Global Warming consensus?

Another good article grabbed my attention today.  Taken from here.

 

SURVEY: LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY; COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF PUBLISHED CLIMATE RESEARCH REVEALS CHANGING VIEWPOINTS

Michael Asher

August 29, 2007 11:07 AM

Comprehensive survey of published climate research reveals changing viewpoints

In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category  (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis.  This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of  consensus here.  Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming.  In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.
By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.

Good article on post-Katrina New Orleans

I just read this and thought it was worth passing on.  It raises a very interesting question - Is New Orleans worth saving?

 

Resisting the Obvious in New Orleans

Some plain truths about the post-Katrina city

Steve Chapman | August 30, 2007

The Democratic presidential candidates are fluent in the language of politics and policy, which means they can expound at length on what the government can do for you. It also means they have great difficulty saying the word "no."
When they assembled in New Orleans this week to note the second anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, they were in an affirmative mood. Yes, they told locals, your problems are the fault of President Bush's disgraceful inaction, and yes, we should spend whatever it takes to restore the city to what it used to be.
But there are worse policies than inaction. Before the nation undertakes the extravagant project of rebuilding New Orleans and securing it from the elements, we might ask if there isn't a better option, not only for the nation but for the flood victims.
The Democratic debate over the future of New Orleans somehow passed over the instructive example of Valmeyer, Ill. In 1993, the town of 900 was swamped, not for the first time, by a rain-swollen Mississippi River. It hasn't been swamped since, because it's not there anymore. Rather than remain in a vulnerable spot, the residents voted to relocate their village to a bluff 400 feet above the river.
But no one wants to suggest similar discretion in Louisiana.
New Orleans, like Valmeyer, had long been a natural disaster waiting to happen. Most of the city lies below sea level, surrounded by water on three sides, and it's sinking. On top of that, it's steadily grown more exposed to hurricanes, thanks to the loss of coastal wetlands that once served as a buffer. It's a bathtub waiting to be filled.
As one scientist said after Katrina, "A city should never have been built there in the first place." Now that we have a chance to correct the mistake, why repeat it?
Theoretically, it's possible to keep New Orleans dry. All you have to do is surround it with levees designed to withstand a Category 5 hurricane. That's what Hillary Clinton urges.
As she said in New Orleans, "Other countries have figured out how to protect their low-lying cities. Japan has done it. Europe has done it." Shirking that obligation, she insisted, reflects a "fatalistic attitude" that suggests "we can't do the things that great countries should do."
You may not have thought of the Netherlands as a great country until now. But what makes sense on the Zuider Zee doesn't necessarily make sense here. One-fourth of the Netherlands is downhill from the ocean, which means that if the Dutch fail to protect it, they don't have a lot of other places to go.
In the United States, by contrast, there are vast open spaces for settlement, most of them beyond the reach of hurricanes.
The cost of the levee system envisioned by Sen. Clinton is tabbed at $40 billion. Restoring other infrastructure would increase the cost. The question is whether that's the best use of our resources. For $40 billion, you could give more than $61,000 to every Louisianan displaced by Katrina -- nearly a quarter of a million dollars for a family of four.
Here's the question that ought to be considered: Would those people prefer that the money be spent shoring up dikes around a natural lake? Or would they rather get the money themselves and decide whether to stay or migrate to less soggy terrain?
Many, if not most, would choose the cash. That option may be especially appealing since the new levee system can't be completed before 2015 -- which means that over the next eight years, anyone living in New Orleans has a good chance of being washed away again. A lot of locals have already voted with their feet, decamping to Baton Rouge, Houston, Atlanta and Memphis, with no intention of coming back.
Historian Douglas Brinkley, writing in The Washington Post, fears the Bush administration is trying to do to New Orleans what was done to Galveston, Texas, after a terrible 1900 hurricane. "Galveston, which had been a thriving port, was essentially abandoned for Houston, transforming that then-sleepy backwater into the financial center for the entire Gulf South," he says. "Galveston devolved into a smallish port-tourist center, one easy to evacuate when hurricanes rear their ugly heads."
Looking back, that actually sounds like a brilliant choice. If they were given the means to start over wherever they choose, a lot of people displaced by Katrina would embrace it.

Lessons of Life

A story in the news over the last couple of days reminded me of something that I really didn't need a whole lot of help remembering in the first place, but it did provide me with an opportunity to share it with all of you, so here goes...

I went to a community college based in Senatobia, MS, which was about 30 miles from my home.  I was 18-19 years old at this time, so my decision-making skills weren't exactly stellar (some might say nothing has changed, but I digress :)).  I attended classes in the morning, drove back to my hometown, and went to work at my job at a packaging plant.  Yes, that's right kids.  I had a full time job in a sweat shop, worked my tail off, and made like $7 an hour (which seemed like great money at the time).

Since I was paid by the hour, I usually tried to get to work as soon as possible.  One way to save time was to pack my lunch in a cooler, and then unpack and eat on my commute back into town.  (Keep in mind that I drove a truck with a manual transmission and reference the decision-making skills comment earlier.)

So I'm driving on the interstate one day and shift into fifth gear and my coke starts to slip out of the holder I had it in.  So I try to fix that situation and swerve a little bit close to the guy in the next lane.  He swerves over and honks, I realize what I've done, swerve back into my lane, and then wave and say sorry.  Problem solved, right?  WRONG!!

Dude rolls his window down and gestures for me to do the same.  Of course, I have lunch in my lap and my truck has manual crank windows so I struggle a bit but manage to get my window down without running him over again.  He says something I don't understand, I gesture to that affect and keep driving.

Well, he doesn't give up.  He pulls up in front of me (keep in mind again we are on the interstate) and gestures for me to pull over at the upcoming rest area.  I don't do it, so he speeds through the rest area entrance and exit and continues to follow me.  Now I'm totally freaking out, but have no idea what to do.  I figured he'd decide not to follow me the remaining 20 minutes of my drive home.  WRONG!!

All the way home he's either pulling up beside me and smiling while waiving money at me (more on that later), or going in front of me trying to get me to pull over, or just following me.  No cell phone, really freaked out.

So I finally get into town and race my way into the front parking lot at my work.  I tried to fake like I was going to turn off somewhere, but I'm no expert in high speed chases (I know y'all are probably shocked at that).  I figured that someone at work would see me pull up and would be able to quickly come to my rescue if something dangerous was happening.  (Not sure how that relates to my decision-making skills)

So the dude pulls up next to me and rolls his window down.  I make sure my door is locked and I crack my window to hear what he has to say.  And he says

"Do you want a blow job"

um...

WHAT???!!!!!

So now I'm totally freaking out, but I manage out a "No".  And then he says.

"Oh come on, I'll pay you"

Again, I manage a "No" and (thank God) he rolls his window and goes away.  I run into work as fast as possible.

So the lesson I learned that day?  KEEP IN MY OWN LANE WHILE DRIVING!!!  I would like to say I learned not to eat lunch in my car, but sadly I didn't.

So now you might be able to guess what news item I'm relating this to.  A Senator was soliciting sexual relations in the men's bathroom of an airport.  But what gets me is how he did it.  Apparently tapping your feet when a dude is in the stall next to you is an indication you are interested in him.  If they move their feet close to you and tap back, then that's an open invitation.

um...

WHAT???!!!!!

So a few years ago, apparently almost running someone over meant you were interested in sick, perverted behavior.  Now it's tapping your feet!!???

So the lesson I learned today?  KEEP MY FEET STILL WHILE IN THE BATHROOM!!!!

It's a sick world out there.  God help us.

Tuesday thoughts

A couple of things on my mind this morning...

Michael Vick

So news came out yesterday that Vick is likely going to plead guilty to some lesser charge so that he can serve less jail time and hopefully salvage his NFL career. 

First thing - if he is allowed to continue playing in the NFL after this, I will lose a tremendous amount of respect for the league.  If he wants to play da foozball after all of this, he should have to go to Canada to do it.  Nuff said.

Second - I really am getting fed up with this plea bargain nonsense.  From what we know, Vick is the big dog (no pun intended) in this dogfighting, gambling investigation.  The other plea bargains have been so the prosecution can have more evidence against Vick.  SO WHY DOES HE GET A PLEA BARGAIN??!!!  Why do they charge people with a serious crime only to lessen it if the person pleads guilty so much??  I really don't get it.  Is this JUSTICE??

 

Gary is RIGHT

Over the past year or so, I've developed a bit of an addiction to coffee.  As in I get headaches if I don't drink coffee in the morning.  I joked with Gary recently that if I quit drinking coffee, I'd probably have to start smoking to cope.  :)

Anyway, a couple of years ago, Gary posted an entry on his blog about how much he liked to drink coffee and how awesome Peets coffee was.  Since I discovered my coffee addiction, I've been going to places like Starbucks fairly regularly.  I heard some commercials on the radio about an online coffee store, which made me think of Gary's blog post.  The first thing I did was feel pretty darn good about myself for remembering a blog post from two years ago (which I had to go out and find this morning).  Apparently my memory isn't fading as fast as my hair.  The second thing I did was start to research some places to order coffee online.

So I IM'd Gary to ask him if he still ordered coffee online.  His first question was, "Did you get a press pot".  (After doing a wikipedia search for "Press Pot" :)) I said "no"and that I was just looking into it.  He said he would order me some coffee when he placed his next order, but that I should get a press pot.  So I did.  Went to the grocery store later and ground up some coffee.  Tried the press pot.  Pretty darn good stuff!

Yesterday, Gary brought me the bag of Peet's coffee that he ordered for me.  Made a pot this morning.  I just finished drinking it.  Gary, YOU WERE RIGHT!!  Man, that was an awesome cup of Joe.  Heck, I think I'll call it a cup of Joseph because coffee that good needs to be called by it's proper name!  Thanks man.  You da too!

(Now if only I can get him to come around on the whole ORM and inline query thing.  Inside joke.  I won't bore you with the details.)

More media bias

Ok, so anyone who reads my blog knows I am a Christian conservative.  One thing conservatives routinely claim is that the major media is heavily biased toward liberalism.  In the case of Christian conservatives. we claim that the media is also biased against Christianity.  Many write us off as being weak-minded or conspiracy-theorists.

Well, here's another case in point of the bias.  From this Associated Press article:

Surprising fossils dug up in Africa are creating messy kinks in the iconic straight line of human evolution with its knuckle-dragging ape and briefcase-carrying man.

The new research by famed paleontologist Meave Leakey in Kenya shows our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches, calling into question the evolution of our ancestors.

The old theory was that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became us, Homo sapiens.

But those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years, Leakey and colleagues report in a paper published in Thursday's journal Nature.

...

That makes it unlikely that H. erectus evolved from H. habilis, researchers said.

It's the equivalent of finding that your grandmother and great-grandmother were sisters rather than mother-daughter, said study co-author Fred Spoor, a professor of evolutionary anatomy at the University College in London.

...

That old evolutionary cartoon, while popular with the general public, keeps getting proven wrong and too simple, said Bill Kimbel, who praised the latest findings.

He is science director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University and wasn't involved in the research team.

"The more we know, the more complex the story gets," he said.

Scientists used to think H. sapiens evolved from Neanderthals, a closely related species, he said, but now know that both species lived during the same time period and that we did not come from Neanderthals.

Now a similar discovery applies further back in time.

...

All the changes to human evolutionary thought should not be considered a weakness in the theory of evolution, Kimbel said. Rather, those are the predictable results of getting more evidence, asking smarter questions and forming better theories, he said.

 

If this isn't proof of a bias, I don't know what is!  The article does a great job of presenting the facts - that there is SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE that the evolutionary model is FLAWED.  Then that last paragraph has the scientist saying it should not be considered a weakness in evolution theory.  WHY NOT??!!!

A truly fair and unbiased article would have included a quote from someone from the creationist point of view pointing out that EVOLUTION IS JUST A THEORY and that these findings prove that other theories are viable.

But the AP couldn't do that.  Because it would make it look like Christians might actually be RIGHT!  It would give the folks saying that evolution should not be the only theory taught in schools some leverage.  Clearly, the media can't allow that.  Opposing viewpoints are not welcome!

Oh well.  I'm still glad the article is out there.  Because even though the final perspective was not opposed in it, hopefully there are some folks who will read it and remember once again that science doesn't have all the answers.

Yep, must be about race

Thanks to Gary for getting me all worked on a Friday afternoon!

From this article:

The difference between those sporting Michael Vick jerseys and those urging his swift conviction on dogfighting charges is glaring: Vick's supporters are mostly black; his critics are mostly white.

The racial divide emerged early in the case against the Atlanta Falcons quarterback, apparent at rallies filled with cheering — and overwhelmingly black — Vick supporters and at anti-Vick protests that are noticeably white.

Vick's opponents say the evidence against him is overwhelming. For many black supporters, that judgment evokes uncomfortable questions about race and guilt in America.

...

Hardy suspects that Vick — famous, rich and black — is just the fall guy behind bigger issues.

"A hundred-million-dollar black man?" he huffed. "They can't stand it."

His view is reflected from the Newport News region where Vick was raised to Atlanta, where a rally supporting the former Virginia Tech standout drew several hundred fans, but barely 50 whites, said Gerald Rose, with Atlanta-based New Order National Human Rights Organization.

Rose said the outcry stems from what he said is Vick's premature conviction in the media — not support for dogfighting. But he said the case also awakens anger over a perceived smear campaign targeting famous black men from Kobe Bryant to Michael Jackson.

...

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, leader of the most vocal Vick protests, says the issue isn't racial.

"We're reacting very strongly to this case because Michael Vick is someone who's a hero ... If this were Peyton Manning or Brett Favre, we'd be out there," spokesman Dan Shannon said.

...

At his Richmond clothing store, Brown said he'll continue stocking Vick merchandise, though others have pulled it from shelves. He likened black support for Vick's cause to the support for O.J. Simpson's acquittal.

"Black people didn't care about O.J.," he said. "But we felt like we finally won."

I don't know where to begin! Let's start with that last quote - they WON when OJ basically got away with murder? At this point, does anyone really think he didn't do it. I'm not going to go too far on this point, but if you write a supposedly fictional book about how you did it, then you did it.

Ok, so the rest of it. There is this huge indictment, several witnesses, and another defendant who has agreed to testify against Vick. And we are supposed to support him because he hasn't been officially convicted? WHATEVA!!!

And we are RACIST if we think Vick is total SCUM because of his actions? WHATEVA!!

This is totally RIDICULOUS!!! I'm talking to both blacks and whites here - WHO CARES HOW SUCCESSFULL HE IS?? HE BROKE THE LAW!!!!! LOCK HIM UP!!!

This has nothing to do with the color of his skin. Sadly, it looks like that's all it's going to end up being about though.