bascule

Okay, let's have a look at some more of your anti-scientific statements: The uncertainties are calculated as part of the analysis. The natural fluctuations are investigated scientifically then checked in models. Present theory surrounding climate change is well substantiated by present evidence. It's not just a "hypothesis." The mentality here is a common one: the climate system is too big and too complex with too many factors involved for science to possibly understand. That mentality is unscientific and wrong. The anomalies are not being overlooked. The bad data was thrown out, and the corrected data is now being used in its place. However, given how little of Earth's surface area the affected data impacted, it is practically irrelevant. There's no conspiracy here to brush this under the rug. NASA stated outright there was an error in the data, and *gasp* noted that there was poor reporting regarding things like the ordering of the hottest years. You are, in fact, repeating claims which are the result of poor climate science reporting, while rebuking others for doing so. I think you've been consistently engaged throughout this thread. Your arguments have been deconstructed and shown to be false. Nobody's slapping a label on you because they don't want to hear what you have to say. They're sticking a label on you because it's more apt than the "skeptic" label you wish to stick upon yourself.

There's nothing wrong with a healthy skepticism of climate science reporting. Often it is wrong or distorted. However, just because the science is poorly reported doesn't mean you should doubt the science. You've consistently attacked the science throughout this thread, arguing that climate scientists analysis of the data is flawed in order to drive political ends: Attack the reporting all you want, but when you attack the science out of ignorance, you're not being skeptical, you're just a denialist.

When your father is Billy "Achy Breaky Heart" Cyrus I'm sure opinions regarding musical talent are rather distorted. As far as Miley's music goes, she makes Avril Lavigne look good, and Avril is pretty much the bottom of the barrel in my book...

Culture warrior Bill O is at it again. This time, he's up in arms about one Miley Cyrus: http://www.usmagazine.com/bill-oreilly-dad-turned-miley-cyrus-into-a-sex-symbol-at-fifteen MIDDLE AMERICA DOES NOT APPROVE! Since when is "Middle America" code for uptight prudish assholes? Yes, the 15 year old star of Disney's Hannah Montana will be appearing in a provocative photo in a magazine nobody gives a crap about. Here it is for the curious: http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/05_01/MileycyrusVF_468x613.jpg OH NO! You can see her... back! Is this indicative of America's growing cultural debauchery, or do child stars just naturally grow up and turn into sex symbols once they develop the requisite body curvature?

Albert Hofmann, one of the most famous chemists in the world, has died at the age of 102. Hofmann is famous for synthesizing LSD and discovering its entheogenic properties.

That's shifting the burden of proof. You're the one arguing similar dosages for background radiation. Are you referring to this? http://www.fortfreedom.org/p22.htm That paper is titled "THE MYTH OF PLUTONIUM TOXICITY" Polonium is not referenced anywhere in it. You say you found a few papers. Can you post a link to one of the others? No, but so far, I'm not seeing anything refuting it, or even offering a contrary opinion. I've contacted the EPA asking them their opinion on whether or not they would want to regulate it. However, just because they're not lobbying for authority doesn't mean they aren't concerned, and nothing in their original reply to me suggested they didn't consider it a problem. Perhaps they just have bigger fish to fry. But again, that's policy-based speculation, which is about as far from science as you can get.

Can you provide a citation for this? Everything I've seen so far has referenced background radiation levels, not dosage to lung tissue. Actually what I was saying was that mainstream cigarette smoke contains both soluble and insoluble Po210 compounds. The soluble compounds are cleared by natural process. The insoluble ones are deposited at bronchial bifurcations and are not easily cleared by natural processes. This is covered both in the Martell paper and in the internal documents from Philip Morris. It's not my "hypothesis", it's recognized by even the cigarette companies. A citation regarding direct exposure to lung tissue would be nice. That was from the internal Philip Morris documents I linked, which first are certainly not peer reviewed scientific literature, and second predate the Martell paper I lniked. That's certainly a better document, thanks.

Yes, that was the EPA's response. Here is the entirety of the exchange if you are curious: Bronchial bifurcations seem like an ideal "hot spot" for alpha radiation exposure, as they represent an area of deep tissue with high surface area. Furthermore, insoluble polonium compounds are sticky and thus easily deposited at these locations, bombarding the tissue they are stuck to while resisting natural processes which would typically remove them. There are several reasons why the dosage received from insoluble Po210 compounds should be different from compounds present in the atmospheric background regardless of their levels. Can you find a paper in the peer reviewed literature which refutes the Martell paper, or failing that, one which shows similar a dosage of radiation occurring from a natural source as you claim? Or, at the very least, can you point out a flaw in the Martell paper itself? Perhaps you can find a paper which experimentally calculates a different dosage of radiation from mainstream cigarette smoke, or compares it directly to radiation dosage from background sources. At the very least, I would like to see some sort of peer reviewed paper which directly challenges the Martell paper. The Martell paper claims carcinogenic exposure to radiation from mainstream cigarette smoke over the life of a smoker. I'd really like to see a paper that challenges that claim, or provides an alternative interpretation.

I have submitted a follow-up question to the EPA asking if they feel radon progeny in mainstream cigarette smoke should be regulated if they were authorized to do so.

Can you show us an instance of someone using the regional mean surface temperature of the contiguous 48 states (or even North America as a whole) as an indicator of how the global climate is changing? I think you're arguing against a strawman here...

I think you're missing the distinction between unknowable and unprovable

http://www.surphzup.com/ This is one of the most hilarious I've seen yet: Megalomania, anyone? Newton's first law, destroyed! And of course it works, dummy! It's been patented! The USPTO doesn't let you patent things that don't work!

That's not the response I got back from the EPA. They cited the science (giving a reply which almost perfectly echoes the conclusions of the Martell paper) and cited lack of regulatory authority as the reason they don't.

Nobody's arguing that the solar cycle doesn't affect the climate. That's a red herring. First: anyone using the contiguous 48 states as any sort of indicator of the global climate is an idiot. From the NASA citation: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/ Second, the flaw did not affect the ordering of the hottest years on record:

You linked back to this thread from politics here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=32497#post404701 and I would prefer to keep science and policy discussions separate

Those figures are for regional mean surface temperature North America, not the global mean surface temperature. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/ 2005 is the hottest year on record, with 2007 being second (tied with 1998) 2007 had the hottest January on record. After correcting the error, the change in regional mean surface temperature (for the US) was less than 1% The change in global mean surface temperature is not even worth noting (less than thousandths of a percent)

Since it's been awhile... where'd you get that 20 Bq figure from? Also, how much of that background radiation is the average person's lung tissue actually exposed to? How does it compare to 80-100 rads delivered to approx 107 lung cells from radionucleotides in cigarette smoke? Which ones are most responsible? I'd say: benzopyrene, nitrosamine, and insoluble Po210 compounds

If you believe the science demonstrates polonium is not a factor in lung cancers, why do you oppose the EPA having authority to regulate it? As an aside: nitrosamines form through direct fire curing of tobacco (and can be reduced to undetectable levels by using indirect fire curing instead), but the EPA doesn't have the authority to regulate nitrosamines in cigarettes either. Why would it make more sense to regulate nicotine? Nicotine isn't a carcinogen, but Po210 is. What ill health effects caused by nicotine do you think make it more worthy of regulation than Po210? That said, this thread isn't intended to discuss how Po210 in cigarettes should be regulated. It's to discuss whether the EPA should have the power to regulate it at all, which they presently don't.

Except Bill O'Reilly claims his show represents a "No Ideology Zone" where a "fair and balanced" portrayal of both sides of the argument are presented.

Can you give an example of the "control over all aspects of people's lives" angle as it relates to climate change? The phrase "paleoconservative" is intended to provide juxtaposition to the term "neoconservative". I don't see a pejorative angle to it at all. If anything I think there's a pejorative connotation to neoconservative nowadays. Given how ridden in scandal and contempt the current administration is, I don't see how anyone can still take neoconservatism seriously. Ron Paul is a paleoconservative, and I certainly respect him. Limited government, fiscal responsibility, non-interventionism, and pursuit of freedom are all noble goals. It sounds like you don't have a problem with the scientific consensus on the climate so much as you have a problem with suggested policies stemming from the science. I believe it's incredibly important to keep the two distinct. One is science, the other is politics.

It has been achieved. Check out RepRap: http://www.reprap.org/bin/view/Main/ShowCase The basic idea behind RepRap is that it's a rapid prototyper (i.e. a combination Computer Numerical Control (CNC) milling machine with a resin "print head") which is capable of fabricating many of the parts needed to construct itself, with any additional parts needed to build RepRap being easily and relatively cheaply obtainable in most parts of the world. In addition to building parts for itself, it can build simple solid objects (think things like combs) as well as complex machined parts. This leads to an almost Ikea-like approach to building more complex machines: you download a copy of the object you want to build, which includes 3D models of all the parts the RepRap can build, a list of other parts you must buy, and a list of instructions for how to assemble the intended device.

I saw this awhile ago and almost thought about posting a thread about it, however after reading more about it I don't see the problem.

Having worked for a renowned "climate skeptic" (who also happened to be the state climatologist) I can assure you skepticism in climate science is certainly "allowed" and vigorous debate continues in the peer review process.

Not really "unknowable". The point is that no formal logic system can be both consistent and complete. Godel proved that any system with the expressive power of basic (Peano) arithmetic is also expressive enough to contain unprovable statements.

The guy is a muckraker and I find his tabloidesque approach to journalism both lowbrow and extremely annoying. You know, articles like this: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=3061015&page=1