The Political Thread

[Ancient Otter]

given that one of the main reasons I question and challenge government is to prevent similar holocausts occurring again. How many times have you read me quoting, mis-quoting and paraphrasing Pastor Martin Niemoller ("First they came for the Communists...") on this very thread?

But you are quite happy to deny man-made climate change, care naught about extinctions of species and listen to Putin-biased news channels?

[Richmond Clements]

So now I'm a Holocaust denier? Really? Maybe I eat babies and rape pensioners and vote EDL as well?

.

I'm not usually one to take umbrage but I do feel rather upset to be accused, however obliquely, of denying the murders of so many Jews, Gypsies, Communists, mental patients and other undesirables simply because I'm not convinced about certain received wisdom. As far as I'm concerned, as soon as such ad hominim attacks begin any further discussion is pointless.

.

I'm quite ashamed - but prepared to accept that it was just a (very tasteless) joke.

So... why accept the evidence for this but not for, say, there being no conspiracy behind 9/11 or MMGW?

(I believe that was the Bear's point...)

[The Legendary Shark]

Hawkmonger - oil companies are in it for the money so, given the choice of announcing a practically unlimited supply (thereby driving down the price) or maintaining the firm conviction that oil is a finite (and therefore increasingly expensive) resource, which option do you think the shareholders would prefer?

.

The word "may" appears everywhere in science: The universe may have begun in a Big Bang, for example. Smoking may cause cancer. Aspartame may cause brain and nerve degradation.

.

"There is no scientific evidence to support this claim" is another example of the argument you seem to be using. Drugs companies in particular use this phrase when asked about, say, the efficacy of sodium bicarbonate in curing cancer. What the drug companies mean is that there is no scientific evidence because they won't do, or allow to be done, the research - no matter how good or bad a cure it is.

.

Just as with the oil companies, the operative word in 'pharmaceutical companies' is "companies". Why give you a cure when they can sell you medicine? And cancer medicines in particular make billions every year - what company is going to risk losing that income?

.

So, yes, oil wells *may* replenish themselves - but is this possibility not worth serious and impartial rigorous scientific investigation? I think so.

[The Legendary Shark]

Jeez - I don't think mankind is the main driver of climate change. The extinction argument was me (as I think I pointed out right at the start) just making an argument for argument's sake. Given the anomalies and profusion of evidence, there is virtually no chance that the official story of the events of 9/11 is correct. I get some of my 'news' from RT. I think that businesses and governments tend to fund and promote the scientists and experts they agree with. I believe that there is a subtle but massive fraud at the very core of our economy which is corroding all human society. I believe that humanity will overcome these problems and that we stand at the dawn of a new Golden Age.

.

So sue me.

[Ancient Otter]

Hawkmonger - oil companies are in it for the money so, given the choice of announcing a practically unlimited supply (thereby driving down the price) or maintaining the firm conviction that oil is a finite (and therefore increasingly expensive) resource, which option do you think the shareholders would prefer?

I believe it was me you were replying to instead of Hawkmonger. There is no proof yet that it is a practically unlimited supply if it is self-replenishing , as the global demand for oil could outstrip the replenishment rate.

[Ancient Otter]

The extinction argument was me (as I think I pointed out right at the start) just making an argument for argument's sake.

I know you said that but your argument and counter argument lead me to feel it's not a matter you care about. So sue me. 

I believe that humanity will overcome these problems and that we stand at the dawn of a new Golden Age.

Something everyone on the board agrees on. Hopefully. 

[The Legendary Shark]

Sorry Otter - stuff coming from all directions!

.

That's another danger of a (possibly) practically unlimited (given the right management) supply increasing our horrendous throwaway culture (an average of 7 gallons of oil goes into making every tyre, I seem to recall).

.

I am certain that, wherever oil comes from and whether burning it drives climate change or not, we really do need to clean up our act. There are some great ideas out there, such as an ice cream wrapper designed to be thrown away as litter because it's made of gelatin and will rot away to nothing but also (and this is the bit I love) contains the seeds of rare wild flowers. We'll never defeat littering but ideas like that could turn a bad thing to good. But plastic's made of oil and the oil companies want you buying fresh plastic every day.

.

Oil is too important a thing to be controlled by oil companies.

[The Legendary Shark]

I can't help how my extinction argument made you feel. Not sure how I can demonstrate that I was just arguing for argument's sake. Maybe you could give me a completely contrary argument to make and I'll do my best to defend the indefensible (within reason).

[Ancient Otter]

Forget about it TheLegendaryShark, there will be plenty more items for everyone to debate on in future. 

[JOE SOAP]

Oil is too important a thing to be controlled by oil companies.

Doesn't matter if oil is produced abiotically or the real way; oil-companies are finding it increasingly difficult to suck-up the milkshake with their straw because they don't have the required suck or long enough straw to pull from the bottom of the glass (the Gulf spill was caused by drilling too deep) and world oil-production/discovery has decreased since 2005 ushering in desperate measures such as the introduction of decades old and previously considered crap techniques such as fracking to compensate for the short-fall and increasing demand.

It's liars like Obama telling us we don't have an energy issue and that fracking and coal are good for at least 100 years that are the problem.

[Professor Bear]

I wasn't accusing anyone of being a Holocaust denier, I was just taking Sharky at his word that the official line on anything is open to counter-argument from other - sometimes academic - sources.  In this case, governments, the media - they're all saying the Holocaust happened so I thought I'd test his mettle and see if he'd air the counter-arguments or if he'd wuss out like a big wet girl.

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

I think that businesses and governments tend to fund and promote the scientists and experts they agree with.

Well I'd agree with this to an extent. It's like Malcolm Tucker once said "Never hire an expert unless you already know what they're going to tell you!"

Promoting the evidence indicating that refining and burning fossil fuels is bad for the planet and an inefficient use of our limited resources.

Cui bono?

Not the petrochemical industry. They have more than enough cash, they could have nipped this in the bud, they could have buried it before it caught on.

[TordelBack]

Cui bono?

Don't bring him into this.

[The Legendary Shark]

So far as I can recall, denial of the Holocaust was based on some pretty ropey evidence such as the claims of one scientist that no traces of Zyclon B (?) could be found at certain concentration camps about 40 years after the crime. I did look into these claims a long time ago and I can't remember much about what I found but I remember being far from convinced. (I think one of the arguments was that some of the camps had been destroyed after the war and had other things put in their places meaning that the very existence of the camps could now not be proven!)

.

The interesting thing to me is not that the Holocaust denial argument exists but the reason it exists. I wonder if the argument was created as a kind of political weapon - you create a position so offensive that it will repel just about everybody simply in order that the accusation can be levelled at certain opponents. In fact, given the track records of certain intelligence agencies, I wouldn't be speechless with surprise if the Hd argument originated with, or at least is maintained, by Mossad.

.

Another possibly artificial label in the same vein is "conspiracy theorist". Take a moment to think about it, if you would. If a presenter or journalist on the BBC describes someone as a conspiracy theorist, the implication is of a paranoid personality who thinks that everything is a lie spun by all the politicians, civil servants, business leaders and religions in the world who are all in on one huge plot for world domination. If this person thinks the official story of 9/11 is a lie then they're also just as likely to believe in CIA mind control rays, shape-shifting alien lizards pretending to be royalty and that Elvis lives with Shergar and Nessie in a London bus on the moon. By labelling a person a conspiracy theorist one automatically feels, before listening to word one of what they say, that this person's views cannot be trusted. "Conspiracy theorist" has become a kind of Pavlov's bell which, once heard, makes our brains salivate in a certain way. Some people think that this is low level social conditioning to discourage free thinking ("Don't think like that or else everyone will know you're a nutter!").

.

There are conspiracies in the world. This fact is undeniable. Organising anything from the Gulf of Tonkin incident to a surprise birthday party for your mum is a conspiracy. Some conspiracies overlap. Many people are involved in more than one at a time.

.

A conspiracy theorist, then, is only someone who looks at what he or she is told and decides to investigate further rather than taking the investigations and conclusions of others at face value.

.

The perception is that a conspiracy theorist is a gullible idiot but, I would suggest, the complete opposite is true.

.

[Mikey]

The majority of people do not spend their time reading scientific research papers (myself included) and rely on 'normal reporting' i.e. through journals, magazines, websites and the press that summarise the research.

I think we are over-analysing this now but my point was that the earth is very big and very old and the climate is always changing.  Accurately measuring the climate is hard enough i.e. how many measuring stations do you need to confidently say you have measured the atmosphere at any point in time?  To then try and model the future changes in the climate is monumentally difficult.  Small changes in the accuracy of your data can also have big effects on climate change models.

Accurate ice core data = Sample A, Depth 500 meters, CO2 300 ppmv
Inaccurate ice core data = Sample A, Depth 500 meters, 40,000 years old (+-4000 years)

Gotcha Recrewt. Though I'd say the likes of New Scientist is readily accessible without being difficult to wade through. The reason why I linked to some stuff on ice cores is because you said there's only reliable data for the last few decades, and that's not the case with the ice core data extending into hundreds of thousands of years. And just to add when you go back into real geological time, the rocks give information on sea level, which is connected to the amount of ice, which is of course related to climate. You can in some instances use oxygen isotopes in carbonates from limestones or fossils to give you more information. Ice sheets both respond to and drive climate changes which is what makes them interesting.

Regarding your example of accurate versus inaccurate: it's not fair to say the second part of your example is inaccurate when the accuracy has been clearly stated. The first part hasn't a qualifying statement so the accuracy may be in doubt. If I saw that reported somewhere I'd make what would likely be a safe assumption that the 40k wasn't a single measurement but perhaps the mean of numerous repeats, perhaps by numerous labs. When that is correlated, say, with other information that pointed at 40k, if your results gave a mean of around 40k it's looking good. And 10% either side isn't bad either!

I've used 'may' and 'perhaps' in the way it's usually used for such things - it allows room for more information to revise the findings as it's a continual refinement process, including debate and repitition. If proven wrong somehow later on then that's a win.

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on Today at 12:00:50 AM
I think that businesses and governments tend to fund and promote the scientists and experts they agree with.

Does that only apply to sciences or is gubmint funding of arts and humanities research not part of The Plan?

something forced up from the unknown depths rather than a more or less surface phenomena. There's a lot of CO2 in the magma, right? Under great pressure and heat. All that cooking, all those elements, all that time. Anything could be happening down there to replenish those oil wells in which this phenomena has been observed. I think that if this were found to be the case then it would add greatly to the problem.

But magmatic processes don't produce oil - they just don't. If so, oil fields would be found mostly associated igneous provinces or areas of high volcanic activity, at plate margins or 'hot spots' and they aren't. Of course you may not take plate tectonics as a verifiable actuality. 'Uknown depths'? Yes, there's a lot that has yet and may be never be directly observed in situ, but that's what geophysics is for plus the odd outcrop of obducted material, including bits of the mantle if you're lucky.

Any chance to talk about geology or Earth Science is not to be missed, but I'll give over now.

And with that, he wandered back off into the mists of statistics, so painful to peruse on a beautiful winter Saturday afternoon, all the while regretting that San Fansisco cocktail imbibed too late, far too late last night

M.