Now its Global cooling or rather Solar cooling.

[miguelvp]

Why don't we just point the finger at those who are most responsible for global warming and those who rejected the Kyoto protocol ? Like USA for an example? 

The US didn't want to give up their sovereignty over our land to external powers.

That doesn't mean we didn't want to agree to pollution levels and carbon goals, but the Kyoto Protocol was just a bit too overreaching and there is no way our government is going to give control of our land to foreign interests.

[mtdoc]

Why don't we just point the finger at those who are most responsible for global warming and those who rejected the Kyoto protocol ? Like USA for an example? 

The US didn't want to give up their sovereignty over our land to external powers.

Yet that hasn't stopped the same political and industry actors from pushing through the Transpacific Partnership...

[c4757p]

A lot of us here are engineers and scientists.  We can do this.

You can. People like zapta, on the other hand...

c4757p, why do you feel threaten by an open discussion?

...tend to throw their toys out of the proverbial pram when challenged.

Please. We've done this one before.

[hendorog]

Why don't we just point the finger at those who are most responsible for global warming and those who rejected the Kyoto protocol ? Like USA for an example? 

The US didn't want to give up their sovereignty over our land to external powers.

That doesn't mean we didn't want to agree to pollution levels and carbon goals, but the Kyoto Protocol was just a bit too overreaching and there is no way our government is going to give control of our land to foreign interests.

How does signing the Kyoto protocol hand over sovereignty of the USA to external powers??

I thought the US didn't sign because they believed it was an economic burden. This is from Wikipedia FWIW:

"the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing nations as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States"

[miguelvp]

Why don't we just point the finger at those who are most responsible for global warming and those who rejected the Kyoto protocol ? Like USA for an example? 

The US didn't want to give up their sovereignty over our land to external powers.

Yet that hasn't stopped the same political and industry actors from pushing through the Transpacific Partnership...

That's a myth, and really the concern had nothing to do with sovereignty.

The Kyoto Protocol would had given external actors the means to dictate land usage in the US.

The TPA concern is about once we commit to an FTA we couldn't change our minds. Well that's just not true. Congress still has the sole authority to ignore any promises made under the FTA and TPP.

[mtdoc]

The US didn't want to give up their sovereignty over our land to external powers.

Yet that hasn't stopped the same political and industry actors from pushing through the Transpacific Partnership...

That's a myth, and really the concern had nothing to do with sovereignty.

I strongly disagree as do many policy experts and members of congress from across the political spectrum, who have actually read the agreement. In any case, this is way, way OT so I'll leave it at that.

[miguelvp]

I know Edwin Meese has not been in office for a while but here is what he has to say about TPA:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/11/why-trade-promotion-authority-is-constitutional

Future trade deals would not be unconstitutional, nor would they undermine U.S. sovereignty, if they contained an agreement to submit some disputes to an international tribunal for an initial determination. The United States will always have the ultimate say over what its domestic laws provide. No future agreement could grant an international organization the power to change U.S. laws.

A ruling by an international tribunal that calls a U.S. law into question would have no domestic effect unless Congress changes the law to comply with the ruling. If Congress rejects a ruling or fails to act, other countries might impose a trade sanction or tariff, but they are more likely to impose high tariffs now without any agreement. The fact remains that no international body or foreign government may change any American law. Moreover, Congress may override an entire agreement at any time by a simple statute. Nations also may withdraw from international agreements by executive action alone. That is one reason why such agreements do not interfere with the underlying sovereignty of each nation to chart its own course in the world. In short, the U.S. Constitution and any laws and treaties we enact in accordance thereto are the only supreme law of our land.

Just a strongly disagree doesn't prove we lost sovereignty, as for being OT yup I agree, but someone had to bring Kyoto to the table and why the big bad US of A didn't want to play ball. Well there are always reasons behind everything. It's not simple and not cut and dry. Relations between all the actors going down to each individual is as complex as the climate and even if the same patterns emerge and tend to repeat, you can't predict what is going to happen in the long run.

[mtdoc]

I know Edwin Meese has not been in office for a while but here is what he has to say about TPA:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/11/why-trade-promotion-authority-is-constitutional

Edwin Meese?, The Heritage Foundation?. Really?, Really?

For any of these issues, be it the TPP, climate science opposition, or whatever,  I think one should consider the source of the information, and I don't just mean political ideology. Follow the money...

BTW, you (and Edwin), refer to the TPA ( Trade  Promotion Authority) which does not encompass all of the evils of the TPP (TransPacific Partnership). One could be in favor of TPA but oppose the TPP.

[zapta]

Websites of NASA and the major scientific organizations: See HERE and HERE.

These are non partisan organizations (consisting of people from all political persuasions) that do not receive private funding and which form the foundation of science as we know it (which in itself is not a political process despite what those who disagree with it's conclusions may say).

Assuming that government funding for climate research and governmental organizations such as NASA and ICPP are unbiased is very naive.

[mtdoc]

Assuming that government funding for climate research and governmental organizations such as NASA and ICPP are unbiased is very naive.

It's the exact same public funding mechanism which funds almost all science. Humans are involved so there will always be individual cases of bias, but the very nature of public funding of science across thousands of institutions and hundreds of countries means that individual biases are washed out and on whole it is unbiased. That's just the reality.

The truth is, the way to gain notoriety and attract major amounts of funding, would be to publish convincing evidence that refutes AGW. Many have tried and have failed. That's the way science works. Funding and notariety are achieved by unexpected, new, results - not by doing "me too" research.


Just because the conclusions of the science are contrary to your politcal ideology doesn't mean you can choose to attack this particular instance of scientific consensus reached over decades by thousands of scientists in many countries and still claim to be pro science. That in itself would be an anti-science ideology. The very nature of science is to accept the evidence, whether you like it or not.

And if you don't trust NASA or the IPCC, what about the 18 major scientific societies cited?

(And why did you strip out the links from my quote?)

And what about the statement by The APS? Do you disagree with their statement on creationism as well?

[miguelvp]

http://www.finance.senate.gov/newsroom/chairman/release/?id=4f4d0dd8-6b9d-48f6-ab4c-f5977a7bb1e7

Does ISDS put American sovereignty in jeopardy?

No. ISDS has no power to overturn U.S. laws or regulations. The U.S. constitution makes clear that only Congress can change U.S. law.

TPA 2015 specifically states the United States cannot be compelled to change its law due to an adverse finding by an arbitration tribunal.

But if you have any information to the contrary that states that the ISDS has power to change US law, please share.

I'm not saying that I agree with TPA, but in no way it threatens our sovereignty.

If you don't trust your congressman/woman then you should run for office if you can represent your state better than they can.

After all, TPA reached across the aisle, that doesn't happen often.

[mtdoc]

I've seen no one claim that ISDA has the power to change US law. Of course it doesn't. That's a straw man.

The whole issue with ISDA is that it completely side steps US law and enables financial liability to be imposed completely independently of the US legal system. Are you ok with that? I'm not.

[mtdoc]

After all, TPA reached across the aisle, that doesn't happen often.

Of course it does - all the time when big money is involved.

Again, i'm talking about the TPP, not TPA.

And of course opposition to the TPP (and TPA) is across the isle (as is support).

[miguelvp]

I've seen no one claim that ISDA has the power to change US law. Of course it doesn't. That's a straw man.

The whole issue with ISDA is that it completely side steps US law and enables financial liability to be imposed completely independently of the US legal system. Are you ok with that? I'm not.

Well, I can't read minds. In context it sounded like you were implying that.

Why don't we just point the finger at those who are most responsible for global warming and those who rejected the Kyoto protocol ? Like USA for an example? 

The US didn't want to give up their sovereignty over our land to external powers.

Yet that hasn't stopped the same political and industry actors from pushing through the Transpacific Partnership...

But as in TPA, or TPP or NAFTA or whatever, they are trade agreements and we had those for way longer than that.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/09/top-nine-myths-about-trade-promotion-authority-and-the-trans-pacific-partnership/

But, hey, maybe the illuminati is a thing.

We can call foul on everything, look at your profession. I could say that all doctors in general are bought by the big pharma and will prescribe me unnecessary drugs and treatments because they sold out.

Trust no one, is really not a good way to go through life

Of course the same can be said for any other aspect, including science. Who decides what scientists get to work on? not the scientists anymore.

[mtdoc]

http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/09/top-nine-myths-about-trade-promotion-authority-and-the-trans-pacific-partnership/

Again, consider the source:  thefedereralist.com is Ben Domenech's website. Follow the money.

NAFTA was a mistake. Ross Perot was right. TPP is exponentially worse with provisions completely outside the scope of NAFTA.

We can call foul on everything, look at your profession. I could say that all doctors in general are bought by the big pharma and will prescribe me unnecessary drugs and treatments because they sold out.

  Of course anyone can say anything.  Common misconception there. Yes a few doctors are sell outs - but the vast majority of primary care doctors make it a point to only prescribe generic, off patent medications and many do not allow drug sales reps in their offices. This is also the policy of many US medical schools. Do you have evidence otherwise? I can reference med school and medical organization policies if need be.

Trust no one, is really not a good way to go through life

  Straw man.

[zapta]

It's the exact same public funding mechanism which funds almost all science.

If you believe in this I have an eBay Hakko to sell you.

The good news is that the catastrophic climate predictions are time bounded (a few tens of years) and are unambiguous enough (ocean covering cities, significant reduction in food production, significant increase in extreme storms, etc) so we will know soon enough how valid they are. The sad thing is that even they will be proven false, people will come up with new ones as they always do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events

[Marco]

trade agreements

10 years ago maybe calling these agreements trade agreements could still have passed ... but it wouldn't have been accurate then. It's down right disingenuous now.

It's all about foreign investment ... which for most developed countries (or even undeveloped countries with good resources) is not only unnecessary but actively destructive. I like to point out New Zealand in this regard, every year a trade surplus, every year a current account deficit.

[mtdoc]

It's the exact same public funding mechanism which funds almost all science.

If you believe in this I have an eBay Hakko to sell you.

It's not a matter of belief. The grant funding of almost all climate science is a matter of public record. Your wishes won't make that fact go away.

Again - if you disagree with the position of the APS and all the other major scientific organizations please justify why.  Do you have evidence they are not basing their opinions on the scientific evidence?  Are there other positions of theirs you disagree with, or is it just climate science?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[EEVblog]

The truth is, the way to gain notoriety and attract major amounts of funding, would be to publish convincing evidence that refutes AGW. Many have tried and have failed. That's the way science works. Funding and notariety are achieved by unexpected, new, results - not by doing "me too" research.

Indeed. In fact there is world wide fame and fortune and probably a Nobel prize in it for anyone who can come up with a convincing new alternative theory.
It must be the holy grail of every climate researcher on the planet. Just as it would be every theoretical physicists dream to prove relatively theory incorrect.

[Marco]

Yes a few doctors are sell outs - but the vast majority of primary care doctors make it a point to only prescribe generic, off patent medications and many do not allow drug sales reps in their offices. This is also the policy of many US medical schools. Do you have evidence otherwise?

Statins in particular are a bomb under the trust in the medical profession in my opinion, sure they have a statistical effect ... on both heart attack rate and muscle mass and thus activity and thus quality of life. If it turns out in the end to decrease heart attacks simply by making people lethargic, people are going to feel a bit miffed about the trillions spend on them.

[mtdoc]

I've prescribed statins to hundreds (maybe thousands) of patients. Probably less than 5% of those had any side effects- and never anything serious - just stop the med and they go away. On the other hand I've taken care of many hundreds of patients with heart attacks or strokes.  There is overwhelming evidence that the benefit of statins far outweighs their harm. 

But of course just like anything, the internet is full of anectdotal horror stories of people who blame everything from their hemorrhoids to their multiple sclerosis on statins (or various other prescription drugs). Yes,  there are the rare cases of serious side effects and lots of noise about those cases, especially online- that doesn't negate the thousands of lives saved and thousands more whose quality is improved by these meds.

Almost all the statins are off patent now so there is meager profits in them for the drug companies.

I'm no fan of big pharma and their sales tactics are despicable. Lots of colorful charts with dishonest axis and no error bars to make small effects appear large, etc. Unfortunately medical schools do not spend enough time IMO teaching students how to critically evaluate data.  I went into it after graduate school and 10 years of research and teaching so I had some background = but most don't.

Anyways, lots of expensive drugs out there with marginal benefits but statins aren't one of them.

BTW your theory that they decrease heart attacks by making people lethargic makes no sense - less physical activity increases risk of heart attacks.

If you want to use real examples of drug companies marketing and selling a drug later found to be of more harm than benefit, there are many good examples - e.g. Vioxx, Avandia

[Marco]

There is overwhelming evidence that the benefit of statins far outweighs their harm.

Not all the evidence is very good and the research into the harm to muscle mass is from the last 5 years. Research into the level of physical activity of statin users is only just starting up ... the patents ran out you say? What is clear is that it's not a rare side effect but a significant one affecting every person using it. So lets not jump to conclusions either way shall we?

All I know is that my father broke out in hives and had to get off them pretty much immediately, followed by a couple months of UV therapy. Probably for the best, the as of yet undiagnosed anemia is screwing up his mobility enough as is (I suspect it's an auto-immune response he got after a pretty severe blood shock during a halted transfusion after an operation, pretty out there but we're down to out there causes, need to remember to piss off the doc by getting my father to ask if he ran a Coombs test yet on his next visit).

[miguelvp]

We can call foul on everything, look at your profession. I could say that all doctors in general are bought by the big pharma and will prescribe me unnecessary drugs and treatments because they sold out.

  Of course anyone can say anything.  Common misconception there. Yes a few doctors are sell outs - but the vast majority of primary care doctors make it a point to only prescribe generic, off patent medications and many do not allow drug sales reps in their offices. This is also the policy of many US medical schools. Do you have evidence otherwise? I can reference med school and medical organization policies if need be.

In case you didn't noticed, and it seems you didn't my comment was tongue in cheek.

I know of doctors that not only refuse to play the game but actual publish against big pharma, but they are heavily criticized by their peers.

Trust no one, is really not a good way to go through life

  Straw man.

Not really, that was again a tongue in cheek comment because as your mention that there are hidden agendas as in "follow the money".

Me, I don't believe that is the case.

Same goes to science. I don't believe all scientists are sell outs, but keeping both sides open is a good idea.

Are there sellouts, sure, is it the vast majority? I don't think so.

At the end of the day, there is no stopping progress, might slow it down but the groups with better trading, science, engineering, etc will overtake eventually the status quo.

What I know is that "IF" and that is a big "IF" I was a noble price laureate, I wouldn't want history to taint my achievement because of some supposed cartel. If someone of that caliber says something, why not listen to it?

He asked specific questions and no answer are given other than refuting his interpretations of ocean temperatures put in play. What about the rest? nah just refuting one thing is enough.

Also at the end of his speech, he was applauded, do you think that's because of the rest of the Nobel price society is being polite? or because they do agree with the spirit of his concerns?

He is left unchallenged on the majority of his assessments, but since since he is not a climate expert (whatever that means) and just a silly physics Nobel laureate that questions why so much money and effort is placed into alarming end of the world statements. There have been many of those statements btw.

He is asking simple questions and the only come backs are about his miss-interpretation of the data at hand, which I don't see it as a miss-interpretation. There is more to water temperatures as the surface. it's a big convection with frozen currents in the bottom of the oceans. He raises that the south pole is colder than ever, shows graphs of satellite sensors that show climate not being much different, no more or less storms than usual, etc, etc, etc.

But time will tell wont it? what his concern is about, is that we as a global society could end hunger and a lot of other bigger problems if the resources where not wasted in chasing end of the world scenarios.

What to me brings his points home is how he defines humans. We are the first and only animals that trade, and that does define us for better or worse. My take on that is that the rest, research, engineering, economies, social, political etc are just tools to get the trade.

And as silly as that sounds, there is a huge amount of truth that trade defines humanity at large and everything that humanity is. Might sound as a belittle of the great achievements of the human race, but that doesn't make it not true. Our brains and acts are all trade oriented to the core of our beings.

That's my take away from that (dare to say) brilliant man. Would I want Al Gore in the same pedestal? not me, not really, because of trade, there are opportunistic Noble laureates and the ones that actually deserve it. Ok, they all do in their own peculiar way but there are big differences in my opinion.

So here we are, trading ideas and points of view, and that's what this is, human nature at its best as in trading one's view, wrong, right? does it really matter? it's a give and take, maybe I'll take some of your perspective and maybe you'll take some of mine, or none at all. But that is what we humans do.

Then again, if someone uses alarming news, then it shifts the give and take doesn't it? the world is going to end at the year 1000 send us money so it won't happen, y2k is going to bring all the computers down, send us money, mayan calendar predicts the end of the world, (no money sent in that one), Ozone layer hole, what was a doozy. Now we get the 60% mini ice age, we can't survive!

Meh, I'm traded out!

Edit: I guess I crossed thread replied, because I thought this video was in this thread:



But since that one was more on this topic than on that one I guess that's the reason I got them crossed.

[LabSpokane]

The truth is, the way to gain notoriety and attract major amounts of funding, would be to publish convincing evidence that refutes AGW. Many have tried and have failed. That's the way science works. Funding and notariety are achieved by unexpected, new, results - not by doing "me too" research.

Indeed. In fact there is world wide fame and fortune and probably a Nobel prize in it for anyone who can come up with a convincing new alternative theory.
It must be the holy grail of every climate researcher on the planet. Just as it would be every theoretical physicists dream to prove relatively theory incorrect.

Unfortunately, the fame, notoriety, and acknowledgement in science can come after several decades of scorn, ridicule and public humiliation.  One classic example is J Harlen Bretz, who was a geologist from Chicago who explored the scablands of eastern Washington State in the U.S. and realized that they must have been formed by a series of unimaginably catastrophic floods in the recent geologic past.  This would have been great news, except for the fact that Bretz' theory directly contradicted the overwhelmingly "correct" geologic theory of Uniformitarianism, where all geologic features were assumed to have formed slowly over much longer time frames. 

It was decades before Bretz and his theory were finally vindicated - in large part thanks to high altitude aerial photography where the features showed the path of the floodwaters in vivid detail. 

Science is the best process we have to describe the world we live in, and it is self-correcting.  But sometimes, getting to correct takes a bit longer than it ought to.  If someone successfully turns AGW on its head, expect a few decades of wrangling before it all shakes out. 

[mtdoc]

There is overwhelming evidence that the benefit of statins far outweighs their harm.

Not all the evidence is very good and the research into the harm to muscle mass is from the last 5 years. Research into the level of physical activity of statin users is only just starting up ... the patents ran out you say? What is clear is that it's not a rare side effect but a significant one affecting every person using it. So lets not jump to conclusions either way shall we?

All I know is that my father broke out in hives and had to get off them pretty much immediately, followed by a couple months of UV therapy. Probably for the best, the as of yet undiagnosed anemia is screwing up his mobility enough as is (I suspect it's an auto-immune response he got after a pretty severe blood shock during a halted transfusion after an operation, pretty out there but we're down to out there causes, need to remember to piss off the doc by getting my father to ask if he ran a Coombs test yet on his next visit).

Marco,

Sorry to hear about your dad. Hives is a type of allergic reaction that can happen with any drugs, foods, etc.  Transfusion reactions are rare but do happen. Usually the effects are short lived. It's tough when those close to us are ill.

The effects of statins on muscle tissue has been known and understood for years.

I read the blog post you linked. It's a tempest in a teapot. He's addressing one error in one paper  that addresses one small use of statins - that is primary prevention in elderly patients. This is not the major use of statins and yes, their effectiveness in that subgroup is relatively weak. (and BTW, the author acknowledges their strong effectiveness in other groups).