I know someone who just went through a mold abatement in order to sell their house. They had to plop down two grand and they never saw any of the mold. This was apparently a law! Based on everything I've read, there seems to be very little science to support that mold has any more negative impact than allergies...which can be controlled with an air filter...though there is some very quesionable science in that industry too. So how is it that mold abatement has worked its way into some legeslation?

What other industries do you think are built on bad research, fear and lies?

...What other industries do you think are built on bad research, fear and lies?

Crash cleanup. A truck crashes and spills several gallons of fuel. Requires a special cleanup where they remove the contaminated dirt and put in clean dirt. Then haul the contaminated dirt away to dump somewhere else. Dirty dirt is going somewhere and its not like the grass alongside some interstate highway is some pristine rainforest. Just leave it there along with all the other trash folks throw out their windows.

I know someone who just went through a mold abatement in order to sell their house. They had to plop down two grand and they never saw any of the mold. This was apparently a law! Based on everything I've read, there seems to be very little science to support that mold has any more negative impact than allergies...which can be controlled with an air filter...though there is some very quesionable science in that industry too. So how is it that mold abatement has worked its way into some legeslation?

What other industries do you think are built on bad research, fear and lies?

I won't even start in on the number of big money-making industries that are built on a framework of lies. They're everywhere, even as subsets of otherwise sensible or worthwhile industries.

Bad science gets into legislation the same way it gets into people's homes. It's appealing (either to fear or ignorance or both, usually), and it's marketed heavily by folks who stand to make money on it. The same people who push all the snake oil into drugstores, health food stores, supermarkets and teh intarwebs are the ones who are getting it into laws and regulations.

And the lawmakers are, by and large, just as easy to snow as consumers--since most of them are just consumers themselves and no better at research or critical thinking. Throw in a few bucks to their reelection campaign or the charity conveniently run by their spouse to lower their skepticism threshold even further, and you magically have snake-oil friendly laws being proposed.

Crash cleanup. A truck crashes and spills several gallons of fuel. Requires a special cleanup where they remove the contaminated dirt and put in clean dirt. Then haul the contaminated dirt away to dump somewhere else. Dirty dirt is going somewhere and its not like the grass alongside some interstate highway is some pristine rain forest. Just leave it there along with all the other trash folks throw out their windows.

This isn't exactly true. I don't call myself an environmentalist, but that dirt is kind of nasty, and there are microbes that can eat petroleum products. Usually the dirt is treated with them for a number of years, and the contaminants are decreased. The dirt is then used as road bed material. I don't see that as being a bad thing.

The EPA emmissions regulations for diesel engines, on the other hand, are rediculous. Going from tier 1 to tier 2 results in a net 12% economy loss on an industrial diesel engine. The particulate count isn't decreased, the polutants are just diluted with more CO2. It doesn't make any sense.

Sounds like we work in related industries. I work for a company that sells diesel engines and we stuffed a lot of stockings last Christmas.

I won't even start in on the number of big money-making industries that are built on a framework of lies. They're everywhere, even as subsets of otherwise sensible or worthwhile industries.

Bad science gets into legislation the same way it gets into people's homes. It's appealing (either to fear or ignorance or both, usually), and it's marketed heavily by folks who stand to make money on it. The same people who push all the snake oil into drugstores, health food stores, supermarkets and teh intarwebs are the ones who are getting it into laws and regulations.

And the lawmakers are, by and large, just as easy to snow as consumers--since most of them are just consumers themselves and no better at research or critical thinking. Throw in a few bucks to their reelection campaign or the charity conveniently run by their spouse to lower their skepticism threshold even further, and you magically have snake-oil friendly laws being proposed.

..that's what makes the world go round....gov't by PAC / Lobby...

this thread is going to PO in .....10 9 8 7 6..........

..that's what makes the world go round....gov't by PAC / Lobby...

this thread is going to PO in .....10 9 8 7 6..........

5,4,3,2,1...Welcome to PO!

The EPA emmissions regulations for diesel engines, on the other hand, are rediculous. Going from tier 1 to tier 2 results in a net 12% economy loss on an industrial diesel engine. The particulate count isn't decreased, the polutants are just diluted with more CO2. It doesn't make any sense.
With or without a DPF? That's what makes the difference.

But I agree with your overall point. We're decreasing NOx/soot emissions at the detriment of efficiency and simplicity. So while the engines themselves pollute less, they burn more fuel, the creation of which I'm sure is nasty. Plus they require new technology and parts for combustion efficiency and aftertreatment systems - how are those built again? How much weight do they add to an engine?

Now that we are in PO, I'm going to say the GOP is an industry built on bad research, fear and lies. :)

this thread is going to PO in .....10 9 8 7 6..........
Hopefully not. The issue you mentioned is nonpartisan. There's a good column in the current Ward's Auto World concerning the cluelessness of the political force in terms of engineering.

I know someone who just went through a mold abatement in order to sell their house. They had to plop down two grand and they never saw any of the mold. This was apparently a law! Based on everything I've read, there seems to be very little science to support that mold has any more negative impact than allergies...which can be controlled with an air filter...though there is some very quesionable science in that industry too. So how is it that mold abatement has worked its way into some legeslation?

What other industries do you think are built on bad research, fear and lies?


There is another side. There are industries built on sound research, truth, and good intention that get smeared by special interest groups who use distortions of science, fear, and lies. genitically modified crops is a prime example.

With or without a DPF? That's what makes the difference.

But I agree with your overall point. We're decreasing NOx/soot emissions at the detriment of efficiency and simplicity. So while the engines themselves pollute less, they burn more fuel, the creation of which I'm sure is nasty. Plus they require new technology and parts for combustion efficiency and aftertreatment systems - how are those built again? How much weight do they add to an engine?


The NOx and soot emmissions aren't so much decreased as diluted. They don't actually pollute less. Particulate size may be decreased though.

High-pressure common-rail fuel injection, multiple turbo stages with intercoolers, fuel preheaters and such actually increase effeciency and could seriously improve economy. They also burn cleaner. Current regluations cause an increase of over 10% in displacement to maintain horespower and torque ratings in some cases.

I would say that wieght increase of the engine is also in the 10% range, but I don't know for sure.

Construct fear with term Radiation (or Terror).

Alert the Public of the Threat!

Capitalize on Public Fear!

There is another side. There are industries built on sound research, truth, and good intention that get smeared by special interest groups who use distortions of science, fear, and lies. genitically modified crops is a prime example.

Here in CA the bee population has severely declined; an article I recently read brought up the theory that genetically modified crops may be connected with this decline. I wonder what data exists that could prove/disprove this.

Is genetically modified Corgi safe to eat?

Is genetically modified Corgi safe to eat?

Only if cooked in a magnesium wok.

I know someone who just went through a mold abatement in order to sell their house. They had to plop down two grand and they never saw any of the mold. This was apparently a law! Based on everything I've read, there seems to be very little science to support that mold has any more negative impact than allergies...which can be controlled with an air filter...though there is some very quesionable science in that industry too. So how is it that mold abatement has worked its way into some legeslation?

What other industries do you think are built on bad research, fear and lies?

Depends on what mold you're talking about. There's the mildew, the mold you get in badly ventilated bathrooms and such and there's molds that eat wood, gradually making your house fall apart, AKA dry rot.

Construct fear with term Radiation (or Terror).

Alert the Public of the Threat!

Capitalize on Public Fear!

Now Radon and the products down the decay line do kill, you want to talk about MSG?

Ethanol.

What about this whole movement to make hydrogen the fuel of the future? Does anyone here think that this being pushed upon us because some big money special interests think they can do something with it? The technology is years away, it's been reported that it requires more energy to store or move it than crude, and we've already seen that fully electric, battery powered cars can outright do better.

Are we tiptoeing around the elephant that is the defense industry?

I'd rank the industries most based on lies as:

1. Oil/Gas
2. Defense
3. Pharma
4. Tobacco
5. Firearms

Are we tiptoeing around the elephant that is the defense industry?

I'd rank the industries most based on lies as:

1. Oil/Gas
2. Defense
3. Pharma
4. Tobacco
5. FirearmsI'd put the automotive industry ahead of tobacco.

Here in CA the bee population has severely declined; an article I recently read brought up the theory that genetically modified crops may be connected with this decline. I wonder what data exists that could prove/disprove this.


There is both anectdotal evidence and well controlled studies that show gmo crops do not affect bees. The anectodatal evidence alone is pretty convincing. Areas shuch as Illinois have no bee colony collapse syndrome and grow huge amounts of gmo corn and soybeans. Meanwhile, Germany with virtually no GMO has bee colony collapse. The scientific studies requied for EPA approval for GMO are overwhelming evidence that bee health is not threatened.

Define: "Genetically Modified"

Define: "Genetically Modified"

Good question. practically every cultivated crop has been genetically modified by mankind. The old techniques were pretty brutal, such as treating seeds with chemical mutagens and radiation, then hand selecting plants with desirable traits. Virtually no one opposes these crops or techniques.

Now "gentically modified" and gmo has come to mean transgenic, which are crops with genes inserted from other plants or bacteria. There are groups opposing these crops and techniques and they use distorted science, lies, and scare tactics.

Corgis were not genetically modified by your definition. Though the initial breeder did drop the first Corg pup on its head. :)

Yeah, I was thinking of the auto industry.
Maybe we need a 6-way tie for first.

Yeah, I was thinking of the auto industry.
Maybe we need a 6-way tie for first.

Just keep it at five and pull out the firearms. Based on the original question I can't think of any bad science that the firearms industry was built on.

I worked as a fungal investigator during the Great Mold Scare...absolutely a license to print money. Insurance carriers paid us $2500-6000 per structure to take air and surface samples, determine moisture sources, and spec remediation plans. We could do 2-3 inspections/day, depending on promixity. With 3 teams working 6 days per week, income was quite good.

The 'science' regarding health impacts is pretty solid, SOME people do have severe allergic reactions to the VOC/SVOCs that are respired by fungi. But, there are many that don't...just like allergies to pollens and foods, tolerance is totally person-specific. But, to create an industry on what a segment of sensitized people react to is kind of a stretch...of course, it was all based on liability issues and a couple of tv scare stories about Stachybotrys, the KILLER BLACK MOLD!

Fraud was rampant...false/padded claims by policy holders and frequent bogus remediation jobs...we spec'd the removal of three sheets of drywall to eliminate the mold that was created by a minor roof leak, the remediator GUTTED the entire house, saying it was 'really bad once we opened the wall up..." Yeah, sure...

Science is just a compilation of 'facts' as we know them...you can always twist the facts to create fear and generate money, tho.

What other industries do you think are built on bad research, fear and lies?
nutritional supplements.....well, maybe 2 out of 3.

Oh yeah, and the Church.

What other industries do you think are built on bad research, fear and lies?

#1without a doubt - POLITICS (yes it is an industry....) :D And I don't care which side of the aisle you are on.

99% of politicians give the rest a bad name

Are we tiptoeing around the elephant that is the defense industry?

I'd rank the industries most based on lies as:

1. Oil/Gas
2. Defense
3. Pharma
4. Tobacco
5. Firearms


Where's weight loss / dietary supplement pill industry? Or did you lump it under pharmaceuticals?

I don't think you can call "the church" an industry. Can you even define "the church?" If "a church" is profitting and that churches staff are pocketing an unfair portion of the weekly donations, then yeah, I'd take away their .org standing; but lots of churches are truly nonprofit and are doing a lot of civic charity. I attend a church where most of the staff are donating a bigger percentage of their income than the average attender--and they are modestly compensated. We do tons for the community. We partner with an elementary school in a poor neighborhood to provide school supplies and basic needs. We provide housing for refugee families (not illegal immagrants but true refugees) at no cost so they can save money and use less government aid. We work in project to bring clean water to 3rd world familes. We cook and do home repairs for single moms and famililes in need.

Not all churches are good, not all are bad. No matter what you believe about God, you can't deny that overall, churches provide a sense of community and generosity that is good for society. However, I have to say that I'm not some brain-dead imbicile, nor am I particularly gullable. In fact, I'm smart enough to intimidate others and I'm very skeptical about all things; and I'm not part of the church because I want to do my civic duty. I'm there because I believe that God is there--and that is based on personal experience and logical thinking.

I worked as a fungal investigator during the Great Mold Scare...absolutely a license to print money. Insurance carriers paid us $2500-6000 per structure to take air and surface samples, determine moisture sources, and spec remediation plans. We could do 2-3 inspections/day, depending on promixity. With 3 teams working 6 days per week, income was quite good.

The 'science' regarding health impacts is pretty solid, SOME people do have severe allergic reactions to the VOC/SVOCs that are respired by fungi. But, there are many that don't...just like allergies to pollens and foods, tolerance is totally person-specific. But, to create an industry on what a segment of sensitized people react to is kind of a stretch...of course, it was all based on liability issues and a couple of tv scare stories about Stachybotrys, the KILLER BLACK MOLD!

Fraud was rampant...false/padded claims by policy holders and frequent bogus remediation jobs...we spec'd the removal of three sheets of drywall to eliminate the mold that was created by a minor roof leak, the remediator GUTTED the entire house, saying it was 'really bad once we opened the wall up..." Yeah, sure...

Science is just a compilation of 'facts' as we know them...you can always twist the facts to create fear and generate money, tho.

well said. my wife is super affected while I am not. if you ever want to know if you have mold in your home invite us over for dinner. my wife will know within an hour. (she is the canary in the coal mine)

Is creation science an industry? It's got investors, marketing, lobbyists, seems to qualify.

Coming soon to a theatre near you...Wind power.

Come on folks, the biggest lion in the hen house...Global Warming!
Al uses charts with 1 year resolution in the left 5% combined with 300 year resolution in the other 95%.:thumbsup: Good Move Al!

Coming soon to a theatre near you...Wind power.

Come on folks, the biggest lion in the hen house...Global Warming!
Al uses charts with 1 year resolution in the left 5% combined with 300 year resolution in the other 95%.:thumbsup: Good Move Al!


Which charts? Here they are, show me which one is deceptive because of a distorted timeline: http://web.ncf.ca/jim/ref/inconvenientTruth/index.html

Thanks for making it easy for me. The bottom one. Ya know the one where he rides the scissorlift up to show the crisis levels of CO2 in the atmosphere today? Note the scale is in 50,000 year increments. See 50,000 data points between each tick? See 50? 200 years of data doesn't even get a data point on that chart, much less a cool ride to the ceiling. Al does use Keynote well though. Eyeballing it, that charts at around 2000 year resolution, but it looks similar to others I've seen at 300 year resolution.
Have any of you actually researched global warming in more depth than watching an Inconvenient Truth?

Thanks for making it easy for me. The bottom one. Ya know the one where he rides the scissorlift up to show the crisis levels of CO2 in the atmosphere today? Note the scale is in 50,000 year increments. See 50,000 data points between each tick? See 50? 200 years of data doesn't even get a data point on that chart, much less a cool ride to the ceiling. Al does use Keynote well though. Eyeballing it, that charts at around 2000 year resolution, but it looks similar to others I've seen at 300 year resolution.
Have any of you actually researched global warming in more depth than watching an Inconvenient Truth?

How is that chart deceptive? It shows the highest concentration of atmopsheric CO2 in hundreds of thousands of years.

Yes, I have studied global warming. As a Senior Fellow in Chemical Engineering at a Fortune 500 company, I was skeptical, as were most Engineers in Industries, but the data is overwhelmingly convincing, especially if you study not only the increase in atmospheric CO2, but also the Carbon isotope ratios (C12:C13:C14) that prove the increase is due to anthropogenic sources. There is large uncertainty in the amount the temperature will rise and in the future climate effects, but we are significantly altering both the atmospheric compositon and the global temperature by our human activities, and it is foolish hubris to continue at current rates. Also, if you look at the total mass of the atmosphere and the total mass of the CO2 from anthropogenic sources, the increase is actually less than expected, showing that asink is accumulating some ogf the excess CO2, but not all of it. Alas, I am virtually certain that we will keep pumpng greenhouse gases into the atmsophere until they have their maximum effect (there is a physical limit to the greenhouse effect) and future generations will have to deal with the consequences. I think Kyoto Protocol is useless.

Where is your disconnect with Global warming? Do you not believe that we have altered the composition of the atmosphere? Do you not believe that the increase in greenhose gases is causing warmer average global temperatures? Do you not believe that higher global average temperatures could cause climate problems?

How is that chart deceptive? It shows the highest concentration of atmopsheric CO2 in hundreds of thousands of years.
Whhaaaatttt? The chart is missing about 599,000 data points that would be needed to make that interpretation.
The other charts show temperature change at a resolution that is scientifically impossible to achieve. Temperature change that is inside the accuracy of the most common temperature measuring devices used to record temperature for the last 50 years! Device accuracy from 1800 to 1980 is way outside the resolution of the graphs and for a huge portion of that time period, device concentration was at less than one instrument per 1,000,000 square miles. If you were to also plot the potential error band around most of this data you would see it is pretty damn worthless.
My disconnect with Global Warming is that an entire segment of society will call someone who would actually like to factually interpret data stupid because they don't believe a 600,000 year chart missing 599,000 data points draws conclusive evidence from one included data point...and I might add one data point that shouldn't even be on the chart.:mad2:

Heck why not throw in that historically, CO2 concentration is at a near low...
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/index.php?title=Special%3AResize%2FPhanerozoic_Car bon_Dioxide.png&width=800&height=600

Whhaaaatttt? The chart is missing about 599,000 data points that would be needed to make that interpretation.
The other charts show temperature change at a resolution that is scientifically impossible to achieve. Temperature change that is inside the accuracy of the most common temperature measuring devices used to record temperature for the last 50 years! Device accuracy from 1800 to 1980 is way outside the resolution of the graphs and for a huge portion of that time period, device concentration was at less than one instrument per 1,000,000 square miles. If you were to also plot the potential error band around most of this data you would see it is pretty damn worthless.
My disconnect with Global Warming is that an entire segment of society will call someone who would actually like to factually interpret data stupid because they don't believe a 600,000 year chart missing 599,000 data points draws conclusive evidence from one included data point...and I might add one data point that shouldn't even be on the chart.:mad2:

Heck why not throw in that historically, CO2 concentration is at a near low...
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/index.php?title=Special%3AResize%2FPhanerozoic_Car bon_Dioxide.png&width=800&height=600

It really comes down to 3 simple questions that you seem to be ducking:

1, Do you believe the overwhemling evidence that anthropogenic activities are making a significant increase in concentration of greenhouse gases? yes or no.

2, Do you believe the very strong evidence, with at least 90% confidence, that the increase in greenhouse gas concentration due to man's activities is resulting in higher global temperatures? yes or no.

3, Do you believe the theories that higher global temperatures create a risk to the environment? yes or no.

This isn't about Al Gore. I wish he wasn't spokesman for the science. I think he is polarizing, lacks credibility, and has not walked the talk. That said, I don't think there is a problem with his graph. You do not have to sample an entire population to make valid statistical inferences. You do not need 599,000 data points to show within 95% confidence that the CO2 concentration is at at all time high for the last 600,000 years. Do you have a background or knowledge about statics and drawing valid inferences from data sets? It does not appear so, or you wouldn't have a problem with that graph.

Again, I think it is all academic because the reality is that mankind will keep dumping more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Buying a Prius or agreeing to Kyoto won't help. Good luck to my great grand kids--maybe the warming will be benign.

3, Do you believe the theories that higher global temperatures create a risk to the environment? yes or no.

That's the really important question and I think it's what the NASA guy was getting at. It's all a matter of perspective. Risk to what? A dryer, hotter US may be bad for us but a wetter Sahara could be a boon for Africa. We don't understand the environment nearly enough to even pretend to predict the outcomes of temperature fluctuation.

It really comes down to 3 simple questions that you seem to be ducking:

1, Do you believe the overwhemling evidence that anthropogenic activities are making a significant increase in concentration of greenhouse gases? yes or no.

2, Do you believe the very strong evidence, with at least 90% confidence, that the increase in greenhouse gas concentration due to man's activities is resulting in higher global temperatures? yes or no.

3, Do you believe the theories that higher global temperatures create a risk to the environment? yes or no.

This isn't about Al Gore. I wish he wasn't spokesman for the science. I think he is polarizing, lacks credibility, and has not walked the talk. That said, I don't think there is a problem with his graph. You do not have to sample an entire population to make valid statistical inferences. You do not need 599,000 data points to show within 95% confidence that the CO2 concentration is at at all time high for the last 600,000 years. Do you have a background or knowledge about statics and drawing valid inferences from data sets? It does not appear so, or you wouldn't have a problem with that graph.

Again, I think it is all academic because the reality is that mankind will keep dumping more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Buying a Prius or agreeing to Kyoto won't help. Good luck to my great grand kids--maybe the warming will be benign.

1, Do you believe the overwhemling evidence that anthropogenic activities are making a significant increase in concentration of greenhouse gases? yes or no.
Yes
2, Do you believe the very strong evidence, with at least 90% confidence, that the increase in greenhouse gas concentration due to man's activities is resulting in higher global temperatures? yes or no.
Yes
3, Do you believe the theories that higher global temperatures create a risk to the environment? yes or no.
No, I'm looking forward to the return of the Dinosaurs. The Mid-Evil Warm Period didn't destroy the planet, I doubt this warming will either.
The chart we should worry about is this one.

That's the really important question and I think it's what the NASA guy was getting at. It's all a matter of perspective. Risk to what? A dryer, hotter US may be bad for us but a wetter Sahara could be a boon for Africa. We don't understand the environment nearly enough to even pretend to predict the outcomes of temperature fluctuation.


Clearly, the risk is being taken and will not be mitigated in any meanigful way for a long time, if ever. I don't think we own the climate and don't have the right to increase that risk for the wasteful reasons we do, but I'm more and more convinced that there will be no turning back.

radical global warming, most likely caused by eruption of the Siberian traps which raised ocean tem,peratures enough to release trapped C02 which further accelerated warming caused the greatest extinction in the history of the world. wiped out the mammal-like Lizards (Dimetrodon) along with 90% of all living creatures.
dinosaur era followed

This is actually very important in certain regions. When gasoline enters groundwater it is harder to remove than when it is in the soil.

Gasoline in the groundwater causes large health impacts on well water drinkers.

radical global warming, most likely caused by eruption of the Siberian traps which raised ocean tem,peratures enough to release trapped C02 which further accelerated warming caused the greatest extinction in the history of the world. wiped out the mammal-like Lizards (Dimetrodon) along with 90% of all living creatures.
dinosaur era followed
I don't know if your're talking to me, but radical climate change has happened many times in Earths history.
The questions now are;
a. Are we experiencing radical climate change?
b. Is it caused by anthropogenic activities? Or Solar activity (at a 400 year high starting around 1950), or planetary wobble, or just the a continuance amid 2000 years of general stability, of a warming cycle that began around 12,000 years ago. Any way you look at it the trend for the last 50,000,000 years is still one of cooling!
c. Who's complaining? Mammoth shawls went out about 10 milleniums ago.:D

I agree that the population explosion is a huge problem and is one that can be solved. Bush and a very small group of certain Christian sects are quelling any efforts from the U.S. Governmnet . The earth's population of humans has more than doubled in my lifetime. Widespread fresh water shortages, food shortages, pollution, and political unrest from overpopulation are more emminent and certain than the risk from global warming. There is also no hope of reducing greenhouse gas emissions if the populaton hhts 10 billion with 25 years,

I agree that the population explosion is a huge problem and is one that can be solved. Bush and a very small group of certain Christian sects are quelling any efforts from the U.S. Governmnet .

What are you talking about?! Bush and his fundie friends are doing everything they can to whack a billion or so Mooslims. In the doing, their thinning the US population. See.... they DO have a plan to save the environment!

Is the question here, that if you broke down those 500 year periods into 50 year segments, there would be other spikes like the one that Gore shows during this last 50 year period? Is this a possibility? If not, then there is no problem with his chart. If so, then he's matipulating statistics. Gawd, who would ever do that?