Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] what kind of scientific suppression is this?



"Al Gore--and those who overemphasize worst-case scenarios (basically scare tactics). No balance, one-sided arguments that ignore completely other learned opinions."


I meant specific examples of unbalanced selection of facts and an illustration of their interpretation and a contrasting one.


"But it has now become in the self-interest of the climate scientists to push Global Warming scenarios that get them more funding. The problem with much of the 'science' is that it rests on computational models--models that are so complex that virtually no two variations tend to agree. Don't get me wrong, that's not really a fatal flaw in the work, but it is one that injects a real sense of unertainty both in the predictions from and cause of the actual data."

Appears it's not in their self interest; their funding is reduced when they cry wolf.

I thought the trend was nearly all in the same direction, whatever the disagreement.

"Well you can always go live with the Amish. It should be self evident that a 'modern, 21st century life-style (standard of living)' involves a lot of energy use. While we should work towards being efficient in that use and eliminating truly wasteful uses, the history of human progress strongly suggests that we really need to focus on providing much MORE energy for human use, but with minimal environmental consequences. That is a tough, but not impossible, job. {BTW: Try figuring out how many people could be supported (world-wide) by Amish farming techniques and you'll come to understand why we can't turn the clock back. Besides, the 'good old days' seldom if ever were!"

I meant the trade off w/ elect. use to pump the water and heat it beyond the 50 C methane hot water heater setting, and the greater water use at 50 C, etc.

Curiously, I understand the Amish, French raised bed, etc. methods have a much greater output/ acre than the industrial method. Also less energy and use of resources for insecticides and fertilizer, etc. But, of course your point, is correct. I think a die back is a possibility w/o rigid population reduction. We are a cancer on the face of the earth. I think the simile is very apt. Gaia will get her revenge.

bc, who has done a bit of his part by reducing the family energy consumption to ~ 1/2 the use five years ago. (Already low.) Should go to 1/10. No children either, AFAHK.
p.s. Tho some is replacement by wood oxidation, that is better than letting the termites produce methane or anaerobic degradation in the land fill.



Rick Tarara wrote:

----- Original Message ----- From: "Bernard Cleyet" <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>

Suffice it to say that both
extremes of the Global warming debate have played hard and fast with the
facts, that governments (all) tend to shape those same facts to their
purposes,


cut