No Science Zone

[EdC]

I believe that the average person is aware that the weather is changing in many places; some more dramatically than others. So by painting everyone who doesn't automatically drink the whole glass of green Kool-Aid with the preschool "denier" pejorative is not helpful to winning hearts and minds of the general public. As soon as the name calling starts, you have lost credibility and hence the argument. What hurts the climate change cause is the habit of making solid declarations of doom and the incredulity they display when anyone has the nerve to question those predictions.

Just because it is "science" doesn't make it fact. Before Galileo 99% of all scientists agreed that a heliocentric solar system was ridiculous.

 

[Bubblesong]

Of course you can provide an example?

>

BTW, I Do want some protections, but gov. Is not helping with these examples:

1) in our town, to rebuild High School situated in swamp/wetlands area cost $150,000,000 while next town over built an all-out Fricking Palace of a high school for $50,000,000, because it's on a lakeside that long ago land filled the swamp area.

2)in our town, in order to protect some mutant Salamanda, millions of dollars went into putting crawl through pipes so critters can get under roads instead of getting squished by cars trying to cross roads. The foxes at the pipes' outlets are getting positively obese.

3) Another example of why government regulations drive businesses under is this: My hubby's company wanted to expand computer room 25square feet, but that would put it over the total square footage size that requires TOTAL handicap accessibility requiring all the bathrooms, entrances kitchenette etc. To be rebuilt to accommodate handicapped which made the cost stratospheric and unaffordable given their situation as a not-yet profitable company. But they can't get to profitable without expanding capability to work with larger needs-customers. I believe they finally sacrificed the kitchenette

 

[JohnN]

BTW, I Do want some protections, but gov. Is not helping with these examples:

1) in our town, to rebuild High School situated in swamp/wetlands area cost $150,000,000 while next town over built an all-out Fricking Palace of a high school for $50,000,000, because it's on a lakeside that long ago land filled the swamp area.

2)in our town, in order to protect some mutant Salamanda, millions of dollars went into putting crawl through pipes so critters can get under roads instead of getting squished by cars trying to cross roads. The foxes at the pipes' outlets are getting positively obese.

3) Another example of why government regulations drive businesses under is this: My hubby's company wanted to expand computer room 25square feet, but that would put it over the total square footage size that requires TOTAL handicap accessibility requiring all the bathrooms, entrances kitchenette etc. To be rebuilt to accommodate handicapped which made the cost stratospheric and unaffordable given their situation as a not-yet profitable company. But they can't get to profitable without expanding capability to work with larger needs-customers. I believe they finally sacrificed the kitchenette

OK. . .
1) Who did the environmental review, your city, your state or the EPA (remember we're talking about the EPA)

2) Same question as #1

3) This is a building code issue. Do you intend to say that new construction should be allowed that permits discrimination against people with handicaps? At what point do you wish to draw that line?

 

[JohnN]

I believe that the average person is aware that the weather is changing in many places; some more dramatically than others. So by painting everyone who doesn't automatically drink the whole glass of green Kool-Aid with the preschool "denier" pejorative is not helpful to winning hearts and minds of the general public. As soon as the name calling starts, you have lost credibility and hence the argument. What hurts the climate change cause is the habit of making solid declarations of doom and the incredulity they display when anyone has the nerve to question those predictions.

Just because it is "science" doesn't make it fact. Before Galileo 99% of all scientists agreed that a heliocentric solar system was ridiculous.

The "scientists" at the time of Galilleo circa 1600 were driven by (religious) ideology, not an analysis of the available data. I think you've just made my point. The proposed legislation (dis-HONEST act and SAB Reform act) seem to be similarly driven by a not dissimilar ideology (that more regulation is automatically bad).

Weather and climate change are quite different creatures, and the reality is that 97% of published climate scientists believe climate change is real and humans are a causal factor

 

[Bubblesong]

OK. . .
1) Who did the environmental review, your city, your state or the EPA (remember we're talking about the EPA)

2) Same question as #1

3) This is a building code issue. Do you intend to say that new construction should be allowed that permits discrimination against people with handicaps? At what point do you wish to draw that line?

Dude, I dont work for you as your research assistant. Nor am I a lawyer battling a case. You said you wanted examples but you don't really. Fine, don't listen, but this is why millions of Americans turned to a guy who will promise ridiculous things like "clean coal-It's gonna be great!" To get relief from the grind of business crushing regulations. The only middle ground seems to be living with the alternating between extremes!

 

[JohnN]

Dude, I dont work for you as your research assistant. Nor am I a lawyer battling a case. You said you wanted examples but you don't really. Fine, don't listen, but this is why millions of Americans turned to a guy who will promise ridiculous things like "clean coal-It's gonna be great!" To get relief from the grind of business crushing regulations. The only middle ground seems to be living with the alternating between extremes!

So you only have 'examples' where you don't know the facts. Wonderful.
Yes, although the majority of voters did not choose him, a pathological liar ascended to the Presidency.

Your avitar suggests you're a marine scientist, given the current regime's disposition to gut research, I'm surprised we're having this discussion

 

[Bubblesong]

So you only have 'examples' where you don't know the facts. Wonderful.
Yes, although the majority of voters did not choose him, a pathological liar ascended to the Presidency.

Your avitar suggests you're a marine scientist, given the current regime's disposition to gut research, I'm surprised we're having this discussion

I know the facts , I said I don't work for you to endlessly provide details for you. If you had an open mind to both sides, you will have seen examples on your own. I do support the environment, but I sincerely listen to the concerns of both sides.

 

[tilikum]

Let's start the conversation with two basic questions.

1. Do you believe climate change is happening?

2. If yes, do you believe human behavior is influencing climate change?

 

[drrich2]

The fact that experts in the field cannot participate in the peer review, but industry representatives (with a vested interest in blocking any further regulation) can, doesn't bother you?

Depends on how it's conducted, and with what degree of transparency. And a bit of clarification; in this case 'experts in the field' doesn't mean all experts in the field. Look at our predominantly 2-party political system, or the use of the adversarial system as a fact-finding mechanism in trial law. The idea of pitting entities with conflicts-of-interest against each other to achieve thorough debate is not new.

How long the the tobacco industry 'experts' claim there was no link between smoking and lung cancer?

I'm in my late 40's. I was taught in elementary school (prior to 4th grade) smoking is bad for you, common knowledge 40 years ago. The lung cancer link is far & away old news. This was no revelation when the states basically tore into the tobacco companies, and most of the huge windfall the states took in did not go into addressing smoking-related issues IIRC. The states used much of the money for other things. The government heavily taxed cigarettes wishing they could wipe them out, yet aims to legalize marijuana, reasonably expected to expand use, to save enforcement money and make tax income off it.

Show me a peer reviewed article in a Medical journal that includes the underlying data (equivalent to what the dis-HONEST act would require).

Medical journal articles are intended to inform practitioners. I'm not sure just how far down they have to break the data for you to call it raw, but if you're talking about Subject # 68 of 134 on day 128 had 2.2 kg weight gain comprising > 7% of study entry body weight on x dose of pill y...then the issue is that this is useless to the target population, and impractical to print. Even in online mailings, it'd be worthless.

I've never sent in a request for that sort of 'data detail.' If someone wanted to investigate a drug company's claims about their product, and wanted access to that raw data, I'm not sure what the process would be.

Richard.

 

[drrich2]

Let's start the conversation with two basic questions.

1. Do you believe climate change is happening?

2. If yes, do you believe human behavior is influencing climate change?

If that's how this thread, including title, had started off, we'd have a far different discussion.

Yes, I believe it's happening. Not sure how much, just how much of a contributor various factors are, or what the trade-offs are in what we can or should do about it, but yes.

Yes, humans have so radically terraformed the planet with vast deforestation and other acts it's hard to imagine there hasn't been at least some impact. Again, just how much impact, and what to do about it, is a harder discussion.

Richard.