-Alaska natives aka immigrants from the lower 48 states routinely adapt to living and operating in temperatures that kill those not adapted. -20°F is plenty warm for running a trap-line on snowshoes. Cutting and hauling firewood out of the woods is quite pleasant at 0°F. Then there is the high altitude adaptation exhibited by those in the Andes or Himalayan Mountains. Still wanna claim "MILLIONS OF YEARS"?
#4 Flat screen TV and cell phone development wasn't paid for with tax revenues. The "waste in government" argument is a red herring. You change the subject to add credibility to your argument?
The "vested interests" argument is a logical fallacy and can be seen as such through "reducio ad absurdum". Example: Vested interest determines that continued use of chemical "X" will result in great loss of life, ergo vested interests deny knowledge of the determination. The "How was I to know" defense.
You failed to clearly define who are those supposed "vested interests".
If we assume these so-called vested interests are corporate entities, then you fail to understand that corporations are owned by shareholders who expect, nay demand that the corporate officers shall maximize shareholder value. In this case, the vested interest is shareholder value. The high costs of environmental damage clean-up results in minimal to no dividends and a substantial drop in share value. You trotted out the cigarette issue in another comment on this thread. The reason those CEOs rescinded their "I don't believe cigarettes cause cancer" is just because the shareholders figuratively took the CEOs out behind the woodshed and beat them with a baseball bat for being such dumb-asses. The shareholders recognized the much higher costs that come with kicking the can further down the road.
I can only assume, by your argument using the undefined "vested interests" , you have limited experience with the real business costs of environmental clean-up. The reality is business attempts to stay ahead of any potential environmental damage. Prevention is always far cheaper. That being said, failure still exists. Fukushima is a recent example as well as the recent railroad derailments of oil tankers and subsequent damage.
----------
I stated "if global warming" because evidence clearly presents the picture of stability over the last 15 years. I did not state that global warming is NOT happening in the long term. In fact I, perhaps wrongly, assumed that my presentation of "not yet in the middle of an interglacial period" would have been a clue that I tend to think we are warming up. My argument is against garbage science claiming AGW using CO2 production as the catalyst. Look at some of the CO2 figures for the early Holocene. Any fossil fuel usage back then would have been highly localized and limited to campfires. Now were these last two sentences indicative of today's data? Not one bit. It is, for the most part, irrelevant. Just as much as ice cores are irrelevant. All either indicates is what possibly was and only then if we can get beaucoup data correlations between several different disciplines sharing common dating.
note: The science and technology of today clearly demonstrates a classic example of the "Peter Principle" in action. Specialization such as PhD demonstrates "knowing more and more about less and less". Worse, the general public fails to recognize the logical fallacy of "argument from authority". So-called experts routinely comment on subjects far outside their area of competence. Even worse, "argument from authority" often morphs into "argument from consensus". Some famous guy (Publius Cyrus?) said something to the effect, "The opinions of 10,000 people means nothing if they don't know anything about the subject." There is a vast difference between know and believe. To know is to have knowledge. Knowledge is tested by application. Knowing is about confidence while believing is about faith.
I'll leave you with these:
There is about 100mg per liter of CO2 in the oceans. This is about 140X more than the atmosphere. As earlier presented, kitchen table science and a couple cans of beer demonstrate cold water versus warm water solubility of CO2.
Now do you see the problem?
Too many variables, minimal data, belief systems (pro and con), theories trotted out before adequate testing of hypotheses, uncritical peer review, general incompetence about science and math among a very vocal public, grant-driven science and hardly the least being, politics. Ever run into that phrase about "doing your own due diligence?" The greatest threat to knowledge is not ignorance but rather believing something is so that just plain ain't (again attributed to some smarter guy than me).
But please do continue. Every thesis requires critical review. Always do your own due diligence. Believe no one. That most assuredly includes me.
I reserve the right to change my opinions as new data becomes available for analysis and possible incorporation.
Continue? Y/N Commented 3959 days ago |
