Comments on: The Science of Global Warming Is Older Than Quantum Mechanics

By: NotDan

NotDan — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:11:02 +0000

global warming is
global warming is not happening.

IMHO the OISM is the best indicator we have that the user is clueless.

If we didn't have such a good indicator, we'd have to make one.

The OISM is also good comedy - and for that, we thank hapless Dan.

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 18:54:34 +0000

31,000 American scientists
31,000 American scientists signed this petition http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p1845.htm global warming is not happening.

By: Debbie

Debbie — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 01:08:39 +0000
"The good thing about
"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."

copy that.
amazing that people still think global warming isn't happening.

By: Allison Bailes

Allison Bailes — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 21:33:07 +0000
George R.:
George R.: Don't confuse rating standards with software or either with utility programs. RESNET decided that home energy ratings would be based on site energy use because the goal was to help homeowners make informed decisions about how energy efficient a home is. Architectural Energy Corporation is simply applying the RESNET standards to their software.

Of course, anyone who really wants to understand the impact of their energy choices needs to know about site versus source energy. Yes, electricity from a power plant that burns fossil fuels loses a lot of the energy in the fuel they burn. But it's also not so easy to power computers and lights and air conditioners with natural gas burned on site.

If Duke Power is disqualifying homes from some program or rebate just because they use mini-split heat pumps, they must be a bit thick. What's their reason?

By: Allison Bailes

Allison Bailes — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 20:24:49 +0000
Lucas D.:
Lucas D.: Thanks for that link. I hadn't seen it before. For those who don't want to copy and paste, click the title below:

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart

.

By: Lucas Durand

Lucas Durand — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 20:13:43 +0000

There is no such thing as
There is no such thing as “good” science or “bad” science.
But there is a diference between peer reviewed science and psuedoscience.

In the case of climate science, it’s pretty clear what the scientific concensus is:
http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart 

Climate change denial is just politics – smoke and mirrors.

By: Allison Bailes

Allison Bailes — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 19:22:10 +0000
Robin B.:
Robin B.: Not only do you not understand science, but the example you chose is a poor one. Fritz Haber discovered what's now called the Haber-Bosch process for turning atmospheric nitrogen into ammonia for use in fertilizer and explosives. He was an academic researcher at the time of his discovery, so it was indeed paid for by government.

If you want to find problems with government-funded research, that's not hard to do. As Dan Kolbert mentioned above, corporate R&D; has its problems, too. We need both.

By: Robin Boyd

Robin Boyd — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:54:10 +0000
There is no doubt that
There is no doubt that corporations have and will use science to exploit consumers for profit. It is human nature to support claims with "scientific" evidence. The point is that we have made science into a religion rather than what it really is, which is observational study.

One of the greatest scientific discoveries that has kept mankind from having massive starvations is the ability to fix nitrogen from atmospheric nitrogen. Fixed nitrogen from air replaced the nitrates obtained from rapidly depleting bat and bird guano. This developement was done strictly through private enterprises, and the results kept millions of humans from starving to death while allowing the human race to continue to grow in numbers.

Had government agencies been tasked with finding other ways to fertilize soil in order to feed the world, we would still be spending all of our money on "research".

Governmenat agencies exploit science to a much greater degree than private industry does. Private industry must find a way to make a profit from actual developements from scientific research. Government agencies just keep sucking the public coffers dry with never ending research that never resolves issues, but rather continues to perpetuate more and more claimed issues.

We will never find a cure for cancer as long as so many are profiting so much from researching a cure for cancer. No one is being held responsible for succeeding. Take away all government funding for cancer research and put a bounty of several billion dollars for a cure for cancer and a cure will be found.

By: Allison Bailes

Allison Bailes — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:27:14 +0000
Dan K.:
Dan K.: Good points. I know a guy who likes to ask, "Are humans smarter than yeast?"

Be sure to let us know when the cookbook is available. That sounds great! ;~0

By: Allison Bailes

Allison Bailes — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:18:49 +0000
Robin B.:
Robin B.: Profit-making science may sound good in theory, but that's not what science is about. Although many scientific discoveries have been exploited in business ideas, the original discoveries were made for the sake of understanding the universe we live in.

What you're advocating actually is to get rid of science and replace it with corporate R&D.; Those are two entirely different things.