1) Tell me the ideal temperature for the earth, is it currently too warm or too cold? It has been both much warmer and much colder in the past....SO WHAT IS THE IDEAL TEMPERATURE? If you can't answer that question then WHY DO YOU WANT TO STOP A LITTLE WARMING?
2) The earth for as far back as man can measure has warmed and cooled....What is so different now? ...Is it warmer then ever in earths history? (not even close) is it projected to be warmer then ever in our history (NO)
3) 95+% of warming is caused by the Sun (during it's active periods) warming the earths oceans which releases water vaper which acts to hold in the warmth...95%...There is no hard evidence that CO2 contributes to Warming....CO@ does come from cars...But it also comes from EVERY animal man or beast that exhales/and farts...Is the solution then to kill off the offending humans and animals?
4) Fact is the most favorable peroids for the growth of animal and plant life is when the earth is warm and the most distructive is the Ice ages...What if this stupid stuff we are doing to control warming actually works (NO FEAR OF THAT) Could it trigger an ice age?
5) Did you know that the countries that signed the Kyoto treaty have done a worse job of controling CO2 then the US.
6) Did you know that CO2 can never be reduced without China and India participating
7) Bottom line the is warming or cooling and alway will be in one phase or the other it is Controled by the Sun not man...and if we continue to believe this hoax called Man Made Global Warming we will distroy our way of life
sustainable energy is nuclear...do you favor building nuclear plants
Absolutely, with one caveat; let's use modern technology. We've got this idea that all nuclear is dangerous so we limit building to only the oldest, least efficient designs. I'm no nuclear engineer, but from what
I've heard we should really be building pebble bed reactors. They are evidently unable to meltdown, and they use a significantly higher percentage of the fissile material lowering the nuclear waste.
I want to focus on #3. No freaking DUH! Space has a low rate of radiation and temperature (like 1-2 Kelvins), the earth's magma core produces some of our temperature, and obviously the rest comes from the sun. CO2 will never create heat, it will only trap more of it. I don't know why you would even think it necessary to point out the sun heats the earth.
So, what's the deal with the angry responses? I'm about the only one posting the "PRO"(?) position, and I have never once advocated anything extreme. I didn't suggest we spew detritus into the atmosphere to cool the earth. I never recommended we legislate a ban on all gas powered automobiles. All I've argued is that the evidence is strong that we are having an impact, and the temperate and wise approach to take in such cases is to tread as lightly. So if we can reasonably do things to burn less fossil fuels we should.
Could someone, anyone please tell me what's so offensive about my position? Please?
1) A 0.7F increase in temperature during the 20th century seems to be scientific consensus. You linked a blog that denied this, but I'll going with the peer reviewed journal results instead. I also found an average surface temperature of 57F-58F has been the recent norm.
If I hear the words "peer reviewed" one more time, I'm gonna puke. Nothing against you though. I used to argue this stuff for YEARS and took peer review pretty seriously until I discovered it was being used more as a way to exclude "dissidents". And this was BEFORE the GW thing even came up.
I think this sums up my attitude about a once good thing. It really depends on WHAT is being peer reviewed and who is doing the reviewing, etc. :
It is on two pages and is also fascinating in that it is about ten years old now, yet still VERY relevant.
BTW, global warming is caused by...drum roll please...the sun. And the lack of sunspot activity is strongly suggesting we are in for a period of "relatively severe" cooling: http://www.climatescienceinternational. ... 1&Itemid=1
Maybe the government should force us to drive SUVs and heat our homes with wood.
I took this particular link and did a back of the envelope check on what they say to see if we can make this meaningful for people.
1) A 0.7F increase in temperature during the 20th century seems to be scientific consensus. You linked a blog that denied this, but I'll going with the peer reviewed journal results instead. I also found an average surface temperature of 57F-58F has been the recent norm.
2) The link posits that 0.2%-0.3% of total greenhouse effect is caused by humans, and that average global temperature would be -0.4F with no atmosphere. I think his atmosphere number is wrong (by perhaps 100F), but let's just accept them for the time being.
These numbers would suggest that 20% of global warming over the last century is from humans.
I do not endorse the numbers used here, but I wanted to use "denyist" numbers to prove that even if you pick your own numbers the effect is measurable.
I think in reality the percentage of change impacted by humans is higher (as I don't trust his numbers), and the overwhelming scientific consensus agrees.
Why do I have a hard time with these "peer reviewed" "consensus" opinions? Well the first sentence from your first link rubs me the wrong way to the core: "Earth's surface has undergone unprecedented warming over the last century, particularly over the last two decades. "
I want to focus on #3. No freaking DUH! Space has a low rate of radiation and temperature (like 1-2 Kelvins), the earth's magma core produces some of our temperature, and obviously the rest comes from the sun. CO2 will never create heat, it will only trap more of it. I don't know why you would even think it necessary to point out the sun heats the earth.
So, what's the deal with the angry responses? I'm about the only one posting the "PRO"(?) position, and I have never once advocated anything extreme. I didn't suggest we spew detritus into the atmosphere to cool the earth. I never recommended we legislate a ban on all gas powered automobiles. All I've argued is that the evidence is strong that we are having an impact, and the temperate and wise approach to take in such cases is to tread as lightly. So if we can reasonably do things to burn less fossil fuels we should.
Could someone, anyone please tell me what's so offensive about my position? Please?
If you could answer my question #1 (about the ideal temperature of the earth) We could have a starting place...
To answer your question....To invest anything in fighting Global warming (NOT discussing POLLUTION) is idiotic for all of the reasons I mentioned.....Namely there is no such thing as man made global warming it is a natural process.
The fact that neither you nor anyone else can answer my question #1 is evidence of how idiotic the man made global warming argument is
Recent pictures from Mars reveal patterns on the surface indicative of melting ice and the subsequent "flow" of water. Given that pictures of the same area taken just a few years ago did not show melting ice/water, one has to wonder......if Earth and Mars are BOTH heating up....what is the common denominator?
I am not saying that humans are not partly to blame, but clearly the sun is a factor too. And NOBODY wants to discuss it, because it is something we have absolutely no control over. At least with "its all due to us" arguments there is some comfort (however naive) knowing that we may be able to control it to some extent.
If you could answer my question #1 (about the ideal temperature of the earth) We could have a starting place...
This is absurd, because it really depends on your frame of reference. If you are a tree, any climate that is above 70F much of the year with lots of rain is ideal. If you're a coral, the
exact climate we have (or had) is ideal and not a degree warmer
.
But, because almost nobody here wants to be circumspect and reasoned, the ideal mean temperature of the earth is exactly 57.2F. Happy? Now that you have a number, can we at least spend a few dollars on research to see if we can a) accurately predict our actual impact, and b) do something about it if the new models suggest something that needs doing.
I guess the other option is to just deny any research that disagrees with your world views.
Well the first sentence from your first link rubs me the wrong way to the core: "Earth's surface has undergone unprecedented warming over the last century, particularly over the last two decades."
I never claimed there was no spin in anything I linked. The problem with this debate is everyone has such irrationally extreme views that it's proving quite difficult for me to find cogent well based documents without some major bent to them. I didn't feel like linking to one of your articles that starts with "All GW believers are going straight to hell where they will witness true warming!" So that's what you got.
FWIW, even if the sum of temperature changes have precedent, that doesn't mean the rate of change or the explanation have precedent. It's still spin, but it's impossible to know what the author really intended in this case.
Why do I have a hard time with these "peer reviewed" "consensus" opinions?
Not sure. Maybe because peer-reviewed papers are fact checked? And no you don't have a problem with consensus opinion. I'm sure you were fine with it 15 years ago when the consensus was that global warming was only supported by a handful of whack jobs. But since those whack jobs provided compelling enough evidence to swing consensus, you don't like it. In 10-15 years, if the evidence that all GW is naturally caused is compelling enough, the pendulum will swing the other way. I think that's unlikely, but it could happen.
OK, the door is open. Let's hear everyone's "I don't understand and hate science" arguments.
But, because almost nobody here wants to be circumspect and reasoned, the ideal mean temperature of the earth is exactly 57.2F. Happy? Now that you have a number, can we at least spend a few dollars on research to see if we can a) accurately predict our actual impact, and b) do something about it if the new models suggest something that needs doing.
I guess the other option is to just deny any research that disagrees with your world views.
By all means, do whatever you think is best, within the law of course. Just PLEASE don't force us, via the government and its power of the gun, to do what "you" think best. That is the "crux" I am talking about on this thread.
What if I, and a bunch of "scientists" that have found a really good source of grant money ( ) decide that we have proof that the moon is gonna crash into the earth in 200 years if we don't DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT NOW somehow convince a few of our current "high quality" congressmen that our entire GNP should be devoted to solving this problem in 20 years, would you feel just a touch manipulated when our evidence just doesn't add up.
Add to that the idea that a bunch of other scientists say it is poppycock and, further, I and my "scientists" attempt to silence them through ad-hominem attacks, etc. That will give you a glimpse of where many of us are coming from.
Oh, and you mentioned "moderate" opinions earlier. Would a German citizen in 1930's that said they should just take "some" of the private businesses away from jews be considered "moderate"? Or would he be considered a "less radical" Nazi. Moderate is usually a word for "ignorant" or "apathetic". Once someone is empowered with an education on an issue, their position is NEVER moderate. They take a side.
Moderation is for booze and food. There is no room in the middle for politics, nor religion. And this GW thing is most definitely politics in it's purest form.
Not sure. Maybe because peer-reviewed papers are fact checked?
Nope, the link I provided goes into quite a bit of detail, actually. Peer review has become a farce for ANYTHING with a political impact - and sometimes even if their isn't. An example would be eugenics.
If you could answer my question #1 (about the ideal temperature of the earth) We could have a starting place...
This is absurd, because it really depends on your frame of reference. If you are a tree, any climate that is above 70F much of the year with lots of rain is ideal. If you're a coral, the
exact climate we have (or had) is ideal and not a degree warmer
.
But, because almost nobody here wants to be circumspect and reasoned, the ideal mean temperature of the earth is exactly 57.2F. Happy? Now that you have a number, can we at least spend a few dollars on research to see if we can a) accurately predict our actual impact, and b) do something about it if the new models suggest something that needs doing.
I guess the other option is to just deny any research that disagrees with your world views.
ROSE
You need to stop throwing up the Straw Man of Research....NO ONE objects to research...So that is not the problem....The problem is Expensive committments like Kyoto ...and hosts of mandates to reduce carbon emmisions. All to solve what in insolvable? All to reach a Goal What Goal 57.2 degrees F. and hold it there? and that is just YOUR Goal what is the scientific Goal?
Try reading this...page 1 is not very informative but page 2 is Skip page 1 if you wish.
Nope, the link I provided goes into quite a bit of detail, actually. Peer review has become a farce for ANYTHING with a political impact - and sometimes even if their isn't. An example would be eugenics.
This is completely (thankfully) off topic, but what exactly is eugenics an example of in this case? I don't have any idea what the controversial subject in eugenics is that politicized by scientific journals. I'm curious to find out, however.
By all means, do whatever you think is best, within the law of course. Just PLEASE don't force us, via the government and its power of the gun, to do what "you" think best. That is the "crux" I am talking about on this thread.
What if I, and a bunch of "scientists" that have found a really good source of grant money ( ) decide that we have proof that the moon is gonna crash into the earth in 200 years if we don't DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT NOW somehow convince a few of our current "high quality" congressmen that our entire GNP should be devoted to solving this problem in 20 years, would you feel just a touch manipulated when our evidence just doesn't add up.
Add to that the idea that a bunch of other scientists say it is poppycock and, further, I and my "scientists" attempt to silence them through ad-hominem attacks, etc. That will give you a glimpse of where many of us are coming from.
Oh, and you mentioned "moderate" opinions earlier. Would a German citizen in 1930's that said they should just take "some" of the private businesses away from jews be considered "moderate"? Or would he be considered a "less radical" Nazi. Moderate is usually a word for "ignorant" or "apathetic". Once someone is empowered with an education on an issue, their position is NEVER moderate. They take a side.
Moderation is for booze and food. There is no room in the middle for politics, nor religion. And this GW thing is most definitely politics in it's purest form.
Just to marginally answer your question, all action should depend on the combination of risk likelihood and the cost incurred the even occurs. So, if there was convincing evidence the moon would crash into the earth in 200 years, yes we would have to do whatever we could. What you've completely screwed up is the reasoning for acting now rather than later.
If we have 200 years, maybe there are courses of action that can be put into place for just 1% of GDP today to prevent the moon crash scenario. Whereas if we wait for 170 years for more accurate data, and then our worst fears are confirmed, it might actually cost 100% of GDP for 30 years to prevent. It's the same reason why you invest retirement money in your 30s, it has time to work more effectively.
This is exactly why I advocate taking some action now. There does appear to be some risk, but all the numbers aren't in yet. So, if we can do some small things, like offer solar panel rebates; then these actions are worth taking in the short term because they are cheap, they don't destroy anyone's rights, and if we learn 50 years from now that we do need to clean the problem up it will not have grown to be as large.
Oh, and by the way. You just lost. Thank God, too. This particular thread has really gotten out of hand.
Nope, the link I provided goes into quite a bit of detail, actually. Peer review has become a farce for ANYTHING with a political impact - and sometimes even if their isn't. An example would be eugenics.
This is completely (thankfully) off topic, but what exactly is eugenics an example of in this case? I don't have any idea what the controversial subject in eugenics is that politicized by scientific journals. I'm curious to find out, however.
I was using it as an example of one that is NOT politicized. At least not today... I was pointing out that an opinion can become a strong "norm" in mainstream science circles even though the general public, once in formed (nowadays thanks to the internet), rails against. It is what is happening right now with GW as well as some aspects of what is being taught as "biological evolution".
A lot of "smart" people can be dead wrong. The longer one is around - and reads - the more sceptical one becomes of "experts". After all, even rocket science aint "rocket science". If one cannot argue against the "deniers", one either does not understand their own opinion, is merely spouting what someone else said/wrote, or has an agenda and is being intentionally obtuse or just plain lying.
We saw this sort of thing with the Dan Rather fiasco as well as with the Swift Boat Vet claims. The light of day brought by the internet showed, beyond the shadow of a doubt, which side was lying. The internet brings the light of day to all significant claims and requires their intellectual defense, not just the blanket statement that they are "peer reviewed". And frankly, the internet has made EVERYTHING that affects us, and there is strong disagreement as to it's validity, political.
We are in a new era of enlightenment of the masses. In the long run it will be very good indeed if it is not switched off.
And most importantly, it does not apply here, for I was accusing no-one of being a Nazi. I was using it as a modern epitome of two groups diametrically opposed to one another to the point that one group wanted to exterminate the other. This is an example of the unacceptability of a "moderate" position. That does not violate Goodwins law. In fact, this corollary (from your link) may apply: "However, Godwin's Law itself can be abused, as a distraction or diversion, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate."
I firmly believe my comparison is appropriate. It is a clear example of an issue where there is no acceptable middle ground.
Lastly, this thread has not gotten out of control. It has stayed on topic remarkably well. What IS out of control is placing of this thread in an "economy" forum. I normally stay out of these discussions (and the forums in which they reside) in the same way an ex-meat packing plant worker may avoid meat. But once I saw this one, I got hooked... :roll:
Why do certain ideas in science become targets of social criticism and others do not?
It would be easy to assume that the controversy occurs when science challenges "ignorance," especially ignorance created by cultural myths and religion. This is very neat if you believe you are being scientific, but it doesn't pass the test.
For example, Darwin's idea on evolution and Freud's ideas of the mind and behavior were met with strong social and cultural opposition which could be interpreted as a contest between religion and science.
On the other hand, theories about the quantum nature of reality, the big bang theory of creation, physical causes of mental illness, and others have not generally raised conflicts between religion, culture and science even though all of these ideas have strong religious elements.
No, there is something more happening when a controversy is ignited other than a simple morality play featuring "logic" against the villain "ignorance."
Let's use global warming as an example. Why should a scientific theory be so embraced by some and so opposed by others? What is it about global warming that divides the population based on conservative-liberal leanings, or big vs. small government ideals, between different types of scientists, and even between religionists?
Why do some people feel their position on this issue justifies being untruthful or utilizing propaganda? Note a recent AP story about the White House "ignoring advice on global warming." First of all, the White House did not ignore the report, they simply refused to change the Constitution, the present form of government, and the nature of the American economy to comply with the report's suggestions.
In the AP story, the "dismissed" report was not produced by the usual White House advisers, it was produced by "experts," and they were not just any experts, they were "top experts."
This week we learned more Americans are likely "to suffer" from kidney stones because of global warming. Is it any wonder part of the population gets cynical?
Many ideas in science have become controversial because the scientists have left their science and jumped headlong into religious or political arenas, which insures that their names appear in the media and research money continues to flow. Then they act outraged when their involvement creates a religious or political response.
Freud, for example, used the stories and ideals of his own Western culture to explain observed behavior. He then rejected Western religions as being God-given because he could explain religious tenets in terms of his observational theories. This is a tidy little tautology that many nonreligious people use to bash their own culture without logically examining its premise.
If an idea is presented that the world is going to be destroyed, and destroyed by human action, then the people who always wanted to control and manage human behavior will gravitate to the ideas to justify what they always wanted to do.
If an argument can be made that the world is being destroyed by too much freedom, too much commerce, too much reliance on obsolete religion and cultural ideals, then the people who never liked freedom, commerce or traditional values will be attracted toward these ideas.
When these advocates are lauded as "experts" and "top" experts, which almost all intelligent people know is an exaggeration, and when much less than "top" intellects, like Al Gore, win Nobel Prizes for pushing propaganda, then it is little wonder that many people become skeptical about the theories.
When people who hate capitalism begin to use global warming as the blunt weapon to control it, and when others begin to use the same ideas to control freedom and further strengthen the power of the federal government and the failed United Nations, then it makes no sense to include opponents to global warming under the rubrics of ignorance. Bluntly put, you can't use a scientific theory as a weapon and still naively assume that people will not defend themselves.
Global warming is in part good science, part bad science, part propaganda and part nonsense. The larger problem, however, is in assuming that it is all science, or all nonsense.
The article really does a nice job of encapsulating at least some of my feelings (as opposed to thoughts) on this.
1) I don't buy your attempt to weasel out of reductio ad Hitlerum. You cannot compare a reasonable scientific issue which has been overly politicized to the behavior of a racist/fascist government and expect to maintain credibility.
I was pointing out that an opinion can become a strong "norm" in mainstream science circles even though the general public, once in formed (nowadays thanks to the internet), rails against. It is what is happening right now with GW as well as some aspects of what is being taught as "biological evolution".
2) This has to be the very first time I've ever heard anyone argue that the internet is responsible for an increase in credible information. I say that only slightly tongue in cheek. It's a great medium for spreading and archiving information, but it has a terrible signal-to-noise ratio. What has happened instead is that people self-sort into groups that generally agree on things. They can then slap each others backs about how right they all are and for a smaller group consensus. To a certain extent, that's what happens on this site, and it was what was happening on most of the links you've provided. It's not the same as a well written document that sufficiently sums up all the views according to their credibility.
By all means, do whatever you think is best, within the law of course. Just PLEASE don't force us, via the government and its power of the gun, to do what "you" think best. That is the "crux" I am talking about on this thread.
What if I, and a bunch of "scientists" that have found a really good source of grant money ( ) decide that we have proof that the moon is gonna crash into the earth in 200 years if we don't DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT NOW somehow convince a few of our current "high quality" congressmen that our entire GNP should be devoted to solving this problem in 20 years, would you feel just a touch manipulated when our evidence just doesn't add up.
Add to that the idea that a bunch of other scientists say it is poppycock and, further, I and my "scientists" attempt to silence them through ad-hominem attacks, etc. That will give you a glimpse of where many of us are coming from.
Oh, and you mentioned "moderate" opinions earlier. Would a German citizen in 1930's that said they should just take "some" of the private businesses away from jews be considered "moderate"? Or would he be considered a "less radical" Nazi. Moderate is usually a word for "ignorant" or "apathetic". Once someone is empowered with an education on an issue, their position is NEVER moderate. They take a side.
Moderation is for booze and food. There is no room in the middle for politics, nor religion. And this GW thing is most definitely politics in it's purest form.
Just to marginally answer your question, all action should depend on the combination of risk likelihood and the cost incurred the even occurs. So, if there was convincing evidence the moon would crash into the earth in 200 years, yes we would have to do whatever we could. What you've completely screwed up is the reasoning for acting now rather than later.
If we have 200 years, maybe there are courses of action that can be put into place for just 1% of GDP today to prevent the moon crash scenario. Whereas if we wait for 170 years for more accurate data, and then our worst fears are confirmed, it might actually cost 100% of GDP for 30 years to prevent. It's the same reason why you invest retirement money in your 30s, it has time to work more effectively.
This is exactly why I advocate taking some action now. There does appear to be some risk, but all the numbers aren't in yet. So, if we can do some small things, like offer solar panel rebates; then these actions are worth taking in the short term because they are cheap, they don't destroy anyone's rights, and if we learn 50 years from now that we do need to clean the problem up it will not have grown to be as large.
Oh, and by the way. You just lost. Thank God, too. This particular thread has really gotten out of hand.
ROSE:
Look at how far science has advanced advanced in the last 100 years....and we are advancing faster now...to rush into any action without hard proof that there is a problem is Silly....Even if there is a problem 30 years from now we will be far better equiped to solve it....
I should make it clear I am convinced there is NO PROBLEM....only the natural force of nature that has warmed and cooled our earth in cycles for eons..
Why do certain ideas in science become targets of social criticism and others do not?
It would be easy to assume that the controversy occurs when science challenges "ignorance," especially ignorance created by cultural myths and religion. This is very neat if you believe you are being scientific, but it doesn't pass the test.
For example, Darwin's idea on evolution and Freud's ideas of the mind and behavior were met with strong social and cultural opposition which could be interpreted as a contest between religion and science.
On the other hand, theories about the quantum nature of reality, the big bang theory of creation, physical causes of mental illness, and others have not generally raised conflicts between religion, culture and science even though all of these ideas have strong religious elements.
No, there is something more happening when a controversy is ignited other than a simple morality play featuring "logic" against the villain "ignorance."
Let's use global warming as an example. Why should a scientific theory be so embraced by some and so opposed by others? What is it about global warming that divides the population based on conservative-liberal leanings, or big vs. small government ideals, between different types of scientists, and even between religionists?
Why do some people feel their position on this issue justifies being untruthful or utilizing propaganda? Note a recent AP story about the White House "ignoring advice on global warming." First of all, the White House did not ignore the report, they simply refused to change the Constitution, the present form of government, and the nature of the American economy to comply with the report's suggestions.
In the AP story, the "dismissed" report was not produced by the usual White House advisers, it was produced by "experts," and they were not just any experts, they were "top experts."
This week we learned more Americans are likely "to suffer" from kidney stones because of global warming. Is it any wonder part of the population gets cynical?
Many ideas in science have become controversial because the scientists have left their science and jumped headlong into religious or political arenas, which insures that their names appear in the media and research money continues to flow. Then they act outraged when their involvement creates a religious or political response.
Freud, for example, used the stories and ideals of his own Western culture to explain observed behavior. He then rejected Western religions as being God-given because he could explain religious tenets in terms of his observational theories. This is a tidy little tautology that many nonreligious people use to bash their own culture without logically examining its premise.
If an idea is presented that the world is going to be destroyed, and destroyed by human action, then the people who always wanted to control and manage human behavior will gravitate to the ideas to justify what they always wanted to do.
If an argument can be made that the world is being destroyed by too much freedom, too much commerce, too much reliance on obsolete religion and cultural ideals, then the people who never liked freedom, commerce or traditional values will be attracted toward these ideas.
When these advocates are lauded as "experts" and "top" experts, which almost all intelligent people know is an exaggeration, and when much less than "top" intellects, like Al Gore, win Nobel Prizes for pushing propaganda, then it is little wonder that many people become skeptical about the theories.
When people who hate capitalism begin to use global warming as the blunt weapon to control it, and when others begin to use the same ideas to control freedom and further strengthen the power of the federal government and the failed United Nations, then it makes no sense to include opponents to global warming under the rubrics of ignorance. Bluntly put, you can't use a scientific theory as a weapon and still naively assume that people will not defend themselves.
Global warming is in part good science, part bad science, part propaganda and part nonsense. The larger problem, however, is in assuming that it is all science, or all nonsense.
The article really does a nice job of encapsulating at least some of my feelings (as opposed to thoughts) on this.
ROB:
Something often overlooked in this discussion is that there is NO hard scientific data to prove there is "man Made" Global Warming...the whole theory is based on flawed computer models that have been shown to be incorrect in their long range projections.....For example taking hard data (actual measurments) the earth has not warmed at all since 99...It may have actually cooled slightly. All the hurricane for the last 2-3 years have been totally wrong. There is slightly less ice in the artic and a record amount of ice in the anartic...
The article you posted, I think explains the fact that rather then looking at this in a truly scientific way, we are looking at it Politically and on the green side it is a finincial boom
1) I don't buy your attempt to weasel out of reductio ad Hitlerum. You cannot compare a reasonable scientific issue which has been overly politicized to the behavior of a racist/fascist government and expect to maintain credibility.
You're right. I can't. I also didn't, because there is nothing to weasel out of. And I never mentioned Hitler. I mentioned two groups that were diametrically opposed, and famously so, to demonstrate the concept of an issue that has two sides, but one is clearly right and the other clearly wrong.
I was pointing out that an opinion can become a strong "norm" in mainstream science circles even though the general public, once in formed (nowadays thanks to the internet), rails against. It is what is happening right now with GW as well as some aspects of what is being taught as "biological evolution".
2) This has to be the very first time I've ever heard anyone argue that the internet is responsible for an increase in credible information. I say that only slightly tongue in cheek. It's a great medium for spreading and archiving information, but it has a terrible signal-to-noise ratio. What has happened instead is that people self-sort into groups that generally agree on things. They can then slap each others backs about how right they all are and for a smaller group consensus. To a certain extent, that's what happens on this site, and it was what was happening on most of the links you've provided. It's not the same as a well written document that sufficiently sums up all the views according to their credibility.
The first time? You sure don't get around.
The printing press increased "noise" as well. The vast majority of books published today are poppycock. Much "non-fiction" should be filed under fiction. But nobody (who is not ignorant on the subject) disagrees with the fact that the printing press is one of the greatest inventions in history. It not only drastically improved the speed and reliability of communication between peer groups in science, medicine, philosophy, et-al, but it put wisdom in the hands of the masses for the first time in history. It was huge!
The internet is the printing press on steroids!
Without the internet, there is no doubt in my mind that John Kerry would have been elected in 2004 and Dan Rather would still be at cBS. Both were brought down singlehandedly by the internet. In Kerry's case, it was the Swift Boat Vets. He (and the complacent press) tried to paint them as a bunch of political hacks that were just a bunch of Karl Rove plants. But they were able to use the internet to get their word out. Discourse followed and it became so clear that Kerry was lying and they were not, that Kerry ended up having to admit one of the strongest stories in his book was a fabrication! That is HUGE.
If Dan Rather had pulled the fake document stunt 15 years ago, he would have gotten away with it. He even came on the air two days after the original broadcast and showed "similar" documents for about three seconds as evidence that the documents were authentic. Well, people captured that image and posted on the internet. Also, a poster by the name of "buckhead", on the site "freerepublic.com" actually posted something along the lines of "that document looks like it was created in Word". He posted that 59 minutes after the original Rather broadcast that offered the fake documents as legitimate. The hunt was on. I was part of it. By the time Dan Rather came on the air with his infamous defense two days later, we had analyzed the documents to the point that only a fool would honestly believe those documents "from the early 1970's" were not produced in Microsoft Word.
We all know the rest of the story on both of these.
On a side note, without the internet all one could do to protest was throw a shoe at their TV during the 6:00 news, or hope the hopelessly biased local rag would print your letter to the editor. Thanks to the internet, a legion was asking Kerry: Why will you not sign a form 180. It killed him politically. He will never enter politics outside his state. It is because he CAN'T sign because of what it would reveal. Funny thing is, all the evidence is there even without him signing.
You are right about the "slapping on the back" thing, at least to some degree. DU is notorious for banning people that disagree with them, no matter how "polite and reasonable" they are. But most sites are more liberal in their tolerance of differing viewpoints.
But back to global warming.
The great thing about the internet is it empowers this concept: All things being equal, the truth is easy to spread while lies are very difficult (and expensive) to prop up. Give the truth a simple push and it rolls downhill, but lies have to be laboriously pushed uphill all the way. The internet is the great equalizer. Now that the "GW is consensus" lie has been obliterated, the subject is being actively discussed, even on boards (like this one) where both sides DO NOT agree. Over time, it becomes clear who has the body of "real" facts on their side, and who is blowing smoke.
Time will indeed tell, as it did with Dan Rather and John Kerry (and soon, Obama and McCain)
Something often overlooked in this discussion is that there is NO hard scientific data to prove there is "man Made" Global Warming...the whole theory is based on flawed computer models that have been shown to be incorrect in their long range projections.....For example taking hard data (actual measurments) the earth has not warmed at all since 99...It may have actually cooled slightly. All the hurricane for the last 2-3 years have been totally wrong. There is slightly less ice in the artic and a record amount of ice in the anartic...
The article you posted, I think explains the fact that rather then looking at this in a truly scientific way, we are looking at it Politically and on the green side it is a finincial boom
Not only are you preaching to the choir, but it appears that we are redundant.
"Oil is still so plentiful in the region that it often bubbles uncontrollably to the surface, and shows up in the form of tar globules on some of the area's beaches."
"Allen is the president of a group called Stop Oil Seeps, which argues that additional offshore drilling could be used to prevent oil from bubbling up on to beaches."
"Natural seepage alone over a four-year period amounts to roughly the same amount of oil that spilled from the Exxon Valdez incident in Alaska in 1989."
After the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" was released, there was naturally an outcry among many "deniers", of which I am one. Well, someone produced a series on it called "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Now the other side protested, to the point that they got an Ofcom investigation going. I even saw youtube interviews with the creator of the film where he was given the "60 minutes treatment" by some British equivalent. His interview was followed by a lopsided rebuttal by an entire panel! On a side note, it proves the old axiom, "never, ever allow yourself to be interviewed by 60 Minutes, no matter how strong you think your case may be". This interview is a textbook case of why, and anyone can search it on youtube and see what I mean.
In the meantime, this Ofcom thing DID address inaccuracies in the broadcast and many are very glib about it. However, one may ask, "Gee, I guess this one is blatantly lying, while An Inconvenient Truth really IS the gold standard."
Well, not exactly. In fact, I would say one is much worse than the other. You be the judge:
Comments
Actually "Man Made" Global Warming
1) Tell me the ideal temperature for the earth, is it currently too warm or too cold? It has been both much warmer and much colder in the past....SO WHAT IS THE IDEAL TEMPERATURE? If you can't answer that question then WHY DO YOU WANT TO STOP A LITTLE WARMING?
2) The earth for as far back as man can measure has warmed and cooled....What is so different now? ...Is it warmer then ever in earths history? (not even close) is it projected to be warmer then ever in our history (NO)
3) 95+% of warming is caused by the Sun (during it's active periods) warming the earths oceans which releases water vaper which acts to hold in the warmth...95%...There is no hard evidence that CO2 contributes to Warming....CO@ does come from cars...But it also comes from EVERY animal man or beast that exhales/and farts...Is the solution then to kill off the offending humans and animals?
4) Fact is the most favorable peroids for the growth of animal and plant life is when the earth is warm and the most distructive is the Ice ages...What if this stupid stuff we are doing to control warming actually works (NO FEAR OF THAT) Could it trigger an ice age?
5) Did you know that the countries that signed the Kyoto treaty have done a worse job of controling CO2 then the US.
6) Did you know that CO2 can never be reduced without China and India participating
7) Bottom line the is warming or cooling and alway will be in one phase or the other it is Controled by the Sun not man...and if we continue to believe this hoax called Man Made Global Warming we will distroy our way of life
Absolutely, with one caveat; let's use modern technology. We've got this idea that all nuclear is dangerous so we limit building to only the oldest, least efficient designs. I'm no nuclear engineer, but from what
I've heard we should really be building pebble bed reactors. They are evidently unable to meltdown, and they use a significantly higher percentage of the fissile material lowering the nuclear waste.
I want to focus on #3. No freaking DUH! Space has a low rate of radiation and temperature (like 1-2 Kelvins), the earth's magma core produces some of our temperature, and obviously the rest comes from the sun. CO2 will never create heat, it will only trap more of it. I don't know why you would even think it necessary to point out the sun heats the earth.
So, what's the deal with the angry responses? I'm about the only one posting the "PRO"(?) position, and I have never once advocated anything extreme. I didn't suggest we spew detritus into the atmosphere to cool the earth. I never recommended we legislate a ban on all gas powered automobiles. All I've argued is that the evidence is strong that we are having an impact, and the temperate and wise approach to take in such cases is to tread as lightly. So if we can reasonably do things to burn less fossil fuels we should.
Could someone, anyone please tell me what's so offensive about my position? Please?
I think this sums up my attitude about a once good thing. It really depends on WHAT is being peer reviewed and who is doing the reviewing, etc. :
http://nov55.com/prv.html
Arguing that the evidence is strong is not the same as actually showing us the evidence.
That is raw, unfiltered BS. And disingenuous as well. Criminy. You want to talk about surface temp? Be my guest. The "Urban heat island effect": http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Refer ... tanic5.pdf
And robert kennedy sez the Arctic is melting! HAHAHA! ::
http://news.google.com/news?oe=utf-8&rl ... earch+News
those are my personal favorites in this epic battle.
Junk Science vs. right-wing crapola. Who will win?
If you could answer my question #1 (about the ideal temperature of the earth) We could have a starting place...
To answer your question....To invest anything in fighting Global warming (NOT discussing POLLUTION) is idiotic for all of the reasons I mentioned.....Namely there is no such thing as man made global warming it is a natural process.
The fact that neither you nor anyone else can answer my question #1 is evidence of how idiotic the man made global warming argument is
I am not saying that humans are not partly to blame, but clearly the sun is a factor too. And NOBODY wants to discuss it, because it is something we have absolutely no control over. At least with "its all due to us" arguments there is some comfort (however naive) knowing that we may be able to control it to some extent.
But the sun? 8) ......scary :shock:
This is absurd, because it really depends on your frame of reference. If you are a tree, any climate that is above 70F much of the year with lots of rain is ideal. If you're a coral, the .
But, because almost nobody here wants to be circumspect and reasoned, the ideal mean temperature of the earth is exactly 57.2F. Happy? Now that you have a number, can we at least spend a few dollars on research to see if we can a) accurately predict our actual impact, and b) do something about it if the new models suggest something that needs doing.
I guess the other option is to just deny any research that disagrees with your world views.
Hey, a moderate view. What's that doing here?
Oh, still waiting for anyone here to state what's so wrong with my position, rather than creating a strawman that looks like Al Gore.
I never claimed there was no spin in anything I linked. The problem with this debate is everyone has such irrationally extreme views that it's proving quite difficult for me to find cogent well based documents without some major bent to them. I didn't feel like linking to one of your articles that starts with "All GW believers are going straight to hell where they will witness true warming!" So that's what you got.
FWIW, even if the sum of temperature changes have precedent, that doesn't mean the rate of change or the explanation have precedent. It's still spin, but it's impossible to know what the author really intended in this case.
Not sure. Maybe because peer-reviewed papers are fact checked? And no you don't have a problem with consensus opinion. I'm sure you were fine with it 15 years ago when the consensus was that global warming was only supported by a handful of whack jobs. But since those whack jobs provided compelling enough evidence to swing consensus, you don't like it. In 10-15 years, if the evidence that all GW is naturally caused is compelling enough, the pendulum will swing the other way. I think that's unlikely, but it could happen.
OK, the door is open. Let's hear everyone's "I don't understand and hate science" arguments.
What if I, and a bunch of "scientists" that have found a really good source of grant money (
Add to that the idea that a bunch of other scientists say it is poppycock and, further, I and my "scientists" attempt to silence them through ad-hominem attacks, etc. That will give you a glimpse of where many of us are coming from.
Oh, and you mentioned "moderate" opinions earlier. Would a German citizen in 1930's that said they should just take "some" of the private businesses away from jews be considered "moderate"? Or would he be considered a "less radical" Nazi. Moderate is usually a word for "ignorant" or "apathetic". Once someone is empowered with an education on an issue, their position is NEVER moderate. They take a side.
Moderation is for booze and food. There is no room in the middle for politics, nor religion. And this GW thing is most definitely politics in it's purest form.
Nope, the link I provided goes into quite a bit of detail, actually. Peer review has become a farce for ANYTHING with a political impact - and sometimes even if their isn't. An example would be eugenics.
ROSE
You need to stop throwing up the Straw Man of Research....NO ONE objects to research...So that is not the problem....The problem is Expensive committments like Kyoto ...and hosts of mandates to reduce carbon emmisions. All to solve what in insolvable? All to reach a Goal What Goal 57.2 degrees F. and hold it there? and that is just YOUR Goal what is the scientific Goal?
Try reading this...page 1 is not very informative but page 2 is Skip page 1 if you wish.
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/col ... 250d63c40d
This is completely (thankfully) off topic, but what exactly is eugenics an example of in this case? I don't have any idea what the controversial subject in eugenics is that politicized by scientific journals. I'm curious to find out, however.
Just to marginally answer your question, all action should depend on the combination of risk likelihood and the cost incurred the even occurs. So, if there was convincing evidence the moon would crash into the earth in 200 years, yes we would have to do whatever we could. What you've completely screwed up is the reasoning for acting now rather than later.
If we have 200 years, maybe there are courses of action that can be put into place for just 1% of GDP today to prevent the moon crash scenario. Whereas if we wait for 170 years for more accurate data, and then our worst fears are confirmed, it might actually cost 100% of GDP for 30 years to prevent. It's the same reason why you invest retirement money in your 30s, it has time to work more effectively.
This is exactly why I advocate taking some action now. There does appear to be some risk, but all the numbers aren't in yet. So, if we can do some small things, like offer solar panel rebates; then these actions are worth taking in the short term because they are cheap, they don't destroy anyone's rights, and if we learn 50 years from now that we do need to clean the problem up it will not have grown to be as large.
Oh, and by the way. You just lost. Thank God, too. This particular thread has really gotten out of hand.
I was using it as an example of one that is NOT politicized. At least not today... I was pointing out that an opinion can become a strong "norm" in mainstream science circles even though the general public, once in formed (nowadays thanks to the internet), rails against. It is what is happening right now with GW as well as some aspects of what is being taught as "biological evolution".
A lot of "smart" people can be dead wrong. The longer one is around - and reads - the more sceptical one becomes of "experts". After all, even rocket science aint "rocket science". If one cannot argue against the "deniers", one either does not understand their own opinion, is merely spouting what someone else said/wrote, or has an agenda and is being intentionally obtuse or just plain lying.
We saw this sort of thing with the Dan Rather fiasco as well as with the Swift Boat Vet claims. The light of day brought by the internet showed, beyond the shadow of a doubt, which side was lying. The internet brings the light of day to all significant claims and requires their intellectual defense, not just the blanket statement that they are "peer reviewed". And frankly, the internet has made EVERYTHING that affects us, and there is strong disagreement as to it's validity, political.
We are in a new era of enlightenment of the masses. In the long run it will be very good indeed if it is not switched off.
And most importantly, it does not apply here, for I was accusing no-one of being a Nazi. I was using it as a modern epitome of two groups diametrically opposed to one another to the point that one group wanted to exterminate the other. This is an example of the unacceptability of a "moderate" position. That does not violate Goodwins law. In fact, this corollary (from your link) may apply: "However, Godwin's Law itself can be abused, as a distraction or diversion, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate."
I firmly believe my comparison is appropriate. It is a clear example of an issue where there is no acceptable middle ground.
Lastly, this thread has not gotten out of control. It has stayed on topic remarkably well. What IS out of control is placing of this thread in an "economy" forum. I normally stay out of these discussions (and the forums in which they reside) in the same way an ex-meat packing plant worker may avoid meat. But once I saw this one, I got hooked... :roll:
Why do certain ideas in science become targets of social criticism and others do not?
It would be easy to assume that the controversy occurs when science challenges "ignorance," especially ignorance created by cultural myths and religion. This is very neat if you believe you are being scientific, but it doesn't pass the test.
For example, Darwin's idea on evolution and Freud's ideas of the mind and behavior were met with strong social and cultural opposition which could be interpreted as a contest between religion and science.
On the other hand, theories about the quantum nature of reality, the big bang theory of creation, physical causes of mental illness, and others have not generally raised conflicts between religion, culture and science even though all of these ideas have strong religious elements.
No, there is something more happening when a controversy is ignited other than a simple morality play featuring "logic" against the villain "ignorance."
Let's use global warming as an example. Why should a scientific theory be so embraced by some and so opposed by others? What is it about global warming that divides the population based on conservative-liberal leanings, or big vs. small government ideals, between different types of scientists, and even between religionists?
Why do some people feel their position on this issue justifies being untruthful or utilizing propaganda? Note a recent AP story about the White House "ignoring advice on global warming." First of all, the White House did not ignore the report, they simply refused to change the Constitution, the present form of government, and the nature of the American economy to comply with the report's suggestions.
In the AP story, the "dismissed" report was not produced by the usual White House advisers, it was produced by "experts," and they were not just any experts, they were "top experts."
This week we learned more Americans are likely "to suffer" from kidney stones because of global warming. Is it any wonder part of the population gets cynical?
Many ideas in science have become controversial because the scientists have left their science and jumped headlong into religious or political arenas, which insures that their names appear in the media and research money continues to flow. Then they act outraged when their involvement creates a religious or political response.
Freud, for example, used the stories and ideals of his own Western culture to explain observed behavior. He then rejected Western religions as being God-given because he could explain religious tenets in terms of his observational theories. This is a tidy little tautology that many nonreligious people use to bash their own culture without logically examining its premise.
If an idea is presented that the world is going to be destroyed, and destroyed by human action, then the people who always wanted to control and manage human behavior will gravitate to the ideas to justify what they always wanted to do.
If an argument can be made that the world is being destroyed by too much freedom, too much commerce, too much reliance on obsolete religion and cultural ideals, then the people who never liked freedom, commerce or traditional values will be attracted toward these ideas.
When these advocates are lauded as "experts" and "top" experts, which almost all intelligent people know is an exaggeration, and when much less than "top" intellects, like Al Gore, win Nobel Prizes for pushing propaganda, then it is little wonder that many people become skeptical about the theories.
When people who hate capitalism begin to use global warming as the blunt weapon to control it, and when others begin to use the same ideas to control freedom and further strengthen the power of the federal government and the failed United Nations, then it makes no sense to include opponents to global warming under the rubrics of ignorance. Bluntly put, you can't use a scientific theory as a weapon and still naively assume that people will not defend themselves.
Global warming is in part good science, part bad science, part propaganda and part nonsense. The larger problem, however, is in assuming that it is all science, or all nonsense.
The article really does a nice job of encapsulating at least some of my feelings (as opposed to thoughts) on this.
1) I don't buy your attempt to weasel out of reductio ad Hitlerum. You cannot compare a reasonable scientific issue which has been overly politicized to the behavior of a racist/fascist government and expect to maintain credibility.
2) This has to be the very first time I've ever heard anyone argue that the internet is responsible for an increase in credible information. I say that only slightly tongue in cheek. It's a great medium for spreading and archiving information, but it has a terrible signal-to-noise ratio. What has happened instead is that people self-sort into groups that generally agree on things. They can then slap each others backs about how right they all are and for a smaller group consensus. To a certain extent, that's what happens on this site, and it was what was happening on most of the links you've provided. It's not the same as a well written document that sufficiently sums up all the views according to their credibility.
ROSE:
Look at how far science has advanced advanced in the last 100 years....and we are advancing faster now...to rush into any action without hard proof that there is a problem is Silly....Even if there is a problem 30 years from now we will be far better equiped to solve it....
I should make it clear I am convinced there is NO PROBLEM....only the natural force of nature that has warmed and cooled our earth in cycles for eons..
ROB:
Something often overlooked in this discussion is that there is NO hard scientific data to prove there is "man Made" Global Warming...the whole theory is based on flawed computer models that have been shown to be incorrect in their long range projections.....For example taking hard data (actual measurments) the earth has not warmed at all since 99...It may have actually cooled slightly. All the hurricane for the last 2-3 years have been totally wrong. There is slightly less ice in the artic and a record amount of ice in the anartic...
The article you posted, I think explains the fact that rather then looking at this in a truly scientific way, we are looking at it Politically and on the green side it is a finincial boom
And at no time did I call anyone a nazi. 8) The first time? You sure don't get around.
The printing press increased "noise" as well. The vast majority of books published today are poppycock. Much "non-fiction" should be filed under fiction. But nobody (who is not ignorant on the subject) disagrees with the fact that the printing press is one of the greatest inventions in history. It not only drastically improved the speed and reliability of communication between peer groups in science, medicine, philosophy, et-al, but it put wisdom in the hands of the masses for the first time in history. It was huge!
The internet is the printing press on steroids!
Without the internet, there is no doubt in my mind that John Kerry would have been elected in 2004 and Dan Rather would still be at cBS. Both were brought down singlehandedly by the internet. In Kerry's case, it was the Swift Boat Vets. He (and the complacent press) tried to paint them as a bunch of political hacks that were just a bunch of Karl Rove plants. But they were able to use the internet to get their word out. Discourse followed and it became so clear that Kerry was lying and they were not, that Kerry ended up having to admit one of the strongest stories in his book was a fabrication! That is HUGE.
If Dan Rather had pulled the fake document stunt 15 years ago, he would have gotten away with it. He even came on the air two days after the original broadcast and showed "similar" documents for about three seconds as evidence that the documents were authentic. Well, people captured that image and posted on the internet. Also, a poster by the name of "buckhead", on the site "freerepublic.com" actually posted something along the lines of "that document looks like it was created in Word". He posted that 59 minutes after the original Rather broadcast that offered the fake documents as legitimate. The hunt was on. I was part of it. By the time Dan Rather came on the air with his infamous defense two days later, we had analyzed the documents to the point that only a fool would honestly believe those documents "from the early 1970's" were not produced in Microsoft Word.
We all know the rest of the story on both of these.
On a side note, without the internet all one could do to protest was throw a shoe at their TV during the 6:00 news, or hope the hopelessly biased local rag would print your letter to the editor. Thanks to the internet, a legion was asking Kerry: Why will you not sign a form 180. It killed him politically. He will never enter politics outside his state. It is because he CAN'T sign because of what it would reveal. Funny thing is, all the evidence is there even without him signing.
You are right about the "slapping on the back" thing, at least to some degree. DU is notorious for banning people that disagree with them, no matter how "polite and reasonable" they are. But most sites are more liberal in their tolerance of differing viewpoints.
But back to global warming.
The great thing about the internet is it empowers this concept: All things being equal, the truth is easy to spread while lies are very difficult (and expensive) to prop up. Give the truth a simple push and it rolls downhill, but lies have to be laboriously pushed uphill all the way. The internet is the great equalizer. Now that the "GW is consensus" lie has been obliterated, the subject is being actively discussed, even on boards (like this one) where both sides DO NOT agree. Over time, it becomes clear who has the body of "real" facts on their side, and who is blowing smoke.
Time will indeed tell, as it did with Dan Rather and John Kerry (and soon, Obama and McCain)
But I digress.
You precicely encapsulated my feelings and beliefs about this. Oh, and don't forget what is going on under the arctic: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=arc ... a=N&tab=wn :!:
"Oil is still so plentiful in the region that it often bubbles uncontrollably to the surface, and shows up in the form of tar globules on some of the area's beaches."
"Allen is the president of a group called Stop Oil Seeps, which argues that additional offshore drilling could be used to prevent oil from bubbling up on to beaches."
"Natural seepage alone over a four-year period amounts to roughly the same amount of oil that spilled from the Exxon Valdez incident in Alaska in 1989."
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/s ... aspx?guid={605CE503-B0D9-4951-8C86-19B0FB38CF64}&dist=msr_1
After the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" was released, there was naturally an outcry among many "deniers", of which I am one. Well, someone produced a series on it called "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Now the other side protested, to the point that they got an Ofcom investigation going. I even saw youtube interviews with the creator of the film where he was given the "60 minutes treatment" by some British equivalent. His interview was followed by a lopsided rebuttal by an entire panel! On a side note, it proves the old axiom, "never, ever allow yourself to be interviewed by 60 Minutes, no matter how strong you think your case may be". This interview is a textbook case of why, and anyone can search it on youtube and see what I mean.
In the meantime, this Ofcom thing DID address inaccuracies in the broadcast and many are very glib about it. However, one may ask, "Gee, I guess this one is blatantly lying, while An Inconvenient Truth really IS the gold standard."
Well, not exactly. In fact, I would say one is much worse than the other. You be the judge:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... ient-truth
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... lm-schools
And this was impossible to find in google news. At least I was unable to find it. Kinda wierd. Oh, Wired covered this thing too.