I'm an engineer, so I'm not in any field related to the climate, but I do know science. I'm a skeptic (I don't know if global warming is real or not). I'm mainly a skeptic because many of the science practices are just a disgrace.
I know that the hockey stick graph has been debunked. I never read anything about it or who debunked it, but I didn't need a report to tell me. A rule in science is that you don't mix data points measured from different tools or sources. There are three different sources of data on the hockey stick graph and the main rise is just more accurate data( since we can more accurately estimate temperatures 50 years ago than 2000 years ago).
It's shady stuff like that, which has turned me skeptical.
But I think belief plays a big role in science. It's just the way we are wired as humans. We'll pick out the information, evidence, data, facts, that fit our view of the world.
I think this can be easily shown by James Hansen. I think this is the guy's name. He works for NASA anyway and he's published a lot of studies on global warming.
He did a study where he measured surface ocean temperatures. When he first published the paper, it actually showed that temperatures were going down (DATA). For his conclusion, he wrote that the ice caps were melting cooling the temperature of water (OPINION to explain data).
A few years later, he went back over the data and found that some of the measuring devices in the water sank to deep and created cooler temperatures. He scrubbed the data points that were way off and it showed the oceans were in fact getting warmer. He published his work again, showing that this is proof of global warming.
The issue here isn't the data points removed. The issue is tha the data points are irrelevant. It didn't matter to this scientist what the data came out as, it had to prove global warming. And this is where belief comes into play.
When we hear a sensational headline from a politician or on the news about a study, all we hear is the conclusion of a study. A conclusion is an opinion the scientists holds to explain what he/she thinks is happening.
This particular example, is something that stood out the most to me, because I find that those that believe in global warming are the ones that tend to use that ocean warming study as "proof", when it is more of a joke.
Another thing that annoys me is that you're going to find studies that support global warming always involve studies of data in the Northern Hemisphere and you'll find studies that counter global warming always involve studies of data in the Southern Hemisphere.
Why? It's really quite simple. I learned about it in like grade school geography class. There is more land in the Northern Hemisphere, which creates more extreme temperatures. The Southern Hemisphere has more water, which moderates temperatures.Comment Posted By Chris On 8.12.2009 @ 16:03
Great post. I read it over at PJM and it was a breath of fresh air. I'm sick of the birther issue and I'm sick of all the idiots leeching onto it. It's just making conservatives look bad everywhere.
But there's no logic that will ever change the mind's of the birthers. The birth certificate has been released. Even if Obama pulled strings and got a full birth certificate, I bet the same people would be claiming forgery. Oh wait, birther Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs, has already pointed out that the brith certificate released is a forgery.
I'm just thankful that you're speaking out for sensible and logical conservatives. We're out there and we're sick of the BS growing in conservative movements.
Keep up the good work.Comment Posted By Chris On 5.12.2009 @ 09:10
“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” It is sad that those, who believe, are ridiculed by those, that don'tComment Posted By Chris On 19.10.2009 @ 23:13
Keep fighting the good fight, Rick....somehow we need some voices of reason to save us conservatives from ourselves. How long can this self-destruction continue?Comment Posted By Chris On 11.06.2009 @ 13:21
A more accurate name for the the Democrats would be the Social Democrats. Most left-leaning folks long ago figured out that govenment ownership of the means of production screws everything up. So they moved to the high tax/high benefit models you see in much of Europe, which the Democrats have never made any bones about wanting to emulate.
For a leftie, or a "socialist" or whatever you want to call them, it's the best of both worlds - through high taxes and regulation, the government effectively controls the means of production without actually having to run the businesses - which they proved they suck at. And they use the high taxes to fund the redistribution they desire - voila! - socialism without the responsibility of ownership!Comment Posted By Chris On 14.05.2009 @ 15:41
Yet another reason to close the southern border up tight. Yet another gift from Mexico, like the kidnapping, illegals, drugs and murder weren't enough.
Violeta, Mexico ALWAYS thinks it's time for someone to help them. Help yourselves for once instead of helping yourselves to American largesse.Comment Posted By Chris On 27.04.2009 @ 18:58
Does protocol dictate that the press rise to stand when the teleprompter is brought into the room?Comment Posted By Chris On 20.03.2009 @ 09:33
"Clearly, if conservatives wish to attract the young, a better job of educating them outside of the classroom must be done...So the only exposure to conservatism that most children receive comes to them via the Coulter/Hannity/Limbaugh’s of the movement. Entertaining though they are, their very shrillness and presumption of being in the right turns off most kids who have been educated to eschew such certainties."
Speaking as a father of a 26, 24 and 21 year old, this is dead on. I fear that just as the Republican party missed an opportunity with hispanics, who I believe have a natural inclination to conservative values, the party will once again miss the opportunity with young adults. Only one of my kids is conservative yet all three regularly complained about their intolerant, liberal professors. They were positively predisposed to listen to and sympathize with an alternative viewpoint. BUT, it needed to be well thought out. It needed to have some intellectual heft. Rush and Sean aren't in that category.Comment Posted By Chris On 26.02.2009 @ 09:25
Late to conversation but:Comment Posted By Chris On 26.02.2009 @ 09:57
1) Did Arnold ever claim to be a conservative?
2) Are we confusing conservative principles with Republican politics?
3) How upset should Republicans be when a moderate Republican manages to stay in office, address a catastrophic budget crisis and "succeed" in spite of a decidedly Democratic and partisan state legislature?
4) I'm wholeheartedly behind the idea of clear, firm principles underlying governing. And I have "conservative sensibilities" regarding government's ability to solve a problem vs exacerbate a problem. However, is it not praiseworthy, when a politician, democrat or republican, effectively addresses a problem in spite of complexity, partisanship etc. Isn't it good for the republican party to say "We're the party that can tackle tough problems"
OK, if we go the Fairness route can we get some guarantees regarding some Hollywood movies that at least have a CENTRIST viewpoint (let alone a right of center one). I am soooooo tired of evil corporations, conspiring right wing politicians and child lusting, judgmental clergy.
And while we're at it, how about a few TV comedians that delivery humor from the right side of the spectrum. I mean, is South Park the best we can do. Its funny and all but its a cartoon! And I'm sorry but Dennis Miller doesn't do it (or at least get him off O'Reilly).
As for the radio airwaves. We still get some left of center talk in Phoenix. Not particularly good but hey, I think much of the right wing radio talk is crap, too!Comment Posted By Chris On 16.02.2009 @ 12:20