Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Real Climate writes of An Emerging View on Early Land Use.

The common impression is that man started effecting the climate during the industrial era. If one looks at the evidence, one finds increased greenhouse gasses as far as 7000 years back. Slash and burn agriculture and methane producing rice farming methods are possible explanations. Scientists are starting to look at early land use in an attempt to better figure out what happened.

Not an earth shaking article, but if anyone is interested in a little more depth...

This reminds me of a history show I saw in the last year about North America in 1491 (ie before Columbus). It made the point that we think of an unspoiled world before Columbus with primitive native tribes. In fact, the environment throughout much of what is now the US was being managed by humans for 1000s of years before Columbus arrived. The primary tool was fire.

James50

9 out of top 10 Denialist authors linked to ExxonMobil.

Originally Posted by Odin

9 out of top 10 Denialist authors linked to ExxonMobil.

Gaaah. Wasting the stockholders' money on that nonsense, while Chevron/Texaco is building a solar energy plant on an old brownfield site up in Questa in northern New Mexico. If I could only own one energy company, it sure wouldn't be Exxon-Mobil.

I've been saying Exxon Mobil is a pack of dinosaurs.

Originally Posted by Odin

9 out of top 10 Denialist authors linked to ExxonMobil.

Ad hominem /= science.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Ad hominem /= science.

Should raise red flags whenever someone is being funded by those with a vested interest in the science playing out a certain way.

Originally Posted by Silifi

Should raise red flags whenever someone is being funded by those with a vested interest in the science playing out a certain way.

Sure. So go do a double-check on their science.


Oh, I'm sorry... is that what Odin's link was taking us to? My Inter Nets must have misfired and landed me somewhere completely different.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Sure. So go do a double-check on their science.

At such time as they actually present some, that would be good advice.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Ad hominem /= science.

Corporate "scientists" are not free to be truthful, they will say what their bosses want them to say. After all, CEOs can be sued by investors if telling the truth got in the way of maximizing profits.

Originally Posted by Odin

Corporate "scientists" are not free to be truthful, they will say what their bosses want them to say. After all, CEOs can be sued by investors if telling the truth got in the way of maximizing profits.

That's a pretty broad brush to paint with, especially considering the vast majority of scientists are paid by someone. Who pays you Odin? May we suspect you of being beholden to their interests?

I don't want to start another thread, but this whole environmental issue may be affecting our political and social life in another way. Robert MacNeil has finished a report on autism and its causes, interviewing the leading researchers. There are genetic factors, they say, but they can't be mostly inherited, since autism is mostly a very recent problem. They suspect environmental toxins causing mutations and unbalanced brain growth. We all live in an environment now full of thousands of chemicals whose toxicity we don't even know. And more every day. We use them in household products. They also come out of the same tailpipes and smoke stacks that cause global warming.

And their definition of autism as lack of ability to get along with others and empathize with people, and inability to coordinate parts of their brain and other organs, seems to be what's happening in our politics. Not only are we polarized and unable to communicate, but people have less and less ability to distinguish facts from reactive prejudices or to coordinate ideas and put them together. In my view this applies especially on the right, but it can afflict both sides. For example, once people get the notion that the idea of climate change is a left-wing conspiracy, and it fits with their political purposes, facts from then onward have no bearing on their views. Is this chemical-laden land showing the symptoms of autism, and those actually diagnosed with it-- 1 in 110 children-- merely showing in an extreme degree of something that afflicts us all? We may be poisoning our political discourse-- literally.

The mystery of autism may also be among the current crises in science that foils reductionism once and for all. One researcher admitted that in order to study autism she needs to study a person as a whole, since the functions of all parts of the body are intermingled. So to really understand this disease, may require scientists to abandon brain reductionism and take a holistic approach instead. That might be a good thing.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't want to start another thread, but this whole environmental issue may be affecting our political and social life in another way. Robert MacNeil has finished a report on autism and its causes, interviewing the leading researchers. There are genetic factors, they say, but they can't be mostly inherited, since autism is mostly a very recent problem. They suspect environmental toxins causing mutations and unbalanced brain growth. We all live in an environment now full of thousands of chemicals whose toxicity we don't even know. And more every day. We use them in household products. They also come out of the same tailpipes and smoke stacks that cause global warming.

And their definition of autism as lack of ability to get along with others and empathize with people, and inability to coordinate parts of their brain and other organs, seems to be what's happening in our politics. Not only are we polarized and unable to communicate, but people have less and less ability to distinguish facts from reactive prejudices or to coordinate ideas and put them together. In my view this applies especially on the right, but it can afflict both sides. For example, once people get the notion that the idea of climate change is a left-wing conspiracy, and it fits with their political purposes, facts from then onward have no bearing on their views. Is this chemical-laden land showing the symptoms of autism, and those actually diagnosed with it-- 1 in 110 children-- merely showing in an extreme degree of something that afflicts us all? We may be poisoning our political discourse-- literally.

The mystery of autism may also be among the current crises in science that foils reductionism once and for all. One researcher admitted that in order to study autism she needs to study a person as a whole, since the functions of all parts of the body are intermingled. So to really understand this disease, may require scientists to abandon brain reductionism and take a holistic approach instead. That might be a good thing.

Don't believe the hysterical "autism epidemic" BS. the "epidemic" is simply that more people are being properly diagnosed. In fact, most people were completely ignorant of high-functioning forms of Autism before the 1990s, Asperger's was not a recognized diagnosis until 1994.

I am extremely offended by your insinuation that autistics are close-minded and prejudiced.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

That's a pretty broad brush to paint with, especially considering the vast majority of scientists are paid by someone. Who pays you Odin? May we suspect you of being beholden to their interests?

A good and valid point. Didn't you go to school, Odin, during the Bush administration? And didn't you get some form of financial aid (a clear pay-off) from the federal government under Bush during that time?

Clearly, all your statements are being made at the behest of your paymaster, Karl Rove. After all, you have a clear, financial connection to his organization.


...see how silly that argument is?

Originally Posted by Odin

Don't believe the hysterical "autism epidemic" BS. the "epidemic" is simply that more people are being properly diagnosed. In fact, most people were completely ignorant of high-functioning forms of Autism before the 1990s, Asperger's was not a recognized diagnosis until 1994.

I am extremely offended by your insinuation that autistics are close-minded and prejudiced.

My father (born 1914) was certainly in the autism spectrum somewhere. He had the anti-social traits and some of the unexplainable math capabilities that have been associated with autism. He connected with people through music but not so much on a personal level. I have some of those traits myself, though not to the same degree. Neither of us was considered autistic, because no one was in our youths. I doubt anyone would consider either of us close-minded, though we certainly tend(ed) to trust our own judgment above that of others..

Originally Posted by Justin '77

A good and valid point. Didn't you go to school, Odin, during the Bush administration? And didn't you get some form of financial aid (a clear pay-off) from the federal government under Bush during that time?

Clearly, all your statements are being made at the behest of your paymaster, Karl Rove. After all, you have a clear, financial connection to his organization.


...see how silly that argument is?

Come on, even hyperbole has its limits. Students are not overseen to the degree that a paid researcher is, and you know that perfectly well. Try a better example.

FWIW, the best argument for tenure is the removal of the threat of being fired. Its the cornerstone of academic freedom ... or was when tenure was common.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Come on, even hyperbole has its limits. Students are not overseen to the degree that a paid researcher is, and you know that perfectly well. Try a better example.

Except that the majority of the skeptic researchers aren't "paid" by Exxon any more than Odin was "paid" by Karl Rove. Less, in fact, since lots of them have all sorts of funding sources, but Rove's organization was probably one of only very few that gave money to benefit Odin.

So if the example is bad, it's only because Odin has more "connection" to Rove than the article even claims scientists have to Exxon.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

My father (born 1914) was certainly in the autism spectrum somewhere. He had the anti-social traits and some of the unexplainable math capabilities that have been associated with autism. He connected with people through music but not so much on a personal level. I have some of those traits myself, though not to the same degree. Neither of us was considered autistic, because no one was in our youths. I doubt anyone would consider either of us close-minded, though we certainly tend(ed) to trust our own judgment above that of others..

Are all those with autism considered anti-social and not having empathy? My 7 year old nephew is classified as autistic, has a perfect photographic mind (he can see something in passing and a month later draw it in full detail on his etch and sketch), is musical and probably will be an expert in math.

Without a doubt he has trouble communicating his feelings and is a loner...but out of all my nephews I relate to him most because of his sensitivity to other peoples feelings. I don't want to box him in, but he's probably a fellow INFJ and seems to know and detect what others feel without even having a conversation with them. He is also extremely bothered and hurt by the tears and cries of others, especially babies. It's amazing seeing how he interacts with babies. He stares at them, knowingly as if staring into their souls and they stop crying around him (I haven't seen this deep of a connection with him among his peers.)

FYI, he craves stability, structure and routine but I highly doubt he will grow up to be close minded. This is no joke...but I would trust him to make better decisions then some truly close minded folks in politics (who act like they are 7 years old)

Originally Posted by Odin

Don't believe the hysterical "autism epidemic" BS. the "epidemic" is simply that more people are being properly diagnosed.

My information about this issue is that there is indeed an epidemic. In particular, a study at UC Davis has shown that there is more autism than can be explained by simply more inclusive diagnosis. You can follow this link to a Huff Po article and on to the MIND institute at UC Davis. Because of this increase, autism is not traceable to genetics alone as you cannot have a genetic epidemic. There have to be environmental causes which are yet undiscovered.

Of the 600-to-700 percent increase in autism reported in California between 1990 and 2000, fewer than 10 percent were due to the inclusion of milder cases, the study found, while only 24 percent could be attributed to earlier age at diagnosis.

James50

Originally Posted by millennialX

Are all those with autism considered anti-social and not having empathy? My 7 year old nephew is classified as autistic, has a perfect photographic mind (he can see something in passing and a month later draw it in full detail on his etch and sketch), is musical and probably will be an expert in math.

Without a doubt he has trouble communicating his feelings and is a loner...but out of all my nephews I relate to him most because of his sensitivity to other peoples feelings. I don't want to box him in, but he's probably a fellow INFJ and seems to know and detect what others feel without even having a conversation with them. He is also extremely bothered and hurt by the tears and cries of others, especially babies. It's amazing seeing how he interacts with babies. He stares at them, knowingly as if staring into their souls and they stop crying around him (I haven't seen this deep of a connection with him among his peers.)

FYI, he craves stability, structure and routine but I highly doubt he will grow up to be close minded. This is no joke...but I would trust him to make better decisions then some truly close minded folks in politics (who act like they are 7 years old)

H-m-m-m. Well, like most mental conditions, autism is not a black and white issue. It's a range of atypical mental conditions, atypical only in the sense that the defined condition is not common. There is also a huge difference in degree from minor to devastating. There is a test for potential inclusion on the autism spectrum called the Autism Spectrum Quotient. I've take the test more than once, and tend to get about a 32. What this means is arguable.

Originally Posted by James50

My information about this issue is that there is indeed an epidemic. In particular, a study at UC Davis has shown that there is more autism than can be explained by simply more inclusive diagnosis. You can follow this link to a Huff Po article and on to the MIND institute at UC Davis. Because of this increase, autism is not traceable to genetics alone as you cannot have a genetic epidemic. There have to be environmental causes which are yet undiscovered.

James50

There is an argument to the effect that more autistic people are having families these days, and their offspring are highly prone to the condition. There are a few highly paid fields where being a bit autistic is a plus - software development being the most obvious. That tends to be confirmed by the higher than normal distribution of autistic children in Silicon Valley and inside the I-495 beltway around Boston.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Except that the majority of the skeptic researchers aren't "paid" by Exxon any more than Odin was "paid" by Karl Rove.

That is, of course, NOT the argument. The point is that they are doing bad science that could never have been published in any peer-reviewed journal. The money from the oil companies doesn't so much corrupt their opinions as it does buy them a platform. I am willing to assume that most skeptical scientists are sincere, just as are flat-earthers, creationists, and advocates of perpetual motion, and one can find examples of every one of those with PhDs after their names, too. Absent the massive funding from the fossil-fuel industry, global-warming denialists would be as obscure as flat-earthers and advocates of perpetual motion, and paid as little attention.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

There is an argument to the effect that more autistic people are having families these days, and their offspring are highly prone to the condition. There are a few highly paid fields where being a bit autistic is a plus - software development being the most obvious. That tends to be confirmed by the higher than normal distribution of autistic children in Silicon Valley and inside the I-495 beltway around Boston.

The smartest person I have ever personally known lives in Silicon Valley and has a profoundly autistic 21 year old son. He is a scientist and has the brainpower and motivation to do a lot of research on this. He is convinced that the trigger is environmental. He is quite angry with Autism Speaks for the way it continues to devote large amounts of money to genetic research when what is needed is long term longitudinal studies to determine the environmental cause. He has told me Autism Speaks is a "disaster". Unfortunately, the genetic research is very glamorous, whereas the longitudinal studies of environment are very tedious and gritty.

Based on the age of onset, autism must be caused by environmental factors in utero or in the first year of life. We don't know what those factors are but this timing explains why there has been such a focus on vaccines.

James50

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

H-m-m-m. Well, like most mental conditions, autism is not a black and white issue. It's a range of atypical mental conditions, atypical only in the sense that the defined condition is not common. There is also a huge difference in degree from minor to devastating. There is a test for potential inclusion on the autism spectrum called the Autism Spectrum Quotient. I've take the test more than once, and tend to get about a 32. What this means is arguable.

IIRC, I got a 36. That's geeky, at the very least.

I noticed back when Wired published the thing and it was a topic of discussion on the Bujold Fans list, there turned out to be a bimodal distribution -- a bunch of us clustered around where you and I am, and a bunch whose score was quite low. What that means, I can't say, but if they'd run it past some other fannish groups - or passed it out at, say, Bubonicon, I think we'd have a bell-shaped curve decidedly skewed towards the high end. For what it's worth.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

There is an argument to the effect that more autistic people are having families these days, and their offspring are highly prone to the condition. There are a few highly paid fields where being a bit autistic is a plus - software development being the most obvious. That tends to be confirmed by the higher than normal distribution of autistic children in Silicon Valley and inside the I-495 beltway around Boston.

Ah, yes. The "we're breeding for them" argument. Interesting to measure that against the centuries when the scholarly were supposed to be in holy orders, and hence celibate.

And back on topic, "If there is no global warming, why is that polar bear wearing a bikini and sipping a daiquiri?"

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

And back on topic, "If there is no global warming, why is that polar bear wearing a bikini and sipping a daiquiri?"

Spring Break in Cancun?