Re: Reason Foundation finds improving traffic congestion improves economy

Free Lunch wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:12:57 -0500, Rich Piehl
<rpiehl5REMOVETHISFOR@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in misc.transport.road:

Free Lunch wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:59:38 -0500, Rich Piehl
<rpiehl5REMOVETHISFOR@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in misc.transport.road:

Free Lunch wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 12:33:40 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rpiehl5@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote in misc.transport.road:

On Sep 2, 1:36 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 12:23:29 -0500, Rich Piehl
<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in misc.transport.road:



Free Lunch wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:05:32 -0500, Rich Piehl
<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in misc.transport.road:
Free Lunch wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 20:05:58 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rpie...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote in misc.transport.road:
On Sep 1, 6:36 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 16:07:42 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rpie...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote in misc.transport.road:
On Sep 1, 10:27 am, Free Lunch <lu...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 06:05:39 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rpie...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote in misc.transport.road:
On Aug 31, 9:40 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm not sure how respected they are given that their major funding is
coming from the Heartland Institute. Some of the comments within their
claims seem unrelated to the problems or misleading. Global climate
change is not purely a disaster. No one claimed it was, but scientists
have claimed that there will be major changes in the climate. There will
be a great deal of disruption. Still, don't believe me, try
<http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2009/06/13/the-nipcc-report/>
for an overview of what is wrong with their report.
So let me understand this portion of your post.
A group of scientists get together and write a report. Bart Verhoggen
comes along and write in a blog titled "My view on climate change"
which means that at that point it is not peer reviewed, and you accept
his work, but you don't even consider the scientists works as a
possibility. Even though their credentials are every bit as good as
Verhoggen. I'm not saying that you have to accept it. Just that it
is a an alternative. Is that what that education taught you?
Nope, no bias there. No preconceived notions.
He explained why the supposed report that you offered is not accurate
nor in the mainstream. Yes, I do have the notion that right-wing
foundations will find people to write erroneous reports, that comes from
experience.
Mainstream, no. But not being mainstrem doesn't automatically
invalidate it. At one time it wasn't mainstreamthing to think the
earth orbits around the sun. But that doesn't make it untrue.
But you have chosen the side of the reactionaries against those who have
discovered new evidence.
A statement based on your position. You feel the debate is settled.
The science is solid. No one working in the field is arguing that there
is no anthropogenic effect on the climate. The critics are all people
who are not doing climate science and not reviewing the research.
I feel it is not. In my eyes no one is the reactionary. In my eyes
there' a lot of evidence that support for your position is based on
politics rather than empirical evidence.
I assume you read a lot of journal articles to come to that conclusion.
Which ones were persuasive? Which ones were not? What scientific
journals have you been reading to come to those conclusions? If, as you
imply, you were reading journal articles, why did you fob off a bunch of
political nonsense when I asked for scientists doing work in the field?
Additionally anyone who
questions it is immediately silenced,
No one is being silenced. That was a favorite accusation of the tobacco
lobby, too, when their killer drug was under attack by the results of
scientific research.
meaning confidence in data isn't
as strong as it's made out to be. A good science theory should openly
welcome any and all questioning. You looked for ways to discredit the
people on the list, not their findings or science. That's Alinksy
#5, 6 & 12. But it's lousy science.
I asked for scientific research that disagreed with the consensus. You
offered no research at all. None. Are you really going to go with the
conspiracy theory that it's all a plot to silence honest scientists?
Gimme a break.
I showed you science and you rejected on a political basis. That's not
science.
No, you did not show me science. Science is done through research and
presentation of those research findings. Not a single person or article
that you showed me was a scientific article or referred to recent
climatological research.
I showed you research and you rejected it on a political basis
I rejected a report that was not research because it was funded by a
politically reactionary foundation. You have not presented any
scientific research in this discussion.


Youjust said it - rejecting because of politics, not science. By that
logic any documents I find will have to be written by certified
Democrats or some other officially approved but unwritten list or you
won't accept it.
Yes, I rejected a political document because of its political
foundation. There was no scientific document to reject.

Read an article from a science journal sometime and then compare that to
the political screed that you directed me to.
Tell, you're so smart and no so much about climatology....
What is the criteria for placement of a weather station?
I guess when you have no research to back up your political claims, you
need to do whatever it takes to distract others from that fact.
Alinsky #2 & 5
I would think someone so well versed in all aspects of global warming
that they can judge people's research would at least know the way the
temperature data is collected. That would seem to be a pretty important
basic point when discussing temperature change. Or are you just
trusting those who have told you told you that global warming is
occurring and haven't bothered to look at something so simple yourself?
Trust me there is a point to this question and the way I'm framing it.
Answer the question. Do you know the criteria for placement of a
weather station?
Again, no answer. You're not worth my time. You've, once again,
proven that you are nothing more than a politically motivated hack who
basis his reality on partisan myopia.
You keep trying to avoid the _fact_ that there is _no_ scientific
evidence to support the climate deniers. As long as you have no evidence
to support your claim, there is nothing to respond to.
Okay, let's try again.
http://www.petitionproject.org/

Okay, how about scientists that say the IPCC report is full of errors
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7553&page=1

or

http://www.informath.org/WCWF07a.pdf

or

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/05/03/shock-global-temperatures-driven-by-us-postal-charges/


Or how about the fact that the predicted trend of accelerated warming is not occurring

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1880
I asked for scientific research. Why don't you point to any?
It was under one the links. You didn't look for it
http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php

Look at it again and try to tell me to take it seriously. It's not a
paper that supports the anthropogenic climate change deniers. It's
alleged to be a _medical_ paper. It is said to be in a _medical_
journal, yet the AAPS appears to be more political than scientific and
The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is not listed in the
major literature databases of MEDLINE/PubMed nor the Web of Science.[30]
Check out more of their wikipedia entry
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons>.

You are an absolute ASS!!!


Purpose of Petition

The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

Publicists at the United Nations, Mr. Al Gore, and their supporters frequently claim that only a few “skeptics” remain – skeptics who are still unconvinced about the existence of a catastrophic human-caused global warming emergency.

It is evident that 31,478 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,029 PhDs, are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,478 American scientists are not “skeptics.”

These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.

So now you are deciding what their purpose was outside what they stated their purpose is. You now can read minds?



--
"One thing I've learned after all this road
Is that you don't know as much as you thought you know."

--The Reverend Peyton's Big Damn Band
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
    ... I'm basically "at home" with snow and ice. ... Proof is not to be had in science. ... The scientists active in these areas make it their ... climate forcing, in my view. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: OT - Hansen acknowledges solar forcing
    ... but that doesn't say anythihg about global warming. ... If you'd ever done any real science, ... initialised to the observed state and none of the climate states in the ... Then we were warned by the Club of Rome,supported by large numbers of scientists, that we would run out of natural resources in our lifetimes. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Does Bruce Sing "Change In The Weather" ???
    ... ed by Sarah Palin critical of the Copenhagen climate summit called ... Copenhagen’s political science. ... Some scientists had strong doubts about the accuracy of ... As governor of Alaska, I took a stand ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Re: How Scientists Cant Communicate
    ... start of his paper - that scientists are heterogenous. ... topics like evolution and climate change are hardly people innocently ... misunderstanding the science. ... or that adjusting to climate ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)
  • Re: Does Bruce Sing "Change In The Weather" ???
    ... ed by Sarah Palin critical of the Copenhagen climate summit called ... Copenhagen’s political science. ... Some scientists had strong doubts about the accuracy of ... This resulted in such government bureaucrats taking ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)