Nolan Finley is a silly, silly man, pt. 2

I hope Nolan Finley isn't a smoker (0.00 / 0)

All those strawmen he's created are a serious fire hazard.

Please read "Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now" by George McGovern and William R. Polk.

---

by: Hy Dudgeon @ Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 16:39:15 PM CST

The strange thing... (0.00 / 0)

He identifies a problem that he says needs to be solved, and then ridicules the solution to it two paragraphs later.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 16:56:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The Right's latest spin on global warming (0.00 / 0)

Argument No. 1: It's too late to stop what we've already put in motion, so why bother? (Lite version: the cost of fighting the effects of global warming is greater than the cost of the effects themselves.)

Argument No. 2: Even assuming that global warming exists, the alternative--namely, world government (yes, that old stand-by)--is even worse.

Please read "Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now" by George McGovern and William R. Polk.

---

by: Hy Dudgeon @ Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 17:00:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The Jonah Goldberg School of Deep Thought, huh? (0.00 / 0)

This is the greatest atrocity of reason yet...

Argue for 15 years that a problem doesn't exist.  Then, when the evidence is clearly stacked up against you, argue that the problem has become so bad over the previous 15 years that there is no sense in doing anything against it.

And, yet, the next time they win an election, they'll proclaim that the adults are back in charge.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 17:11:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"Evidence" (0.00 / 1)

Eric, I'll bet you'd say that "scientific evidence" exists to prove "diversity" has "educational benefits", too.

The problem with this "stacked up" evidence that is allegedly against us is that it is literally stacked.  When an average guy like Chetly Zarko asked the scientists to turn over the raw data sets - ones uses to change the policy set by the US Supreme Court - and created by taxpayer dollars at public universities - he was told no data for you, it was the proprietary commercial data of the public employee professors who created it using taxpayer resources.  And the visible evidence in that case - descriptions from the researchers own husband years before the litigation - facially contradicted the "stacked" deck of conclusions.

Does that mean all science is stacked?  No.  But it does mean that when I hear the argument that a bunch of scientists agree upon something or there is "consensus", I don't automatically accept it.

Back in the 80s EPA scientist Edward Krug proved that acid rain wasn't the cause of Adirondack lakes fish population declines.  Indeed, the native american word for Adirondack implied something like "dead lake", and the acid level pre-1900 was much higher, probably due to acid pine tree surface erosion.  Logging of forests in that era caused rain to wash more "alkaline"-chalky soils into the lake, balancing the ph's temporarily (50 years) and allowing fish to thrive.  As the areas were reforested and replanted, the ph's fell again, and the fish died.  Krug got fired for those discoveries - and shunned from the scientific community.

"You can't handle the truth."

---

by: chetly @ Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 18:09:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Screw down that tin foil hat bucko... (4.00 / 1)

When an average guy like Chetly Zarko asked the scientists to turn over the raw data sets - ones uses to change the policy set by the US Supreme Court - and created by taxpayer dollars at public universities - he was told no data for you, it was the proprietary commercial data of the public employee professors who created it using taxpayer resources.

Every research grant that is funded by the government allows scientists exclusive rights to the data for a period of time (usually 2 years) so that they can have time to produce articles that are important to gaining and maintaining employment...

After all, they may get money but they thought up the theories that were tested, gathered the data and made the arguments.

The data will be released, as has been every other data set and is available for any dumb ass to come along and not know how to even read the data manual to run amok and scream about the grand conspiracy to keep them from eating steak.

Try again...

As for your example, given you understanding of the scientific community and how it operates, your claims are rather dubious to say the least.

So one lack was acid...therefore all evidence about acid rain is wrong.

Geez, what people screw up over one undergraduate methods class knows no bounds...

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 19:32:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Nazgul - what if it was 9 years? (0.00 / 1)

Would you agree then that if the data were withheld for 9 years that would be wrong?  And the creators had already published several times on the issue, and given the data to graduate students (only the ones sympathetic to their cause, under terms outlined in a memo that would "control" "who" should get it).

Should data be withheld even for 10 minutes if the "creators" used it to support an argument for policy change in court, particularly the Supreme Court?  I'd argue never.

Should data be withheld if the creators are funded by the people, subject to FOIA?

There is a "Confidential Research Information Act", which U-M cited when it denied my FOIAs, but it only applies to data given to the university by private outsiders as part of an agreement, allowing universities to obtain outside data under restricted disclosure terms.  None of the data here was obtained from outside sources - it was all created on the taxpayer dime.  U-M eventually gave up after litigation was filed - but they succeeded in delaying beyond the original Supreme Court ruling, thereby subverting the system of democracy. 

This is a no-brainer, and saying I'm wrong just because you don't like me would put you squarely on an anti-FOIA, anti-openness side.  There were op-eds that said I was wrong on the issue of affirmative action but right on the FOIA issue.  That's reasonable. 

And I'm not just some dumb ass - I had a team of Ph.D's ready to review that data the second I got it, although I certainly consider myself capable of at least some inquiry into methodology, as well.

My point in this context was to point out that I don't just believe every "scientific consensus" I'm told exists.  Indeed, that would itself violate the scientific spirit and process of questioning.  As to acid rain, my point there was the same - not every piece of science is right.  I wasn't questioning other acid rain science - but I think the whole thing is a bit overblown - rain has always been somewhat acidic - it hasn't been shown how much of say, the Statute of Liberty's damage was natural and not natural (or related to non-rain atmospheric conditions in New York, including the presence of salt water mist, and NYC general air pollution).

People who want to hide data have no confidence in it.  It's worthless.

---

by: chetlyzarko @ Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 23:27:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

And what if it was a hundred billion zillion years? (0.00 / 0)

What's your point?

The agreement under which the data was to be handled was negotiated by the Federal Organization that granted the money...

Or was the money provided by the U of M, hence the reason for holding the data set? As a receiver of the taxpayers money, they have a responsibility to keep data themselves...

Here's an idea, why don't you take your collection of PhDs (I hope they are actually in the correct area of research), propose a research grant and go collect your own data...

Then get your results published.

Call me skeptical, but I somehow don't believe that you are giving us the whole story here, so since you are so interested in transparency and open government, why don't you provide links to all the documents that supports your claims that Michigan was withholding data from you and let people knowledgeable in the area access the veracity of your claims...

Something tells me I shouldn't hold my breath...

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 21:49:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yeah, I'm not even sure what you're on about here... (0.00 / 0)

Eric, I'll bet you'd say that "scientific evidence" exists to prove "diversity" has "educational benefits", too.

I would say no such thing, because I frankly have no idea

There's a fine difference between being shunned and being ignored.  In this case, your Edward Krug was undoubtedly less shunned than ignored and fell into the same oblivion of insignificance that will soon be the home of Pat Michaels and William Dembski. These are people whose conclusions sparked more interest among those politically motivated to be interested than they did among actual scientists.

No one gets fired for this kind of thing, except in the fertile imagination of the Right.  Not only are scientists skeptical of every conclusion, the very notion that a scientist during the Reagan years would be fired for challenging evidence that industry was causing harm to the environment violates basically every concept of common sense and history.

I don't even really understand what point you're trying to make here ... acid rain doesn't exist because of one lake?  Fish kills weren't the things affected by acid rain.  So were trees (a friend who'se hiked the forests and mountains of Upper New York has stories about coming across entire hillsides of trees killed by acid rain back in the 80s).  Hell, the Statue of Liberty had to be restored back in the 80s thanks to a green sheen given it by acid rain.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 09:15:08 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Eric (0.00 / 1)

I beg to differ.  People have been fired for "wrong" views on science, from both directions.  The scientific history literature is replete with such cases. It's like saying that people weren't fired during the 50's for Communist-like political views.

And the EPA during the Reagan years was staffed and controlled by people sympathetic to the environment.  You may recall Reagan talked of disbanding the whole thing.  You're view of "common sense and history" is distorted if you think that government is "monolithic" and easily controlled from the top.  And without going back through my notes from 1992, I don't remember whether Krug was employed by government or some other research outfit.

And the point is as I said above.  Not all science is right - the scientific process itself accepts that fact.

Finally, see my point about the Statute of Liberty above.  Can you prove (a single citation) your statement that Liberty's green sheen was because of acid rain?  Last I checked, copper oxidizes.  Oxygen is natural.  It oxidizes (and does other chemical changes) faster in the presence of water.  Liberty is in a salt-water harbor. And NYC has plenty of its own other airborne pollutants. Which do we work on first?

---

by: chetlyzarko @ Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 23:37:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

There is no such thing as scientific proof... (0.00 / 0)

That's your first mistake.  Mathematics has proofs.  Science has evidence and (first) hypothesis and (second) theories.

As for the Statue of Liberty, I suggest that you go to Google and type in "Statue of Liberty" "Acid rain".  This ought to hook you up ... and no, I'm not interested in the one guy who thinks that low concentrations of sulfuric acid falling from the sky can't possibly affect the State of Liberty's chemistry.

In fact, I'm not terribly interested at all in debating anything about the Statue of Liberty.  It was part of a point ... that acid rain affected things far and beyond just one lake.  I don't know if I've yet pointed you to the problems caused by acid rain in the former Soviet Union, and countries in Eastern Europe.

And the EPA during the Reagan years was staffed and controlled by people sympathetic to the environment.

Anne Gorsuch was an environmentalist?  This is news to me.  It would be news to lots of people ... most of all her, if she were still alive.

This is something else I'm not debating with you, chetly.  You have a good deal of homework to do on this before your opinion approaches being informed.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 07:31:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Methane (0.00 / 1)

Hey, that methane article mostly proves conservatives point.

It's so full of speculation and supposition that basing any policy on it would be dangerous.  And the rates of change in the concentration level of methane mentioned appear to be within margins I notice are not statistically significant.  For 20 years, the rate change was 250 pp billion starting from a base of 1500 ppb.  That's an average of 12.5ppv per year or slightly under 1%.  Over the last 6 years - a microscopic amount of time in global climatogical terms - growth flattened to 0%.

It also proves that cows never were a serious problem as the left claimed years ago - our demand for them certainly hasn't "decreased" (the article admits GROWTH SLOWED - if the process were linear negative growth would have to occur to cause methane to stop growing). 

Finally, the article suggests about a dozen "hypotheses" - all clearly guesses, and all upon first glance much bigger things (natural escape from wetlands, Soviet collapse, rice paddies decline) than cows.

This is not to say that we shouldn't have some "carbon policy" in the US (I'd certainly support tax credits for non-carbon energy sources, and maybe some kind of emissions tradable voucher system ala the Clean Air Act of 1990) - but we should consider the science and scientific claims more carefully.

"You can't handle the truth."

---

by: chetly @ Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 17:55:46 PM CST

Stop, you're killing me... (0.00 / 0)

(the article admits GROWTH SLOWED - if the process were linear negative growth would have to occur to cause methane to stop growing)

Is that the claim of the authors of the article you point to?

Maybe back in the 60s and 70s when everyone was using classic linear regression someone would be dumb enough to assume a linear relation...

Statistics have improved dramatically in the last 30 years, so the sophistication of the science and predictions have also improved.

What, oh great critics of the scientific community would be the predicted result if the relationship was non-linear?

I can't wait for the hash you will make of this...please feel free to google for a wingnut site that you can quote from but please try and demonstrate that you understand what you quote...

The sooner you admit you don't know your ass from your elbow that tin foil will just fall right off your head.

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 19:38:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

climate change action (0.00 / 0)

opposition to action on climate change primarily comes from two sources:

- "lifestyle" opposition, i.e. people don't want to change their behavior or lifestyle to adapt to the climate change crisis.  it is more expensive for industry to deal with climate change honestly than it is to fund think tanks and pay off lawmakers, so we get all of these fun astroturf groups.

- ideological opposition.  if climate change is real then the libertarian ideal of how the world is supposed to work doesn't hold true.  so, it is easier to oppose the idea that climate change is real than it is to adjust their worldview to do anything about it.

there is a scientific consensus on climate change, and don't let the naysayers fool you.

Check out my mediocre blog.

---

by: nirmal @ Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 19:21:17 PM CST

Important new book "With Speed and Violence" (0.00 / 0)

MichLib readers will want to find their local bookstores and get copies of Fred Pearce's new book  "With Speed and Violence," which reviews the rapid and, frankly, frightening approach of a number of climate tipping points (positive feedback loops).  Just published by Beacon Press.  I'm reading it now, and it's hard to put down, except for when it's overwhelming and it makes me glad I don't have children.

Michigan has a lot to answer for re: global climate disruption.  The sooner people stop playing denial and start figuring out how to make a decent life with far less energy use, the better.

---

by: jmgear @ Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 21:45:29 PM CST