Al Gore the BORE and his climate lies NOT shown on CNN

[Morbid Jester]

1. Happy New Year.
2. Physicists take a look a the "CO2 greenhouse effects". Looks like the very physical foundation of the hypotheses are a leeetle shaky....
Peer reviewed Article online and PDF

[callmeslick]

and for those interested, here is the refutation by another physicist:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/080 ... 4324v1.pdf


I barely passed either semester of Physics, especially the 2nd, with a Friday afternoon lab section. Thus, I will leave the deep analysis to others.

[Morbid Jester]

Nice find! I have to admit that I had pulled the link to the first paper from my database for interesting references and wasn't aware that a rebuttal had been published. Thanks for that link, it'll go straight to the database as well.
Nevertheless: What a great example of science at work. Indepht physics aside: This shows that even the physical basics of the greenhouse-hype are subject to debate -which is a good thing-, and we are far away from "inconvenient truths", let alone absolutes.

BTW, you did see that the latest revision of the paper in my link is dated 3/4/2009 (v4), while the refutation dates 2/28/2008?

[callmeslick]

I noticed the dates, but didn't see any radically different data presented in the 2009 paper. Like I said, though, physics gives me headaches, so I skimmed them all.

[ruggbutt]

Scientists can't prove or disprove that the method of pulling out is effective birth control. How are they gonna tackle something as complex as global climate?

[callmeslick]

Scientists can't prove or disprove that the method of pulling out is effective birth control. How are they gonna tackle something as complex as global climate?

this might make a top ten of your most simple-minded statements, Ruggie. I don't know what to say about the first sentence, as they pretty much have that one down to a statistical success rate into the tenths of a percent. As for the second, science has managed to map the human genetic material, gain major insight into the makeup of the universe,discover sub-atomic particles, and learn vast amounts about biological processes every bit as complex as global climatic patterns. I think science can tackle the matter just fine, thank you.

[ruggbutt]

They can't and they aren't tackling it. For every scientist that says global warming is man made there's another who says it isn't. Then you throw in the grant money situation where the money stops if evidence points elsewhere from the grantor's POV and you will pretty much guarantee that the debate will only live on if there's money to be made from it.

There's no cure for cancer and aids cuz if you do that or develop a vaccine then the drug companies lose out on revenue. It's the same bullshit different story and the scientists are almost as bad as the politicians.

[callmeslick]

They can't and they aren't tackling it. For every scientist that says global warming is man made there's another who says it isn't.

....and, that is pretty much how science works. Well, you did leave out the part where the all design and perform experiments that will prove/disprove parts of the theory. As you stated, this is complex stuff, so there is a LOT of science to do. Science is a slow, steady business, sometimes taking generations to get really good data. Look, sometime at the process that led to the discovery of DNA as the genetic material.
Lots of hard work, and a hell of a lot of creative thought went into that one.

Then you throw in the grant money situation where the money stops if evidence points elsewhere from the grantor's POV and you will pretty much guarantee that the debate will only live on if there's money to be made from it.

that isn't really how it works, at all. What IS troubling is when commercial interests or political interests start pouring in the funding with the goal of proving something, instead of discovering the truth. And, yes, there is a lot of that out in the scientific world these days.

There's no cure for cancer and aids cuz if you do that or develop a vaccine then the drug companies lose out on revenue. It's the same bullshit different story and the scientists are almost as bad as the politicians.

as someone with a graduate degree in Biological Sciences, an undergraduate degree in Biochemistry, research experience and an adult lifetime in the medical sciences, the above statement isn't just untrue......it's freaking hilarious. You have NO CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. Please, Ruggie, just stop now, before you dig yourself into a hole of stupidity you couldn't get out of with a catapault.

[ruggbutt]

as someone with a graduate degree in Biological Sciences, an undergraduate degree in Biochemistry, research experience and an adult lifetime in the medical sciences, the above statement isn't just untrue......it's freaking hilarious. You have NO CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. Please, Ruggie, just stop now, before you dig yourself into a hole of stupidity you couldn't get out of with a catapault.

Money that should be going into curing these things doesn't go to curing. It goes to prolonging the symptoms. It is the drug companies and regardless of your alleged graduate degrees the drug companies are hindering cures for these diseases. Just like for decades the oil and automobile manufacturers hindered better gas mileage, a greener footprint, electric vehicles, solar, etc. Regardless of what your piece of paper says that's how the real world works. And you (nor anyone else) needs a degree to see things for what they are. As for your undergraduate degree, I have the equivalent of that from High School. Undergraduate degrees are a joke.

[callmeslick]

Money that should be going into curing these things doesn't go to curing. It goes to prolonging the symptoms.

Well, I tried to warn you......you show here complete ignorance of the nature of 'cancer'. It isn't A disease, it's a disease state in which atypical cells proliferate at a very high rate. The genetics of the various cancer types is nearly infinite, to the point where, at the genetic level, there are considerable differences within cancer cells of the same 'type'(ie: lung cancer, liver cancer, brain cancer). The complexity of solving the puzzle for even individual types of cancers is such that your mind would be boggled. As an undergrad, I spent a year on a project dealing with liver cancer. We were studying a single enzyme pathway out of dozens directly linked to the change from normal to cancerous cell. As a graduate student, I was involved in studying the genetics of proliferation at a more general level. In a similar fashion, literally hundreds of processes are involved, all operating simultaneously and interlinked. After graduation, I worked as part of a team studying nervous system tumors, looking for surface markers by which to attack atypical brain cells.
Frankly, the track record is pretty good, given the complexity. Several more common blood cancers(leukemias, lymphomas, etc) can be dealt with fairly successfully. Note, I say some, not all. Likewise, the cure rate on prostate tumors is pretty good in 4 of the 6 most common types. Cancers which spread rapidly
from organ to organ have proven difficult, as the mechanism by which they do so is still not understood.
We have yet to be able, in most cases to intervene at the causitive stage, but most 'cures' thus far developed deal with established cancer cell clusters.

It is the drug companies and regardless of your alleged graduate degrees the drug companies are hindering cures for these diseases.

proof? The idea on the surface is ludicrous, as any company that would develop some sort of magic pill to prevent cancer, or cure a major metastatic cancer such as lung, pancreas, intestinal types would have the ticket to a freaking fortune.

Just like for decades the oil and automobile manufacturers hindered better gas mileage, a greener footprint, electric vehicles, solar, etc. Regardless of what your piece of paper says that's how the real world works.

I don't work in that field, so cannot comment. I've heard things to that effect, but can tell you, that isn't how basic biological research has worked. Further, a TON of money, public, foundation and corporate, has been poured into cancer research. Hell, my entire graduate school career was paid for by NCI, as was half of my advisor's professorial salary. NCI does this thousands of times over, every year.

And you (nor anyone else) needs a degree to see things for what they are.

well, I don't know if it is my education to credit, but I can sure spot a failure of sentence structure when I see one.......

As for your undergraduate degree, I have the equivalent of that from High School.

bear in mind, I graduated in 1977. Your high school degree is a joke. Most high school degreed individuals couldn't hack a decent Biochem B.S degree on a dare. That must have been a fabulous High School if you took 2 semesters of Organic Chem, 2 of Physical Chem, 4 of Biochemistry, 1 of Analytical chemistry, 2 of Physics, math up to differential equations(advanced calculus), plus 16 Social Science and Arts courses.
Of course you didn't, or anything remotely close, so your statement shows only that what education you did have didn't teach you to keep quiet when you are ignorant of the facts.

Undergraduate degrees are a joke.

really, what do you have one in?? Kinda easy talk when one is empty handed.......that wouldn't be the case here, would it?? Please, ruggie, don't insult my intelligence.