NationStates Jolt Archive

i am focused on him personally. Always a sad day when a PHD holder sells his cred for fame and money. and i really dont have time to do more then a google search at the moment.

Some google scholar searches for papers authored by H Schmitt containing the words 'climate' and 'change' turn up nothing relevant.

i am focused on him personally. Always a sad day when a PHD holder sells his cred for fame and money. and i really dont have time to do more then a google search at the moment.

I don't know if he sold out. He may truly believe it. But people should always say "prove it" over any claim. The deniers have been desperate to find a "scientist" to boost their claims and they probably just wanted to bring him out for a "LOOK" announcement.

Some google scholar searches for papers authored by H Schmitt containing the words 'climate' and 'change' turn up nothing relevant.

Google is nice. but before i say an academic paper doesn't exist i would go through JSTOR, and other scholarly searches. hes a PHD so we know he has published something. jsut got to see what and so on.

Google is nice. but before i say an academic paper doesn't exist i would go through JSTOR, and other scholarly searches. hes a PHD so we know he has published something. jsut got to see what and so on.

I don't have access to JSTOR, so I can't search through that.

I know he's published something, it's just that google didn't turn up anything he's published on the subject of climate change. This makes me suspect (but doesn't make it certain) that he hasn't.

I don't have access to JSTOR, so I can't search through that.
I do, if it helps.

Indeed, any student at a UK uni should be able to access JSTOR through their Athens account.

I do, if it helps.

Indeed, any student at a UK uni should be able to access JSTOR through their Athens account.

Indeed. However, I'm not a student at a UK uni until the fall.

If it's not too much trouble, could you nose around for anything published by Harrison Schmitt, with a particular emphasis on climate? We wish to know if this US senator actually has any professional expertise whatsoever in this area.

For those interested, a JSTOR search for Harrison Schmitt as an author comes up with four papers

The Federal Government's Role in Basic Research
Apollo 17 Report on the Valley of Taurus-Littrow
A Scientist-Senator on Recombinant DNA Research
Making a Case for Humans in Space

Nothing relevant there.

I'm not a science student, so if there's any more databases I should be searching, I don't know them. So just ask and I'll try and have a quick look.

For those interested, a JSTOR search for Harrison Schmitt comes up with four papers <snip>
That's what I got as well.

For those interested, a JSTOR search for Harrison Schmitt comes up with four papers

The Federal Government's Role in Basic Research
Apollo 17 Report on the Valley of Taurus-Littrow
A Scientist-Senator on Recombinant DNA Research
Making a Case for Humans in Space

Nothing relevant there.

That's what I got as well.

Thanks to the both of you.

Seems reasonably clear that Mr H. Schmitt is not a good person for the deniers to use as a figurehead, as he's published no work in the area. Ah well, since when did we expect anything better?

I'm not a science student, so if there's any more databases I should be searching, I don't know them. So just ask and I'll try and have a quick look.

in the same boat as you i don't go through science papers that often.

I do, if it helps.

Indeed, any student at a UK uni should be able to access JSTOR through their Athens account.

most American universities give JSTOR access through their library.
I do love JSTOR.

I didnt know being a senator and astronaut made you a qualified climatologist.

That's nothing. I was in an argument last week with a guy who thought owning the weather channel and 30 years of reading weather maps on a blue screen made you a climatologist.

I do love JSTOR.
I love my Athens account more; access to JSTOR, subscriber's edition New Scientist, countless other journals, magazines and online libraries.

Su-weet.

I love my Athens account more; access to JSTOR, subscriber's edition New Scientist, countless other journals, magazines and online libraries.

Su-weet.

i get those via my library as well. JSTOR is just my first reference search.
Just saying my bearkat account will be meaningless to you.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=anthropogenic+global+warming&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

566,000 results. Enjoy.
You fail. A google page =/= you presenting the information that you based your argument on. If you had bothered to base your arguments on any information at all, then you would know which of those google entries to link to. Clearly you have never given this any thought at all.

Ah, moving the goalposts. Your question was "Are you seriously going to claim that the majority of people talking about this are not scientists?" You said nothing about studies, testimony, nor media consultation.
Wrong again. That is not me moving the goalposts. It's you failing to read the whole post.

I specifically said that scientists speak in all those contexts and that non-scientists speaking in unofficial venues, like NSG, quote those scientists.

But you're right, goalposts are being moved -- by you. You first claimed that the majority of those speaking about this issue are not scientists. Now you are trying to narrow down "speaking about" to exclude venues in which scientists speak. Cute. Lame, but cute.


I've seen some quoting of scientists here. Most? No. Mostly I see polemics.
Apparently, you only read your own posts. In THIS thread, climate change deniers cited someone they claimed was an expert. Others have been asking for proof of his expertise. YOU have been providing the polemics.

But you're right about this much: In THIS thread, you have not heard any scientists speak about climate change. You have only seen some people talk about Senator Schmitt's opinion about climate change and cite a few quotes of his. Those people have a pro-coal-industry agenda and are not scientists. Inasmuch as neither they nor the OP or any of his supporters have actually shown that Schmitt has ever done any scientific work on climate change, then in THIS thread, no scientists have talked about climate change.

But in other threads on NSG? Yeah, people have. And in the real world where lots and lots of people talk about climate change? Yeah, those people are either scientists themselves or they are referring to the work of scientists.

Climate change is real. It is sometimes known as "weather". Global warming is possible, perhaps even likely, but not yet proven. Anthropogenic global warming is a theory, nothing more.
Wrong again. Climate =/= weather. Weather is a micro-phenomenon that affects specific areas over short periods of time. Climate is the overall, long-term trend of a region or of the planet as a whole.

It does occasionally rain in Death Valley. That is weather. Death Valley is and has been for thousands of years, the most arid place in North America. That is climate. If it rains there tomorrow, Death Valley will not stop being an arid place.

Your comments indicate something I have long believed -- people who pooh-pooh reports about global climate change really don't understand what they are pooh-poohing.

People do things in contradiction to their beliefs all the time. If you can find a company or individual who has ever dumped toxic waste on Main Street and argued it was a good idea, I'd like to see that.

You are shifting the argument again. The toxic waste has to go somewhere. I would expect that whatever legal site was chosen for it was proposed as a good spot by someone. This has nothing to do with what I actually wrote.
Yes, like that building across the street from the elementary school in the Bronx. Do YOU think that was a good place to store radioactive waste? Well, somebody must have at least said it was, whether they really thought it or not. Otherwise, it would not have been a legal storage dump, now would it?

Nope, not "climate change". AGW. They are not the same thing.
That's right. One is actually happening, and the other is a falsehood based on misunderstanding of early data. That's why, if you bother to read my posts, you will see that I don't talk about global warming. I talk about climate change.

Not just an excuse for bureaucratic increase. Also a religious impulse to protect our sacred mother Earth. I've clarified both these points more than once, but you seemingly cannot resist the urge to demand I defend an argument I have not made.
Yes, I know. Both of those points, as clarified by you, are complete bullshit. The religion angle has been attacked on its fundamental illogic by others. I will add that in my opinion, it is so illogical it suggests deliberate dishonesty on your part. And the plot for bureaucrats to extend some kind of Empire of Paperpushers is also bullshit, because you have not -- not even tried -- to present any evidence, or even a logically sound argument, explaining just HOW that is supposed to happen in the world.

A few questions for you.

1. Do you deny that any laws passed to combat global warming will require a larger enforcement bureaucracy, new authority for the current bureaucracy, or both?
Yes, I do. The existing governmental apparatus is more than sufficient if its funding is restored.

2. Do you deny that the EPA (the obvious candidate for such authority) would welcome the greater legal authority & larger budget which would come from such laws?
Yes I do. (A) The EPA would not be a "candidate" for such authority because it already has that authority. That's what it's for. (B) The EPA is big enough to get the job done. It just needs a policy that will direct it properly.

3. Do you deny the Left would welcome such laws?
The "Left" of what?

Now I have some questions for you:

1) Do you deny that industrial pollution of air, water and arable soil increases the incidence of various diseases in the human population?

2) Do you deny that reducing pollution would reduce the incidence of diseases linked to exposure to toxins in pollution?

3) Do you deny that previous reductions in such pollution did indeed have such beneficial effects on public health?

4) Do you deny that developing new technologies typically creates jobs and that developing new tech to reduce pollution in industry and household resource consumption, and new technologies to clean up existing environmental damage could create jobs, possibly for many years to come?

If you would answer "Yes, I do deny it" to any of the above questions, then there is really no point in continuing to talk to you. Because as I have said several times, the reality of climate change is far less relevant a reason to institute new ecological regulations than the immediate and long-term benefits of instituting such regulations for the purpose of reducing pollution. And if you would deny that or sacrifice that for the sake of pushing some conspiracy theory about nameless/faceless bureaucrats taking over the economy, then you clearly are living in an ideological fantasy land.

Unless you can answer "yes, I do deny it" to at least one of those questions, I'm not sure why you even take issue with my point.
Well, we're in luck then. I answered "Yes, I do deny it" to both of the above questions that made any sense as written.

Well, actually I do have some idea why: you are a leftist, yes?
Define "leftist." Left of what?

<snip ranting blather>