myata

As long as everybody agrees where impoliteness becomes a crime. Does that conventional wisdom prohibit violence? Or does it look the other way when violence is targeted at somebody who's considered an alien? I agree though that spoken word should not be criminally punished, unless it carries real threat of violence. A mark of a mature community is its ability to deal with issues without recourse to external force. If we won't to hear unpleasant words, we won't be prepared to face the act.

I dunno, maybe we'll print it? Guess we'll have to ask the sponsor of the bill (pun intended)?

Sure, you can call it "open mind"; although not being an expert in the field, you won't be able to make out a real scientific argument from a pile of pseudo science bs; and being an expert, you probably won't be wasting your time on the internet discussion forum, where anybody can present their opinion on any matter no matter how much knowledge, education or experience they may (or not) have. You don't like the conclusion of leading experts on the subject, and not prepared to challenge it in the qualified forum, it's sure within your right; but the reverse side of this position is that now you can't prove anything to anybody; simply because they'll do just the same what you did; i.e not believe you. Right? You don't believe them, they won't believe you. You'll have a discussion a la kindergarten's "my guy against your guy", and that can go on forever. Ad infinitum, or at least till participants grow up. If that's what you're up to, your way is shining and clear and you'll hear no further objections from me.

Right, conspiracy theories? Nothing wrong with it, but... why choose one particular field of science for your mistrust and misbelief? Why not show some consistency and mistrust all science? At least we'll see some principle.. not some random irrational idea that is impossible to substantiate by anything other than "I happen to belive this guy because I like him more than the National Academy of Science". To N.-B. just in case you assume that I didn't respond because there was some meaning in your post, there's none! Keep digging (and don't count on encouragement for anything you happen to dig out. My time is finite, and only meaningful posts will be accepted).

Wow, going there made you an anarchist, August. Really, why using state to stop any assaults? Surely it's a tyranny to be avoided at all costs?

Well, to make this conclusion (reliably; scientifically) you're still missing one thing: an example where I would deny evidence supported by leading expert bodies in a field science because it goes against my liking; which in itself presumes that you can find me involved in blog/board discussions around matters of science. We'll wait for it, patiently. BTW, care to clarify the meaning of those 'quotemarks': if the National Academy of Science / International panel of scientists on climate change won't merit the term, who/what does? Awaiting revelation. As for the rest, this line of argument demonstrates very well a position of ignorant consumer: I'll take this part of science that gives me more pleasure in life and ignore that which warns of dire consequences. Of course, it's not the first time people are doing this, always to their detriment and loss. The only thing unique about the present situation is that loss and detriment will be on the global scale. Anyways, I pretty much exausted the logical part of argumentation without going into details of the subject for which this board isn't an appropriate venue, or else discussing your personal beliefs. Everybody is free to believe what they like; they can even call it "science" if they like; it'll only become real science however if/when presented; reviewed; confirmed; and accepted by the community of qualified peers. Sorry to break it to you but there's no shortcut.

Correct, it's been no less than 5 years already, and one's yet to see one single case where the sacred right to not be subjected to arbitrary detention could be challenged in a normal civil court. And Bush has vowed to fight the Supreme Court's decision with further "improvements" in legislation. Who knows, maybe, it's the sign of the things to come in the new post 9/11 world: the lofty court that upholds glorious freedoms for all the world to see; and the administration that trudges along, without paying any heed. And once the model has settled firmly in the common folks minds (usually shouldn't take too long), what do we get?

Creative terminology aside, everybody must have noticed how the interest of Bush's administration in apprehension of OBL has so dramatically diminished of late.

This particualar "political" discussion started with discrediting scientific model accepted by a majority of experts in field based on reports about a few dissenters. Because a layman has no knowledge to understand whether the dissenters have a valid case, or not, they can either rely on the opionion of majority of experts in the field, or make their own wild assumptions, based on their liking. There's no shortage of such "discussions" going on (forever) about general relativity, wormholes, aliens, fairies and other beings supernatural, etc, and you're entirely free to open yet another; it won't matter one bit to the actual science of climate modeling, but if it makes you feel better, sure. Maybe, we have yet to see a reference to such. Just throwing around some names won't suffice. In any case, the conclusion about climate change isn't based on one model that could be discredited. There's a combination of evidence: glacier melt; shrinking of arctic ice; level of CO in the atmosphere; acidity of the ocean water; climate patterns; etc, etc - that combined, cause majority of experts in the field to accept the main conclusion - that significant change of climate is coming and it's caused by human activity. Of course, in this big world one will always find a few who'll state otherwise; till they find a solid logical argument to overturn all the evidence obtained so far; till that argument is confirmed and accepted by the majority of scientific community; they'll remain just a few oddballs in the field, and your using them to ignore the advice of majority speaks not for free mindedness, but reckless ignorance.

And how would you know that your discussion partner here has that, background in science? From mumbo-jumbo talk? Anyways, as already said, there's little point in discussing scientific theories in the forum that isn't qualified for it. It'll be no different than any hockey talk, or Britney Spears talk or etc talk and will never lead to any outcome. You can't prove anything to anybody here for real, because proving involves understanding the subject, and the rules, methods, etc, that takes years of training, active work, yada, so it's plain and simple idle talk. You found a glitch, or a big glaring hole in the models of global warming - go ahead and publish it in the Science/Nature; they'll be more than happy to have such a jewel - provided, of course, it makes any sense; and if with all it innovation and ingenuity it can't be published in the Nature/Science, would somebody be wrong in assuming the possibilty (not necesserily 100% certainty - miracles do happen), no only very strongly possibility that it's just another case of somebody on the Net writing whatever is close to their heart?

Couldn't be said any better; as from Baron Muncheusen: "I think ergo you are". Indeed this is internet discussion forum and everybody is entitled to believe, say and prove anything they like.

When I have to choose between the source which is the National Academy of Science, international UN panel of Scientists, EU climate change panel, etc , on one side, and some obscure never heard before web site, I know who I'm going to trust. You're free to do otherwise; but in the absense of meaningful scientific argumentation, which belongs in a proper scientific forum rather than internet newsboard, your decision is about as rational as exercising woodoo medicine, or anti-gravitational perpetuum mobile. Sure, ever thought of publish your findings in a reputable peer-reviewed publication on climate sciense? Have it discussed it with equally qualified peers rather than in the forum where everybody can say anything with no consequence whatsoever? Every outrageous statement can be thrown about and discussed till world's end because there's no criteria, standard to tell the true from false. It can be true just because I want it to, and nobody will ever convince me otherwise. And how would you know that that evidence is "compelling" without becoming an expert yourself? Reading internet posts for a few months virtually anybody can start producing pseudo-scientific gibberish that may sound every bit authentic and compellilng to the uninitiated. That won't make any more meaningful. The only way to establish the truth (to the extent possible at this current level of knowledge) is to have it argued, reviewed and accepted by qualified peers.

What's not blindly? What if you have no competence to understand the difference between a valid, meaningful argument in the field and a bs, nonsense, gibberish? If it takes years and then, to get that competence? The choice you have is to rely on the advice of experts, or strike it your own way... with obvious outcome. What you don't understand is that there's no separate, standalone "climate change" science. Science is interconnected, and each piece is verified in trials to the extent that it can be trusted. You can trust that pictures from Mars are real, and not a creation of fairies because radio technology that carries them has been verified gazzilion times here on Earth; technology that carries rocket to Mars has been tested in billions of jet trips right here. Yet, you'll find no shortage of people who'd distrust pictures Mars, while chatting on their cellphones. Because they have no clue that the two are actually interconnected. The same. That's the problem. Until one's qualified to at least grasp the problem, and make a meaningful argument, all they're likely to produce is useless meaningless trash. And only selected few want to spend their time digging through junk. You surely understand the meaning of "reputable"? I can put out a "hypothesis" that for every statement, no matter how outrageous, there's a site somewhere on the Net that will claim it to be true.

Now, lets's stay away from generalities; you went to a hospital and they recommended a treatment that you don't like; you tried another, and they came up with the same thing. Now you mechanic friend throws in a name of somebody who's successfully practiced woodoo medicine with excellent results; how exactly are you going to use your grey matter here? Short of going through some 10 years of medical school and internship, not to mention practical experience in the field? Some experts may have .. (any specific reference from a reputable source, to at least have an idea what you're talking about) .. Right. Now because that guy screwed up some test results you're going to declare all medical tests untrustworthy and do it yourself. Good luck. They sure do. But when most experts through their expert bodies have come to a certain conclusion, it's irresponcible and plain dumb to ignore their opinion because that politician doesn't happen to like it. For the simple reason, that in their field, experts are much less likely to go terribly wrong, than a layman.

Would it signify that while multiple quoted expert bodies (such as the National Academy of Science; UN expert panel on climate change; etc), support these models, any layman can decide otherwise, i.e in favour of some oddball fringe theory? Let's try to follow this strategy consistently, shall we? Say, someone's ill, and is looking for an advice on treatment on a complex condition; should they ask (and follow the advice) of the panel of doctors in the hospital, or a mechanic neighbour who just happened to interest themselves in medicine? The "experiment" can be quite uncertain at this point, the only way to be 100% will be to live through the experience. Your call? Now, let's try to understand: at which time should I (as a layman; or politician) listen to the advice of experts; only when they say what I want to hear; or whenever there's a reasonable agreement of the expersts in the field, even if it may be against my liking? And which strategy is more likely to be benefitial for our survival?

Should it (evaluating, etc) be done by experts in the field? Or laymen from the coach? Pick one. For the former, experts in the field (as cited) overwhelmingly accepted the science leading to climate change models, so their opinion should be taken into account, given the huge benefits society has obtained through the same science; For the latter, if laymen should be allowed to weigh in (i.e evaluate, make conclusions) on the matters of science and technology, do you really want to live in a society where your essential treatment will be prescribed by a woodoo shaman (or somebody who's been reading a lot of specialized medicine in their pastime and deems themselves expert in it).

This is the old tired "what's good for us, big no-no for you". Look how advanced and civilized we're and yet, we'll go and blast out a country for no reason, just because some bonehead decided it's a good idea. A preemptive nuke attack will do futher volumes of good to our credibility. As if, after Iraq, much of it's left, anyways.

Sure, just because you say so; what if you cared to publish your findings though? Enjoy the idea, my complements. Then, all of our knowledge of astronomy is a throw away too, no more than "unproven hypothesis", correct? I mean, you'd have to conduct a real experiment, fly to that galaxy to prove that it actually exists, and not some fairies painting picitures on your telescope, right? Of course not. Everybody here (on this board) is just as good an authority. E.g. last time I took home a couple of Nobel prizes... And again, why should we just stop with that climate change? What's there to stop us from throwing scientific authority everywhere we come across it, right? No limits to our imagination.

I probably would, if suffered from paranoid "deja vu" syndrome"; why else would anyone waste their time repeating what's already been said several times over (hint: searching the archives of this site may be helpful). Also, I undertake to invest into this one (only) more time, if you care to start a new thread on this topic.

Sorry, you may have misunderstood it, but: there's no separate independent "global warming" "hypothesis". The same laws of dynamics that power the rocket (and your car), are used to create models of weather and climate change; the same math that is used in your typing on the computer is used to formulate the equations of these models; the same computers that calculate stability of your neighbourhood bridge (only much more powerful) are used to calculate these models; the same scientists who invented and developed the principles which are used in our everyday life, have analyzed, reviewed and, in their majority, accepted the fundamentals on which the models are based; as the outcomes of the models. See, there's no miracle, and no place for that "gotcha" (like perpetuum mobile); you follow the model, and either find a fault in it, and report it, and have it accepted by other scientists, like you; or accept the conclusions derived from the model. This why what we see in our everyday life is very predictable; e.g you jump off the roof, you'll drop down, and in all likelihood, won't soar like a bird; no matter how much luck; or belief in the AGS - anti gravitation "science", you may have. That's my last contribution to the layman discussions of science. The references to US academy of science, and UN internation panel (in the earlier discussion) were provided. The only way to dispute these would be to reference equally qualified and rated contentions from the opposite side. Please note the point about "equally qualified and rated". There's little point in digging out bs and throwing it around, as the resources of it on the Net are infinite (unlike our planet's oil deposits), and it'll take our combined lifetimes and more to get to the end of it.

I thought we had already sorted this out (maybe, even a few times?). I.e, the difference between an agression, and a lawful international police/protection/peacekeeping action? Have there been any new developments since? Or you just keep throwing the same deadweight argument over and again, in the hope that it'll one day learn to fly?

Anyways, here's the US' Academy of Science report on climate change (2008). Care to read the first page, carefully. There was also UN international panel on climate change; EU governments adopted real programs on emissions control based on recommendations from their scientists. I mean, sure. There's bound to be an oddball out there who'll deny or support (your choice) virtually any claim. Here's the test though. Will you use their theories (e.g on anit-gravitation, or eternal energy free levitation) to build your home, or transport yourself around? Or go with the "consensus"? Why?

Not true, if one cares to give it an honest thought. Kyoto was ratified somewhere in 2000 (we had a thread on that, correct me if I'm wrong). Before that, Liberals had two major problems on their hands: 1) unity (1995 referendum); and 2) restoring the economy, after previous, close to disastrous Mulroney's rule. Given these two, certain reluctance to add major new unbalancing factor (such as a federal program to impose serious environmental constraints on the economy) can be understood. They can get some slack from me, for their actual real results of what the country still being together, and the economy is puffing along. Not 100% slack though (in the Chretien's later years there was a good opportunity to put forward a serious environmental program; with wide support in the public, and economy on a good stable footing; however by that time Chretien was busy with internal opposition). In any case, maybe in part for that reason, Liberals were defeated, so they paid the price. I'm more interested in what didn't happen under this current government, than the previous one. And what isn't happening is Harper's living up to his committment to abide by Kyoto, and put forward a serious GHG reduction program. That's exactly it: he can say that he thinks, and see how it'd fly with the public; or he can admit that public wants to see some real movement on this issue, and work honestly and in good faith (and cooperation with the opposition) to make things happen. True to their roots, Conservatives are doing neither. They'll never dare to openly state their private beliefs (and disbeliefs). And they simply won't do anything that goes against their social conservative doctrines; and the worst thing is that nobody's there to call their shameful game.

I'm fine with Harper's (or anybody else's, for that sake) personal beliefs. It's really a private matter, and no amount of objective evidence can change that. This is not the forum to discuss diverse scientific theories (if only for impossibility of any kind of qualification check), but simply from following mainstream media (Arctic ice melt, glaciers retreat, CO levels in the atmosphere, acidity of ocean water, global temperature trend, yada, etc) there's pretty good picture that something is going to happen. On the other hand, there's very good consensus among the scientists, environmentalists, and even many politicians, that something needs to be done, and quick. The problem I find with this particular party, and the government is that it says as we want it to hear, but acts according to their private ideological beliefs. It's very sad that the official opposition will let them get away with pretty much anything, waiting for second coming (of leadership aptitudes, for Dion).

OK, pretty much everybody must be already well versed on Harpers' approach to any policy challenge: #1 throw dirt at anybody with a fresh idea or an alternative solution; #2 pump out unrealistic ads about own would be achievements (usually to be realized in a few generations' timeframe) #3 do nothing (of substance) here and now. Here's a fine example. Tory are already well on record pumping hot air at Quebec-Ontario joint emissions trade programme. Here (Carbon tax story - CTV) they are back in their familiar territory of throwing dirt (who cares about factual correctness, right?) at Dion. All that with absolute zero, nada, nul to show for any strategy, policy, solution of their own. Anything that could result in an actual reduction of carbon emissions. That must be the new way of leadership. Big on (loudmouth) talk, nowhere to be found / no comments on the result. The cheap and the tawdry.