Redstate

54% unknown or against does not make a consensus for.

Of course whats more important is there are now none calling for the sky to fall, or would it be rise in this case ?

As always in these arguments your side assumes the conclusion and then starts to argue what to do about it. Well the rest of the world wants proof and its going to take some pretty good prof not just a few people with bees in their bonnets.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

All it means is that 48% of papers with "climate change" as a subject term aren't about AGW at all. They are about ice ages, or gas sampling methods, or whatever. You might as well include papers about quantum physics which don't endorse the AGW concensus.

The statement about only one paper mentioning catastrophic results is just false. Try "climate tipping point" in Google Scholar and you get 9040 hits. Here are just two with tipping point in the title:

Journal of Climate Volume 18, Issue 22 (November 2005) "The Thinning of Arctic Sea Ice, 1988–2003: Have We Passed a Tipping Point?"

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, L23504, doi:10.1029/2006GL028017, 2006 "Does the Arctic sea ice have a tipping point?"

The surveys used a specific repository for papers. There was no claim that every paper ever written on climate change was contained there. Perhaps just the sane researchers deposited their papers there...

includes almost all reputable science journals, certainly including Journal of Climate and GRL. It's not a repository, just an indexing.

If something is 48% unknown and 6% against, that's heavy spin to call it 54% unknown or against. The against is negligible compared to the unknown.

Not disagreeing with your point, just saying that's not a stat I want to hear repeated.

www.mikehuckabee.com

This morning I was reading my latest edition of Car & Driver magazine, and not a single article overtly endorsed global warming. I'm going to have to put the entire magazine down as "neutral."

due in part to Bayesian apriori assumptions and model artifacts.. or more simply, garbage in - garbage out.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison

and fight the defense very well.
Your pattern is getting stale, however.
In no other area of study is the news able to always be read 'pro' no matter how contradicotry the results or how bad the methodologies.
Yet AGW has reliable folk like you to step in and perform AGW apologia, no matter what.
For such a young religion, I admire the vigor of its adherents, like you, to defend the faith.

I wouldn't care if every single person with a PhD in this field said it, I still wouldn't take their word for it and start letting them branch out from their field and into politics to dictate policy.

I think these are two very separate issues. If every single PhD in a given field says something is true, there is a very high probability that it is (not 100% by any means, but high). One ignores that opinion at one's own risk, and in this case the risk is real and severe.

On the other hand, being an expert in one field doesn't mean you know anything at all about another field. The vast majority of scientists do not have any experience with setting public policy. In this case, the proper role of scientists, in my opinion (as an atmospheric scientist, disclosure), is to provide policy makers with the information they need to make informed decisions about the risks and costs of climate change. Then we need to step back and let the policy makers do their jobs. I, personally, have exactly no idea how one would really go about significantly reducing CO2 emissions from a heavily industrialized nation without wrecking its economy and creating a catastrophe of a different kind. I am not qualified to give anyone advice on how that should be done. I am qualified to say that based on our current understanding of the climate system it should be done.

This is just more of the left's stamping down of the common man. You have to be in the military to express opinions of the war, you have to be an academic to express opinions about the climate, etc. etc.

I have to say I have never really understood this line of reasoning. When your baby is sick do you go see your accountant? When you are getting your taxes prepared do you go see your doctor? Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion, but how much weight you give that opinion needs to take into account whether or not that person knows anything about what they are talking about.

"Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it." --- Mark Twain.

It turns out that only trees with an abundance of water are able to take advantage of the extra CO2. In other words, the CO2 is something trees use when they decide to grow, not something that spurs their growth. There's already more than enough for them.

The real key is the warming that the globe is supposed to get. Plants like it warm, just as people do, so there should be more plants to absorb the CO2.

The whole thing is driven by the Sun anyway.

--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

Study(s) that promised a greening of the deserts. Didn't the new study only show GREATER increase in growth with unlimited water?

Now our SUVs make poison ivy scratchier.
The NYT has been so highjacked by AGW hype and myth that nearly everything written in their paper is infected with references to the climate catastrophe America is causing.

I'm gonna leave those last couple of sentences alone, as I'm not quite sure even you believe them, but your substantive point about technological solutions is a sound one. Except that technological innovation has regularly been driven by government regulation (or government policy) - the opposition that you're setting up doesn't exist.

" Except that technological innovation has regularly been driven by government regulation (or government policy)"

"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army

is the internet a great waste of money? How about nuclear power? Catalytic converters? Polio vaccines? Should we keep going?

Though the Internet was originally an outgrowth of Defense and academia, private industry played a huge role at every step. Private network growth kept pace quite well with Internet growth, as most F500 companies had their own far-flung private networks running proprietary, DEC, or IBM protocols. Almost all of them, including the government networks, were riding Big Telecom wires or microwaves of some kind.

Nuclear power development was way more complicated than just some government program, I'm sure you know. At almost every step, the government limited what people could do with it.

Catalytic converters are the result of government research?

Polio vaccine? The government played almost no role in its development, as far as I know.

--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

not that anyone will read this but....

OK I retract the polio vaccine comment - sloppy on my part. As far as the others, just because private industry was involved doesn't mean that the technology wasn't largely driven by government mandate. The big three had little incentive to put catalytic converters in their cars before the passing of the Clean Air Act. Nuclear power and the internet wouldn't have existed without being started first by government research to get it off the ground.

Nuclear power and the internet wouldn't have existed without being started first by government research to get it off the ground.

You can't prove that.

In the case of nuclear power, after e = mc², it was only a matter of time before someone worked out how to harness it, both for war and for making electricity.

And the Internet as we know it might not have existed, but something like it surely would have. Computers have been doubling in processing power roughly every 1-2 years since their creation, and by the time the Internet took off people were already hooking them together by modem. There were vast networks of relay-store-forward email systems, bulletin boards, and private LANs. Companies (such as Novell, 3Com, and Microsoft, among scores of others) were competing to provide the best networking system.

TCP/IP is not perfect, but won out over the others because there was nothing clearly superior at the time. Nothing could have stopped the forces bringing people to use computers to conduct business, and that means internetworking.

The idea that the government created the Internet is as unfortunate as it is imprecise. History created the Internet.

--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

how cool...

Anyways you can't prove your argument either. I guess I should say that the internet and nuclear power exist today and were started by government programs and still enjoy government support. We can prove that. Could they have come along anyway without government help - perhaps, but they didn't.

Much of technology is driven by war (these two examples), which is largely funded by governments.

In the wild and completely without government mandate. You can consider Socrates vindicated and your statement renered questionable.

Of course that raises an interesting thought. Building nuclear reactors as a way to return the environment to an earlier more pristine condition.

Oh as to tech being driven by war, interesting chestnut. I guess thats why Switzerland is so backward, but liberia, darfur, and the middle east are such tech powerhouses.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

what is one of Switzerland's most famous inventions?

The Swiss Army Knife!

How precious.

I'd think you'd at least be familiar Bernoulli the inventor of the Kinetic theory of gases. Or perhaps Euler ?

First you insult the March of Dimes and charitable Americans now you insult the Swiss.

Good job.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

the Polio Vaccine was because of the March of Dimes. That is what funded that research and the research was pushed because there was HUGE Private demand for it.

How much omney is wasted on nuclear power due to remarkably stupid government regulations and red tape?

And Catalytic Converters were invented privately because of research funded by a Corporation, rather than the government because there was great demand for cars with power and the CatCon was the first way found to keep producing them in the face of (you guessed it) government regulation. Here's the link: http://www.njit.edu/publicinfo/press_releases/release_536.php

Got any more?

"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army

At the time the Wright Brothers were doing their little thing, there was also an effort funded by the government to unlock the secrets of flight. Dr. Samuel Langley received a $70,000 federal grant, tried two very unsuccessful flights, and blamed inadequate funding for his failure.

The Wright Brothers used $2000 earned from their bicycle shop, and developed their machine working part time while still managing their business.

No one remembers Langley's efforts? Exactly.

"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army

was a predecessor to the Wright brothers and is credited with the first powered unmanned flight in 1896. He also was responsible for important discoveries about aircraft stability. The Wright brothers started their research in 1899, based partly on the Smithsonian reports from Langley. I'd hardly call him a failure. There's a NASA research center named after him for gosh sakes. I remember him.

on the polio - admitted.

How much money was wasted on nuclear power regulation? Why not ask Maria Sharapova?

I think you made my point on catalytic converters - they were created to satisfy a government mandate.

Here's some more...
Weather and communication satellites
Interstate highways and most modern transportation technologies
DNA Analysis
MRIs
Lasers
Radar
GPS
Composite fiber materials

Pretty much pick anything that has a good amount of investment risk and a large amount of capital to get started (e.g. tackling global warming) and that's where the government has often played a role - private industry can often not survive in that kind of environment at least initially. The other side is that government regulations drive the technology like in the case of the catalytic converter.

and AGW, is that the items on your list all were useful and had applications. AGW is simply BS, and has no application other than keeping Algore occupied.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

even if you don't buy AGW, developing alternative sustainable sources of energy that don't support tyrants is a bad idea? Great.

if private industry does it. I think it absolutely is brain dead stupid for the government to fund it. You end up with something like ethanol. Which may exend our use of oil at the mere cost of using all of the corn grown in the US for fuel instead of food. Hopefully only poor Africans will starve to death.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

is a waste if it's based on corn. It won't be in the long run. But why would private industry develop any of these technologies if coal is still the cheapest form of energy? With out either government incentives or regulation there's really no profit to be made. How come there aren't any private fusion reactor companies?

They wouldn't. And shouldn't. And neither should the government. It's a colossal waste of money and resources.

With respect to fusion reactors, as long as the idiot greenies are in control of the permitting processes and have the ability to file lawsuits against nuclear development at will, nobody in their right mind would fiddle with it.

Ship the greenies and their lawyers (and their legislators) off to Darfur and we talk about private development of lots of things, but as long as they're around whining about AGW and throwing up legal and regulatory roadblocks to development of available resources and alternative resources, the discussion is just so much mental masturbation (a hallmark of the Left).
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

said it's an excellent idea, but now you say they wouldn't and shouldn't...hmmm... would you call that mental masturbation?

Fusion reactors, not fission...there's only a handful of fusion reactors in the world and there's a reason - $$$$ and risk.

But as long as the legal system works the way it does, lots of excellent ideas will lay dormant.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Try the fact that they don't produce energy. Perhaps because Fusion has been promised as being 20 years away for the last 60 years. (Seems like global warming. Of course shifty I wouldn't expect you to pick up on the similarities)
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

There isn't a more nebulous and meaningless term ?

I'm no paulist but lets take your actual examples apart.

Interstate Highways: Well yes they are there. Only because government had the right to seize peoples property. Are we better for them ? You havent made your case. We would have a very different country would it be worse or better ? Theres arguments on both sides.

NMRI was created by Davidian because he had an insane belief he could do it. By god he was right.

DNA analysis : Really ? I bet we would have had it much much sooner if insurance companies were allowed to test before writing policies.

Lasers: You know nothing about the history. Gordon Gould was a graduate student without any kind of government funding when he invented it.

Radar: Would have been invented one way or another. Microwaves were a hot topic in the early part of the century.

GPS: Well thats one. I may be wrong about this though because I am not up on it.

Composite Fiber Materials: Its sad that when you are correct you are incomplete. Materials Science as a discipline was birthed by DARPA. Composite Materials are simply an outgrowth of that creation.

Of course, the greater error of your thesis, Is that the technologies we use for warfare are the desirable ones and the way our civilization should progress. I can't even begin to describe the sadness of that.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Interstate highways - where would the US economy be without them? You really think we'd be better off?

MRI technology (the image processing part) were made possible thanks to NASA algorithms (and likely NSA before that) to improve satellite images.

DNA Analysis - Celera was the first to achieve the human sequence in 2000 thanks to the initial foundations created by the Human Genome Project. Without the more basic research already finished, it would not have been possible. Oh and two years later they got out of the business becase it wasn't profitable.

Lasers - Gould was funded by ARPA as was Bell Labs who got the patent.

Radar, GPS, and composites - glad we agree - all based on unprofitable (at the time) basic research funded by the government.

Your right it is sad, but history has proven time and time again that those with the best war fighting technology will prevail. That may change in the future, but DARPA's budget is not going down anytime soon.

You have just demonstrated you don't know how an MRI works or the difference between two dimensional image processing and three dimensional volumetric slicing.

Gould was a graduate student when he made his invention. He was funded later by arpa when he lost the race to develop the working model.

And yes its sad, that you justify letting the government rob the populace because a few geegaws came back your way.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Could have easily been not invented if people had accepted smaller cars. They wouldn't. Private Demand drove the search for the catalytic converter (which was not government funded).

The original nuclear research was driven by a desire to press the boundaries of science. Just because some American government employees noticed the potential military applications and threw Millions of dollars at it, doesn't make it government driven. Einstein would have achieved it anyway for far less cost.

"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army

without the government mandate of the Clean Air Act, manufacturers would have had no incentive to invent the catalytic converter for their big cars.

All research is originally driven by curiosity, it's the funding of these large capital projects where private industry balks. Just count the number of private fusion reactor companies. Am I repeating myself?

60 years of fusion reactor research and the only useful result is the Farnsworth Fusor. Now being marketed as a controllable neutron source.

And yes you do repeat your idiocy. The scientists that have worked on all the projects you have listed would have done other things. You completely fail to realize the robbery that occurred . Then again by now I should expect as much, you have never actually tried to think about what you are saying, and exhibit the introspection of a tape recorder.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

You're really trying to hurt my feelings again aren't you? If I thought anyone was still paying attention to this thread, I might respond, but guess what - you get to have the last word - congratulations, you win!

...or maybe I did... :-)

people read these diaries forever - I'm surprised...

Sweet, I got the last word again :)

Anyone who could make a post like yours above, as a response to issues of fact, not only is in no position to understand when they should be in pain, but probably wouldn't realize if they were.

I can see though you will do well in any endeavor where politics matter more than accomplishment. AGW should be a very good career choice for you, if it lasts long enough
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

And what have we gotten from it (that wasn't an accident; Products developed like WD-40 and Silly Putty don't count)?

"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army

That medical monitoring systems, and the microtechnology revolution. (I really don't get these, but why not they sound good)
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

That lousy stuff came out of the space program? It makes an excellent dirt attractant. Perfect for those times when you'd like to have dirt clogging up your machinery but don't want to go through the trouble of actually putting it there yourself. Not much good for anything else, though.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

You're supposed to use it to make that are supposed to move but don't easier to move (at least long enough to get some real oil on them, or to replace therm. whatever) and to help remove the nastier greases and oils that don't normally come off without industrial strength chemical cleaners...

I love the stuff. Makes a rusted out lock turn, a rusted out hinge open (or break, depending on how much rust WD-40 seems to melt the stuff), and when I strip down a motot, I soak all the parts in it before cleaning them with a detergent that I can afford.
Works like a charm.

"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army

As a lubricant, it is pretty weak. I'd rather use either a real grease, lithium grease, or silicon lube, depending on the application.

As a degreaser, I'd much rather use brake or carb cleaner.

As a penetrating oil, I'd rather use just about anything. PB Blaster works great as a penetrating oil. I've never seen WD-40 do anything other than turn a stuck bolt into a stuck, oily bolt.

I just got no use for it, as there are much better products out there for every application. It reminds me of the "miracle" stuff they sell on TV that doesn't do what it claims.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I use WD-40 or Liquid Wrench every time (I prefer WD-40 but not every store carries it anymore)...

"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army

The emission standards were causing drivability issues no matter the engine size and the lower compression required to run unleaded fuel beginning in '75 dramatically cut the specific horsepower of any engine. The big cars could limp along on big, if very inefficient engines, the little cars couldn't get out of their own way for lack of horsepower. Even with the catalytics, the stuff coming out of the tailpipe was cleaner, but there was a lot more stuff coming out of that tailpipe because the engines were so inefficient and used so much gas to make the very little horsepower they made.

I just had the opportunity to get a tuneup for my mother-in-law's 1982 Chevy S-10 w/ CA emission control; what a Rube Goldberg POS! A 2.8L V-6 that only made about 150 horsepower and had a veritable mare's nest of piping and pumps to help it meet the emissions standards. By comparison, the 3.5L V-6, that's only 40 or so ci bigger, in my 300M makes 250hp from the factory.

It wasn't until electronic fuel injection came along in the mid-eighties that they really could get any horsepower or drivability out of smog engines, catalytic converters notwithstanding. The real problem for the US industry was that our anti-trust laws kept them from cooperating on meeting US emissions standards, so each maker had to come up with its own solutions. The Germans and the Japanese used consortiums and all their cars used the same basic systems. The Bosch electronic FI was the worldbeater, but US companies had to either use it on license or at great expense engineer around Bosch's patents.

The big engines were the last to really adopt electronic engine management as they could get by on brute horsepower; the little engines drove the train towards more efficient, powerful, and drivable engines.

Every time I start my carbureted V-8s on my boat, I'm reminded of how far we've come; pump the throttles, turn them over through a few false starts, get them both more or less running as they smoke and stink until they warm up enough for the chokes to open, see the telltale slick of unburned gas on the water behind the boat. That's what every car in America was like before the seventies. As long as I have synthetic oil in it so it can turn over easily, my 300M will start as easily and cleanly at 20 below as at 70 above and its 3.5L V-6 makes more horsepower than the 5.0L V-8s in the boat - 250hp v. 225 each.

In Vino Veritas

WHat's wrong with you?

"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army

I've driven a couple of them, one for almost a month down in GA and FL. I love the horsepower, but don't really like the C. The M was a Chrysler product, the C is very much a Daimler/Chrysler product and feels like a poor man's Mercedes. My M isn't nearly as torquey as the C with a Hemi, but it's plenty fast - rev limited at 142 mph, that's more than fast enough for me especially in a town with 37 miles of "open" road. The M is a lot more comfortable and roomy than the C as well.

In Vino Veritas

And it costs less. That's why I'm going with it for my next car.

"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army

a $1.75 million study! Now, if it were $175 million, that might hold some weight!

I'll tell ya what I am gonna do. I'll take time out of my busy scheldule to help you with this study. In addition to regional variables, it is important to try a variety of diffrent sports cors. I already have two picked out that would serve for this experiment.

Contact me in the usual way!

You'll have the money to include a subsidiary study on the effect of global climate change on the wear and tear on Full-Size Family Sedans. And the ones I am looking at for this study could also double slot for the study on Sports Cars...

"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army

After all, given the number of cars around, the differences in the absorption/reflection spectra might offset gigatons of CO2. In fact, the study might pay for itself if you could patent the optimal color and sell it as carbon offsets. Maybe Gore or Edwards could go on TV and hawk it.

And Rightly So!

i meant to reply to the other study funding posts :(

I watch so little TV (well, except for "American Chopper") that I wouldn't have caught that. Is Fox MSM? Eh, borderline...