Stonehead

Rave-ups? "You talk to me about truth and love, as if you learned them yesterday." Stephen Dedalus in Ulysses, James Joyce [video:youtube]zN9x6zckn18 http://www.lyricsfreak.com/g/guided+by+voices/i+am+a+scientist_20062941.html

You think God is just a shout in the street.

That's rich, you talking about style or rules. Whatever. I didn't realize you had the slighest belief in the idea of private property much less intellectual property. But then, you don't really own it, do you? You just like the idea of ownership when you can appropriate something for yourself without labor on your part. But seriously, didja listen to what the woman said?

[video:youtube]UdnwLX5m3G8 If you listen really closely, it sounds like the woman at the end is saying: "Open the door. Al Gore". Freaky!

What? j_b doesn't have a rebuttal to the issue that the IPCC is primarily a political body yet he wails about incorporating non-anthropogenic influences into the picture of climate change since he believes the science might be tainted by oil money? So do you have an answer or are you just going to hurl ad hominem attacks because you don't have anything of substance to add?

You sound so authoritative. So, your definitive expression of these blanket statements means you're now an expert in climate science?

Heh, that's directed at Geithner. You can identify him by his pointy little elfen ears.

Look, you seem like a reasonable fellow and by your previous posts you don't seem to be mean spirited though I gotta say that you're quick to label someone negatively if their views don't jibe with yours. That said, I do agree with your assessment of the relative quality of the various works. However, I do know that, in particular, a tenured research professor will usually have a career invested in pursuing a line of work that forms a consistent body. For instance, he may see stratigraphic/sedimentological evidence that supports a glacial mechanism on the order of periodicity following the Milankovitch Orbital Parameters. His pursuit of grant monies will build on this basis. He will give talks at professional meetings and he will counter criticisms during the Q&A session following the talk. His work, if not too controversial, will be accepted in peer-reviewed journals and he will rebut written criticisms through clarification or modifications of his working hypothesis. Will he abandon his main line of research due to criticism? Rarely. You see, if he were a good scientist he would have a rational basis for pursuing his line of research. He would have a working hypothesis and he would test it and modify it as fits, but his work has to remain good enough to ensure a steady supply of grant money. (It also doesn't hurt to have friends in high places.) I could go on but you should get the picture. If you are a student of any of the sciences you know this to be true. I do believe in the value of peer-reviewed publications but understand also that, that is not the final word. It is a game and sometimes it takes the heretics to bring the larger truth to light. No, I am thinking more along the lines of incorporating primary and secondary exogenic influences ranging from the variation of solar output and to the formation of clouds due to cosmic rays, for instance. I am thinking about changes in the heat distribution across the earth through oceanic currents such as El Nino (La Nina), the Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation influenced perhaps by geophysical changes in the molten portion of the earth interior. I am thinking about temporal (cyclical and secular) changes in the earth's rotation upon its spin axis as influenced by the tidal friction of the earth-moon system. Etc.etc.

So I take it you don't believe in the idea of natural rights? You must be either French or Canadian.

Hegel? He's dead. Care to elaborate?

450 peer-reviewed papers critical of anthropogenic causes as the sole source and/or most significant contributor to climate change, aka global warming: 450 peer-reviewed papers I'm familiar enough with the world of science research to know that investigators are fallible as all of us in their motivations arising from either their predominant paradigm or from more base desires. For instance, if you would care to google: 'National Institute of Health (NIH) fraud' you'd see links to numerous cases of scientific fraud committed for motives which drive grant seeking researchers. Now, I'm not suggesting that outright fraud is being committed in the field of climate science, only that our motivations can mask the truth. [video:youtube]nUdsTizSxSI Perhaps the time is ripe for a synthesis of interpretations to best fit the data?

http://twitter.com/shitmydadsays

Sorry about the diversion... Regarding the thread topic, although my crystal ball is specked with dust, I'd suspect that Eric Holder and company would not pursue this venue if it weren't to be a slamdunk for the administration. I'd rather believe that something else will derail the partisan upset of 2006/2008, thus the insertion of the effect of international treaties and by inference the potential harnessing by the GOP of populist discontent with government handling of the financial mess. On the other hand, I don't feel so generous to see much hope or optimism emanating from either party in 2012.

You're getting shrill and long winded. I could give a shit if Monckton were a scientist. He's first and foremost a politician. It's the implications that he airs that should be of concern because these are very real concerns. However, if you want a more credible witness perhaps a geologist would suffice: New geologic evidence of past periods of oscillating, abrupt warming, and cooling. Of course, that's only one reference but there's a legion of others available if you weren't so sheltered in your insular worldview. And your so called rationality? You can be completely rational and completely wrong. Thomas Kuhn spoke of this in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. I only mention Stewart Brand and his view of nuclear power to illustrate to you a salient example of someone whose worldview has evolved considerably yet stays true to some basic tenets.

You start out by making an unsubstantiated allegation in calling someone a crackpot and then proceed to label any critic of your static worldview a far right lunatic. Are you for real or are you craning for the inspirational position of a character in a new po-mo graphic novel? What’s that, Mr. Objective? You don’t see the irony in refusing to acknowledge and study the views of the opposition? Are you familiar with the definition of zealot? Consider that a small mind cannot simultaneously hold two opposing views to observe a new synthesis but is instead lost in the low level dialectic all the while missing the progression that’s actually occurring. It’s like a shell game and you’re the sucker. FYI, I don’t mean totalitarian in the sense that large numbers of the population are subjugated and disappeared as witnessed in third world countries and formerly socialist regimes, I mean it in the sense where control is applied through the evolving mechanism of technology and especially where the division between corporation and government blurs. For instance, take a look in part at the evolution of surveillance cameras in your friendly neighborhood Safeway or Albertsons. You also gotta love those buyer loyalty programs. Your profile is you and they own your profile. The ability of the combination of these tech developments to capture what you are in essence does not rely on the dominant party in Washington just as all the intrusions into our privacy during the Bush years were not abandoned with the arrival of the One. Take it for what it’s worth, the Buddhists and the other Gnostics were right, ignorance is bliss. And why not also mention that Cervantes’ guy? Maybe his fictional work, Don Quixote, held more truth than any scientific journal. I bet that sure flies over your head. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quixote And my mention of Stewart Brand? I don’t subscribe to everything he believes but I believe he is more honest than you in his examination of his beliefs to coincide with the reality of what is today and his vision of what will be tomorrow (Stewart Brand proclaims 4 environmental 'heresies'--TED). If only you were as rigorous in an honest assessment of your religiously held beliefs then you’d see that learning does not end with the granting of an university degree.

Maybe Todd can weigh in on these worldly issues. He is a musician after all. [video:youtube]fvdGPD443nE

Maybe we should petition the great omnipresent, omniscient kitty in the sky for guidance?

How the climate data is interpreted is only a sidetrack to the whole issue, that being, your obliviousness to Al Gore’s tendency to demagoguery, who BTW also received a Nobel Peace Prize and for what exactly, that of being the chief propagator of global warming? So your modus operandi when the issue aligns with your political bent is to give a free pass to the propagator. You truly have the mark of a true believer in that you harbor no skill in critical evaluation of the means to achieve an end. In that respect, you possess a devout faith in the chief priests of your Left-Statist (totalitarian) religion. Even environmentalists such as Steward Brand (Whole Earth Catalog) were criticized by the true believers by the former’s acceptance of the manifest role of the new generation of nuclear power reactors in alleviating the downside of electrical production. But really, this is not so much about the transition in power generation towards a carbon neutral strategy as much as an attack on our elevated standard of living with respect to the larger part of the world. Beware of the means to achieve this end because the cure may be far more serious in its far reaching implications than the disease. And don’t deny that you have taken up the mantle for advancing your religion. It’s obvious in your posting of Glenn Greenwald’s criticism of the Obama administration. It is not the man so much that you support but rather the use of his position to further an agenda that runs counter to the established tradition of the United States as a free and sovereign nation.

You truly are oblivious. The evidence speaks for itself. [video:youtube]_jqcnBugnl8 Al Gore’s Journalistic Shield

Oh, the irony.

[video:youtube]xGKRSAwrkXo

This might be only a drop in the bucket compared to the monumental changes that could issue forth from his administration. Why was Obama granted the Nobel Peace Prize when he has not deviated dramatically from the Bush administration stance concerning foreign policy with regard to war? Perhaps it signals homage to the potential role the Obama administration will play in transforming America under the aegis of the international body. [video:youtube]PMe5dOgbu40

You can put makeup on a pig, but you can't make it sing.

[video:youtube] Yeah, whatever. We've come a long ways in the evolution of the spectacle from the days of Roman poet, Juvenal*. Today, we're emanicipated in word but freely enslaved in deed. We gladly pay for the privilege of goin' out to the ballgame. And it's quite a spectacular one at that. But if you want to see two different worlds, go to a Mariners game and then go to a Rainiers game. *"… Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses." (Juvenal, Satire 10.77–81)