Michael Mann: Harper's War on Science

[darkbeaver]

There was a clear link between emissions and acid rain where the solution was straight forward

More to the point, the AGW related solutions today see one group (Western nations) transferring cash to non-developed nations for the purpose of developing their economies and introducing an entirely new generation of consumers (read emitters).

The logic does not make any sense whatsoever.




BIS?

Full name?

Bank of International Settlements---------------- Swiss------

I agree that it doesn't make sense. I've always been of the mind that we should finance innovation here, and when the economies of scale take hold, well in effect the consumers here would subsidize lower prices abroad. But perhaps more important, most of the developing nations don't respect intellectual property anyways. Likely some entrepreneur in a developing nation would simply copy the tech and sell it for cheap. This happens with our vaccines and pharmaceuticals all the time.

But, what equally does not make sense to me, is to respond to scientific findings with DB-style conspiracy charges.

You can read thousands of articles about conspiracy in science you can follow the broken careers because of scientific conspiracy. I think it's strange indeed that the evident materialistic lunacy pretending that science is apart from the human condition and somehow immune to it in any way should be exposed at every opportunity.

 

[Tonington]

You can read thousands of articles about conspiracy in science

I'm only interested in the ones that can be shown to be true.

 

[darkbeaver]

I'm only interested in the ones that can be shown to be true.

Well that requires capacity for critical thinking, I think when you polish yours and add it to your technical smarts you'll be formidable.

 

[Tonington]

Well that requires capacity for critical thinking

It requires evidence.

I doubt, though I could be wrong, that ES would follow you down the rabbit hole for other branches of science that also get lots of government funding. Genomic work, materials science, astrophysics...I know that you unfailingly will side with whatever is anti-establishment, but for ES I'm not sure.

 

[darkbeaver]

The establishment is rotten to the core. That is the rule not a suspicion.

Huge: New Lawsuit Filed Against USDA over Missing Docs Showing GMO Dangers


Like many Americans, you may be beating your head against the wall trying to figure out how governmental agencies could so blatantly ignore the facts concerning GMO dangers. A new lawsuit filed March 12, 2014 by Center for Food Safety (CFS) demands that federal documents be released which might incriminate the United States Department of Agriculture over findings that GMO were harmful, while shielding the public from this knowled

 

[captain morgan]

I agree that it doesn't make sense. I've always been of the mind that we should finance innovation here, and when the economies of scale take hold, well in effect the consumers here would subsidize lower prices abroad. But perhaps more important, most of the developing nations don't respect intellectual property anyways. Likely some entrepreneur in a developing nation would simply copy the tech and sell it for cheap. This happens with our vaccines and pharmaceuticals all the time.

But, what equally does not make sense to me, is to respond to scientific findings with DB-style conspiracy charges.

I'm not of the conspiracy theory mind, but it does appear that someone (group) does have an end-game that is not consistent with the message that is being marketed.

Want to help develop other nations? Great, let's start the discussion, but don't do it in cloak-and-dagger style

Bank of International Settlements---------------- Swiss------

Thank you

 

[Tonington]

I'm not of the conspiracy theory mind, but it does appear that someone (group) does have an end-game that is not consistent with the message that is being marketed.

A lot of people have been maligned because of appearances. I didn't agree with the verdict, but the evidence was presented and Zimmerman was cleared on the charges the state brought against him. Early on the media ran with what appeared to be something that wasn't.

Evidence, that's what matters.

 

[darkbeaver]

The Sun and Earthquakes – electromagnetic connection

Posted on March 16, 2014 by Louis Hissink
Interesting data and observations, and the science is settled, is it? Science is never settled but dogma/religion is.

 

[Zipperfish]

Living in a discarded cardboard box in an alley ain't a successful strategy in finding love either

I'm doing OK. Not lighting Cubans with $100 bills but doing OK.

 

[captain morgan]

Cigars are an unusual path to finding one's soul mate

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Cigars are an unusual path to finding one's soul mate

Worked for Clinton.

 

[Zipperfish]

Worked for Clinton.

Zing! :lol:

 

[darkbeaver]

How the Global Warming Scare Began



A great scientist named Roger Revelle had Al Gore in his class at Harvard and the Global Warming campaign was born. Revelle tried to calm things down years later, but Gore said Revelle was Senile and refused to debate. John Coleman documents the entire story and shows how our tax dollars are perpetuating the Global Warming alarmist campaign even though temperatures have not risen in years and years.

 

[petros]

There is scientific consensus DB. Everyone agrees that climate is dynamic and thus Climate Change was born in the Post-Global Warming era.

Hundreds of $Billions later and that is the only accomplishment.

 

[darkbeaver]

There is scientific consensus DB. Everyone agrees that climate is dynamic and thus Climate Change was born in the Post-Global Warming era.

Hundreds of $Billions later and that is the only accomplishment.

Hundreds of billions literally pi ssed into the consensus model urinals and it's getting noticeably cooler sooner and longer.. I wonder if there's anything at all being spent on snow removal research?

 

[Locutus]

Worked for Clinton.

Bill should have tried that.

 

[darkbeaver]

Scientific Confusion

Posted on March 16, 2014 by Louis Hissink
I’ve noticed a rather interesting problem of the lexical kind – science uses different words and terms to describe the same thing that results in two quite different perspectives of understanding.
Take the scientific field of radiogenic decay, for example. Atomic nuclei emit 3 types of “radiation” – alpha particles, beta particles and gamma particles. Alpha particles are comprised of two protons and two neutrons and are electrically positively charged. Beta particles are electrons and negatively charged. Gamma radiation are photons but are mass and charge less. Generally radiation is considered dangerous, think Fukashima, for example.
Then we have cosmic rays, which are alpha particles, which are also considered “dangerous”. Then we have the solar wind which is mainly comprised of protons that vary in speed and can reach velocities of 800 km per second or more (and what causes that change in velocity remains a mystery for most). These are also considered dangerous but the earth’s geomagnetic field protects us from most of them.
Then we have metal wires along which electrons flow or are passed into a cathode ray tube (TV in other words) and these moving electrons are called electricity and very useful things are made from this property of metals and modern electronics. But if the electron pops out of an atomic nucleus it’s called radiation, or if it travels from the electron gun in the cathode ray tube and strikes the phosphor at the other end of the tube, its called electricity, or radiation if you think this electron beam is dangerous.
There is a general view that electric charge separation cannot happen in space, but in the same breath astrophysics acknowledges the existence of the solar wind and cosmic radiation and those are electrically charged particles in motion, or electricity in other words. Isn’ this charge separation?
Yet when you hear someone say a particular metal, uranium say, is radioactive, which it is, and is hence dangerous, which it might be, depending on the isotope, because it emits radiation, then what would our reaction be if we said that uranium emits electricity rather than radiation?
What this lexical difference does create is confusion.