|
Post by steve on Jul 16, 2009 10:43:17 GMT
Looks like a wacko study Socold. Someone should count how many times they found something that "suggests", "gives a clue" then the coup d'grace. . . .validating the results by comparison to the results of GCMS. LOL! Basically, you are owning up to being antiscience by rejecting findings because they aren't completely certain. Fortunately, you are in the minority otherwise we'd still be living in the middle ages without vaccinations, cars and comfortable houses, and the "Little Ice Age" would still be going strong due to lack of CO2.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Jul 16, 2009 11:40:13 GMT
Yep, farmers without tractors will be like Napoleon evacuating Moscow. . . .or the modern version of it in Darfur. The negative impact on ag in the present AGW bill is huge. You might as well figure on at least 15% increase in the cost of your food, and a huge displacement of farmers. The increase in price of fertilizer/fuel/chemicals and metal hardware are enormous. This bill is not good for the country as a whole at all, and even worse if you are involved in agriculture at all. During the WTO talks in Seattle, then VP Gore said, and this is true, that the US did not need agriculture, as we could import our food from other countries and the environmental impact from runoff, burning of fossil fuels etc would be worth the disruption. That was a very foolish statement, as from a National Security perspective, there is nothing more important than food. Starve the masses and the impact would be to overthrow the government. I must have missed that Seattle talk. I have to wonder what countries he thought might be amenable to such an arrangement, given that we send several billion dollars worth of food overseas every year. The nonsense that spews from political circles these days continues to astound me. On a local level; I live in a farming community, and every single one of my farmer neighbors struggles every day to make ends meet. We are always on the brink, and the increased burden that cap and trade would impose on us would be the final straw. Productive farm land would be abandoned in many cases and would lead to shortages that would be felt by the entire country. Folks in major metro areas have no clue about the volume of farm goods it takes on a daily basis to keep a city alive. If this nonsense is imposed, I guarantee they will find out in short order. PS: One of the ways that farmers can offset a portion of these added costs is to convert some cropland to forest and sell the carbon credits thereby obtained. This is something that is viewed as a good thing by certain people (we all know who ), but there are some significant drawbacks to that, not the least being the loss of crop income. Trees take a good long time to mature to the point where they can be profitably harvested (40 years + ), and converting that land back to crops is extremely difficult - stumps, etc. Add to that the ever present danger of forest fire. I have some acreage in trees and constantly worry about it.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 16, 2009 12:18:00 GMT
Looks like a wacko study Socold. That sounds like backpeddling to me ;D
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 17, 2009 4:33:44 GMT
Basically, you are owning up to being antiscience by rejecting findings because they aren't completely certain. Fortunately, you are in the minority otherwise we'd still be living in the middle ages without vaccinations, cars and comfortable houses, and the "Little Ice Age" would still be going strong due to lack of CO2. Vaccinations. . . .thats a perfect example. Fortunately we do go through extensive levels of tests for vaccinations to determine their effects before subjecting the whole world to a massive vaccination program. I can imagine what it would be like if we did not, we would probably all have 3 eyes by now.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 17, 2009 8:51:09 GMT
Basically, you are owning up to being antiscience by rejecting findings because they aren't completely certain. Fortunately, you are in the minority otherwise we'd still be living in the middle ages without vaccinations, cars and comfortable houses, and the "Little Ice Age" would still be going strong due to lack of CO2. Vaccinations. . . .thats a perfect example. Fortunately we do go through extensive levels of tests for vaccinations to determine their effects before subjecting the whole world to a massive vaccination program. I can imagine what it would be like if we did not, we would probably all have 3 eyes by now. Erm...tell that to the lad inocculated by Jenner. Tell that to Mad Mel of the UK's Daily Mail who has condemned kids to death and serious disability in an unscientific campaign against vaccination, presumably because the science was "uncertain" and that perhaps some of it was in her opinion "wacko".
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 17, 2009 17:51:14 GMT
Vaccinations. . . .thats a perfect example. Fortunately we do go through extensive levels of tests for vaccinations to determine their effects before subjecting the whole world to a massive vaccination program. I can imagine what it would be like if we did not, we would probably all have 3 eyes by now. Erm...tell that to the lad inocculated by Jenner. Tell that to Mad Mel of the UK's Daily Mail who has condemned kids to death and serious disability in an unscientific campaign against vaccination, presumably because the science was "uncertain" and that perhaps some of it was in her opinion "wacko".[/quote] Don't be ridiculous. The lad innoculated by Jenner was dying of a disease. Big difference there between requiring the innoculation of an entire population for the purpose of prevention of a disease with an untested vaccine when no one can even estimate what your chances of dying from the disease is (as is the case with AGW) nor for that matter what your chances of dying from the cure is either.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 18, 2009 10:17:28 GMT
Vaccinations. . . .thats a perfect example. Fortunately we do go through extensive levels of tests for vaccinations to determine their effects before subjecting the whole world to a massive vaccination program. I can imagine what it would be like if we did not, we would probably all have 3 eyes by now. Erm...tell that to the lad inocculated by Jenner. Tell that to Mad Mel of the UK's Daily Mail who has condemned kids to death and serious disability in an unscientific campaign against vaccination, presumably because the science was "uncertain" and that perhaps some of it was in her opinion "wacko". Don't be ridiculous. The lad innoculated by Jenner was dying of a disease. Big difference there between requiring the innoculation of an entire population for the purpose of prevention of a disease with an untested vaccine when no one can even estimate what your chances of dying from the disease is (as is the case with AGW) nor for that matter what your chances of dying from the cure is either. [/quote] No he wasn't. He was perfectly healthy. Jenner, working on the unproven theory that since milkmaids didn't tend to get smallpox they must be protected by their exposure to cowpox, innoculated the lad with cowpox and then later attempted to infect him with smallpox.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 19, 2009 1:56:28 GMT
No he wasn't. He was perfectly healthy. Jenner, working on the unproven theory that since milkmaids didn't tend to get smallpox they must be protected by their exposure to cowpox, innoculated the lad with cowpox and then later attempted to infect him with smallpox. Interesting. Jenner must have been the hero of Josef Mengele.
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Jul 19, 2009 6:43:39 GMT
Sir Edward Jenner was an empiricist/surgeon who fortunately published the results of his efforts. That immunization by exposure to cowpox pustules often prevented contracting smallpox was generally known throughout farming communities in England long before Jenner's "experiment." Indeed, twenty years prior to Jenner's publication, Benjamin Jesty was known to have determined that pus from cow nipples provided protection from the smallpox virus. Theoreticians, then as now, were lost in arriving at practical solutions and understanding.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 19, 2009 6:50:05 GMT
Sir Edward Jenner was an empiricist/surgeon who fortunately published the results of his efforts. That immunization by exposure to cowpox pustules often prevented contracting smallpox was generally known throughout farming communities in England long before Jenner's "experiment." Indeed, twenty years prior to Jenner's publication, Benjamin Jesty was known to have determined that pus from cow nipples provided protection from the smallpox virus. Theoreticians, then as now, were lost in arriving at practical solutions and understanding. Thats fine but the Nuremburg Code makes what he did to that 8 year old child an international crime.
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Jul 19, 2009 6:53:12 GMT
I believe Mengele considered himself a scientist - i.e., a medical practitioner absent the notion of morality.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 19, 2009 13:45:42 GMT
Thats fine but the Nuremburg Code makes what he did to that 8 year old child an international crime. No. It's just a common or garden national crime. Vaccinations. . . .thats a perfect example. Fortunately we do go through extensive levels of tests for vaccinations to determine their effects before subjecting the whole world to a massive vaccination program. [/quote] So you'll be withdrawing this comment then Icefisher?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 19, 2009 18:40:53 GMT
Vaccinations. . . .thats a perfect example. Fortunately we do go through extensive levels of tests for vaccinations to determine their effects before subjecting the whole world to a massive vaccination program. So you'll be withdrawing this comment then Icefisher?[/quote] No why should I? There is a difference between experimentation on a youth and requiring vaccinations that have been tested and proven more reliable than not of children attending public schools. Hopefully you can see that difference. The Nuremburg Code requires informed consent. No way can you get informed consent out of an 8 year old child.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 27, 2009 0:39:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 27, 2009 8:45:46 GMT
The climate models used for projections such as those included in the IPCC report only aim to include basic atmospheric feedbacks - ie. changes in clouds, water vapour and so forth. Other theorised potential changes (eg methane release) are not included because they are uncertain and/or controversial. Alternatively, climate models are currently underestimating these basic feedbacks. This paper is obviously concerning because it is suggesting that some of these feedbacks will radically increase the amount of warming we should expect from just a doubling of CO2 plus the current expected levels of feedbacks:
|
|