[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE: Why mostclassificationsare fuzz

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "doug foxvog" <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 00:05:22 -0400 (EDT)
Message-id: <51647.>
On Tue, August 9, 2011 16:38, Rich Cooper said:    (01)

> I agree that forced and exclusive regulation is
> SOMETIMES necessary, but I prefer the way the ISO
> 9000 and ISO 9001 standards committee operates,
> where companies that claim to practice their
> standards are audited by ISO-accredited auditors,
> and given a certification only if their practices
> pass the audit.  Buyers can then purchase from
> accredited companies or not, depending on their
> needs and predilections.
> But chemicals in food or in food packages that can
> be scientifically shown to harm people should
> certainly be prohibited by law or regulation
> though, since they do violence to individuals who
> don't suspect anything is wrong, as you pointed
> out.  But most regulations and regulatory bodies
> are not (IMHO) best forced upon the public without
> alternatives.  The ISO 9K pattern is one I would
> prefer for products and services that are not
> inherently dangerous.
> There are other cases of damaging products and
> services which should also be prohibited, but
> knowing where to draw the line needs a closer
> look.
> Have you seen the recent NASA study    (02)

This is not a NASA study, but a paper by a long-term climate change
denier, Dr. Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama, who works with NASA
and is also a creationist.  He says he became
  "convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better
   scientific basis than the theory of evolution".    (03)

He is on the board of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of
Creation, "a conservative Christian public policy group that promotes a
free-market approach to care for the environment".    (04)

It appears to me that he has a religio-political agenda.    (05)

> that says global warming alarmism is not justified,    (06)

The article does not mention "global warming alarmism" at all.
Given your description, i'm wondering if you read it.  The article does
not say that anthropogenic global warming is not occurring.  It does state
that various feedback mechanisms are complicated to model and that current
climate models do not accurately model such feedback.    (07)

> and that the earth is emitting heat into space,    (08)

The Earth always does this.    (09)

> and also
> adapting to higher levels of CO2 by emitting more
> heat and pushing the gas higher in the atmosphere?    (010)

Isn't this part of the standard models?    (011)

>http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/8278523/nasa_says_computer_models_wrong_about.html    (012)

I note that this is a political website, not a scientific one.  The actual
article is at   http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf    (013)

Dr. Spencer's credibility is debunked in
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43949972/ns/us_news-environment/    (014)

Actually, if you go to the actual article
you find that he starts with an equation which assumes that the
heat capacity of the oceans is unchanged -- i.e., that negative
feedback balances any heat input.  He states that a variation of
the equation would be necessary for the heat content of "the
system" to change with time:
  "Cp d&#916;T/dt = S(t) + N(t) &#8722; &#955;&#916;T (1)
  Equation (1) states that time-varying sources of non-radiative
  forcing S and radiative forcing N cause a climate system with bulk
  heat capacity Cp to undergo a temperature change with time away
  from its equilibrium state (d&#916;T/dt), but with a net radiative feedback
  ‘restoring force’ (&#8722;&#955;&#916;T) acting to stabilize the system.
 ... the heat
  capacity Cp in Equation (1) is assumed to represent the oceanic mixed
  layer. (Note that if Cp is put inside the time differential term, the
  equation then becomes one for changes in the heat content of the
  system with time."    (015)

Given an incorrect analysis of what the article says, the conclusions
drawn from this analysis (in the next paragraph) have no support.    (016)

> That indicates that the UN committee of global
> warming alarmists are just pursuing a political
> agenda, especially with the administration and the
> UN promoting cap and tax in the US, and other 1st
> world countries, at US and 1st world expense,
> while redistributing the funds to 3rd world
> governments (not 3rd world citizens).    (017)

This is a very curious proposition to be included in a scientific
paper (unless the topic is political science).    (018)

> I am in favor of helping 3rd world citizens, ...    (019)

The point of trying to limit CO2 emissions is not to
help 3rd world citizens, but to avert a catastrophe.
Of course, some of the most affected countries are
poor, but the Kyoto Protocol and other measures were
designed for everyone, not as wealth redistribution
measures.    (020)

> For another example, the Obama administration's
> intended policies of prohibiting drilling of oil
> and coal resources, even if research has shown
> ways to clean up the coal,    (021)

Sulphur can be cleaned out of the coal exhaust, but
CO2 can not be.  "Clean coal" is an oxymoron, which
Obama evidently is willing to waste limited govt. money
on because it is corporate welfare.    (022)

> is economically
> counterproductive.  It has hurt the economy,
> killed (by some estimates) five million jobs in
> the industry,    (023)

Where do such ridiculous estimates come from?  Five million is about
the number of jobs that have been lost in the recession.  The increase
in jobless since Obama took office is less than five million.    (024)

Obama added temporary
restrictions on deep ocean drilling while BP was spewing tremendous
amounts of crude oil directly into the Gulf of Mexico, but there
never have been millions of Americans working on deep ocean drilling.    (025)

> and diverted our focus from what it
> takes to get energy independence at reasonable
> prices.    (026)

Funding for wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, and wave generation
of energy coupled with co-generation, efficiency improvement, and
reduction of excessive use of energy could safely put us on the
way to energy independence.    (027)

> Yet NASA's evidence shows that its not a problem.    (028)

Climate disruption is probably the largest danger to our society.
It will cost the economy tens of trillions of dollars.    (029)

> Its just another way to use regulation
> to crowd out the small oil producers and refiners,
> and raise the cost of entry.    (030)

Do you actually believe that the Democrats want to eliminate
small businesses?    (031)

> That is one example
> where stated remedies, like the new gas mileage
> the Obama admin has forced on all of us by
> regulation    (032)

The Bush Administration hurt US auto manufacturers as well
the atmosphere by stalling gas mileage increase requirements.
Low gas mileage vehicles require the US to import more fuel,
hurting our balance of trade, and end up costing consumers
more because their vehicles burn more gasoline.    (033)

> with no alternative for those who knew
> the GW alarmists were up to no good with no good evidence.    (034)

Do you believe that the vast majority of climate researchers
around the world are involved in a massive conspiracy to
produce false science for some evil purpose?    (035)

> There are only a few huge auto companies
> which dominate the market for good reason -    (036)

because small producers were bought out by larger ones.    (037)

> political pressure and donations that
> suck funds from taxpayers struggling to make ends
> meet.    (038)

> Watch alternative news, such as Al Jazeera, Russia
> Today, and other country opinions of US actions to
> get the countervailing view as opposed to just the
> mainstream media which stays politically correct.
> The other side of the story is very informative if
> you are interested in the topics they discuss.
> One viewpoint is nearly guaranteed to be wrong in
> certain ways, and only by stepping outside of the
> prevailing views will you get a balanced
> understanding.  Even Fox Business Channel, which
> focuses almost solely on financial issues,
> provides a countervailing view to CNN, for
> example.    (039)

> These compelling regulatory bodies are usually
> populated with people from huge companies in the
> industry being regulated.    (040)

Certainly when pro-corporate, anti-consumer, presidents
appoint board members.  We need strong laws banning
revolving door employment between regulatory bodies and
the companies regulated.    (041)

-- doug f    (042)

> Guess what?  The huge
> companies become huger and the smaller companies
> with better products and services disappear.    (043)

> -Rich
> Sincerely,
> Rich Cooper
> EnglishLogicKernel.com
> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of John F. Sowa
> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 12:32 PM
> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE:
> Why mostclassificationsare fuzzy)
> On 8/9/2011 11:50 AM, Rich Cooper wrote:
>> Just how much does each of us value safety,
> honest advertising,
>> cleanliness, and other honest and fair
> practices?
> I would rate those things extremely high.  Most
> people are willing
> to pay extra for safe, sound, and effective food,
> drugs, restaurants,
> hotels, homes, cars, and appliances.  But there is
> no way to ensure
> safety without standards and inspections.  And
> there is no way to
> ensure that the information people get is reliable
> without laws that
> prosecute false claims and counterfeit labels.
> If you want to see what happens without effective
> gov't regulation,
> just look at what happened with the food and water
> system in China.
> People there are terrified that they can't trust
> their food and
> water supply.  Look at the disastrous levels of
> casualties caused
> by earthquakes and mine disasters in areas with no
> building codes.
> The Chinese gov't has imposed some drastic capital
> executions
> for managers responsible for food that killed
> people.  But I'd
> much rather have standards and inspections in
> advance than harsh
> penalties for the people who killed me.
> You can call that the "nanny state", but I call it
> common sense.
>> I disagree with one-size-fits-all regulation.
> The European Union has prohibited BPA as a plastic
> softener for
> food containers and children's toys, and
> California is trying
> to do the same.  But the US still allows BPA.  The
> Chinese produce
> plastic with and without BPA.  The cost difference
> is minimal, but
> many manufacturers will shave pennies.  So they
> produce both kinds,
> and they ship the BPA versions to the US.
> I am all in favor of freedom, especially for
> myself.  But if
> there is no regulation, the contaminated stuff
> dominates the market.
> Worst of all, the people who produce the
> contaminated stuff don't
> want any regulations that would force them to
> disclose what's
> in their product.
> That is not freedom for me.  That's freedom for
> the people who
> produce the contaminated goods.  I have no choice.
> John
> __________________________________________________
> _______________
> Message Archives:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
> orum/
> Unsubscribe:
> mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePa
> ge#nid1J
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
>    (044)

doug foxvog    doug@xxxxxxxxxx   http://ProgressiveAustin.org    (045)

"I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great
initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours."
    - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
=============================================================    (046)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J    (047)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>