Glad you enjoyed it, astrocreep.
Didn't want to get into it if you didn't have any interest or see any relevance to your topic... but now:
... re: Sagan and Ehrlich's 'nuclear winter model'
This is not the way science is done, it is the way products are sold. ~Crichton
... (further down) he concludes:
What I have been suggesting to you is that nuclear winter was a meaningless formula, tricked out with bad science, for policy ends. It was
political from the beginning, promoted in a well-orchestrated media campaign that had to be planned weeks or months in advance.
That's what's been ticklin' my conspicacy bone I think. The sort of push it down our throughts - "beware the evil psuedoscientist, [insert
nefarious organization here]shills, who are only arguing their position to [insert particular nefarious motivation here]- we've got a consensus here
for cying out loud, who'd question that!" :Gasp!
"The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."
Again from Crichton:
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already
settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Scoundrels they be, aye... I think anthropogenic GW is a real phenomenon - or a genuine anamoly in the [should be cooling] data set - that merits
serious attention. However certain people tend to hype (over extrapolate) the real science, certain others tend to obfuscate it, whilst running in
the other direction. By design or by ego, I'm still not sure. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, then sometimes...
It's sorta the equivalent of 9/11 CTs ie, Cheney saying "we need another Pearl Harbor." In that, we need the ecological version of Pearl Harbor,
or perhaps only the threat of such, in order to institute social reform. An ends justify the means type mentality. They're not [intentionally]
evil, ... just trying to 'trick' us into what they believe is the right thing to do. "For our own good." :shrug:
... but I'm just speculating. Most of the players in the pro AGW crowd, compared to the current administration, are on the opposite side of the
political spectrum... so the "they" that run things still eludes us. Perhaps we waste our time looking for conspiracies and evil cabals. It's all
just an effect of human nature; the stupid stuff men do. The conspiracy is that there's no conspiracy; we're all just ego driven, mostly ignorant
idiots with over active imaginations and delusions of truthiness (this time we're sure!).
But I don't buy most of the 9/11 CTs and I'm not so sure about AGW ones either. I probably the world's worst CTist... heck I even think Oswald
could've pulled it of by himself sometimes, we landed on the Moon, and the Face on Mars is an eroded mesa; why not? Don't answer that
... From the link re: nuclear winter model:
Freeman Dyson was quoted as saying "It's an absolutely atrocious piece of science but…who wants to be accused of being in favor of nuclear
war?" And Victor Weisskopf said, "The science is terrible but---perhaps the psychology is good."
Same, same; who wants to be against Global Warming/pollution? Don't get me started on blind evolution... but I wont do that to your thread
Look eventually some jackass was gonna try and tax the air... like somebody climbs Everest just to see if they can/because it's there. "I bet
you can't sell bottled tap water to people with a running tap at their house." "Oh yeah, I bet you can't tax the air."
warn us... but I wont do that to your
:Life Happens: Try not to step in it.
I like the idea of this thread, astro. If I run across anything related I'll post it here. If I have any brilliant thoughts, same deal. Of course
I'm still waitin' on that first one... so don't go holding your breath.
[edit on 10-4-2007 by Rren]