Science and technology are at the heart of many of America’s challenges and controversies, from climate change and alternative energy to stem-cell research and teaching evolution.
Too often, though, science is pushed to the sidelines of presidential debates to make way for presumably weightier topics, such as whether Hillary Clinton is really likable or whether Dennis Kucinich saw a UFO.
My column today supports a bipartisan grassroots effort to hold a science and technology debate sometime during the election season.
I think it’s a great idea, and it’s fast gaining support. See the group’s Web site.
72 Comments
Well I haven’t seen the column yet Randy.
But as I’ve said before, I think a science and technology debate is a wonderful idea.
Of course, the right wingers would likely take the Fred Thompson course and refuse to participate…
I think it is possible to believe in both Evolution and Creation.
However, there have always been, and will always be, great Presidents, doctors, lawyers, business people and others that hold views more sympathetic to one side or the other.
Opinion, on that issue, has NOTHING to do with the abilities or the decisions of a President.
Al Gore did not mind debating NAFTA, he was for it and could support it.
Al Gore refuses to debate global warming, because he can’t hold his own, against scientists who disagree with him:
http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/Assets/Images/NYTHeartland10.30.pdf
And yes, I know, Al Gore is not running but if the High Priest of the Global Warming Religion won’t debate the issue, honestly, why should any one else?
Besides, This is all an attempt, by liberals, to elevate liberal issues.
People will vote on the economy, on defense and security, and on social issues.
Global Warming, pro or con, is way down at the bottom of the list.
Where it belongs, and where it should stay.
econ101,
Science is “debated” in credible, peer-reviewed science journals.
Dennis Avery, Chris Horner, Steven Milloy, and Lord Monckton are not climate scientists. They cannot “hold their own” against real scientists, so they stage stupid PR stunts.
‘The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change’
Naomi Oreskes
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/306/5702/1686
‘The Consensus on Global Warming: From Science to Industry & Religion’
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm
Well the kook right has a problem here.
They don’t HAVE a candidate who still denies global warming. Well, except for Thompson who refused to say one way or the other.
I think Alan Keyes was the only denier in the race. For about 3 weeks.
Not a bad idea, but a lot of issues are important. I don’t see a single topic debate happening, be it on science, or technology, or the economy, or Iraq, or education, or unions, or taxes, or foreign policy, or national defense, or race relations, or what ever hot button issue raises it head.
But wouldn’t it be fun to see some of the logic used here used by presidential candidates?
“I’m sorry Mr Huckabee, but how can you pretend to understand anything about health care technology when you don’t believe in in Darwinian evolution theory? Hmmmmm…?”
Or, “Mrs. Clinton, that comment was not bad considering that even you think you are just a step or two removed from a she ape.”
If you have a Science debate, the RW will demand a Bible Debate.
I am all for a “science debate” if it is actually that.
Something tells me, that most of you liberals, are more interested in a gothca debate where you simply try to make Candidates who don’t accept Evolutionary theory or the consensus on Global warming look dumb.
Nathan posted January 18, 2008 at 2:24 pm
“Something tells me, that most of you liberals, are more interested in a gothca debate where you simply try to make Candidates who don’t accept… the consensus on Global warming look dumb.”
A debate isn’t needed to make those candidates “look dumb”. They already do “look dumb”.
Cosmos,
Of course… it is always easier to defame your opponents rather than engage them in discussion.
Something you seem to have mastered.
What are your credentials again?
A science debate would help voters determine if the candidates will rely on actual experts in the relevant fields to advise them on matters. Voters could find out whether the candidates would suppress data/findings that went against the candidate’s ideology.
In other words . . . a science debate will show quite clearly which of the candidates are in contact with reality, and which ones would rather distort reality to fit their agenda.
ScienceDebate 2008!
Ben could probably kick my butt in a scientific debate, but I would debate most anyone else on the blog (well and Tara too - she could probably kick my butt in a debate.) :)
Not talking here on the forums, a real time debate, with a debate monitor.
Sounds like fun. We could watch a debate over science experts credentials since none of the candidates knows much science anyway. That concept really works here…
Then we could sit around afterward and watch the talking heads tell us who they thought had the best science guys in their corner.
Must see TV.
There has already been a real debate, with real debate rules, and the GW alarmists LOST:
http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/Event.aspx?Event=12
By the way, the point is NOT whether global warming is happening or not.
(I am not completely convinced that it is, but am ok with the idea that it might be.)
The point is not even whether man does or not contribute to global warming.
(I am pretty sure that man’s contribution to any climate change is very small, if any.)
The POINT?
The point is: Are the leftist Global Warming Alarmists able to prove a cost/benefit model for their proposals?
Can the GW alarmists PROVE that their rememedy is not WORSE than the “disease”?
They can’t.
None of you on this Blog can.
And, another point: Why should the United States suffer, if the rest of the world, particularly China and India and the 3rd world and Communist world, continue to do whatever they want?
If we reduce the use of carbon, we will reduce the price of carbon, and the rest of the world will then use MORE carbon.
When you ask the public their top 5 issues, Global Warming is usually NOT on the list.
The purpose of this debate is to PUT GW on that list.
No thanks.
The United Auto Workers should endorse Romney.
In fact, all factory workers should vote against the Democrat Global Warming chicken littles.
“The POINT?
The point is: Are the leftist Global Warming Alarmists able to prove a cost/benefit model for their proposals?
Can the GW alarmists PROVE that their rememedy is not WORSE than the “disease”?
They can’t.”
Posted by econ.
I am not a global alarmist, but I do believe the earth is going through a warming period. Whether man has anything to do with it or not, is something I’ll leave to the experts.
However, there is indeed a cost/benefit ratio that favors benefit in this case:
1. Oil. As in we are buying most of it from countries that either support terrorism, or condone it. Weaning ourselves off of foreign oil is a good thing.
How do we do that? By, in my opinion, starting a “Manhattan” project on alternative energy (not necessarily the government). It worked for the atomic bomb; it could work for this.
Benefits: Less air and water pollution. We wouldn’t be feeding our dollars to terrorists. It could lead to very fuel efficient transportation, and might leave gas as a reminder of the past.
Big money spent? You bet, but the benefits far outweigh the cost.
“The United Auto Workers should endorse Romney.”
Why, because the Republicans have been such good friends to the Unions over the years?
Wrong.
Because the Mitt promised to bring every lost autoworker’s job back to Michigan?
Yeah, right. How ya’ going to do that, Mitt?
Outlaw Toyotos?
Sheesh………………………
Paul - it has been done in detail - using nuclear power, wind, efficiencies etc. The cost of the cure is MUCH less then the cost of the desease.
Unfortunately, understanding that goes a bit beyond Freshman year. And the head-in-the-sand Luddites like you simply refuse to see.
As for Mitt and auto jobs - is he going to shut down all the plants across the country to force them back to Michigan?
WS, wouldn’t outlawing Toyotas be counter-productive, as there is at least one plant here in the U.S. I don’t know if UAW is the bargaining agent there, however.
VT - thing is - the Toyota plant isn’t in MICHIGAN. And Michigan is the only state that should be allowed to have car plants.
Got it, Ben. For a list of plants in North America (seven operating in the U.S., one to open in Ontario, CA in 2009 (maybe)), see link.
http://www.toyoland.com/toyota/plants.html
Probably the biggest issue from having a debate is if it is anything like the debates (using the term very loosely) here — it would last at least six months, every living scientist and probably a host of dead ones will have their credentials pulled and each side will end up having to live in eaches own gated community with armed guards to deal with stalkers etc ….. from the sounds of it they may have to have their entire immediate family join them
Posting before this inevitably turns into a evo-creation debate.
I think this is a fantastic idea, but I hesitate to put the burden of understanding research in 10 different science fields in order to “win” a debate. Unless a politician is a scientist himself, all he has is what other people say about the field. He doesn’t go in and read the literature himself and think about the weakness in methodology or interpretation of results.
I’m not quite sure what the solution is. But I’ve always wanted the scientific community to be able to explain the research and developments to the lay public, in understandable terms, and without political bias. The problem is that the public will ALWAYS suspect bias….
Posting before the inevitable evo-creation debate starts ;)
I think this is a good idea in theory, but I have a problem placing the burden of understanding the research in 10 different science fields on a politician. Unless the politician is a scientist himself, all he has to go on is what OTHER people say about the research. He wouldn’t have the time to go in and look at all the peer-reviewed papers, examine the methodology for weaknesses and search for flaws in the interpretation of results. Basically, sound science wouldn’t necessarily “win” the debate–style, rhetoric and shiny words will.
I don’t know the solution to this. I’ve always wanted the scientific community to curb its arrogance, explain the current state of research to the lay public in understandable language and do so without political bias. But even if they succeeded, people would always SUSPECT political bias if the science disagrees with their long-held notions.
(And if this does turn into an evo-creation poo-storm, I’m primed and ready) :cracks knuckles: ;)
Ah Tara sounds like my kind of woman, cracking knuckles and all. :D
Of course, I’m about three decades too old for her. :(
Nathan posted January 18, 2008 at 3:06 pm
“Cosmos,
Of course… it is always easier to defame your opponents rather than engage them in discussion.
Something you seem to have mastered.”
Unlike Nathan’s false ad hominems, I’m simply stating a fact. A candidate who ignores all the the solid climate science, and makes “dumb” statements, looks “dumb”.
Read Fred Thompson’s comments re Mars, etc at,
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm
Would Thompson like to “discuss” the different factors causing warming on Mars? “Discuss” the lack of correlation between solar activity, and Earth’s warming since the mid-1970’s?
Thompson should’ve researched AGW before making his “dumb” statements.
Before everyone gets on James for being a dirty old man, I would just like to say one of the perks of being a 20-something is getting attention from dirty old men :D
Do we really need more “debates”? Everybody has a pet issue they would like to organize more attention for.
Regular - on that we are in agreement - BOTH parts!
;) ;(
Most of our imported energy comes from Canada or Mexico.
Yes, I would like to reduce our need for Mid-East oil, but it is a pipe dream to think we will make oil and gasoline obsolete, in our lifetimes.
I would think a “grand compromise” that allows more drilling, in ANWR and elsewhere, while at the same time giving generous tax breaks for alternative energy, might be the way to go.
I am very much opposed to mandatory controls on the growth of the US economy. Carbon taxes and carbon credits are bad ideas.
econ101 knows much more than the energy experts who have carefully researched the issue. We should believe every word that econ101 types on this blog, instead of those experts. /sarcasm OFF.
The Stone Age did not end because they ran out of stones.
http://www.oilendgame.com/ReadTheBook.html
“Econ101″ –
Most, if not all, Alaskan oil is shipped to Asia.
Even if ANWR were drilled and exploited, that oil would most likely go to Asia, too.
The only way to make American oil available to American consumers is to take that oil out of the hands of the international oil industry and… wait for it… *nationalize* American oil.
Adding all of ANWR oil to the international market would be like pouring a bucket of water in the ocean. As we learned in the 70s and 80s, reserving American oil for American consumers simply makes oil companies manipulate the market.
For so many reasons — from climate change to the Middle East to the inevitable loss of fossil fuels (the ultimate non-renewable resource) — the people of planet Earth have to get away from dependency on oil.
If, in fact, we are the “Leaders of the Free World,” or “the Greatest Nation in the World,” the United States of America is obligated to take a leadership role in developing energy resources that are renewable and self-sustaining.
Shrub/Cheney have personified the Republic Party’s Take-the-Money-and-Run philosophy, by giving all sorts of tax breaks to their buds in the oil bidness. Just as George WMD Bush has increased the National Debt for future generations to deal with, the oil barons will benefit from every policy that perpetuates our dependence on an inevitably reducing resource.
One of the perks of being a 20-something is all the shameless flattery from dirty old men :D
Econ, how long do you think the resources in Alaska would last us? And is it worth destroying such pristine land for so little resources?
One of the perks of being a 20-something is all of the shameless flattery from dirty old men :D
Econ, how long do you think the oil in Alaska would supply the U.S.? And is it worth destroying such a pristine environment for such a small supply?
“but it is a pipe dream to think we will make oil and gasoline obsolete, in our lifetimes.”
Ya know? I almost consider that statement unAmerican. How little belief some have in America.
Sad.
Where was I? Oh the debates.
Well sleepy ol’ Fred Thompson won’t EVER be discussing global warming.
He refused to at one debate. And if there WERE a science and technology debate? Fred won’t be weighing in there either.
Well, unless they hold the debate late this night. See tomorrow is the South Carolina primary. Fred has all his few marbles invested there.
Last polled he was pulling the big 11 %
So Fred will be outta the running ooh ’bout 22 hours from now.
Hey
I want my President to be Albert Einstein, which would be Heel-a-ree Clin-tone.
I put my rose colored glasses on and I don’t care what Heel-a-ree has done or not done, in the past.
I believe she will do everything she says she will do.
Becuase I am a dumacrat!
Tara
“Protecting” ANWR is rather snobish, actually. Lets assume that the area we would develop would actually “destroy” ANWR — we are talking about a barren area that less than 1% of the American population will ever see or enjoy.
The truth is, however, that ANWR can be developed without any real harm to the natural environment.
http://www.anwr.org/photo.htm
Top 10 reasons to develop ANWR:
http://www.anwr.org/topten.htm
Only 8% of ANWR is even being considered for develpment.
Monkey:
It does not matter WHERE the oil goes. Not at all.
Every drop of oil produced, in the entire world, meets world demand. This keeps prices lower for everyone. Simple supply and demand.
Also, the question is “NET” energy use. ANWR production would reduce our NET foreign use of oil. Exported oil comes OFF our balance of trade figures.
Also, Oil production will creat hundreds of thousands of jobs and $billions in tax revenue, for all 50 states and the US Treasury.
One other thing, Monkey, Oil we sell to Japan might stop Japan from producing “Methane Hydrate” or slow production of that fuel.
http://www.jdc.co.jp/methanehydrates.html
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/hydrates/index.html
I really don’t see the point of a science debate.
When a presidential candidate is asked a question about a scientific issue, he best answer he/she can give to a science question is exactly the sort of thing Clinton said when it was thought that there was evidence of life on Mars. Let the process run its course, let the people who know what they are doing do their jobs. And oh yes, when you ask for scientific advice, listen, and do not let your preconcieved political notions get in the way of what you hear.
“but it is a pipe dream to think we will make oil and gasoline obsolete, in our lifetimes.”
We made gasoline a necessity within a generation - certainly we can eliminate the need for same within that timeframe.
Easy - we just have to be willing to use our Yankee ingenuity as we did 100 years ago.
WS
Nobody outlawed horses or trains to “force” the production of the automobile.
Alternatives are fine. They will be developed naturally, in due course.
Many of those alternatives, like Methane Hydrate, Shale Oil and Coal Gassification are carbon-based ideas.
Some existing alternatives like nuclear and wind and solar will also be expanded.
Still, carbon based fuels will always be with us.
What frightens you about moving from a petroleum based energy environment, Paul? Why the scare tactics and the ceaseless slamming of ANY other concept?
And no, carbon based fuels will not always be with us……….. try thinking beyond just your lifetime.
“Still, carbon based fuels will always be with us.”
We still have rocks but we’ve left the stone age. What is the shill for fossil fuels stake in holding us back?
“Nobody outlawed horses or trains to “force” the production of the automobile.”
Oh right you are. In fact, the horse and tack industry had a powerful lobby and onerous laws were enacted to protect them.
Just like you are trying to do now to KEEP us using fossil fuels!
It’s a stupid idea. Our nation has many issues facing it.
Whether the candidates took 8th grade science means nothing to me.
They do not have to know that energy equals mass times the velocity of light measured in centimeters
per second.
I need to know (in no particular order):
1. Will they end the war
2. What will they do about terrorism
3. What will they do about social programs
4. What will they do about the economy (if anyting)
5. What they will about the illegal criminals infiltrating across our borders.
6. What they will do about those already here illegally.
7. What they will do about GW
Will you propose a religious debate next?
I could care less about their ability to convert farenhite to celcius (sp).
I could care less whether they can fry an egg on concrete.
We have big problems facing this nation.
A science contest is not one of them.
It’s a stupid idea. Our nation has many issues facing it.
Whether the candidates took 8th grade science means nothing to me.
They do not have to know that energy equals mass times the velocity of light measured in centimeters
per second.
I need to know (in no particular order):
1. Will they end the war?
2. What will they do about terrorism?
3. What will they do about social programs?
4. What will they do about the economy (if anything?)
5. What they will about the illegal criminals infiltrating across our borders.
6. What they will do about those already here illegally.
7. What they will do about GW
Will you propose a religious debate next?
I could care less about their ability to convert Fahrenheit to Celsius (sp).
I could care less whether they can fry an egg on concrete.
We have big problems facing this nation.
A science contest is not one of them.
American Way - “They do not have to know that energy equals mass times the velocity of light measured in centimeters per second.”
D’ya want cgs or mks?
“We have big problems facing this nation.
A science contest is not one of them.”
Yes, we DO have big problems facing this nation. These problems won’t be solved by administrations which actively suppress science research/data. The problems won’t be solved by leaders who refuse to accept scientific reality because it disagrees with their favorite holy text. And the problems won’t be solved by an administration which refuses to heed the advice of the overwhelming majority of experts in the relevant fields.
If a candidate can show that they’re willing to surround themselves with knowledgeable, thoughtful people with experience that matters, we won’t have to deal with any more “heckuva job, Brownie” aftermaths.
Do you think that a leader who won’t recognize reality will be able to solve our nation’s oh-so-real problems?
nunyer
The “Scientific Community” along with the grant writing and grant awarding system, in this country, already tries to “suppress” politically incorrect ideas.
Libs
CARBON BASED FUELS WILL ALWAYS BE WITH US!
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, on the horizon, that would eliminate our need for carbon based fuels.
Also, what ideas we do have, for alternative energy, involve carbon: Clean coal technology, Shale oil, Methane Hydrate.
Econ, you have no credibility.
You have already demonstrated a tendancy to bullsh*t, to say what you want to be true, without regard to reality.
To equate concern with global warming with the position of absolutely eliminating fossil fuels is rank stupidity. And efforts to come up with technological solutions to cutting back on emissions does have an enormous potential R & D element.
But beside all that, reality is what it is. The natural world is what it is. It doesn’t have any concern for conservative shills who run around sqawking about economic disaster because the findings of scientists might might cause gummit regulation forcing companies to come up with different ways to do things. There are ways to seriously cut back on emissions now if Detroit were to get off of their collective butt and do something.
So Econ101, do *you* think that a leader who ignores reality will make the best decisions for our country?
KsAgnostic
All you need to do is read the radical GW fanatics, on this thread, and on this Blog, to see that some liberals DO want to eliminate the use of coal and gasoline.
They have said so, directly.
Man is accused of allowing his pit bull run wild, and it bites a child.
In court, he argues:
My dog was not home that day.
My fence is high enough to keep my dog safely in my yard.
I Don’t own a dog!
—-
Just read, KsAgnostic.
When arguing libs, on this Blog, I have to argue with the most radical, first.
I did so.
Carbon based fuels WILL always be with us.
Several Libs, on this thread, say that is a false statement.
YOU, on the otherhand, tell me NOBODY makes that claim, when clearly they HAVE said that their goal is to eliminate carbon based fuels.
Ask JR the liar.
so Nathan…………….how old is the Earth?
Still only 10,000 years old?
Reality?
Reality is that the public does not want to eliminate carbon based fuels.
Reality is that the country would like us to be less reliant on foreign oil.
Reality is that we CAN’T do without carbon based fuels.
Reality is that there are liberals who want to stop the production of new carbon based techology
Reality is that solar and wind power can not possibly help much, for transportaton purposes.
Reality is that solar and wind can only supplement a small portion of our electicity needs.
Reality is that Nuclear, Shale Oil, Clean Coal, and Methane Hydrate WILL be part of any new technology, for the production of electricity.
Forsing some new, unknown energy source or technology is like the Alchemists trying to turn lead into gold.
It won’t happen by force.
If it happens at all, it will happen naturally and gradually.
Reality is on this and another thread, paulthecon shill for fossil fuels says the human race will be dependent on the technology of the last 100 years….FOREVER.
This demonstrates a disconnect from reality and a desperation motivated by personal interest.
And Nathan called ME a liar?
Maybe Nathan’s pal “regular” aka “kansas” aka etc etc will be along to add HIS light weight to the debate too.
Apophis,
What created life, some mystical spark in a puddle of goo?
And since this is so easy already?
Why not have more fun?
Paulthecon says we will be needing fossil fuels FOREVER.
Folks? If he is right (he isn’t he has a financial stake in fossil fuels) we got us one big problem!
We are already near peaking on oil recovery. Coal will last us a bit longer.
But….FOREVER?
I think we owe the next generation and the next better than dependence FOREVER on resources that cannot last anywhere near that long.
Let’s start now shall we?
JR,
It must be nice having no financials at all, so you couldn’t ever possibly be accused of your motives being based on finances you don’t have.
Then again, didn’t you just say the other day you had something at stake in recycling?
Could your motives only be based on your making money in some job based on alternative fuels?
Why should we listen to you?
Oh I don’t know Nathan.
Would you rather listen to paulthecon? Or? Is your buddy “Regular” more to your liking?
Fossil fuels are just that. The fuel of the past.
Are you admitting a financial bias to them?
Your dad has it. Is it trickle down to you or are you so invested as well?
JR,
If fossil fuels are of the past, what exactly is it that you are putting into your truck?
Last I checked oil was used in many things like plastic, not just gasoline.
Im personally working in recycling and conserving energy Nathan.
That’s the trend of America. And you laugh at me being poor because of it?
And you and yours are invested in? And you are rich and nasty and on the defensive for?
JR,
I don’t laugh at you. Well, except for when you wanted to go 10 rounds with me. Which, by the way, I am still willing to do.
I am merely saying that it must be easy not having any money invested in anything so that you can pretend to be free from any motives while accusing everyone else of only looking at it with their money in mind.
Since you are working in conserving energy, couldn’t we just as easily argue that the only reason you are against fossil fuels is because it is keeping you employed?
Yeah Nathan you do flaunt your wealth over mine. You also post vile lies which I have exposed you on.
Forget my motivations Nathan. I’m not wealthy in them as you eagerly point out.
What are yours? You ARE wealthy in them. Now you were willing to go to Iraq twice and do your duty behind the lines. And certainly I would not advocate you go there again.
But along your line of thinking? Well America will have to be there. To secure the peak oil that econ says will last forever ya know.
Are you demanding my son to do what you did for your Dad? Sorry, no stake for my family.
I am trying to be part of the solution and you ARE being part of the problem as to energy. And you want to make me the bad, selfish one? Why?
Now you’ve yourself BEEN indefensible Nathan. Now you want to defend the indefensible?
And I’m going to bed and leaving you in the company of the “we” you took on yourself Nathan.
Was it the Imperial? Or, were you speaking for you, your dad, and paulthecon?
Nathan
Posted January 19, 2008 at 11:00 pm | Permalink
Apophis,
What created life, some mystical spark in a puddle of goo?
Let’s seee, I ask YOu how old the Earth is in YOUR opinion and you reply with the above question.
I’ll answer your question of me. “I don’t know, but I don’t think it was anything “mystical”. That would imply the supernatural and that would invalidate that “spark” from being science.
I know how you will answer my question anyway. Your “science” seems to be whatever a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation of a heavily (politically) edited history book says allegedly from from some “mystical” (your word) sky-god.
Sorry, THAT doesn’t work for me, I have always thought things out on my own.
Econ101, you didn’t answer my question: “Do *you* think that a leader who ignores reality will make the best decisions for our country?”
You stated some of your political opinions, but you didn’t answer the question. I’ll try rephrasing for you:
Should a leader actively suppress research data which doesn’t line up with his/her ideology?
Should a leader silence or censor those scientists whose conclusions contradict his/her political stance?
Should a leader make recommendations in areas about which they know nothing, recommendations which run counter to well-established science?
Will you answer these straightforwardly, or will you need to equivocate?
Actually, energy is equal to the mass DEFECT times the square of the speed of light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy
It is clear that most of the people who post on these WeBlog threads are nuts (not to put too fine a point on it). It’s nothing but back and forth insults, with almost no substantive discussion. Why don’t you all try to have a reasonable, adult conversation? For one thing, a science debate needn’t be a science TEST. There is no reason the debate couldn’t be framed as a discussion of policy positions, not whether any of the candidates knows the difference between archaea and bacteria (Tara will know, I’d venture). Scientific literacy is so low in this country, it’s no wonder people believe the earth is 6,000 years old.
Enjoy your bickering!
Cool scientist, why don’t you enlighten us.
I took biology, zoology, Microbiology, physics, chemistry and biochemistry at the college undergraduate level, but am not qualified to tackle research level work that involves many more courses, education and training.
I suppose that some of us could slap you around with some engineering concepts that you wouldn’t be familiar with either. It doesn’t mean we can’t have a conversation about it without be a prude. :)
BTW knowing the difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes is like on the first few pages of any basic biology text from high school on up. lol
JimmyMac posted January 20, 2008 at 11:41 pm
“I suppose that some of us could slap you around with some engineering concepts that you wouldn’t be familiar with either. It doesn’t mean we can’t have a conversation about it without be a prude.”
Poor JimmyMac does not seem to understand the very obvious differences between “engineering”, and “science”.
Okay JimmyMac. Please use your IH degree, and tell everyone how an international CO2 correction (revision) of only 0.16 ppm is very significant, when CO2 has risen from about 280 ppm to 380 ppm.
Can JimmyMac have a “conversation”, without false ad hominems, and/or a meltdown?
Cosmos,
What were your credentials again?
Dear Nathan,
And what are your “credentials”?
IIRC, you were getting a EE degree. Did you get it?
Do you not understand the huge differences between “engineering”, and “science”?
Cosmos,
Do you feel some need to repeat yourself tonight?
cosmos, you need to stop embarrassing yourself.
If you don’t know what IH does or is or what it does, you are way out on a limb.
Why don’t you investigate what IH professionals do instead of making ad hominem remarks. By the way, there are PhD’s in IH all over the world.
JimmyMac,
You falsely accused the Scripps scientists of doing sloppy work. You posted: “Calibration is done before hand and not after the fact”.
All because the international CO2 calibration scale was very slightly revised.
‘650,000 years of greenhouse gas concentrations’
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=221
“[Response: ... that is 0.16 ppmv, compared to an observed change since 1957 of over 60 ppmv. So less than 0.3% error...Hmm. - gavin]“
7 Trackbacks
Jessie…
Thanks, this is good stuff. You are spot on….
Daria Polish Werbowy…
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read….
Jack…
Thanks, this is good stuff. You are spot on….
Eric…
Thanks for the post. I couldn’t agree with you more….
Jessie…
I don’t mean to be too in your face, but I’m not sure I agree with this. Anyhow, thanks for sharing and I think I’ll write a post on this on my blog soon….
Eric…
Man, your mind fascinates me. Thanks again for sharing….
Jessie…
I?ll admit it. i have been to your blog SIX times since your last post looking for a new post?….