August 31, 2007

Time to move the Global Warming goal posts again! [Dogstar]
— Open Blog

Hey, it's been a while since we checked in with the Global Warming eco-kids. They've taken some hits lately- the IPCC dropped the "hockey stick" graph and NASA was forced to recalculate all post-2000 US temperature data. The results- they lost two of their best talking points.

However, they still had their A-1, die-hard fallback position- "There's a CONSENSUS of scientists!!!"

Well, sorry to be the party pooper, kiddos, but you just lost your ace in the hole...


SURVEY: LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY; COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF PUBLISHED CLIMATE RESEARCH REVEALS CHANGING VIEWPOINTS

In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

It will be interesting to see how the "Inconvenient Truthers" handle this.

Posted by: Open Blog at 05:59 PM | Comments (75)
Post contains 386 words, total size 3 kb.

1 How inconvenient...

Posted by: harrison at August 31, 2007 06:24 PM (Gv4O0)

2

Well, there goes my Naked Supermodels Save the Sacred Glaciers Rally I had planned for this weekend.


Thanks.


Posted by: eman at August 31, 2007 06:25 PM (F/DIG)

3 I feel more sorry for the Voluntary Human Extinction crowd than the rest of the eco-lot - especially the lucky few who had vasectomy's to save the planet.

Posted by: not that ryan at August 31, 2007 06:27 PM (jjVX3)

4 Don't worry, they've got Peak Oil warming up in the bullpen

Posted by: Beppo at August 31, 2007 06:35 PM (oL6BS)

5

My SUV just went across the street and beat the shit out of a Prius. 


Posted by: eman at August 31, 2007 06:37 PM (F/DIG)

6 I told a guy the other day Instapundit's line about "I'll start worrying when the people who tell me to worry start acting worried themselves" (badly paraphrasing, sorry) and there was simply no retort forthcoming.

There was anger. There was indignation. There was some more anger.

Then there was silence.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at August 31, 2007 06:53 PM (EkG0f)

7 Nom, the only possible reply would be: Science damn you!

Posted by: BDavis at August 31, 2007 07:03 PM (K1m9b)

8 It's funny, this is yet another crowd where what normal people would call good news is instead bad news for them.

Just as any news of success in Iraq is "bad" and causes problems for certain politicians in Washington, news that says maybe we aren't all going to die screaming in a boiling tsunami is "bad" for Al Gore and his minions.

Posted by: cdeegan at August 31, 2007 07:22 PM (h8Mjb)

9

Here's how: they just won't report on it.


http://tinyurl.com/yu998l


Posted by: andycanuck at August 31, 2007 08:26 PM (Q+K6Q)

10 How did those oil companies get to so many scientists so quickly?
I also wonder what the odds are that every scientist they approach accepts their deal. Not one has come forward with a digital recording of some evil Exxon exec offering cash and hookers in exchange for denying global warming. There is a 100% success rate. Not one scientist has made a claim that they've been bribed but turned it down.
Sounds to me like resistance is futile.

Posted by: MagicalPat at August 31, 2007 09:53 PM (WU+4M)

11 Al Gore is a fucking retard.  And people who vote for Donks are not much better.

Posted by: Philip at August 31, 2007 10:03 PM (GJ2aR)

12 This whole nonsense really pisses me off, especially since the Goracle's apostles started up with the whole "global warming skepticism = Holocaust denial" smear.

These assholes work themselves into a lather by merely pretending that the President questions their patriotism, yet they do not themselves hesitate before launching far worse feverish smears far less rooted in reality at the drop of a hat (oh, and also question our patriotism without even blinking).

What a bunch of pricks.

Posted by: Kensington at September 01, 2007 06:52 AM (Hzq7R)

13 I struck oil in my back garden when I was looking for some weed I buried one night when I thought the cops were outside my house (it was jsut a hedgehog). I could've made a fortune, but I decided to set it on fire instead. The huge loss of potential revenue, permanent carcinogenic shroud and unbearable heat are worth it just to piss of the Enviro-weenies. Their tears are my life-blood.

Posted by: Infidelsalwayswin at September 01, 2007 06:59 AM (7hRxx)

14 <blockquote>"My SUV just went across the street and beat the shit out of a Prius."</blockquote>

BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!

eman, that's fookin' PRICELESS!!!



Posted by: B.C. at September 01, 2007 09:39 AM (c3CkS)

Posted by: Jeff Fecke at September 01, 2007 02:05 PM (lFh7b)

16 Oreskes responds to the paper here.

Money quote:
The piece misrepresents the results we obtained. In the original AAAS talk on which the paper was based, and in various interviews and conversations after, I repeated pointed out that very few papers analyzed said anything explicit at all about the consensus position.This was actually a very important result, for the following reason. Biologists today never write papers in which they explicitly say "we endorse evolution". Earth scientists never say "we explicitly endorse plate tectonics." This is because these things are now taken for granted. So when we read these papers and observed this pattern, we took this to be very significant.We realized that the basic issue was settled, and we observed that scientists had moved on to discussing details of the problem, mostly tempo and mode issues: how fast, how soon, in what manner, with what impacts, etc.

Posted by: RCP at September 01, 2007 02:18 PM (r2U1m)

17 Oreskes Responds to Schulte

Summarizing:
"The Schulte piece is being published in Energy and Environment, a known contrarian journal.

The Schulte piece misrepresents the research question we posed.

The piece misrepresents the results we obtained.

The Schulte piece misrepresents my own interpretation of the severity climate question, as well as that of the scientific societies whose positions we compiled.

The EPW press release accuses my paper of being "outdated." It is in fact a crucial element of the paper that the study that it goes back to 1993.

The author is a medical researcher.

Contrarians have been trying to refute my work for three years. A previous claim, also circulated and cited by Marc Morano, was subsequently retracted by its author."

Read the full article, it's very good. Also take a look at:

Oreskes smacks down Shulte

"In the Oreskes case, we've got an unqualified individual, Klaus-Martin Schulte, a medical researcher, digging into the databases and trying to tell us that they say something compatible with the denialist position. He sounds like another Skell, maybe not quite so deranged, but still babbling. On the other side, we've got Oreskes herself responding to and refuting Shulte's bogosity. It's great fun to read and far more persuasive, since she doesn't rely on mangling science to make her case.

I'm not a climatologist either, but I think I can tell who I trust. And it isn't the revisionist who tries to twist scientific papers, and who thinks that the absence of an explicit endorsement of a widely accepted scientific theory means the paper does not support said theory."

It is always important to read what others have to say and not to listen to the same  people over and over. That's called confirmation bias.

Posted by: noen at September 01, 2007 02:51 PM (jfxIR)

18 You know, Dogstar, as with Michael Fumento and the recent paper that 'debunked' the Lancet study, it can really endanger one's self-dignity to be all like, "Woo! Groundbreaking scientific research smashes Teh Liberal Scientistzzz!" when you haven't even read the thing you're talking about.

I mean, call me Mr. Sombersides here. But there's a reason scientists actually write these papers so that other people can read them -- instead of settling intellectual disputes by, for instance, jumping up and down hooting like baboons.



Posted by: Sadly, No Investor Relations at September 01, 2007 04:49 PM (ZoM4f)

19 It's staggering the amount of stupidity contained in your post Dogstar. Didn't even bother to read the article you cited, pathetic.

Posted by: cokane at September 01, 2007 04:59 PM (ao1IN)

20

Awwwww...


It looks like I touched a nerve.


Posted by: Dogstar at September 01, 2007 05:53 PM (FgxdU)

21 No, it looks like you're a freaking moron.

Posted by: Vladi G at September 01, 2007 06:55 PM (6fg2R)

22 lalalalala i can't hear you lalalalalala

Posted by: erg at September 01, 2007 06:55 PM (AVxOW)

23 And believe me, I know freaking morons.  And fucking morons too.  Why, just the other day a moron fucked me.  Right up the poopchute.  'Course he had to take the frozen fruit out first...

Posted by: Gladi V at September 01, 2007 06:56 PM (AVxOW)

24

No, it looks like you're a freaking moron.


I know you are, but what am I


Posted by: AD at September 01, 2007 07:05 PM (TNzLV)

25 Poor hippies, watching yet another of their crazoid attempts to inflict a suicide pact on their host society falling apart in front of their eyes.

You'd think they'd be used to it by now.

Posted by: Dead Career Sketch at September 01, 2007 07:36 PM (NdG3x)

26 But there's a reason scientists actually write these papers...

Continued employment usually.  Publish or perish. 

Posted by: Purple Avenger at September 01, 2007 07:44 PM (NiDeC)

27 Oooh you burned him Vladdy!! SUK it WIngNUTZ!

Posted by: Carl Hungus at September 01, 2007 07:44 PM (bWkaR)

28 No nerves were touched here dogstar. I am an honest debater. I just thought that people would like to hear the other side and reach their own conclusions. That's what it is all about isn't it?

I am interested in hearing how you address the points raised by Ms Oreskes. I am sure it will be quite interesting and I'm looking forward to it.

Posted by: noen at September 01, 2007 10:31 PM (jfxIR)

29 "Continued employment usually.  Publish or perish."

LOL it's almost as if productivity was tied to employment. What a ridiculous concept.

Of course this argument is not valid if such people are employed by oil companies or similar interests who would have no reason to publish such phoney research.

Posted by: cokane at September 01, 2007 11:37 PM (ao1IN)

30

What I find funniest about the response is that it all it does is restate what's in the original article, but with a sneer attached.  From reading the response, you'd really swear that Schulte must not have ever noted how many papers didn't implicitly endorse or reject the theory, how many -did- implicitly accept it, how many actively rejected it, etc. etc.  You'd almost think he left all the numbers out of the analysis, and tried to con the reader into accepting something false.  Except - he didn't.  He tells you what the numbers are, and you can reject his hypothesis about why they're significant or what they mean, but there wasn't even a slight bit of misrepresentation. 


But demonizing and slandering opponents is the modus operandi for the GW cult, so the troll response isn't exactly surprising.


Qwinn


 


 


Posted by: Qwinn at September 01, 2007 11:56 PM (/FDfc)

31 Qwinn, you don't know what you're talking about. The article has not been published and is unavailable unless you have some sort of special access no one else does.

The whole point of the SN joke is that you are debunking a press release. Didn't you understand that part?

Posted by: noen at September 02, 2007 12:35 AM (jfxIR)

32 That's your idea of a joke? I thought you clowns were supposed to be funny.

Posted by: Pablo at September 02, 2007 05:16 AM (yTndK)

33 They've taken some hits lately- the IPCC dropped the "hockey stick" graph and NASA was forced to recalculate all post-2000 US temperature data. The results- they lost two of their best talking points.

Seriously, I'm really trying not to be derisive, but after reading that opening you have one of these:

a). pandering to your audience w/ by grossly misinterpreting and taking out of context these 2 items (i.e. knowingly cherry-picking and lying to support your argument. Exactly the same thing Crichton).

b). So partisan on the issue that you refuse to understand the complexity (which really isn't that complex)

c). A complete, total and utterly laughable moron.

My guess is a combination of a and b.

No, I'm not going to spend time taking your post apart. The post is shake-your-head, roll-your-eyes, laughable absurdity. If you can't see why, really you need to try to understand the subject.

It will be interesting to see how the "Inconvenient Truthers" handle this.

A sophomoric pejorative, but I guess you'd perceive me in that crew. I'm married to one of those that spends 2 months out of the year camped out on snow and ice gathering and interpreting actual observed data and working it into models that are used by climate scientists.

So how are "we handling this?" Shaking our heads, rolling our eyes, laughing out loud and passing it on to our colleagues.

The only thing that you succeed on with this post, outside of your supporters is how deafeningly ignorant you are on the subject.

Posted by: Simp at September 02, 2007 05:19 AM (C1O+U)

34 No, I'm not going to spend time taking your post apart. The post is shake-your-head, roll-your-eyes, laughable absurdity. If you can't see why, really you need to try to understand the subject.


Translation:
You couldn't possibly "take the post apart" because you're not that bright and easily misled.

I'm married to one of those that spends 2 months out of the year camped out on snow and ice gathering and interpreting actual observed data and working it into models that are used by climate scientists.


Last time this topic was raised (regarding the temperature data) you ignorants rushed over here to say that data like that is not used in climate models.

Funny.

Posted by: Jay at September 02, 2007 05:47 AM (4svNr)

35 I'm not going to explain why you're wrong, because I'm not sure I understand the talking points my circle jerk buddies gave me. You're just going to have to trust me, you're a doody-head.

Posted by: lefty mcleftyson at September 02, 2007 05:51 AM (KqXF5)

36

I am interested in hearing how you address the points raised by Ms Oreskes. I am sure it will be quite interesting and I'm looking forward to it.


Look, Mommy!  A Straw Man!


He's just reporting on the published report and it's significance on the debate.  Nobody, Dogstar included, meant to address the points raised.  After all, we're not talking about Oreskes' response to Schulte.  We're talking about what's significant about the report.


Irony of ironies, the title of the post is about how you guys are always moving the goalposts.  Schulte kicks a 70 yard field goal and you're telling us now he has to kick it out of the stadium.  The whole point is that his report points out a lack of the so-called consensus you guys have been harping on for the last 4 years.  Instead of addressing whether or not this consensus exits or not, you ask him to respond to Oreskes' article, which questions his definition of consensus (another straw man, by the way).


And you wonder why we don't take AGW seriously.


Posted by: otcconan at September 02, 2007 08:33 AM (pnnnd)

37 Sorry otcconan, you'll have to do better than that and can we cut the football references? Science is not a game nor is there anything wrong when a scientist corrects his data. That is in fact a mark of integrity.

You say you are discussing the report and it's significance to the debate. The point we are making is that the report has yet to be published and therefore your discussion is trivial. You don't know the contents of the report, all you have is a press release.

Posted by: noen at September 02, 2007 09:01 AM (jfxIR)

38

<i>You don't know the contents of the report, all you have is a press release.</i>


Um, yeah we do.  We already told you what's in the report.  See, that's why you're mad.  Because the report disagrees with your position.


Wow.  Maybe we should ask Ace to add some type of "Paint" application to this blog, so we can draw pictures.


Nah, it probably wouldn't help.


 


Posted by: Dogstar at September 02, 2007 09:33 AM (FgxdU)

39 Ah yes it reminds me of  that old classic disco southern spiritual. THE ROOF THE ROOF THE ROOF IS ON FIRE! THE ROOF IS ON FIRE LET THE MOTHER FUCKER BURN !! So I guess Commie Gore is doing Armand Hammer proud these days, after all  his data is so convincing he had to make a movie, propagandize the public school system and now he is getting ready to spend someone elses perfectly good 100 million on a national ad campaign. Buncha stinkin hippies.

Posted by: sonnyspats1 at September 02, 2007 02:59 PM (Fitly)

40 I don't get it.  I, personally, do not know whether there is global warming going on so I'm not going to argue that point.  I'm not a scientist - I'm a marketer.  But, this is such a no brainer.  Okay - if the people I trust are wrong, the reports I've read are wrong, the business men (including the oil companies) are wrong and there is no global warming?  Then, gee, we will have other energy sources than the limited oil in the Middle East (which is NOT going to go down in price.)  Some businesses might suffer in the short term but, this has been in the news since the 90's so, it's not an abrupt turnaround and that happens in business.  I've seen a lot of businesses having to make changes with the internet and I don't see a lot of crying for them.  And we'll have developed whole new economies to make up for it - getting American ingenuity going, putting some funding behind it.

But, what if the scientists you trust are wrong and there is global warming?   And we chose not to do anything about it. We f@ck up the ecosystem, the water level rises, we have to make changes more abruptly and - yet again - the stupidity in the U.S. makes sure we are not market leaders and the U.S. continues its downward spiral.  (You do know our children are not leading in the sciences, mathematics, technology - not to mention having lower life spans, getting shorter, etc.)

Get your head up out of the sand.

Posted by: jillbryant at September 02, 2007 05:27 PM (bS3/D)

41 But, what if the scientists you trust are wrong and there is global warming?

What if the scientists are right and there isn't? Or it's not serious? Or it's nothing we can do about it?

We fuck up the economy for no reason, there's nothing to "market", and you'd have to resort to peddling your ass on the street to make a living.

Why not go screech at the Chinese? They're the ones with all those filthy 1920s technology coal plants.

Better still, why don't you hippies shut the fuck up and let us build nuclear power plants? Zero CO2 emissions, you know.




Posted by: Dead Career Sketch at September 02, 2007 05:39 PM (NdG3x)

42 So, Dogstar, did Unocal/Chevron Corp. make you sign some kinda pre-employment form guaranteeing your opposition to GW science, or is that just a happy coincidence?

Posted by: Svlad Jelly at September 02, 2007 05:44 PM (EuobY)

43

  "And we'll have developed whole new economies to make up for it - getting American ingenuity going, given every socialialst, freedom-loathing, power-grabbing, thieving busybody, free access to our wallets, putting some funding behind it."


See how much clearer that is now, Jill?


I'd love for my next car to be hydrogen powered, (if only to stick it in Mohammad's ass and break it off)  but not because the left has decided to start another one of their disasterous propaganda stampedes in order to grab more power for themselves, (see Social Security, Medicare, the Dept. of Education, HUD, socialized health care,etc.).


The science does not confirm what you're agitating for, and it's really none of your goddamned business what kind of car I drive.


But come back and see me when the doomsayers are again preaching global cooling down at your church the way they were 30 yrs ago.  Maybe we'll talk then.


Posted by: rickinstl at September 02, 2007 05:47 PM (gELqz)

44

I love how the libtrolls have their meme:


 


anything that goes against the high church of Gaia and the Prophet Goracle is attacked as a shill for Karl Rove or Big Oil. How is it that you can call GWB the stupidest guy on the face of the earth, yet claim he is so sneaky and skillful to pull this one off? 


Posted by: eddiebear at September 02, 2007 05:53 PM (euYNS)

45 Wow - you guys are a laugh riot.  Sorry I wandered over here.  Don't worry - I won't be back - you guys can agree with each other until you feel like men.

I don't give a f@ck what kind of car you drive.  I care that the American car industry is down the tubes.  Or, you know what - forget all that - get yourself a Hummer - I'm sure you could pick up whatever model they still make really cheaply. 

And - I am for nuclear power plant - I would like them to be built by someone competent though (oops - no one in Bush's world) and I would like there to be a good plan to dispose of the waste (long half-life you know but...no, you're members of the party that think the Earth is 6000 years old so you wouldn't get that.)

Funding - you have no idea how the scientific community works.  How do you think you R&D works?  You think funding means some of your taxes might not be going to the war effort or bailing out the banks or ?  Don't worry your pretty little head about it, corporations put in the funding and they reap the benefits. 

Posted by: jillbryant at September 02, 2007 06:27 PM (bS3/D)

46

Funding - you have no idea how the scientific community works.  How do you think you R&D works? 


Well thank you Ms. Marketing Major for lecturing us on the ins and outs of funding and nuclear power plant construction.


Can't wait to hear the Marketing Community's views on Total Nuclear War, International Monetary Policy, Cool Jazz, Daylight Savings Time, and all of the other questions that are undoubtedly answered when one studies Marketing.  Although that Total Nuclear War one might require a call to a Human Resources Major to get their take.


Pull your head out, Jill.


Posted by: rickinstl at September 02, 2007 06:42 PM (gELqz)

47

"Sorry I wandered over here"


apology accepted


"I care that the American car industry is down the tubes."


Having environmentalists put more regulations on Detroit is going to help American automobile companies - how?


"And - I am for nuclear power plant - I would like them to be built by someone competent though (oops - no one in Bush's world)"


Yes because every single person in Bush's world who would build a nuclear power plant and (chances are) never even met him is incompetent.  Once Bush is no longer President, do these people magically disappear? Do they go off into some fairy land and no longer seek to build nuclear power plants? (You do realize that private companies would be building the power plants (at least if you guys would let them) not the government and not Bush's administration)


More importantly, don't you find it odd that you couldn't beat his collection of incompetent bastards in '04 and 2000 when you went up against him?


Aside from nuclear power plants, just one piece of advice: see who wins, see who loses, then decide who the idiot is.  If a guy keeps beating you, calling him an idiot reflects pretty badly on yourself.


Posted by: AD at September 02, 2007 07:10 PM (TNzLV)

48 long half-life you know

Translation: "I don't have a fucking clue what I'm screeching about."

Hint: The longer the half-life, the less radioactive something is. By definition. "Infinite half-life" = "not radioactive at all". Look it up.

You think we believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, then display your brutal ignorance of modern physics in the same sentence. Nice going.

Posted by: Dead Career Sketch at September 03, 2007 03:13 AM (NdG3x)

49 It's a shame that Jill left. I was looking forward to being edified by more of her lectures on the physical sciences (and by "edified by" I mean "laughing at").

Posted by: Dead Career Sketch at September 03, 2007 03:31 AM (NdG3x)

50

Sorry otcconan, you'll have to do better than that and can we cut the football references? Science is not a game nor is there anything wrong when a scientist corrects his data. That is in fact a mark of integrity.


I'll try to put it in non-football terms for you.  Although if you don't like football you're obviously a Pinko and I really don't care...


Look...if you make a claim, and someone shoots it down, you don't start saying you didn't make that claim.  Or argue that that person misunderstood your claim.  If I say the sky is red and you use spectrographs to prove that it is, in fact, blue, I can't say you're lying by saying I originally said it was purple.  It doesn't work that way.


Still, I wouldn't know anyway, what color the sky is since I'm colorblind.  But that's beside the point.


Posted by: otcconan at September 03, 2007 06:18 AM (pnnnd)

51

Oh geez, Bush already knows that Global Warming is real and, unlike the socialists whose fixes won't work, he has a plan that will work.


Nukular Winter.


Why do you think he's been ignoring the catastrophic destruction of the Universe Earth from GW and focusing like a laser beam on totally inoffensive Iran? I mean, he's been pushing them so hard they have to get nukes just to make themselves feel safe from that crazy cowboy. Don't you think Karl Rove and Cheney have a reason for making Bush do that?


Karl Rove and Dick Cheney (as per their Haliburton master's orders) are obviously pushing this plan, they just need to make sure Bush pushes the right button (not the intercom button, but the nukular button) at the right time and GW will be solved forever and their other corporate masters at Exxon can keep pumping that sweet, sweet oil through the Persian glass.
And you hippies still won't be happy.


Posted by: Veeshir at September 03, 2007 07:37 AM (zXUuJ)

52

There's also a "concensus" among Senate Democrats (who were among the "95" in the "95-0" against)  when the Senate voted on ratifying Kyoto in 1997.


Oops, wrong concensus.  Like someone else said above, I'll start acting worried when the people who are telling me to act worried start acting like THEY THEMSELVES are actually worried.


Posted by: furious at September 03, 2007 01:06 PM (c0fAX)

53 Okay - I lied.  I came back because Christopher Hitchens just so happened to say the same thing I was trying to say here.  I'm thinking you might like it better from a guy who supported a war in Iraq.  http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/
You'll need to scroll down to find it and probably have to bypass some liberal stuff......but, that will just give you more stuff to make fun of.

And - of course, I had to look at the comments and, of course, you didn't understand what I said.
1)  First - I wasn't a marketing major - math major - marketing was just what ended up interesting me - especially in politics - how people will go against what is actually to their benefit if the marketing is right.  Which comes to someone talking about was I amazed at how the Democrats lost.  Nope - like I said - I look at the marketing.  Frank Luntz is slime but good.  I overestimated the savvy of the public in 2000 but I haven't made that mistake again. 
2)  I wasn't explaining funding of a nuclear power plant.  I have no idea how that gets funded - I was responding to someone else saying funding for development was some form of socialism.  Since I've worked at high tech companies and have also dealt with pharmaceutical companies, I have seen funding in action.  They invite the marketing people into those meetings.  No socialism there.
3)  I did not learn about nuclear power plants in my physics class - it was chemistry and the half life of radioactive waste was always a problem as I remember - maybe you're in the field and they have good solutions now? But, why you are bringing up infinite half life though, I don't know.   I would assume that is something that doesn't degrade at all and I think it's meaningless to this discussion.
 
Okay ---- you all enjoy yourselves now, y'here?

Posted by: jillbryant at September 03, 2007 10:16 PM (bS3/D)

54 Jill, the one who brought up atomic half-life was you.  The length of time an isotope is radioactive IS a problem with radioactive waste.  That does not equate to a "long half-life you know", since in the case of radioactive waste we're talking about things decaying over hundreds of years (a long time to us since we live only about 80 or so years, but not from a geoloical standpoint) , as opposed to thousands or millions.

And here we have a prime example of 'moving the goal-posts'.  You claim you'd support nuclear power if it wasn't put up by Bush and his 'incompetents'.  Then when it's pointed out that it wouldn't be Bush putting them up, you claim the funding is of power plants is irrelevant.  You also bring up the problem of what to do with the waste, flubbing the reason why it's a problem.  When you're called on that, you once again say it's irrelevant.  If it's so damn irrelevant, why say it in the first place?

Posted by: Ranba Ral at September 04, 2007 07:14 AM (h2MEX)

55

If it's so damn irrelevant, why say it in the first place?


 


Oooooooo.


 


I wish I said that. Dang you.


Posted by: John Galt at September 04, 2007 09:05 AM (8OFmt)

56 I know I brought up half life.  I said I didn't know what "infinite" half life had to do with it because I don't think any of the elements have an infinite half life (I am not familiar with the term but I'm assuming it means there is no decay.) 
I don't know what they are doing with radioactive waste now - I know they were using some kinds of uranium and plutonium when I studied it and that was a while ago but some portion of that had a long half life - more in the thousands of years....maybe that has changed?  I know my knowledge in this is very basic and maybe I have to start reading about it.  I haven't thought about all this since I took Chemistry. 

I was not flubbing the answer - If you say the length of time the waste is radioactive is no longer a problem in disposal - than go for it.   I said as long as they have a good way to get rid of it and as long as it wasn't Bush and his incompetents building it (should I have added crony there?) I was for it.

The funding comment did not have anything to do with nuclear power plants. It  was talking about the growth of other businesses based around working against climate change....you'd have to look a few comments back.  I never even used the word "irrelevant" - I said I didn't know how nuclear plants were funded.  I know how R&D gets funded in companies though because I've seen it and THAT'S what I was referring to with funding.  Again - I don't know how nuclear power plants get funded....I did not say it was irrelevant.

So - I didn't move any goal posts and it's a little scary that's what you got out of this.  And maybe you could tell your friend who agreed with you. 



Posted by: jillbryant at September 04, 2007 10:41 PM (nhACf)

57

- Jill, for third time, it wouldn't be Bush building the plants (and please provide me evidence it would be Bush cronies building the plants) -- it's private companies that do this, the same private companies that will be seeking to build nuclear power plants when a Democrat is in office.


You're flubbing around (at least it appears that way) for a way to still be against nuclear power plants and to attack Bush when he has very little to do with this.


- The point (re: a long half) is that for something to be radioactive, the matter must decay.


The longer a material's half life is --> the less radioactive stuff it emits during a specified period (because it decays more slowly) --> the **less** radioactive that object is


If something has an infinite half life, if it doesn't decay at all, by definition it's not radioactive at all.


- Not knowing all this stuff is perfectly forgivable and I wouldn't fault you at all for it . . . if you didn't jump on your high horse and bemoan all of our ignorance about these sorts of issues while at the same time displaying a considerable amount of ignorance yourself.


I don't expect everybody to be a political junkie or a science freak--but please get your facts in order before you fault other people for not being up to standards you don't meet.


Posted by: AD at September 05, 2007 06:41 PM (TNzLV)

58 First - to me - global warming has nothing to do with politics.

And, for the fourth time.  I am NOT against nuclear power plants.  I am FOR nuclear power plants.  Obviously, there have been problems - Three Mile Island and Chernobyl is what made me bring up the safety caveat.  The comment about Bush was just a slam on Bush's incompetence and his habit of hiring loyal but unsuitable cronies.  He is going to be gone, gone, gone by the time this happens.  I KNOW that.  A few snarks seemed quite suitable since someone mentioned I was going to have to peddle my @ss on the street.

The infinite half life is NOT meaningful in this discussion because it's not relevant to the radioactive waste I was talking about.  I do not know a lot about this - as I've said - but, I do know that radioactive waste USED to be an issue.  I don't know if it still is - that was why I brought it up.  Where to bury any kind of garbage is a problem - much less radioactive waste. 

I am not a science freak but I think a basic understanding of the way nuclear power plants work is within my grasp.   I did not act like you are all ignorant about this - I snarked the fundamentalists who say the world is 6K years old and seem to be in your party ---- I KNOW that doesn't mean you agree with them any more than I agree with some things other liberals say.  I only speak for myself. 

Anyway --- just couldn't leave the record wrong.  Not a political junkie - blog junkie......

Posted by: jillbryant at September 08, 2007 08:25 PM (kggqj)

59

"I am NOT against nuclear power plants.  I am FOR nuclear power plants."


Jill, it was a red herring.  If you see a discussion on nuclear power plants and are so focused on Bush that you bring him into this, okay - but it had nothing to do with the topic.  You could have just said it was snark in the last comment and avoided an argument about that , but--since you didn't clarify that--exactly what reaction were you expecting besides us replying to it?


"The infinite half life is NOT meaningful in this discussion because it's not relevant to the radioactive waste I was talking about."


No, but long half life.  He was making a point, that the longer it is the less radioactive it is - He was not saying the objects in question have an infinite half life.


"I did not act like you are all ignorant about this -"


Jill, here's some quotes from you from above -


"you have no idea how the scientific community works."


"the stupidity in the U.S. makes sure we are not market leaders and the U.S. continues its downward spiral."


"Get your head up out of the sand."


Posted by: AD at September 09, 2007 04:49 AM (mAZHM)

60 Typo: "No, but long half life is."

Posted by: AD at September 09, 2007 04:51 AM (mAZHM)

61 Odd. There's no update to this post mentioning the article was rejected for publication due to plagiarism and major methodological flaws, just as us crazy moonbats were saying. I'm sure there's a post on the site somewhere that acknowledges the mistakes and corrects the record..... oh, nope. Wow, that's some grade A intellectual honesty y'all are slingin here.

Posted by: brad at October 07, 2007 01:31 PM (yMXMv)

62 FX shows a combination of brand new must see drama's from the US,Better luck next time.<a href="http://www.gaikaex.net">FX</a>¤È¤Ï¤É¤ó¤ÊÈ¡Òý¤«£¿Íâ¹úžéÌæ¡¢¤Ä¤Þ¤ê¡¸ƒÒ¡¹¡¸Ãץɥ롹¡¸¥æ©`¥í¡¹¡¸Ó¢¥Ý¥ó¥É¡¹¤Ê¤É¤ÎµØÓò¤´¤È¤Îͨ؛
<a href="http://www.gaikaex.net">FX</a>¤Î¥á¥ê¥Ã¥È
    1.¥¹¥ï¥Ã¥×¤¬¤â¤é¤¨¤ë
    2.ÊÖÊýÁϤ¬°²¤¤
    3.ÉϤ¬¤Ã¤Æ¤âϤ¬¤Ã¤Æ¤âƒ¦¤±¤ë¤³¤È¤¬¤Ç¤­¤ë
    4.£²£´•régÈ¡Òý¤¬¤Ç¤­¤ë
    5.É٤ʤ¤Í¶ÙY¤Ç´ó¤­¤ÊÀûÒ椬µÃ¤é¤ì¤ë

Posted by: FX at January 03, 2008 08:31 PM (bqEhg)

63 Thanks for help, Keep up the good work.

Posted by: Usb pendrive at January 09, 2008 12:14 PM (qrnH2)

Posted by: DVD at February 20, 2008 11:48 PM (s6Isg)

65 pnvdamwy zsqk cepsfu dwlf tsbnwudzf rlqvyw elfzhtyvj

Posted by: ywsquomdg qgizhcxd at February 21, 2008 11:03 AM (jAxKZ)

66 foxg xbtk

Posted by: hardcore free porn clips at May 11, 2008 12:39 PM (KjaQP)

67 deua vbpr

Posted by: sexually stimulate woman at June 02, 2008 11:09 PM (xuD/0)

68 good job. thanks for all

Posted by: DVD at October 20, 2008 08:30 PM (jQeu+)

Posted by: bbsg at February 05, 2009 03:33 PM (b40qC)

Posted by: Robert at February 11, 2009 11:55 PM (XCTXD)

71 Se n�o h� nenhuma loja para a r�plica rejser em torno de seu �rea ou pa�s do que n�o precisar de come� worried porque voc� pode facilmente surfar o Internet e procurarar os locais onde voc� encontra a r�plica Tiffany da boa qualidade a pre�os muito razo�veis.

Posted by: girlteam2009 at September 05, 2009 11:39 AM (k7dKT)

Posted by: ttrtrtrert at December 20, 2009 11:52 PM (AhWDM)

Posted by: beijing tour at March 31, 2010 01:28 AM (oDYcM)

Posted by: beijing tour at March 31, 2010 01:30 AM (oDYcM)

Posted by: dds at June 17, 2011 07:10 AM (S+ElG)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
127kb generated in CPU 0.17, elapsed 1.2833 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.1778 seconds, 311 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.