- Clean energy breakthrough
- Letters should not be changed
- Bush adopts “my way or the highway” attitude
- Severance tax piece misses the point
- SCHIP 2.0
- Things must be far worse in Iraq
- Citizens need to take back freedoms
- Apathy in the U.S.
- Military heroes should be on front page
- Post’s Moore misleads on ‘Scoundrels’
Everything we do heats up atmosphere
Global warming is a common- sense reality.
An article in the paper recently showed the average yearly temperature in the U.S. is higher than ever before and the warm air continues to move northward.
When you have a constant increase in population, how can things not get warmer. Take the temperature of an empty room. Then fill it with people. Wait 30 minutes and take the temperature again. Adding thousands of 98.6’ers to our planet every day adds heat.
We are constantly losing oxygen-producing landscapes and covering the Earth’s open spaces with houses, businesses and roads. All of which create heat.
American automakers don’t want to build cars that run on something other than fossil fuels. Gas-burning vehicles create heat.
What, if anything, does man do that doesn’t cause heat? What do we do that doesn’t damage the atmosphere? It’s not what the sun puts out. It’s what our damaged atmosphere is letting in.
It doesn’t take a lot of common sense to see reality.
Mark Hermanson, Aurora
Good points. Its along the same line as "Warning, the Surgeon General has determined that Being Alive is Hazardous to Your Health"
No matter what you do, it will add to global warming and with earths population increasing, better get used to it. Its going to get warmer
Posted by on May 14, 2007 01:15 AMWhich would you rather have global warming or global cooling? Cold weather deaths kills more people each year than heat related deaths. The increase in CO2 is increasing crop yields.
Posted by Eieio on May 14, 2007 05:59 AMGood Point!
The liberals of the 60's warned of catastrophic consequences of world over-population and industrialized nations worldwide reduced fertility rates to under 2.5 children per woman.
Now our federal government is saying we don't have enough workers and need to grant amnesty to 12-20 million illegal immigrants who have entered the country for work.
On top of that, corporations (legal US citizens) are outsourcing American jobs to unlimited cheap labor in India (1.2 billion people) and China (1.4 billion people), two of the third world countries who didn't listen to the liberal hogwash at the time.
And the third world countries are THE WINNERS!
Posted by LB on May 14, 2007 07:32 AMBulletin to LB: people are not having fewer children because of the liberals but because they have embraced the conservative ideology that what is important it not to have more kids but to have more things. Corporations are not outsourcing because of the liberals but because of the conservative ideology that what is important is the money, not the welfare of the nation.
No charge for cleansing your comments of the hogwash in it.
Posted by Truth on May 14, 2007 07:39 AMLike the word illegal when discussing illegal aliens, "man-made" is often left out of the discussion of global warming. Congratulations you've taken "man-made" to its ultimate defining moment!
Mark asserts its not the sun. His assertions and basic premises do not conform to reality, yet he is the one that calls us all to be real.
Geologists world wide would disagree with Mark, as a geologist said recently, "Everybody's looking at the inside of the oven trying to figure out why it's so hot, and nobody is looking at what the oven is set on.
Currently we are spending billions of dollars subsidizing "green" industries on the assumption that man's .8% contribution in CO2 is causing a change in our climate. Yes, that's a point eight percent, less than one percent.
Look at the sun and natural cycles first, before you start spending billions on Quixote windmills.
That same money could be getting power plants to augment their heat output by manufacturing hydrogen to run our cars.
We need to capitalize our distribution infra structure to make it more marketable to switch to hydrogen which is 25% more efficient than gasoline and we have OCEANs of it!
We need to get off of Middle Eastern oil dependencies and stop giving our money to terrorists that want to destroy our freedoms.
So, there be too many people on this planet? Not to worry Mark, Islamic fundementalists are trying to rectify the problem....
Father O'Malley
Truth:
You are right about corporations other than one word: capitalistic
Corporations are not outsourcing because of the liberals but because of the capitalistic ideology that what is important is the money, not the welfare of the nation.
But the fewer children is a result of "the sky is falling" cry from unprovable conjecture on world-wide population, similar to what we are seeing now with global warming.
Posted by LB on May 14, 2007 07:51 AMSo, Mark, what you're saying is ... we're screwed no matter what we do.
Pay no attention to the fact that the earth radiates heat, as well as absorb it.
Oh, and global warming not only makes it warmer, it also makes it colder in other places. At least that's what the Enviro Chicken Littles try to tell us, common sense be damned.
Posted by prima facie on May 14, 2007 09:10 AMLB said ”… the fewer children is a result of "the sky is falling" cry from unprovable conjecture on world-wide population,”
Actually it is due to higher education and more lifestyle opportunities, especially for women. The higher the educational level and the more opportunities women get for a life other than as an incubator or baby-machine, the lower the fertility rate drops.
Posted by Bango Skank on May 14, 2007 09:10 AMMr. Facie.
“Common sense” has nothing to do with it. Just like orbiting the sun, there is pretty much nothing that can be seen by the layman that could inform a rational position one way or the other.
The issue of reflectance and absorption are indeed pertinent- We are releasing gases and particulates that are opaque to infra-red radiation, so we are trapping heat on the planet that would otherwise had radiated out into space.
But more important is the fact that we are releasing energy into our ecosystem that had previously been sequestered in wood, coal, peat, oil, and radio-active isotopes.
None of us are getting out of this alive anyway!
Truth, you crack me up. Do you really believe in the anti-capitalist BS you spout?
The purspose of business is to make money. Do you have any retirement investments? Would you prefer that the businesses your portfolio holds all lose money? Businesses outsource because in order to compete in a global market, the bottom line is important.
I wouldn't expect you to understand basic economics. Doesn't fit your warped view of things. In your world, businesses exist to make their employees lives better.
Conservative ideology = materialism? Get a grip. Last I checked, many if not most liberals are just as materialistic as conservatives. Might it just be that folks are having fewer kids because EVERYTHING is now more expensive than it used to be, especially such "luxuries" as higher education? Naw, can't be......
Posted by [Skeezix] RU Serious on May 14, 2007 11:12 AMI vigorously object to "it takes common sense to see reality" when common sense is simply a collection of a person's bias and prejudice. Me, your firendly deicide intelligent enough to be an atheist but lacking the courage.
Voltaire is wrong when he says "Common sense is not so common," when this blog demonstrates how common it is.
Posted by Richard Grimes Risen Ape r22037@yahoo.com (ffrf.org) on May 14, 2007 11:14 AMThe last Ice Age started about 70,000 years ago and ended about 10,000 years ago (during the Pleistocene epoch). The Earth was much colder than it is now; snow accumulated on much of the land, glaciers and ice sheets extended over large areas and the sea levels were lower.
Now how do you suppose the earth warmed up and all that ice melted without our help?
Posted by James Jones on May 14, 2007 11:41 AMJames, do you think that previous events and cycles are being denied?
Do you really think that the world’s science bodies and journals are that ignorant?
When all these organizations and publications are united in the view that there is an unnatural heating event taking place due to our activities, do you suppose they are just ignorant, or lying, or ...?
Keith: You have been labeled as follows by the commentator. You need to clean up your act. We do not want to lose you. I will remain anonymous.
The insufferable Keith (can he be more than 14 years old?) has included you among the commenters he accuses of being prostitutes -- as long as he keeps his language clean, I'm leaving those comments, but if you think it is worth objecting to, let me know.
Thank you so much, Father O'Malley, for warning us - at the last of your posting - about the imminent danger coming from all those flying carpets, the Islamic fundamentalist riders of which will seek to aid in population control.
Now of course, all we need to do is revive the Crusades; and we will be saved.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 14, 2007 12:07 PM"Do you really think that the world’s science bodies and journals are that ignorant?
When all these organizations and publications are united in the view that there is an unnatural heating event taking place due to our activities, do you suppose they are just ignorant, or lying, or ...?"
Here we go again. One of the unfortunate side effects from the amount of "science literacy" in the population is the tendency to view science and scientists as infallible. How quickly memory fades. It's only been three years since the debacle of Hwang Woo Suk's stem cell fraud, which was published in Science, one of the most prestigious journals, and already people are ready to open up and accept the "facts" presented by some researchers wholesale. As another example of how the group mentality among the scientific community sometimes shoots it in the foot, look up Stanley Prusiner and the battles he had to fight against the science community's paradigms before his prion model was accepted and he won the Nobel prize. Scientific research should always be evaluated with a critical mind, not just accepted because some scientists came to one conclusion from a certain data set, no matter how many scientists there are, nor how prestigious their publishings.
Posted by No use on May 14, 2007 12:12 PMSpud,
The world's science bodies are not lying or ignorant and yet they have historically been proved wrong about a great deal.
There are always three possibilities in this regard either 1) the earth is warming, 2) the earth is cooling or 3) the earth's temperature is static.
Any of these possbilities would be threatening when science is politicized (read Al Gore).
The earth's temperature is either warming or cooling at any time (static is unlikely for any extended period). Currently the earth appears to be warming. That is not of itself a cause of alarm.
You cite "unnatural warming" which is an interesting phrase. The degree of warming that is "unnatural" has not been established by the world's science bodies.
Still more credible scientists claiming the IPCC reports are tainted, biased and in many cases "false" we still have those on the Global Warming Express wanting to stifle the dissenters.
In a paper submitted to US Senate Committee hearings, Polish Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, a veteran mountaineer who has excavated ice from 17 glaciers on six continents, stated bluntly, "The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic [human] causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false."
James Jones - that ice melted as a result of natural processes that led to warming. Warming over tens of thousands of years is one thing. Doing it over a few decades is quite another, which is where we find ourselves now. Trying to make the two seem analogous is disingenuous.
Posted by Liam on May 14, 2007 12:35 PM12:12 thanks for the laugh, I really did get a kick out of being lumped with those who “view science and scientists as infallible”. Quite refreshing.
Suk and Prusiner are in fact good examples of how science works when it is working well. The skullduggery of Suk came to light in short order and his claims destroyed, and the linkages to other claims were rolled up. That is just how it should work. Nobody is claiming that science is always right, nor that scientists never lie, in fact both are assumed to be likely impediments and rigor and method are employed to mitigate and reduce these risks.
As far as prions are concerned, the initial distrust and rejection was also perfectly correct. The claim was unexpected and outlandish, and any out of the ordinary claim must be supported by higher levels of confirmational evidence and absence of any predictions being shown to be false. It took some time to show that his theory of molecular-level and non viral infectious agents could withstand critical attack, and make predictions that could be reproduced in vitro.
Of course one must employ a critical mind, nobody should be disputing that and the conclusion that anthropogenic GW should become the new standard position didn’t happen overnight, and nor did it come about out of nowhere. This was long in the making and the theoretical and evidential support is very strong.
James, actually the degree to which we are responsible for this warming event is exactly the big deal under the magnifying glass, and the core statement was that the warming and degree of warming could only be explained by human activity. In other words, all the other known sources were accounted for and controlled for, and there was a remainder that was only explicable in light of human activity.
As you rightly pointed out, science is often wrong. Nobody doubts that and history of science is replete with examples. However, if not science then what, and if not the science bodies then whom?
Even though science is often wrong, what better agency can you offer to provide us with actionable information?
Priests?
Politicians?
Lawyers?
Common Sense?
… ?
KW -
Thanks for posting with a reference. I respectfully disagree. When an article is written by members of an organization that is dedicated to "effectively counter the government relations and communications of today's powerful and well-funded environmental lobby" one might question their objectivity.
http://www.nrsp.com/strategy.html
It is interesting that there is no mention of their funding on the website.
Again, thanks for the reference.
Con Mor
Posted by Con Mor on May 14, 2007 02:46 PMKW -
I am also amazed that you linked to Alexander Cockburn; I read The Nation but wouldn't cite it as a source ever. Do you agree with his positions on Iraq, or socialism?
Posted by Con Mor on May 14, 2007 02:58 PMI was only interested in his thoughts on GW. Spud usually pretends he's never heard of any scientists in dissent or of any attempts to silence those in dissent so I like to keep him informed as I come across others opinions.
I hope that if I do this on a daily basis, maybe someday Spud will quit coming back with "what dissenting scientists?"
Posted by KW on May 14, 2007 03:52 PMCM - My 12:32 post links to Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris, (www.nrsp.com).
Who's the guy you claimed I referenced?
Posted by KW on May 14, 2007 03:57 PMKW -
Tim Ball is Chairman, Tom Harris is executive director of nrsp. See their bio on the website you linked to.
Posted by Con Mor on May 14, 2007 04:53 PMKW -
Dang. Really not my day. Now I see you were talking about Alexander Cockburn. You linked to that on the other GW post today; he writes for The Nation and controls the counterpunch blog.
Posted by Con Mor on May 14, 2007 04:57 PMWell that makes a bit more sense. I was actually linking to scientist Richard Kerrs quote found within the article from Alexander.
Posted by KW on May 14, 2007 05:03 PMKW, I think you misunderstand why I ignore the dissenters you like to quote.
It isn’t because I think you are a poison dwarf that stinks up the conversation with irrelevancies. It is because of how you do your selection of material.
If you found a dissenting article or paper in the journals of note, or voiced by one of the science bodies then I am all ears.
If you found the person by trolling the net or because your cousin told you about them or Rush Limbaugh listed him, or any other way other than getting the reference from a recognized scientific journal or scientific body, then I really don't give a damn because it would be a biased sample and of no value.
Guided Convenience sampling of the kind you do is hopelessly tainted with potential bias.
Liam,
I have made no analogy so far. I did note that there have been huge dramatic changes in the earth's climate througout history that could have had nothing to do with the impact of humanity. That's clearly not an analogy - it's just part of the analysis.
A little perspective is required in terms of recent history. It was only about three decades ago that prominent scientists believed that we were about to enter an era of global cooling. They were predicting dire results at the time.
If I adduce Chicken Little you can lodge the analogy complaint.
Posted by James Jones on May 14, 2007 06:03 PMSpud,
I am not encouraging you to turn away from scientists and look to politicians for the answers. The greater danger lies in turning to the politicians.
We should be skeptical of anyone who tells us that warming trends currently measured are unnatural and wouldn't exist absent human activity. It is fair to say that human activity must contribute to the trend but the extent is not measurable.
We don't exactly know why the ice formed or melted in my original post. And we certainly can't model what would happen in the parallel universe where humanity doesn't exist. We should not lose site of the fact that there were dramatic climate shifts prior to the possiblity of human impact.
Posted by James Jones on May 14, 2007 06:16 PMJames,
What can I say, the word in the journals and from the science bodies is that we should feel "very confident" that the warming is caused by human activity and that no other known cause accounts for the warming we are seeing. Various research projects lead to this position and specific measurements are given in many of these studies.
You are right about us not knowing exactly "why the ice formed or melted", but then we don't exactly know a great many things including how gravity works, or why it fluctuates very slightly, or why atoms do what they do, or where mass comes from. We pretty much know nothing "exactly".
So your choice is to either go into an existential fugue fueled by Cartesian skepticism, or you can take the best available positions and knowledge - and that is what the journals and science bodies offer you.
It's not perfect, it doesn't give you veridical exactitude, but it is actionable and the best you can have.
So again, if the best available sources of knowledge are saying that we should be “very confident” that the current warming event is significantly driven by human activity, why are you taking a different position?
By all means be cautious and skeptical, but if you refuse to align with the best sources, what other sources are you aligning your position with?
Rush Limbaugh?
Spud,
You have evolved from
warming and degree of warming could only be explained by human activity.
to
current warming event is significantly driven by human activity
which shows you are trending in the right direction.
I consider that progress.
Posted by James Jones on May 14, 2007 07:33 PMJames Jones and others rely on the fact that scientists in the past have been wrong. Of course they have. So have just about everybody else in the world. So should we not believe anything anybody says?
And, if not the scientists, who else should we rely on to not be wrong about science? James Jones? Who or what should we look to for information about what the climate will be like in the future? The bible?
It's amazing. Bush has taken being wrong to new heights. And yet so many conservatives still hang on to him. But when it comes to scientists who have done such a great job for us, many of the conservatives demand omniscience which is in rather short supply among us humans. We are going to have to rely on somebody. So, should we rely on the preponderance of scientists, or on the much fewer naysayers?
In accordance with the party line, James cites the publicity about global cooling in the mid-seventies. Don't ask James Jones to provide evidence that the great body of scientists urged immediate and drastic steps to deal with global cooling. There isn't any. In fact, the The 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report does not call for any action, only for more research.
"Finally, its clear that there were concerns, perhaps quite strong, in the minds of a number of scientists of the time. And yet, the papers of the time present a clear consensus that future climate change could not be predicted with the knowledge then available."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94
There was indeed talk among some scientists that global cooling needed to be looked at. Not because it was an imminent threat, but because it could post a problem over the next 20,000 years.
Honest George Will did the same thing James Jones is doing here, that is, claim that the scientists were predicting an imminent threat. Here are the facts:
"The article was shamelessly misquoted to support the assertion that an "imminent" iceage was predicted. Actual reading of the article (an action not performed by those who cited it) shows that: it hedges its predictions by saying that these would be the tendencies in the absence of human perturbation of the climate system, that it predicts glacial conditions in 20,000 years time and that it predicts (again, assuming no human influence) a cooler trend over the next several thousand years (not glaciation within this timespan)."
Posted by Truth on May 14, 2007 08:28 PM
Liam, you said: "that ice melted as a result of natural processes that led to warming. Warming over tens of thousands of years is one thing. Doing it over a few decades is quite another, which is where we find ourselves now."
Gore says that global warming is caused by people. So how do you and Gore explain how the temperature of Mars has increased one full degree since the 70's? That is higher than what the earth's temperature has increased and the huge point is obviously no people on Mars.
Do the Gore followers really believe we can lower the earth's temperature? If so, I have some swamp land in Florida I'm sure you'd be interested in.
But I do like the conservation that is coming out of all this. And I look forward to the day solar panels, batteries, etc. become cheep enough to be affordable/practical. I now only use the curly fluorescent bulbs and have xeriscaped my whole front yard. Looks great and takes zero watering.
I just don't like the fact that Gore is scaring our kids into thinking we are destroying our planet. Trust me, this planet can take care of itself.
Eieio, do you have a reference for this temperature change on Mars?
Yes, the planet can take care of itself, after all, it is just a ball of rock with a thin biotic coating like dust on a basketball.
If the entire biosphere boiled away, the ball of rock would not shed a single tear.
On the other hand, our species can singlehandedly foul up that thin biosphere layer so badly that it becomes impossible for us to live in it.
Spud,
Chicken Little had indisputable evidence - she had a big bump on her head.
She wasn't wrong about the bump, she just got fooled about what actually caused it.
Posted by James Jones on May 14, 2007 09:57 PMSpud, NASA has the temperature change information for Mars from it's rover and other equipment.
Posted by Eieio on May 15, 2007 06:38 AMEieio, can you cite a link to something?
There must be more than just a reading from a pair of rovers and a few other sensors to conclude planet-wide temperature change.
Spud - Your argument about my research style is completely off base.
I have read numerous reports both for and against the idea that the current warming is all or mostly caused by humans.
I have repeatedly referenced IPCC scientists who totally disagree with the concensus and even had to threaten legal action before the board would REMOVE their name from the report. When I ask you your thoughts on those scientists you either ignore the question or else respond with "huh" or "who." And then the next day you deny ever seeing the links I provide.
Your problem is you have become so obsessed with the manmade claim YOU are the one who refuses to look at any evidence to the contrary.
By tomorrow you'll also claim we never had this exchange in an effort to discredit my research.
You my friend are a complete waste of time.
KW, and you, my friend, are still a poison dwarf.
And I say that in the nicest possible way.
I know you read "numerous reports".
Look up the term "selection bias"
Then look up "confirmation bias"
Then roll off into the sunset.
Posted by Spud on May 15, 2007 10:03 AMSpud - Your intellect is astounding. (/sarcasm)
Am I suppose to be upset now that you resorted to name calling? I know... Spud, you're a global cooling denier! There!!
Posted by KW on May 15, 2007 10:51 AMNo KW, you are supposed to go examine what I have told you about your research methods.
You should wonder what I mean, and go examine the flaws I have explained to you.
Then you should go fix those flaws and do your research differently.
It doesn't matter which side of the argument you stake your position, I would be putting a flea in your ear just the same had you been siding with GW.
Your methods are flawed, go fix them and stop whining.
Spud - Don't you ever get tired of buying snake oil? Or are you the top sales rep???
Posted by KW on May 15, 2007 11:56 AMSpud - Ask and you shall receive (although you usually ignore any facts that get in your way)
Let us not forget about ol' Neptune either:
Hammel and Lockwood of the Space Science Institute in Colorado and the Lowell Observatory in Arizona:
"Neptune has been getting brighter since around 1980; furthermore, infrared measurements of the planet since 1980 show that the planet has been warming steadily from 1980 to 2004Posted by KW on May 15, 2007 01:30 PM
KW, you really are a scream.
As sources for the claim that Mars has shown planetary warming you offer:
1. An article in National Geographic quoting a Russian scientist who thinks that because the southern Martian icecap shrank in the last few summers there is reason to believe that GW on earth must be due to solar fluctuation.
2. A blog that quotes two researchers regarding Neptune’s albedo.
This isn’t what I wanted.
I would have expected to be shown a paper describing how Martian temperature was measured, and how the results lead to a conclusion that the planet has experienced an increase in global average surface temperature.
The Martian polar caps are made of CO2 and they shrink noticeably every summer, and expand every winter. So just saying that a Russian scientists thinks that recent summer shrinking was due to the sun, tells me nothing that I didn’t already know and expect. It doesn’t say if they have both shrunk more than usual, or anything else of value.
Showing me a blog that in turn refers me to somebody else who says something doesn’t cut the cheese either.
The fact that you find this stuff convincing is just mind-boggling.
btw, you can't quote Hammel et al through an indirect reference. You have to quote the direct reference.
You're catching on Spud. Just because a few scientists get together and agree doesn't mean its a fact.
Just don't forget to use that same reasoning next time you quote your journals claiming the sky is falling.
Posted by KW on May 15, 2007 02:43 PMhmmm.
So KW, you think that published papers in peer-reviewed journals, and news releases from scientific bodies are just "a few scientists get together and agree "
Wonderful!
Did you ever have any science education KW?
Any post K-12 science subjects at all?
Research methods?
Stats & sampling?
... anything?
I can peel a pretty mean potato, spud.
Posted by KW on May 15, 2007 05:15 PMSo shall I mark that as a "no"
No science training.
Explains a lot.
Did you look up those terms I gave you?
Posted by Spud on May 15, 2007 05:50 PMSpud,
You have been beating up on KW for his unscientific analysis.
So how is that even though we can't explain the natural conditions during historic world-wide ice formation and subsequent melting: we are still able to identify and account for all the natural factors in modeling the current condtions?
Posted by James Jones on May 15, 2007 09:08 PM"2:12 thanks for the laugh, I really did get a kick out of being lumped with those who “view science and scientists as infallible”. Quite refreshing."
Does the post that follows somehow refute your statement "When all these organizations and publications are united in the view that there is an unnatural heating event taking place due to our activities, do you suppose they are just ignorant, or lying, or ...?" It doesn't seem to. Are you arguing that science as it is currently defined is a best way of interpreting the world, or are you suggesting that we should buy into an idea because numerous scientists do so? Those positions seem quite contradictory.
Posted by No use on May 15, 2007 11:47 PM” You have been beating up on KW for his unscientific analysis.”
Not quite, while it is true that what analysis I have seen of his, I found to be poor, I “beat up” on him because his research techniques are poor and will inevitably lead to bias and error.
As to your question, I don’t know.
I leave that up to those who are specialists or researchers in those fields. I just take the lead of what the journals and science bodies are providing on the subject.
I can tell that they have said this, but I have very little idea how they know this to be likely.
Mr.Use.
I don't regard science as infallible, but I do regard it as the best way we have to know how the universe works.
Consensus isn't just a case of "numerous” individual scientists, but whether something has general support, support of the key minds in the discipline, and the support of the science bodies who act as the summation of scientific opinion. It is also a matter of whether a position can withstand scrutiny and survive critical experiments, and whether it conforms to rigor and best practices. Furthermore, it is also a question of agreement amongst the leading practitioners as to what constitutes a fatal test and what not.
Bruno Latour did an excellent paper on how Boyles experiments with gases exemplifies how this quasi-democratic process by accepted experts works.
Posted by Spud on May 16, 2007 10:34 AMSpud,
The best we can do is rely on the consensus of scientists. But when called to action, or to formulate public policy, then we must remember history and know that the consensus is at best imperfect and at worst wrong.
The Chicken Little parable is not intended to be perjorative. The story continues to be passed down because it contains a valuable insight into human nature.
Posted by James Jones on May 16, 2007 09:03 PMSpud, I was not trying to bring the scientific process into doubt, I completely agree with your statement that it is "the best way we have to know how the universe works." I was just trying to make the point that the scientific consensus can and has been wrong in the past. My view is that scientific research should never just be accepted on another's word, individuals need to acquire the relevant research and examine the data critically on their own before accepting the position of the scientific majority. As I pointed out, a number of discoveries (and discoveries of fraud) have been the result of someone interpreting the available data in a different light than the majority and then questioning why. I apologize if I have misinterpreted your intent in your posts, it just seemed to me that you were advocating the idea that if the scientific consensus accepts something, that should be enough for the people who haven't researched the subject, a concept which I don't particularly like.
Posted by No use on May 17, 2007 02:41 PMeqjold jxyhdvu ehudsrykl cjxtrda owzij pwouxsta dyjbm
Posted by kofwqhn ugwki on July 13, 2007 12:53 AMycqfo jvzgeqytn kcsoxrgiu tvly yuvsb ejrotkcn yravetm
Posted by mxshda vqmdarw on September 22, 2007 04:50 AM