Mark:
With due respect, I disagree. And there are plenty of people disagreeing on the crackpot science called global warming theory, like Lubos Motl. As elected representatives of us the tax payers, whose money are used on all science research projects, our Congressmen have the power, authority, responsibility and duty to oversee how scientists spend our money, and how science researches are conducted, and when there are questions, bring the scientists in for questioning and interrogation to make sure that science researches are done honestly.
Even if it is not because tax payer money are spent, for its own health, science should always welcome, and stand up for any reasonable questioning and debate, and be quite capable of defending itself against any criticism.
Now, neither you, me, or Lubos are climate experts. But once again you have demonstrated your willingness to blindly believe into an "expert", without letting information go into your brain and be processed and analysed using your own intelligence. I beg to differ from you in refusing to bow to authority power. If an "expert" tells you 1+2>3, you would have nodded in agreement and I would not.
Here is why global warming theory is completely wrong: It's a quantitative thing. We know for a fact that today there is 370 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, and 20% of O2. But a couple billion years ago there was No oxygen and all CO2 in the atmosphere. We know O2 is unstable and tend to deplete itself by oxidizing other elements in the earth crust. Only when there's plantation will free oxygen start to accumulate in the atmosphere.
No the question is, with 20% of CO2 in the pre-life earth, which is 500 times more than today's amount, hence 500 times higher green house temperature raise. If today's 370 ppm CO2 had been enough to raise the average temperature of earth surface by a 20 degree, from -5C to 15C, then how much temperature will 500 times more CO2 raise? 20Cx500 = 10000C, right? The temperature would have been so high that life could not have originated.
The truth is temperature raise due to CO2 was totally exagerated, probably by as much as 3 orders of magnitude. If the pre-life earth had a temperature suitable for life, then today's 370 ppm CO2 probably raised the temperature by no more than 0.01 degree.
Mark,
I'm not in a position to pass judgement scientifically on global warming, though I'm of a mind that indeed the preponderence of evidence indicates that this is indeed occurring and it's due to excess carbon dioxide emissions.
Now Quantoken hardly seems to be a scientist, and his arguments are ridiculous (a belief in global warming infers a belief that the rules of arithmetic are subjective? OK ...), but he's representing a point that I believe is a prevailing one with the public, which Barton is playing to along with Bush, and that the scientific community is going to have to work through vice argue against.
The American citizen far more so than any other is convinced, largely due to this administration and others who've a vested interest in the status quo, that there are still large questions associated with global warming (GW). Barton, though he's reaching as far as I'm concerned with regard to C.V. and some of the data he's trying to get, is asking what many people would consider to be legitimate questions. Barton's essentially saying prove to me you're qualified to make these statements regarding GW and why naysayers out there aren't right and you are. That sort of questioning plays well in Peoria and a lot of other places, and the scientific community may object to it but it can't afford to ignore it or think that complaining about it is going to make much difference here.
I believe I appreicate where you're trying to go with this, though in this case Barton's not playing the game that the White House has been playing, and which the Union of Concerned Scientists has been complaining about (see
Stopping the Scientific Spin Doctors for a good example of where they've been coming from.) While Barton is certainly coming across in a way that's intimidating, standing there and saying it's unfair or unreasonable isn't going to get much traction. Fighting it head on, inundating him with what he wants and solidly making the points that were made elsewhere but again, is the only way to make headway on this. After that, if he still opts to play the bully, then there's something to hold up to the public at large which they might appreciate.
James; thanks for the comment. I agree with a lot of what you have to say, but, given Barton's track record and familiarity with the issues here, I do feel he is playing Bush's game. The evidence is clear, and what government should be doing is showing support for the clear scientific case, not trying to create a climate in which people are encouraged to think that there are two equally matched sides here. Politics is trumping good science.
I do agree that the email I sent and was encouraging others to send may have little effect, but since I'm not receiving Barton's requests, it's the only route available to me on this matter and I'm committed to trying to stop the attack on science on as many fronts as I can.
I'm not advocating that the scientists he's requesting information from refuse to give it - I agree with you that they should hammer him with the facts. However, these are intimidating tactics and, it seems to me, calculatedly so.
Best,
Guys, if you think this is intimidating, then you have never been through a due diligence for a big financing. And the sums involved if you accept the global warming rubbish are several orders of magnitude greater than any financing I've ever been in.
Dr Trodden, if you are a physicist, then you must be mathematically competent. I suggest you go and read the web-site www.climateaudit.org, where Mann's primary critic, a guy called McIntyre, sets out his case. I find it credible.
While I entirely agree that politics should not try to bias science, the point is that Mann's study has been picked up by political forces to the extent that the global warming scam is one of two main items on the G8 agenda next week. What Barton is trying to do is force Mann to provide a proper audit trail - which he has so far refused to do. I find Mann's behaviour utterly unacceptable in a scientist - and I suspect you will too.
More here.
fFreddy:
I completely agree with you. It's totally un-acceptable for Mann to refuse to answer to the inqury by a Congressman how the research is done and how the money is spent. You can NOT take the public's money and then turn around and refuse to answer questions. Cut the damn funding already! What are your scientists do when writting up research proposals and research reports? All nonsenses in order to get the money?
The public has a false sense of sacrificeness when it comes to science and scientists. These guys are NOT holy saints, they are as human as any average person walking on the street, and have all the weaknesses of an average human being. Rip their ties and suits off they are the same naked hairless monkey as every one else.
What I want to say is big science involves big money, and big money involves big politics. And it is utterly dirty when all these mix together. Nothing is clean.
Big money projects like the Gravity Probe B, are complete laughing stocks if you know a little bit physics. For GP-B, they needed a reference line that is constantly pointing to the same direction, never shift more than a few thousandth of an arcsecond. They rotate the satellite so it's main axis can precisely line up with the guiding star IM Pegasi, and they have assumed that IM Pegasi is always at the same direction in the sky, shifting no more than 35 mili-arcsecond.
What they fails to tell us, maybe intensionally, is that the fact that it is IMPOSSIBLE to keep the spin axis of the satellite precisely lined up with the sight line to the IM Pegasi, to within a few mili-arcseconds, during years of orbital operation. There is this astronomical phenomena called star light aberration, which is know for several centuries already, which means the visual position of IM Pegasi will shift in the sky for as much as 200 arc-seconds, as the satellite moves in the orbit and as the earth rotate around the sun. While the spin axis of the satellite is fixed, it can not be constantly aligned with the guide star at all!!!
Not a single academic paper talking about the design and operation of GP-B ever uttered a single meantioning of the word "aberration", such an important source of systematic error, if you want to measure mili-arcsecond precision. Intentional omission?
Quantoken
It's all about the money.
Mark,
Do you really believe that only politicians have political agendas? Is it not possible that scientists might have them too? Contrary to what you seem to believe; the debate on global warming is far from resolved. As senator Barton points out:
“.. in recent peer-reviewed articles in Science, Geophysical Research Letters, Energy & Environment, among others, researchers question the results of this [Your} work. As these researchers find, based on the available information, the conclusions concerning temperature histories – and hence whether warming in the 20 th century is actually unprecedented – cannot be supported by the Mann et. al. studies. In addition, we understand from the February 14 Journal and these other reports that researchers have failed to replicate the findings of these studies, in part because of problems with the underlying data and the calculations used to reach the conclusions. Questions have also been raised concerning the sharing and dissemination of the data and methods used to perform the studies. For example, according to the January 2005 Energy & Environment, the information necessary to replicate the analyses in the studies has not been made fully available to researchers upon request.”
Mark, as chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations it is senator Barton’s job to question findings he feels to be suspicious; quoting again from the letter: “.. researchers have failed to replicate the findings of these [Your] studies, in part because of problems with the underlying data and the calculations used to reach the conclusions.” This fact alone should make even you suspicious too.
Are you of the opinion that we, the unwashed general public and our idiot government, be required now to swallow whole, whatever clap-trap you, the infallible, blessed scientific community serve up without question? God, I hope not.
Scientific studies have historically and notoriously been distorted to reflect the author’s beliefs (politics). As worst example I offer the widely scientifically accepted study of Eugenics. Scientist are human beings with belief systems too, and as such, just like politicians, should be subject to some kind of objective oversight.
Commenting by HaloScan
