Doug, (01)
That recounting of Roy Spencer may be true, but
lets focus on the ontology of self interest if you
don't mind. We could debate global warming till
the earth warms over, but I personally think the
ontology of self interest is more important, more
scientifically relevant to the issue of ontology
in general, and more relevant to this list and our
own interests. (02)
JMHO,
-Rich (03)
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2 (04)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of doug foxvog
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 9:05 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE:
Why mostclassificationsare fuzzy) (05)
On Tue, August 9, 2011 16:38, Rich Cooper said: (06)
> 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 (07)
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". (08)
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". (09)
It appears to me that he has a religio-political
agenda. (010)
> that says global warming alarmism is not
justified, (011)
The article does not mention "global warming
alarmism" at all.
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf
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. (012)
> and that the earth is emitting heat into space, (013)
The Earth always does this. (014)
> and also
> adapting to higher levels of CO2 by emitting
more
> heat and pushing the gas higher in the
atmosphere? (015)
Isn't this part of the standard models? (016)
>
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/8278523/n
asa_says_computer_models_wrong_about.html (017)
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 (018)
Dr. Spencer's credibility is debunked in
http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2011/
07/30/is-roy-spencer-a-credible-voice-on-global-wa
rming-research/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43949972/ns/us_news-en
vironment/ (019)
Actually, if you go to the actual article
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf
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 dΔT/dt = S(t) + N(t) −
λΔT (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 (dΔT/dt), but
with a net radiative feedback
'restoring force' (−λΔT) 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." (020)
Given an incorrect analysis of what the article
says, the conclusions
drawn from this analysis (in the next paragraph)
have no support. (021)
> 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). (022)
This is a very curious proposition to be included
in a scientific
paper (unless the topic is political science). (023)
> I am in favor of helping 3rd world citizens, ... (024)
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. (025)
> 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, (026)
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. (027)
> is economically
> counterproductive. It has hurt the economy,
> killed (by some estimates) five million jobs in
> the industry, (028)
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. (029)
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. (030)
> and diverted our focus from what it
> takes to get energy independence at reasonable
> prices. (031)
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. (032)
> Yet NASA's evidence shows that its not a
problem. (033)
Climate disruption is probably the largest danger
to our society.
It will cost the economy tens of trillions of
dollars. (034)
> Its just another way to use regulation
> to crowd out the small oil producers and
refiners,
> and raise the cost of entry. (035)
Do you actually believe that the Democrats want to
eliminate
small businesses? (036)
> That is one example
> where stated remedies, like the new gas mileage
> the Obama admin has forced on all of us by
> regulation (037)
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. (038)
> with no alternative for those who knew
> the GW alarmists were up to no good with no good
evidence. (039)
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? (040)
> There are only a few huge auto companies
> which dominate the market for good reason - (041)
because small producers were bought out by larger
ones. (042)
> political pressure and donations that
> suck funds from taxpayers struggling to make
ends
> meet. (043)
> 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. (044)
> These compelling regulatory bodies are usually
> populated with people from huge companies in the
> industry being regulated. (045)
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. (046)
-- doug f (047)
> Guess what? The huge
> companies become huger and the smaller companies
> with better products and services disappear. (048)
> JMHO,
> -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-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
>
> (049)
==================================================
===========
doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx
http://ProgressiveAustin.org (050)
"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.
==================================================
=========== (051)
__________________________________________________
_______________
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 (052)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (053)
|