kelpdiver 2 #76 June 6, 2011 Quote Another nail in the denialist coffin: ============================================ Climate study gets pulled after charges of plagiarism Plagiarism wouldn't change the message, just that they cited other people's work without credit. Better than that making up research. Complaints about the pier review process would be more significant, but not detailed in your excerpt. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KidWicked 0 #77 June 6, 2011 billvon absolutely owned everyone in this thread.Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #78 June 6, 2011 Looks like Wegman et al have more journalistic integrity than the alarmists.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #79 June 6, 2011 Quote Complaints about the pier review process would be more significant, but not detailed in your excerpt. I think all piers should be reviewed regularly. Pier collapses can kill a lot of people.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #80 June 6, 2011 QuoteQuote Complaints about the pier review process would be more significant, but not detailed in your excerpt. I think all piers should be reviewed regularly. Pier collapses can kill a lot of people. Isn't that a government function run by the Army Corp of Engineers... you know... those people who can't possibly EVERdo anything right and should have all functions privatized. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skiskyrock 0 #81 June 7, 2011 QuoteQuote>CO2 is not what is causing the world to warm up. Its a combination >of natural causes, nitrogen and methane gases. [/url]http://www.nerc.ac.uk/press/releases/2006/challenge.asp[url] Key point in the article being "Although excess nitrogen contributes substantially to issues such as changes in the carbon cycle, global warming, water quality, acid rain, biodiversity loss, and air pollution, the issue has so far received little attention from the scientific community." Nitrogen is completely transparent to infrared. We use it to purge atmospheric CO2 and water vapor out of IR spectrometers. Now if you are talking about nitrogen oxides that is well understood. Nitrogen oxides are greenhouse gases, but unfortunately, carbon dioxide is the greenhouse gas that is increasing, and it's the one that's hard to get rid of. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skiskyrock 0 #82 June 7, 2011 QuoteQuote>Hhhmm, similar today it seems Indeed. Which is why you should ignore the hysterical "climate change ended in 1998!" and the "climate change will destroy the world!" articles in the popular media, and instead heed organizations like Nature, the UCS, NOAA, NASA etc. Ah, yes...those organizations that disregard any material that doesn't come from "the consensus"... I think I'll keep my options open and read what the skeptics have to say, as well. Ah Nature, the folks that accepted publications on the wave nature of particles, the existence of the neutron, plate techonics, the helical nature of DNA, nuclear fission, the human genome. Bunch of sticks in the mud who wouldn't know a new idea if it ran up and bit them in the ass. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #83 June 7, 2011 QuoteAh Nature, the folks that accepted publications on the wave nature of particles, the existence of the neutron, plate techonics, the helical nature of DNA, nuclear fission, the human genome. Bunch of sticks in the mud who wouldn't know a new idea if it ran up and bit them in the ass. So, appeal to authority is all you've got?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skiskyrock 0 #84 June 7, 2011 QuoteQuoteAh Nature, the folks that accepted publications on the wave nature of particles, the existence of the neutron, plate techonics, the helical nature of DNA, nuclear fission, the human genome. Bunch of sticks in the mud who wouldn't know a new idea if it ran up and bit them in the ass. So, appeal to authority is all you've got? It's a statement of fact. I'm not saying that Mann's hockeystick reconstruction is true because it's published in Nature, I'm citing counter examples to your assertion that Nature won't publish views that deviate from the consensus. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #85 June 7, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteAh Nature, the folks that accepted publications on the wave nature of particles, the existence of the neutron, plate techonics, the helical nature of DNA, nuclear fission, the human genome. Bunch of sticks in the mud who wouldn't know a new idea if it ran up and bit them in the ass. So, appeal to authority is all you've got? It's a statement of fact. I'm not saying that Mann's hockeystick reconstruction is true because it's published in Nature, I'm citing counter examples to your assertion that Nature won't publish views that deviate from the consensus. "[T]here are unarguable faux pas in our history. These include the rejection of Cerenkov radiation, Hideki Yukawa’s meson, work on photosynthesis by Johann Deisenhofer, Robert Huber and Hartmut Michel, and the initial rejection (but eventual acceptance) of Stephen Hawking’s black-hole radiation.[22]" Source: ^ "Coping with peer rejection". Nature 425 (6959): p. 645. 16 October 2003. doi:10.1038/425645a. PMID 14562060.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,649 #86 June 8, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAh Nature, the folks that accepted publications on the wave nature of particles, the existence of the neutron, plate techonics, the helical nature of DNA, nuclear fission, the human genome. Bunch of sticks in the mud who wouldn't know a new idea if it ran up and bit them in the ass. So, appeal to authority is all you've got? It's a statement of fact. I'm not saying that Mann's hockeystick reconstruction is true because it's published in Nature, I'm citing counter examples to your assertion that Nature won't publish views that deviate from the consensus. "[T]here are unarguable faux pas in our history. These include the rejection of Cerenkov radiation, Hideki Yukawa’s meson, work on photosynthesis by Johann Deisenhofer, Robert Huber and Hartmut Michel, and the initial rejection (but eventual acceptance) of Stephen Hawking’s black-hole radiation.[22]" Source: ^ "Coping with peer rejection". Nature 425 (6959): p. 645. 16 October 2003. doi:10.1038/425645a. PMID 14562060. So you just destroyed your own argument.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #87 June 8, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAh Nature, the folks that accepted publications on the wave nature of particles, the existence of the neutron, plate techonics, the helical nature of DNA, nuclear fission, the human genome. Bunch of sticks in the mud who wouldn't know a new idea if it ran up and bit them in the ass. So, appeal to authority is all you've got? It's a statement of fact. I'm not saying that Mann's hockeystick reconstruction is true because it's published in Nature, I'm citing counter examples to your assertion that Nature won't publish views that deviate from the consensus. "[T]here are unarguable faux pas in our history. These include the rejection of Cerenkov radiation, Hideki Yukawa’s meson, work on photosynthesis by Johann Deisenhofer, Robert Huber and Hartmut Michel, and the initial rejection (but eventual acceptance) of Stephen Hawking’s black-hole radiation.[22]" Source: ^ "Coping with peer rejection". Nature 425 (6959): p. 645. 16 October 2003. doi:10.1038/425645a. PMID 14562060. So you just destroyed your own argument. No, not at all. After all, the 'science was settled' that the Earth was the center of the Universe back in Galileo's time. "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is" - Phil Jones, CRU Some mighty fine ethics your crowd expouses.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skiskyrock 0 #88 June 8, 2011 Quote "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is" - Phil Jones, CRU Some mighty fine ethics your crowd expouses. And yet both papers were included in the IPCC. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites winsor 187 #89 June 8, 2011 QuoteQuote "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is" - Phil Jones, CRU Some mighty fine ethics your crowd expouses. And yet both papers were included in the IPCC. I reiterate my contention that the focus on Global Warming (or whatever it its nom du jour), in light of the other issues we face, is about as bright as focusing on hangnails when the patient has metasticized cancer. I do not dispute that "greenhouse gases" are a FACTOR (though hardly a prevailing factor) in the heat balance of the planet. I do contend, however, that by the time "greenhouse gases" are a primary consideration, we will have addressed over 90% of the immediate threats to our survival of the species. In First Aid, the priorities are Bleeding, Breathing, Poison and Shock. To prioritize "Global Warming" is the equivalent of focusing on the bad hangover of someone who cut an artery while drunk. Al Gore did not quite flunk Science - but he did get a D on what little he actually took. It shows. The problem with Comic Book Science is that it is difficult to unlearn, once someone has developed their concept of reality on its basis. Having Liberal Arts types make Science decisions is likely to be disasterous, similar to having Attorneys make Economic or Medical policy. If we address the more immediate problems at hand, by the time we have achieved any success in the matter we will have discovered that "Global Warming" is a self-correcting issue. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,435 #90 June 8, 2011 >by the time we have achieved any success in the matter we will have >discovered that "Global Warming" is a self-correcting issue. Quite literally true - but we may not like some of the forms that self-correction takes. Thus the desire that the self-correction is relatively benign. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites winsor 187 #91 June 8, 2011 Quote>by the time we have achieved any success in the matter we will have >discovered that "Global Warming" is a self-correcting issue. Quite literally true - but we may not like some of the forms that self-correction takes. Thus the desire that the self-correction is relatively benign. All well and good, but a little triage is in order. The third rail of species survival is overpopulation. Even if we agree that reducing population is critical to the continued existance of the human species in any form we might recognize, quite how do we effect population control? ZPG is, by nature, anti-Darwinian or de-evolutionary ("we're all Devo!"). Fecundity becomes inversely proportional to IQ - which has certainly happened in rather a few venues. Active Eugenics got a bad name in the 1930s and 1940s, as well it should. Sterilization of the poor (if you can't feed yourselves, you sure as hell can't afford kids) is one approach that would never fly. Without an endless stream of deadbeats, the Democratic Party would implode (Republicans have major issues as well, but it's the truth). In any event, having 10 billion people on this planet who are all living lives devoted to avoiding Global Warming (or whatever you want to call it) is still a recipe for disaster. From a Global Warming perspective, you would be better off with 100 million people on the planet getting around in coal-fired locomotives. If someone can't figure out what are the immediate issues we face, I am not too concerned about what they may or may not think about eventualities. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GeorgiaDon 340 #92 June 8, 2011 QuoteEven if we agree that reducing population is critical to the continued existance of the human species in any form we might recognize, quite how do we effect population control? Do you have any suggestions as to how to affect reduced population size? The only factors I am aware of that do this in an acceptable manner (that is, outside of some terrible pandemic, war, or mass genocide) is the demographic transition, coupled with education of women. Demographic transition is the relationship between economic development and family size within a population. As overall wealth increases, family size tends to decrease. This reflects the fact that in underdeveloped economies children are an economic asset, as they can provide cheap labor (think planting/weeding/harvesting crops) and they can take care of the parents in old age. On the other hand in developed economies children are a net expense: they are rarely useful for labor (how many of us are sustainance farmers?), they cost a lot to feed and educate, and we have pension plans for old age. This is why Europe, for example, has negative population growth while sub-Saharan Africa still has 7+ kids/family. If economic development is key to population control, doesn't it make sense to invest in technologies that reduce the adverse environmental impact of that development? Sure you may be "better off with 100 million people on the planet getting around in coal-fired locomotives", compared to "10 billion people on this planet who are all living lives devoted to avoiding Global Warming", but short of selecting 99 out of every 100 people for summary execution, on the way to reduced (or at least stabilized) population levels we need to make sure that economic development doesn't just recapitulate the environmental disasters of the past on an even larger scale. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #93 June 8, 2011 QuoteAnd yet both papers were included in the IPCC. Really? I can't seem to find Pielke or McIntyre listed in the contributing authors for AR4 - guess they must have inadvertently left them out, sorta like how CRU inadvertently lost their data.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,649 #94 June 8, 2011 Quote Fecundity becomes inversely proportional to IQ - which has certainly happened in rather a few venues. I'm not aware of any evidence that "intelligence" as we define it provides any evolutionary advantage.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites winsor 187 #95 June 8, 2011 QuoteQuote Fecundity becomes inversely proportional to IQ - which has certainly happened in rather a few venues. I'm not aware of any evidence that "intelligence" as we define it provides any evolutionary advantage. Good point. Population times intelligence seems to be close to an universal constant, which says something or another. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skiskyrock 0 #96 June 8, 2011 QuoteQuoteAnd yet both papers were included in the IPCC. Really? I can't seem to find Pielke or McIntyre listed in the contributing authors for AR4 - guess they must have inadvertently left them out, sorta like how CRU inadvertently lost their data. Try looking in references. McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and Kalnay and Cai (2003) are the papers in question and both are included in the IPCC. I lost all of the old data for my thesis research in a hard drive crash a few years ago. I've deleted other stuff I didn't have space for. This is the rule for 99% of academic research. Better data management is a nice goal, but we have managed to get this far without it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #97 June 8, 2011 QuoteTry looking in references. McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and Kalnay and Cai (2003) are the papers in question and both are included in the IPCC. Got a cite for that, since Jones doesn't mention *what* papers in the email? In references, the listing for Kalnay doesn't include Cai. No primary mention of Mcintyre or McKitrick (of course) and the listings for Michaels don't include Mcintyre.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skiskyrock 0 #98 June 9, 2011 QuoteQuoteTry looking in references. McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and Kalnay and Cai (2003) are the papers in question and both are included in the IPCC. Got a cite for that, since Jones doesn't mention *what* papers in the email? In references, the listing for Kalnay doesn't include Cai. No primary mention of Mcintyre or McKitrick (of course) and the listings for Michaels don't include Mcintyre. There is more than one listing for Kalnay. Look carefully in http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-references.html McKitrick and Michaels (2004) is there as well. The reference to the identity of the papers is from the realclimate website. Michael Mann, the recipient of the Jones email, is a permanent contributor to the site. If anyone has any idea of the context of the email, he should. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/ McIntyre and McKitrick are listed in chapter 6 on paleoclimate. Five times as a pair. [/url]http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-references.html[url] edit: missed an url Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #99 June 9, 2011 Is this supposed to somehow exonerate Jones from his statement that he would attempt to suppress conflicting research?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skiskyrock 0 #100 June 9, 2011 QuoteIs this supposed to somehow exonerate Jones from his statement that he would attempt to suppress conflicting research? In the sense that what a person does is more important than what they talk about doing, absolutely. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 4 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
skiskyrock 0 #82 June 7, 2011 QuoteQuote>Hhhmm, similar today it seems Indeed. Which is why you should ignore the hysterical "climate change ended in 1998!" and the "climate change will destroy the world!" articles in the popular media, and instead heed organizations like Nature, the UCS, NOAA, NASA etc. Ah, yes...those organizations that disregard any material that doesn't come from "the consensus"... I think I'll keep my options open and read what the skeptics have to say, as well. Ah Nature, the folks that accepted publications on the wave nature of particles, the existence of the neutron, plate techonics, the helical nature of DNA, nuclear fission, the human genome. Bunch of sticks in the mud who wouldn't know a new idea if it ran up and bit them in the ass. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #83 June 7, 2011 QuoteAh Nature, the folks that accepted publications on the wave nature of particles, the existence of the neutron, plate techonics, the helical nature of DNA, nuclear fission, the human genome. Bunch of sticks in the mud who wouldn't know a new idea if it ran up and bit them in the ass. So, appeal to authority is all you've got?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skiskyrock 0 #84 June 7, 2011 QuoteQuoteAh Nature, the folks that accepted publications on the wave nature of particles, the existence of the neutron, plate techonics, the helical nature of DNA, nuclear fission, the human genome. Bunch of sticks in the mud who wouldn't know a new idea if it ran up and bit them in the ass. So, appeal to authority is all you've got? It's a statement of fact. I'm not saying that Mann's hockeystick reconstruction is true because it's published in Nature, I'm citing counter examples to your assertion that Nature won't publish views that deviate from the consensus. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #85 June 7, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteAh Nature, the folks that accepted publications on the wave nature of particles, the existence of the neutron, plate techonics, the helical nature of DNA, nuclear fission, the human genome. Bunch of sticks in the mud who wouldn't know a new idea if it ran up and bit them in the ass. So, appeal to authority is all you've got? It's a statement of fact. I'm not saying that Mann's hockeystick reconstruction is true because it's published in Nature, I'm citing counter examples to your assertion that Nature won't publish views that deviate from the consensus. "[T]here are unarguable faux pas in our history. These include the rejection of Cerenkov radiation, Hideki Yukawa’s meson, work on photosynthesis by Johann Deisenhofer, Robert Huber and Hartmut Michel, and the initial rejection (but eventual acceptance) of Stephen Hawking’s black-hole radiation.[22]" Source: ^ "Coping with peer rejection". Nature 425 (6959): p. 645. 16 October 2003. doi:10.1038/425645a. PMID 14562060.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #86 June 8, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAh Nature, the folks that accepted publications on the wave nature of particles, the existence of the neutron, plate techonics, the helical nature of DNA, nuclear fission, the human genome. Bunch of sticks in the mud who wouldn't know a new idea if it ran up and bit them in the ass. So, appeal to authority is all you've got? It's a statement of fact. I'm not saying that Mann's hockeystick reconstruction is true because it's published in Nature, I'm citing counter examples to your assertion that Nature won't publish views that deviate from the consensus. "[T]here are unarguable faux pas in our history. These include the rejection of Cerenkov radiation, Hideki Yukawa’s meson, work on photosynthesis by Johann Deisenhofer, Robert Huber and Hartmut Michel, and the initial rejection (but eventual acceptance) of Stephen Hawking’s black-hole radiation.[22]" Source: ^ "Coping with peer rejection". Nature 425 (6959): p. 645. 16 October 2003. doi:10.1038/425645a. PMID 14562060. So you just destroyed your own argument.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #87 June 8, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAh Nature, the folks that accepted publications on the wave nature of particles, the existence of the neutron, plate techonics, the helical nature of DNA, nuclear fission, the human genome. Bunch of sticks in the mud who wouldn't know a new idea if it ran up and bit them in the ass. So, appeal to authority is all you've got? It's a statement of fact. I'm not saying that Mann's hockeystick reconstruction is true because it's published in Nature, I'm citing counter examples to your assertion that Nature won't publish views that deviate from the consensus. "[T]here are unarguable faux pas in our history. These include the rejection of Cerenkov radiation, Hideki Yukawa’s meson, work on photosynthesis by Johann Deisenhofer, Robert Huber and Hartmut Michel, and the initial rejection (but eventual acceptance) of Stephen Hawking’s black-hole radiation.[22]" Source: ^ "Coping with peer rejection". Nature 425 (6959): p. 645. 16 October 2003. doi:10.1038/425645a. PMID 14562060. So you just destroyed your own argument. No, not at all. After all, the 'science was settled' that the Earth was the center of the Universe back in Galileo's time. "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is" - Phil Jones, CRU Some mighty fine ethics your crowd expouses.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skiskyrock 0 #88 June 8, 2011 Quote "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is" - Phil Jones, CRU Some mighty fine ethics your crowd expouses. And yet both papers were included in the IPCC. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 187 #89 June 8, 2011 QuoteQuote "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is" - Phil Jones, CRU Some mighty fine ethics your crowd expouses. And yet both papers were included in the IPCC. I reiterate my contention that the focus on Global Warming (or whatever it its nom du jour), in light of the other issues we face, is about as bright as focusing on hangnails when the patient has metasticized cancer. I do not dispute that "greenhouse gases" are a FACTOR (though hardly a prevailing factor) in the heat balance of the planet. I do contend, however, that by the time "greenhouse gases" are a primary consideration, we will have addressed over 90% of the immediate threats to our survival of the species. In First Aid, the priorities are Bleeding, Breathing, Poison and Shock. To prioritize "Global Warming" is the equivalent of focusing on the bad hangover of someone who cut an artery while drunk. Al Gore did not quite flunk Science - but he did get a D on what little he actually took. It shows. The problem with Comic Book Science is that it is difficult to unlearn, once someone has developed their concept of reality on its basis. Having Liberal Arts types make Science decisions is likely to be disasterous, similar to having Attorneys make Economic or Medical policy. If we address the more immediate problems at hand, by the time we have achieved any success in the matter we will have discovered that "Global Warming" is a self-correcting issue. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #90 June 8, 2011 >by the time we have achieved any success in the matter we will have >discovered that "Global Warming" is a self-correcting issue. Quite literally true - but we may not like some of the forms that self-correction takes. Thus the desire that the self-correction is relatively benign. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 187 #91 June 8, 2011 Quote>by the time we have achieved any success in the matter we will have >discovered that "Global Warming" is a self-correcting issue. Quite literally true - but we may not like some of the forms that self-correction takes. Thus the desire that the self-correction is relatively benign. All well and good, but a little triage is in order. The third rail of species survival is overpopulation. Even if we agree that reducing population is critical to the continued existance of the human species in any form we might recognize, quite how do we effect population control? ZPG is, by nature, anti-Darwinian or de-evolutionary ("we're all Devo!"). Fecundity becomes inversely proportional to IQ - which has certainly happened in rather a few venues. Active Eugenics got a bad name in the 1930s and 1940s, as well it should. Sterilization of the poor (if you can't feed yourselves, you sure as hell can't afford kids) is one approach that would never fly. Without an endless stream of deadbeats, the Democratic Party would implode (Republicans have major issues as well, but it's the truth). In any event, having 10 billion people on this planet who are all living lives devoted to avoiding Global Warming (or whatever you want to call it) is still a recipe for disaster. From a Global Warming perspective, you would be better off with 100 million people on the planet getting around in coal-fired locomotives. If someone can't figure out what are the immediate issues we face, I am not too concerned about what they may or may not think about eventualities. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 340 #92 June 8, 2011 QuoteEven if we agree that reducing population is critical to the continued existance of the human species in any form we might recognize, quite how do we effect population control? Do you have any suggestions as to how to affect reduced population size? The only factors I am aware of that do this in an acceptable manner (that is, outside of some terrible pandemic, war, or mass genocide) is the demographic transition, coupled with education of women. Demographic transition is the relationship between economic development and family size within a population. As overall wealth increases, family size tends to decrease. This reflects the fact that in underdeveloped economies children are an economic asset, as they can provide cheap labor (think planting/weeding/harvesting crops) and they can take care of the parents in old age. On the other hand in developed economies children are a net expense: they are rarely useful for labor (how many of us are sustainance farmers?), they cost a lot to feed and educate, and we have pension plans for old age. This is why Europe, for example, has negative population growth while sub-Saharan Africa still has 7+ kids/family. If economic development is key to population control, doesn't it make sense to invest in technologies that reduce the adverse environmental impact of that development? Sure you may be "better off with 100 million people on the planet getting around in coal-fired locomotives", compared to "10 billion people on this planet who are all living lives devoted to avoiding Global Warming", but short of selecting 99 out of every 100 people for summary execution, on the way to reduced (or at least stabilized) population levels we need to make sure that economic development doesn't just recapitulate the environmental disasters of the past on an even larger scale. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #93 June 8, 2011 QuoteAnd yet both papers were included in the IPCC. Really? I can't seem to find Pielke or McIntyre listed in the contributing authors for AR4 - guess they must have inadvertently left them out, sorta like how CRU inadvertently lost their data.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #94 June 8, 2011 Quote Fecundity becomes inversely proportional to IQ - which has certainly happened in rather a few venues. I'm not aware of any evidence that "intelligence" as we define it provides any evolutionary advantage.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 187 #95 June 8, 2011 QuoteQuote Fecundity becomes inversely proportional to IQ - which has certainly happened in rather a few venues. I'm not aware of any evidence that "intelligence" as we define it provides any evolutionary advantage. Good point. Population times intelligence seems to be close to an universal constant, which says something or another. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skiskyrock 0 #96 June 8, 2011 QuoteQuoteAnd yet both papers were included in the IPCC. Really? I can't seem to find Pielke or McIntyre listed in the contributing authors for AR4 - guess they must have inadvertently left them out, sorta like how CRU inadvertently lost their data. Try looking in references. McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and Kalnay and Cai (2003) are the papers in question and both are included in the IPCC. I lost all of the old data for my thesis research in a hard drive crash a few years ago. I've deleted other stuff I didn't have space for. This is the rule for 99% of academic research. Better data management is a nice goal, but we have managed to get this far without it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #97 June 8, 2011 QuoteTry looking in references. McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and Kalnay and Cai (2003) are the papers in question and both are included in the IPCC. Got a cite for that, since Jones doesn't mention *what* papers in the email? In references, the listing for Kalnay doesn't include Cai. No primary mention of Mcintyre or McKitrick (of course) and the listings for Michaels don't include Mcintyre.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skiskyrock 0 #98 June 9, 2011 QuoteQuoteTry looking in references. McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and Kalnay and Cai (2003) are the papers in question and both are included in the IPCC. Got a cite for that, since Jones doesn't mention *what* papers in the email? In references, the listing for Kalnay doesn't include Cai. No primary mention of Mcintyre or McKitrick (of course) and the listings for Michaels don't include Mcintyre. There is more than one listing for Kalnay. Look carefully in http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-references.html McKitrick and Michaels (2004) is there as well. The reference to the identity of the papers is from the realclimate website. Michael Mann, the recipient of the Jones email, is a permanent contributor to the site. If anyone has any idea of the context of the email, he should. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/ McIntyre and McKitrick are listed in chapter 6 on paleoclimate. Five times as a pair. [/url]http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-references.html[url] edit: missed an url Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #99 June 9, 2011 Is this supposed to somehow exonerate Jones from his statement that he would attempt to suppress conflicting research?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skiskyrock 0 #100 June 9, 2011 QuoteIs this supposed to somehow exonerate Jones from his statement that he would attempt to suppress conflicting research? In the sense that what a person does is more important than what they talk about doing, absolutely. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
