Are you smarter than... - Page 4 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #31 of 35 (permalink) Old 12-28-2007, 06:54 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GP2GP View Post
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Global Warming Petition Project

Abstract:
A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed.

Part of the summary:
The average temperature of the Earth has varied within a range of about 3°C during the past 3,000 years. It is currently increasing as the Earth recovers from a period that is known as the Little Ice Age, as shown in Figure 1. George Washington and his army were at Valley Forge during the coldest era in 1,500 years, but even then the temperature was only about 1° Centigrade below the 3,000-year average.

There's a difference between ecology and climatology. There were 15,000-20,000 signatories to the above scientific paper. We've screwed up the ecology in lots of ways, including the introduction of more CO2 into the atmosphere. We (mankind in general) need to take remedial and corrective action on those activities. But the scientific data does NOT support the claim that mankind has significantly influenced the climate.
An interesting read. Here are the CVs for the three authors.

Arthur B. Robinson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arthur B. Robinson is founder, president and professor of chemistry at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, where he conducts research on protein chemistry and on nutrition and predictive and preventive medicine. He also sells the Robinson Curriculum, which is a self-taught home school curriculum for grammar school children through high school.


"Teach your children...to acquire superior knowledge as did many...in the days before socialism in education."

He is an avowed Christian.

He is currently the editor and publisher of the newsletter Access to Energy[3], which was originated by Petr Beckmann.

With his son, Noah E. Robinson, Ph.D., Arthur Robinson authored the Molecular Clocks: Deamidation of Asparaginyl and Glutaminyl Residues in Peptides and Proteins which includes an exhaustive review of the scientific literature on deamidation; His work is still discussed in later publications on this subject, for example Robinson and coworkers formulated the amide molecular clock hypothesis in 1970.

An American Spectator article concerning Dr. Robinson's unique history. includes discussion of his association with Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling (Chemistry, 1954 and Peace, 1962), who referred to Robinson as "my principal and most valued collaborator." However, Robinson's research revealed "highly embarrassing" results proving conclusively that Pauling's data on vitamin C was false. According to the article:
A sharp divergence of political opinion between the two men also became apparent. A few years after he won the Nobel Peace Prize, Pauling also won the Lenin Peace Prize. He told Robinson that he was more proud of the Soviet than the Norwegian award. For his part, in the spring of 1978 Robinson had given a speech at the Cato Institute, then in San Francisco, deploring the government funding of science as harmful to the independence that is essential to scientific inquiry

Robinson is also the senior author of the Oregon Petition, a petition of over 17,800 self-described scientists, intended to show that a "scientific consensus" does not exist on the subject of global warming.[8] Robinson is also a signatory to A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, a petition produced by the Discovery Institute that expresses skepticism about the ability of natural selection to account for the complexity of life, and encouraging careful examination of the evidence for "Darwinian theory".

Noah E. Robinson

Professor of Chemistry
Professor Noah Robinson carries out laboratory research on the deamidation of peptides and proteins and on the development of new analytical methods for the clinical laboratory. He also works on the development of Robinson home schooling techniques, which are used by more than 60,000 American students, and on the public dissemination of information on civil defense.

Educated at Southern Oregon University and the California Institute of Technology, Dr. Noah Robinson is principle author of numerous research papers on the deamidation of peptides and proteins, including four published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA and the book, Molecular Clocks – Deamidation of Asparaginyl and Glutaminyl Residues in Peptides and Proteins, by N. E. Robinson and A. B. Robinson, Althouse Press, 2004, which is the primary research reference in this subject. Between 1998 and 2005, Noah Robinson also carried out research at Rockefeller University with R. Bruce Merrifield during which approximately 900 peptides of various structures were synthesized for use in studies of deamidation.

Dr. Robinson also works on the Petition project opposed to the hypothesis of "human-caused global warming." In this effort he has published in the Wall Street Journal and is coauthor of Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide by A. B. Robinson, N. E. Robinson, and W. Soon, (2007) J. Am. Phys. Sur. 12, 79-90, which is currently the most widely read review article on this subject.


Willie Soon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Willie Wei-Hock Soon (born 1966) is an astrophysicist at the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. He is known for his views that most global warming is caused by solar variation.
In addition to writing a range of technical papers on solar and stellar behavior, the physics of climate change, and an astronomy textbook for students who have no access to telescopes, Soon co-authored The Maunder Minimum and the Variable Sun–Earth Connection with Steven H. Yaskell (2004). The book treats historical and proxy records of deep climate change by examining the extended global cooling period known as the Maunder Minimum (c 1645-1715).

This period is notable for a dearth of solar activity, measured today in isotopic records and corroborated by eyewitness accounts of unusual weather at the time. In 2004 Soon was awarded the "Petr Beckmann Award for courage and achievement in the defense of scientific truth" by Doctors for Disaster Preparedness.

He is associated with the George C. Marshall Institute, where he recently co-authored Lessons and Limits of Climate History: Was 20th Century Climate Unusual?[3] with Sallie Baliunas. The pair have also written for the Fraser Institute of Canada regarding Sun-climate connections. Soon and Baliunas have generated controversy because their research was funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute, a trade association accused of exerting improper influence over U.S. climate change policy.

He is chief science adviser to the Science and Public Policy Institute

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I did not edit any of the three bio entries, just BOLDING a few high points. Also note the Science and Public Policy Institute is the new name for the Frontiers of Freedom, sponsored by, you guessed it...Tobacco and Oil Companies.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 35 (permalink) Old 12-28-2007, 07:15 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GP2GP View Post
There's a difference between ecology and climatology. There were 15,000-20,000 signatories to the above scientific paper. We've screwed up the ecology in lots of ways, including the introduction of more CO2 into the atmosphere. We (mankind in general) need to take remedial and corrective action on those activities. But the scientific data does NOT support the claim that mankind has significantly influenced the climate.
Yes there is a difference between the two but they also merge as this Earth is one large living system, not disparate independent subsystems.

There are a lot of elements at play that cannot be judged by 1500 years of climate data. What the Earth was able to address in 1500 and what it can address in 2050 are completely different.

In 1865 there were 1 BILLION PEOPLE. Now there are 6.6 BILLION. Around that very same time the Industrial Revolution kicked in Worldwide. Industries began that never existed before. In the 150 years hence we as a people have done more to the ecology/environment than in the millions of previous years, simply due to our existence, or industry and the byproducts of our lives. That was never in any equation prior so it is not possible to use tables from 1000 years ago and attempt linear extrapolations of climate changes.

There is plenty of data that DOES show where we are now, and where we are heading, both in the short and long runs. I sometimes appear flip at debunkers and those who read a report based on their views but I have just seen too many of these reports that have only a small hook of science and a whole bunch of spin associated with the checks from the oil companies.

I watched this very thing happen with the tobacco industry here in my home town [UK, RJReynolds and Phillip Morris pretty much ran Lexington from the 30s-70s] as they paraded scientists and their reports that tobacco did not under any circumstance cause cancer or any health risk.

From that time I look up EVERY report to see where the money is and if there is a special interest. If so, I have to question the reliability of the report.

On Benzworld there are threads that question the reliability of the newer Mercedes. There are times that I am one of the folks that calls into question the reliability and the design decisions that MB makes. I do so from vast experience with both older Mercedes and the newer Mercedes, both at my restoration shop, my personal cars and from friend's stories. People respect my opinion due to that experience. IF if were to come out that I was a Marketing Product Manager for Lexus, everyone would question my opinions based on the impropriety of the relationship. Same with those "scientists" and politicians who get checks from the oil companies and turn around and try and debunk a issue that is fiscally imperative for them to keep from getting traction.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #33 of 35 (permalink) Old 12-28-2007, 08:02 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Is it okay if scientists get their funding from the US Gov?

How about Sierra Club?

How about the Smithsonian?

How about DoD?

It matters far, far less who pays for the research than whether the research scientist publishes his results in peer reviewed scientific journals.

For example, I peer review articles in 2 disciplines. I wouldn't dream of judging the merit of a submitted paper by who supported it or where the scientist(s) are located. Most reviewers look to see whether the author did a credible literature review, whether the methods are reasonable, and whether the conclusion is appropriate to the methods. I have (rarely) reviewed manuscripts that I thought were wrong but have recommended publication because the methods and results looked appropriate even if the conclusions were wrong. I recommend publication because I thought the authors did a good job and that their conclusions were so novel that other folks should have the opportunity to learn from it.

At NO TIME do I use the financial backing or institution of origin in the review process. To me, that is a narrow-minded way to suppress potentially interesting or valuable research.

B

The biggest problems we are facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all and thats what I intend to reverse.

~ Senator Barack H. Obama
Botnst is offline  
post #34 of 35 (permalink) Old 12-28-2007, 08:51 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst View Post
Is it okay if scientists get their funding from the US Gov?

How about Sierra Club?

How about the Smithsonian?

How about DoD?

It matters far, far less who pays for the research than whether the research scientist publishes his results in peer reviewed scientific journals.

For example, I peer review articles in 2 disciplines. I wouldn't dream of judging the merit of a submitted paper by who supported it or where the scientist(s) are located. Most reviewers look to see whether the author did a credible literature review, whether the methods are reasonable, and whether the conclusion is appropriate to the methods. I have (rarely) reviewed manuscripts that I thought were wrong but have recommended publication because the methods and results looked appropriate even if the conclusions were wrong. I recommend publication because I thought the authors did a good job and that their conclusions were so novel that other folks should have the opportunity to learn from it.

At NO TIME do I use the financial backing or institution of origin in the review process. To me, that is a narrow-minded way to suppress potentially interesting or valuable research.

B
If you think it is OK for articles that suggest scientific research when many are funded by the Public Relations and Marketing departments of Companies that have a financial interest in the perceptions gleaned from the articles there is not a lot to say about that. I would just assume you would want a more independent "cleaner" research that lacked even the perception of impropriety.

Of course if you are only reviewing for presentation, and not content, conclusion or ethical issues, it is not relevant where they got their funding. If, on the other hand you are editing or reviewing for credibility of content then the source of their funding absolutely does come into question, as much as their background.

And to answer your first question, no, I don't think it is appropriate for research scientists to get their funding from any group, corporation or PAC that has a vested interest in the outcome of the issue. It is why I also don't rely on articles from WWF, Sierra Club or organizations like that to get information. Sourcewatch.org is very good to weed out both sides of the research so it makes it pretty easy.

I find environmental and health issues an interesting lopsided discussion on several fronts. On the one side of an issue you have research by say the WHO, NIH, CDC, and scores of Universities around the world and on the other side you have either Tobacco Companies or Chemical Companies pouring Millions of dollars into Contra information by way of their own "research institutes" in "independent research" to try and obfuscate the issue to tweak out that extra year of profits before the house of cards finally caves in.

So far the Oil and Energy companies are using the exact same playbook, with the same players in some cases and throwing up expert report after expert report that each logrolls the last.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #35 of 35 (permalink) Old 12-29-2007, 06:58 AM
Moderately subtle
 
edfreeman's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2003
Vehicle: 94 E500, 97 500SL
Location: Soddy Daisy, TN
Posts: 8,511
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Send a message via AIM to edfreeman
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
I agree it won't be zero. But since it is only a part of the process that will have to be addresses I would assume the cost that you mention for the adders would only double for that process, not the entire hopper to light process. Am I understanding that right or are you saying that the adders would double the entire process [using current technologies]. I know you are much closer to this that I am now. My guys have left the industry after the little acid rain research fixing issues shut down much of the lab they were in. While they were not in that group, their funding came from an omnibus grant so the grant went express as the investigation wrapped up.

They are now in Atlanta running a government Asbestos removal business.
Yes, it doubles the entire hopper to light process. Ultimately, you are given an allotment of allowances (tons of the gas of the day, like NOx or SO2) which you can use to emit or to sell in the market. The allotment you are given typically depends on your historical emissions (ie - is capped at some benchmark year), or it was, at least, for the first two gasses of the day. Of course, giving you allowances for what you have been emitting results in no reductions. When the EPA elects to begin reductions, they reduce everyone's allotment, thus making you either purchase additional allowances or install reduction equipment. The price of the allowances will dictate what you will do, and utilities (like mine) have done the sensitivity studies to determine what the cost of an allowance would need to be to make the available technologies more attractive than just buying allowances. Our studies currently show the cost of an allowance would have to essentially double the cost of generation from our coal fired fleet before you'd begin to consider replacement or reduction technologies.
Hypothetically speaking, if innovation occurs, and reduction technology costs reduce, say, 50%, then you'd "only" be looking at a 50% increase in the cost of your electricity that comes from coal (for my company, that's about 60-65% of the total, so about a 30% rate increase). I would imagine where you live, the percentage of coal-fired generation is higher. Since most utilities will have to add generation in the near term, the cap and trade process will result in heavy consideration to carbon friendly types of generation, as the EPA won't give allowances for new plants, and the utilities will have to factor those long term costs into the economics of the cheaper to build but emitting options. But, that isn't a reduction, just prevention of an increase.


Last edited by edfreeman; 12-29-2007 at 07:00 AM. Reason: Bad grammar
edfreeman is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    Are you smarter than everyone else? GeeS Off-Topic 75 12-26-2007 04:14 AM
    Maybe getting smarter? rriproarin W126 S,SE,SEC,SEL,SD,SDL Class 4 03-21-2007 10:19 AM
    Who Is Smarter, Kamil or dklein ? BNZ Off-Topic 198 03-09-2007 09:04 PM
    Who's SMARTer now? Digmenow Off-Topic 12 03-04-2007 11:31 AM
    I thought Japan was smarter than this....... Jakarta Expat Off-Topic 10 10-29-2006 06:32 PM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome