Article: Phony Science and Public Policy - Very interesting

snowy

Evolving Lead Gorilla
I saw a show on this from Penn and Teller on Showtime several years back. They mentioned how the EPA study was bogus and it actually got thrown out of court....

But somehow we still have smoking bans all over US...
 

erictheobscure

Evolving Lead Gorilla
I saw a show on this from Penn and Teller on Showtime several years back. They mentioned how the EPA study was bogus and it actually got thrown out of court....

But somehow we still have smoking bans all over US...
Umm, the Supreme Court just ruled that the EPA should regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions because they are quite obviously harmful to the environment.
 

davemo

Gorilla
Uhhh... in all the psychology articles I've read, they use an alpha value of .05 or .01, resulting in a confidence level of 95% or 99% (confidence = 1 - alpha [as a percent]). I've seen some strong criticism of being lax enough to use an alpha of .05, so a 90% confidence level is pretty darn crappy by those standards...
 

davemo

Gorilla
Umm, the Supreme Court just ruled that the EPA should regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions because they are quite obviously harmful to the environment.

How do they intend to regulate water vapor (the worst of the greenhouse gasses)? Despite our best efforts, we have not learned how to control the clouds, and virtually every means of energy production produces water vapor. CO2 is piddly #&^$ compared to gaseous H2O.
 

sepia5

Gorilla
"The public has become increasingly aware that the science behind manmade global warming is a fraud."

???

Am I missing something? Since when? I think, at this point, manmade global warming is pretty widely accepted by both the scientific community and the public at large.
 

Sigarz

Gorilla
well before we start arguing about this lets consider that Walter williams' field of expertise is economics, that gives him relative credibilty about the percent error of the trials but with regards to his "scientific" opinion I would rather listen to an actual scientist. :2 :ss
 

Hoodere

Maturing Primate
Wonder what they will wiil be saying when the dikes are being built around New York City, or sooner yet when Glacier National Park becomes Grassy Meadows National Park.
 
Last edited:

tech-ninja

Pnoon's Bartender
To me it seems that "Global Warming" is the new "Hole in the Ozone". Whatever happened to that? Did we fix it or just lose interest or find out it was a load of crap to start with?
 

WyoBob

SilverBack
To me it seems that "Global Warming" is the new "Hole in the Ozone". Whatever happened to that? Did we fix it or just lose interest or find out it was a load of crap to start with?
I think, the last time I heard, the hole in the ozone had become smaller.

WyoBob
 

Hoodere

Maturing Primate
To me it seems that "Global Warming" is the new "Hole in the Ozone". Whatever happened to that? Did we fix it or just lose interest or find out it was a load of crap to start with?
It is not as bad as it was due to drastically reduced flourocarbon use.
 

erictheobscure

Evolving Lead Gorilla
To me it seems that "Global Warming" is the new "Hole in the Ozone". Whatever happened to that? Did we fix it or just lose interest or find out it was a load of crap to start with?
Uhh, we didn't "fix it" and it wasn't a "load of crap." You personally might've lost interest and it might've stopped getting press in the US media, but it's still a live concern for scientists or anyone else concerned with the lasting and potentially irreversible damage done to the earth.
 

davemo

Gorilla
"The public has become increasingly aware that the science behind manmade global warming is a fraud."

???

Am I missing something? Since when? I think, at this point, manmade global warming is pretty widely accepted by both the scientific community and the public at large.
As was, at one point, the geocentric view of the solar system. Galileo put that one to shame.


I posted a link to this documentary somewhere else, but everyone should at least be willing to watch it. Some of the top scientists in the fields relating to global warming (physics, oceanography, climatology, etc.) are ardently opposed to the homocentric theory of global warming. In fact, one of said scientists utilizes a theory that predicts the weather far more accurately than the theories that rely on man's contribution to global warming.

The Great Global Warming Swindle
 

erictheobscure

Evolving Lead Gorilla
As was, at one point, the geocentric view of the solar system. Galileo put that one to shame.


I posted a link to this documentary somewhere else, but everyone should at least be willing to watch it. Some of the top scientists in the fields relating to global warming (physics, oceanography, climatology, etc.) are ardently opposed to the homocentric theory of global warming. In fact, one of said scientists utilizes a theory that predicts the weather far more accurately than the theories that rely on man's contribution to global warming.

The Great Global Warming Swindle
I teach writing and rhetoric, so let me parse some of this. First, there's the old argument by analogy, which is one of the weakest forms of argument possible. Yes, I realize that your claim about the "homocentric [sic] theory of global warming" is a slender connection to a geocentric model of the universe, but not that the Galileo reference doesn't necessarily prove anything pertaining to this discussion, for one simple reason: Galileo didn't prove all anthropocentric models wrong.

But the far more pressing issue is the slippery logic of "top scientists." People often claim they have "top" leaders in their respective fields on their side, but this is, more often than not, just a rhetorical bluff.

http://www.digitalnpq.org/global_services/nobel laureates/12.07.01.html

Here's a statement signed by a number of Nobel laureates about some of the most urgent challenges that we face. Global warming is one of them. I don't want to perpetuate the Nobel myth, but the prize does serve as a decent measure of who the "top" thinkers in various fields really are.
 
Top