Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Full story: Newsday 49,172
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#37662 Aug 7, 2013
These deniers are corrupt to the core.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#37663 Aug 7, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
NEWS: WASHINGTON — Last year was one of the 10 hottest since global average temperatures have been recorded, according to an assessment of worldwide climate trends by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
"The State of the Climate in 2012," released Tuesday, paints a sobering portrait of vast swaths of the planet transformed by rising temperatures. Arctic sea ice reached record lows during the summer thaw. In Greenland, about 97% of its ice sheet melted in the summer, far greater than in years past.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/natio...
" Nine of the 10 hottest years have been recorded since the late 1990s, with 2012 ranking number 8 or 9, depending on the methodology."

If that doesn't raise a whole lot of questions, nothing will.
worried

Seattle, WA

#37664 Aug 7, 2013
bubba wrote:
^^ boohoo
I agree 'bubba', the charade has gone on too long.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#37665 Aug 7, 2013
chisholm wrote:
<quoted text>
Never saw your alleged "Pew Research paper," and I'm getting bored with your absurd conspiracy theories anyway.
The IMF and World Bank would have nothing to do with regulation of greenhouse gases and pollution, the only thing they might be concerned in is carbon trading, which I oppose as a means to control warming.
FYI
You are too funny, telling people they don't have a clue and yet you can't even open a link right in front of you on post #37607 that leads right to the Pew Research.
worried

Seattle, WA

#37666 Aug 7, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahhh..The Krebs cycle. I didn't realize it was initially rejected. Spent many nights studying that in college!! Publish or perish would definitely be an influencing factor. It seems that peer review has become the end all-be all and used against you if you aren't published.
I have also been thinking about the way are told that new innovations will occur by taxing CO2 emissions and subsidizing alternative energy. But throughout history, have new inventions come about this way? It seems we are putting the cart before the horse. During the Industrial Revolution, all the inventions came from the private sector without government subsidies. Examples would be of course Edison and Ford and then there were the railroads, steel, oil. These people mostly received private loans or used their own money so they had much to lose if not successful and they wouldn't want to put their money into something they would see as failing. But today, the government plan is to give out government-backed guaranteed loans to really any company that is regarded as alternative energy, not even caring whether it is viable or realistic and Solyndra is a good example of that. When there is no risk and nothing to lose and failure is rewarded, where is the incentive to really come out with the breakthrough ideas? It seems they are truly setting us all up to fail.
oh no 'kristy', there is great promise in moonbeams and stardust. we have to trust in the government grants. it's not made up, if I could get another government grant I would prove it to you.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#37667 Aug 7, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahhh..The Krebs cycle. I didn't realize it was initially rejected. Spent many nights studying that in college!! Publish or perish would definitely be an influencing factor. It seems that peer review has become the end all-be all and used against you if you aren't published.
As you've seen, many hold "peer review" as the gold standard standard of "science".

I searched for "peer review gold standard" and found many interesting articles challenging that notion.

The following is from an article on medical peer review:

--Fraud, flawed articles and corrections have haunted general interest news organizations. But such problems are far more embarrassing for scientific journals because of their claims for the superiority of their system of editing.

A widespread belief among nonscientists is that journal editors and their reviewers check authors' research firsthand and even repeat the research. In fact, journal editors do not routinely examine authors' scientific notebooks. Instead, they rely on peer reviewers' criticisms, which are based on the information submitted by the authors.

While editors and reviewers may ask authors for more information, journals and their invited experts examine raw data only under the most unusual circumstances.

In that respect, journal editors are like newspaper editors, who check the content of reporters' copy for facts and internal inconsistencies but generally not their notes. Still, journal editors have refused to call peer review what many others say it is — a form of vetting or technical editing....

Many nonscientists perceive reviewers to be impartial. But the reviewers, called independent experts, in fact are often competitors of the authors of the papers they scrutinize, raising potential conflicts of interest.

Except when gaffes are publicized, there is little scrutiny of the quality of what journals publish....

Despite its flaws, scientists favor the system in part because they need to publish or perish. The institutions where the scientists work and the private and government agencies that pay for their grants seek publicity in their eagerness to show financial backers results for their efforts.

The public and many scientists tend to overlook the journals' economic benefits that stem from linking their embargo policies to peer review. Some journals are owned by private for-profit companies, while others are owned by professional societies that rely on income from the journals. The costs of running journals are low because authors and reviewers are generally not paid.

A few journals that not long ago measured profits in the tens of thousands of dollars a year now make millions, according to at least three editors who agreed to discuss finances only if granted anonymity, because they were not authorized to speak about finances.

Any influential system that profits from taxpayer-financed research should be held publicly accountable for how the revenues are spent. Journals generally decline to disclose such data.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/health/02do...
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#37668 Aug 7, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
" Nine of the 10 hottest years have been recorded since the late 1990s, with 2012 ranking number 8 or 9, depending on the methodology."
If that doesn't raise a whole lot of questions, nothing will.
And they tell us they know for sure, to a 10th of degree, what the temperature was tens of thousands of years ago.

Since: Mar 09

San Jose, CA

#37669 Aug 7, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahhh..The Krebs cycle. I didn't realize it was initially rejected. Spent many nights studying that in college!! Publish or perish would definitely be an influencing factor. It seems that peer review has become the end all-be all and used against you if you aren't published.
I have also been thinking about the way are told that new innovations will occur by taxing CO2 emissions and subsidizing alternative energy. But throughout history, have new inventions come about this way? It seems we are putting the cart before the horse. During the Industrial Revolution, all the inventions came from the private sector without government subsidies. Examples would be of course Edison and Ford and then there were the railroads, steel, oil. These people mostly received private loans or used their own money so they had much to lose if not successful and they wouldn't want to put their money into something they would see as failing. But today, the government plan is to give out government-backed guaranteed loans to really any company that is regarded as alternative energy, not even caring whether it is viable or realistic and Solyndra is a good example of that. When there is no risk and nothing to lose and failure is rewarded, where is the incentive to really come out with the breakthrough ideas? It seems they are truly setting us all up to fail.
Take the development of the West:

Although few Americans think about this, much of the Western United States as we know it today is the creation of various federal programs. It has been that way from the very beginning, starting with government-sponsored explorations of the West in the early and mid-19th century. It continued with the federal government providing the money and troops for the depressingly efficient program of “Indian removal.” The government also sold public land to settlers for low prices and sometimes even gave it away. The RAILROADS, which spurred so much growth in the West, would not have been built without massive SUBSIDIES from the federal government. And today, much of the farming in many Western areas is made possible by federal water projects, substantial parts of the ranching are subsidized by the artificially low grazing fees on federal property, and much of the mining is made more profitable by dirt cheap access to federal land. Cities like Los Angeles and Las Vegas would dry up and blow away without the federally funded dam and canal projects that provide water to those arid regions. So it is ironic that while anti-big government sentiment is very strong in parts of this region, the West literally would not and could not exist as it does today without the sustained help of the federal government.

Get over it. The government has played a major role in everything from large water projects to space exploration. Space exploration itself led to many innovative inventions that has spurred the economy in many sectors. I could go on for hours. Government is good. It is our friend. What would we do withour it?

Since: Mar 09

San Jose, CA

#37670 Aug 7, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
As you've seen, many hold "peer review" as the gold standard standard of "science".
I searched for "peer review gold standard" and found many interesting articles challenging that notion.
The following is from an article on medical peer review:
--Fraud, flawed articles and corrections have haunted general interest news organizations. But such problems are far more embarrassing for scientific journals because of their claims for the superiority of their system of editing.
A widespread belief among nonscientists is that journal editors and their reviewers check authors' research firsthand and even repeat the research. In fact, journal editors do not routinely examine authors' scientific notebooks. Instead, they rely on peer reviewers' criticisms, which are based on the information submitted by the authors.
While editors and reviewers may ask authors for more information, journals and their invited experts examine raw data only under the most unusual circumstances.
In that respect, journal editors are like newspaper editors, who check the content of reporters' copy for facts and internal inconsistencies but generally not their notes. Still, journal editors have refused to call peer review what many others say it is — a form of vetting or technical editing....
Many nonscientists perceive reviewers to be impartial. But the reviewers, called independent experts, in fact are often competitors of the authors of the papers they scrutinize, raising potential conflicts of interest.
Except when gaffes are publicized, there is little scrutiny of the quality of what journals publish....
Despite its flaws, scientists favor the system in part because they need to publish or perish. The institutions where the scientists work and the private and government agencies that pay for their grants seek publicity in their eagerness to show financial backers results for their efforts.
The public and many scientists tend to overlook the journals' economic benefits that stem from linking their embargo policies to peer review. Some journals are owned by private for-profit companies, while others are owned by professional societies that rely on income from the journals. The costs of running journals are low because authors and reviewers are generally not paid.
A few journals that not long ago measured profits in the tens of thousands of dollars a year now make millions, according to at least three editors who agreed to discuss finances only if granted anonymity, because they were not authorized to speak about finances.
Any influential system that profits from taxpayer-financed research should be held publicly accountable for how the revenues are spent. Journals generally decline to disclose such data.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/health/02do...
Dum Dum! The system is favored because it works. Just look how far it has taken civilization. Science is good. What would we do without it?
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#37671 Aug 7, 2013
Mothra wrote:
I searched for "peer review gold standard" and found many interesting articles challenging that notion.
Almost universally in profit motivates research such as health care (pharmaceuticals) and recreational drugs (i.e tobacco). But even there it is better than the gibberish of the moon moths..

Note that scientific research in weather or climate is purely for the 'public good' such as crop selection, avoiding damage (insurance) and planning (i.e weather reports). As such it is relatively immune to direct influence by those seeking profit (i.e. the fossil fuel industry) who have to come at them indirectly with lobbying and propaganda.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#37672 Aug 7, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Almost universally in profit motivates research such as health care (pharmaceuticals) and recreational drugs (i.e tobacco). But even there it is better than the gibberish of the moon moths..
Note that scientific research in weather or climate is purely for the 'public good' such as crop selection, avoiding damage (insurance) and planning (i.e weather reports). As such it is relatively immune to direct influence by those seeking profit (i.e. the fossil fuel industry) who have to come at them indirectly with lobbying and propaganda.
The discussion was about the peer review process as the gold standard of research.

As I suspected, someone wouldn't see the forest through the trees. If you'll note I clearly said the citation was from a medical article.

However if you're arguing that climate research is not affected by profit, you'll have to give financial information on that to prove it.

You do have those numbers handy, don't you? Oh wait, you said "relatively immune". So you are admitting a profit motive, but not as much?

Regardless, I'd like to see your numbers.

btw, I would argue that medical researchers would disagree with your contention about their work not being for the "public good".
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#37673 Aug 7, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Dum Dum! The system is favored because it works. Just look how far it has taken civilization. Science is good. What would we do without it?
Let me fix that for you,'The system is favored because it works for those who want to use the peer review standard to stifle dissenting opinions.'

And dum, dum?

Sheesh... go take a time out.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#37674 Aug 7, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
The discussion was about the peer review process as the gold standard of research.
As I suspected, someone wouldn't see the forest through the trees. If you'll note I clearly said the citation was from a medical article.
However if you're arguing that climate research is not affected by profit, you'll have to give financial information on that to prove it.
You do have those numbers handy, don't you? Oh wait, you said "relatively immune". So you are admitting a profit motive, but not as much?
Regardless, I'd like to see your numbers.
btw, I would argue that medical researchers would disagree with your contention about their work not being for the "public good".
I'll tell you all about "peer review" and how it has worked through history, Remember Darwin & the theory of evolution that is still going through "peer review" in some of your closed minds.
What about Galileo who come up with the outrageous theory that the earth was not the centre of the universe. He was arrested for that effort defying the church teachings. How about Einstein's theory of relativity. How about the peer review on that, and Da Vinci etc etc. Were they all motivated by fame & fortune or did they just so happen to be seeking the finest of human endeavours the TRUTH!
The denial of climate science on the basis its about money is the same as the flat earth society. Totally absurd. What about the mapping of Human Genome was this a another sham as well? Did all those scientists working on that project for the good of mankind do it for money ? I mean the results were shared with the world, it didn't end up being patented by Apple for instance.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#37675 Aug 7, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
The discussion was about the peer review process as the gold standard of research.
And of course, it is. Of course, gold standard just means 'the best and most reliable'. Not perfection. There is continual effort to improve it but you need to allow the researchers a LOT of freedom or you risk throwing out good research because of the reviewers biases.
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
As I suspected, someone wouldn't see the forest through the trees.
It is amazing how clueless posters like Mothra show what THEY are made of by their insults and innuendo.
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text> If you'll note I clearly said the citation was from a medical article.
Exactly. And I pointed out that these are almost always paid for by profit motivates pharmaceurical companies, with a lot of room for biases in reporting. The main issue is generally not peer review (which only ensures against blatant errors) but with the fact that only positive results tend to be published. That is NOT a fault of the peer review process.
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
However if you're arguing that climate research is not affected by profit, you'll have to give financial information on that to prove it.
You do have those numbers handy, don't you? Oh wait, you said "relatively immune". So you are admitting a profit motive, but not as much?
Regardless, I'd like to see your numbers.
btw, I would argue that medical researchers would disagree with your contention about their work not being for the "public good".
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
However if you're arguing that climate research is not affected by profit, you'll have to give financial information on that to prove it.
As the accuser, you are actually responsible for showing a profit motive to climate research and I do NOT mean employment. The good scientists involved would be employed regardless. You would have to show where money is being spent BY THE PUBLIC based on the results of their findings.
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
You do have those numbers handy, don't you? Oh wait, you said "relatively immune". So you are admitting a profit motive, but not as much?
I rarely prepare for arguments based on 'red herring' heckling.
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Regardless, I'd like to see your numbers.
btw, I would argue that medical researchers would disagree with your contention about their work not being for the "public good".
I can hardly give you numbers for a fact that YOU claim and yet have no support for.
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
btw, I would argue that medical researchers would disagree with your contention about their work not being for the "public good".
Their motive is to be retained by their employers (the pharmaceutical companies who pay their salaries). While they would LIKE to serve the 'public good' the fact is that MOST research is around patents, varying the design of a drug to renew the patent rights, etc. Or innovations such as dual or thriple drug pills. The issues around the pharmaceutical drug research is VERY similar to that of the 'tobacco lobby'. There are many articles attesting to this.

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/...

"Funding source was significantly related to conclusions when considering all article types (p = 0.037). For interventional studies, the proportion with unfavorable conclusions was 0% for all industry funding versus 37% for no industry funding (p = 0.009)."
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#37676 Aug 7, 2013
Andrew Hoffman, Fall, 2012:

First, climate change is not a “pollution” issue. Although the US Supreme Court decided in 2007 that greenhouse gases were legally an air pollutant, in a cultural sense, they are something far different. The reduction of greenhouse gases is not the same as the reduction of sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, or particulates. These forms of pollution are man-made, they are harmful, and they are the unintended waste products of industrial production. Ideally, we would like to eliminate their production through the mobilization of economic and technical resources. But the chief greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, is both man-made and natural. It is not inherently harmful; it is a natural part of the natural systems; and we do not desire to eliminate its production. It is not a toxic waste or a strictly technical problem to be solved. Rather, it is an endemic part of our society and who we are. To a large degree, it is a highly desirable output, as it correlates with our standard of living. Greenhouse gas emissions rise with a rise in a nation’s wealth, something all people want. To reduce carbon dioxide requires an alteration in nearly every facet of the economy, and therefore nearly every facet of our culture. To recognize greenhouse gases as a problem requires us to change a great deal about how we view the world and ourselves within it. And that leads to the second distinction.

Climate change is an existential challenge to our contemporary worldviews. The cultural challenge of climate change is enormous and threefold, each facet leading to the next. The first facet is that we have to think of a formerly benign, even beneficial, material in a new way—as a relative, not absolute, hazard. Only in an imbalanced concentration does it become problematic. But to understand and accept this, we need to conceive of the global ecosystem in a new way.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#37677 Aug 7, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
Andrew Hoffman, Fall, 2012:
First, climate change is not a “pollution” issue. Although the US Supreme Court decided in 2007 that greenhouse gases were legally an air pollutant, in a cultural sense, they are something far different. The reduction of greenhouse gases is not the same as the reduction of sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, or particulates. These forms of pollution are man-made, they are harmful, and they are the unintended waste products of industrial production. Ideally, we would like to eliminate their production through the mobilization of economic and technical resources. But the chief greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, is both man-made and natural. It is not inherently harmful; it is a natural part of the natural systems; and we do not desire to eliminate its production. It is not a toxic waste or a strictly technical problem to be solved. Rather, it is an endemic part of our society and who we are. To a large degree, it is a highly desirable output, as it correlates with our standard of living. Greenhouse gas emissions rise with a rise in a nation’s wealth, something all people want. To reduce carbon dioxide requires an alteration in nearly every facet of the economy, and therefore nearly every facet of our culture. To recognize greenhouse gases as a problem requires us to change a great deal about how we view the world and ourselves within it. And that leads to the second distinction.
Climate change is an existential challenge to our contemporary worldviews. The cultural challenge of climate change is enormous and threefold, each facet leading to the next. The first facet is that we have to think of a formerly benign, even beneficial, material in a new way—as a relative, not absolute, hazard. Only in an imbalanced concentration does it become problematic. But to understand and accept this, we need to conceive of the global ecosystem in a new way.
This is fundamentally flawed. It is a pollution problem and thus a solveable kind.

We already have the necessary tools to bring about a better future for humanity. All we have to do is care enough to make this work instead of continuing the ongoing wars.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#37678 Aug 7, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
And of course, it is. Of course, gold standard just means 'the best and most reliable'. Not perfection. There is continual effort to improve it but you need to allow the researchers a LOT of freedom or you risk throwing out good research because of the reviewers biases.
<quoted text>
It is amazing how clueless posters like Mothra show what THEY are made of by their insults and innuendo.
<quoted text>
Exactly. And I pointed out that these are almost always paid for by profit motivates pharmaceurical companies, with a lot of room for biases in reporting. The main issue is generally not peer review (which only ensures against blatant errors) but with the fact that only positive results tend to be published. That is NOT a fault of the peer review process.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
As the accuser, you are actually responsible for showing a profit motive to climate research and I do NOT mean employment. The good scientists involved would be employed regardless. You would have to show where money is being spent BY THE PUBLIC based on the results of their findings.
<jibber jabber omitted>
Actually, it was you who brought up funding. So it's you that needs to provide the evidence. Go back and re-read the posts.

But you won't. You never do. You prattle on about evil profit for a couple weeks, then drop it without ever providing any evidence.

Then amazingly a while later you bring it up again as if everyone forgot you didn't address it earlier.

But I'll help you out, since it seems you need it.

>>The U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) can’t figure out what benefits taxpayers are getting from the many billions of dollars spent each year on policies that are purportedly aimed at addressing climate change.

A May 20 report noted that while annual federal funding for such activities has been increasing substantially, there is a lack of shared understanding of strategic priorities among the various responsible agency officials. This assessment agrees with the conclusions of a 2008 Congressional Research Service analysis which found no “overarching policy goal for climate change that guides the programs funded or the priorities among programs.”

According to the GAO, annual federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, amounting to $106.7 billion over that period. The money was spent in four general categories: technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, science to understand climate changes, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes. Technology spending, the largest category, grew from $2.56 billion to $5.5 billion over this period, increasingly advancing over others in total share. Data compiled by Joanne Nova at the Science and Policy Institute indicates that the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn’t count about $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for “green energy.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08...

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#37679 Aug 7, 2013
Mothra before shooting off at the mouth about green house research. You might want to look at the subsidies given to fossil fuel producers and then say hand on heart how that was money well spent.

http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/
My Tits Fell Off

United States

#37680 Aug 7, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
Mothra before shooting off at the mouth about green house research. You might want to look at the subsidies given to fossil fuel producers and then say hand on heart how that was money well spent.
http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/
Have you ever had one of those days when it felt like your tits fell off? Well my tits did fall off.
:(
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#37681 Aug 8, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
Mothra before shooting off at the mouth about green house research. You might want to look at the subsidies given to fossil fuel producers and then say hand on heart how that was money well spent.
http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/
Why? Hype made the claim about profit. I'm just holding him accountable.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Woodhaven Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
God's curse caused Negroes to look like Apes. 8 min Polish circus clown 4
Add a word, Drop a word (Dec '09) 8 min The Phanton Hell ... 9,435
OBAMA is the BEST PRESIDENT EVER (Nov '10) 11 min Unbiased Chargers... 16,581
Yankee talk back 4, or is it 5 (Aug '08) 20 min Lori G 311,503
Cutting of pastor's role called 'vindictive' (Oct '08) 23 min Bruser 7,931
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 28 min cpeter1313 306,947
Review: A Better World Real Estate (Oct '10) 48 min Chae 35

Woodhaven News Video

Woodhaven Dating
Find my Match

Woodhaven People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Woodhaven News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Woodhaven

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 7:30 pm PST

Bleacher Report 7:30PM
Breaking Down St. Louis' Game Plan vs. Giants
NBC Sports 3:29 AM
Giants place two more on injured reserve
NBC Sports 3:58 AM
Wednesday morning one-liners
NBC Sports 8:50 AM
Osi Umenyiora tells Jonathan Massaquoi to keep complaints private
ESPN10:15 AM
Vick has paid down nearly all of $18M debt