"where do y'all plan to go with this? around in circles forever?"

That's it! Dave, you're a genius. Global warming arguments, they're all Billy Preston's fault!

I've got a theory, ain't got no real hard facts
I'm a gonna argue it with my friends
I've got a theory, ain't got no real hard facts
I'm a gonna argue it with my friends

Will we go round in circles
Will we fly high like CO2 emissions in the sky
Will we go round in circles
Will we fly high like CO2 emissions in the sky

I've got a story, ain't got no moral
Let the alarmists win every once in a while
Got another story, ain't got no moral
Let the conspiracy nuts win every once in a while

Will we go round in circles
Will we fly high like CO2 emissions in the sky
Will we go round in circles
Will we fly high like CO2 emissions in the sky

My mind’s made up, don’t wanna hear it, no
Ain’t gonna let the forum move me around
My mind’s made up, don’t wanna hear it, no
Ain’t gonna let the forum move me around

Will we go round in circles
Will we fly high like CO2 emissions in the sky
Will we go round in circles
Will we fly high like CO2 emissions in the sky

[musical interlude.....]

Lynn says:
I am, after all, a scientist first and foremost, so realise that we just don't know enough one way or another to say what is happening in relation to climate change. I also realise we may never know enough to reach 100% consensus, so we must do what humans have done forever. In other words, make our best educated guesses (hypotheses) and move forward.

DaveT says:
man, this thread is tired.
where do y'all plan to go with this?
around in circles forever?

On the contrary, rapid progress is being made. Well said Lynn. So you'll support those with alternative viable hypotheses against those who use false precision, bully boy tactics, and a stranglehold on the peer review process so that all the best climate hypotheses will get equal consideration in the policy making process.

Excellent!

Now we just have to unwind the damage done by co2 dogma to science, academia, politics and education over the last 20 years so we can make a start.

GRAMMY material!

George, I'm sure I can see Al Gore on the Bridge of the ship shouting at Jim Hansen:

"You told me all the icebergs had melted!"

"So you'll support those with alternative viable hypotheses against those who use false precision, bully boy tactics, and a stranglehold on the peer review process so that all the best climate hypotheses will get equal consideration in the policy making process.


I do not support any of the hypotheses, as none are beyond reproach. So to me, your hypothesis is as 'supportable' as any other, i.e. unproven in my mind and certainly far from consensus amongst climate scientists. By the same token, I do not reject your hypothesis either. I merely say there is not enough info to be certain either way. I am not a climate scientist, so don't have the time to delve into the details or politics of the subject, but I do recognise the enormity of the field, possibly almost as enormous as the field I work in. In that case, definite answers will be painfully slow in coming and becoming accepted.

Lynn says:
I merely say there is not enough info to be certain either way.

I'll settle for that. Thanks for keeping an open mind.

I do recognise the enormity of the field, possibly almost as enormous as the field I work in. In that case, definite answers will be painfully slow in coming and becoming accepted.

Medecine?

For sure, climatology is a young science with much to discover. Once the limelight has gone the funds to fly climate monitoring instruments on satellites will be much harder to come by. Let's hope the original data has been kept carefully with all metadata and methods properly documented. There's enough controversy going on already with the solar data and the post flight adjustments made by certain solar physicists.

This whole discussion reminds me of one I had with a philosopher of science recently. His premise, given his belief in Occam’s razor, is that the most parsimonious way to explain any natural phenomena is to believe its because God made it so. How can you argue with it? It meets all the requirements of good scientific practices in that you have a hypothesis (e.g. the climate is warming because God made it warm), then set about to disprove it, which you can’t. Of course, you could come up with any number of other theories which also fit the evidence and also happen to lead to useful predictions, but that does not prove that the simplest hypothesis is wrong. I balked at this, naturally, and think it’s a load of hooey (blaming everything on God does not lead to any useful predictions outside of what’s already in the bible). But it does nicely illustrate how difficult it is when you have entrenched points of views, none of which can easily be proven or disproven and have to be accepted as an act of faith until enough (good!) evidence is in. Galileo knew this all too well.

First, has the climate changed much in the last 200 years? Beyond a shadow of a doubt, warmer, colder or no change? Once we settle this and , for arguments sake say it has warmed, then we can consider whether it is an act of God, (so no point doing anything about it), or an act of nature (tectonics, albedo, solar flux, algal biomass…) so no point in doing anything about it, or human caused to a significant extent, or some combination of all three! If it IS significantly human caused, is it via CO2 emissions, deforestation and other changes in land use, or other emissions such as sulphur or methane or water or rotting landfill or....??

"For sure, climatology is a young science with much to discover. Once the limelight has gone the funds to fly climate monitoring instruments on satellites will be much harder to come by. Let's hope the original data has been kept carefully with all metadata and methods properly documented."

Lets' hope, but one thing we are still very bad at is knowing in advance what information will be important to future generations. We can only collect and annotate that which we know is useful to us now. We were recently shopping for LIMS systems for our lab, and I was stunned by the number of so-called cutting edge information management systems which still do not accommodate meta-data. I hope climatology is doing a little better in this respect, climategate aside.

Lynn says:
First, has the climate changed much in the last 200 years? Beyond a shadow of a doubt, warmer, colder or no change? Once we settle this and , for arguments sake say it has warmed, then we can consider whether it is an act of God, (so no point doing anything about it), or an act of nature (tectonics, albedo, solar flux, algal biomass…) so no point in doing anything about it, or human caused to a significant extent, or some combination of all three!

I'd say the first thing to do is get a handle on the historical context of the warming. Yes, it's been warming since the late 1600's, long before large-scale human co2 emissions got going. Is the late C20th warming from 1970 - 2003 statistically different to the rate of warming from 1910 to 1940? No. Yes it was as warm in 1100 AD as it is now, if not warmer, then it cooled. What happened at the coolest point? No-one saw any sunspots for 50 years...

This is the whole reason we had climategate and the Michael Mann/Phil Jones hockeystick graph. Someone important said to someone else:
"We've got to get rid of the Medieval warm period."

This is not a conspiracist fantasy, it really happened.
http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543

Edited by tallbloke on 11/16/2010 17:09:13 MST.

Yes, we all know about the hockey stick graph. But it doesn't change the question, which is by no means settled, as to whether the globe has been warming, cooling or staying the same in recent times. Just like there is no agreement on whether ice caps are melting/staying the same/growing, or ocean temps and sea level increasing, decreasing or staying the same. It all depends on whose opinion you seek. Throw all the other variables into the equation (CO2 increasing, but warming trends possibly being masked by other aerosols, solar flux etc...) and you have a very difficult job knowing with any certainty (forget about the IPCC 'quite probable' assertion). I think its folly to try to calculate something like climate change based on only 150 years or less of accurate measurements. Climate is a long term observation, and we don't have the data points yet.

Again, the discussion and disagreement reminds me of the saying "If two men claim to be Jesus, one of them is wrong". Though I would argue there are other possibilities which apply to climate debate, such as maybe both men are wrong, and Jesus is a woman, or isn't a real person, or is a third man just keeping his head down. We just don't know, and will likely not know for some time to come. The debate is healthy and necessary, but it is just a debate, not a question of right or wrong at this stage. Right now we just need to accumulate as much accurate data as we can. And by-and-large that is what *most* climate scientists are doing. The majority are 'real' scientists applying the best scientific methods they have available and trying to make sense of it all.

Which reminds me, what ever happened to Dean?? Will we make 1000 pages of posts on this topic and its rambling off-shoots?

I will see your two Jesuses and raise you a Buddha...

Agree with Lynn about other possibilities.

If our climate over the past 20,000 years or so has been an aberration with its stability then we may be returning to the wild swings of our geological past. Increasingly hotter followed by increasingly colder. Volatility that will put our existing civilization at great risk. So yes, there could be global warming and global cooling. And sure more CO2 might help and might hurt.

Buddha just says change is the only thing guaranteed in life.

Nick, you complained about many high school students being unable to do even basic tasks. I'm wondering how much money you put into training higher level employees. Do you put considerable investment in them with the hope that they will learn how to be a big asset to the company, or do you let their training slide and hope that those who train them can get the best results by skimping on what is needed to train these employees?
-----------------------------------------------------------
As far a training goes, it is an investment not a cost. Over the past 12 years at my company my team is the best trained, most productive, and has the happiest employees in my business unit. Many people who work for other managers want to work for me. I am tough on the job requirements, but communicate standards well, and treat everyone equitably. Most people want to do well and be productive, they just need the opportunity.

Not only am I big on training, I have actually developed my own skills so that I now do a lot of Instructional Design work on training products or clients, as a result of my internal training efforts. For years I traveled with my people to ensure the training stuck, and then did my job at night when budget was short. Long term it paid off for everyone, because I have zero employee problems. And in the long run, my job is easier. I have always taken this approach. It costs too much in time, money, and effort to keep turning over employees.

The government also gives subsidies to big oil, big agribusiness, cotton growers, etc. etc. We taxpayers subsidize so many things, we don't have a clue (that's the generalized we) of the extent of it all.
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, and we just need to stop ALL of it!



Many businesses, and I'll include car companies in this, only minimally care what people want, they instead use marketing to convince us of what we want (since we're rather incapable of critical thought ourselves) and then sell that to us. Not all that much different than 'government' really.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is changing quickly. Many businesses today spend tons of money on consumer research. There is so much competition, that if they do not fulfill real needs, products will not sell.




I thought you were a business supporter.... There are more lobbyists in Washington than there are politicians. Even small businesses group together to pay lobbyists to seek influence on capitol hill. Big businesses also group together and buy an army of lobbyists. These lobbyists often write the laws for the politicians. It's the way business is conducted in America. And you can't just blame this on politicians (though I have little regard for many of them myself).
----------------------------------------------------------
I am a business supporter, but not for those who are leeches. If the government has nothing to offer in the way of favors, back-door deals, kick-backs, government contracts, etc, then there is no need for lobbyists.


A huge problem in many schools today, both public and private, have to do with parents and economics of the home.
------------------------------------------------------------
Agree. However, many parents do a poor job because they have been brain-washed that it is the government's responsibility, and not matter what the government will take care of them. Won't delve into all the social-economic problems, but why try if you know someone will take care of you?


Doug,

I am not against government employees for the critical jobs that protect our citizens. This is the (only legitimate) purpose of government. I served in the military. But we have a huge mess on our hands. And even for those who have jobs that I personally would not deem legitimate, I have nothing against those employees either.

"But we have a huge mess on our hands."

We probably agree on as much as we disagree, perhaps a bit more. But on this, the mess we're in, we're in complete agreement. There is so, so much more to fixing it than just downsizing government though. Like Lynn I believe we need to get population growth under control. I believe a whole lot more people need to start thinking for themselves and stop being so easily led. I believe we need to reverse the supreme court decision that granted corporations the same rights as people. I think we need to get money out of politics. And much more, of course.

Yes, we're in a huge mess. But government didn't make the mess, we the people did. I don't think people have been so much brainwashed as so many of them are so inherently intellectually lazy. And, unfortunately, I don't see much changing in my lifetime.

But then again, I'm a cynic. Have been for years.

I think government should fund basic research, that is to say research that has no guaranteed marketable outcome, yet is necessary to lay the foundations for salable knowledge.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Can you provide some examples of government research that has led to salable knowledge?




Then again, if that is Nick's ideal government then, in a true democracy, if enough other people prioritise personal freedom from taxation above social and environmental justice, then your power of vote can change it.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Have I advocated democracy? A true democracy is probably the most dangerous government of all.

But government didn't make the mess, we the people did. I don't think people have been so much brainwashed as so many of them are so inherently intellectually lazy. And, unfortunately, I don't see much changing in my lifetime.
-------------------------------------------------------------
You are so right on. That is why I have mentioned philosophy so many times in this thread. Everyone needs philosophy, including businessmen.

Regarding your statement about corporations having the same rights as individuals. Just remember that a corporation is a group of individuals who have voluntarily joined together. And as a group of individuals, the corporation should enjoy the same rights as a voluntary union of individuals, as they enjoy separately.

Here is a speech you might find interesting. It was presented during graduation at West Point (US Military Academy) in 1974.

http://fare.tunes.org/liberty/library/pwni.html

> Can you provide some examples of government research that has led to salable knowledge?

If you can't find a few worthy things coming out of government-funded University research, then I suggest you have not looked very hard.

Sure, the ideas are often taken up by private enterprise once they have been started at a University, but that is the difference between fundamental research and applied R&D.

Cheers

If you can't find a few worthy things coming out of government-funded University research, then I suggest you have not looked very hard.

Roger,

The question was "government research" not "government-funded." Big difference.

Here is the US we have a plethora of government agencies that do research. This is in addition to the money given to universities and other entities.

Less than 1/3 of university research in the US is funded by the government. So this begs the question whether this research funding is essential for technological and scientific development, or would any significant developments been accomplished without government funding? Keep in mind that university researchers look for grants and the government can be the path of least resistance when hunting for money. Since the government throws so much money at funding research, something good will come out of it eventually. Throw a bowl of spaghetti against a wall and some of it will stick.

Going on your thought process from a recent post that jobs and employers are a fairly recent achievement over the past 200 years (BTW, great post!); so is government funded research. There was science before government, and there will continue to be science without government. And what is the criteria for government funding? It is usually budget. If a department/agency has budget, they will spend all of it or their budget will be reduced next year. Private funding is usually based on potential return on investment, not arbitrary handouts.

Now for a little fun:

NASA could not design an inexpensive toilet for the International Space Station, so they bought one from a Russian company in 2007 for $19 million. The inferior toilet on the Space Shuttle cost NASA $23.4 million to design and build. I wonder that Mike Clelland would say about this. :)

I understand the recycling goals of the toilet and the other considerations.

If you can't find a lot of government funded research that has really paid off, go look at the national laboratories (Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, Fermi, etc.). Right now the big push is energy-related, and that seems prudent.

--B.G.--

"I have never heard of a corporate environment as bad as you discribe for your wife or yourself."

Michael, maybe you've been lucky?

Well, to list the experiences of my wife in Japan:

- when she resigned from the ministry she worked for in Japan (in order to marry me and move to Australia) they refused to accept her resignation and hassled her about it for quite a while: interesting concept - "you cannot withdraw your labour".

- when we moved back to Tokyo she worked for a Wall Street law firm in Tokyo: apart from the bullying, racism and abuse (she was the token Japanese employee) and 4.00 am finishes this law firm:

- made her work until 4.00 am just after she had nearly miscarried - and they knew that it was a high risk pregnancy and that she'd already recently lost a pregnancy and had just nearly miscarried again: end result, 36 hours later my daughter was born at 27 weeks gestation and slightly less than 700 grams

- when she returned to work they told her that she no longer had a position there: to be clear, in Japan that's utterly illegal: women have an absolute right to go back to their old position. She hired a lawyer and went after them: Japan has very pro-employee labour laws and they ended up settling with her for a substantial sum. They have also been sued by women in the US for doing similar things.

Speaking from MY experience, I've worked for a global accounting firm, Australian law firms, English law firms (including the Magic Circle) and American law firms (a Wall Street firm) and in all of them I have been treated appallingly by partners I worked for. Most recently my employers tried to squeeze me out during the GFC: I pointed out to them that if I was sacked or left under pressure it would most likely be to one of their main clients (they knew that two of their largest clients had already approached me directly), so it would be stupid to p*ss me off: they backed off and I left in my own time, on my terms - to their biggest client. Is all of this behaviour illegal? Absolutely, but in my industry they get away with it because the victims are afraid of being blacklisted by other firms if they sue.

Can I say too that Miguel's description of how the college he works for operates is consistent with what I've heard and seen - I also worked briefly for a Japanese university and have friends who were long-term academics there. But a little googling would've got you to that too.