Post Reply
Page 8 of 8  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8
5 years ago  ::  Dec 02, 2009 - 5:27PM #71
rangerken
Posts: 16,406

I'm afraid I'm right, Chari... and I do mean 'afraid'. I don't ike seeing science embarrassed. It's bad for everyone. Anyway here's some more pertinent stuff.


wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/01/lord-monc...


And some more (and the above link is also available in this article below)...


blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpo...


and more...


bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid...


My main point is that the issue is not... not, not, not... 'settled', and there is a lot of room for more research, and there is plenty of evidence to argue BOTH ways!!! I am, as I've stated, firmly within the doubting crowd, but that doesn't mean I don't agree that there is eidence otherwise. what infuriates me is the raud perpetrated in order to deefame those scientists who don't agree with that 'settled reasoning'. Settled my posterior!


Ken

Libertarian, Conservative, Life member of the NRA and VFW
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 10, 2009 - 12:50PM #72
Merope
Posts: 9,590

This thread was moved from the Hot Topics Zone.



Merope
Beliefnet Community Host
Hot Topics Zone


 

Merope | Beliefnet Community Manager
Problems? Send a message to Beliefnet_community
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 10, 2009 - 3:41PM #73
Bodean
Posts: 9,418

Lets see ... this is ONE HOT TOPIC ...


And it gets moved here to the bone yard of the environmental thread.


I don't get it!


Maybe the Mods are trying to get people to start visiting this little niche of the site .. I don't know.


ANYWAY ... APPY ... you would be incorrect.


The Great Plague occurred in the mid 1600s, ...during the Little Ice Age.  It is speculated that the massive influx of starving farmers and others to the cities, all in a weakened state due to starvatoin as a result of massive crop failures due to the cooling climate "may have" played a role in its severity.


This is why I oppose this cap and tax nonsense.  We should be preparing for a real emergency, like ... if the planet cools.  There is not a single instance of a warming climate opposing life. ... NONE!!  Higher CO2 is beneficial to plant growth, and that is beneficial to us all.


This really is just a ploy to redistribute global weatlth.  Obama and the Democrats will be history if they approve of it.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 10, 2009 - 4:25PM #74
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

Dec 10, 2009 -- 3:41PM, Bodean wrote:


ANYWAY ... APPY ... you would be incorrect.


The Great Plague occurred in the mid 1600s, ...during the Little Ice Age.



I think, whatever YOU may mean, it is not the Great Plague Appy referred to:


the "Black Death" epidemia of the 14th century.

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 10, 2009 - 10:58PM #75
Bodean
Posts: 9,418

Dec 10, 2009 -- 4:25PM, CharikIeia wrote:


Dec 10, 2009 -- 3:41PM, Bodean wrote:


ANYWAY ... APPY ... you would be incorrect.


The Great Plague occurred in the mid 1600s, ...during the Little Ice Age.



I think, whatever YOU may mean, it is not the Great Plague Appy referred to:


the "Black Death" epidemia of the 14th century.




Well .. .it's a rather arbitrary point.


This article notes that Europe experienced a cooling climate from 1150-1460, and the graph by Lamb 1995 shows a correlating rise in grain prices between 1200 and 1300.  The article also notes that the "Black Death" was worsened by the malnutrition all over Europe.  Grapes were successfully grown in England up until 1300, which marked the beginning of the Black Death.


www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_...


BUT .. we both know the Black Death is thought to be the result of Bubonic Plague, which doesn't have squat to do with climate.


But still, there is ample evidence that malnutrition and starvation "could" have contributed.


:-)

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 11, 2009 - 2:09AM #76
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

Dec 10, 2009 -- 10:58PM, Bodean wrote:


Well .. .it's a rather arbitrary point.



Depends on what exactly the argument is that you think you are making.



This article notes that Europe experienced a cooling climate from 1150-1460, and the graph by Lamb 1995 shows a correlating rise in grain prices between 1200 and 1300.  The article also notes that the "Black Death" was worsened by the malnutrition all over Europe.  Grapes were successfully grown in England up until 1300, which marked the beginning of the Black Death.


www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_...


BUT .. we both know the Black Death is thought to be the result of Bubonic Plague, which doesn't have squat to do with climate.



I think it is "settled science" that the Black Death was in the first place due to the huge population that developed in Europe over the Medieval Warm Period - which under pre-scientific medical circumstances made the continent a likely prey of epidemic outbreaks of disease.

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 11, 2009 - 5:33AM #77
Karma_yeshe_dorje
Posts: 12,457
Good point, CharikIeia:

Ethics is a branch of philosophy, which is in Arts. I only came across a couple of science people who had much to do with that. One bombed out of Chemistry and continued in Philosophy. The other went from Philosophy to Computer Science. So I am not surprised to find fickle connection between science and ethics!
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 11, 2009 - 9:31AM #78
eadler
Posts: 4,449

Dec 2, 2009 -- 5:27PM, rangerken wrote:


I'm afraid I'm right, Chari... and I do mean 'afraid'. I don't ike seeing science embarrassed. It's bad for everyone. Anyway here's some more pertinent stuff.


wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/01/lord-monc...


And some more (and the above link is also available in this article below)...


blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpo...


and more...


bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid...


My main point is that the issue is not... not, not, not... 'settled', and there is a lot of room for more research, and there is plenty of evidence to argue BOTH ways!!! I am, as I've stated, firmly within the doubting crowd, but that doesn't mean I don't agree that there is eidence otherwise. what infuriates me is the raud perpetrated in order to deefame those scientists who don't agree with that 'settled reasoning'. Settled my posterior!


Ken




The points of view presented by the first 2 of the above links echo what the AGW deniers say, that there is proof of fraud. The third link, from Bloomberg news syas the opposite.


Climate skeptics pretend the e-mails are proof that man- made global warming is a hoax, the scientific consensus rigged. That’s preposterous.


The hacked scientists and their defenders argue that the e- mails amount to a tempest in a teacup, just another trumped-up attack from the skeptics. That’s not true either.


....


Jones didn’t have the power to block research from the IPCC’s climate assessment or “redefine” the peer-reviewed literature. His evident desire to do so is troubling, though his low opinion of the skeptical papers was justified. (Jones acknowledged that some of the e-mails “do not read well” but dismissed as “complete rubbish” the charge that he and his colleagues had manipulated data.)     Jones didn’t have the power to block research from the IPCC’s climate assessment or “redefine” the peer-reviewed literature. His evident desire to do so is troubling, though his low opinion of the skeptical papers was justified. (Jones acknowledged that some of the e-mails “do not read well” but dismissed as “complete rubbish” the charge that he and his colleagues had manipulated data.)


One of the papers Jones questioned, for example, was so flawed that after its 2003 publication in Climate Research, the resulting furor led to the ..."return escape( popwOpenWebSite( this ))">resignations of half the journal’s editorial board. By the time the paper had been ..."return escape( popwOpenWebSite( this ))">discredited by other scientists, the noisiest climate skeptic in the U.S. Senate, ..."return escape( popwSearchNews( this ))">James Inhofe of Oklahoma, had already ..."return escape( popwOpenWebSite( this ))">held a hearing to publicize it. Even today, contrarian Web sites continue to tout its specious claim that the 20th century wasn’t particularly warm.


Jones and his colleagues talked about withholding information because they believed, based on bitter experience, that the skeptics who sought their data would cherry-pick their work for misleading “proof” that climate change was overblown. The irony is that by talking about withholding data, they ended up giving those skeptics a brand-new argument against them.


Circling the wagons in response to unfair attacks, an understandable response, had the effect in this case of fueling the naysayers. To regain whatever public trust may have been lost -- and it isn’t yet clear how much damage this episode has done -- Climategate must become the moment when the tactic of scientific stonewalling is abandoned, and absolute transparency becomes the only allowable standard.


Yes, the skeptics will cull data and make misleading arguments, and mouthpieces like Inhofe will trumpet them. Yet there is no better way to expose such false claims than to subject them to vigorous, transparent peer review...."


The author while pointing out that 95% of the climate data is already publicly available, says that all the data should be available. Even though the so called "skeptics" will cherry pick the data and make the same false claims as they have been doing.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 11, 2009 - 5:57PM #79
Bodean
Posts: 9,418

Dec 11, 2009 -- 2:09AM, CharikIeia wrote:


Dec 10, 2009 -- 10:58PM, Bodean wrote:


Well .. .it's a rather arbitrary point.



Depends on what exactly the argument is that you think you are making.



This article notes that Europe experienced a cooling climate from 1150-1460, and the graph by Lamb 1995 shows a correlating rise in grain prices between 1200 and 1300.  The article also notes that the "Black Death" was worsened by the malnutrition all over Europe.  Grapes were successfully grown in England up until 1300, which marked the beginning of the Black Death.


www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_...


BUT .. we both know the Black Death is thought to be the result of Bubonic Plague, which doesn't have squat to do with climate.



I think it is "settled science" that the Black Death was in the first place due to the huge population that developed in Europe over the Medieval Warm Period - which under pre-scientific medical circumstances made the continent a likely prey of epidemic outbreaks of disease.




Well .. believe it or not .. I totally agree.  It's the "hen house" effect.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 8 of 8  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook