I think some of you are mixing a few things up. The Arctic ice is melting so obviously something is happening (just check out satellite images). This could be due to a) normal cyclic solar activity, b) human pollution etc etc. So there is real evidence out there that there is global warming. The more interesting question then is what do we as an individual and as a society do with his information. I personally have absolutely no problem with building more energy efficient cars, houses etc. because that is good even for other reasons (less dependency on foreign oil). I have more of a problem with some weird carbon trading system.Comment Posted By funny man On 12.05.2009 @ 13:36
Foxfier,Comment Posted By funny man On 12.05.2009 @ 10:33
the CO2 conc is higher now than it has been for a long time so no need to worry about plants not getting enough (of course they grow faster with higher CO2).
Just because you detest Al Gore doesn't mean all climate science is junk.
Dwight,Comment Posted By funny man On 11.05.2009 @ 23:40
I don't understand your point. I'm not saying you can't model life's history into the past but it is difficult to do. You have all the sequenced genomes now so you can develop a tree of relatedness but it is harder to say when species diverged. What is the rate of change for a certain gene and what do you do with horizontal gene transfer. Those are just a few examples.
What judgement am I passing on?
Foxfier,Comment Posted By funny man On 11.05.2009 @ 19:09
I was talking about evolution not Darwinism, ID or creationism. You can actually test evolution by looking at the genome after a given time exposed to different conditions. The other theories are untestable hence unscientific.
Star Trek is a great prelude to this article. What many people miss (both on the left on the right) is that the most important point in science is the 'scientific methodology'. You observe, you interpret and then you test. Of course you have to be your own worst 'devils advocate' and willing to destroy your own pet theories. This, as I have stated many times, has nothing to do with politics and should be taught as such in a science classroom.Comment Posted By funny man On 11.05.2009 @ 10:18
The difficulty occurs when you model tour projections into the past or future. For example, you can test evolution in action in a mere two weeks (let's say bacterial evolution in response to antibiotic). So there can be no doubt evolution is happening. However, it is much trickier to remodel life's history which will give opponent fodder claiming that evolution really is not real (which of course is nonsense).
Same with climate change. It is just very difficult to model earth's climate with so many variable. However, that does not make all these efforts 'pseudo science'.
In my opinion, this should be a political non issue.
I always found that most of us believe something to be true an then collect evidence to verify our view. Trying to be rational also means keeping your ego in check and accepting the possible validity of the opposing view (and I'll be the first to admit that is not always easy). Since many of the more outlandish views are not fact driven but rather reflect the rather poor psychological state of that person, arguing is almost always futile.Comment Posted By funny man On 6.05.2009 @ 11:43
Case in point: you correctly point to the throwing around of 'socialism', 'fascism' charges toward Obama or Bush by the fringes without knowing what they are talking about. I find it quite offensive toward the victims of these regimes and I could go into personal history. However, I don't think the people saying these things are in any way interested in the truth or in helping our country but only to satisfy their ego.
found that at your website. GREAT! LOL
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/12/20/weekinreview/the-nation-is-reagan-now-less-hard-on-communism.htmlComment Posted By funny man On 5.05.2009 @ 15:45
That was an excellent article which with I wholeheartedly agree. Beyond all ideology there still is a country out there that needs to be governed and protected. If you always dream of the revolution tomorrow (that might never come) you forget to do what is necessary today. Extremists on both sides will ALWAYS put their ideology before the welfare of the country because it's their way or the highway. Yes, Rick I also agree we have to make a stand for our pragmatist view for the benefit of the country. Welcome to he barricades, it's going to get rough!Comment Posted By funny man On 5.05.2009 @ 12:23
ok you want government get out of the way. However, let's talk about medical research, there NIH funding is vital for continuous innovation. For example, right now it appears all of us have a unique bacterial make-up of our gut influencing everything from obesity to response to environmental toxicants. In order to get this into a real-life application you need to do do the basic science first before you can get into making money. That in my opinion is pragmatic view.
As to some of your other 'science' views:Comment Posted By funny man On 6.05.2009 @ 11:20
"The reality-based position on Global Warming is that it is a bunch of overhyped junk science, getting disproven daily by temperature facts on the ground, wrapped up in UN-approved twaddle".
That is total BS. It is true that scientists measure data and do modeling with those data. That is done in atmospheric science, climate science etc. Based on different parameters and selection of data you will obviously get different outcomes. That is NOT a liberal plot and to call all scientist working on this 'junk scientists' is simply wrong.
GOP success in the northeast: Mitt Romney is a pretty good model. Economic competence, socially moderate.
What I meant with competitiveness was more about funding R & D, how do you maintain a manufacturing base. Do you see a role for government here too? Sorry, it's getting late.Comment Posted By funny man On 5.05.2009 @ 23:02