Cave Junction is a beautiful area, and I'd highly recommend a detour if you get the chance (say, go down the coast route instead of taking I5 south), but it's pretty much in the middle of nowhere:
"Nuclear war survival skills" is actually a very interesting book. Not the kind of practical guide you'd ever want to be in need of, but it contains lots of fascinating insights about life in a society where the social structure has collapsed (and life in a fallout shelter in particular).
What does the disparaging remark 'survivalist' (and I am sorry if I miscalculated the tone of your post) mean, anyway? The way I see it, we are better off if a few people think about what to do in the event of a catastrophe. It doesn't hurt in the likely event that there is no calamity. And if they spend millions building fallout shelters that will never be used..well, let them.
"Survivalist" implies far more than thinking about what to do, and considering the possibilities. Afaict, it also includes a lot of people that truly believe that sort of thing is just around the corner. There's also a psychological trick there too: all their planning begins to look a bit odd if everything is smooth sailing, so I think there's an incentive to start "believing". There is a significant portion of these folks that is 'fringe', and some in what I consider unhealthy ways.
Anyway, the short version: the guys behind that site set of some warning flags in my mind, and I would be less inclined to believe they're doing serious science. Call it a gut feeling.
Here is how modern anti-science propaganda works. Just read edit history of linked wiki page on SourceWatch.
Arthur B. Robinson, head of Oregon Institute is labeled there "an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research".
One science historian, author of a well-researched and well-reviewed book on Amazon, objects and tries to edit the entry: "he is a thoroughly reputable scientist... he does not have a 'long history' of controversial engagements...".
His words are erased by some Diane Farsetta, who sits on the board of SourceWatch and writes for AlterNet. She has not written a book on the subject. But she has time and she has an agenda.
So the entry is back to personal slander and innuendo. Enjoy the 'facts'.
>SourceWatch is not uniformly peer reviewed; while readers may correct errors or engage in casual review, they have no legal duty to do so and thus all information read here is without any implied warranty of fitness for any purpose or use whatsoever.
Hey guys, shut up. You aren't supposed to show all those graphs. Only the hockey stick! The Scientific Consensus is settled. No questions, please.
More seriously, I'm not confident of everything they discuss here, and I think they are cherrypicking.
Upvoted because some of it is useful, however. For instance, hurricane number/intensity vs time (Katrina wasn't caused by global warming folks) and computer model uncertainty (they are crap). It's well worth a skeptical read.
It's not a good idea to make statements like this. Weather systems are very complex, and we don't know if Katrina was caused by global warming or not. We just don't know what an increase in atmospheric CO2 will do - that's what's so scary about it.
Exactly _what_ is scary about not knowing? The post makes a point that no matter what the mechanism is, none of the variables involved is out of the "normal" range for the last 3000 years. Excuse me if I don't "act now!" about every thing that looks normal but is unexplained.
I'm not sure why Katrina is a good example anyway. It wasn't an incredibly powerful hurricane, it just hit a poorly-prepared place. Unless you think global warming causes people to build a city in a valley below a lake held back with a concrete wall.
Global Warming Alarmists seize every abnormal climate event as an opportunity to harangue us into regulating ourselves back into the Stone Age. Katrina was one such event.
"Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of this CO2 increase. Our children will therefore enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed."
Figure 1: Surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea, a 2 million square mile region of the Atlantic Ocean, with time resolution of 50 to 100 years and ending in 1975,
So their first graph stops 33 years ago?
Many of these estimates are from the decrease in atmospheric carbon 14 after cessation of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, which provides a reliable half-time. There is no experimental evidence to support computer model estimates (73) of a CO2 atmospheric "lifetime" of 300 years or more.
The average exchange of carbon with biomass is has little change in the net levels of carbon but it does change what isotopes are in the atmosphere.
PS: Water, oxygen, and carbon dioxide are the three most important substances that make life possible.
They are surely not environmental pollutants.
Based on what? Oxygen above the normal range has significant negative heath impacts. It also kills of wide ranges of the planets life forms.
I have no doubt once Geri's name was found (and made public) they removed it from the list as it was obviously fake or just plain wrong.
My point was mostly humor, but my underlying point was that there is simply no verification as to the qualifications of any scientist, phd or spice girl on this list.
The signatures are results of a nation-wide mail survey first undertaken in 1998. The respondents were selected based on their scientific credentials of publicly accepted quality. All the signatures are done in writing and are available for inspection on your request at the institute.
Since you've just attempted a mass character assassination, do you mind sharing the results of your inquest into the validity of the signatures/qualifications with us?
An appeal to authority or argument by authority also known as argument from authority. If you say 50 or 5 billion scientists provide wieght to your argument your already falling under a logical falicy. Responding with an Ad hominem ad nauseam seems reasonable when at least one person that made the list had zero credibility.
PS: I see a lot of hand waving and use of vary specific data when more general studies have been done but I don't see any real theory. What model are they using to base their assumptions on and how well tested is it and or what specific flaws have they uncovered in existing research or thery?
The mere appearance of "PhD" next to a name doesn't impress me. Especially when there's no mention of where each of these learned doctors got their PhD from, what the subject matter of the PhD was, or what institutions the doctor is affiliated with now.
Crichton has a book about how this happens all the time in environmental science. If you haven't read State of Fear, I strongly suggest it.
I think that the data is a non-issue. This is a rare occurence when interests are aligned from two sides of the spectrum. Reducing carbon emissions through less consumption is no longer some flower-child's dream; it has to do with US national security, global stability, and economic security. It may seem like alliterative nonsense, but it's what I believe.
The current approach with biofuels is a debacle -- algae is clearly the way to go. That said, biofuels are not the only thing that comprises "green energy". Solar, wind, geothermal all have their place.
Let's also not forget increasing energy efficiency and otherwise reducing waste that have direct economic benefits...
True, but I think people are entitled to know the truth from scientists, rather than propoganda being thrown around by politicians in order to further their own agendas.
>"A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge."
I'm pretty sure this is non-controversial. Most of the dangers of Global Warming are _predicted_ based on _computer models_ of the future. They are not, strictly speaking, empirical.
It seems to me that someone expert in the fields of either a) probability or b) statistics could rather easily review the current climate models and determine whether they respectively cover a) enough possibilities or b) determine a confidence factor for the collected data, in order to determine how useful the current climate models are.
My understanding of current climate models is that they are not sophisticated enough to model even the actions of the Gulf Stream in combination with what is happening on land, much less handle the Pacific High and whatever goes on in the Indian Ocean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and...
Cave Junction is a beautiful area, and I'd highly recommend a detour if you get the chance (say, go down the coast route instead of taking I5 south), but it's pretty much in the middle of nowhere:
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=42.166779,-123.646999&spn...
that, combined with their "nuclear war survival guide" stuff, makes me think "survivalists!".
I would vote "not hacker news".