Some Solid Data on Climate and Temperature

[Selene]

"The DDT-malaria issue is another matter. As a general rule of thumb, that when you raise monocultures of any living thing, crops or livestock, in great densities, you are asking for trouble. This is simply because once a pathogen gets into the population it is very easy to spread from one host to another. This method of agriculture leads directly to high use of pesticides, fertilizers, antibiotics, etc., all of which raise concerns for the ecosystem."

GS:

I am confused by your argumentation.

DDT, as a general rule of thumb was banned by government based on the belief that DDT caused X,Y and Z which was dangerous to the ecosystem.

MNC*, as a general rule of thumb should be banned by government based on the belief that MNC causes X,Y and Z which is and will be dangerous to the ecosystem.

DDT is "another matter" how?

Until you demonstrate that there are "lots of intelligent people in government", which I maintain and can prove by average IQ quotients is not true.

Moreover, you need to establish five (5) [arbitrary number to pick for the sake of this argument] examples where government is better at delivering a service than private industry to even advance your claim.

Adam

*monocultures

[tjohnson]

GS:

I am confused by your argumentation.

DDT, as a general rule of thumb was banned by government based on the belief that DDT caused X,Y and Z which was dangerous to the ecosystem.

MNC*, as a general rule of thumb should be banned by government based on the belief that MNC causes X,Y and Z which is and will be dangerous to the ecosystem.

DDT is "another matter" how?

Until you demonstrate that there are "lots of intelligent people in government", which I maintain and can prove by average IQ quotients is not true.

Moreover, you need to establish five (5) [arbitrary number to pick for the sake of this argument] examples where government is better at delivering a service than private industry to even advance your claim.

Adam

*monocultures

DDT as it relates to eradicating mosquitoes is a different matter than DDT as it relates to growing food. But while we are at it, I'm sure there are better ways to control malaria than spraying DDT all over creation. I don't accept IQ tests as a criteria for competence in a job. I don't say the government is better at delivering a service, I say that if one segment of society is endangering another segment of society (or even all of it) then the government has a responsibility to intervene. If they want to contract this intervention out to private contractors I couldn't care less. Of course this all relies on the science at a given point in time.

[Selene]

GS:

I am confused by your argumentation.

DDT, as a general rule of thumb was banned by government based on the belief that DDT caused X,Y and Z which was dangerous to the ecosystem.

MNC*, as a general rule of thumb should be banned by government based on the belief that MNC causes X,Y and Z which is and will be dangerous to the ecosystem.

DDT is "another matter" how?

Until you demonstrate that there are "lots of intelligent people in government", which I maintain and can prove by average IQ quotients is not true.

Moreover, you need to establish five (5) [arbitrary number to pick for the sake of this argument] examples where government is better at delivering a service than private industry to even advance your claim.

Adam

*monocultures

DDT as it relates to eradicating mosquitoes is a different matter than DDT as it relates to growing food. But while we are at it, I'm sure there are better ways to control malaria than spraying DDT all over creation. I don't accept IQ tests as a criteria for competence in a job. I don't say the government is better at delivering a service, I say that if one segment of society is endangering another segment of society (or even all of it) then the government has a responsibility to intervene. If they want to contract this intervention out to private contractors I couldn't care less. Of course this all relies on the science at a given point in time.

"I say that if one segment of society is endangering another segment of society (or even all of it) then the government has a responsibility to intervene."

And you are going to be the one who decides based on the science?

Therefore, you, prior to the exposure of the conspiracy to defraud myself and every other citizen with the fraudulent scientific data, would have decided that I was endangering "another segment of society" with the carbon footprint that I am making.

You, being the decision maker in government, would fine me, based on the amount of danger that you decided I inflicted on another "segment" of society. If I could not pay your fine, you would then have to confiscate my property or incarcerate me for willful contempt of a government order.

This is a model that I will fight to my death to oppose.

Adam

[tjohnson]

And you are going to be the one who decides based on the science?

Therefore, you, prior to the exposure of the conspiracy to defraud myself and every other citizen with the fraudulent scientific data, would have decided that I was endangering "another segment of society" with the carbon footprint that I am making.

You, being the decision maker in government, would fine me, based on the amount of danger that you decided I inflicted on another "segment" of society. If I could not pay your fine, you would then have to confiscate my property or incarcerate me for willful contempt of a government order.

This is a model that I will fight to my death to oppose.

Adam

If you don't trust science then what else? You are alluding to the current AGW scandal and rightly so but the history of science is full of controversy, that's nothing knew. The thing is eventually the science does get settled unlike in philosophy where the arguments rage for thousands of years with no end in sight.

[Selene]

And you are going to be the one who decides based on the science?

Therefore, you, prior to the exposure of the conspiracy to defraud myself and every other citizen with the fraudulent scientific data, would have decided that I was endangering "another segment of society" with the carbon footprint that I am making.

You, being the decision maker in government, would fine me, based on the amount of danger that you decided I inflicted on another "segment" of society. If I could not pay your fine, you would then have to confiscate my property or incarcerate me for willful contempt of a government order.

This is a model that I will fight to my death to oppose.

Adam

If you don't trust science then what else? You are alluding to the current AGW scandal and rightly so but the history of science is full of controversy, that's nothing knew. The thing is eventually the science does get settled unlike in philosophy where the arguments rage for thousands of years with no end in sight.

That is correct. All the more reason to eliminate government from the decision. Government never, or rarely changes. The science in the 70's was wrong on the Ehrlich Population Bomb. The science was wrong in the 70's about global cooling. The science was wrong about the welfare state. The science was wrong about DDT. The science is wrong about man made global warming.

What you refuse to recognize is that government never makes anything better. By your own statements, I am sure you would agree that agriculture, including the end result of meat raising, is one of the most regulated segments of the economy.

Apparently, your statement is government has failed in protecting society in that area.

Ethanol, tje science was in! Well not so much. Corn ethanol is a failure. It is more expensive, more of a pollutant and less efficient. Oops. Also, it has forced a precipitous rise in the price of meat and corn products. The later has led to starvation increasing in the third world.

Can you come up with any examples of positive government edicts?

Adam

[tjohnson]

What you refuse to recognize is that government never makes anything better.

Be that as it may we are stuck with it.

[Christopher]

G.S., I think your argument that toxins get into the environment and damage the ecosystem has merit. Regarding immunity to antibiotics and superbugs, I don't think this second approach is justifiable. As Bill states, no community "owns" antibiotics as a community product; the antibiotic represents a product/invention of a private party. It is that individual's right to decide whether he wants to make his product potentially obsolete by overuse.

But, where people must continue to live in a system, damage to the system that incurs long-term costs to the population I believe can certainly be dealt with through government. It is unclear whether a convential timeframe is sufficient to do so through private parties and the justice system, particularly since incubation of a problem can go on for decades before it is caught... by then, even though the first person gets sick and sues, dozens of others will continue to get sick thereafter due to previous exposure. For example, we don't allow dumping waste oil into the Hudson River, then waiting for some fisherman in the far future to say "boy, that was stupid." We as a society already know it's stupid and prevent such behavior up-front.

[Selene]

What you refuse to recognize is that government never makes anything better.

Be that as it may we are stuck with it.

GS:

You know that that is false. It may exist, but we can certainly establish productive communities without it that will work very well.

Adam

reminds himself to check his work lol

Edited December 3, 2009 by Selene

[tjohnson]

The science in the 70's was wrong on the Ehrlich Population Bomb. The science was wrong in the 70's about global cooling. The science was wrong about the welfare state. The science was wrong about DDT. The science is wrong about man made global warming.

What was wrong with the science about DDT? Also, we already established that science evolves - don't confuse science with omni-science. The AGW affair is not settled by any means and this recent scandal will undoubtedly take much wind out of the sails of that argument. But even if AGW ends up being unfounded I think it is wise to focus attention on what we are doing to the planet.

[Selene]

The science in the 70's was wrong on the Ehrlich Population Bomb. The science was wrong in the 70's about global cooling. The science was wrong about the welfare state. The science was wrong about DDT. The science is wrong about man made global warming.

What was wrong with the science about DDT? Also, we already established that science evolves - don't confuse science with omni-science. The AGW affair is not settled by any means and this recent scandal will undoubtedly take much wind out of the sails of that argument. But even if AGW ends up being unfounded I think it is wise to focus attention on what we are doing to the planet.

GS:

"But even if AGW ends up being unfounded I think it is wise to focus attention on what we are doing to the planet."

Question:

Is man part of the ecology of the planet?

I know that man is. I assume that you will agree. Therefore, do you assert that "man" can do something to the planet Earth?

If so, can man do both something good for the planet as well as bad for the planet?

Adam

[tjohnson]

GS:

"But even if AGW ends up being unfounded I think it is wise to focus attention on what we are doing to the planet."

Question:

Is man part of the ecology of the planet?

I know that man is. I assume that you will agree. Therefore, do you assert that "man" can do something to the planet Earth?

If so, can man do both something good for the planet as well as bad for the planet?

Adam

Yes, we are part of the ecology of the planet, yes we do things to the planet, and some things may make the planet unfit for man to live in. I don't know about doing something "good" for the planet, it was "good" enough for us to evolve on it already.

[Selene]

GS:

"But even if AGW ends up being unfounded I think it is wise to focus attention on what we are doing to the planet."

Question:

Is man part of the ecology of the planet?

I know that man is. I assume that you will agree. Therefore, do you assert that "man" can do something to the planet Earth?

If so, can man do both something good for the planet as well as bad for the planet?

Adam

Yes, we are part of the ecology of the planet, yes we do things to the planet, and some things may make the planet unfit for man to live in. I don't know about doing something "good" for the planet, it was "good" enough for us to evolve on it already.

Gs:

I believe, if you can hear this, not as an attack, that you assume or have a predisposition to believe that "man" basically has a higher propensity to do "bad things" to the planet Earth than "good things".

I believe the opposite. I have known business folks, some millionaires [when that was actually real money], farmers, criminals, doctors, scientists, bricklayers, steelworkers, high priced hookers and a very high percentage of those folks, upwards of the 80% that I knew, were good people who would not do "bad things" to the planet.

Adam

[Alfonso Jones]

And you are going to be the one who decides based on the science?

Therefore, you, prior to the exposure of the conspiracy to defraud myself and every other citizen with the fraudulent scientific data, would have decided that I was endangering "another segment of society" with the carbon footprint that I am making.

You, being the decision maker in government, would fine me, based on the amount of danger that you decided I inflicted on another "segment" of society. If I could not pay your fine, you would then have to confiscate my property or incarcerate me for willful contempt of a government order.

This is a model that I will fight to my death to oppose.

Adam

If you don't trust science then what else? You are alluding to the current AGW scandal and rightly so but the history of science is full of controversy, that's nothing knew. The thing is eventually the science does get settled unlike in philosophy where the arguments rage for thousands of years with no end in sight.

I do trust science. But I don't trust government, and in particular don't trust government to decide scientific matters. Any more than I would trust the Roman Catholic Church to decide scientific matters.

Bill P

[Alfonso Jones]

What you refuse to recognize is that government never makes anything better.

Be that as it may we are stuck with it.

No, no, a thousand times no! The government is not an absolute. We can change the government.

Bill P

[Dragonfly]

Doing "good things" or "bad things" to the planet has only a meaning with regard to the effect on humans themselves. That means that the effect of most actions will be negligible as long as there are not too many people in the world and then it's not meaningful to talk about doing good or bad things to the planet. But as we become more succesful as a species, it is unavoidable that negative feedback will arise, and actions that for small groups are harmless, can now become harmful, and are the more potentially harmful as we have more success as a species (just as with those financial bubbles - the larger they grow, the bigger the disaster when they burst).

[Selene]

Doing "good things" or "bad things" to the planet has only a meaning with regard to the effect on humans themselves. That means that the effect of most actions will be negligible as long as there are not too many people in the world and then it's not meaningful to talk about doing good or bad things to the planet. But as we become more succesful as a species, it is unavoidable that negative feedback will arise, and actions that for small groups are harmless, can now become harmful, and are the more potentially harmful as we have more success as a species (just as with those financial bubbles - the larger they grow, the bigger the disaster when they burst).

GS:

I think you should take a real good look at what you just wrote.

Success as a species is in some way analogous to a financial bubble because both are growing!

The rest of what you wrote preceding that completely fallacious analogy or comparison coda is not logical either.

Adam

[9thdoctor]

Can you come up with any examples of positive government edicts?

Adam

I'm on Adam's side, but can't resist the setup

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Selene]

Can you come up with any examples of positive government edicts?

Adam

I'm on Adam's side, but can't resist the setup

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Hilarious!

What is the last line?? brought _____ity

[9thdoctor]

Hilarious!

What is the last line?? brought _____ity

Brought peace? Ah shaddup!

[tjohnson]

Doing "good things" or "bad things" to the planet has only a meaning with regard to the effect on humans themselves. That means that the effect of most actions will be negligible as long as there are not too many people in the world and then it's not meaningful to talk about doing good or bad things to the planet. But as we become more succesful as a species, it is unavoidable that negative feedback will arise, and actions that for small groups are harmless, can now become harmful, and are the more potentially harmful as we have more success as a species (just as with those financial bubbles - the larger they grow, the bigger the disaster when they burst).

GS:

I think you should take a real good look at what you just wrote.

Success as a species is in some way analogous to a financial bubble because both are growing!

The rest of what you wrote preceding that completely fallacious analogy or comparison coda is not logical either.

Adam

Yeah? Well at least I know who wrote what

[Selene]

The link to the Dutch Organization is in that language.

"There's more hot water to add to the Climategate meltdown of AGW; a Dutchman has discredited Al Gore's climate evidence.

Newspapers and news sites in the Netherlands today extensively broke the news of the findings of a research team led by Professor Jaap Sinninghe Damste -- a leading molecular paleontologist at Utrecht University and winner of the prestigious Spinoza Prize -- about the melting icecap of the Kilimanjaro, the African mountain that became a symbol of anthropogenic global warming. Professor Sinninghe Damste's research, as discussed on the site of the Dutch Organization of Scientific Research (DOSR) -- a governmental body -- shows that the icecap of Kilimanjaro was not the result of cold air but of large amounts of precipitation which fell at the beginning of the Holocene period, about 11,000 years ago.

The melting and freezing of moisture on top of Kilimanjaro appears to be part of "a natural process of dry and wet periods." The present melting is not the result of "environmental damage caused by man."

In the dry period between 12,800 and 11,500 years ago, Kilimanjaro was ice-free.

At the end of this period, a dramatic climate change from very dry to very wet took place -- driven by changes in solar radiation -- resulting in the creation of an icecap. At the moment, this part of Africa seems to be at the end of a similar dry period, resulting in the disappearance of the famous icecap.

DOSR calls Al Gore's iconic use of the melting cap of Kilimanjaro "unfortunate" -- since it now seems to be mainly the result of "natural climate variations."

I find it interesting that this spate of stories emerges just at the same time that a "hacker" blew the cover.