Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

goldminingXpert (29.64)

My Collegian Column This Week: A follow-up to last week's Global Warming piece.

Recs

14

March 31, 2009 – Comments (10) | RELATED TICKERS: AF

Enjoy. Or don't. It's up to you. After getting 86 comments on last week's column, I apparently hit a nerve.

This column is sort of a sequel while also celebrating Africa Week. NEWSFLASH, it's Africa Week everyone! Link to the column here.

10 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On March 31, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Mary953 (72.90) wrote:

Puzzle pieces dropping into place - from profile, Ian, Co., From Who Are We blog, college student, From this blog and linked column, My Collegian Column  by Ian Bezek.  Friend, you can write.  I am impressed, and it takes a very great deal in terms of writing to impress a librarian/writer.  Damn.   (Yeah, I know I've never used that language on this blog)

Report this comment
#2) On March 31, 2009 at 6:14 PM, tonylogan1 (28.28) wrote:

very nice article.

The trouble with using the truth is that propaganda is more effective.

That is at least one reason you will never see Al Gore debate a Global Warming questioner.

Look at how few really good engineers get to the tops in management. They can be as smart as they want, but they explain things as they are, rather than reducing things to catchy ten second arguments that may or may not have any basis in fact.

It is much easier to convince a country to go to war if you say that we face a "terror war", than to name a specific threat. When you name a threat, then people will debate how exactly to best handle the issue, like assassination or economic means or war. But when you just want war, its best to just go with the propaganda that fits your argument.

Report this comment
#3) On March 31, 2009 at 6:14 PM, tonylogan1 (28.28) wrote:

very nice article.

The trouble with using the truth is that propaganda is more effective.

That is at least one reason you will never see Al Gore debate a Global Warming questioner.

Look at how few really good engineers get to the tops in management. They can be as smart as they want, but they explain things as they are, rather than reducing things to catchy ten second arguments that may or may not have any basis in fact.

It is much easier to convince a country to go to war if you say that we face a "terror war", than to name a specific threat. When you name a threat, then people will debate how exactly to best handle the issue, like assassination or economic means or war. But when you just want war, its best to just go with the propaganda that fits your argument.

Report this comment
#4) On March 31, 2009 at 6:57 PM, rocksnot (29.17) wrote:

I'd say that at least part of the controversy surrounding your last column was that your source for that one has a fraudulent past, making your claims sensationalist at best, and destroying some of the credibility of your arguments, whether the arguments had merit or not.

I will gladly say that your current column is much better.  I learned some things.

Report this comment
#5) On March 31, 2009 at 8:19 PM, jester112358 (28.92) wrote:

Read both of your articles.  Nice work.  The essence of science is uncertainty and skepticism.  At the turn of the century the consensus was that Newtonian physics could completely described the universe.  Subsequently, the greatest revolution in science in quantum mechanics and special and general relativity were revealed.  When one observes concensus/dogma in a field, its time to reexamine its assumptions.  As a working research scientist I'm very skeptical of model based predictions of global warming.   Yes, the CO2 content has increased with time as has the temperature.  But correlation is not causation!   There are too many poorly understood feedback loops controlling climate change.  What many layman fail to understand is that even the most sophisticated computer based climate models cannot be reversed in time (t goes to -t) using well known input parameters from the present to "predict" the known temperatures, say in 1900 or 1950 etc.!   This is a major problem that is now swept under the rug.    Scientists can be major whores when it comes to funding.  That's what the silence is all about.  It all about the money and "fitting in". 

Report this comment
#6) On April 02, 2009 at 4:36 AM, SuperPicks (29.15) wrote:

An eye opening article.  Thank you, I highly recommend anyone here on CAPs to check it out.

Also, jester112358's comment above is a must read\ IMO

Report this comment
#7) On April 02, 2009 at 6:02 AM, KamranatUCLA (29.48) wrote:

can you write a blog about DV?

Report this comment
#8) On April 05, 2009 at 1:17 PM, kaskoosek (85.41) wrote:

GMX

Yes there is no proof linking CO2 emmisions to global warming.

But I find it quite strange how most of the warming has happened recently, I.E the last 200 years. At an alarming rate.

 

It seems like a fair hypothesis that  some thing related to industry that was released into the air caused it. 

Since that is the only variable "I can think of" that has changed.

Report this comment
#9) On April 05, 2009 at 1:17 PM, kaskoosek (85.41) wrote:

GMX

Yes there is no proof linking CO2 emmisions to global warming.

But I find it quite strange how most of the warming has happened recently, I.E the last 200 years. At an alarming rate.

 

It seems like a fair hypothesis that  some thing related to industry that was released into the air caused it. 

Since that is the only variable "I can think of" that has changed.

Report this comment
#10) On April 05, 2009 at 1:27 PM, kaskoosek (85.41) wrote:

The whole article about oil linked to conflicts is a logical fallacy.

 

I can show much more examples where there are oil resources and no wars. Actually it is the majority of cases.

This causality argument is really unscientic. Sorry to say that.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement