Slashdot Mirror
EPA Quashed Report Skeptical of Global Warming
theodp writes "CNET reports that less than two weeks before the EPA formally submitted its pro-carbon dioxide regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty 'decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.' In an e-mail message (pdf) to a staff researcher on March 17, the EPA official wrote: 'The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward...and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.' The employee was also ordered not to 'have any direct communication' with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change, and was informed his report would not be shared with the agency group working on the topic. In a statement, the EPA took aim at the credentials of the report's author, Alan Carlin (BS Physics-Caltech, PhD Econ-MIT), describing him as 'not a scientist.' BTW, the official who chastised Carlin also found himself caught up in a 2005 brouhaha over mercury emissions after top EPA officials ordered the findings of a Harvard University study stripped from public records."
So, under the old boss, he leaned one way, and under the new boss he leans another.
Color me shocked.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
debate is healthy, the fact that the EPA needs a step on anyone who disagree's means thier arguments are not as solid as they want us to think.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
I wonder how many of these reports on other things (crime, drugs, copyright, etc) have been censored too in order to only give the government's point of view?
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
They are not necessarily corrupt. The just adjust easily. Perhaps this is why they are called 'servants'.
I would like to die like my grandfather did - sleeping. And not screaming in terror, like his passengers.
"There is no reason to regulate CO2".
- Carlin
it's a Pig... bear... man?
They told me if I voted for McCain that science would be subservient to policy goals. And they were right!
Thx Instapundit.
Science may not be biased, but scientists certainly are.
"The purpose of learning is growth, and our minds, unlike our bodies, can continue growing as long as we live." - M.J. A
I made a post very critical of carbon emissions not long ago, think it ended up scoring (1, Troll). I was even trying to cite the numbers from other sources. Now is it worth severe economic consequences to lower the temperature (and this is just a maybe, and likely using the best model for the pro-carbon-emission-controllers out there) by ONE-TWENTIETH of ONE degree? (over the course of decades) I know I certainly believed most of this green crap when I was in school (not all of it is COMPLETELY crap). However the carbon dioxide aspect of it is the biggest fairy tale we seem to want to believe. Clouds and sunspots have more effect on climate than carbon dioxide ever will. Feel free to mod me down, but at least explain where I'm wrong before doing so. Once again please note I'm only talking about carbon dioxide, and I'm not saying things like smog, or other emissions that cause acid rain are not problems.
There will ALWAYS be skepticism on a scientific theory as controversial as this. At some point we have to take action. And maybe this paper was given the bum's rush, but I think it was less "conspiracy to silence critics of the almighty environmentalists" and more "oh, God, let's just get on with this already."
The EPA is a federal organization that, at the end of the day, must side on the consensus of the scientific community. Not be paralyzed by every single dissenting opinion.
I hate to be a troll - but I agree with the EPA, a PhD in economics is not the same as being a climate scientist - unless he has decided to dig into the climate computer models - which I doubt - I am not sure what the substance of his report would be - economic impact?
Alan Carlin (BS Physics-Caltech, PhD Econ-MIT), describing him as 'not a scientist.'
So what makes him a scientist, having a bachelor's degree in Physics, or a doctorate in Economics? 'Cause I know how y'all treat the "social sciences" around here
If you read through the entire article, you can find some interesting information on what it was he wanted us to do. Instead of regulating CO2 emissions, he states that it is more economical to reduce the amount of radiation from the sun that reaches the earth. I don't really understand his position. In effect, he's saying, "I don't believe in global warming. However, even if I did, there's no reason to regulate CO2 emissions." He seems bent against regulation of CO2 at any cost.
Secondly, he also states that global temperatures have fallen for the last 11 years. I really would like to see his work. This article (http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/83), reported in the September 26 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows global temperatures rising for the last 30 years.
This man strikes me as being very much against any type of environmental regulation, and I'm not surprised that the EPA is trying to silence him.
Look, I'm sure this guy is very competent as a physicist and economist but he is simply not qualified to cast doubt on climatologists.
They were right to dismiss him
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
They said he's not a climate scientist, but he has an undergrad physics degree and a PhD in economics and he's seems to have spent most of his career writing position papers for economics think tanks! Heck, that should be enough to qualify him as a client scientist...oh wait. What I mean is, with those credentials he should be able to practice dentistry and set policy on...no, that's not it.
He's a...race car driver? No, that's not it either.
Let me think.
I know! He's an economist.
So now all I have to do is prove that climate science is a subset of economics and the "how dare they say he isn't a climate scientist" outrage will be justified.
--MarkusQ
P.S. From what I can gather, the "suppressed opinion" was just that--an opinion. It isn't like the guy had gone out and done any original research.
Stop giving them power to take your money and make your choices for you. Then you don't care.
True... only you have alternatives to the corporate doctor, when the state takes full control, your options get pretty thin pretty fast.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
This has already been addressed at RealClimate. The short answer is that the data on which the analysis rests is questionable, as is the analysis itself. But if all you really want is en excuse to engage in a bit of gratuitous government- or Obama-bashing, then please don't let me stop you.
Let the unraveling begin.
Under the old boss, the EPA was accused of quashing reports on climate change made by climatologists. Now, they're accused of quashing reports on climate change made by economists. There's a fundamental difference there.
We seriously need to move some of the stations where temperature data is gathered. When the National Weather Service's temperature sensors are often surrounded by large brick buildings, concrete sidewalks, and asphalt parking lots, you're just not getting good data. Anybody whose car has a thermometer that measures outside temperature can tell you that just driving from the countryside into an area full of buildings and asphalt results in very real temperature increases. Having the official instruments that measure climate change be in highly developed areas is resulting in temperature measurement records that are not trustworthy.
Recently, a National Weather Service temperature sensor in Hawaii was racking up day after day of record temperatures before they discovered that the sensor was not only located in the middle of all the runways of the Honolulu airport, but that the temperature sensor was malfunctioning and was reporting temperatures many degrees higher than they actually were.
When compared to measurements taken at the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center only four miles away (which is outside the highly developed area) temperature measurements were *seven* degrees cooler. Did the weather service invalidate the temperature records that by the faulty sensor in the middle of the airport runways? Nope. All that faulty data is now being used to 'prove' global warming.
A survey of the official National Weather System ground temperature measurement instruments is underway and a huge number of problems have been observed. More information on this survey and photos of just how fucked up some of the instrument placements are is available here:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf
Hey, they're doing a fine job in the patent office. Or the IRS, which will give you advice and then audit you for following it.
Wow, the guy has worked for the EPA for almost 40 years but because he has an MIT PhD in economics, that makes it ok?
It wasn't ok when it was the other side, and it's not ok now. End of story.
Just watch how much of the "cap and trade" taxes are sent to Al Gore's company.
from separate 'research institutions'. i will time them so that they will come one after another and even make you believe that there is no global warming, despite the ice you stand on in antarctica is melting and you gonna fall into the water in 5 minutes.
Read radical news here
This is not news. The guy had a physics degree, and an economics degree. Neither which fully qualifies him to report on Global Warming. Perhaps if he had an ecological degree to go along with the physics degree I'd give him more weight. As it is, I suspect he was speaking more from his economics degree.
True... only you have alternatives to the corporate doctor, when the state takes full control, your options get pretty thin pretty fast.
Not really, because for the vast majority of americans it isn't the corporate doctor making the decision, but the corporate insurance agency bureaucrat who has a vested interest in not doing anything for you. With the government at least they have the ostensible purpose of administering your good health and outrageously bad decisions reflect on politicians concerned about being reelected. Outrageous decisions from the insurance companies result in them giving someone a promotion and bad press that comes to nothing because politicians care more about lobbying bucks than constituents.
I'm quite skeptical that the US government can create and run a reasonable socialized healthcare system, but I don't see any better alternatives. What we have now isn't working. We pay more than other countries for much less and it is one of the major factors destabilizing our economy. Half of personal bankruptcies are the result of medical problems. 75% of those were people who had health insurance that found a way to not ay or underpay to such a degree that the individual could not afford treatment. I've been through the system. I had some of the best healthcare available to the middle class when I became ill. I still ended up paying over $20K out of pocket to get treated which would have driven the majority of people (without my paranoiacly large amount of savings) into complete poverty. I can't even imagine how many people who are too poor for personal bankruptcy to make sense are driven into poverty by our broken healthcare system.
Medicine is one of those fields along with firefighting, law enforcement, and military defense where capitalism is a very poor fit.
Big Eco is just as likely as Big Business to misuse funds and only put forth studies supporting their views.
Recent examples abound...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2237375/posts - California Air Resource Board puts forth new Diesel rules even though the lead scientist was a liar
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20503.html - Obama EPA nominee involved in $25 million misuse of funds
This man has been working for the EPA since 1971. Hell, he helped BUILD the place.
So what if he's "just an economist"? According to my degree, I'm "just a fish farmer", yet I'm working for a company and doing stuff that keeps the telcom grid alive. Nine years of military communications experience will do that for you. Makes me wonder what 38 years of experience working for climate scientists would do for an economist?
It's not exactly like he's going to just pull this stuff out of his backside after 38 years of service. Nobody that manages to survive THAT long, through seven presidents-five or whom were hostile to the EPA-is going to just buck the trend without a pretty darn good reason.
I'd say it's worth paying attention to the man. Even if he's on the verge of retirement, 38 years of experience is nothing to sneeze at.
[End Of Line]
I think the Waxman-Markey bill is a fine piece of legislation, but the motivations being put forth to enact it are all wrong. The anthropological component to global warming will never be known with acceptable certainty, and anyone who says anything one way or the other doesn't know what the hell they are talking about. We'll never really know for 100% certainty. It's a lightning rod for political arguments, and the arguments are probably spewing forth more hot air and CO2 than coal plants ever will.
Reasons for enacting this bill should be:
1) Energy Independence - Let's get the energy supply from within our borders so we stop getting in dumb wars where we need to shoot people for petroleum. Hell, we're so nice and humanitarian that we can't even pillage and loot a country properly! After 6 years in Iraq we should have had crude oil shooting out of the White House fountain during Dubya's term.
2) Modernize the Coal Plant Fleet - We'll need all that coal in W. Virginia and Pennsylvania and the west for the foreseeable future, but we should be smart in how we utilize it. This bill will not kill coal or jobs - coal is just too big a slice of our energy generation needs for the present. If it turns out that it does start hurting, lots of people will scream, politicians' heads will roll, and it will get sorted out in short order - the beauty of democracy. This bill *will* kick the coal industry in the pants and give it some financial incentive to modernize and invest in pollution controls. Believe it or not, people in the coal industry really don't mind investing in pollution control equipment as long as it doesn't break the bank. Go figure - people who WORK in coal plants tend to live NEAR coal plants, and they want clean air at home just as much as you do.
I don't buy the CO2 impact, and by the time they get carbon sequestration sorted out, all the coal will be gone, but if it makes a bunch of people busy trying to figure out how to capture CO2, then I say let them have their fun and jobs.
3) Sustainability - Coal isn't going to last forever. How long? I don't know, depends what guess you consider the most reliable. A W.A.G, probably less than 100 years - let's use that number for giggles. Why wait for coal to gasp it's last in 100 years and THEN try to get other technologies up to speed? If we can make some good jobs to harness renewable energy now, why not do that? Better to learn how to utilize renewables reliably now and phase them in over time while coal winds down. Otherwise we're just pushing a crisis on our kids, or our kid's kids. Utilizing renewables now can't hurt, and it would make jobs.
Physics degree qualifies you to report on whatever the hell you like as far as I'm concerned.
Of course this story will bring all the conspiracy theorists out of the woodwork. They will argue that global warming really doesn't exist, or that it's not anthropogenic, and other such things. It makes them feel great to imagine they can see something which the larger scientific community is clearly missing. They can feel like heroes.
Well, sorry to dash your hopes, climate-change deniers, but this report is akin to a convicted criminal filing appeal after appeal after appeal, not to bring up some point of fact or law, but simply to clog the system and delay his sentence. After a certain mass of evidence has accumulated, you've got to find something extraordinary to reverse the judgment. Appeals eventually end.
As the old saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Considering the vast body of reviewed and verified climate change literature, and considering this paper's lack of relevant extraordinary evidence, quashing the report was certainly the right thing to do. It would eventually be rebuffed anyway, but doing so would divert resources from valuable endeavors and provide the not-so-loyal opposition with ammunition to delay climate change in the legislature. We've studied the problem enough: now it's time to say "enough is enough" and work on solutions.
Most independent voters who voted for Hillary Clinton or wanted to vote for Michael Bloomberg knew what would happen if Obama took office. Our worst fears have been realized.
An early example showing the real Obama is found in a quite startling essay published by the "Wall Street Journal". The Justice Department, under the leadership of Obama, dismissed a "civil lawsuit for voter intimidation against the New Black Panther Party. The Black Panthers weren't content to endorse Barack Obama. They sent their members to the polls last November to 'patrol election sites.' Fox News aired a video of two Black Panthers in military-style uniforms in a Philadelphia precinct. One of them was carrying a nightstick. ... The complaint the Justice Department filed in January (before Messrs. Obama and Holder took over) says the Panthers made 'racial threats and racial insults' to voters and 'menacing and intimidating, gestures, statements and movements directed at individuals who were present to aid voters.' One witness, Bartle Bull, a civil-rights lawyer who worked with Charles Evers in Mississippi in the 1960s, called it the worst voter intimidation he had ever seen.".
The latest example showing the real Obama is this attempt by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to censor opposing opinions. In this case, the EPA claims that the critic, Alan Carlin (BS Physics-Caltech, PhD Econ-MIT), is not a "real" scientist. Yet, Dr. Carlin has a Bachelor's degree in physics from Caltech and a Doctorate in (intensively mathematical) economics from MIT. The Caltech degree, by itself, puts Dr. Carlin in league with the very best. The training that went into that Bachelor's degree is equivalent to a Master's degree (in physics) from a lesser university.
Personally, I believe that global warming is real, but I -- as an educated Westerner -- respect the dissenting opinion of reputable scientists like Dr. Carlin. I oppose censoring them.
Note that the Bush administration attempted the same kind of censorshop in the other direction. According to a report by the "New York Times", the Bush administration had censored a NASA climatologist who was warning about the certainty of global warming.
Here's the bottom line. The emperor has changed, but his clothes remain the same. Hopefully, President Nicolas Sarkozy can save us American voters from our stupidity in electing the worst political candidates -- time after time.
Too bad that the folks who wrote the report in question were economists instead of scientists, and the compiled their "data" from anti-global warming websites. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/#more-691
The alleged danger that cigarettes pose will never be known with acceptable certainty, and anyone who says anything one way or the other doesn't know what the hell they are talking about.
Same hand waving, same excuses.
We'll never really know for 100% certainty.
Nothing is "100% certain" in science, not even gravity. But for practical purposes, yes you can be sure that climate change is happening, and humans have been the driving cause. Deal with it.
The position of the previous adminstration was not based on scientific consensus: it was based on political opinion and a lot of wishful thinking by a lot of people who thought that if they wished hard enough, that reality would change to fit their world-view. You can't really expect more from politicians who base is composed of free market fundamentalists and young Earth creationists.
On the other hand, the Obama administration, much to their credit, are far more reality-based, and have a much more rational world view generally. Senior Obama advisors are a veritable who's who of great minds. Wooly disfunctional thinking won't get you very far with this lot.
So when a bureaucrat holdover from the previous administration starts trying to claim that there is anything but overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, he deserves to have his arse kicked for his stupidity.
Modded +1 Darwin Bait.
...that there are problems with the theory of anthropogenic global warming and at least how it is presented. A while back I put together a document that points out some serious problems with how Algore has gone about making his points...
http://www.chrisoleary.com/projects/NeitherThisNorThat/Documents/AnInconvenientTruth_Analysis.pdf
Except a ecological degree guarantees that you are fully indoctrinated in the environmental dogma of the day...not necessarily that you understand the nature of natural phenomena.
THL phish sticks
Quite. After all, reducing the emotional response to a Shakespeare sonnet to a set of quantum states is well within the reach of an undergraduate Physics course nowadays, isn't it? Er, isn't it? Oh, in that case maybe a physics degree doesn't qualify a person to report on whatever the hell they like after all.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
What does Al Gore have a degree in?
3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
Unbelievably, despite the fact that I am working on a deliverable for this coming week, I took the time to a) RTFM on CNET, and b) download the PDF of the author's report.
I read through the table of contents, and thought it was worth scanning through portions of the document.
Ironic Item One
In the executive summary, the author chides the EPA as an organization for relying on decades of work by the IPCC, and thousands of person-hours involved in climate science that were brought to bear on the IPCC reports over the last several years. The author points out that the IPCC reports did not include the most recent findings regarding, among several phenomena, solar sunspot cycles, cosmic rays, and the melting of Greenland's ice sheet. The author supports his contention that sunspot cycles and cosmic rays affect Earth's climate by citing one or two, non-peer-reviewed postings to web sites.
Interestingly the most recent peer-reviewed findings regarding all of these items indicate that a) sunspot cycles have nothing to do with global mean temperatures; b) cosmic rays have nothing to do with global mean temperatures; c) Greenland's ice sheet continues to melt at a fairly good clip.
Ironic, and damaging, Item Two
Scanning through the report, the reader comes to page 64 of the report, 79 of the PDF, and finds this heading:
The author then goes on to point out how the following aspects of life in the US have improved over the last century or so, despite rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations:
Then, the kicker comes on page 66; I quote:
While the author does cite a number of actual scientific reports, the text quoted here and the failure to consider the entire constellation of improvements wrought by technology over the last century render his entire report ridiculous.
If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law;
I have a physics degree (and PhD), but I don't consider myself more knowledgable on non-physics topics than someone who doesn't.
If there's one thing I did learn though, is that it's damn hard to go from a set of data to a sound conclusion. *Much* harder than non-scientists think. The unscientific ways of thinking of most of the "sceptic" (though "dogmatic" would be more appropriate) crowd are painfully obvious. Fortunately, my field isn't climate science, so most of the anti-global warming points only leave me banging my head against the wall relatively gently, rather than at skull-crushing speed.
The rest of the industrial world (you know, all those countries with universal health care) do not have this problem. The United STates, with its unregulated private market DOES have it. Your private health insurance can refuse to treat your cancer based on "pre-existing conditions;" guess what, the Sécurité Sociale or the National Health Service cannot.
...they keep latching on to some tidbit of information and then beat it to death as if it "proves" that climate change is a hoax based on weak science. So there might be a faulty sensor in Hawaii: B. F. D. Does nothing to change the fact that there is a mountain of other evidence to rely on.
The main guys at RealClimate are Hansen fanboys to an extreme degree (one of them works under him), and can't be trusted to make an unbiased review.
They have a very simple way of dealing with contrary scientific opinion, and that is to block the poster from their site. It has happened repeatedly.
The facts in this area are confused enough already. Adding the totally corrupt opinion at RealClimate to the mix does not help.
Looking at this guy's website the first thing that seems not quite kosher is that he works for RAND corporation
I think this explains all, it seems very natural that the same "think-tank" that once proposed that a nuclear war can have a winner will also state so categorically that global warming is harmless.
That's the same organization that gets so much funding from the oil industry they opened a branch in the Persian gulf.
According to Exxon or its PR team (GOPFOX inc.), it is controversial.
To the scientific community, it is about as controversial as evolution, the Big Bang, the germ theory of disease or the wave/particle duality.
I'm going to go ahead and let him perform brain surgery.
My first reaction is that there are two issues here: whether Carlin is right, and whether the EPA acted appropriately in suppressing his report instead of publishing it with reservations and, perhaps, a refutation. Parent post seems to have answered both.
Carlin may be a "smart guy" (CalTech undergrad, MIT doctorate), but some "smart people" are lacking in judgement, even of the technical/scientific kind.
This just serves to remind us, 'liberal' and 'conservative' alike, that political maneuvering and groupthink look pretty much exactly the same and have the same consequences, regardless on which side of the ideological fence it occurs.
Groupthink is groupthink, and it's ALWAYS bad.
That's why, as a liberal, I preferred Dennis Kucinich and am wary of Obama; Obama is far too good at mixing up the Kool-Aid and fomenting groupthink. Kucinich is a plain talker, and it apparently makes him unpopular for saying things that rattle people's delusions and make them uncomfortable. Obama NEVER does that. He's a playa.
Haven't had time to find out what proctological study they pulled their data out of, but one thing's sticking out like a sore thumb: their "best fit" (the violet line). Basically they're applying a formula meant to find the line that fit bests a set of points that look like they're on a straight line ... to something that's evidently NOTHING like a straight line at all.
It would be completely retarded and incompetent, if it wasn't so obvious that they are lying scumbags and know that they can get away with such gross manipulation since their audience is composed mainly of retards, amoebas and lower life forms like conservatives and creationists.
Medicine is one of those fields along with firefighting, law enforcement, and military defense whee capitalism is a very poor fit.
This may be true, but Government control of medicine is actually worse. I live in Britain, where we have socialised healthcare in the form of the NHS. I pay for the NHS with a big chunk of tax money; all Brits are forced to do likewise, no choice, no opt-out. Still, many of us choose to buy private health insurance as well, paying twice simply because the quality of NHS care is so poor. It is poor because it is inefficient, and it is inefficient because it is run by a Government monopoly staffed by more bureaucrats than doctors.
For all its faults, I envy the American system and wish that we had it here. An American may lose his house to pay for an operation, but at least he gets the operation, while the Brits die from MRSA, waiting months for urgent surgery in a dirty ward, paying more (on average) for the privilege.
The tao of democracy: the government you can vote for is not the real government.
doesn't mean that I couldn't succesfully perform brain surgery.
Oh wait, the analogy doesn't work, climate science is sooo easy, I mean, what am I thinking.
If you believe in AGW, or accept the idea there is some sort of concensus among climate scientists there is one little fact that keeps popping up.
Climate change is being caused by people. Fewer people, less climate change.
Sure, if we could reduce the impact of all of those people it might get better. But do you understand that each and every human outputs about the same heat as a 75 watt lightbulb? Oh, and if they are doing anything it goes up to almost 200 watts.
Let's see, 6 billion people... that would be about 450,000,000,000 watts of energy being released every hour. Now, it takes a awful lot of energy to affect the planet's temperature, but regardless of anything else don't you think that 450 BILLION watts might make a difference?
We could easily turn this down to 200 billion watts within a few years. This might make all the difference in the world.
Thank you! Posts like yours make it worthwhile to hold my nose and deal with the sophomoric ignorance of most posters on Slashdot.
Is this a great country or what?
Al Gore isn't setting EPA policy.
AFAIK, this is true*. 1998 was a particularly warm year, and recent mean global temperatures (MGT) are about 0.1 degrees Celsius cooler than they were in 1998. Draw a straight line between these points**, and you get a nice convinient cooling trend. This cooling, however, is nothing compared to the overall trend though (roughly a MGT increase of 1 degree in the last 150 years). Unfortunately, 'the planet has cooled!' ia a handy soundbite.
Solar emissions, ENSO, and other contributing factors to MGT vary, some of them cyclicly, and this is why the graph of MGT*** has peaks and ditches. We're just in a minor ditch right now. The only bit of trouble is that the ditch is halfway up a mountain. :(
----
*The source for this shaky assertion is my geography teacher, so bear this in mind.
**Not an accurate model of temperature fluctuations.
***Search for 'hockey stick graph' for the same graph, but with 'older' temperatures added.
But Al Gore's movie made money, so therefore global warming is real. The market has spoken.
(Courtesy Stephen Colbert)
Economists are the Rheumatologists of the the math world. If you want to diagnose some strange condition, that every other Dr tells you is all in your head, and no one is able to diagnose, you go to a Rheumatologist.
The economist's job is to spot and analyze trends. Since global warming has everything to do with trend analysis, I think an economist is the perfect person to evaluate the data.
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels.
I call paskahousut.
ANYONE with a physics degree can certainly comment on the physics of AGW theory.
[flame thrower on]An ecology degree or a degree in meteorology is what you you get when you can't do the math for your physics.[flame thrower off]
The problem with current AGW theory is that the data doesn't always match the theory as well as would be expected. Generally for people trained in the basic sciences this means that one needs to re-examine the original hypothesis or perhaps the models. Not for people that truly believe in AGW. These folks, scientists or not, can be pretty dogmatic. In today's climate that means that work is either censored, ignored, or the researchers attacked. I find it odd that people who publish works that don't follow the prevailing wisdom that writes the pay checks for AGW researchers are called skeptics or crackpots or are accused of being paid off by "Big Oil" (While money in the form of government grants and/or "green" organizations isn't tainted, ever)
The laws of physics change for no person. They just get occasionally refined (hat tip Einstein). If the basic physics upon which the theory is based doesn't work, then the theory is wrong. Period.
I suspect he was speaking more from his economics degree. If one is to make a decision as to what is better for the world, with a limited supply of resources (ie money) wouldn't having someone with an economics background help do the cost benefit analysis? -cluge
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
Second hand smoke, mercury, now global warming. Shouldn't the EPA be registered as a lobby group?
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
Troll? Really? Questioning this guys credentials is considered a troll?
Wow, I'm impressed that some moderator found that comment insightful, since (a) Al Gore's background is completely irrelevant to the question of whether the person in the article is a *climate scientist* or not, (b) Al Gore's background is completely irrelevant to the question of whether the the person in the article should be relied upon for an independent *scientific opinion* to be incorporated into a scientific report, (c) Al Gore has not, to my knowledge, attempted to speak *as a climate scientist* nor, to my knowledge, has he ever held himself out as *a climate scientist*, and (d) I've yet to see Al Gore attempt to introduce his own theories as to global warming derived from his own *scientific analysis*--my understanding is that he attempts to explain and distill what *scientists or the scientific literature* tell him, rather than relying on his own expertise.
So apparently the bar for 'insightful' on Slashdot these days is 'irrelevant, and comprising a logical fallacy'?
I think you really need to look into who this person is and his body of work is easy to investigate; here he is agitating for the privatization of public lands, like the Grand Canyon
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0660118
I his book "Environmental investments" his hypothesis reads like a Rand wet dream, "We must look to voluntary enforcement" yeah, that works out well.
How about the EPA just quashes his stupid "The corporations will solve this problem on their own" stupidity and leaves his ideas where they did the world the worst, back in the 60s.
Economists aren't even able to predict obvious bubbles in the housing and creidt market, let's not allow them to try and do the same to Environmental protection, okay?
Journalism.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I find it odd that people who publish works that don't follow the prevailing wisdom that writes the pay checks for AGW researchers are called skeptics or crackpots
This is pretty much how it works in every discipline. You've never heard of anyone having trouble publishing something that goes against current thinking? That you think it only applies to climate theory sort of makes you look like a douchebag.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
Looking at the papers you linked to, they are all related to the economic consequences of reducing CO2 emissions. However, what RAND and others fail to mention is how much does it cost to do nothing.
Suppose that twenty or thirty years ago there existed a stronger incentive to build more economic cars. Probably GM and Chrysler wouldn't be in so deep trouble. Perhaps a significant number of workers wouldn't be unemployed.
There was one time when Chrysler seemed to be in the right path, the company was once saved by the "minivan", a more economical car than the full-sized van. What if they had kept going in the same direction, invented a still smaller car in the same format. Perhaps then it wouldn't be necessary for Fiat to rescue Chrysler.
This may be true, but Government control of medicine is actually worse. I live in Britain...
Congratulations, you live with one of the worst implemented of socialized medicine.
Still, many of us choose to buy private health insurance as well, paying twice simply because the quality of NHS care is so poor. It is poor because it is inefficient, and it is inefficient because it is run by a Government monopoly staffed by more bureaucrats than doctors.
I'm sure it's terrible, but statistically, you still pay less than the average US citizen with much, much better results. It may seem bad to you over there, but the grass is definitely browner over here. The rates of people going blind from preventable causes, is absurdly higher here, for example. The correlation between wealth and lifespan is much more drastic. The overall lifespan is shorter.
. An American may lose his house to pay for an operation, but at least he gets the operation...
Fewer and fewer have houses to lose, in no small part because of health care costs and trying to get a loan so you can get medical treatment is not going to happen. It's a bad bet. I have a friend who is naturally skinny and tall. He can't get insurance at all because he is clinically underweight. I know a girl who is short. Clinically overweight, no insurance for her. Most doctors won't even treat them even if they have cash. They don't go to the hospital when they get very ill, because they simply can't afford it. One had something stuck in their eye, but decided to wait it out and hope they would not lose vision in that eye, because the alternative was losing everything she owned. The other spent a week in massive pain because of a serious infection of the inner ear. Again, no option other than begging people he knew with money in the hopes someone would help. You assert that Americans get the operation but a huge number of us certainly don't. In the UK they prioritize by severity of condition but here if you don't have the money you just suffer in pain or even die. I have other friends stuck in jobs that provide health insurance. The job is terrible but they can't ever quit because it's the only way they can get healthcare. Oh, and what about me. I'm physically fit, not too old and have no serious medical conditions. I will never, ever be able to buy medical insurance again because I had an inexplicable illness once and they never figured out what it was, so I'm a poor investment for insurance companies too.
Sorry, but the US has every other first world nation pretty well beat for worst health care and there are plenty of numbers to back that up.
Gore studied climate science at Harvard under Roger Revelle before switching to an art degree. Besides Gore presented the IPCC reports he did not claim to do otherwise. If you are base your opinion of ANY scientific claim on the character or authority of the messenger then you are doing it wrong.
The only problem I have with a government department quashing a psuedo-skeptical report is if they do it in secret, I don't know if this is the case since i haven't RTFA. If this guys opinion is different to every reputable science institution on the planet then he should be allowed make a fool of himself by speaking to the press provided he makes it clear he does not represent his employer.
There are only a handfull of credible scientists world wide who disagree with parts of the much maligned consensus (the only one I can think of is Dyson). This is despite the fountain of anti-science bullshit from think tanks such as the Heartland Institute. The science has prevailed over the lobbyists as it did with the tabacco industry in the 80's and countless other extrodinary claims since the time of Copurnicus.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Al, is that you?
3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
I'm quite skeptical that the US government can create and run a reasonable socialized healthcare system, but I don't see any better alternatives.
Oo oo, I do I do! Pick me! Do the following: -No federal or state contracts from now on will include health insurance. (I'm sure there's better legalese for that, but you get the idea.) -Employers won't be forced to provide health insurance. Tada! Insurance suddenly has to prove it's own worth _to it's actual customers_, not to an accounting troll who wants a 10,000 person package and a bonus. People will suddenly become choosy about what insurance they buy, and also their own personal health (since they are not longer automatically covered if they stuff themselves with trash).
The government can't save you.
On target, gandhi. Global warming is nothing more than the religion of the 21st century. Either you are a believer, or you are a blasphemer. By definition, a blasphemer is NOT qualified to have an opinion. To make things clear, I am a blasphemer, and I think that Al Gore goes down on little children and baby goats.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
That's a pretty broad statement to make without a shred evidence or reason. You say all environmental scientists are drinking the same kool-aid, I say it's probably just you choosing to dismiss an entire field of research because you disagree with what you know of their findings.
The NHS is a system developed by Margaret Thatcher. So this means that it tried to do privatization for privatizations sake (and to get rid of any trade union control) without thinking about the consequences. Subsequent repairs by John Major and Tony Blair didn't really helped it.
The complexity of the problem is hideous. Think of all the interlocking components, all the fluid dynamics and chemistry that must be modeled in three dimensions, the huge span of relevant spatial and temporal scales. We're not exactly talking about a simple harmonic oscillator here.
I don't find it conceivable that the models and the data would match much at all. This does not disprove the hypothesis that the planet is experiencing significant global warming due to human activity. So if we can't prove it or disprove it right now, should we do nothing?
I disagree. Informed debate is healthy. Is this guy expressing a carefully considered opinion or spewing political ideology? The distinction matters.
In what fantastic realm of economic theory does the Free Market provide the solution to existential threats? that is frickin' cuckoo.
They are supposed to be evaluating hard data. Wouldn't an economy degree also bring monetary costs into the question? Economy aside, I'm more interested in the hard data, not what it will cost to resolve it. That is a question for later once they agree on a root cause.
economy - the system of production and distribution and consumption
economy - the efficient use of resources; "economy of effort"
economy - an act of economizing; reduction in cost
-No federal or state contracts from now on will include health insurance. (I'm sure there's better legalese for that, but you get the idea.) -Employers won't be forced to provide health insurance. Tada! Insurance suddenly has to prove it's[sic] own worth
Such a system doesn't work very well unfortunately. One of the big problems with employer provided insurance is lack of direct reactions from customers. The problem with direct customers is the healthcare industry is consolidated and thus the buyer has no real power compared to a huge corporation. They can often wait you out in court if there is a dispute and wait for you to die or settle, at which point they risk losing money while you're bargaining from the position of pain and/or potential death. Then there are the people who can no longer get health insurance. Ever been seriously ill? Any preexisting conditions? Naturally tall and skinny? History of heart disease in your family? Suddenly you can no longer get any insurance. And then, finally, there is the economic impact. The poor can't afford insurance so their incomes are less stable, his means more erratic fluctuations they can't weather which means more poverty stricken and repossessed homes and absurd credit and we end up in large scale economic recession.
In countries with a little more sensible policies they make healthcare an economic asset by socializing it and combining that with progressive taxes. It helps compensate fro wealth condensation and at the same time stabilizes the low end of the populace economically while raising overall standards of living which trickles up. Heck, socialized healthcare, statistically, is a much more effective method of reducing violent crime than any gun control bill. The consolidated nature of the purchasing likewise lowers overall prices as drug companies are willing to provide large discounts when you're buying from them or a competitor for a whole country at once.
Parent is quite informative.
Just when Obama is about to spend tens of billions of the people's money on pseudoscientific environmental BS, this story shows up on Slashdot? And here I was complaining that Slashdot was a bastion of polical correctness and a mouthpiece for environmental wackos. Is the tide is reversing on the climate change alarmists/con artists or am I just dreaming?
Watch out, Obama. The public will tear you a new asshole if it so much as suspects that it's being ripped off by the enviro-mafia.
At the risk of sounding trollish, Al Gore does not have a PhD in ANYTHING, so he is no more qualified to deal with global warming than the man in question. A PhD is not the only route a person must take to be qualified to speak on a topic.....
Bad from to reply to one's own post and all that but I just had a look at the pdf link in TFS. IMHO the director was correct to dismiss this internal lobbying effort as politically inspired nonsense, he should have gone further and sacked the fucker, either for corruption or incompetence.
My comment about the tabacoo industry was kinda "spooky", as well as being shills for the FF industry (texaco) these people are also shills for the tabacco industry (phillip morris). Accepting the OPINION of the CEI on climate is like accepting Attila the Hun's opinion on human rights. I hope the press make a big deal out of this, perhaps it will get people digging up more dirt on the CEI's un-named sponsers and their influence on past decisions.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I tend to believe that it is impossible to burn THIS much fuel and have no effect on a balanced system. I pretty much believe Climate Change(tm) is possible.
My problem is that some of this has become the flat-earth dogma that science is supposed to rise above.
My wife is a wildlife biologist. Has a degree in Zoology and Conservation Ecology. Working on her masters. Her office consists of wildlife tech's working their way thru the "tree-hugger circuit" as I call it: taking several years worth of seasonal wildlife technician jobs before finding a permanent one. So I've hung out with, rock climbed with, had BBQ's with many more "hackysack-playing, bluegrass-listening, quickdry-and-plaid-wearing 20-something's" with ecological bachelors and masters degrees than you are ever likely to meet.
So take me as something of an educated witness that an ecological degree caries with it a certain indoctrinated mindset about things. A sort of "don't question global warming" mentality. I thought science questioned everything.
Broad brush? Unfairly stereo-typing? Mostly true? Yep. I put more faith behind the physics degree in explaining physical natural phenomena.
THL phish sticks
But he did give a speech last year to the media where he told them that it was past time to allow dissenting voices to be heard as they only confused people. He said the debate was over and those few voices from the other side were outliars (intentional misspelling) and must be ignored One wonders how many millions of dollars he has made as he flies about the world in his private jet, travels in his SUVs and lives in his massive mansions.
The guy had a physics degree, and an economics degree. Neither which fully qualifies him to report on Global Warming.
What does, in your opinion?
The problem with "climate science" is that it really does require a broad application of disciplines - suggesting that someone with a degree in physics in not a scientist, or not qualified to report on GW is absurd. As for economics, this is an even more important discipline when it comes to determining what action, if any, should be taken (eg, cost benefit analysis of various approaches, etc).
He is spruking the for CEI lobbyists, I dare say it's been a profitable 40yrs.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
If you look at what he published in the last forty years, you will see that almost every single work presents the "big cost" of preserving the environment. He has shown a very consistent, extremely biased point of view, that puts economics above everything else.
Alan Carlin has no place in any serious discussion about climate change.
He his just a servant. I would expect things to change with regards to the issue as years go by. Public servants have to adapt to direction changes in management.
Please let me had that I have always had concerns with regards to the way this whole thing is handled.
Of course I admit than man may cause global warming but I find that we sometimes seem to diverge from scientific reasoning when it comes to this matter. It should come back to a more scientific approach as years go by, the concept is pretty new relatively speaking ;-)
In short, people are generally classified in one of these 2 groups (good or evil):
1) The ones who believe that man is responsible from global warming. They are the "good" people.
2) The ones who believe that other factors might be involved. They are the "evil people", which must all have interests in oil companies.
At the local university, a teacher produced a paper after conducting scientific observations. He found that we may be jumping to conclusion to fast with this issue. The teacher lost his reputation, his neighbors quit talking to him. He is now viewed as an evil person who must secretly work for oil companies. This is scary when nobody is allowed to express a divergent opinion. It reminds me the middle ages.
On a funny note, after having had 3 extremely hot summers where I live, this summer is abnormally cold compared to the average temperatures of the last century, does this mean that global warming is over ? ;-)
Note: I am not affiliated with any oil companies, I do not drive a vehicle and I think pollution and waste of energy is stupid and ugly. I agree with the principle "Make the polluter pay". In short, I have leftish views with regards to the environmental issues but I am questioning the current way we handle this problem from a scientific perspective.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
About 12% of people in the UK have private medical insurance. So even if "many" see the need for it, many more do not.
It's not a perfect system by any means but clearly the vast majority of people in Britain do *not* see it the same way you do.
Oo oo, I do I do! Pick me! Do the following: -No federal or state contracts from now on will include health insurance. (I'm sure there's better legalese for that, but you get the idea.) -Employers won't be forced to provide health insurance. Tada! Insurance suddenly has to prove it's own worth _to it's actual customers_, not to an accounting troll who wants a 10,000 person package and a bonus. People will suddenly become choosy about what insurance they buy, and also their own personal health (since they are not longer automatically covered if they stuff themselves with trash).
This won't change anything. We will be in the same boat as we are now. 46 million Americans without health insurance, either unable to afford it or with a preexisting condition and deemed not insurable. The free market, by its very definition, will never take the risk of covering the poor or the predisposed.
Yes because you see, lack of formal training is only a problem if you don't agree with me. So if I knew a retarded afghan woman who half the time put her burqa on backwards and while shouting "kill all infidels" sounds a bit like "the earth is warming" ... that would convince you that "the science" is on your side ...
Al Gore's movie has been proven to be widely inaccurate, likely deliberately so (e.g. search "hokey stick graph"). You'd think that to anyone claiming science is on his side that would disqualify Al Gore.
Of course the real reason for calling it the "reality-based party" is to compensate for something. Given what democrats think today about global warming for example, is there really any doubt that drugs are already legalized, even in large doses ?
A physics degree does not give him an innate understanding of every system (eco or otherwise). He might understand the basic mechanics but it does not mean he will know all of the moving pieces that make up the final answer. He will probably not even know what questions to ask to ensure he has all aspects of it covered. If a physicist was so competent in all areas, we would have only physics degrees.
No, questioning global warming is considered a troll. Al Gore said so.
fitting a trend line to some random shit is retarded.
For fuck's sake, you can take ANY set of data, *including* completely random data AND run the calculation to get a "best fit."
But you wouldn't know that, because if you did you woulnd't believe such crude, ridiculous propaganda.
Also note that when you do this calculation you get a correlation coefficient which tells you how well the data fits. It's not displayed here. Convenient.
Perhaps it'd be fairer to assess the actions of the EPA on the merits of their argument. The paper by Carlin in pure junk - not even of the quality that an honours student is required. That's an important piece of information - but you should read and assess the claims yourself to be certain.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Well said, most people with science qualifications at least have some idea of how much they don't know and all of them have bruises on their foreheads caused by the painfully obvious.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Still, many of us choose to buy private health insurance as well, paying twice simply because the quality of NHS care is so poor.
The 'many' British who have any sort of private insurance at all is 15%, and almost all that is complimentary insurance that covers where NHS does not. (Like long-term hospice care, and medical disability insurance that covers lost wages.)
The amount of British who 'pay twice', who are actually paying for insurance to cover the cost of things that are covered under the NHS, is something like 5%.
I noticed you actually phrased it as 'many of us' instead of actually including yourself as one of those people. That is because not only do you not pay for private insurance, but you probably don't even know anyone who does.
The fact that the very rich fly around in helicopters is not a valid reason to argue we should not pave roads.
An American may lose his house to pay for an operation, but at least he gets the operation
And then dies because he can't afford antibiotics.
Oh, and of course, half the time he can't get the operation in the first place. Hospitals are only requires to stabilize people. If you have, for example, cancer, they are not required to do surgery if you can't afford it. (As the other responder said, the number of people with preventable blindness is absurd. Hospitals are not required to treat you to stop you from going blind, or losing a limb, just dying.)
Now, the first time you go to the hospital, they obviously don't know you're not going to pay your bill. So anyone can, shall we say, get medical treatment once from any random hospital. And the law requires them to keep you from bleeding to death in their waiting room, but that's it.
while the Brits die from MRSA, waiting months for urgent surgery in a dirty ward, paying more (on average) for the privilege.
If you have been informed that Brits pay more for surgery than Americans, you have been lied to.
In fact, the British pay no money, on average, for surgery, so I'm not even entirely sure what you're talking about.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Whilst it's not directly relevant to the decision in quashing the report it's interesting to look at who is pushing this. The file is hosted at by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an right-wing think tank who "seeks to overturn government regulations that the CEI regards as inappropriate, such as regulations pertaining to drug safety, rent control, and automobile fuel efficiency" See info at http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Institute
They get significant corporation funding, including from the likes of Texaco.
However, I suspect that the reality of this is that the EPA commissioned a report under the previous government and chose someone who would give them the line the White house wanted, then with the change of President they cancelled it. It's politics. Don't let that stop any conspiracy theories though.
Most of these reports are poor, whether they support your point of view or not. They are intended to take a large body of primary material understandable only by experts and make it easy for politicians to get ideas from. Usually this results in an unacceptable simplification of that primary material.
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
Anyone who has a scientifically rigours argument against AGW will win like a noble prize or something. Besides that, they'll give actual credible arguments to the legions of astro-turf corporate trolls who are engaged in a campaign of disinformation. It's not beyond a person of reasonable intelligence to understand the arguments for and against. I did it myself, it took about 4 intense days to go through everything, and I did it by playing devil's advocate with someone with a partisan position. We covered everything, and surveying the territory will make any moral person sick to their stomach.
Except a ecological degree guarantees that you are fully indoctrinated in the environmental dogma of the day...not necessarily that you understand the nature of natural phenomena.
Understanding, of course, is a lot more work than arm-chair philosophy.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
I agree that there could be global warming. However government restrictions on the economy are not the answer. The free market will always have a solution to the problem.
I guess it's good that you wrote this, and someone modded it up to 5 --- at least it gives a chance to address some of the fallacies in your post.
First, The free market will (sometimes) optimize to maximize profits (though not necessarily over the long term --- see "Global Financial Services Industry, 1990-2009"). It will only "find a solution" if carbon emissions/global warming decreases profits, or if there's a clear case that developing a solution will lead to new profits. And even then, it may not actually succeed in producing an optimal outcome (see "Global Financial Services Industry, 1990-2009" for a handy set of examples.)
Finding a solution either involves a massive change to our energy infrastructure, or some random-chance brilliant invention (try as it might, even the free market can't do more that set the right conditions for this --- it's largely blind luck and human intuition).
At present, there is minimal incentive for the market to restructure our energy (consumption/transmission/generation) infrastructure. So outside of a few edge cases, all the brilliance of the free market is doing nothing at all to solve the problem. It will probably continue to fail to solve the problem until global warming starts to become a serious threat to industry profits (i.e., customers vanishing beneath the waves). Unfortunately, the best science on this issue indicates that there'll be very little we can do about it then. Even cold fusion won't reduce the CO2 levels, and all but the most radical technological breakthroughs will be inadequate to the problem.
What the US government is trying to do with Cap & Trade is use the power of the free market to achieve a valuable goal now. Specifically, the purpose is to avoid radical solutions and central planning, and to simply place a price on carbon emissions. The free market, in all of its brilliance, should then adjust to those price changes and find technological alternatives that achieve the same purposes but without emitting as much carbon. In other words, the purpose of the law is simply to price the emissions and let the free market optimize them down.
We've done similar (and even heavier-handed things) before, and we've found that it's been enormously successful without destroying our economy (see "The Clean Air Act" and the existing emissions markets). Industry might have eventually found an incentive to make these changes --- or they might not have. But they certainly weren't doing it at the time, and the outcome was much better than what existed before.
Are you saying that by learning things people change their actions and opinions?
I sure hope that is what happens when people get educated. Thanks for making the phenomenon evident by your observation.
The Democrats have made up their mind. The laws will be passed.
No matter what the rest of the world does, they are going to follow this religion and pretty much wreck everyone's standard of living to make themselves feel good about their earth worship. Things will eventually change when the whole truth comes out. The public is made aware of how much of an economic disaster this is. Some day the whole truth will come out, that we won't know if this works for another 400 years.
The entire US economy is about to be ruined. Hopefully these green people won't mind plowing fields themselves, because that's where we are headed.
Teaching people that they richer when they have less energy. What a colossal lie. What a treason. What a waste.
This is my sig.
There are two standard academic journals where the specialized stuff in Environmental Economics is published: Land Economics and The Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. Carlin has published only a single article in Land Econ and none in JEEM during his entire career dating back to the mid-1960s. Furthermore, he only began publishing on the economics of global warming in 2007. Finally, anyone who is first rate coming out of a Ph.D. Econ program in MIT gets a Prof job at Berkeley, Harvard, Chicago, etc. The second raters get placements at Nebraska, Auburn, Oregon State, etc. It is only the dregs that end up as civil servants in places like the EPA. I would almost completely dismiss him except that I did notice that he had co-authored a couple of papers 15 years ago with Kip Viscusi who is certainly not a lightwieght in the field of risk assessment but who has also happily accepted money from Exxon for studying the economics of punitive damages resulting from the Exxon Valdez oil spill case.
Bottom line: Carlin is a 60 year-old fart who has done no significant research in his entire career and has a political viewpoint that is coloring what little work he has done.
FreeSpeech.org
Economists are the Rheumatologists of the the math world. If you want to diagnose some strange condition, that every other Dr tells you is all in your head, and no one is able to diagnose, you go to a Rheumatologist.
I thought you're supposed to go see a priest.
The economist's job is to spot and analyze trends. Since global warming has everything to do with trend analysis, I think an economist is the perfect person to evaluate the data.
Why do you think climate science is only finding patterns in numbers? And what makes you think that trend analysis will actually give you worthwhile answers? For example, the chicken might be happy to see the farmer appear in the morning, since the farmer has always previously brought food. This morning, however, the farmer is going to chop the chicken's head off. So you see, trend analysis is a poor substitute for understanding.
Read the article and understand for yourself, and then you'll have an informed opinion. It's not beyond you.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
B.S. The evidence that human activity amounts for huge production of CO2 that is beyond natural activity is clear.
The evidence of where that CO2 goes is clear.
The evidence of the physical properties of CO2, as a greenhouse gas, sitting low in the atmosphere and retaining heat, is clear.
---- that, to me, is sufficient to say we should start caring about what we do. If you need evidence that human activity has consequences worth your attention, close your garage door, start your car and sit there for about 20 minutes.
You don't need to know much to know what is coming, but if it isn't convenient to take the time to learn and understand what is going on, opt to be the silent ignoramus instead of the opining ignoramus.
The great thing about science is that you can also do it yourself. Get involved if you're skeptical, you might learn something.
(fyi, i'm a scientist)
True, but no other branch of science is working within governments to literally tax every person on the planet under the guise of helping mother earth. But climatologists are so yes they get more scrutiny.
It doesn't make people feel warm and fuzzy when the guy that is supposed to be detached has become a "believer".
If you wanted to become a NAZI, you could basically blow away everyone who isn't white. That would knock the earth's population down to around a billion, maybe less. Since white europeans aren't even breeding - (guess german women should shave after all), we would be down to around 800 million or even 500 million humans on earth.
When it all boils down to it, conservatives really screwed us up. If they would have let Hitler finish the job in Eurasia and Africa, there would be no global warming.
This is my sig.
Don't you think it ironic to mention this in Slashdot, of all places, where questioning something will quickly send you to -1 oblivion, while going along with the herd mentality will raise you to +5 nirvana?
Science questions everything, yes, as long as those are pertinent questions. Scientists will listen to anyone at all, but don't expect any sympathy if no results are verified.
40 years ago, the global warming theories were probably discarded...
but... as science goes... as empirical evidence is observed, reproduced, and understood ... theories change.
It is nice to see that we've made progress from not knowing or caring, to acknowledgment and at least an effort to begin action.
ANYONE with a physics degree can certainly comment on the physics of AGW theory.
Correction - ANYONE can comment on AGW theory.
[flame thrower on]An ecology degree or a degree in meteorology is what you you get when you can't do the math for your physics.[flame thrower off]
That's just funny.
I suspect he was speaking more from his economics degree.
I suspect he's talking from his pocket - part of some astro-turf organisation. Doesn't really matter, since if he has good arguments, they should stand on their own merits. The problem is, his arguments are *terrible*. Not even worth the paper they're written on. To understand that, you have to actually understand the paper and some AGW arguments for and against. Most people are fully capable of doing that.
For what it's worth, the realclimate crowd have written a short article on why the EPA did what they did: Bubkes
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
First, The free market will (sometimes) optimize to maximize profits (though not necessarily over the long term --- see "Global Financial Services Industry, 1990-2009"). It will only "find a solution" if carbon emissions/global warming decreases profits, or if there's a clear case that developing a solution will lead to new profits. And even then, it may not actually succeed in producing an optimal outcome (see "Global Financial Services Industry, 1990-2009" for a handy set of examples.)
There are some new markets to be reached by being "green" that will require new technology to be made which will create a better outcome. For example, lower powered CPUs, just look at the netbook, if Intel hadn't made the Atom CPU, it wouldn't have been able to dominate the netbook market which required a lower powered CPU to have decent enough battery life. So even by not making a conscious decision to be "green" Intel contributed to laptops using less electricity which leads to less coal being burnt, etc. The same thing will happen with other things with enough time for them to be made cheaply enough.
Finding a solution either involves a massive change to our energy infrastructure, or some random-chance brilliant invention (try as it might, even the free market can't do more that set the right conditions for this --- it's largely blind luck and human intuition).
Sure, but as humans have proved in the past, there are tons of people with blind luck and enough intuition to take principles and turn them into products. At one time a heavier than air flying machine was deemed impossible. At one time the earth was believed to be flat. At one time people thought certain things were the future, that airships would replace jets, that PowerPC CPUs would dominate the home computer market, etc.
The only constant is change.
At present, there is minimal incentive for the market to restructure our energy (consumption/transmission/generation) infrastructure. So outside of a few edge cases, all the brilliance of the free market is doing nothing at all to solve the problem. It will probably continue to fail to solve the problem until global warming starts to become a serious threat to industry profits (i.e., customers vanishing beneath the waves). Unfortunately, the best science on this issue indicates that there'll be very little we can do about it then. Even cold fusion won't reduce the CO2 levels, and all but the most radical technological breakthroughs will be inadequate to the problem.
Thats where your wrong. For one, all this hype by the media has made a lot of people go out of their way to buy things that are "green", this creates a market for things such as home solar panels, etc. Eventually with this niche market it will become cheaper to produce giving the rise of cheap high capacity solar panels. For another this could lead to cheaper energy costs which would allow for a thriving consumer market for these things. Computers used to be a niche item too, then they got smaller and cheaper to where everything now uses a computer. They went from being only in a few science labs to being in just about every home in a few short years.
What the US government is trying to do with Cap & Trade is use the power of the free market to achieve a valuable goal now. Specifically, the purpose is to avoid radical solutions and central planning, and to simply place a price on carbon emissions. The free market, in all of its brilliance, should then adjust to those price changes and find technological alternatives that achieve the same purposes but without emitting as much carbon. In other words, the purpose of the law is simply to price the emissions and let the free market optimize them down.
Cap and trade fails for the simple thing that why should I be penalized for being productive in 2009? There is no power source that has the safety, reliability, and price of fossil fuels. Why should I be penalized for providing jobs? Until there is a real solution, this leads us down the road to where the Soviet Union ended up, in a government created mess.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Your reasoning is only 50% correct. You see, there are these public image organisations who deliberately spread misinformation, and they are well funded. These astro-turf organisations have their finger-prints all over this report. The basic strategy is to simply make lots and lots of noise, and rely on the fact that 99% of people wont bother to check the facts for themselves. Not being able or bothered to check the facts, a reasonable person will conclude that there is some sort of doubt over the issue.
The tabacco industry did exactly this to delay public action on smoking policy - they were successful for decades. The very same people are being employed by exxon specifically to delay public action on AGW. The tactic is - delay, delay, delay. Pretty much just like SCOs legal case. It's just a bunch of C%@P.
Read the report yourself, and look beneath the surface. Read the references. Try to find out more information about the referenced arguments. I have done this myself, and it makes me sick to my stomach that some selfish corporate nutcases can stonewall important policy.
THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR READING *ALL* THE MATERIALS FOR YOURSELF
You will learn much more than stuff about AGW - you'll learn something about politics and how society is constructed.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
co2 is a life giving gas, al gore is a sham, co2 is a sham, it's just another TAX you fucks! FUCK YOU ALL YOU DOGS!
Well, at least not directly.
I wonder how many of these reports on other things (crime, drugs, copyright, etc) have been censored too in order to only give the government's point of view?
I know paranoia is popular on slashdot, and nobody RTFA, however, don't you think it's at least reasonable to judge the EPAs actions on the merits of their arguments?
For what it's worth, some climate scientists wrote a short article on Alan Carlin's paper.
There is, of course, no substitute for reading Carlin's paper yourself, but you need to also read the references, and try to find out more information about the arguments. Then you can judge whether the EPA is just being manipulative
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
I got a BS in Physics, and am considered to be more intelligent then most, and I assure you that I am not even *remotely* qualified to study global weather patterns.
ANYONE with a physics degree can certainly comment on the physics of AGW theory.
Sure, they may comment, but that doesn't mean they have any qualifications for making an informed judgment. A bachelors in Physics does not necessarily prepare you to understand chaotic biological and thermodynamic systems at a global scale any more than a bachelors in Nuclear Science or Computer Science. You may have proven that you can stomach the math and a logical thought process, but surprisingly there is actual, applicable knowledge being offered in an ecology major (depending on the school offering it).
For what it's worth, a 40-year position at the EPA doesn't necessarily prove he's qualified either, because he could have just as easily earned that experience by calculating budgets for dam construction or making policies for airport rainwater runoff allowances.
Finally, a PhD in Economics CERTAINLY doesn't prove he's qualified to judge the scientific findings. His input may be invaluable in determining the most practical way to budget for (or ignore entirely) the scientifically-analyzed situation, but not to evaluate the scientific findings themselves. If you are experiencing symptoms of a possible stroke, you don't take advice from your accountant until you've had a doctor examine you.
That being said... I still find it appalling that his report was squashed and hidden from sight. Scientific debate is about considering the all the evidence and a winning theory should be able to explain any major questions or inconsistencies. Rather than silence the report, qualified scientists that have arrived at the contrary scientific conclusion (i.e., Global Warming) should simultaneously distribute a paper that convincingly refutes the "rogue" economist's arguments. Government should be about transparency, and Science even more so. If the officials think he's just interfering with the new policy for political (and not scientific) reasons, then their counterpoint should seek to reveal his dishonest intentions. At least, that's the proper response in an ideal world...
I call paskahousut.
That made me feel like home! For the English speaking the translation is "I call shitpants". As to the topic at hand, EPA is apparently pushing the climate change critique forward by utilizing the Streisand Effect. They really should start realizing the difference between the official recommendation followed by legistation and the independent opinions and views of individuals which all form the body of analysis to support the end result, one way or the other. They should know better since they are responsible for originating the process of environmental impact analysis.
No, but he is influencing the pliable masses, which in turn influences policy.
As it is, the governments seem very weak compared to corporate power.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
I didn't suggest he is not a scientist. Please see my original post. I suggested that simply having a physics and an economics degree didn't qualify him as a climatologist.
Bullshit! You're trolling! You're just mad because you had to wait for them to lance that boil on your butt while each heart doctor that performs bypasses were doing two a day at about five hours each. And very good doctors also. One of those bypasses was on a friend who was diagnosed only a month before his operation. And that was only due to some extra tests on his liver. AND he got the full red carpet, with all the fancy equipment. Everything but a private room after getting out of intensive care. You have not a clue how much an American HMO would be fighting to pay for any of it. Plenty of Americans are dying from that MRSA that you're babbling about too. Probably a lot higher percentage than Brits. Nice try, pal. But hey, the mods are with ya.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
It seems Obama isn't the only one quashing dissenting opinions.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html
Summary. Leading export on Polar Bears excluded from Polar Bear conference because he is a "skeptic" (shudder)
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Yes and no. There is this idear of "competing theories" and the evidence used to be the arbiter. Science is supposed to be about more than belonging to the right clique. Skepticism is a prerequisite to good science - I don't give a flying hyena what you think, I care about what you can prove. Research "Null Hypothesis".
You've never heard of anyone having trouble publishing something that goes against current thinking?
Why yes I have but in general when a competing theory explains the observables as well or better than the current theory it's published. That's the way it's supposed to work, I'm sorry you missed the point.
-cluge
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
I'm fairly neutral on global climate *. I think both sides are entirely too biased, and reason is not prevailing.
Then I recommend actually educating yourself on the arguments. Read some papers from both sides, and then read the references. It takes time, and 99% of people wont do it, and that's exactly why exxon's astroturf campaign has been so successful in making people believe that there's some sort of religious debate. You see, one side of the debate is completely dishonest.
The tabacco industry did the same thing 50 years ago, to stall public policy on tobacco. Disappointingly, the guys who ran that public-relations campaign are exactly the same people spreading disinformation on AGW.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
A creationist could use exactly the same argument to discredit evolution. And like evolution, I think the fact is that if you sit down and study it, the evidence leans in favor of the experts, which you are not.
There's a lot of people decrying the 'religious fanaticism' surrounding climate change science. However, the fact is that the people trying to discredit climate change are in fact those who ascribe to the church of the almighty invisible hand of the economy which will right all ills if we just leave it alone and let it do its business.
So basically the EPA filters disenting views just like /.
I cannot tell you how many times I am moded -1 troll when I question GW or Obama on /.
There are lots of environmental problems, just as mercury in the oceans. They should all be addressed, really. However, the forces of greed and ignorance make any sort of progress extremely difficult. And then there's a bunch of hostile crazy environmentalists who sabotage their own case.
You talk about AGW "fear-mongers", which makes me think you really haven't understood what's really going on. What's really going on is a bunch of corporate public relations firms are spread disinformation on global warming, in a completely dishonest way. They know that people wont bother to look beneath the surface of their claims, and so the FUD stands. If you don't believe me, then you should read the original papers yourself, and then check the references
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
James Hansen is trained in Physics and Astronomy. So I guess anything he has to say about global warming is crap because he is not a climatologists.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
No matter what the EPA is able to achieve, China, India and others will continue to pump out greenhouse gasses like there's no tomorrow. Meanwhile back here in the US I won't be able to afford air conditioning because we will have eliminated all the cheap sources of electricity.
I find it amusing that everyone is so fired up about Cap and Trade when they ignore the fact that it will only work if EVERY emitter buys into it.
That's simply not going to be the case.
What's going to happen is that more heavy, energy-intensive industry will move to India, China, and other less industrialized countries and C02 emission will stay the same (if not actually increasing due to lower levels of efficiency).
The only true solution is mitigation or sequestration.
To summarize your post:
1. I'm a reasonable person. I think massive increases in the earth's Methane/CO2 levels are probably-to-possibly going to induce massive changes in the biosphere, thus placing large numbers of human beings (including myself and my offspring) in harm's way.
2. But here's a personal anecdote about some crunchy tree-huggers I hung out with.
Ergo,
3. On balance, I think it would be valuable to take an unsubstantiated swipe at the scientists who are qualified to researching this incredibly complicated subject. And even though I haven't read his report, I place more faith in this guy's undergrad BS degree than in real scientists in the area.
If you really want to stand by this guy's BS in physics, I urge you to read this comment --- from someone who actually read his report (or better, read the report). Post back to me if you still think the guy is making a strong, scientific argument.
Still, many of us choose to buy private health insurance as well, paying twice simply because the quality of NHS care is so poor.
Boo-frickin-hoo. The U.S. spent 17% of its GDP on health care in 2008; the UK spent 7.5% of its GDP in the same year. You can complain all you want about having to pay twice because the quality of the NHS is so poor, but the fact remains that when you pay twice, you're still paying less than us.
By the way, 30% of American health care costs go to feed the insurance bureaucracy. About 1% of NHS costs are bureaucratic. You only envy the American system because you're poorly informed.
I didn't suggest he is not a scientist. Please see my original post. I suggested that simply having a physics and an economics degree didn't qualify him as a climatologist.
I know - I wasn't referring exclusively to your post... sorry for the confusion.
I suggested that simply having a physics and an economics degree didn't qualify him as a climatologist.
And on that note, my point stands... to get a handle on the whole climate change issue requires a range of discipline which includes physics and economics (in fact, the latter is very important in determining costs of action vs inaction, etc).
Exactly!
It's one thing to have a point of view and lead by example. It's quite another to not practice (conservation) what you preach. It's charlatans such as this that piss me off to no end. To make matters worse, we have politicians who are willing to suck his dick and swallow this holy gospel of his.
You want GW big AL? How about we kill your cheap coal-fired electricity so you can sweat your sorry ass off. FUCKER!
Life is not for the lazy.
Couldn't disagree more. The reason economists are useful in analyzing global warming is that they understand economics. They actually have half a clue what will happen to the economy if we impose massive regulations on it.
PJ O'Rourke was writing about his experiences in a number of countries with major famines. He observed that there was always plenty of food around but that the thugs in charge didn't allow it to get to starving people. Nature, in a nutshell, doesn't cause famines, people do.
So if the science is settled, fine, but also realize that it's a historical fact that we could easily kill more of ourselves than global warming if we screw up the solution. So we need a debate about the economics and we need proper economists to weigh in.
You do realize that Mr. Carlin isn't an academic? I know plenty of engineers, doctors, lawyers who don't publish in academic journals. Do you know why that is? Because they are active practitioners doing the jobs they have trained to do. Mr. Carlin's report was not new science. New research isn't even the EPA's role. His report was a summary of papers counter to the holy scripture put forth by the political hacks running the show, political hacks in an agency that isn't supposed to be political. In fact he cites court cases that specifically state the EPA is supposed to be providing information on all of the positions around an issue. Not just the positions that support the executive branch's agenda.
So, how about, instead of the piss poor ad hominem hatchet job on this guy -- who is doing the job he is supposed to be doing -- why don't you explain why the EPA is failing to do its duty?
Humans would most likely survive if 100% of the trees in all the worlds forests were cut down. It might be moderatly or severly "inconvienent" but most of us can also live with significant temperature change if it were to occur.
Now on the other hand if our oceans are sufficently fucked up you can forget about breathing. The alarming rate of and observed consequences WRT acidification of our oceans alone is more than enough to justify the token efforts made to remedy the situation.
"Global warming" is just icing on the cake.
Excuse me for quoting myself:
" There are much more pressing environmental issues than global warming. People are starving. The ocean is a garbage can. In some cities, the air is toxic. In some countries, the ground is toxic. These are all provable and preventable. But, like all civilized endeavors, managing the environment is purely a problem of sustainable economics. In other words, the environment must be managed as a long term economic advantage. Any other method of management will lead to economic failure. Once the economy of a society fails, all other interests, beyond core survival, cease to be. "
My position is ( and it really has nothing to do with this topic or my original statement ) that the topics of global warming and economics and inextricably linked.
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels.
-- THE GREAT AMERICAN BUBBLE MACHINE, Matt Taibbi
He's even more corrupt than the previous guy folks (no mean feat) and he's inherited the worst parts (wars, torture, gulags) and has made few changes. I wish the presidency were more than a job interview for a no-work/no-show job at some hedge fund...
Disclaimer: I am software person who happens to work with a group of people who deal with, among other issues, climate change.
This of course renders your remarks as useless as words spoken from any so called climate expert. You as well as others have
a vested interest in pushing the global warming theory. It keeps the grant money from the govt flowing.
Got Code?
"Economics" is the study of how to use limited resources most effectively. This is a broader and more interesting field of study than most people tend to think. "Money" doesn't necessarily play a part.
Not a typewriter
On target, gandhi. Global warming is nothing more than the religion of the 21st century
So you're saying, what, that gods actually DID walk around in ancient Rome?
The world is getting hotter, and has been for, literally, as long as we've been recording the world's temperature. So we're stuck with three possible answers, to explain the FACT that global temperature measuresments are going up.
1: We messed up the temperature measurements, and glaciers really aren't melting.
2: The warming is completely normal, and not a cause for alarm.
3: This IS is a cause for alarm, and we should do at least SOMETHING to change this trend.
#3 is the consensus, or "ordinary", opinion. You can believe either #1 or #2, but, as the saying goes, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Prove either that our historical records and personal views are incorrect, or that temperature swings like this are just fine. Or accept the consensus.
This isn't religion, this is science. In religion you can have as extraorindary a claim as you like. Science is ALL ABOUT the ordinary view, though -- challenging it, testing it, and above all accepting it when it passes whatever test you can throw at it.
And he has a point. Most people are not well enough educated to understand that there will always be dissent. Most of the time the climate change deniers use that as evidence that there is no problem coming.
It's been the fact that the Republicans can find a half dozen hardcore scientists to question the findings of studies which has caused the kind of damage that we're already seeing. It's roughly analogous to pay a lot now or pay a lot later and put up with the inconvenience of having a mobster busting your kneecaps. One way or another we will pay, but if we allow for the dissenters to derail the progress, then we may reach the point where the only option is to cut down to 19th century levels.
Also, that's a nasty ad hominem argument to make, yes he really shouldn't live in a house like that and lecture us on cutting back, but it's really not germane to the argument.
Agreed, as long as they do agree that determining costs should not fuzzy the actual root cause. Find root cause first and then determine possible actions taking costs into account.
The man states they aren't taking into account the global temperatures for the last 10 (11?) years. Any sensible person would tell you that 10 years doesn't even register on an earthly historical scale.
Of course even this scale is infinitesimal in the larger scale but we don't have solid data. That doesn't mean we can discount what we do have.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
The trends are pretty clear. There are all sorts of small 'drops' in global temperature over 5-10 years, yet the actual trend is to spike sharply upwards, especially in the last 20-30 years. I'm not a scientist, but even I can see a trend here. You'd have to be blind to miss it.
How can you judge whether there is a consensus, if the community has had things withheld from its judgment ?
Except they aren't with-holding something from the *scientific* community. The paper withheld is junk. Science has to meet certain standards, and rambling irrational non-sense is below the standard. If you don't believe me, then read that paper yourself, and read the references. That's how you know.
Yep, we have 100% agreement from those who don't know ALL the facts.
One fact that you should be aware of is this: there is a corporate astro-turf campaign to spread pseudo-science that is meant to confuse people into thinking that there is some doubt about AGW. If you don't believe me, then I can only recommend actually reading all the arguments and check all the references. I warn you though, it will make you sick to your stomach.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Imagine the company I work for spends 15 years debating a particular new growth strategy, where I had plenty of input and so did many other people and the eventual outcome was that majority/executive opinion decided on the course of action that I was debating against.
What would be the result if after this decision is made I continued spending my time formulating arguments against the decided strategy and disseminating them through the company as a whole? Swift kick up the arse would be the correct answer.
Remind me again, aren't economists the ones that thought that supply side economist, was really the thing for growing an economy?
Economists are definitely not good at spotting or studying trends, it's taken an awfully long time for them to fess up and acknowledge that people don't make decisions in a cool logical fashion. It's a view which many have based upon a sort of survivorship bias, people generally forget that most economists get it wrong and just remember the couple that got it right. It was an embarassingly small number of economists that saw the current crisis coming, and it wasn't exactly a subtle one either.
Economists are the ones you consult with when you want to know about choices people make and why. I suppose game theorists might also be a good choice.
I'm sorry but if you are implying that in this specific case, that money doesn't play a part then you are deluding yourself (sorry, I couldn't think of a nicer way to phrase this. I don't mean to sound like an ass). This is entirely about the costs to industry to go 'green'.
It is only the dregs that end up as civil servants
James Hanson is a Civil Servant.
IF you're a scientist then you are a piss poor one by cherrypicking things. Look at ALLthe numbers, the ice cores, etc. CO2 is a TRAILING indicator of warming. More importantly, the major "greeenhouse" gas is water vapor. And jsut as importantly, we have been far warmer before this. Finally, human contribution to CO2 is so small as to be laughable when compares to the total in the atmosphere.
He is spruking the for CEI lobbyists Someone set up us the bomb. All zigs take off!
http://www.texaco.com/sitelets/ecuador/en/default.aspx
Shoot the messenger instead of taking on the message. What a tool you are - people like you are exactly the problem.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
I am not sure which part you are disagreeing with. It sounds like we are on the same page.
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels.
James Hansen has a PhD in Physics, and his astronomy work was on planetary climate models (his first post-dissertation publications were on Venus's atmosphere -- the pioneering work on it, which lead to a much greater understanding of the greenhouse effect -- which then led to his work with GISS since the 1980s). Alan Carlin is an economist who merely has a BS in Physics and hasn't worked in any physics-related field since he graduated college. You don't see the difference?
Now, don't get me wrong -- economists' voices are *very* critical in this debate. However, their voice is not warranted on the science aspect of the field. An economist discussing the field should operate via a Monte Carlo simulation of the scientific consensus positions and their stated confidence intervals, rather than adopting minority positions and/or confidence intervals. Carlin should not be discussing the science. And for that matter, Hansen should not be discussing the economics, either. Neither are in each others' respective fields.
I tore these out of your symbol, and they turned into paper.
Yeah thanks for that. Just because I didn't decide to follow an academic path after getting my PhD in Economics at MIT you have decided that I am the dregs of the program at MIT. I'm sure that my classmates and professors there will be happy to disagree. Do you place working for the Federal Reserve in the same category? Just fit for the dregs of the MIT economics program?
What I did was return to my home country to pursue public service. Strangely enough, some people don't want to spend their time in academia but want to make a more direct contribution. This has no correlation with their ability to do economics.
Bottom line: You are speaking out of your arse making sweeping generalisations about something you know nothing about.
I think that was some actor that said that.
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels.
When we don't measure warming that creates a problem, no? When we do measure warming, it is from sources that look more like urban heat islands than global warming. We are committing to spending TRILLIONS of dollars to fighting global warming and we don't know if it's real yet. That means a lot of people are going to starve because of this diversion of resources, plain and simple. Those who talk with certainty about the future of the climate are lying. We DO know that the cost of dealing with global warming is much less that the cost of fighting global warming if it is real.
There is a myth that you will get care in the US no matter what and worry about paying for it later. That there are no bureaucrats involved.
The real rule is that they can not deign health care in a life threatening emergency. If you show up in the emergency room with chest pains, you will be treated (generally) at once. Also, you are likely to get care if you have a broken leg as this can cause severe pain.
However, show up with skin cancer or something that is not going to kill you right now and you will not be treated. You have to wait till you are near death or in great pain to be treated. If you have insurance and they say no, you will also likely be deigned!
Also you have the games insurance play to prevent you from getting treatment. My wife needed surgery two years ago. They made her get approval of several doctors, schedule the surgery in three different hospitals, including once where we were there the night before to get blood work and paperwork done only to have the hospital disapproved in the morning.
When they finally approved the surgery, they later refused to pay for the anesthesiologist because he was not a member of the plan. (We went to the hospital and doctor they chose). Do we need to ask each person she saw if they were on the plan?
They also refused to pay for a bee sting kit even though the lack of one could kill her if an idiot restaurant lied about the contents of a meal. ($75)
We were self insured at the time and paying about the same for medical care as for rent.
I bet a dollar you don't even know how much CO2 is in the atmosphere without searching the Internet.
Ha!
Those who can do, those who can't publish.
"Money" is an abstract value for the actual costs are in terms of labor, materials, etc. Economics often involves money, but it doesn't have to. Similarly, astronomy isn't necessarily about optical telescopes.
In terms of the environment, we have a limited amount of CO2 and other forms of pollution that we can put into the atmosphere without causing large amounts of harm. Figuring out the optimal point for CO2 output versus the level of harm is valid area of economic study. Money could play a part here, but it doesn't have to.
Not a typewriter
As it is, the governments seem very weak compared to corporate power.
The biggest corporation in the world at worst can offer you take it or leave it. The lowest hourly bureaucrat can ruin your life.
Nice cut and paste skills for an AC. Of course the text is from Senator Inhofe's discredited Minority report. This is the same senator who introduced an anti-science fiction writer to the US senate as a climate expert. It comes as no surpise to me that Inhofe's pet lobbyists at the CEI are the same people in TFA who are trying to corrupt the process at the EPA.
Here is my own attempt at cut and paste from WP describing the area Inhofe alledegly represents:
"Oklahoma is the nation's second-largest producer of natural gas, fifth-largest producer of crude oil, has the second-greatest number of active drilling rigs,[72] and ranks fifth in crude oil reserves.[73] While the state ranked fifth for installed wind energy capacity in 2005,[74] it is at the bottom of states in usage of renewable energy, with 96 percent of its electricity being generated by non-renewable sources in 2002, including 64 percent from coal and 32 percent from natural gas."
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
A half-dozen hardcore scientists? How about 31,000 (http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php)? I'm more concerned with the continuos indoctrination of our students at all levels via the public school system and the general population via pretty much any media channel. The constant drum beat of this will likely lead to people doing more to damage the environment in misdirected efforts to 'fix it' than what CO2 will/can do on its own.
From +5 informative to -1 troll in 30 minutes, plus a cut and paste reply from an Astroturfing Coward.
I'm proud to be targeted by this particular species of slime, it implies they see my information as harmfull to their anti-science crusade.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
2nd Vote: MOD PARENT UP.
Bottom line: Carlin is a 60 year-old fart who has done no significant research in his entire career and has a political viewpoint that is coloring what little work he has done.
Bottom line: You're making an ad hominem attack without addressing the validity of what Carlin is saying. Such an attack discredits you more than it does Carlin.
Sweet. I, too, have an undergrad physics degree (actually, I have a graduate physics degree, too) -- I'm going to start reporting on various things!
MOD PARENT UP. Interesting reading.
Out of curiosity, do you have a physics degree?
Sorry, my initial comment generally applies to U.S. grads of the top programs. The foreign grads usually have a different career path that not infrequently leads to high government office (Treasury Secretary or even President of whatever African, Latin American, or East European country you came from). Until recently, Wall Street was grabbing many of the best and brightest as well (both U.S. and foreign). I have several friends who went on to solid research careers at the Fed. But EPA? No way.
FreeSpeech.org
he was a patent clerk. relativity must be wrong.
Used car salesmen can probably provide a lot of insight, too.
Emotional Purchases ~ Impulse Buying ~ FUD have strong similarities.
Impulse purchase
They call us sheeple, I wonder why?
"Someone set up us the bomb. All zigs take off!"
Did you accidently encypted your post?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Wow, where do you live? You can walk into any hospital in the U.S. and get medical treatment. If you have an emergency they HAVE to treat you by law. If you really are low income you don't pay shit. I just had a baby at one of the best hospitals in San Francisco - and it didn't cost me a dime. All I needed to do was send a few paycheck stubs to medi-cal and my wife had all the prenatal care she needed and my daughter has full health insurance for free. A couple of years ago I had a motorcycle accident and ended up needing 2 operations. Due to my fucked arm I couldn't work ( Bartending while in school ) Guess how much I paid in medical costs- $0. This whole line about not being able to afford medical care is bullshit. Anyone can get it, you pay on a sliding scale and all you have to do is fill out some paperwork. I'm sorry but just because you and a bunch of other people are too damn lazy to look some shit up on the internet doesn't mean that information isn't out there and those services don't exist
I think an economist is the perfect person to evaluate the data.
And there are 31,000 other scientists that agree with him on just ONE petition (of many)
They say: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
Of course only 9,000 of them are PHDs, 7,153 MS, with a minimal qualification of a BS...
Just counting PHDs there are 15 times as many scientists as there were working on the IPCC report...http://www.petitionproject.org/
So what happened from 1940 to 1980?
Learn about Photography Basics.
Fact we can't model all of the factors that go into climate
Fact many theories exist to explain climate change
Fact the climate will change
Fact the earth will.continue to exist regardless
Fact the climate has been in continual change and will continue to change
Opinion forcing the climate into stasis is at least as harmful as change
Opinion change happens get over your fear
Opinion people are powerful to the point that they can change or alter the earth without understanding what they are doing
Fact welcome to earth 0.1 prepare for revision/upgrade
Opinion if I can't stand it when my email client changes why would I let people change my planet
Technology will default in society to its most rudimentary level:::stupid computers for stupid users:::
for all those people who have degrees in physics and economics because we now have definitive proof from the EPA that those people holding those degrees aren't really scientists after all. Can the EPA give us the official criteria for determining who can be a scientist? Only people who submit reports that further the democratic agenda must be the scientists and everyone else must be a quack, no matter their credentials. It's always good to know the government doesn't allow censorship.
In a statement, the EPA took aim at the credentials of the report's author, Alan Carlin (BS Physics-Caltech, PhD Econ-MIT), describing him as 'not a scientist.'
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
Interesting that the research he quotes to make his point is funded by those groups who stand to lose the most if global warming legislation is passed.
Let's look at who some of the people who fund icecap.us are:
Robert C. Balling Jr - Balling has acknowledged receiving $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade (of which his University takes 50% for overhead). Contributors include ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and OPEC.
Sallie Baliunas - Between December 1998 and September 2001 she was listed as a "Scientific Adviser" to the Greening Earth Society, a group that was funded and controlled by the Western Fuels Association (WFA), an association of coal-burning utility companies. WFA founded the group in 1997, according to an archived version of it website, "as a vehicle for advocacy on climate change, the environmental impact of CO2, and fossil fuel use."
Robert M. Carter - Sits on the advisory board of the Institute of Public Affairs which is funded by the mining and tobacco industry along with Monsanto. 'I don't think it is the point whether or not you are paid by the coal or petroleum industry,' said Professor Carter.
The EPA is doing its duty by choosing to ignore junk science funded by the coal and oil lobbies.
FreeSpeech.org
If you want to count Doctors of Medicine and Dentists as experts in climate science, sure, there are 31000 scientists.
No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
Politics aside, there is also another valid reason for junking the paper and that is if it is Junk then it SHOULD be junked.
Science is not a simple set of professions or easy to follow set of instructions. It is difficult and requires deep and long thinking about many variables. It also requires a very rigorous set of testing at nearly every stage, not just in the laboratory but in the offices and armchairs, namely "Peer Review" where other scientists have to read what comes out of a scientific study for conclusions as well as the data gathered, and all the procedures used to gain that data and decide if there are any flaws with any of those points.
Things are not supposed to be decided with one study. It take many years of research and multiple similar studies to come to solid findings and even THEN things can be overturned. A single study being pushed up or down is little evidence of political pollution of the scientific process (though there is no honest denying that it exists). In order to show political prejudice in a scientific concept you have to show a systemic trend for or against a theory because of politics. Furthermore showing such prejudice does NOT invalidate the biased results; to do that you MUST show that those biased results are flawed scientifically.
For your funny note I've heard that argument made several times over the colder winter just this last year in earnest by many presumably educated people.
That all said I dunno if current "Cap and Trade" legislation will actually amount to anything and do much serious good, but I hope it does and truly believe based on the evidence I've seen and trusted opinions I've heard(We can't ALL have PHDs in Climatology) I think some kind of legislation is needed to limit pollution and carbon emissions in the US, even if that means economic hardship in the short term.
I'm convinced of global warming, what I'm not convinced of is that it's a problem. People say that billions will starve, people will get flooded out of their house and home-- does all of that follow from a 2 degree increase over 100 years? (Or whatever the latest prediction is.) Wouldn't the increased warmth also increase crop production? Or possibly move moisture into areas that are dry now, making agriculture possible? Say some towns do get flooded-- isn't it worth the trade-off if increased crop yields allow us to feed more people?
What if we spend our entire GDP fighting it, and it turns out it would have been a better world with it?
There's a HELL of a lot more to the problem than "is it happening or not." The real sorrow is that people are obsessed with "is it happening or not" so much that nobody moves on to the next step: "ok it's happening. Now what?"
Comment of the year
I just love this tactic. Take down someone and then trash his reputation in order to make it look right.
It seems to be a standard with the administration and its followers.
Don't like a report you got from your own scientists? Bury it then attack the very credentials that are the reason you asked him for the report in the first place.
Don't like the IG investigating your friend? Fire him then brand him as an incoherent, senile right-wing operative.
Hey Mister Scientist!
Johhny B. Public, here.
You say that you are a credible expert, so let me ask you a couple of questions that have bothering me since all the arm-waving, and chicken little behavior started, so I get the authoritative answer on what my priorities should be.
Now, you say with NO doubt in your mind that we are causing this here Global Warming thing here.
Compared to all the other things I need to worry about, like, working both of my jobs (I work at McDonalds, and Wal-mart), paying my wifes medical bills (she's sick you know), feeding my children (all 8 of them), trying to keep my 1972 Nova running, and trying to hang onto the few hundred bucks in my sock drawer.
How much priority should I give this problem?
Are you absolutely sure I need to be up in arms about it?
Is it something that we have the ability to reverse? Are you sure?
Is it so important that we should threaten other countries to clean up, or else?
Should we invade China, and India, and shut 'em down?
Or, can you guys, and the politicians take care of it without scaring the crap out of me? (As in, confirm the issue, make sure it really is a problem, then find a workable solution, and execute it, with our collective best interests in mind.)
If this is something that I really should be horrifically upset about, then you bet, I'll give you a couple of the 4 hours of sleep a night I get.
If it isn't something that is an immediate threat, then would you guys please stop acting like the world is going to end?
This post is way offbase, but that is what it feels like here on the ground, where we don't know who the hell knows what, or if they are credible.
Too much politics, not enough fact, in the message being delivered to the public.
More ad homs. Only someone incapable of refuting the evidence relies on an ad hom attack.
Does anyone remember the EPA's study on second hand smoke? Participates complained that the study was changed to meet the hyppothesis and further no one was able to confirm the EPA's results, even the the WHO (another politically charged org.) The EPA has no credibility as it is a political entity with a track record of political agendas.
just how much respect Peter Schiff http://www.wntube.net/play.php?vid=3038 has gotten for that, everyone is still ignoring him. Most people don't even know his name. While the architects of the crash are working on keeping it going. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124605562634763287.html
Wow, where do you live? You can walk into any hospital in the U.S. and get medical treatment. If you have an emergency they HAVE to treat you by law.
I live in Michigan. Yes, you can go in and get emergency treatment at any hospital, but it sure as hell isn't free. If you can't pay you are sent to collections and any wages you earn will be garnished after you lose in court.
If you really are low income you don't pay shit.
There are some programs, both federal and state to provide some aid to some low income people, but very little for people in the middle income who cannot get insurance for one reason or another.
I just had a baby at one of the best hospitals in San Francisco
So you live in basically the only state with a significant amount of state funded healthcare for the poor and you seem to think that reflects the norm?
... and my daughter has full health insurance for free.
It's sad, while better than adults, not even all children in the US without means have healthcare.
This whole line about not being able to afford medical care is bullshit.
Which is why it results in over half of all personal bankruptcies in the US?
Anyone can get it, you pay on a sliding scale and all you have to do is fill out some paperwork.
The only way I can get insurance is to stop working for myself and get a job that provides it. No insurance company will insure me otherwise for less than half my income.
...doesn't mean that information isn't out there and those services don't exist
Except that for most people in most states, they don't.
You don't have to read very far into icecap.us to realize these guys are a fraud. The http://icecap.us/index.php/go/faqs-and-myths is filled with strawman arguments like these:
# CO2 is a pollutant.
(Who claimed it was a pollutant?)
# CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas.
(Who claimed it was?)
# The greenhouse effect is a bad thing.
The greenhouse effect is necessary for life on earth as we know it, were it not for the greenhouse effect, temperatures on Earth would be about 60 degrees F (33C) colder than they are at present. The global warming discussions center on the claims that human enhancement of the greenhouse will raise temperatures, and that these will be large compared with natural variations. (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ and Sherwood B. Idso, Craig D. Idso and Keith E. Idso, "The Specter of Species Extinction: Will Global Warming Decimate Earth's Biosphere?,
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/150.pdf)
# Modeling the earth's climate is nearly an exact science.
(Who claimed it was?)
# Summers will be extremely hot and dry.
(Who claimed it was? Some people prefer to call this effect 'climate change', because the effect on the climate is unknown).
Read the references. You'll sort out the junk pretty quickly then. You don't need to be an expert. There's a reason for all the junk out there - follow the crumbs.
Al Gore said that the debate is over. He meant it. Now pay up. The economy is down and the government is a hurtin'
The current economic situation could also have been created by the Democrats talking down the economy and forecasting doom and gloom. The last four years saw a torrent of negativism all with the explicit goal of taking power. The economy was due to come down, but the landing could have been much smoother had people had more confidence.
The general idea is that the ranking of ones expertise is based ones previous works. The fact that in his many decade long career he has apparently done little of significance indicates that his most recent work should receive about the same or less trust then the work of a new college grad. As an engineer if you are doing something of major worth you should have some kind of paper trail to prove it. It could be a few papers every so often or some patents in your name. There should be some kind of paper trail showing that youve been working the last few years not content to re-invent the wheel a 1000 times. Just like any skill. If you don't practice the art of making real progress the skill will fade if not die. There are few individuals with a single notch on their belt in any field. Its usually either none or several. But than again. His work may be of worth and thus the situation is sad. The scientific community has in general been pushed around the last few years to the point where it has become very defensive. Ideally if 1 out of 1000 papers came to a different conclusion the scientific community would see it as an interesting anomaly to be further studied. However in today's media media that 1/1000 turns into 1/2 and pushes work of the majority to the fringe. This is where the reactive nature of the scientific community has stemmed from.
Also
James Hansen: paid consultant to the extremely corrupt fossil fuel transportation company Enron.
Al Gore: Family fortune based on mining and stocks in Armand Hammer's fossil fuel company Occidental Oil.
You like to spout crap, don't you?
By the way, Sallie Baliunas was not paid by the Greening Earth Society - but then what does it matter? A smear is just a smear, and sourcewatch.org is bought and paid for by organizations who rake in billions from environmental panic.
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
determining costs of action vs inaction.
and the benefits of action ? like being less dependent on stuff that's under control of a very small group of people ?
I can see how your experience would sour you to their ideals, but keep in mind that even sciences like physics has laws considered to be carved in stone. If you don't believe me, try explaining an idea to a physicist that relies on breaking the laws of conservation of energy (or matter for that matter), and regardless of how solid your idea seems or how well you articulate your idea, you've lost them as soon as they catch wind of your blasphemy. Not that I'm one of those blasphemers (or as they're more rightly known, nutjobs), but there definitely are ideas in all fields of science which are verboten. In other words - don't shoot the messenger, especially if your shot would hit the rest of science.
So, to sum up your first three paragraphs, there are very few people who you would consider qualified to make informed judgments on the matter.
That comes off a bit on the academically snobbish side to me. I hope you didn't mean it that way.
If Global Warming is likely to be a human race ender (or some other really nasty outcome), then I would think that you would want all the smart people you could find working on it, without regard to their chosen specialty.
I also wonder how many absolutely brilliant people are out there, that don't have the "proper" academic degree, that could lend incredible insight to the problem that won't be given the time of day because they chose a different path in their studies?
As to your last paragraph, I could not agree more.
They call us sheeple, I wonder why?
Anyone with a physics degree who only comments on the physics of a global warming theory has only one thing to say. Any increase of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will increase the temperature of the earth. Period. This is done just from quick energy conservation and the fact that adding more C02 to the atmosphere does increase the amount of energy that is retained in earth, ie it heats up.
The problem comes not from the easy math of energy conservation in the atmosphere but estimating the effects that the hydrosphere and biosphere has on earth with any increase of CO2, something that a physicist is incapable of estimating using just his knowledge from physics. Lets say that the CO2 increase ends up at the optimal CO2 concentration for plants to grow. More plants on earth means that the earth reflectance increases which retards the actual temperature shift. Any increase of temperature will also increase the overall volume of the ocean. Going from an average global temperature of 15C to 19C means your ocean has expanded from 1.00087g/cm^3 to 1.00157 g/cm^ which means more area is covered by ocean and the reflectance of earth increases. Again this results in the earths temperature change being damped due to a positive feedback loop built into the system.
I could probably list 100 feedback loops off the top of my head that I as a physicist am aware of. Unfortunately most of the feedback loops are in the fields of knowledge that I, and most physicists tend to stay away from.
Take off every 'partisan' !! For great justice.
There are 1.1... kinds of people.
It's customary to quote the source when cutting and pasting but I'll bite and match your cut and paste about Idso with my own:
In October 1999 Craig D. Idso and Keith E. Idso mentioned that they had "recently completed a project commissioned by the Greening Earth Society entitled "Forecasting World Food Supplies: The Impact of the Rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentration," which we presented at the Second Annual Dixy Lee Ray Memorial Symposium held in Washington, DC on 31 August - 2 September 1999." [1] The Greening Earth Society, [is] a front group of the Western Fuels Association. Donald Paul Hodel, chairman of Summit Power Group is listed among the "scientific advisors" to the Center.[2] - sourcewatch.
Or I could just google his name along with the CEI ( the organisation pushing their psuedo-scientific report in TFA ) and find that he collarborates with them through yet another well known anti-science think tank called the "Cooler Heads Coalition".
"[Hansen is]considered by many to be perhaps the world's foremost authority on the 'greenhouse effect' of anthropogenic CO2 emissions" - At least you got that right.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Here's some scientists view on the matter. Apparently this report is typical for AGW deniers stuff in every way. You decide:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/
The ordinary view? WTF is THAT supposed to mean? Is it something like "consensus"?
FYI, very few real scientists have accepted some "ordinary view" or "consensus". You may go back as far as you like in history. Those individuals who discovered valuable and meaningful knowledge were generally frowned upon for challenging the "ordinary view".
Try Webster's or the Oxford dictionaries. Look up "scientific method", and "science". You'll find nothing in there about "ordinary view" or "consensus".
And, yes. I insist that today's generation is indeed subscribing to a new religion, generally accepted on nothing more than faith. There is over fucking whelming evidence that global warming and global cooling has happened repeatedly, both historically and prehistorically. Wild fluctuations that have gone above and below the extremes in which life "as we know it" might be supported.
The earth is warming. Evolution is at work. Adapt, or die. And, in the end, no one will give a shit which you do. Except maybe your grandchildren, however many generations removed.
The only good thing to come of the global warming alarm, is the growing attitude that we really shouldn't be polluting the earth. Man has been like a pig for the last couple hundred years - shitting in the drinking water, dumping garbage in the backyard, etc ad nauseum. Cleaning up our act can only be a good thing. But, don't expect that to cool the earth off. And, don't expect me to pay homage to the global warming gods, like Al Gore. They are all full of shit.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
They are not necessarily corrupt. The just adjust easily. Perhaps this is why they are called 'servants'.
"Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition."
Thomas Jefferson
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Don't be an idiot.
With your logic Einstein would never have worked his way up and out of the patent office. What the hell was HE doing discussing anything other than patents?
At least listen to the message before judging the messenger.
Why does it appear that more and more of what this guy says appears to be true?
My guess is that the world will always be and always has been "this way".
The strength of the AGW argument would be demonstrated by its expression in a manner convincing to the general critical thinker, in addition to those expert in the art. Such a strong argument should be open to criticism from all sides, and should survive such convincingly if the argument advocates re-orienting the social and economic goals of most of the world's population. AGW proponents would do well to avoid a practice common to fundamentalist religions and cults where scripture is only allowed to be debated by those who already agree with the dogma.
There are 1.1... kinds of people.
"As a 38-year long government employee, should he be fired for his views?"
Problem is that they are not his views they are the views of the CEI lobbyists as seen in email linked in TFS, and that's all they are views not evidence. The role of a civil servant is to speak truth to power not to push the barrow of a special interest group, particularly when that special interest is anti-science FUD. IMHO he should be sacked for incompetence, corruption, or both.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
The strength of the AGW argument would be demonstrated by its expression in a manner convincing to the general critical thinker
The problem is that the subect is just really damn complex and any simplification to the argument immediately leads to some smartass claiming X hasn't been considered, e.g. all the posts about "it's increased solar activity" that regularly pop up on Slashdot when it's already been said ad nauseum that the solar activity is not sufficient to explain the change we're seeing. To avoid arguments like that numbers need to be posted ("the increase in energy we're seeing on the surface is X, the increase in energy output from the sun is Y") and once you start with numbers most people just throw their hands up in the air and stop listening.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Al Gore didn't provide any contribution to the research concerning climate change, you can safely ignore him and the the research doesn't change one bit.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
you might have a lot of letters behind your name, but you dont know a damn thing about science.
well they didn't squash it very well, obviously.
Stupidity is its own reward.
No waiting list in France. Except for transplants, but that's for a lack of materials.
The UK probably has the most indigent health system in Europe. They spend much less on average, probably not as much as is really necessary.
Limits the ability of a new employer plan to exclude coverage for preexisting conditions; -- that's a far cry from "you cannot exclude." And that's only for employer-provided plans. Since not all do provide one, that's really pointless.
I'm talking about the health insurance industry.
As for the UK, they spend significantly less than the rest of Europe on health care; and that's most likely not enough. There is no such shortage problem in neighbouring countries.
No, they are not called servants for that reason. The entire term comes from the Greek separation of the public government jobs verses the private sector jobs that needed to be duplicated but separate to run a government. Public service is serving the government, not the people. The public servant serves his office, not the people.
Of course he said they were liars. They are. Prime example: Carlin claims in this "report": "There may be in the future. But global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century. They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."
The truth:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
I REALLY expect more from the /. crowd.
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
There is a good reason to stop allowing dissenting voices to be hears measured out broadly in the public media
Because the media are presenting the dissenting voices in the same way as what happens with the ID-ers. The general public hears there are two views, and automatically assumes that they both have a 50-50 percentage of being right. Never mind if there are just a very small group of dissenting people, or a majority, the way it is represented to the public in the modern media is the standard 'we have to hear both sides of the story'.
This of course gives the people an entirely wrong image. To go into extremes, if I choose to dissent on the theory of gravity, and claim that all those tests in school where you drop an item and it falls to the ground are just fake tests that contain tricks to make you believe in gravity, but it is really the teacher's mind causing the object to float down, and then have my opinion heard on tv, does that suddenly mean there are severe doubts about the theory of gravity? And that we should stop constructing buildings and bridges until we have a more clear view on how things really work?
Bush vs Obama on the subject of 'squashing dissent':
Bush:
1. Omitted DATA for 1000 years and mandated the insertion of qualifying words such as âoepotentiallyâ and âoemayâ that the result would have been to insert âoeuncertainty... where there is essentially none."
2. Demanded that data from a discredited study funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute be included in climate change reports.
3. Demanded that The elimination of the summary statementâ" noncontroversial within the science community that studies climate changeâ"that âoeclimate change has global consequences for human health and the environment.â
On the other hand:
Obama:
1. Despite the fact that Alan Carlin was no part of any group tasked with studying climate control, Obama allowed his unsolicited and unwarranted report to be analyzed and subjected to PEER REVIEW, and was subsequently REJECTED by his PEERS.
Yeah, that's the same exact thing.
The thing that should stand out to anyone is that Carlin claims in this "report": "There may be in the future. But global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century. They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."
This is complete and utter HORSESHIT.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
I REALLY expect more from the /. crowd.
Why don't we examine the content of his report before disregarding it based on his non-qualifications.
It really surprises me and make me wonder how much of a scam this crap really is when the global warming skeptic is shot down because of his qualifications or lack thereof, some connection to an oil or energy company- even when it was 20 year prior, connections to some political party or whatever without ever reviewing the claim itself, then the global warming support claims their evidence is peer reviewed and solid because of it.
Well, here is a hint, if you refuse to review something, then the fact that it isn't peer reviewed means nothing. This guys report should have made it out of his group, his peers should have discussed it, flags any problems, and then forwarded it if there was something left that was still meaningful to the discussion. To just hide it, then bash the man who has been more then qualified in the past when it suited their needs once outsiders became aware of the situation is totally unacceptable if you ever expect anyone capable of thinking critically to believe the your claims.
This entire global warming bullshit has been politically hijacked from the start. Kyoto was little more then a redistribution of wealth scheme designed to gain more control and power. every where it has been implemented has saw increased unemployment and massive drops in GDP. Spain is/was in worse shape then they suggested America would be in if we didn't do the bailouts just because they implemented a cap and trade program which destroyed their economy.
See here is where I have a HUGE problem with all these "it's an environmental conspiracy" theories.
Global Warming is intrinsically a non-environmentla issue. Why?
- Because for the first time in 40 years we're going to start building nuclear reactors. (Suddenly radiation is a minor threat compared to CO2).
- Because for the first time in 40 years taking out our dams which kill salmon is completely off the table. (Hydro is our best CO2 free energy source).
- Because we're going to need to clear a lot more land for Solar and Wind installations.
The list goes on and on.
If Global Warming was just a grand conspiracy amongst extreme environmentalists then they picked the worst possible culprit imaginable. The solutions all undo decades of work by the environmental movement. The problem is extremely intangible. If you blame a global epidemic of cancer on... shit I don't know... coal dust then EVERYBODY has a story about someone they know dieing from cancer. Almost nobody has a story about "wow... I've been noticing it's a lot hotter lately."
Global Warming is the most insane and difficult case to sell to the American people. And as far as environmentalist causes go... CO2. An inert gas which causes almost no adverse health effects in humans in any concentrations we'll see in the next few millenia is a terrible villain to launch a worldwide crusade against.
Global Warming is an incredibly implausible environmental conspiracy.
Here in Melbourne this last summer, we had our two hottest days on record, both at 46 degrees centigrade. Victoria also has not had seasonal rainfall now for 14 years.
Global warming is very real, and has been measured all over the planet; look up some of the studies that have been done on the polar ice caps.
The only people who want to believe that global warming isn't occurring are the capitalist fanatic, "making money is literally more important than being alive to spend it," crowd, who want an excuse to continue to rape the planet until it is no longer inhabitable at all. Such people do not care about the survival of anyone, including their own.
These people need to be silenced. We need to move past the debate stage, and into the stage where we start taking concrete action to rectify the problem...and at least halt it, even if it cannot be reversed. Something else that is appropriate to quote, here.
"Only when the last tree has been cut down,
Only when the last river has been poisoned,
Only when the last fish has been caught...
Only then, will you realise, that money cannot be eaten."
It sure as hell isn't science, well maybe it is and your science book is outdated.
First, the earth has not gotten warming in the last 11 years, since 2001, it has actually been cooling despite a rise in Co2 and other GHGs. Second, melting glaciers when the outside air is below freezing is not caused by global warming. We did have the sensors set up with the sea ice and after 11 months of claims of it disappearing, they finally had to track down the problem of drift which is a natural occurrence and make a statement about it that got just a few days coverage. Australia who is operating the other half of the antarctic claims that the glaciers there are growing and they don't understand the American side making all the claims about everything diapering.
And finally, there are more scientist disputing or questioning global warming or the hysteria and rush to tame it as it stands then there was in the consensus to begin with. There is 700 or more world wide speaking out against the doom and gloom. IF you have to make a claim that scientists got together and unified on something, then it's only fair to show the updated unification.
sign of religions has typically been the inability to let go of old values and knowledge and accept new ones as they present themselves to be more right. Maybe you should update your textbooks or risk being labeled as something that was obvious.
I dont care about his limited credentials. The very fact that his report was censored makes it worth reading. No one should pass judgment on its merits until he has read it. So: WHERE IS THE REPORT?
[..]
In short, people are generally classified in one of these 2 groups (good or evil):
1) The ones who believe that man is responsible from global warming. They are the "good" people.
2) The ones who believe that other factors might be involved. They are the "evil people", which must all have interests in oil companies.
[...]
Wrong.
There is a group of people who conclude that of the many factors only anthropogenic emission explain the current warming. These are called climatologists.
There is another group of people who while knowing better, spread FUD about the above. These are called "evil people", and they usually get paid by corporations. Many of them were spreading FUD about second hand tobacco smoke, CFCs, DDT, you name it.
Then there are people who believe they have proved 150 years of science wrong, or theory of relativity wrong, or heliocentric solar system wrong. These are ignorants, or fools. They forgot/ignored/haven't slightest clue that human CO2 warming atmosphere is based on very simple physics and very simple statistics, and any alternative explanation must also explain why the CO2 isn't warming atmosphere.
And finally we have people who either believe doctors, lawyers and other experts on issues they feel they can't understand properly, and people who come up with a bundle of excuses not to listen to experts if the experts tell things they don't like.
After all, no science, including climatology, is done on blogs or bulletin boards, or in op eds. If look at those, there is a flood of divergent opinions. For example in early 90s USA joined the Rio agreement to cut emissions (among other things) and majority of American were conserned about AGW. 15 years later majority believes it's a hoax, and USA hasn't done a thing. You want us to believe that's because divergent opinions are not allowed?
So are you saying that we should believe as you do and ignore the false teachings of Blasphemers?
Seriously, Either evaluate their claims or don't mention them. This entire idea that your position is more right because whoever you believe said so and I'm going to find a way to ignore your position because I don't like what's behind you is exactly as a religion has historically done. It isn't science, and dismissing something based on association of because they have red socks on says nothing about the legitimacy of their claims and more or less shows how people of the religion are scared to actually think about them.
This may be true, but Government control of medicine is actually worse. I live in Britain...
Congratulations, you live with one of the worst implemented of socialized medicine.
what he said for the UK matches what I have experienced in Portugal. My friend from Estonia feels the same about her "NHS" but still prefers to fly from London to Tallin to go to the dentist because overall it's cheaper.
An American may lose his house to pay for an operation, but at least he gets the operation, while the Brits die from MRSA, waiting months for urgent surgery in a dirty ward, paying more (on average) for the privilege.
If you are British, then you know perfectly well that you can pay privately for the operation yourself and lose your own house if you don't want to wait for the NHS. It is something that around 30% of the population of Britain cannot afford (this is the proportion that do not own their own house). But they still have the NHS, and everyone, including the well-off, are vastly better off for it. The NHS works just as well as you would expect it to do when it has to cater for an endless demand. I have a chronic back condition and it would be helpful to have NHS physiotherapy every week; but they consider, quite reasonably, that given the seriousness of my condition and the benefits, that it is not that high a priority. Nothing stops me from buying therapy myself if I think it necessary (which sometimes I have done in the past).
I think that person was put in place by the Bush Administration and is a loyal Republican. Most credible scientists agree that global warming is real.
From your comment, I can tell you are not a scientist.
Of course, there is a consensus. On most things, even. It is the "shoulders of giants" Newton was talking about. There are disagreement on points, some of which might not be trivial.
But there is mostly consensus: otherwise, one would create theories fully formed, complete, ab nihilo -- which doesn't happen.
For climate change, there is a consensus. Deal with it. The consensus might be wrong, sure, but unless you are a climatologist, as far as you know, it is the (accepted) truth. If your opinion differs, and yet you are in no way qualified to form an opinion on this highly technical subject, what does that make you?
Not a heretic, nor a resistant, nor illuminated by some higher truth. Just a jerk with no clue.
"That completely misrepresents the opinion of climatologists."
Ummm, no it doesn't. It's just that you're about 10yrs out of date in the consensus game.
Please refer to the recent climate confrence in Copenhagen (basically an interim IPCC report), the confrence gave six key messages as listed in their report (warning 5mb pdf). Key message #5 was Inaction is inexcusable
The conference was organised by a "star alliance" of research universities: Copenhagen, Yale, Berkeley, Oxford, Cambridge, Tokyo, Beijing - to name a few. It included 2500 participants from 80 countries and had 1400 scientific presentations.
The folk at Nature have also echoed their sentiments.
True this does not mean "at all cost" but that is a pedantic nitpick rather than a misrepresentation of the consensus opinion on the part of the OP.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
And, you think that you'll convince me that your view is right, by talking to me like an ass? Sorry, that doesn't work either.
Consensus. Another word for collectivism, which is yet another word for communism, from which we took "politically correct".
Give me a freaking break. You don't speak like a scientist any more than I do. Nor do you speak for scientists, or even for this "consensus". If I can show you that North Dakota was a steaming rain forest ages ago, do you suppose that you MIGHT question this "consensus" that man has caused the world to warm? I don't even ask that you reject this collectivist reasoning, just that you question it.
All of the little Al Gore wannabe critters taken together can't prove that man caused global warming, nor can the heretics prove that man has NOT caused global warming. But, anyone with the least bit of intelligence can clearly see that warming and cooling has happened time and time again on the earth. It takes an IQ of about 30 to figure out that it would be happening with, or without, humans on the earth.
Did we contribute to accelerating the latest round of warming? You'll never know. You just accept it on faith. And, call me a jerk because I don't share your faith.
Fuck you, asshole. And, fuck every religious zealot in history who saw the nonbeliever as an asshole.
I have a great idea. Pull your lower lip over your head, then swallow. That may not save the earth, but it will save reasonable men and women from listening to your mindless prattling.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Color me Skeptical.
I used to be on the environmentalist side of the global warming debate.
But now the same guys that installed a Monsanto guy as head of Department of Agriculture are telling me global warming is real.
Suddenly I'm doubting the whole thing, and suspect this is more about stripping individuals of their rights further, which seems to be the primary task of both the Republican and Democratic parties and the corporations that run them.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
> Why don't we examine the content of his report before disregarding it based on his non-qualifications.
Because people hired to make noise must be disregarded eventually. But since the noise-making apparently succeded enough to get a slashdot post, I can at least link to an examination at
deep climate.
Short version: He cut and pasted from various contrarian blogs and astroturf organisations - the ones that are now shouting censorhip - rewriting it slightly to remove too obvious editorialising. The actual content is standard issue denialist fare: misrepresenting papers (and ignoring the protests when the author complains), along with some long discredited talking points (global warming stopped in 1998, and anyway it was the sun and cosmic rays that did it)
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
From reading these comments, one ting is absolutely certain. Al Gore's infamous, "The Debate Is Over" statement was patently wrong.
An ecology degree or a degree in meteorology is what you you get when you can't do the math for your physics.
Ecology is a fairly reductionist science, and one that deals a lot with complex systems. It is also a science where there is a lot of mathematical modelling. Some of the core mathematical models, like predator-prey modelling, are dynamic. It also uses a lot of statistical modelling. Now, I'll grant you that it probably doesn't go the extent of mathematics in physics, but it still has a hell of a lot more hard mathematics (in the form of optimization, analysis, and modelling) than you give it credit for.
There is some fucking ignorance on this thread. It's as if you guys think that all ecology majors are hard-science hating, tree-huggers. /end rant from mathematics and ecology major
He is an ECONOMIST for fuck's sake. That IS relevant.
Regardless, Real Climate looked into this last week. Much detail there, finishing with: "So in summary, what we have is a ragbag collection of un-peer reviewed web pages, an unhealthy dose of sunstroke, a dash of astrology and more cherries than you can poke a cocktail stick at."
The usual "climate skeptic" bollocks. He has nothing new.
Wonderful. Now climate change is communism. See, I am a scientist. An actual one. My field, however is in no way related to climatology. I have, however a good idea on how consensus is formed, how it might be right or wrong.
I also know how jerks knowing nothing can invent an infinite stream of objections to anything they don't like (yet know nothing about) and demand careful debunking of each. And will whine if their demands are not met.
This has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with the fact that ignorance is not a valid opinion. If you don't know and aren't qualified, you should believe the consensus. Because as far as you can tell it is the best current bet.
Because the alternative is that all mainstream scientists in the field are lying. Possible, yes, but silly.
Be ready for the consensus to change however -- it is not a fixed thing -- but change is rarely dramatic. Only once in a century do we have deeply unsettling changes in consensus (think quantum mechanics). But the observations, they do not change...
Oh, and I love your Luddite "you'll never know". But then, seeing your wonderful grasp of the process of science, this is unsurprising.
Hansen's closed-source closed-algorithm modifications of UHI-affected temperature readings have absolutely nothing to do with "the truth".
If anything I wrote above was news to you, feel free to use google.
The truth looks more like this (using data we can almost believe in):
http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/12-years-of-no-warming-part-2-update-on-uah-may-2009/
it's in my head
An average rate isn't the first number minus the last number.
IF you draw a best fit line to that data INCLUDING 1998, you get a slight warming.
So even on the data he wants to use, you don't get what he says unless you do it wrong.
PS what happened to this method when it was 1998/2005? That wasn't used then, was it. Funny how they change what they do depending on whether it says "it's cooling" or not...
In this article, the author writes, "Science is not a popularity contest. The assertions we make, our assumptions and methodology, must stand up to critical scrutiny in order to carry any weight. Anyone with an elementary education should be able to understand and bear witness to such an exposition if it is carried out clearly and free of unnecessary jargon. We can all understand and judge for ourselves the difference between good science and bad science." I suggest you read Carlin's paper, it's quite accessible, and draw your own conclusions about the quality and worth of his comments.
No, Economists are the astrologers of the math world. They take lots of big pretty charts and equations, stick in assumptions pulled out of their asses in enough places to render the entire process worse than useless, and then convince people to act based on their results.
"I have yet to see *one* criticism of something in the Carlin paper [snip] if you actually looked at the linked comments paper, it attempts to raise questions. Points to new studies, revised data, etc."
Can you point to *one* paragraph, "new study" or "data revision" in the report that you think is worthwhile debating? - All I can see are the same old arguments and misinformation put out out by the anti-science lobbyists at CEI and other FF think tanks that have been debunked a million times over. Here are a few specific critisisims...
1. He claims that tempratures have been trending downwards for the past 11yrs - this can be debunked by a simple google search and is laughable to anyone who has looked at the temprate records.
2. He blathers on about sunspots and cosmic rays - a theory born from a book by a self-agrandising author and completely unsupported in the litrature, debunked in detail by yours trully here.
3. He complains the last IPCC report is 3 years old and thus out of date. - Fucking nonsense.
4. He claims that the 1998 temprature spike cannot be explained - maybe it's a mystery to him but yet another simple google search shows it's well known that the 1998 spike was due to El Nino.
I stopped there because my head was about to explode. Suffice to say that after skimming what I was sure would be 98 pages of anti-science drivel I no longer think he should be sacked, I think he should be prosecuted for collusion and conspiricy.
"all the more reason to not rush through it to satisfy political whims of the day!"
I'm sorry to say, and mean no disrespect, this is exacly what the psuedo-skeptical slimeballs at CEI want you to think. They lost the technical debate over a decade ago and have been promoting "debate" as a delay tactic ever since. These are the same people who promoted "tabacco scientists" in the eighties and are still recieving funding from Phillip Morris. They are the scum of the earth and I don't find it the least bit "bizzare" that the "slashdot crowd" are calling bullshit on this particular example of Machevelian politics.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
You can go read (for example), the Stern Report, done for the British government.
Summary: We spend a portion of our GNP *now* to make things less bad. OR we spend a lot *more* of our GNP later after they are already worse.
Too bad everyone is convinced that there is "nothing wrong" and they probably don't want to spend any money anyway. No new taxes! Cheap oil for all!
This is why I quit climatology: looking at society's stupidity is too depressing, especially when you're reading the science daily.
In most other scientific disciplines, it isn't a theory until it makes successfull predictions. Prior to the validation step, they are only hypothesis.
In the climatologist circle, they begin with a theory instead of a hypothesis, and then mine for data that supports it while ignoring the data that doesn't. I understand that this field is different, that they cannot perform "testing" of the climate, but they can still make predictions. When they start showing skill at predicting (the hallmark of a successfull theory) then I'll start to believe what they say.. not before that.
"His name was James Damore."
As if the realclimate crowd wasn't biased.
They censor dissent over there, and the site is run by the biggest proponent of global warming that has existed thus far.
"His name was James Damore."
Due to the way "climate science" is "practiced", the most important degree to have is one in statistics.
"His name was James Damore."
"The guy had a physics degree, and an economics degree. Neither which fully qualifies him to report on Global Warming."
I call paskahousut.
ANYONE with a physics degree can certainly comment on the physics of AGW theory.
[flame thrower on]An ecology degree or a degree in meteorology is what you you get when you can't do the math for your physics.[flame thrower off]
Retard: In my atmospheric sciences dept., which is quite typical, many of my classmates entered our grad program with PHYSICS undergrad degrees, with or without a meterological emphasis. They were drawn to the physical application of their academic physical knowledge. Pull your head out.
And we've had 40 years of listening to this messenger while he has worked for the government.
He was bought and paid for by big business a long time ago.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/
Those opinions one hopes are based on facts.
That is why those people are specialists on their respective fields.
There is a point where once you have reached a consensus you have to get on with things and act in consequence, listening forever to people that want to continue thinkering with something that has already been discussed is a waste of time and money.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
If he is really as ignorant as you say, it should be easy to dismiss his work without resorting to ad hominem arguments. Proving that he isn't a climatologist does not prove that what he is saying is wrong. The two are logically independent.
I don't think you're an ass, just like I don;t think people who believe in God are asses.
The problem I have is that you are not qualified to debunk climate science (or if you are you are keeping it well hidden) - you dismiss the science out of hand because it doesn't fit with your world view, and you seem to have a massive axe to grind about Al Gore, who is not a scientist, but who is good at giving presentations and presenting the science in a way that is easy for non-scientists to understand.
This is not a new thing for him, or a passing craze he has picked up on. He has been campaigning to stop climate change since the 70s, long before it was a hot button issue like it is today.
The core argument "that humans can't possibly be affecting climate change" and that this "is a cyclical thing, the Earth does this every now and then" can be shown to be incorrect quite easily with the ice core graph of CO2 levels versus global temperature.
If nothing else, this graph clearly shows that at no point in the last 650 million years have atmospheric CO2 levels been anywhere close to what they are today. The line is clear. They go up and down over those 650 million years, through ice ages, through droughts, through continental shifts, through extinction events, through massive volcanic activity, through over half a billion years worth of natural processes. Now suddenly in the last 150 years, when humans began their relentless industrial revolution, the CO2 level in the atmosphere has jumped up to far, far above any previous high point over the past half a billion years.
Now, a scientist cannot say for absolute certainty that it is a human cause, but the evidence is overwhelmingly strong that we are causing this (in the absence of any other large scale source of CO2 being released into the atmosphere by some other means like volcanos, meteors, aliens, God, other), it is man's actions that are creating this enormous swing away from the natural line (which does indeed vary cyclically, but this is way off the chart).
Then it's just a case of plotting another graph of CO2 concentration versus global temperature over those same 650 million years and the two graphs look remarkably similar....
Note though, that you can't definitively prove that CO2 level in the atmosphere causes these changes in temperatures, the correlation in the graphs is striking (but again, you can only infer it since the graphs are *so closely related*). Now it's just a case of extending the temperature graph out in line with the CO2 one...
Where it all falls down for people like you is that you seize on the inability to definitively prove things as a fundamental weakness in the science, when in reality it is the greatest strength. In the absence of some other reasonable explanation (again, tested by the scientific method), the general scientific consensus right now is that humans are causing the huge rise in global CO2 concentration, and that CO2 concentration affects global temperature, thus, if we keep adding to it, the Earth's climate will change.
We might be totally wrong! It might be aliens all along. Or God. Or a temporal vortex only detectable by Geordi's visor, but right now, our best inference is the one we have. It's not a guess, since it has a lot of scientific research behind it, but it's not unlikely to be hugely wrong either (barring some major shift in human knowledge like finding an invisible CO2 generator put there by aliens).
A lot of people have been working on this, for a long time, and we are learning all the time. I am actually a scientist, and while I understand some of the science, I am not a climatologist (I am a chemist). I can show you that Antarctica used to be a rain forest with a temperate climate (the lake that formed due to rain when it was still hot down there is still there, just buried under ice). No one is claiming the Earth's climate doesn't change significantly over time (and we can look at 650 million years of time remember), or that North Dakota wasn't once a rain
Wiki: Consensus in the English language is defined firstly as unanimous or general agreement; and secondly group solidarity of belief or sentiment.
Webster's: general agreement : unanimity b: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned
If someone is disagreeing, it is NOT consensus.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Have you ever seen an atom? How many scientists have actually reproduced the Rutherford scattering experiment? Well, most scientists have not, so everybody is following the consensus that atoms are built in a certain way. Damn, most people rely on the consensus about the world being round instead of flat—there is not that much space in the ISS.
I work with methanol, and I never ran spectroscopy to ascertain that methanol actually is CH3OH. I never checked out that the gas it reacts into actually is CO2. I never checked out the circuits in the mass-flow controllers to check they are measuring the right flow, and even then I would have to check that Maxwell's laws are actually true.
Everybody, and this goes for scientists too, make a huge number of reasonable assumptions. That's the consensus, and it is a consensus because it works.
Strawman. Who would those be? Einstein changed the view more than any other, and the only reason certain people frowned upon him was unrelated to his science—he was a Jew. Galileo was surely frowned upon, but certainly not by scientists; and what about the discovery of DNA, the proof of Poincaré's conjecture, nuclear physics—were all those scientists doing ground-breaking work being "frowned upon"?
In fact, making bold new claims is all there is to a scientist's life. You need to publish new stuff, which needs to pass anonymous peer review. It's not just a formality, and when I was called for some reviews I have actually sunk a couple of papers which made fundamental mistakes. The problem you have is, you cannot just make absurd claims without any proof on the only basis of faith or personal political bias.
... and that is misleading, bordering on falsehood. It has never happened this fast in nature, which leaves human activity as the most likely cause. If you make this kind of extraordinary claims you should follow it up with extraordinary proof.
Oh my god, gas-guzzling climate-change deniers have interbred with the evolution-denying fundies! Let's hope they do not meet the flat-earthers too...
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
He has been campaigning to prevent climate change since the 70s. This is not just some charlatan bandwagon he has jumped on since he had the election stolen from him. He has been committed to this cause since he became a congressman man, many, many years ago and has been attempting to get people to listen to the argument since long before it became a hot button issue, and long before it became an acceptable form of "anti patriotism" used by the GOP to attack their opponents (see also: terrorism, the patriot act, the Iraq war, privacy legislation and so on).
That he is required to fly all over the world to give his speech and meet people in the field, and global leaders and so on, is an unfortunate side effect of issue. He makes use of carbon credits (whether you agree with the system or not) to attempt to offset some of his higher energy consumption due to the nature of the job he does, but in the long run he is attempting to, sorry to use a cliche, save the planet. Or at the very least, get people interested enough to save the planet, regardless of which way you see him.
You say "The consensus is that ... "
What is your reference for this consensus ?
The main reference , the one that gathers the most climatologists from all over the world, is the IPCC.
And the last report of the IPCC warns of many bad consequences of global warming if CO2 emissions are not greatly decreased.
Here is one of these bad consequences exactly quoted from the report:
"There is medium confidence that approximately 20-30% of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average warming exceed 1.5-2.5ÂC (relative to 1980-1999). As global average temperature increase exceeds about 3.5ÂC, model projections suggest significant extinctions (40-70% of species assessed) around the globe."
More recently the report from the 2009 Copenhagen conference says "inaction is inexcusable".
Wild fluctuations that have gone above and below the extremes in which life "as we know it" might be supported.
The earth is warming. Evolution is at work. Adapt, or die.
Honestly, I think you are an idiot. "It has happened before so we therefore we should let it happen again." You must be some type of religious zealot. Are you saying that god wants the human race to be wiped out?
I don't really care if this has happened before, unless you use that knowledge to figure out the details of what happens when it happens again so we can stop it. If an asteroid is barreling towards the earth, nuke the hell out of it so that we can survive. I don't care if it happened to the dinosaurs, I don't want it to happen to us.
The fact of the matter is that the earth is changing. The earth that we adapted to and based our civilization around is not going to exist if we don't do anything about it. Whether we caused it or not, we should do what we can to limit the effects or, if possible, reverse it. Maybe I'm just selfish, but I want me and my grandchildren (and their grandchildren) to live.
He also claims in the report that quality of life of Americans has gone up, as have crop yields and that there are fewer annual deaths from heat stroke. While these all may be true, his attempt to connect them to global warming is nonsensical at best, and grossly stupid at worst.
Here's my take on it. Government's goal is to grow; grow in power and control over all. The means to do this involves making people afraid. When people are afraid they are willing, in fact may demand, that government step in and "do something." This is not a left or right issue. The right might use the "terror threat" to make people afraid, the left "global warming." Both have used "economic meltdown." So we argue the merits of this or that all the while the government rolls along on its real agenda.
"Written on the pages is the answer to the never ending story..."
My god, you want the US healthcare system? I have lived in both counties, and let me tell you, you do not want to be poor (or at least, not mega wealthy) and sick in the United States.
The NHS has its major problems, and is still trying to recover from years of Tory neglect in the 80s, where they couldn't kill it (there would have been riots) so they did the next best thing and attempted to let it starve to death in a dark cupboard. It's by no means perfect, but it is infinitely preferable to the US healthcare system.
Now, that sounds real scientific and logical, but to some that sounds like religion. If you don't know and aren't qualified, you should believe the consensus? That sounds a lot like what a religion would say to doubtful or non-believers. In the past, scientists proved their discoveries. Now, the general public is urged to just shut-up and believe, because we are not qualified. That is what is suspicious in the whole debate, let alone that it is becoming increasingly clear that there is no consensus as once claimed, and possibly there never was.
Scientific debate is, sure. But this isn't a debate, this is "policy-presenting". I'm quite sure that relevant scientists can use scholar.google.com to find actual publications.
This "publication" (If you want to call this Competitive Enterprise Institute (see this neat interview in response to this) publication "scientific", or "debate". Their only goal is to confuse the public, and senators/representatives into thinking that they have a reason to be sceptical (or can justify their own "feelings" on the topic).. it has nothing to do with "providing another side to the scientific debate, just the political one.
"Doesn't anybody screen these calls?" -- Click and Clack
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/
You say all environmental scientists are drinking the same kool-aid
There are plenty of scientists not drinking the kool-aid
Mine is Good
"Try Webster's or the Oxford dictionaries. Look up "scientific method", and "science". You'll find nothing in there about "ordinary view" or "consensus"
A dictonary is not a particularly illuminating source for understanding scientific philosophy. Try researching the term Republic of science, it's an older alternate term for "consensus" and is indeed central part of the philosophy of science, it's what gives rise to the term "scientists say" as in "scientists say the earth orbits the sun". A strong scientific consensus is derived from...
1. Overwhelming evidence via multiple independent lines of enquiry.
2. A high degree of predictive and/or explanatory power.
3. A lack of conta-evidence and a lack of equally valid alternative explainations.
Of course it's every scientists duty (and wet dream) to find a logical or evidentry crack in a strong consensus but it's also every scientists duty to accept a consensus he cannot convincingly refute. The strong scientific consensus on GW is that mankinds emmisions are causing the bulk of the observed warming and it will servely retard our civilisation unless we act to reduce those emmissions by ~70-80% over the next four or five decades. The good news is it's "doable" if people can overcome their political predjudices toward the messengers.
"The earth is warming. Evolution is at work. Adapt, or die. And, in the end, no one will give a shit which you do. Except maybe your grandchildren, however many generations removed."
These sort of statements always confuse me as to what they mean by "adapt". Please explain to me why reducing emmissions through a free market cap and trade scheme that strives to make renewables economically viable is not seen as an adaptation? And yes this has little effect on me as I will probably be dead come 2050. However I already have grandchildren that "scientists say" AGW will affect if I make decisions based solely on a few pennies pressing on my hip pocket nerve. If my grandparents generation had thought that way in the 50's we would all be chocking to death under a layer of soot.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
The thing is, there is consensus. The debate is essentially purely fabricated, because for the sake of "balance" the press feels it is necessary to present counter-opinions.
Scientists do prove their discoveries. Simply, it has become very difficult for the vast majority of the public to be able to decide for themselves. Because understanding requires vast amounts of knowledge, understanding of fairly deep mathematics, and the availability of a big supercomputer. And a lab, and funding for a vast array of independent measures.
The saying about magic and advanced technology? We have gone beyond that a long time ago. "technology" is now essentially a synonym for "process by which are achieved amazing feats" -- magic. We all accept the marvels of our mobile phones, computers, satnavs, nuclear medicine -- we do not wonder how it all works. Some of us do, some of us even actually understand at least the basic concepts. The specialists know, of course.
But if I had to restart civilisation, basically, I would have it back to the 18th century, with a head start on the more advanced concepts. Because everything is so amazingly complex.
And so it goes with climate science. It is so complex only the actual researchers know with some certainty how correct it is. And although we can delude ourselves by thinking we ought to be sceptical -- and we should -- the fact is we cannot know individually without 4-10 years of actual study.
Provided you have a good scientific background, and the ability. So although it sounds like religion, you should just believe the consensus. It is not religion because you should know and be aware this consensus is built on the current state of knowledge and will evolve. No definitive truth here. Just the best bet -- which essentially means the only bet you should take, unless you insist on being irrational.
Your post ignores the fact that U.S. healthcare practitioners are already incredibly regulated: whom can practice medicine, where they can practice, who they can treat, who they must treat, how they must deal with insurance, what they can charge, etc.
For example, I ought to be able to study the hell out of, say, the 10 most common reasons to visit the doctor, and create a low-cost "McDonald's" kind of fast-healthcare for just those ten things. It would be fast, cheap, and only deal with those 10 things. That kind of free-market solution can never exist in today's (and worse - tomorrow's) ever-growing regulated welfare-state.
Mine is Good
> I think some kind of legislation is needed to limit pollution and
> carbon emissions in the US, even if that means economic
> hardship in the short term.
I agree with you, I wrote "I think pollution and waste of energy is stupid and ugly" and carbon emissions are a form of pollution.
I am just questioning what may seem like a lack of objectivity from those defending the cause. It won't help this cause in the long run if it is actually the case. Today's society and politics sometimes seem to lack long-term vision ;-)
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
Please read my reply to another poster where I state that I agree with CO2 emission limits !!! We have been polluting without regards for the environment for a few centuries now and this type of measures seem adequate :
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1284507&cid=28503515
Your reply tends to confirm my views, we are not allowed to question the data currently used to justify those cuts without being accused of being against the cuts. This is what happened to the university teacher I was talking about also.
This is completely different than people who are against the cuts for profitability reasons.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
There is no such thing as a scientific opinion - that's an oxymoron. You have facts, hypotheses and models. If the model jibes with facts, we use it. If it does not - we reject or limit it. An opinion of the scientist has as much validity as facts it's based on and the quality of reasoning. Education, publications and length of service have nothing to do with it.
He also has a Caltech degree in Physics, and they don't give those out by mail order.
You should be responding to his science, not trashing the man.
I think you have economist confused with climatologists.
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels.
Because many prefer to pretend that there is no debate, doesn't mean that there isn't one.
I'm a scientist, too, and it would be very convenient (albeit dishonest) if I could just dismiss alternative schools of thought as irrelevant crackpots. Without proof, the best I can say on any contentious issue is that opinion is divided.
Economists are generally far better trained in statistics than climate scientists, which would make them ideal judges of this aspect of climate research.
Indeed, climate science could learn much from economics about freely publishing data, methods, and source code.
Well said! I am constantly being considered a tree hugger "global warming" fiend, when in reality I'm a conservationist (preserve nature so we can use it) who wants to drink clean water and breathe cleaner air. Its called "don't shit in your own mess kit". As for global warming, my guess is still that nature is causing it more than man. That said, it still makes sense to have cars that get 40mpg and energy efficient appliances because I don't need to ingest more pollution.
I live in a town of 20k between Charlotte, NC and the Triad (Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point), yet our air qualty is constantly in violation of EPA standards. It isn't us (25% unemployment, no factories) it is the air being pushed from the other metro areas. Anything that reduces pollution is a very good thing, if done over reasonable time to not cause serious economic problems.
Except that this is in fact not a contentious issue. Otherwise, yes, of course, you should not dismiss the alternative schools as irrelevant.
Unless, of course, if they try to deny the experimental evidence...
And call the now. The House has already pass (barely) legislation that will tax anything producing CO2, which even the CBO agrees is going to be bad for the economy. All in order to make "green" energy "competitive". We have to kill it in the Senate, or be prepared for gas to shoot over $4.00/gal, electricity go up (most is produced by coal and natural gas), and more.
If Congress wants to limit CO2 output, they need to glue their lips together first.
...and come up with something original to debate instead of posting snarky ad-homs at someone you don't agree with.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Never happened this fast? Given that the farther back in time you go the less focused your measurements necessarily become, I find it highly fucking unlikely that you're able to say that with any sort of certainty.
Climatologists are physical scientists. Thus the personal anecdote of the "tree hugger circuit" has no relevance. Sounds like your wife has a "tree-hugger" degree and probably works for the Park Service. I am a wildlife biologist, worked for years in tech. jobs in 4 states before finally landing a good job, and my colleagues have been a mix, some excellent scientists, some not.
There is a huge difference between having a degree in "conservation" and doing real science, which the majority of people seem to be ignorant of. The core of science is not the subject matter, or how many letters someone has after his/her name, but critical review of ideas by colleagues and the process of subjecting work to peer-review. This is often brutal, depending on how contentious the ideas are (and how penile your anonymous reviewers are). Though not perfect, the process of peer review is the best humanity has come up with for critical analysis of ideas. This is why it's laughable that any weight is afforded to the arguments of those who challenge scientific consensus without basing arguments in similar scientific rigor.
But in our country, we have an implicit agreement that it is a government of the people, by the people and for the people, so serving the government is at least indirectly serving the people. That being said, our public conversation in America has devolved to one nearly exclusively around money, which erodes any truly noble claims to service. Instead of encouraging nobility in our public servants, we are left with a conversation that either government workers are suckers for working for cheap or villains for finding imaginative ways to profit personally from their station.
Currently hooked on AMP
A meteorology BS requires as much math as a Physics BS, so your snarky comment indicates you are ignorant of what kind of math is required for a meteorology degree (pick up a copy of the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences and tell me there is no heavy math involved).
Three semesters of calculus, differential equations, linear algebra, statistics are required for a MET BS in our program - which gives our majors a free math minor at my institution.
A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous, got me?
An energy famine. Tie this in with the much earlier story a few months back about how heat waves have killed more people in the US than hurricanes and tornados over the same time period, and you can see what possibly may be the outcome of this.
Higher energy costs directly impact the poor or those who have lost their social ties (i.e. the elderly). They are less able to afford the energy or afford, upkeep/maintain, and install solutions.
In any case, it's notable that they are going after caps instead of punching through with funding renewables directly through cost cutting other programs. It's tieing the industry itself, compounding pressure on the energy market when the whole purpose is to alleviate it. Watch Gore get richer.
You can't seriously be talking about climate models with hand waving arguments about averaging so that they can only be tested in 2100, but horrible things will happen if we don't assume them correct and act accordingly. Has the IPCC even put out the calculated standard deviation of global temperature yearly, 10 years, etc, based on the observed global temps? Are these questions about basic facts and circular reasoning so unreasonable to expect from science?
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I'd be quite interested if you'd actually be able to find flaws in this, since the only responses seem to be ad homiem and such, with no concern for theory backed by observations. (Hopefully thanks in advance)
Venus' temperature is caused *only* by ~92 atmosphere of pressure.
Derivation:
The adiabatic lapse rate = dT/dz = -Mg/R*(y-1)/y = ~7.82K/km (I was lazy and used 100% CO2 for this, also y = gamma) which isn't too far off from the ALR calculated from measurements using least squares = ~7.74K/km.
Furthermore:
T(z) = Tsurface - ALR*z, by definition (~= 735 - 7.82z).
The barometric equation is P = Psurface*e^(-Mgz/RT).
Solving for z = -RT/Mg*ln(P/Psurface),
and plugging into T(z), we get T(P) = Tsurface - (y-1)/y*Mg/R*RT/Mg*ln(Psurface/P)
= T = Tsurface - (y-1)/y*T*ln(Psurface/P),
rearranging, T(P)*(1+(y-1)/y*(ln(Psurface)-ln(P))) = Tsurface
Thereforce T(P) = Tsurface/(1+(y-1)/y*(ln(Psurface)-ln(P)))
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
"but who is good at giving presentations and presenting the science in a way that is easy for non-scientists to understand."
Look at Al's charts again. They purport to present a "cause and effect" relationship between CO2 and temperature increases. Unfortunately, the supposed causes and effects are shown to be bass-ackwards on the very chart he is photographed (filmed, actually) with. Scientist or not, you have to be very stupid to miss it after being informed of it.
The rest of your post, Ham, sounds pretty reasoned and reasonable - except that I think you still have cause and effect out of kilter. I've read plenty of articles and reports that seem to suggest the temperature increases first, then the CO2 goes up. Warmer water holds less CO2, right?
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Critical - adjective. Having a decisive or crucial importance in the success or failure of something.
Very Critical - Retarded. Like saying "very unique."
He mentions in the talk that correlation does not necessarily imply causation, and that's what the science bit is all about, that you can make inferences, but need to do more science to establish links.
You can't just look at the pictures.
Is it so unreasonable to ask that the *observed* standard deviation of global temperature be calculated, and then model prediction (along with their own standard deviation) be graphed, from 1900-2100 as that is the range they are claimed to be valid for.
If they can actually predict something with the degree of certainty they imply, they wouldn't have to make so many ad homiem attacks and could just go with "hypothesis non fingo".
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Oh yea, it's modded redundant. The zealots must have their mod point and think mods mean "I do not agree".
You know your making them nervous with the truth when crap like that happens.
I also think it's illustrative that you picked one of the biggest industrial accidents to highlight and it was by a company that was 49% state owned! That means that the Indian government was actually calling the shots. Corporations don't make any money by hurting people or the environment. Lawyers are expensive.
+1 Awesome
Holy shit, dude. Elitist much? This kind of thinking is what makes academia such an ego-driven rat-race... I'm not disagreeing with your position on global warming -- just pointing out that you've got three choices re. your worldview:
1 - Become a professor at MIT, Berkeley, etc.
2 - Loathe yourself for the rest of your life for failing at #1.
3 - Stop being such an elitist prick.
In fact, even if you succeed at #1, you'll still probably loathe yourself anyway. I've met professors even at Ivy League schools who were bitter, self-absorbed wretches with overpowering feelings of inadequacy. Because even if you get to MIT, you won't have won a Nobel. And even if you win a Nobel, you won't be Gauss or Euler. You'll never be good enough. And you'll die miserable.
So please, please, for your own benefit and for the benefit of those around you (because this brand of elitism is contagious), reconsider your worldview.
(None which has to do with global warming. Again: No argument there.)
Headline revision: "EPA ignores persistent denialist whack-jobs"
Check http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/langswitch_lang/6o
Lol.. You link to a rebuttal on a pro-global warming site that basically says- he has/references work done by people we don't like so we are not going to accept it. Isn't that exactly what I just said was wrong?
And the question is, is that information correct or incorrect. His report was an analysis of the state of global warming, not any particular research. So the question goes back to, why is it that all of the research and crap claimed that global warming supporters don't like is automagically dismissed based on an association instead of the claims when they themselves attempt to claim that peer review of the science makes their evidence strong. We are still at an impasse where certain claims are being completely ignored in favor of reviews of what someone wants to work.
Now, you may be brainwashed to believe that this is perfectly fine, but on the surface, it presents a very real impressions of manipulation of the evidence and a political hijacking. In fact, when you look at how politics dominate this topic, you have to wonder if science is actually driving it at all. Science doesn't dismiss people's claims because they have associations with people, it doesn't ignore claims because of someone's color of skin or religion, it doesn't ignore anything, it either evaluates a claim supports it or refutes it but it does so based on evidence present not because someone got money from an oil company 50 years ago while working on a project in college as they were getting their degree.
In short, what you are accepting is not science at all. It's more like a religion and yelling blasphemy is the best way to counter those who say the world is not flat or it revolves around the sun-not the other way around. And no, you cannot refute my statement by doing the same I am complaining about.
Of course Al Gore owns the company that will be selling carbon credits, so he's not biased at all.
Your own link only shows Exxon putting $5M into such "propaganda." That is around 10 parts per million of their annual revenues. The global warming advocates have spent THOUSANDS of times that much on propaganda and biased research.
When you and your socialist friends get Exxon Mobile shut down their oil production will be replaced by a foreign company with a poor environmental record and the US will lose 30-40 billion dollars of tax revenue per year. That means that each American worker will have to cough up another $200 dollars in taxes because you want to wage war on American business. That tax money that America loses will probably end up in the hands of a country that spends its money oppressing its people or funding terrorism.
No we don't, that was part of lincoln's Gettysburg address created 100 years after our government was. The context is completely different then what you are attempting to claim is as too. The "of the people" meant that the people were chosen from within the citizens instead of a distance king appointing a governor from a far off land as was the case not only before the revolution but also in most other British colonies (remember brave heart?).
The "by the people" meant that the people had a say in who these leaders were. It doesn't mean they elected them to do their bidding. I meant that they got representation. Originally the house of representatives was the only representation to boot. Senators were selected by the state, the president was selected by the state, and the representatives was selected by the people. The federal government is not supposed to be, and never was supposed to be, some wipe your runny nose all encompassing government. It was originally intended to be a state of states handling the complexities of 13 countries (states) working together under a unified front for both the protection and prosperity of the state. The people are within the state but are not the only area of concern.
The "for the people" meant that our efforts and labor was for ourselves and our country/state and not some foreign corporation or king of a distant land. This was also the case before the revolution as with almost all of the British colonies around the world.
Once you realize that the government is not supposed to "serve you" you can easily see that is is no corrupt or anything to the sort. There is nothing implied here and you are falling for a trick used by some politicians in order to gain your confidence and spark outrage at their opposition.
This is because you are forming the conversation around ignorance and not reality. No country can function if it's inhabitants are not prosperous and money takes a large part in that. The founding fathers were either rich business owners or plantation owners so looking after enterprise shouldn't be anything that surprises you. In fact, the only reason you are surprised or upset over this is because of your misinformed conception that public servant actually means someone to serve you.
The government's job is to make the country prosperous, safe from invaders, and to regulate interactions between the states. And even then, their regulation between the states if somewhat limited. There is a reason the Constitution says that the federal government shall ensure each state has a republic form of government and not a democracy government. The sooner you realize this, the sooner you stop tilting at windmills and can effect some real change if that is you goal.
Your post ignores the fact that U.S. healthcare practitioners are already incredibly regulated
True, I did not discuss that topic.
For example, I ought to be able to study the hell out of, say, the 10 most common reasons to visit the doctor, and create a low-cost "McDonald's" kind of fast-healthcare for just those ten things.
Umm, so you expect patients to diagnose themselves before seeking treatment? I'm not saying that won't work, just that it will certainly have some level of issues. I does not, however solve the economic conundrum our current medical care system has placed us in. That is, lack of security in our health leads to lack of security economically leading to accelerated wealth condensation and destabilization.
. That kind of free-market solution can never exist in today's (and worse - tomorrow's) ever-growing regulated welfare-state.
Socialism and regulation are separate topics, but you seem to be one of those libertarian economists with a strong, but unsupported belief that an unregulated free market will somehow magically solve all problems. I understand the appeal of such a simplistic philosophy, I just don't buy it as a student of both economics and history.
Wow, a pro global warming site ignores claims taken from a anti global warming biased site. The problem is still there, if the information is being ignored with guilt by association, then how is it supposed to be peer reviewed? Or better yet, how can we trust the peer reviewed information when when it is ignoring information based on someone's associations?
Does that make sense to you? I mean if ever peer revised person thinks 2x3 equals 5 and they are ignoring the case that it's actually 6, then their justifications for it solving to 5 is invalid in the first place. Here you are essentially saying that "It's not important, because these people I like say that the content is from those people I don't like." Since when is science about that at all?
Alex Jones and Ron Paul are con men.
Your statement reminds me of the "new money" stuff from the early 90s.
I'm quite skeptical that the US government can create and run a reasonable socialized healthcare system, but I don't see any better alternatives. What we have now isn't working.
[...]
Medicine is one of those fields along with firefighting, law enforcement, and military defense where capitalism is a very poor fit.
You might contemplate a system where the government pays for basic/acute care and leaves the fancy stuff to the private sector. If you want plastic surgery to make your nose a little shorter, it's only fair that you pay.
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
The employee was also ordered not to 'have any direct communication' with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change, and was informed his report would not be shared with the agency group working on the topic.
Hey IRAN watch and learn how to use the "DEMOCRATIC" process to solve your issues. It helps us a great deal, might help you too.... ... wrong example
oh wait
Global warming is nothing more than the religion of the 21st century.
You are partly right. Global warming is a doomsday cult. Youâ(TM)ve got the doomsday prophecy (global warming and water levels thatâ(TM)s going to rise 6 meters) that promises complete destruction. Youâ(TM)ve got the humble prophet that was injusticed (Al Gore). The prophet advocates for an action that would provide salvation (reducing CO2).
Religion is human nature. With the decline of organised religion the masses search for a new one.
If you think one of the big problems with employer-provided insurance is lack of direct reactions from customers, you must think that single payer is just crazy.
C//
No, they did not "ignore" it. They actually READ the fucking paper and debunked it in detail.
Shhhh! What are you DOING?
You know how hard we work to keep the unwashed masses from knowing just what we physicists are actually capable of! You've undone decades of work with this one little post!
I'm sorry to do this, but I'm going to have to temporarily revoke your physics degree benefits. Until the society completes an investigation into your actions, you may tell people that you studied a lesser science. May I suggest chemistry?
As for the rest of you: We physicists are in fact as brilliant as you imagine. Do not anger us.
Climate changes ... and changes for no one.
The Bush Hooligans tried to suppres it because it did not fit their Presumed Truth.
The Obama Hooligans are now at it again. In the mean-time, climate changed, the other way, and now does not fit the Presumed Truth.
With Mr. Obama poised to anoint himself a the Judicary above the Constitution, all Courts, and laws of the former United States of America, with his Pre-Crime Permanent Detention Law (Executive Order), he should declare himself the "Scientist of the World" and there are non other, and issue his "Declarations of Science".
The actions of the people of Hondorus through their armed forces, should give Mr. Obama pause to reflect on his lawlessness -- Mr. Obama's allies, the President of Iran and Dictator Kim of North Korea, his "Allies of Evil" should do likewise.
Mr. Obama's lawlessness, like those of his "Police" the TSA, will only be tolerated for a short period of time.
A simple semi-truth over a complicated truth isn't all that far off a simple lie over a complicated truth.
This Article finds that the emissions reduction approach would be ineffective at solving the dangerous climate change effects of global warming because it would be technically risky, inflexible, extremely expensive, and politically unrealistic, and would probably delay more effective and vastly less expensive measures using solar radiation management.
So he clearly does think that Global Warming is real and dangerous. No, he also believes that it can be solved by the well proven science of geo-engineering!
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
The page you sited clearly has an axe to grind and is obviously 'fixing the facts' to match what they want to believe is true. Right wingers have been known to do that on many fronts.
And of COURSE NASA and the meteorological stations are SOOO biased. (SARCASM)
Bottom line, Carlin claimed global temperatures remained unchanged since the mid 20th century, the NASA data completely disproves this. There may be some room for argument concerning what caused the rise, but the rise itself is pretty clear in these indexes.
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
The ordinary view? WTF is THAT supposed to mean? Is it something like "consensus"?
FYI, very few real scientists have accepted some "ordinary view" or "consensus". You may go back as far as you like in history. Those individuals who discovered valuable and meaningful knowledge were generally frowned upon for challenging the "ordinary view".
There is a scientific consensus in every field, and the majority of they time the scientific consensus is right. There have been very few paradigm shifts in science. Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity are perfect examples. I'm sure there are more in the field of Biology and Climatology, though. None-the-less, scientific consensus is very common.
And, yes. I insist that today's generation is indeed subscribing to a new religion, generally accepted on nothing more than faith. There is over fucking whelming evidence that global warming and global cooling has happened repeatedly, both historically and prehistorically. Wild fluctuations that have gone above and below the extremes in which life "as we know it" might be supported.
All past global temperature changes have coincided perfectly with atmospheric CO2 levels. When CO2 concentrations increased, temperatures increased. When CO2 concentrations decreased, temperatures decreased. In the last 150 years, CO2 levels have increased by 100ppmv (35% increase). The last ice age corresponded with a decrease of approximately 100ppmv. That signifies how tremendous a change we are enacting.
So take me as something of an educated witness that an ecological degree caries with it a certain indoctrinated mindset about things. A sort of "don't question global warming" mentality. I thought science questioned everything.
So take me as something of an educated witness that a geography degree carries with it a certain indoctrinated mindset about things. A sort of "don't question that the earth is round" mentality. I thought science questioned everything.
"Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
And, you think that you'll convince me that your view is right, by talking to me like an ass? Sorry, that doesn't work either.
Actually, I think a larger point here is that there is no possible way to ever convince you. You have faith that your correct for whatever reasons, and no amount of evidence will ever convince you that you are wrong. Even when all the data says that there is global warming (I'm on the fence about the anthropogenic bit, even), you will find the one bit that contradicts this, when that is addressed by your opposition (the prevailing view with the most consistent science behind it) you will pick another single bit of theory that agrees with you and use it as a disproof.
This is the same process as religion. It is "god of the gaps" thinking, and is not a valid scientific mode.
Consensus. Another word for collectivism, which is yet another word for communism, from which we took "politically correct".
This is an inchoate rant to support your POLITICAL opinions. This has nothing to do with reality. The universe, or climate, or whatnot, DOES not care about your political ideology. If you read Atlas Shrugged nice billion times, the universe will remain uncaring, as will any true scientific community. I AM a socialist, and I think that 1+1=2, therefore basic addition is socialist math. This is a fallacy. In science the consensus, or operational truth, or whatnot, goes to those whose theories best connect the observable facts, regardless of their moronic political ideologies (this includes all political ideologies, as a rule).
I love the "collectivism" and "communism" slanders. Its like by some stange force of magic you can destroy any argument by calling it a"socialist" one. Karl Marx once observed the sky is blue, therefore this is a "socialist" observation, therefore it is false. I see no problem with certain aspects of socialism, as I see no problems with aspects of any other political opinion, though it, in its pure form, is moronic, as is any other proper-nouned political opinion. Thus calling a scientific proposition "libertarian" is just as vapid as calling it "socialist", and reflects much more on the speakers wishful thinking, than on the proposition itself.
Also, without some form of consensus, then we enter the world of pure relativism. I can find some nut-job who disagrees with any proposition, no matter how accepted or supported by facts.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Everyone does the same cut and paste no matter what side they're on. Sure you can read and read and read about studies. The truth is, we don't have enough data points to truly say. We have 100 years worth of data. Do you know how long the earth has been around? How does that help us establish what is going on is out of the ordinary and caused by humans? Sorry, but it doesn't.
There is something that needs to be done about the way humans abuse the environment, but I think that using this end of the world scare tactic both degrades science to politics and degrades people to an unintelligent crowd that needs to be scared in the right direction.
That's just my opinion though.
A creationist could use exactly the same argument to discredit evolution. And like evolution, I think the fact is that if you sit down and study it, the evidence leans in favor of the experts, which you are not.
When people debunk creationist claims, they attack the claim itself. Most of what occurs in GW/CC is appeal to authority. This is largely because the climate-change debate itself is - from a science POV - boring. We know something is happening (change, mostly warming) and we have identified the likely culprit (CO2). BEYOND THAT, all consensus breaks down. Besides, you tree huggers have the "peak oil theory" that says we are going to decrease oil consumption regardless. With the very same religious certainty you have, it has been said by the same crowd that we are at peak oil (less CO2 from this source even if we wanted to use it). So shut the fuck up.
"And the question is, is that information correct or incorrect."
Astroturfers aren't worth the time even answering, because they don't argue in good faith. They want to spread FUD. It's what they're paid to. As soon as they manage to grab hold of someone to "debate", they score a point with their funders, because by then lots of the audience will just zone out and just assume "well, both sides probably have some merit".
"In fact, when you look at how politics dominate this topic, you have to wonder if science is actually driving it at all."
Hah, the old politician's trick of making lots of noise, and then using that noise to say "listen to the noise! this is way too controversial!".
Get this: It's all about good faith. If I think you don't have it, I'm not going to bother much. As it is, I think you are merely a bit brainwashed. Some people are willing to waste more time on it (or maybe just a bit more willing to give the benefit of doubt when it comes to whether arguments are made in good faith or not).
Gavin A. Schmidt at realclimate.org has in fact had slightly more patience with Carlin's report. If you're so interested in the science as you claim, you might want to read it?
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
Umm, so you expect patients to diagnose themselves before seeking treatment?
My point is that people are not free to use their minds to creatively solve problems, because regulations force people to do things the way our rulers want us to.
you seem to be one of those libertarian economists with a strong, but unsupported belief that an unregulated free market will somehow magically solve all problems.
So when thinking, self-responsible, people solve problems, you call it magic? So the only "non-magical" way to solve problems is: when bureaucrats impose their will on everyone at the point of a gun?
I am not a Libertarian, because Libertarian's do not agree on the moral foundation for liberty, and these discrepancies manifest themselves in vastly differing political beliefs, such as: anarchy, competing governments, minarchy, and others. I am an Objectivist.
If you are a student of economics and history, then have you studied Von Mises and other Austrian economists?
I personally know of many professional economists and historians who advocate Laissez-Faire Capitalism. It is essentially the framework advocate by the founding fathers.
For you to call it a "simplistic philosophy" is just a smear that avoids the effort required to understand and apply the ethical and political arguments advocated by such people.
Mine is Good
FYI, very few real scientists have accepted some "ordinary view" or "consensus". You may go back as far as you like in history. Those individuals who discovered valuable and meaningful knowledge were generally frowned upon for challenging the "ordinary view".
Nonsense. Most scientists accept the consensus view of their peers about most things, not surprisingly, as it is often rather well-founded. Perhaps you mean, "most brilliantly iconoclastic scientists, with names I have heard of, rejected conventional wisdom." But that's part of the definition of a brilliant iconoclast. Of course the great famous scientists overturned conventional wisdom. That does not mean most of them do it all the time. 99% of science is slow, painstaking and incremental.
And most of those who disagree with conventional wisdom are crackpots, not geniuses. I think H J Eysenck put it nicely. "They laughed at Newton. They laughed at Einstein. But they also laughed at Koko the Clown".
And that is where there is disagreement. You try and phrase it such that only the uneducated question the validity of the claims that global warming is "proven." That is not the case. The marvels of mobile phones, computers, satnavs, and nuclear medicine? They are not marvels to me, nor many other people. I have a fairly decent understand of all of the technologies involved, and in some what would be considered expert level. In all of these fields, the science is solid. You, or anyone else, can't honestly say the same thing about climatology. If you do, you are deluding yourself and acting irrational. It's not magic, and it's not solid science. It's computer models built with in some cases unfounded assumptions, and in all cases incomplete. What the climate is doing right now doesn't even match the predictions.
If you're worried about restarting civilization, check out Lucifer's Hammer. Seal and bury books - the computers certainly are not going to work.
It is not "so it goes with climate science." That is the root of the disagreement. You assume that because there were a bunch of scientists, that are actually a miniority of scientists in the field, colluded in convincing people that there is some specific threat that they are correct. There has BEEN 10 years of study, and they have been proven wrong.
It is not being irrational to believe that people, scientists included, have alterior motives and/or have talked themselves or let themselves be talked into believing falsehoods. It would be if there were some actual proof of global warming, or if there were not so many scientists in the field that are questioning the methods and interpretation of the results of experiments, but there is not.
Feel free to read up on the well known workings around James Hansen and GISS anytime. Knowledge doesn't hurt.
it's in my head
Give it a rest please....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Right now we have no credible treaty (thanks Mr Bush).
Acknowledging we have a problem and start things rolling is the first step, at a later stage the West can reason with China and India in order to fix the situation (China is becoming painfully aware that they will not be able to pollute their way into full fledged development).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I have a BS in physics and I would hardly consider myself qualified to comment on climate change. This guy is an economist who, many years ago, earned his undergraduate degree in physics. He's not a physicist, and even if he were, he would not necessarily be any more qualified than I am.
You are aware that the ice core data in Gore's movie goes back about 650 thousand years, right? I ask because you mention "650 million" years five times in your post, and "half a billion" three more times, which seems to rule out a simple typo.
In recent years, scientists have extended the record back to about 800,000 years ago. If you've got CO2 data from 650,000,000 years back, there's a Nobel Prize waiting for you.
bipartisanship, n.: when both parties gang up on you
Lol.. No they didn't, at least not in any more detail then the paper itself. They picked on two points in a 98 page report, pointed out that he was an economist and then dismissed everything that is from a source they didn't like. That is no better then the report itself.
Why don't you read the fucking link you presented.
WTF ... over fucking whelming...
The wonderful thing about vulgarity is its ability to clearly identify those conversations best ignored. I supposed I should thank you for using it.
My point is that people are not free to use their minds to creatively solve problems, because regulations force people to do things the way our rulers want us to.
People are, but they are limited in their ability to advertise and sell things based upon the greater interests of public health. Personally, I'm all for lesser restrictions on individual access to medical equipment and drugs, but not for letting people sell services without being held accountable.
you seem to be one of those libertarian economists with a strong, but unsupported belief that an unregulated free market will somehow magically solve all problems.
So when thinking, self-responsible, people solve problems, you call it magic?
Who said anything about self-responsible people solving problems. We're talking about applying the free market to aspects of our society where individual buying and immediate self interest between buyers and sellers is too skewed. A guy standing outside your house offering to save it from burning down if you give him 90% of the value is not a good fit to the capitalist model. It doesn't bring fair competition or better service. The same is true for the guy bleeding out in need of medical treatment.
So the only "non-magical" way to solve problems is: when bureaucrats impose their will on everyone at the point of a gun?
No, the best and most effective solution, as demonstrated around the world, is for the people to use the democratic process to pool resources and solve a problem the free market has failed to.
If you are a student of economics and history, then have you studied Von Mises and other Austrian economists?
Sure he was a closed minded extremist by all accounts, just as bad as the extreme socialist, just wrong in the opposite direction. At least Hayek was sensible, if you want to cite said school of economics.
I personally know of many professional economists and historians who advocate Laissez-Faire Capitalism. It is essentially the framework advocate by the founding fathers.
Yeah, why don't you move to Estonia or some other hellhole that subscribes to such sophomoric views. We don't even have a long standing example of such an economy because it is so painfully unstable. By far the consensus of economists advocate a balanced and stable moderation. Regulated capitalism where possible and socialism with progressive taxation to balance wealth condensation and provide for the markets where capitalism fails.
For you to call it a "simplistic philosophy" is just a smear that avoids the effort required to understand and apply the ethical and political arguments advocated by such people.
You're arguing ethics while the rest of the world looks at us as barbaric morons who let the poor members of our society suffer and die from treatable illnesses while our economy spirals down the crapper dragging them with it. You cite Von Mises, a wealthy man born to wealth with a notorious lack of understanding of human nature to the point where most of his contemporaries gave up even trying to have discussions with him. The reason capitalism works is because it exploits human nature in a beneficial way. It's the same reason capitalism fails in particular cases. Unless you comprehend the mechanism, you'll never see why it is inappropriate for healthcare.
You left out the word "model" somewhere in there. As has already been pointed out, the bulk of "experimental evidence" comes from computer models. Would you have all of us to believe that somewhere, someone has actually programmed a complete model which takes into account ALL PARAMETERS of heat absorption and circulation, and that none of those parameters are subject to the programmer's assumptions?
In short, some group of programmers had god-like knowledge and understanding, and based their model on that knowledge and understanding?
I hardly think so.
Most of us want to hear of, and see, the results of genuine experiments, rather than taking the results of computer models as an act of faith. My faith in God is assaulted daily. Don't ask me to lay aside one faith, and adopt another. It isn't happening.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
"This is an inchoate rant to support your POLITICAL opinions."
Correct me if I'm wrong - but hasn't global warming become a political issue? And, aren't politicians and political groups actively trying to muzzle and discredit any scientist who disagrees with their political agenda?
The whole thing smells strongly of the Catholic church's inquisition.
"Heresy, I say!! Burn him at the stake!"
"But, sir, we don't burn people at the stake anymore - human right's activists get all upset when we try to do that."
"Fine, then burn him in effigy, and destroy his career, along with any credibility he may have enjoyed. Burn the heretic!!"
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
I did, and found a bunch of right wing sites slandering James Hansen and his work, and one article from a credible news organization saying that some people were questioning his data and / or methods. What I did not find was a peer reviewed article refuting his findings... much less multiple peer reviewed articles refuting his findings.
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
First, the earth has not gotten warming in the last 11 years, since 2001, it has actually been cooling despite a rise in Co2 and other GHGs.
Show me a graph with the last 20 years. Or the last 50. Or the last 5. Quoting an unusual number like that is a tactic of political hacks known as "selecting data", and it's a fairly well-known slander.
IIRC, 2001 was the hottest year EVER. It was an outlier, a data point some ten to fifteen years ahead of us. It does not, by itself, disprove the the larger trend.
Second, melting glaciers when the outside air is below freezing is not caused by global warming...
I had not heard this before. Got a link?
There is 700 or more world wide speaking out against the doom and gloom
Only 700? Are any of them climatologists, with a proven record of predicting climate change on any level? Among this 700, is there a consensus borne about by study, or are they what politics would suggest they are -- shills paid for by those who profit from the status quo.
There are over 6 billion people in the world. (I can provide a link for that if you doubt it.) Even if we assume that only one in a million is a publishing climatologist qualified to speak on the topic, that gives us a body of over 6,000. If the score is 5300 v 700, then the 88.3% have consensus.
If you have better numbers to back up your claims, I'd like to hear them.
The only way I can understand you believing everything is settled is if you only read one-sided sites like realclimate.org, who have a solid history of blocking dissenting commentary.
I would love to see this uncontestable experimental evidence of which you speak: it might convince me of AGW.
Thats it, close your eyes and fall in line with the rest of the sheep. Wouldn't want to say something that is out of line with your government sanctioned peers and be ostracized for your differing view.
I mean really we all know that a strong argument can withstand criticism....
"I was drawing a conclusion based on what you have written"
LMFAO, you're a self-righteous hypocrite who posts ad-homs complaining about someone else's ad-homs that were directed at a bunch of slimeball lobbyists.
If the slimeball lobbyists were called greenpeace and they were corruptly peddling their bullshit about chlorine in the water via an EPA staff member I'm sure you would be the first to praise my posts.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Disclaimer: I hold a phd in physics, so whoever wants to discard my words, because i belong to the "ecosocialist" scientific establishment which puts critical scientists into mental hospitals, where we torture and brainwash them, feel free to do so.
A BS in physics does make you a scientist - you can use the scientific method without as BS. The scientific method includes, opposed to what you have learned in elementary school, more than just making observations. It also consists of presenting them. Presenting results in science happens solely but peer-reviewed publications. Nothing else counts in your CV. The funny thing is that the Journals give skeptical readers ways to express their skepticism in place. Funnily neither the evolutionists nor the (oil-money-soaked) "global warming skepticists" stick to that way. I have learned that reading things which were not even intended to be peer-reviewed usually is a big waste of time. That is true particularly in subjects which are not my expertise (i am a solid state physicist). Only after some referee with expertise has helped the authors to order the text, i thrust that i can read it without a big headache.
I made the mistake of reading some texts which were published by skepticists. I am not sure what they tried to tell me, because it was more an accusation of others paper being wrong instead of own content (for this we don't write an article, but a comment). Usually they did not focus on a single, important message, but spread a general aura of mystic and predjudices against certain methods. So instead of trying to explain me what is wrong with discretizing certain PDEs, which would be interesting, they just claimed that these are non-solvable and imprecise. If they would hva had a coherent message about that, then would have been *absolutely* no reason to discuss five other topics in the same paper. And believe me, the agencies funding the supercomputers for climate research would be interedeted *and* willing to hear *why* you *in princliple* can not use model-based simulations for simulating the climate, while the same models seem to work for designing airplanes.
so there are two possibilities
a) a huge conpiracy theory driving the "climate skepticals" so mad by the use of drugs that they are not able to present their thoughts in an coherent, ordered and comprehensive manner
b) no arguments, but some people who are paid by lobbyists to create doubt in press releases.
And I wonder how long before the hypocrisy of the right begins.
Under Bush, any official support for the idea of Global Warming was seen as damn near unpatriotic. The Bush Administration censored dozens of official reports (such as James Hansen) that backed up the claims of Human induced Climate Change and conservatives looked at him like he was Zeus because of it.
Now, under Obama, now that the shoe is on the other foot, now the conservatives (mark my words, if they aren't already) will run out and use this as some type of proof of the "evilness" of liberals for no other reason that now *they* are the ones being "censored".
The GP was right, this means nothing accept that in politics are politics regardless of what side of the ideological line you call home.
"Don't be a martyr -- BE THE ONE WHO GOT AWAY!"
Where are my mod points when I need them!
"Don't be a martyr -- BE THE ONE WHO GOT AWAY!"
So tell me why should I be forced to pay for someone else's healthcare? I don't care if it works better (which I don't think it does). I work and earn for myself and whomever else I choose to give to, not for society at large. Socialism is a great idea until you run out of other people's money. Socialized medicine is rationed medicine.
The government can't save you.
I'm all for lesser restrictions on individual access to medical equipment and drugs, but not for letting people sell services without being held accountable.
That's a good start. But regulations don't "hold people accountable". They simply substitute the will of the bureaucrat for the will of the individuals who otherwise would be free to engage in voluntary transactions.
A guy standing outside your house offering to save it from burning down if you give him 90% of the value is not a good fit to the capitalist model.
In a Capitalist society, people are free to create and pay for fire departments, if they want to (and as has been done in the past)
Yeah, why don't you move to Estonia or some other hellhole that subscribes to such sophomoric views.
You are actually the first I have heard refer to the beliefs and actions of the founding fathers as "sophomoric", which is a sad, disrespectful smear. These were highly educated men whose ideas were unprecedented in all of human history - they were radicals for setting men free from other men, and their ideas are more relevant today than ever.
You're arguing ethics while the rest of the world looks at us as barbaric morons...
My mind and the contents of my thoughts are not determined by what others think of me. Substituting other people's opinions for the contents of your own mind is what sheep and cowards do.
...who let the poor members of our society suffer and die from treatable illnesses
I am not my brother's keeper. I will choose if, when, and how I will help someone. Neither you, bureaucrats, kings, nor my parents have the moral right to dictate how I live my life - so long as I respect others' equal right to be free.
The reason capitalism works is because it exploits human nature in a beneficial way.
The reason Capitalism works is because it is the only political system consistent with the requirements for human life, which requires that humans must be free to think and act, to discover how to live and improve their life, and deal with others voluntarily, free from coercion - either from other individuals, or from groups.
It's the same reason capitalism fails in particular cases.
From what I have studied, any of the so-called failures of Capitalism were either failures of the regulatory-state, or not failures at all.
I'm all for lesser restrictions on individual access to medical equipment and drugs, but not for letting people sell services without being held accountable.
That's a good start. But regulations don't "hold people accountable". They simply substitute the will of the bureaucrat for the will of the individuals who otherwise would be free to engage in voluntary transactions.
A guy standing outside your house offering to save it from burning down if you give him 90% of the value is not a good fit to the capitalist model.
In a Capitalist society, people are free to create and pay for fire departments, if they want to (and as has been done in the past)
Yeah, why don't you move to Estonia or some other hellhole that subscribes to such sophomoric views.
You are actually the first I have heard refer to the beliefs and actions of the founding fathers as "sophomoric", which is a sad, disrespectful smear. These were highly educated men whose ideas were unprecedented in all of human history - they were radicals for setting men free from other men, and their ideas are more relevant today than ever.
You're arguing ethics while the rest of the world looks at us as barbaric morons...
My mind and the contents of my thoughts are not determined by what others think of me. Substituting other people's opinions for the contents of your own mind is what sheep and cowards do.
...who let the poor members of our society suffer and die from treatable illnesses
I am not my brother's keeper. I will choose if, when, and how I will help someone. Neither you, bureaucrats, kings, nor my parents have the moral right to dictate how I live my life - so long as I respect others' equal right to be free.
The reason capitalism works is because it exploits human nature in a beneficial way.
The reason Capitalism works is because it is the only political system consistent with the requirements for human life, which requires that humans must be free to think and act, to discover how to live and improve their life, and deal with others voluntarily, free from coercion - either from other individuals, or from groups.
It's the same reason capitalism fails in particular cases.
From what I have studied, any of the so-called failures of Capitalism were either failures of the regulatory-state, or not failures at all.
Mine is Good
I did. FOAD troll.
But he did give a speech last year to the media where he told them that it was past time to allow dissenting voices to be heard as they only confused people. He said the debate was over and those few voices from the other side were outliars (intentional misspelling) and must be ignored
While I certainly don't support that mindset, he *does* have a point. Even here on Slashdot everytime the subject of evolution comes up someone claims not to believe in evolution (to put it bluntly: we may not be 100% accurate as to why and how it happens, but that it happens, it happens, its proven). Go to a less geeky website, and the problem only becomes worse.
Its a pity that such a mindset will likely end up burying legitimate criticisms, but I assure you that neither this is one of them, nor that they'll be the majority in such a controversial, politically-charged topic as this one.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
Quite, you need an engineering degree for that.
Everyone know that engineers are always experts in all fields.
Just ask any engineer.
meh
Sure -- as soon as he starts building up a background of at least several years passing peer review on climate science like Einstein did with physics, I'm all ears.
I tore these out of your symbol, and they turned into paper.
Gavin Schmidt, notable NASA climate scientist, provides a nice reality check on this story, concluding with this:
"So in summary, what we have is a ragbag collection of un-peer reviewed web pages, an unhealthy dose of sunstroke, a dash of astrology and more cherries than you can poke a cocktail stick at. Seriously, if that's the best they can do, the EPA's ruling is on pretty safe ground."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/
mi save tingting long peles bilong mi long Niu Ailan.
You're right. Our >60% cancer survival rate is worth nothing. If we all go to NHS, we can have a 40% chance of surviving. (Data is available straight from NHS website).
You do realize that if you get cancer of here and are paying for health insurance, you are 50% more likely to survive compared to if you were on NHS?
You have got to be fucking kidding me. This is the most insightful post on this topic. I guess Carlin's industry sponsors had their astroturfers burn some mod points today...
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
The economist's job is to spot and analyze trends. Since global warming has everything to do with trend analysis, I think an economist is the perfect person to evaluate the data.
Economists aren't even the perfect people to analyze economics. Seriously. Have you been in hibernation for the last 9 months?
Economics is closer to a religion (or group of religions) than it is to science. You latch on to a philosophy espoused by someone you think has good ideas, then spend your career looking for "evidence" that supports your newfound ideology. There are no "laws of economics", no "first principles" actually at work. And the "experiments" don't even resemble experiments run in the hard sciences.
I'd gladly take a practicing physicist's interpretation of economics over an economist's interpretation of real science.
Being Swedish I have no idea why you brought up "right wing", but then again no one outside the US seem to understand why americans bring up left/right in every debate you ever partake in.
In any case;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/28/nasa-giss-adjustments-galore-rewriting-climate-history/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/28/an-australian-look-at-ushcn-20th-century-trend-is-largely-if-not-entirely-an-artefact-arising-from-the-%E2%80%9Ccorrections%E2%80%9D/
Don't be discouraged by the articles being on a blog, everything is well sourced if you for weird reasons don't believe their graphs from the raw data.
With regards to peer review, I think you'll like this article:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/18/note-to-ncdc-climate-report-authors-try-using-the-telephone-next-time/
it's in my head
Correct me if I'm wrong - but hasn't global warming become a political issue? And, aren't politicians and political groups actively trying to muzzle and discredit any scientist who disagrees with their political agenda?
Not going to correct you, it has, tragically, entered into politics. This really has nothing to do with it though, since my main argument was against you dismissively calling "consensus" collectivism, and then somehow accepting the fact that we all a priori will find this to be a refutation. I'm guessing, correct me if I am wrong, that your using this as some political, and Ayn Randian slander, which is a political argument not a scientifi or epistemological one. I say this because your equating this to communism.
This would be equating politics with science. Science doesn't give a rats ass how you distribute wealth or secular power, or at least it shouldn't. This goes for capitalism as well as any forms of socialism, the laws of physics precede, and are independent of these. The only thing that matters is the facts. Whether politicians want to act on them, or that any of us think we should, is a different debate.
Yes, global warming is being misused by every political ideology at the moment (just like abortion, and issues about "the gay"). But unlike abortion or gay rights, this is an objective empirical debate. Ideologies don't matter. And when they do, it always boils down to wishful thinking, which is just stupid.
As for the consensus issue... Its very hard to judge the worthiness of any modern scientific theory without this concept, since theories really only start being vindicated tens (or hundreds) of years after their conception. In contemporaneous issues we need some method of weeding out the fringe, and biased, and consensus is about as good as we can get. I say this because EVERY theory, no matter how supported, has a lunatic fringe that disagrees, if we always tried to take all sides on equal grounds we would be lost in a sea of meaningless noise.
So, we must accept that the best (most scientifically rigorous) argument has the most convincing power, and thus has a higher likelihood of being correct. Obviously this is somewhat flawed, but there really is no better method of short-term discrimination between a good fit with the truth, and pure mumbo-jumbo.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
"So, we must accept that the best (most scientifically rigorous) argument has the most convincing power, and thus has a higher likelihood of being correct. Obviously this is somewhat flawed, but there really is no better method of short-term discrimination between a good fit with the truth, and pure mumbo-jumbo."
You will admit that the very concept of global warming is an emotional issue. Relying on the most "convincing" argument in this case, means taking the most emotionally convincing arguments as true. This consensus you speak of has taken full advantage of that emotional baggage. More, they have had no compunctions with making emotional appeals to the general population for funding, and for making political change.
Science? Decades from now, scientists are going to look back at today's alarmists, and laugh their butts off.
Look at how emotionally charged arguments about global warming get right here on slashdot. The "scientists" amongst us can't point to any clear, convincing evidence, and say that they have demonstrated this action caused that result, and that action caused another result. It's all guess work, based on computer models. There is a presumption that those computer models have taken all variables properly into account.
Once again, I'll compare mankind's current reaction to global warming to religion. Believe, or be branded a heretic.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
You will admit that the very concept of global warming is an emotional issue.
Yes, I do. But it is a concept with an empirical component, and this scientific by nature. Is the Earth warming or not? Its that simple, and emotions play no role in deciding this. This, excluding the baggage, is about as simple as any other scientific question.
The waters are muddied by special interests on both sides, obviously. The blind capitalists, and people invested in the future of certain energy souces, are publishing thousands of empty studies to their ends, as are the "green" crowd. So the real task becomes seperating the wheat from the chafe, at least for us lay people.
As for the slashdot crowd, I've yet to see someone step forth offering anything other than an opinion, please point to an expert in a related field, with some experience in the related issues, posting please. Slashdot has NEVER been a good place to go if you want to draw an informed opinion on most matters. Actually, I'd rather you form your opinion from Fox News, or MSNBC, than Slashdot (the official home to the lunatic fringe).
Obviously the computer models haven't taken EVERY factor into account, this is impossible, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. No computer model, in any field, even non-charged ones, can take all of the variables into question, hence the word "model", this is not enough to invalidate them, though. They are the best tool we have, and if we only accept perfection as a criteria, pretty much all of science is useless, which is obviously false.
Personally, and I state this as far from ideology as possible, I'm convinced that there is "global warming", the body of science (not the consensus of scientists, mind) seems pretty strong.. I am, however, unconvinced of the "anthropogenic" part of the equation, this isn't saying I think its wrong, just that there isn't sufficient proof (for my liking) of the idea. I am a anthropogenic warming agnostic, to put this into the religious context.
Using the arguments presented by people who oppose the concept, and those who rabidly accept it, I also accept the fact that neither side is 100% sure of the anthropogenic bit, and if they claim to be sure, in either direction, they are lying. there, in other words, is not strong proof pointing either way.
Thus, I prescribe a "Pascal's Wager" solution. Basically, better safe than sorry. This, obviously, is to be balanced with the human effects of any solution. Personally, anyone suggesting we quit carbon producing fuels cold-turkey is a blind idealist (though I accept the status-quo, or "drill baby drills" folk as equally blind and idealistic).
The fun part, for people like me who are interested in the philosophy of science, is that science loses utility as a function of how contemporaneous its results are, modified by a function of the impact said results are. Basically science is more useful on influential matters over longer periods of time. We not only see this with the warming debate, but with the never dying evolution debate.
Once again, I'll compare mankind's current reaction to global warming to religion. Believe, or be branded a heretic.
Sorry for the digressions. This is somewhat true, and you are somewhat correct. But... The one thing the consensus argument is good for is allocating burdens of proof. The community pretty much accepts the global warming hypothesis, and thus the the burden false on the fringes. If you can't disprove it, your argument is weak enough to disregard, at this point, the same goes for creationists, and young earth people. It is to the opposition to find "theory breaking" contradictions, at this point.
I personally agree with ignoring people until they have something meaningful to contribute.
To make an overlong reply even longer, I don't think there is a conspiracy here. There are too many actors who agree with the theory, to be able to completely dismiss it as an emotion conclusion.
We also must be care
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Wait, one. You think that I don't believe that global warming is taking place? No, I do believe that global warming is taking place. That seems pretty obvious, as weather and climate has changed drastically since I was a child. It doesn't require a science degree, or even a lot of intelligence to determine that the earth has warmed.
Study and experimentation are in order, though. Not the constant hype we see and hear in the media.
Although, I already gave tribute to the new religion, in that a lot of people are waking up and learning to conserve not only energy, but all resources. People are learning to clean up, rather than dump all their polluting trash into the ditches, into the rivers, and into the air.
Pollution of any kind is bad, after all. Not to mention stupid.
It's going to take a good deal of real evidence to convince me that global warming is due to man's actions though. Hypothesese based on models that are largely guesswork doesn't cut it with me.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
"It's terribly hard to read through something you don't agree with, isn't it? I wonder what else you're missing out on through not being able to stomach contrary opinions to your own. Your certainty and faith in the `consensus view' is truly frightening."
Harsh words from someone who's politics forces them to swallow a "scientific" report that references an expert astrologer - Perhaps you should check your horoscope to find out "what else I'm missing out on".
I can only assume you are suffering from what is known as the Dunning-Kruger effect
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I have a physics degree (and PhD), but I don't consider myself more knowledgable on non-physics topics than someone who doesn't.
If there's one thing I did learn though, is that it's damn hard to go from a set of data to a sound conclusion. *Much* harder than non-scientists think. The unscientific ways of thinking of most of the "sceptic" (though "dogmatic" would be more appropriate) crowd are painfully obvious. Fortunately, my field isn't climate science, so most of the anti-global warming points only leave me banging my head against the wall relatively gently, rather than at skull-crushing speed.
Right you are, but being one of the old guys around, I still think that politicians and the general public should follow Occam's Razor
Mind you, very few things take the joy out of life as looking at facts, so there are few takers, on both sides of the fence, who are working to improve climate model while accepting the intrinsic problem that to analyze a long term scale effect you need long term data... everybody would clamor for the head of the climatologist who should come forth and say:" look, we'll be able to answer all your questions in about 250 years."
"If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
"The economist's job is to spot and analyze trends. Since global warming has everything to do with trend analysis, I think an economist is the perfect person to evaluate the data."
Can we expect them to predict climate trends with the same accuarcy they predicted the credit crunch?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I guess I am old enouh to remember Global Ice Age. I remember the debates (hysteria) and noting has changed. Same scientists, same students, same nonsense.
People, we are devolving so damn fast you can't even have a discussion anymore. No one even knows what that word means it seems.
You have torn yourselves apart ideologically, socially, and spiritually.
You will never solve Roe v. Wade, Climate Change, or any other problem because you have lost your ability to function as a whole.
The comments, no, hysteria, that occurs any time someone challenges Islam, Climate Change, politics, Scientology, etc shows that we have failed as a society.
Facts speak for themselves. They don't need spin, they don't need long winded teardowns of the oppositions. Data is data and people will draw conclusions from it. This climate Jihad nonsense has to end.
The Global Warming Loons tell us we have to stop killing mother earth out of the left side of their mouth but tell us we are already doomed out of the right.
The anti-global warming goons tell us it is just sun spots, normal, bad data etc. But enter into the same name calling nonsense as the other side.
You have torn yourselves apart and learned nothing in the process. You've been blinded by your own sense of self rightiousness and intellectual superiority. You worship mankind. You worship youselves.
You have constructed your own self absorb religion around your own idealogical beliefs, compartmentalized your own existence, and reduced humanity to Me vs. Them.
The green crowd wants you to be 'green' but you are never green enough. Your never conservative, liberal, green, muslim, christian, pro-military, anti-military, what ever cause you lay claim to.
I have watched in my own lifetime humanity fall to lows I could never imagine. And while you tear one another part, mentally, physically, and spiritiually, everything around us suffers. Earth itself suffers our misdeeds.
Regardless of what you think, how can anyone expect to solve the problems around us when we cannot solve the problem in the mirror?
To hate we have become enslaved, rationalizing our personal war against the "they", "them", and "those" that stand against us.
You have fallen from being humans to machines. On and Off, Yes and No. The world is not digital but here you are, us v. them.
I heard in a coffee shop and old man utter the most painful thing I have heard:
"Humanity in the 21th century has become an embarrasment to the past."
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
"They actually have half a clue what will happen to the economy if we impose massive regulations on it."
Yeah, but the other half is a bitch.
I find it amusing that people here are condemning ad hominems, but conveniently ignoring the ones in the first few responses.
A couple of posters got it right, attack the argument, not the person, however the great majority of the responses bash Carlin for having a PhD in economics! So, the method is:
1. Does the poster agree with your point of view? If yes, then mod up and ignore ad hominems.
2. Does the poster disagree with your point of view? If yes, mod down and claim ad hominem attack.
We need proper economists to weigh in on the economic damage and not the conspiracy theory of the week on why Global Warming isn't actually happening.
If the opposition wasn't so focused on using bad or dishonest reasoning to try to discredit a large mass of scientific data that's passed peer review, it would be easier to listen to their legitimate worries on what knee-jerk reactions can do to the economy.
It really sucks that there doesn't seem to be any middle ground here... Yes, Global Warming is a problem. Yes, human civilization is most likely the cause. Yes, we're going to need to do something about it or bad things will happen. Yes, the sooner we can start on reducing our CO2 output the better. No, destroying the economy isn't generally the best way to go about this.
Now this is funny.
Two climate-related messages and both are the subject of mod wars between the skeptics and those who consider the posts blasphemy.
The score so far is skeptics:0, disciples:1.
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
Wow, excellent argument right up until the end where it all fell apart.
He said:
Which is a fact.
You said:
You dismiss the generally accepted facts and consensus in his statement by saying that it is borderline false because, though it has happened before, it wasn't this fast? Therefore human activity is the most likely cause and his argument is to be dismissed?
After all your well reasoned argument you let your emotion and belief undermine everything you said. Further, while demanding that he provide proof of his claims, you provided none or your own
Evidence is evidence, his evidence (the accepted consensus that extreme global heating and cooling cycles have occurred several times in the past) is perfectly legitimate. That it might be contradictory to other evidence only means that we fail to fully understand the evidence. It does not make his evidence false.
You failed to avoid the crux of this particular story's dispute. Neither side can/should dismiss out of hand, legitimate evidence, facts or opinions simply because it does not suite our belief.
Some, though probably not all, evidence is there and it is a great big contradictory mess that we have yet to figure out and full understand. Choosing to ignore evidence from either side of the argument in order to bolster our beliefs is illogical.
Except, of course, that the models that predict the results of global warming have been likened to astrology by experts. I.E. may eventually lead to real world usefulness, but right now are closer to superstition.
Rational thought is the only true freedom
Thats where your wrong. For one, all this hype by the media has made a lot of people go out of their way to buy things that are "green", this creates a market for things such as home solar panels, etc. Eventually with this niche market it will become cheaper to produce giving the rise of cheap high capacity solar panels. For another this could lead to cheaper energy costs which would allow for a thriving consumer market for these things. Computers used to be a niche item too, then they got smaller and cheaper to where everything now uses a computer. They went from being only in a few science labs to being in just about every home in a few short years.
"Green" products have overwhelmingly been a disappointment. Either they're not as green as they report to be, or the damage is just shifted to another area of the production chain. And that's the problem here --- the end consumer only sees a product and a price. They don't have any incentive to minimize GHG output and waste during the production of the product. And with incomplete information, the free market cannot produce an optimal outcome.
Adding a cost to carbon would provide the right incentives all the way up and down the chain. The manufacturer can pass some of this along to the consumer in the form of a more environmentally friendly product. As you point out consumers are already willing to make sacrifices (less material, higher price) if the manufacturer can convince them that there's an environmental benefit. Everyone wins --- that is, actually wins, rather than simply getting the appearance of winning.
Cap and trade fails for the simple thing that why should I be penalized for being productive in 2009? There is no power source that has the safety, reliability, and price of fossil fuels.
You should be slightly penalized so that we can develop those replacement power sources and so that you can enjoy a high standard of living in 20-30 years, rather than the rapid decline in standards of living that will accompany a belated, last-minute push to deal with the problem. Think of it as a retirement strategy.
One way or another we're going to see massive reductions in our use of fossil fuels (at very least, petroleum) in the next 20-30 years. Remember after Katrina, when a supply shock doubled the price of gasoline? Even without the inevitable supply shocks, a growing world economy will drive the cost of oil far above where it is now. We could replace some of that with coal, but the infrastructure changes there are nearly as massive. Worse, if the effects of global warming do become impossible to ignore, you can bet that we'll be forced into a major last-ditch reduction, plus we'll be dealing with the loss of our coastal infrastructure.
The cost of not preparing now is to see huge reductions in our standard of living, probably starting within the next two decades and getting much worse from there. If you plan to be dead by 2030, I suppose you could live it up now. But I'm very much hoping to be alive then. And personally I like central heating, modern transporation, etc. I don't want to watch all that GDP growth we "protected" in 2009 slip away because we didn't plan.
In a nutshell, we're wealthy now and we have the energy resources to build an infrastructure that's resilient to a reduction in fossil-fuel consumption, and we can do it in a way that doesn't seriously impact our standard of living. There are no technical problems in the way, just a willingness to invest a small fraction of our GDP to protect ourselves. And technology, as you say, will come to our aid -- you can assume that the costs will be significantly lower than the pessimistic projections made today.
Most people are not well enough educated to understand that there will always be dissent.
Can you quantify this for me? Even my seven-year-old understands that not everyone always agrees. Do 'most people' lack the life experience of a second grader? Based on what observations?
I have a brother who is also quite hot for this notion of 'unwashed masses'. He often uses similar phrases. He believes in an educated ruling class that only allows those chosen by other elites to make decisions. This is why I ask...
if you are not "tasked", "solicited", or "warranted", or if your research bucks the party line, then you are saying it should be discounted? If that is the case, has anyone called you a climate change nazi, or am I the first?
I think the point he was trying to make was that you can't prove this consensus. When you are able to tell the future of a complex chaotic system please give me some investment advice on the market. Heat and mass transfer equations were some of the more difficult equations (many don't have solutions) I've had to deal with. By the way I have seen an atom (we had a scanning tunneling microscope in high school).
Actually, 1998 was the hottest year on record, 2001 lost it's place when it was discovered that there was an error in the way they averaged the temps in the US.
As for the graph, if you can find one that matches between different agencies. Anyways, we will simply go with this and this
Lol.. You haven't been paying attention then. That or you have only been listening to the quire and not the sermon. You can find this information on any temp map. Most of the glacier melting is caused by volcanic activity and sublimation. This was a point brought out by the misleading claims of Al Gore's reeducation movie where it incorrectly listed Mount Kilimanjaro as a global warming poster child. The glaciers in the antarctic where the temp averages 70 below use a combination of a process called super cooling and warning but through water and water vapor not anthropogenic green house gasses.
If you continuously discount someone or something because of where it came from, then you will continuously not know the entire truth. The so called concensus in the first place was only 300 scientists with not all of them meeting your criteria. Hell, most of them didn't even know they were participating until they were told what some of their work was being used for.
In fact, this entire consensus thing is a crock of shit to begin with, science doesn't take a popular vote to determine if something is valid or not. Science doesn't ignore the facts (observations) that screw the experiments up because they don't like the political associations or funding sources of the people bringing it forward. Think about where we would be if we did lock everything into one way because of a consensus. The world would probably still be flat, the sun would still orbit the earth, and Leaches would probably still be the best way to cure serious illnesses. Take your consensus and your criteria and apply it to days of future's past. You can easily see how silly it is.
Lol.. You making the mistake of assuming that everyone qualified is commenting on it. I can see how obvious but misleading mistakes like this surround you. Not all qualified scientists are commenting, the original consensus existed because a list of papers did not say man was not the cause of global warming. Now many of these papers were there before the concept of global warming existed and I say it's fraudulent to attempt to manipulate the data in that way, but hey, you accept it right? Sure you are, you are automatically assuming that every qualified scientist is working in that area and is commenting on anthropogenic global warming and that a list of 700 who don't agree with the current model or findings, many of which a
If you actually read it, then you wouldn't have made the comment you did unless you are trolling yourself.
Remember this, you can't use the same style that your railing against in order to discredit something without discrediting yourself. That's your problem, not mine.
That's a good start. But regulations don't "hold people accountable".
Accountability is the price of freedom. With rights come responsibility.
In a Capitalist society, people are free to create and pay for fire departments, if they want to (and as has been done in the past)
Right, which resulted in extortion and lots of runaway fires when it was not profitable to stop them immediately. Socialized firefighting came about because capitalism failed so spectacularly. We tried it. It didn't work. People died because of greed.
Yeah, why don't you move to Estonia or some other hellhole that subscribes to such sophomoric views.
You are actually the first I have heard refer to the beliefs and actions of the founding fathers as "sophomoric"
Oh please. The founding fathers were pragmatists and did not, in general oppose socialism at all. Most of their arguments were about whether it should be implemented at the state or federal level, not about whether it should be implemented. In the first decade the founding fathers implemented socialized roads, post, and navy at the federal level and hundreds of other markets on the state level.
My mind and the contents of my thoughts are not determined by what others think of me.
Then you are the pinnacle of arrogance. You ignore all the suffering and death and the opinions of others on the topic. It's frankly sickening.
I am not my brother's keeper. I will choose if, when, and how I will help someone. Neither you, bureaucrats, kings, nor my parents have the moral right to dictate how I live my life - so long as I respect others' equal right to be free.
In a society of equal opportunity this might work, but last I heard not everyone started life with the same amount of money and property. You may feel entitled to do what you want, but until this initial unfairness is remedied you have no "right" to freely exploit the suffering of those who started with less and neither does society. Or, if you wish to ignore fairness, you have no right not to be killed and have what is your taken from you, which is how most extreme capitalist economies end, with a bloody redistribution.
The reason Capitalism works is because it is the only political system...
Capitalism is an economic method, not a political system. It is clear, however, you don't even understand how it works, but instead have a stupid, blind faith in it as a philosophy. Your understanding is juvenile.
From what I have studied, any of the so-called failures of Capitalism were either failures of the regulatory-state, or not failures at all.
Extreme capitalism (not even total capitalism) inevitably results in wealth consolidation because of the wealth condensation principal. Wealth consolidates until it becomes unacceptable in the level of exploitation of those born poor and then there is a revolution. Usually this is a violent revolution, but occasionally it is an economic revolution like the new deal. If you'd like to present a counter example, just find me one country with a flat tax that has maintained it for 50 years. Good luck.
Extreme capitalism fails just as spectacularly as extreme socialism. The only economist who still advocate either are the ones paid or threaten into doing so. Even Greenspan has abandoned the push towards increasing the already dangerous level of capitalism in the US and has advocated for a more moderate system with more progressiveness and socialism. It's sad that so much ignorance on this topic abounds.
You do realize that if you get cancer of here and are paying for health insurance, you are 50% more likely to survive compared to if you were on NHS?
If you want to cherry pick individual aspects of healthcare you'll always be able to find something between two countries where one is better. The US's rate is about the same as Canada and Japan and France so there is no positive correlation between socialized healthcare and cancer survival. What's different is that in the US your survival rate varies widely depending upon where you live, what your race is, and what your income is.
So tell me why should I be forced to pay for someone else's healthcare?
Why should you be forced to pay for roads you don't drive on? Why should you be forced to pay for a military to defend you when you'd prefer the country was overrun by other nations?
It' called democracy, where the people make collective decisions (indirectly in the US) to provide for the common good.
I work and earn for myself and whomever else I choose to give to, not for society at large.
And I assume you inherited the exact same wealth as everyone else rather than being given a benefit from being born relatively wealthy? Oh wit, we don't have 100% inheritance tax so we need a different mechanism to make life relatively fair and balance out wealth condensation.
Seriously, if you want to advocate lack of state interference at least have the balls to advocate anarchy. After all why should the sate step in and stop people from shooting you in the head and taking your things if another person is stronger?
Socialism is a great idea until you run out of other people's money.
Socialism is not an either or prospect. Every economy in the world is a blend of capitalism, socialism, and communism. What differs are the relative levels. Whenever an economy uses to an extreme in any direction it fails. The US has pushed to far towards capitalism with drastic reductions in tax progressiveness over the last several decades and it, predictably, destabilized. We need to restore the balance.
Socialized medicine is rationed medicine.
Yay, you memorized a slogan. How about, Red is dead? I don't care if it is rationed or not, it works better than the mess we have now, so you and your can go eat your entitlement.
And by not challenging their statements directly, you are allowing it to stand as true. Just ignoring them does nothing to what they have to say. In fact, it often will lead to you having the wrong conclusions because you ignored facts relevant. And yes, the IPCC and several other groups have had to come back and adjust their claims long after the dissenters pointed it out. This presents the very real impression of saying "ignore them, this is real, umm wait no now this is real, ignore that other person we don't like, wait not this is the real one, ignore everyone else.
But here is the point, you are, or people taking the same stand as you, are attempting to use your beliefs in order to influence and effect our lives. You are wanting to control certain aspects of our freedoms and you are expecting us to believe you when instead of answering criticisms, you just ignore them hoping it will go away and no one would notice it. That's just wrong.
Actually, it's been the other way around. They have been using the global warming as noise to advance their own agendas.
Actually, it isn't about good faith, James Hansen of NASA publicly admitted that he exaggerated evidence and claims because he though the ends justified the means. Many of the older reports and graphs have been revised and are barely the same beast if not completely different. Hansen has added the wrong months up in order to get a higher averages, had problems in their algorithms for figuring the average temperatures in which one of the dissenters actually pointed out that also prompted the US government to demand all sources be open for this is they fund anything.
If that doesn't make you wonder, especially when the entire claimed problem is less then .00015 of the atmosphere then it is you who is slightly brainwashed.
Lol.. I have already read it. That article is in the same style as I'm complaining about. It lists how the guy is a shill, how he isn't qualified and says we need to ignore him, then lists not more then 2 places with errors but they don't actually point the errors out and even take something out of context to do it. This piece is nothing more then a we don't like you or who you hang out with so we won't listen to what you have to say even if it's more correct then our claims.
In short, ignoring things because you don't like it, or the people associated with it, or even because it disputes your long help beliefs and faiths is not practicing science. dismissing it out of hand for those reason is borderline protecting the faith. And I have yet to see a detailed rebuttal to the report that doesn't dismiss things because he isn't qualified, or because of connections to someone else, or because someone else did that and they happening to like that person or what ever. Even a blind squirrel can find a nut. associations mean nothing to whether the information is right or wrong.
It lists how the guy is a shill, how he isn't qualified and says we need to ignore him, then lists not more then 2 places with errors but they don't actually point the errors out and even take something out of context to do it.
So... you blast him for not pointing out where the errors are. But you yourself don't point out where he fails to point out where the errors are, or where he allegedly takes things out of context. The irony is delicious.
[...]even because it disputes your long help beliefs and faiths is not practicing science.
I'm not practising science right now, buddy. Never said I did. But neither are you. I don't know what you think you are doing, but I'm practising how to cut my time-wastage losses. Good night.
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
The housing market bubble & resulting fallout was predicted for several years. Maybe you were too busy worshiping at the altar of AWG hogwash to pay attention though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_housing_bubble
I find it interesting that mentioning Obama's middle name is considered "taboo". Now, why is that? Hmmmm???
It's not a taboo, it's just doing that makes you look stupid. After all, people don't usually write "George Walker Bush" or "Franklin Delano Roosevelt" in full, either. Same goes for Obama - only context when his middle name is spelt out is generally when someone is trying to hint at his "un-American" ancestry.
Actually every time I hear President Roosevelt's name it is his complete name. I wonder if that is an artifact of some communist having the name Delano and therefore his political foes constantly trying to remind everyone. Naw it's probably just that Frank Roosevelt makes you think "Who is that?" but Franklin Delano Roosevelt oh yeah the president. Now Barak Obama is kind of hard to miss on it's own.
"The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget." -Thomas Szasz
This "science"?
Clever signature text goes here.
Accountability is the price of freedom. With rights come responsibility.
The point is that regulations do not provide accountability. I'm not sure what about that is difficult to understand.
Socialized firefighting came about because capitalism failed so spectacularly.
I will assume, for the moment, that you are an honest intellectual, concerned with truth. In that spirit, I ask you to provide me evidence of the "spectacular failure" of which you speak.
My mind and the contents of my thoughts are not determined by what others think of me.
Then you are the pinnacle of arrogance. You ignore all the suffering and death and the opinions of others on the topic.
You are not responding to what I said. What I said was that I think for myself. I look with my own eyes, and think with my own mind, to discover the truth. You call that arrogance? I call anything short of that a renunciation of the requirement that life places upon you: to think. I will not, as you seem to advocate, allow other people's opinions substitute for my own judgment.
...not everyone started life with the same amount of money and property...until this initial unfairness is remedied
Would you rip money away from a bystander and give it to a bum? Would you tear the clothes of off someone and give it to someone who needs new clothes? But this is exactly the kind of moral cannibalism you are advocating. It does not become more dignified when the government regiments the process through taxation at the point of a gun.
you have no "right" to freely exploit the suffering of those who started with less and neither does society.
In a Capitalist society, those who started with less have the same rights as everyone else, and they are equally protected under law.
Capitalism is an economic method, not a political system.
Capitalism is also a social system - based on individual rights in which all property is privately owned.
you ... have a stupid, blind faith in it as a philosophy.
If you intend to practice economics in either an academic or industry capacity, you would do well to jettison the ad hominem attacks and stick to attempting to using logic and facts to convince people of your arguments. Calling people names(especially people who themselves are intellectually very active with a lot of education), really only reflects on you. It does not make you look smarter, it does not make you more right.
Extreme capitalism (not even total capitalism)
What is the difference? Capitalism is the system based on individual rights in which all property is privately owned. (There are other aspects to Capitalism, to be sure, but they are not essential to the definition)
Wealth consolidates until it becomes unacceptable in the level of exploitation of those born poor and then there is a revolution.
Capitalism is the system that eliminates physical force from human relationships (a fundamental aspect of individual rights). Nobody can stop another person from working hard and succeeding, and nobody can take what another person has by force. This is the opposite of collectivist systems (like Socialism) in which your life is meaningless, except as a sacrificial animal for the popular collectivist goal of the day.
If you'd like to present a counter example, just find me one country with a flat tax that has maintained it for 50 years.
Even if a flat tax were essential to Capitalism (which it isn't), your argument is not even logical. Even if there were a country with a flat tax for 50 years, it would not prove me right. How long a flat tax "has lasted historically" i
Mine is Good
Maybe you were too busy foaming at the mouth to spot a joke.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
A BS in physics and a PhD in economics sounds to me like excellent credentials. Especially when Carlin's BS is from Cal Tech and the PhD is from MIT.
http://carlineconomics.googlepages.com/
You should look up the definition of irony. Anyways, all I was pointing out is that it didn't do what you think it did and it attempted to do it in the same way as the report. Pointing out anything else was beyond my involvement.
And yes, he did take things out of context, he conflated the meaning of the lack of solar data with the conceptual implications of the solar forcings. Two entirely unrelated contexts.
I can tell your not practicing it, your not following it either. That was the point, science is science and you can't claim the science says something when it ignores factors that have effects on it. You can call that a good night buy I have to question the practice of it.
I mentioned it at that time because the majority of the sites I found that criticized NASA GISS and James Hansen were neoconservative websites. The site you listed is a blog. I see no accreditation other than that the author was a tv weatherman for 25 years... ROFLMAO The only profession where you can be wrong most of the time and still get PAID!!!
I guess you think that because it is on the internet, it is true.
I certainly do not see a peer reviewed refutation. I call horseshit.
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
The human race has not been in existance long enough to be qualified to know what the earth's weather patterns are. The earth and it's weather patterns are far beyond what the human mind can possibly understand. We haven't even kept accurate weather records for much more than a hundred years. To believe that we the insignificant human can influence an entire planets weather is quite a stretch and a bit arrogant.
>Trailing
Look at any thing in equilibrium (nitrogen dioxide(A) and dinitrogen tetroxide(B))
Increase A and B will be a trailing indicator .
Increase B and A will be a trailing indicator .
>CO2 being a small part
about 300K of global warming is normal. (space is very cold)
(Numbers picked out of thin air)
297K of non-co2 warming
3K -300pmm CO2 warming
4k-400ppm CO2 warming
>Human Contribution being small
if you can serve 10000 people an hour and 10000 people an hour come there is no problem.
But if 10 more people an hour come then a backlog will form despite those 10 people being less then 1%
My Transformation Website
Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
Just fuck off.
The ecological repercussions due to the unadapted ecosystems may very well be tremendous. With all life on earth requiring one another in almost every case, including us --- that potential can be very alarming, amid loads of empirical evidence to draw that suggestion to represent what we know as the most likely outcome. The world is not THAT big, what we do DOES matter.
I think the idea of wealth/$$$ over life may very well be the ends of many. I would personally live like a chimp to enjoy my lasting moments on this Earth in the wonderful life we live.
You don't need to get pissy with me just because things don't work out your way.
Most of the posts aren't written by the blog owner. All the data is well sourced (and comes from NOAA, NASA etc) - I'm a bit worried for you and your ability to click on links :)
Did you follow the third link with regards to peer review?
it's in my head
I get pissy with you becasue you're acting like an asshole.
So, fuck you and adieu.
I unsubscribed from WattsUpWithThat, after I realised that the skeptics basically have no case and generally are ignorant of the history of climate change, yet I'm still getting sensationalist posts implying some kind of grand conspiracy led by climate scientists in my RSS feed.
I hear this alot and i dont really get where your coming from. I also live in Britain and my experiences with the nhs have always been positive, never waited more than 2-3 hours for emergency treatment (if you think thats slow bear in mind i didnt NEED emergency treatment as much as the other people i saw jump the queue), never had to wait more than 2 weeks to see a doctor for a minor ailment (cut that down to one week or less if you only need to see a nurse).
Of course if you need a big operation in a field where equipment/specialists are less common you may have to wait longer (my mother had to have a section of vertebre removed, she waited 2 months).
I am always seeing people slagging of Britains healthcare but personally i have never had a bad experience with and nor has i anyone i know...... not to say Britains healthcare is amazing, im still jealous of the great health care they have in France (and most of the rest of europe) but nor is it as evil or useless as i hear people say. Besides, if you just CANT afford to pay for health insurance poor to average treatment for minor amounts of your tax payments is very good value (as opposed to other places your taxes are spent cough millenium dome cough).
Best of all, if you feel the nhs isnt providing the healthcare you need, there is always private healthcare.
I am able to click links just fine. I reject your source. Who is Bob Tisdale? Why should I believe him? The blog is run by a weatherman. The link you gave concerning 'peer review' did not indicate that the refutation has been peer reviewed, so as far as I'm concerned it's just more ranting on some blog. Even if I Bob Tisdale DID have some actual expertise in the field, all I see are graphs of two data sets. Had it ever occurred to anyone that over the last 9 years, NASA and GISS were able to compile more and better data than what's available publicly?
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
:)
You should believe him because you can verify his work. It's open and explained. That is in contrast to the GISS modifications done by Hansen, closed (method as well as source).
The refutation does not have to be "peer reviewed" (do you even understand what that is?) - the source of the data explained what had changed and that immideately falsifies the conslusions drawn in the report.
The data sets used are publically available and no, there are no other.
I get the feeling you're not interested in what's actually true.
it's in my head
Why was this modded informative? What new information does it present?
orzetto presents a perspective. He's offering a viewpoint, not shedding light on evidence.
scroll down and read drmeropes comment.
In particular clik on one of the 4 climatologists
to get some additional facts.
Why does he not write it up and get it published then? Certainly if this is such a huge deal, is there NOT ONE climatologist willing to put this into a report and submit it to a journal for peer review? Otherwise it amounts to exactly what it is, rantings by some lunatic on some ex-weatherman's blog.
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF