It may be how faiths are born. To make them religions, you need:
1) A central, unquestionable dogma.
2) Masses of support for the central dogma, written down and used as evidence.
3) Definitions of Sins (stuff that is supposed to make you feel guilty) and Virtues (strangely never as important as the Sins).
4) A vision of some kind of Paradise that can be reached or approached through the religion's goals, whether they call it Heaven, the Classless Society or the Sustainable Society. This is what motivates the suffering/costs the changes championed will cause.
5) A priesthood hierarchy that profits politically and economically from the religion and its structure.
6) Backing from temporal power.
7) Evangelicism, in the form of dedicated groups to spread specially prepared messages.
8) A system of censure, both to denigrate heathens/unbelievers, and especially to heckle/punish apostates/previous believers.Yeah. Don't go there.
Instead of trading back and forth accusations of dogmatism, could you tell us how you came to the conclusion that climate change is BS, beyond your opinion that ecologists/climatologists are scum ?
It would be more constructive that saying that climate change is a simple belief akin to religion just because it is widely held, as you just did.
Your list of eight points is nice, but doesn't do anything for the discussion. Flat Earth believers are ridiculed too : does it mean that round earth is a religious belief ? Should flat-earth and round-earth "believers" be treated on an equal footing ?
Also, you keep amalgating together ecologism (presented as a church, a tag that indeed fits some ecologists, but not all of them), and the scientific theories about climate change, which are completely different things. We are all talking about scientific theory, here. Could you keep ecology and your opinion about it out of the debate ? How your description of a newborn religion could apply to a scientific theory ? What are the virtues and sins of a theory ?
Thank you for your post, Smarnil. I will try to answer your questions this evening. Some of it is already there in my earlier posts in this thread.
Please, take it easy on the "pure imagination" bit, and be gentle. Sissyl do have a strong opinion on that point (seemingly because she can't stand ecologists for some reason, which she bundles with climatologists) but she usually got balanced and argumentated points of view, and I would really would want to know from where she got her info.
I understand what you're saying. I'm just tired of people claiming to know the truth, but not understanding what they're arguing against.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand perfectly well what I am arguing against: You. My issue is that climate science is deeply politicised and thus questionable. You refer to the authority of those climate scientists to claim that their results are unquestionable, which is at best an exercise in futility. If you truly want to argue against my standpoint and not that of people with standpoints I do not share, you need to show groups of climate scientists that have taken issue with the lies the field has generated, or scientists with funding not from the AGW community that have reached the same conclusions, or the like.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Factual lab results don't care who else had the same results. Factual lab results don't care who supplied the money that turned the lights on.
You keep making political assertions that AGW is false. You aren't making scientific arguments. Your standpoint is political. I don't care, because politics don't change actual science. Longwave radiation doesn't give a s+$! if you're politically to the right or left, it's still going to behave exactly like longwave radiation.
Factual lab results don't care who else had the same results. Factual lab results don't care who supplied the money that turned the lights on.
You keep making political assertions that AGW is false. You aren't making scientific arguments. Your standpoint is political. I don't care, because politics don't change actual science. Longwave radiation doesn't give a s!#* if you're politically to the right or left, it's still going to behave exactly like longwave radiation.
That is a very interesting viewpoint, Irontruth. It doesn't have much to do with reality, of course, but it is interesting.
The reason is that while radiation doesn't care who studies it, there are far more factors involved in what data comes into publication. First, someone needs to decide what experiment to make. Depending on the method chosen, you can get results pertaining to different questions. Then, someone needs to validate the methods. Then the results must be interpreted. Then someone chooses whether to send results in for publication. Then a journal needs to decide what data to send for peer review. Then the peers in question need to decide whether to endorse the data. Then, and only then, will such data reach the journal and publication. Understand that this process is normally solid, because minor scuffles and disagreements do not usually distort entire fields. But add money given only to people who publish the right data, positions at universities, government agencies and so on, and this process can become deeply skewed. The most obvious part is that results that do not end up agreeing with the scientist's views are simply never sent in for publication. There is a reason NEJM (New England Journal of Medicine) has been called New England Journal of Positive Results in some periods: Showing that something did NOT happen is simply not interesting enough to publish. But, as I said, there are many points where this peer review process can be distorted, and the defense science has against this is always showing respect to whistleblowers, those who disagree, and results that do not match expectations. At heart, it is a matter of trust.
So, if you manage to distort the peer review process in a field, and do not tolerate dissenting voices, what you have really done is remova EVERY reason for people to trust your results. If EVERY peer reviewed scientist thinks the same way, that entire field is dead and meaningless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand perfectly well what I am arguing against: You.
Easy with the ad hominems, please (all of you). Was it really necessary ?
My issue is that climate science is deeply politicised and thus questionable. You refer to the authority of those climate scientists to claim that their results are unquestionable, which is at best an exercise in futility. If you truly want to argue against my standpoint and not that of people with standpoints I do not share, you need to show groups of climate scientists that have taken issue with the lies the field has generated, or scientists with funding not from the AGW community that have reached the same conclusions, or the like.
Okay, I got it !
I dimly remembered a story from two years ago, about a scientist opposing the theory of human-induced climate change, who tried to debunk it by a big oil funded research, and ended up joining the choir. The Koch Industries Foundation he got his money from is as far from ecology as you can get; it IS deeply politicized, but at the opposite end of the spectrum.
Here is the San Francisco Chronicle story.
I believe that fulfill all of your conditions : a scientist having taken issue with human-induced climate change (check), funded by non ecologist money (Big oil, Koch industries; check), that have in the end reached the same conclusions as almost everybody else (check).
Sissyl, I would like to understand exactly what you do and don't believe on this. Could you please answer some questions for me.
1: Do you accept that carbon dioxide, methane, water vapour, nitrous oxide, and ozone are all opaque to long wave radiation?
2: Do you accept that dioxide, methane, water vapour, nitrous oxide, and ozone are far less opaque to short wave radiation?
3: Do you accept that radiation carries energy?
4: Do you accept that short wave radiation which passes through the atmosphere collides with solids and liquids, transfering packets of energy to the matter it collides with?
5: Do you accept that the matter emits some of the energy it absorbs from short wave radiation as long wave radiation into out atmosphere?
So, if you manage to distort the peer review process in a field, and do not tolerate dissenting voices, what you have really done is remova EVERY reason for people to trust your results. If EVERY peer reviewed scientist thinks the same way, that entire field is dead and meaningless.
Nobody can seriously challenge that the Earth is not flat nowadays. Does it mean that planetology is meaningless ? Same for gravity, atoms, etc.
I am not saying that the current theory about human induced climate change is absolute truth. As far as I can tell, it's still possible that it will be proven wrong in the future (but it is becoming less and less probable as data accumulates).
What I'm saying is that your reasoning above is flawed.
It could also be that less and less people are challenging the current theory because it becomes more and more obvious that it is right on the money. Almost every scientific "truth" has modestly begun as a hotly challenged theory; the dissenting voices growing fewer and quieter is part of the process.
Policymakers are just beginning to take into account a theory that is steadiliy growing into a proven truth, because doing nothing could have dire results. Is it so bad ?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reality: There are no climate scientists who dispute that human CO2 emissions have caused the planet to get warmer (aka 'Anthropogenic Global Warming').
None.
It would be like arguing that gravity does not exist. There are evolution denying scientists (e.g. Roy Spencer) who acknowledge that AGW is real.
What the few remaining 'climate skeptic' scientists (i.e. Spencer, Christy, Pielke, Lindzen, etc) actually still argue is that short term (i.e. by 2100) global warming may turn out to be at the extreme low end (~1 C for a doubling of CO2) of the range predicted by mainstream science (1 to 4.5 C for doubling). Given that we are currently at ~0.85 C warming for a ~40% increase in CO2 that seems highly improbable. Indeed, given that heat accumulation and fast feedbacks lag the atmospheric CO2 increase by decades it seems likely that we'll go over 1 C warming with the current ~400 ppm atmospheric CO2 level... let alone what it would be like if we got up to 560 ppm.
So long as a relatively discrete grouping of people have the ability to distort the peer review process in a field, to the point that scientists who do not agree simply don't get to publish their results, so long as this group actively manages to disrupt investigations of malfeasance in science involving themselves, so long as the media keeps hammering in the ideological message this group wants to spread, so long as debates with dissenters are not held but disagreeing voices are denigrated and ridiculed, so long as data is not checked for accuracy and lies that serve the right purpose are blared out... That is a group no self-respecting scientist taints him or herself by taking money from or works with. Fraud in science makes me sick, and any other field would have made someone responsible for publishing the hockey stick a pariah. Not so in climatology.
Scientific methodology and integrity is what makes scientific results worth trusting. Anyone can produce data of unclear quality, but only someone who follows rigorous method can produce trustworthy data. If your money as a scientist is predicated on producing the right data, that alone makes your data worthless. Be honest, if the IPCC got black on white evidence that global warming was a natural process independent of humanity, do you seriously think they would publish that, given the choice? No more media time, angry politicians accusing them of bad faith, no more international conferences, no more political influence, no more MONEY. It would be back to study the mating habits of squirrels... But the scientists who did THAT are gone in today's world where only AGW-related projects get funding.
Again, you choose to see the misdemeanor on the "side" of Big oil, define them as the "villains" and therefore IPCC must be "good". The truth is, of course, that BOTH of these groups have lied enough that they should be considered tainted. But some people haven't outgrown "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". And the fact that a scientist working for one tainted and politicised group decides that the other group has a better chance of "winning" the debate and that his wallet is better served by producing data for that group instead - let's just say it isn't a big surprise. Once you sell your integrity by taking money to make propaganda instead of science, why would the message you currently sell matter?
I chose the example of squirrels because I talked to a biologist who told me that you simply don't get funding unless you relate the mating habits of squirrels to climate change, specifically AGW. I don't expect you to believe me with n = 1 or anything, but it is something I have discussed with people in related fields.
Are you kidding? Seriously? No science but AGW gets funding?
|
|
So long as a relatively discrete grouping of people have the ability to distort the peer review process in a field, to the point that scientists who do not agree simply don't get to publish their results
This is nonsense. There are journals (e.g. 'Energy and Environment') that actively push a global warming contrarian agenda. The absence of a rationale argument against AGW has nothing to do with an inability to get published. IRrational arguments against AGW get published all the time.
Fraud in science makes me sick, and any other field would have made someone responsible for publishing the hockey stick a pariah. Not so in climatology.
More fiction.
There was no fraud involved in the hockey stick graph. Indeed, more than a dozen subsequent studies have validated its results. The great 'complaint' against it was that it used a statistical methodology (i.e. 'principal component analysis') which was not ideally suited for the purpose... but which didn't change the results in any significant way.
It also declined to mention the fact that there was a serious dip in temperature in the nineteenth century, and a medieval temperature maximum, all to make it appear as if the temperature of today was the only deviation from a normally constant temperature.
This should interest you considering you use the existence of Energy and Environment to be proof of possibility to publish for dissenters., CBDunkerson. She says much the same things I say about what is wrong in the climate science world.
Again, you choose to see the misdemeanor on the "side" of Big oil, define them as the "villains" and therefore IPCC must be "good". The truth is, of course, that BOTH of these groups have lied enough that they should be considered tainted. But some people haven't outgrown "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". And the fact that a scientist working for one tainted and politicised group decides that the other group has a better chance of "winning" the debate and that his wallet is better served by producing data for that group instead - let's just say it isn't a big surprise. Once you sell your integrity by taking money to make propaganda instead of science, why would the message you currently sell matter?
I chose the example of squirrels because I talked to a biologist who told me that you simply don't get funding unless you relate the mating habits of squirrels to climate change, specifically AGW. I don't expect you to believe me with n = 1 or anything, but it is something I have discussed with people in related fields.
Which dismeanor? All Thejeff just did is underlining that climatologists (and scientists) aren't all IPCC funded. Your were the one to insist that they HAD to be all biased BECAUSE of their IPCC funding (no AGW = no funds, according to you).
How do you explain that many non-IPCC related scientists agree with AGW ? Are they all part of a conspiracy ? Or, more simply (you keep claiming a scientific background, so you should remember Occam's razor) the result of overwhelming evidence ?
I did found you a dissenting, non IPCC funded scientist who changed his mind, as you requested, and you didn't even bothered to comment.
All you do is chanting over and over that the IPCC has got bad faith and should not be trusted, based on the sole evidence of a badly chosen graph. Please, can you understand that for an external observer, it's a very very poor argument ?
Sure. It is entirely possible to have gotten money for saying stuff the oil industry wants to hear. It is not the slant, but the politicisation itself that is the problem. Not every climate skeptic is one whit better than the IPCC propaganda machines. I find dichotomous thinking very tiring. My entire point is: trustworthy science comes from NOT being paid to publish stuff that supports a certain ideology. Politics is toxic to science, and does not in any way realize this, always drooling over the authority scientists have and politicians lack. What I need to see is someone of impeccable integrity, thoroughly knowledgeable in the field, who says AGW is right. To clarify: He or she must not be funded by either "side", or have strong other ties to those organisations, and still think so. That is, if the argument you are going to push is that of referring to someone's authority.
Just don't keep referring to tainted science to claim that it really isn't tainted. That isn't going to work.
I chose the example of squirrels because I talked to a biologist who told me that you simply don't get funding unless you relate the mating habits of squirrels to climate change, specifically AGW. I don't expect you to believe me with n = 1 or anything, but it is something I have discussed with people in related fields.
Your personal anecdotes aren't going to be taken as evidence as we can see, you've got a personal axe to grind in the matter, your for all intents and purposes, religous belief that climate change is not an issue, not a phenomenon which has significant Human input.
It's not surprising that you'd take such a stance, many people do. Because the alternative means that we have to ask some uncomfortable questions about how we're going to run our societies in the future. As opposed to sticking our heads in the sand and continuing with the status quo.
As I said before, don't say my beliefs are the religious ones. As for the uncomfortable questions: Why is nuclear power research and investment a worse idea than a low-energy society? If we have a steadily growing population, is putting them all on the subsistence level truly going to solve anything? If we have a massive problem before us, is digging through the toxic waste section of the garbage heap of history and coming up with a planned economy really our best bet? Don't assume everyone you discuss with is as easily sold on the One True Path as you are. Even if you are old enough to have seen sea levels rise "a few feet in your lifetime".
I did not ask if nuclear power has problems. It certainly does. My question was whether those problems are worse than those a low-energy society presents, oh ancient one. I have a hard time seeing that. First and foremost, there has never been a method shown to work in actually decreasing the energy use of a population. In all likelihood, the level of control you would need to enforce such a concept would in itself mean that all out dictatorship and tyranny is the only way. In turn, such a society does not have the needed flexibility to deal with serious problems. As an example of this, see the Soviet union and China during communism as examples of murderous environmental damage. It is easy, you know... Displace people to clear a big enough area, dump everything there, shoot anyone who tries to visit the area and shut down any newspaper who publishes about it. If personal transportation is not allowed due to energy consumption, nobody can visit at all. Classify images that show the environmental ruin. And, of course, if the policy is ineffective and the temperature keeps rising, more intrusive actions and laws are necessary after all. Repeat as desired.
Also, it is quite likely radioactive waste can be put to use as fuel, and local heat dumping should be better than global heating, shouldn't it? And if you want wind and solar energy, do not talk about subsidies.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It also declined to mention the fact that there was a serious dip in temperature in the nineteenth century, and a medieval temperature maximum, all to make it appear as if the temperature of today was the only deviation from a normally constant temperature.
How is a graph supposed to 'mention' things which the numbers it is derived from show to be untrue?
As I said, more than a dozen subsequent studies have confirmed the findings of the original MBH 98 'hockey stick'. Every kind of temperature proxy examined (e.g. tree rings, ice cores, bore holes, ocean sediments, leaf stomata, isotope analyses, et cetera) has shown that the 'medieval warm period' and 'little ice age' you refer to were minor temperature fluctuations compared to modern AGW and not global in scope.
This should interest you considering you use the existence of Energy and Environment to be proof of possibility to publish for dissenters., CBDunkerson. She says much the same things I say about what is wrong in the climate science world.
So... you cite E&E editor Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen's well known advocacy against mainstream climate science as evidence that there are no journal editors who would publish research contrary to mainstream climate science?
What?
Yes, there are people who say the same things you are saying. They are just demonstrably wrong. Claims that it is impossible to publish scientific research challenging the mainstream view are directly dis-proven by the fact that such research IS published all the time. The fact that you continue making the claim in the face of incontrovertible proof to the contrary demonstrates that reality has little bearing on your position.
So if I am telling you it is quite possible to use the material as fuel instead of waste, your argument is that you can't use it because it is called waste? Seriously?
|
|
Sissyl, there is no current technology for economically feasible breeder reactors OR breeder reactors which do not still produce significant radioactive waste.
Maybe future technological developments will make those things possible, but it is impossible to replace current power generation with new forms of nuclear power which do not actually exist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I chose the example of squirrels because I talked to a biologist who told me that you simply don't get funding unless you relate the mating habits of squirrels to climate change, specifically AGW. I don't expect you to believe me with n = 1 or anything, but it is something I have discussed with people in related fields.
What a pile of utter codswallop.
A snap shot of research undertake just by teaching staff for my first degree.
Prof J. Cooper:
Deeming, Charles and Hodges, Holly and Cooper, Jonathan (2011) Effect of sight barriers in pens of breeding ring-necked pheasants (Phasianus colchicus): I. Behaviour and welfare. British Poultry Science, 52 (4). pp. 403-414. ISSN: 0007-1668
Deeming, Charles and Hodges, Holly and Cooper, Jonathan (2011) Effect of sight barriers in pens of breeding ring-necked pheasants (Phasianus colchicus): II. Reproductive parameters. British Poultry Science, 52 (4). pp. 415-422. ISSN: 0007-1668
Deeming, Charles and Hodges, Holly and Cooper, Jonathan (2010) Increased spatial complexity of breeding pens affects fertility of commercial pheasants. Avian Biology Research, 3 (3). pp. 128-129. ISSN: 1758-1559
Vinke, C. M. and Hansen, S. W. and Mononen, J. and Mason, G. J. and Korhonen, H. and Cooper, Jonathan and Mohaibes, M. and Bakken, M. and Spruijt, B. M. (2008) To swim or not to swim: an interpretation of farmed mink's motivation for a water bath. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 111 (1-2). pp. 1-27. ISSN: 0168-1591
Albentosa, Melissa J. and Cooper, Jonathan J. (2005) Testing resource value in group-housed animals: an investigation of cage height preference in laying hens. Behavioural Processes, 70 (2). pp. 113-121. ISSN: 0376-6357
Fukuzawa, M. and Mills, Daniel S. and Cooper, Jonathan J. (2005) More than just a word: non-semantic command variables affect obedience in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 91 (1-2). pp. 129-141. ISSN: 0168-1591
Cooper, Jonathan J. and McCall, Natalie and Johnson, Sharon and Davidson, H. P. B. (2005) The short-term effects of increasing meal frequency on stereotypic behaviour of stabled horses. Applied animal behaviour science, 90 (3-4). pp. 351-364. ISSN: 0168-1591
Cooper, Jonathan J. and Albentosa, Melissa J. (2005) Behavioural adaptation in the domestic horse: potential role of apparently abnormal responses including stereotypic behaviour. Livestock production science, 92 (2). pp. 177-182. ISSN: 0301-6226
Fukuzawa, M. and Mills, D. S. and Cooper, J. J, (2005) The effect of human command phonetic characteristics on auditory cognition in dogs (Canis familiaris). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 119 (1). pp. 117-120. ISSN: 0735-7036
Albentosa, M. J. and Cooper, J. J. (2004) Effects of cage height and stocking density on the frequency of comfort behaviours performed by laying hens housed in furnished cages. Animal welfare, 13 (4). pp. 419-424. ISSN: 0962-7286
Cooper, Jonathan J. and Ashton, Clare and Bishop, Sarah and West, Rebecca and Mills, Daniel S. and Young, Robert J. (2003) Clever hounds: social cognition in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 81 (3). pp. 229-244. ISSN: 0168-1591
Cooper, J. J. and Appleby, M. C. (2003) The value of environmental resources to domestic hens: a comparison of the work-rate for food and for nests as a function of time. Animal welfare, 12 (1). pp. 39-52. ISSN: 0962-7286
Cooper, Jonathan J. and Albentosa, Melissa J. (2003) Behavioural priorities of laying hens. Avian and Poultry Biology Reviews, 14 (3). pp. 127-149. ISSN: 1470-2061
McAfee, Lynn M. and Mills, Daniel S. and Cooper, Jonathan J. (2002) The use of mirrors for the control of stereotypic weaving behaviour in the stabled horse. Applied animal behaviour science, 78 (2-4). pp. 159-173. ISSN: 0168-1591
Cairns, M. C. and Cooper, J. J. and Davidson, H. P. B. and Mills, D. S. (2002) Association in horses of orosensory characteristics of foods with their post-ingestive consequences. Animal Science, 75 (2). pp. 257-265. ISSN: 1357-7298
Mason, Georgia J. and Cooper, Jonathan and Clarebrough, Catherine (2001) Frustrations of fur-farmed mink. Nature, 410 (6824). pp. 35-36. ISSN: 0028-0836
Prof. Danial Mills
van der Zee, Emile and Zulch, Helen and Mills, Daniel (2012) Word generalization by a dog (Canis familiaris): is shape important?. PLoS One, 7 (11). pp. e49382. ISSN: 1932-6203
McBride, Sebastian D. and Mills, Daniel (2012) Psychological factors affecting equine performance. BMC Veterinary Research, 8. ISSN: 1746-6148
Racca, Anais and Guo, Kun and Meints, Kerstin and Mills, Daniel (2012) Reading faces: differential lateral gaze bias in processing canine and human facial expressions in dogs and 4-year-old children. Plos One, 7 (4). ISSN: 1932-6203
Wright, Hannah and Mills, Daniel and Pollux, Petra (2012) Behavioural and physiological correlates of impulsivity in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Physiology and Behavior, 105 (3). pp. 676-682. ISSN: 0031-9384
Hayes, William A. and Mills, Daniel S. and Neville, Rachel F. and Kiddie, Jenna and Collins, Lisa M. (2011) Determination of the molar extinction coefficient for the ferric reducing/antioxidant power assay. Analytical Biochemistry, 416 (2). pp. 202-205. ISSN: 0003-2697
Mills, Daniel and Redgate, Sarah and Landsberg, Gary (2011) A meta-analysis of studies of treatments for feline urine spraying. Plos One, 6 (4). ISSN: 1932-6203
Wright, Hannah and Mills, Daniel and Pollux, Petra (2011) Development and validation of a psychometric tool for assessing impulsivity in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 24 (2). pp. 210-225. ISSN: 0889-3667
Williams, Fiona and Mills, Daniel and Guo, Kun (2011) Development of a head-mounted, eye-tracking system for dogs. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 194 (2). pp. 259-265. ISSN: 0165-0270
Cracknell, Nina and Mills, Daniel (2011) An evaluation of owner expectation on apparent treatment effect in a blinded comparison of 2 homeopathic remedies for firework noise sensitivity in dogs.. Journal of Veterinary Behaviour, 6 (1). pp. 21-30.
Mills, Daniel (2011) Behavior problems and psychopharmacology. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 6 (1). pp. 96-97. ISSN: 1558-7878
Braem, Maya and Mills, Daniel (2010) Factors affecting response of dogs to obedience instruction: a field and experimental study. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 125 (1-2). pp. 47-55. ISSN: 0168-1591
Racca, Anaïs and Amadei, Eleonora and Ligout, Séverine and Guo, Kun and Meints, Kerstin and Mills, Daniel (2010) Discrimination of human and dog faces and inversion responses in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Animal Cognition, 13 (3). pp. 525-533. ISSN: 1435-9448
Mills, Daniel and Zulch, Helen (2010) Veterinary medicine and animal behaviour: barking up the right tree. The Veterinary Journal, 183 (2). pp. 119-120.
Mills, Daniel and De Keuster, Tiny (2009) Dogs in society can prevent society going to the dogs. The Veterinary Journal, 179 (3). pp. 322-323. ISSN: 1090-0233
Guo, Kun and Mills, Daniel and Meints, Kerstin and Hall, Charlotte and Hall, Sophie (2008) Left gaze bias in humans, rhesus monkeys and domestic dogs. Animal Cognition. pp. 409-418.
Braem, Maya and Mills, Daniel and Doherr, Marcus and Lehmann, Doris and Steiger, Andreas (2008) Evaluating aggressive behavior in dogs: a comparison of 3 tests. Journal of Veterinary Behavior- Clinical Applications and Research, 3 (4). pp. 152-160.
Cracknell, Nina and Mills, Daniel (2008) A double-blind placebo-controlled study into the efficacy of a homeopathic remedy for fear of firework noises in the dog (Canis familiaris). Veterinary Journal, 177. pp. 80-88. ISSN: 1090-0233
Mills, Daniel Simon and Ramos, Daniela and Estelles, Marta Gandia and Hargrave, Claire (2006) A triple blind placebo-controlled investigation into the assessment of the effect of Dog Appeasing Pheromone (DAP) on anxiety related behaviour of problem dogs in the veterinary clinic. Applied animal behaviour science, 98 (1-2). pp. 114-126. ISSN: 0168-1591
Fukuzawa, M. and Mills, Daniel S. and Cooper, Jonathan J. (2005) More than just a word: non-semantic command variables affect obedience in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 91 (1-2). pp. 129-141. ISSN: 0168-1591
Mills, Daniel S. and Riezebos, M. (2005) The role of the image of a conspecific in the regulation of stereotypic head movements in the horse.. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 91 (1-2). pp. 155-165. ISSN: 0168-1591
Fukuzawa, M. and Mills, D. S. and Cooper, J. J, (2005) The effect of human command phonetic characteristics on auditory cognition in dogs (Canis familiaris). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 119 (1). pp. 117-120. ISSN: 0735-7036
Cooper, Jonathan J. and Ashton, Clare and Bishop, Sarah and West, Rebecca and Mills, Daniel S. and Young, Robert J. (2003) Clever hounds: social cognition in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 81 (3). pp. 229-244. ISSN: 0168-1591
McAfee, Lynn M. and Mills, Daniel S. and Cooper, Jonathan J. (2002) The use of mirrors for the control of stereotypic weaving behaviour in the stabled horse. Applied animal behaviour science, 78 (2-4). pp. 159-173. ISSN: 0168-1591
Mills, Daniel S. and Alston, Robert D. and Rogers, Victoria and Longford, Nicholas T. (2002) Factors associated with the prevalence of stereotypic behaviour amongst thoroughbred horses passing through auctioneer sales. Applied animal behaviour science, 78 (2-4). pp. 115-124. ISSN: 0168-1591
Cairns, M. C. and Cooper, J. J. and Davidson, H. P. B. and Mills, D. S. (2002) Association in horses of orosensory characteristics of foods with their post-ingestive consequences. Animal Science, 75 (2). pp. 257-265. ISSN: 1357-7298
Mills, Daniel S. and Macleod, Claire A. (2002) The response of crib-biting and windsucking in horses to dietary supplementation with an antacid mixture. Ippologia, 13 (2). pp. 33-41. ISSN: 1120-5776
Mills, Daniel S. and Ledger, Rebecca (2001) The effect of oral selegiline hydrochloride on learning and training in the dog: a psychobiological interpretation.. Progress in Neuropsychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, 25 (8). pp. 1597-1613. ISSN: 0278-5846
Mills, D. S. and Mills, C. B. (2001) Evaluation of a novel method for delivering a synthetic analogue of feline facial pheromone to control urine spraying by cats. The Veterinary Record, 149 (7). pp. 197-199. ISSN: 0042-4900
Paul Eady
Gay, L. and Brown, E. and Tregenza, T. and Pincheira-Donoso, D. and Eady, P. and Vasudev, Ram and Hunt, J. and Hosken, D. J. (2011) The genetic architecture of sexual conflict: male harm and female resistance in Callosobruchus maculatus. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 24 (2). pp. 449-456.
Arnqvist, Goran and Dowling, Damien and Eady, Paul and Gay, Laurene and Tregenza, Tom and Tuda, Midori and Hoskin, David (2010) The genetic architecture of metabolic rate: environment specific epistasis between mitochondrial and nuclear genes in an insect. Evolution, 64 (12). pp. 3354-3363.
Gay, Laurene and Hosken, David and Eady, Paul and Vasudev, Ram and Tregenza, Tom (2010) The evolution of harm: effect of sexual conflicts and population size. Evolution: International Journal of Organic Evolution, 65 (3). ISSN: 0014-3820
Hudaib, Taghread and Hayes, William and Brown, Sarah and Eady, Paul (2010) Effect of seed moisture content and D-limonene on oviposition decisions of the seed beetle Callosobruchus maculatus. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 137 (2). pp. 120-125. ISSN: 0013-8703
Gay, L. and Eady, Paul and Vasudev, Ram and Hosken, D. J. and Tregenza, T. (2009) Does reproductive isolation evolve faster in larger populations via sexually antagonistic coevolution?. Biology Letters, 5 (5). pp. 693-696. ISSN: 1744-9561
Brown, E. A. and Gay, L. and Vasudev, Ram and Tregenza, T. and Eady, Paul and Hosken, D. J. (2009) Negative phenotypic and genetic associations between copulation duration and longevity in male seed beetles. Heredity, 103 (4). pp. 340-345. ISSN: 0018-067X
Gay, L. and Hosken, D. J. and Vasudev, Ram and Tregenza, T. and Eady, Paul (2009) Sperm competition and maternal effects differentially influence testis and sperm size in Callosobruchus maculatus. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 22 (5). pp. 1143-1150.
Laurene, Gay and Eady, Paul and Vasudev, Ram and Hosken, David J. and Tregenza, Tom (2009) Costly sexual harassment in a beetle. Physiological Entomology, 34 (1). pp. 86-92. ISSN: 0307-6962
Rugman-Jones, Paul F. and Eady, Paul E. (2008) Co-evolution of male and female reproductive traits across the Bruchidae (Coleoptera). Functional Ecology, 22. pp. 880-886.
Rugman-Jones, Paul F. and Eady, Paul E. (2007) Conspecific sperm precedence in Callobruchus subinnotatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae): mechanisms and consequences. Proceeding of the Royal Society: Series B, 274 (1612). pp. 983-988. ISSN: 1471-2954
Eady, Paul E. and Hamilton, Leticia and Lyons, Ruth (2007) Copulation, genital damage and early death in Callosobruchus maculatus. Proceedings of the Royal Society, London B, 274 (1607). pp. 247-252. ISSN: 1471-2954
Deeming, D. C. and Birchard, G. F. and Crafer, R. and Eady, P. E. (2006) Egg mass and incubation period allometry in birds and reptiles: effects of phylogeny. Journal of Zoology, 270 (2). pp. 209-218. ISSN: 0952-8369
Eady, Paul E. and Rugman-Jones, Paul and Brown, Denise V. (2004) Prior oviposition, female receptivity and last-male sperm precedence in the cosmopolitan pest Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Animal Behaviour, 67 (3). pp. 559-565. ISSN: 1095-8282
Brown, Denise V. and Eady, Paul E. (2001) Functional incompatability between the fertilization systems of two allopatric populations of Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: bruchidae). Evolution: International Journal of Organic Evolution, 55 (11). pp. 2257-2262. ISSN: 22572262
Eady, Paul E. (2001) Postcopulatory, prezygotic reproductive isolation. Journal of Zoology, 253 (1). pp. 47-52. ISSN: 1469-7998
Note: Paul eady's work on C.Maculatus is amazingly interesting, and those weavels have seriously scary genitals.
I am sure research on cats, dogs, horses, farm hens, farm minks, farm pheasants etc are quite possible to get alternate funding for. I would be very surprised if it wasn't.
Sissyl, there is no current technology for economically feasible breeder reactors OR breeder reactors which do not still produce significant radioactive waste.
Maybe future technological developments will make those things possible, but it is impossible to replace current power generation with new forms of nuclear power which do not actually exist.
And given that wind and solar are also economically unfeasible, since they absolutely require subsidies for people to buy them, you could make exactly the same argument against both.
So if I am telling you it is quite possible to use the material as fuel instead of waste, your argument is that you can't use it because it is called waste? Seriously?
Let's take a look at the part you conveniently forgot to mention in that very same article.
There is already a method used by countries like France and Japan to reprocess spent nuclear fuel. It has a long list of nasty problems associated with it, however. It's very expensive--the cost of uranium would have to jump by a factor of six to match the price of reprocessed fuel. Though reprocessing nuclear fuel shrinks the amount of waste, it doesn't eliminate it. And, worst of all, it results in the creation of plutonium, which could be used to make nuclear weapons.
I know, right? Keep reading, oh ancient one.
I am sure research on cats, dogs, horses, farm hens, farm minks, farm pheasants etc are quite possible to get alternate funding for. I would be very surprised if it wasn't.But of course you've got no evidence except a quote sourced to a denier video to show that your original squirrel mating claim is true.
I did not presume to prove anything by it. I don't claim things like, I don't know, like the sea level having risen a few feet in my lifetime.
Because coal, oil, and gas receive more direct and indirect subsidies then any other energy source.
If you had to pay the real economic cost (including profits) of a coal derived kWh you'd never turn on the lights again.
So, energy requires subsidies in general, then? And requiring subsidies is still an argument against nuclear power? What should we do, everybody move to Iceland for geothermal energy?
Wind and solar however don't leave radioactive byproducts which would persist for a period 100 times longer than the history of this country.And given that wind and solar are also economically unfeasible, since they absolutely require subsidies for people to buy them, you could make exactly the same argument against both.Sissyl, there is no current technology for economically feasible breeder reactors OR breeder reactors which do not still produce significant radioactive waste.
Maybe future technological developments will make those things possible, but it is impossible to replace current power generation with new forms of nuclear power which do not actually exist.
Again, I told you to keep reading.
I am sure research on cats, dogs, horses, farm hens, farm minks, farm pheasants etc are quite possible to get alternate funding for. I would be very surprised if it wasn't.
Squiral Research sans climate change
Seriously, your talking Codswallop.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And given that wind and solar are also economically unfeasible, since they absolutely require subsidies for people to buy them, you could make exactly the same argument against both.
As others have noted, the subsidies received by solar and wind power are tiny compared to what has been lavished on nuclear and fossil fuels... AND they do not have the massive external costs (i.e. pollution, healthcare, resource wars, et cetera).
I chose the example of squirrels because I talked to a biologist who told me that you simply don't get funding unless you relate the mating habits of squirrels to climate change, specifically AGW. I don't expect you to believe me with n = 1 or anything, but it is something I have discussed with people in related fields.What a pile of utter codswallop.
A snap shot of research undertake just by teaching staff for my first degree.
Prof J. Cooper:
Deeming, Charles and Hodges, Holly and Cooper, Jonathan (2011) Effect of sight barriers in pens of breeding ring-necked pheasants (Phasianus colchicus): I. Behaviour and welfare. British Poultry Science, 52 (4). pp. 403-414. ISSN: 0007-1668
Deeming, Charles and Hodges, Holly and Cooper, Jonathan (2011) Effect of sight barriers in pens of breeding ring-necked pheasants (Phasianus colchicus): II. Reproductive parameters. British Poultry Science, 52 (4). pp. 415-422. ISSN: 0007-1668
Deeming, Charles and Hodges, Holly and Cooper, Jonathan (2010) Increased spatial complexity of breeding pens affects fertility of commercial pheasants. Avian Biology Research, 3 (3). pp. 128-129. ISSN: 1758-1559
Vinke, C. M. and Hansen, S. W. and Mononen, J. and Mason, G. J. and Korhonen, H. and Cooper, Jonathan and Mohaibes, M. and Bakken, M. and Spruijt, B. M. (2008) To swim or not to swim: an interpretation of farmed mink's motivation for a water bath. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 111 (1-2). pp. 1-27. ISSN: 0168-1591
Albentosa, Melissa J. and Cooper, Jonathan J. (2005) Testing resource value in group-housed animals: an investigation of cage height preference in laying hens. Behavioural Processes, 70 (2). pp. 113-121. ISSN: 0376-6357
Fukuzawa, M. and Mills, Daniel S. and Cooper, Jonathan J. (2005) More than just a word: non-semantic command variables affect obedience in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 91 (1-2). pp. 129-141. ISSN: 0168-1591Cooper, Jonathan J. and McCall, Natalie and...