2014-03-13 11:45 GMT+01:00 <[email protected]>: > Yes, I realize you are opposed to GMO, >
I realize you can't read... I'm quoting him: " for example ***I*** have no patience with ***the view*** *(not his)* (all too common among those on the left) that GMOs are a dangerous health risk since *all the scientific experts I've seen* say that extensive study has shown no more health risks from GMOs than from crops created through selective breeding." > I acknowledge that you are confident of the climate alarmists, yes, you > concede that some Red-Greens (there are none others) oppose nuclear > fission, you would say some of them, and I will claim nearly all. You write > of solar as if it now at hand, to replace dirty energy with the clean. You > have no comment on the inconsistency of the power elites' behavior, in not > behaving as if there is no climate change, yet advocating it as public > policy, as if it were true. You have dismissed this inconsistency as due to > the elites' short-term thinking, and concur with the scientists who are > employed by these people. I do ascribe nefarious, motives, to the > scientists, as no one else dares to. Simon, pure, they are not. But this is > mere, observation, and you will dismiss this. As to physics, and chemistry, > geology, and astronomy, the life sciences, I am ok, fine, with what they > pursue. What they pursue (no matter political affiliation) are, at least, > not funded by greedy politicians, who are themselves funded by billionaire > elites and their PAC's. Please invoke the Koch Brothers and I will be happy > to list George Soros's influence in politics and his world view. > > Thorium reactors, molten salt, or liquid fluoride might be safer, but I am > not sure, I don't know. If molten salt comes in contact with water or air, > I have read it could combust, and combust, furiously. Hence, my re-focus on > solar, out of necessity. Yet, we are being told that there's no time for > this development of solar, by greens. What do they want us to do, a > rational person may ask (assuming we can find one)? > > The great booming word from environmentalists is conservation, followed by > the sound of chirping crickets, yes, there's a few crickets still alive > after massive species decimation. When the discussion turns from technology > to government control, and the necessity for it as promoted by pols who > cite scientists, my spider-sense becomes active. Yes, there a few spiders > left after environmental degradation. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jesse Mazer <[email protected]> > To: everything-list <[email protected]> > Sent: Thu, Mar 13, 2014 12:47 am > Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating > > > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 7:36 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> My integrity is not the issue, >> > > Yes it is, since you made an error in your reading of the Royal > Society/National Academy of Sciences paper, and instead of admitting the > error you simply ignore the issue even when I repeatedly question you about > it. > > > >> for someone who states- >> *This all falls under "gossipy political speculations about human >> motivations", I'm not interested in dragging this stuff into a conversation >> about natural science* >> > > Not sure what connection you think there is between this statement of > mine and "integrity". Would you respect my integrity more if I made up > unfalsifiable fantasy narratives about the nefarious motives of > conservatives and global warming deniers to counter your equally > unfalsifiable fantasy narratives about the nefarious motives of liberals > and environmentalists? > > > >> Again, its science when its on your own terms, and it suits your >> ideology. >> > > Not at all, as I said to John Clark I treat it as the default position > that whenever scientists in a field of natural science express confidence > about ANY technical claim in their field, and there doesn't seem to be > substantial disagreement among them, then my starting assumption is that > they are most likely right about this claim (an assumption I would only be > likely to change if I acquired enough knowledge the field to understand the > detailed basis for the claims myself and find technical reasons to doubt > them, or if I found out that some substantial number of other scientists > disputed the claim). This is a blanket view of all natural science claims > that has nothing to do with political ideology, for example I have no > patience with the view (all too common among those on the left) that GMOs > are a dangerous health risk since all the scientific experts I've seen say > that extensive study has shown no more health risks from GMOs than from > crops created through selective breeding. > > Anyone who does NOT adopt this blanket view of scientific claims is > almost certainly filtering their evaluations of science through their > personal ideology, and lacking respect for the importance of detailed > technical understanding when evaluating scientific issues. I suspect your > understanding of the detailed evidence behind many other scientific claims, > like estimates of the age of the universe in cosmology, is just as poor as > your understanding of the evidence surrounding global warming, but I > imagine you don't put forth fantasy narratives of cosmologists > peer-pressuring each other into accepting each other's models and wildly > exaggerating the strength of the evidence for their theories, presumably > because you have no ideological reason to dispute the idea that the Big > Bang happened 13.75 billion years ago. Unless you are equally skeptical > about *all* scientific claims whose technical basis you don't understand, > you have a clear double standard--mistrust the scientists when their claims > conflict with your ideology, but trust them when there is no such > ideological conflict. > > > >> Your nuclear energy remediation proposal will be violent opposed by your >> green chums, so it becomes, effectively, no answer. >> > > Certainly there are plenty of "greens" who oppose nuclear power (and > examples like Fukushima show the risks are not to be scoffed at, although > they are mainly risks to human health rather than environmental risks), but > also plenty of greens who have come around to the view that nuclear power > is a lesser evil when compared to fossil fuels, see for example this > article that details many leading environmentalists who have become more > nuclear-friendly (I suspect the number would be higher if we had thorium > reactors, which should be significantly safer): > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/23/AR2009112303966.html > > Meanwhile, you completely ignored my point about it being well within > the range of possibility to get all our energy from solar. > > > > >> I will prove your prediction correct with pure volition. I read the >> Nature realclimate link, article and my take away is its a struggle to try >> to figure out where the IPCC predictions went wrong? Was it el nino, heat >> sinks in the Pacific, etc. >> > > I'm glad you at least looked at it, but as with the Royal > Society/National Academy of Sciences paper, your understanding of what you > read seems to be quite poor (perhaps because you read with the attitude of > "looking for flaws" rather than just trying to understand what's being > argued). No one says the cooling is because of El Niño, but rather > because La Niña has replaced El Niño for a while (part of a long-term > cycle called 'pacific-decadal oscillation'), and the La Niña stage is > thought to be ASSOCIATED WITH more heat being stored in the pacific, not a > separate phenomenon that could be construed as a conflicting explanation. > From the link at > http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/12/the-global-temperature-jigsaw/-- > > "Leading U.S. climatologist Kevin Trenberth has studied this for twenty > years and has just published a detailed explanatory article [ > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000165/full ]. Trenberth > emphasizes the role of long-term variations of ENSO, called pacific-decadal > oscillation (PDO). Put simply: phases with more El Niño and phases with > predominant La Niña conditions (as we’ve had recently) may persist for up > to two decades in the tropical Pacific. The latter brings a somewhat slower > warming at the surface of our planet, because more heat is stored deeper in > the ocean. A central point here: even if the surface temperature stagnates > our planet continues to take up heat. The increasing greenhouse effect > leads to a radiation imbalance: we absorb more heat from the sun than we > emit back into space. 90% of this heat ends up in the ocean due to the high > heat capacity of water." > > The author also specifically says that when El Niño comes back, > replacing La Niña once again, he predicts this will end the pause in > global warming: > > "How important the effect of El Niño is will be revealed at the next > decent El Niño event. I have already predicted last year that after the > next El Niño a new record in global temperature will be reached again – a > forecast that probably will be confirmed or falsified soon." > > > > >> The point is that your team is fumbling about trying to look what went >> wrong >> > > "My team"? Again you show your obsessive need to cast everything into us > vs. them, tribalistic terms. Hint: truth about the natural world should not > be determined by whether the people that typically take a certain position > are on the right "team". > > Jesse > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
