Slashdot Mirror
Judge Orders EPA To Produce Science Behind Pruitt's Climate Claims (scientificamerican.com)
EPA must produce the opposing body of science Administrator Scott Pruitt has relied upon to claim that humans are not the primary drivers of global warming, a federal judge has ruled. From a report: The EPA boss has so far resisted attempts to show the science backing up his claims. His critics say such evidence doesn't exist, even as Pruitt has called for greater science transparency at the agency. Now, a court case may compel him to produce research that attempts to contradict the mountain of peer-reviewed studies collected by the world's top science agencies over decades that show humans are warming the planet at an unprecedented pace through the burning of fossil fuels. Not long after he took over as EPA administrator, Pruitt appeared on CNBC's "Squawk Box," where he was asked about carbon dioxide and climate change. He said, "I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see." The next day, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, or PEER, filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking the studies Pruitt used to make his claims. Specifically, the group requested "EPA documents that support the conclusion that human activity is not the largest factor driving global climate change." On Friday, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Beryl Howell, ordered the agency to comply.
that's why it takes someone with knowledge and experience to lead this effort. Just kidding, the POTUS and I are golf buddies...
It was nice knowing you. But now you're just getting in the way of the current administration. You were signed into law by a Democrat, so expect to be repealed soon by a Republican majority Congress.
You know... because asking someone to provide proof of a claim is anti-conservative.
As a Catholic, I just iterate over all the fun things I did during the week every sunday. Easy!
Watch this become the new one. Then we all can sit back and watch in horror at our society as it continues to define itself as the worshiper of lies.
Fuck you, troll.
I don't respond to AC's.
Pruitt is the uber swamp thing. He'll appeal this all the way up claiming separation of branches or something. Once he's out of office he'll get sued and audited for the rest of his life.
Denial of an assertion does not infer a counterfactual contrapositive.
This kind of comment is why I spend as much time on Slashdot as I do. Good job!
Pruitt must have a stash of transparent, secret science that is also called "Pruitt magic."
I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.
Now, a court case may compel him to produce research that attempts to contradict the mountain of peer-reviewed studies collected by the world's top science agencies over decades that show humans are warming the planet at an unprecedented pace
Does not Agree does not necessarily require more scientific studies. The same mountain of peer-reviewed studies could potentially be presented as the evidence, And in order to explain it to the court --- some scribbled notes containing skeptical arguments made against the validity of parts of each study "showing/claiming warming caused by humans".
If humans AREN'T causing warming AND you don't claim to know the real cause, then Wth are the courts even expecting?
A study is not the required thing to show that a previous set of study's speculations are not persuasive.
OK then, it sounds like you can provide the stack of peer-reviewed papers that Pruitt is being directed to cough up. Links?
You cn label this as a Troll, but do not fool yourselves, it is exactly his "science". P.. There are people who paid a lot of money to buy his opinion. Do not cross them - in Today's America, money determines physics.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
It's a demand for evidence. Perhaps in your world evidence is not scientific? Methinks you haven't the foggiest notion what does or doesn't constitute a scientific demand.
We heil him in the morning,
We zieg him late at night.
Oh, Hitler, my Hitler,
He is my heart's delight!
We goose step in the ballroom,
We goose step in the hall,
Oh Hitler, my Hitler!
We love you most of all!
They didn't pin him down. They simply are asking for the research behind his statements. If you're the head of the EPA and make a statement such as he made I think it's totally rational to ask for the research.
Sent from my TARDIS
Technically, the judge has not ruled that the EPA must prove the claim. The judge has ruled that the evidence must be released under the FOIA request. Even if the EPA only releases one rough non-reviewed report and says "that's all we have", they're in compliance with the court.
Then it's up to the American public to recognize this is ridiculous, and vote for something better. Good luck with that.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Remember it exists, and makes rock so hot it melts. That's about the only way to explain it.
The mere fact that this is even a thing is frustrating as hell.
Now, the EPA SHOULD be utilizing science to come up with its recommendations and conclusions, but it's just gut level instinct at this point, most of which is driven by corporate or political mandate.
Actual science looks at a situation and asks questions, attempting to find the answers to those questions, or presenting theories attempting to break those theories. That takes time, effort, and some modicum of intelligence. I don't see much of any of that being presented by either "side" of this case. Just one person saying, "uh huh," and another saying, "nuh huh." And round and round we go.
... As I learned in grammer school, Ocean currents play a pivotal role is weather. Ocean currents have changed. Ocean currents are not generally been part of the climate models... sigh this is not the place to debate science anymore...
That would seem to me to imply that weather plays a pivotal role in ocean currents. Therefore, your claim boils down to "climate models don't include enough data about currents." That seems like a reasonable claim, so far.
Unfortunately, you completely missed another part of your early education: citations. Where are there "incomplete" models that have you so disgruntled?
Beyond that, show me a model that has currents included in it, then remove the currents. Show me how removing currents affects the results. Until you do that, you've proven nothing to me. Right now you've only stated more accurate models can be made by incorporating more information. Well, duh.
:Sigh: ... these high UID kids these days don't know how to debate science anymore...
In other words, science doesn't give a damn about your personal options.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
What is the "other side" to Copernicus' view that the Earth revolves around the Sun? It's been almost half a millennium, so you've had plenty of time to come up with something.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Yeah he's just going to be releasing his used toilet paper and calling it a day, nobody is going to be shocked he just pulled it out of his ass.
Political hack organization trying to pin down a politician. Nothing to see here.
Proper science never has just one side. There is tons of evidence Man/Humankind/CO2 is not the primary cause of changing climate.
As I learned in grammer school, Ocean currents play a pivotal role is weather. Ocean currents have changed. Ocean currents are not generally been part of the climate models... sigh this is not the place to debate science anymore.
melt
Judging by your last paragraph, I would take anything you learned in your "grammer" school with a grain of salt......
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
There is no pain that has ever been felt by a human that you don't deserve to experience.
And it just keeps getting BETTER!
And... the acolytes have managed to downvote this right to -1.
Well done, loyal servants.
(Of course, proving the OP's point is kind of a nasty side effect of your efforts, but still, nice work!)
Are you sure you want to see where Pruitt pulled his claims from? Isn't there enough Goatse as it stands?
Ahh, you lie
Also, they aren't technically required to have any documents that a FOA asks for. If they legitimately have no such documents they can say "we don't have any" and be complying with the request and it's still up to the public to fix it via the roundabout method of voting for somone who has the authority to do something about who us in change of doing something about the policy decisions.
Proper science has no junkscience paid liars positing claims not published in peer reviewed formal journals of climatology.
Indeed! The heretics against the One True AGW must be burned, drawn and quartered, drowned, stoned, beaten, disemboweled... all at the same time!
It isn’t possible to met the judges demand. First, you have to prove global warming is happening, Pruitt may contend this is a normal fluctuation. And with a solar minimum coming a mini ice age may be in the offing. Then assuming global warming, per the judges order Pruitt must prove a negative. And the parameters of that proof must be established. Do cow farts constitute man made global warming, and if so can we offset it by elimination of termites worldwide, the number one methane contributor? [citation needed] In the 1970s scientists floated the premise we were on the cusp of an ice age, and to mitigate that threat proposed melting the polar ice caps by spreading lampblack over them. [citation needed]
The “consensus view” on global warming being manmade is based on a flawed study of the papers at a climate conference where the famed 97% figure arose. [citation needed] But the actual authors of the papers used to generate this statistic say the study is in error, because their paper was misinterpreted, they didn’t conclude there was global warming, they said global warming was occurring but it wasn’t manmade, they said global warming was occurring but it was a normal fluctuation, they said global warming was occurring but the effects would not me drastic, or global warming was occurring but it would be potentially beneficial. [citation needed] So, consensus is not at all been achieved. [citation needed]
Emphasis mine.
This place is a DUMP! Slashdot SUCKS! I am NEVER COMING HERE AGAIN!!! That's OK for you, 'cuz I've always used afblockers. FOAD, FOAD, FOAD!
"Ocean currents play a pivotal role is weather. Ocean currents have changed." - NOBEL, NOBEL, NOBEL... Someone reward this functional retard Republican chatbot for coherence...
It isn’t possible to met the judges demand.
Sure it is. All he has to do is show evidence of what is the primary driver of global warming. If that primary driver isn't humans, then voila, it's done!
First, you have to prove global warming is happening
That's already been demonstrated by the temperature of the sea rising.
Pruitt may contend this is a normal fluctuation.
If this is true then there would be evidence of it (which there is not).
The “consensus view” on global warming being manmade is based on a flawed study of the papers at a climate conference where the famed 97% figure arose.
A lot of good research has been done on the topic. No single study shapes the view of the scientific community. Living in denial is fine... as long as you don't stand in the way of people trying to address the issue.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Yes it is. You produce whatever it was that made you make the assertion in the first place. No, you can't prove a negative, but if you make an assertion, you're not being asked to prove a negative, you're being asked to show your work.
If Pruitt has said that global warming is not caused by humans, then he needs to produce the evidence behind that, or shut the fuck up.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
No, I think you're missing the point. I think they want the EPA to demonstrate that its positions and policies are evidence based. I don't think it has anything to do with Pruitt being unconvinced. I'm sure he will present the evidence he has, although just saying he doesn't believe it is insufficient.
The “consensus view” on global warming being manmade is based on a flawed study of the papers at a climate conference where the famed 97% figure arose. But the actual authors of the papers used to generate this statistic say the study is in error, because their paper was misinterpreted, they didn’t conclude there was global warming, they said global warming was occurring but it wasn’t manmade, they said global warming was occurring but it was a normal fluctuation, they said global warming was occurring but the effects would not me drastic, or global warming was occurring but it would be potentially beneficial. So, consensus is not at all been achieved.
So it should be simple then for Pruitt to provide follow-up studies proving flawed methodology or data with the original research and providing evidence that climate change is a completely natural occurrence with minimal human influence. That's all the court is asking for. I'll just leave my car running since I'm sure it won't take too long.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
An organizational leader shouldn't make informed decisions?
What kind of leader do you want?
Oh wait, I think I know.
Actually the question should be where are the complete models? You know the ones that definitively show that 1 molecule out of 2500 is putting out so much heat alone that it is capable of raising the temperature of the other 2499 by any amount.
As I learned in grammer school, Ocean currents play a pivotal role is weather.
Yet oddly, in this "grammer" school you learned neither spelling, correct sentence case, nor syntax.
Any scientific organizational leader that doesn't make policy based on scientific research is incompetent.
FTFY
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Me an my logician buddies have reached consensus that it is not possible to prove a negative. Now we will a few hundred million dollars to study why that is.
See...that is how you do science.
What is the "other side" to Copernicus' view that the Earth revolves around the Sun? It's been almost half a millennium, so you've had plenty of time to come up with something.
Flat Earthers
Troll? That was sarcasm. I thought that was obvious.
And some day, the first piece of this evidence will be found, but only if we have faith!
There is no pain that has ever been felt by a human that you don't deserve to experience.
Didn't realize questioning in science is worse than the holocaust. Dogma has killed integrity of many scientists. Death of the expert personified.
If Mr. Pruitt thinks that there is research going on casting serious doubts on the results the IPCC is basing its recommendations on, then he surely is able to point to that research. Because it was Mr. Pruitt who demands that the EPA needs more scientific transparency. This is just the demand to actually cast some light to make the science more transparent for us to judge.
A few minor niggles:
1) science, of any sort, doesn't imply any specific policy - assuming that it does is a fallacy;
2) "scientific research" must be distinguished from "sciencey research", the former requiring a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, the latter requiring only lab coats and control over the peer review process;
3) the EPA is a government organization, not a "scientific" one.
1990 called and they want their debunked drivel back.
Neither will anyone else.
We will be feeding you to the Frost Giants, however.
Carry on your pitiful life.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
One thing that does not change in the Universe is that the Universe is undergoing constant change.
Unfortunately, like children who only are good if you lie to them about Santa Clause or 'God', society is only good if you lie to them about their ability to impact future generations or have control or something they don't have control over. If you blame everything on people, some of them might actually try to live better lives and do the right thing.
Maybe they will even stop lying. errr nah, that isn't going to happen.
This must be John Bannon, posting from the commode again.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
That's a silly reductionist position. The EPA is a government agency that has both a fiduciary responsibility to taxpayers, as well as a responsibility to the well being of *citizens*. The "environment" is only a proxy here for protecting humans, and we must *obviously* take off the table those things that protect the "environment" but harm people.
Their default action should always be "what policy balances the costs and benefits for the people".
Meh...
As I learned in grammer school, Ocean currents play a pivotal role is[sic] weather.
That makes about as much sense as saying you learned about being a CPA at clown school.
Your assertion is as incoherent as Scott's. If you think relying on facts is somehow anti-conservative, then please promptly find a roof to walk off.
There is tons of evidence Man/Humankind/CO2 is not the primary cause of changing climate.
However, that is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if man is the primary cause. If we're exacerbating a bad situation, we still need to stop.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
if humans are the problem or not is not relevant. Relevant is that humans have been poisoning the environment, the air, the water, the ground. CO2 problem is nonsense, less CO2 will not make our world better. Not burning fossil fuels will make our world better, but not because of the CO2, but because of the N and S parts, and the heavy metals they put in the air. And the large amounts of plastic waste. Well it seems people want to make everything a political statement....
You're right, but in regards to number 3, I would argue that a government agency has a duty and obligation to make informed policy decisions. Granted though that many are not and have not for some time, but that is the ideal that should be strived for.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
It all depends on your frame of reference. You can pick a frame of reference where the earth is perfectly still. Granted, it's a non-inertial frame of reference which make celestial mechanics a bitch to deal with, but you can do it, and it will work.
Except the Democratic party actually finds ways to pay for what they spend. The Republicans love their deficit spending. Bush Sr did it. Clinton had to clean it up which is why a lot of military folks hate him for closing all those bases except that Republicans forced him to balance the budget so he did what he hand to. Bush Jr created a whole new cabinet position with DHS while cutting taxes so again we couldn't pay for it. Of course going to war at the same time as tax cuts was pretty foolish as well. That lead to Obama having to clean up except he had zero support for anything. Republicans at least worked with Clinton to clean up the mess prior.
With Obama's weak leadership paving the way for the Trump era I don't expect our deficit to be in good shape for the next President especially with even deeper tax cuts while still being involved in Iraq and Afghanistan among many other hot spots that aren't cheap. Nevermind all the increased spending on border security which again can't be paid for without raising taxes which he just cut or severely cutting other programs which will cause issues like childhood hunger which was a solved problem in the Clinton era to come back with a vengeance as it has through Bush and Obama years.
People keep talking about entitlements being a problem when they were created to solve a specific issue. If you remove the entitlement you better prepare to address that issue in a new way or at the very least admit your solution is for people to die in the streets instead of getting public assistance.
So, let's not prove the negative, lets prove it is man made. I don't think that's possible. We've had as much success with our climate models as we have of finally eradicating cancer. Lots and lots of research, but nothing that even comes close. When you have thousands of models, and thousands of different results, seems that there is something that points more toward uncertainty than certainty in the models. Is it likely that man is causing SOME warming? Without a doubt. How much? Cannot be proven, nor disproved.
please promptly find a roof to walk off.
He'd just float. Gravity is liberal fake science bullshit too. Stupid ivory tower intellectuals with their "experiments" and "proofs". There are opposing views to every theory, and mine is that the surface of the planet is all sticky and that falling is just liberals throwing the Earth at you when you try to leave it.
You rarely hear from them anymore, but there are still some conservatives in the Republican party, even though most of them have become non-idealistic. But there's just enough of them, and conservatives are pro-science (you don't just throw away practical knowledge; leave that kind of bullshit to Stalin!) and they support the regulation of pollution, mainly because such regulation is so much cheaper than mitigating the damage caused by the pollution.
As it happens, the conservative position is totally compatible with Democrats, so there just aren't the votes to switch to a pro-pollution stance.
How do you make the retrograde motion of planets work in a geocentric system? You really going to try to make planets jumping around in space "work"?
You are welcome on my lawn.
How do you make the retrograde motion of planets work in a geocentric system? You really going to try to make planets jumping around in space "work"?
You must be a space socialist or something. Obviously trying to play identity politics with planets, thinking they should be in circular orbits that obey gravity. It's people like you that make it so planets can't get their exercise by jumping around.
Yes, I'm hitting myself in the face as I type this.
What is the "other side" to Copernicus' view that the Earth revolves around the Sun?
Its a simulation, duh! The earth doesn't revolve around the sun because its just a collection of vibrating q-bits in a Bose-Einstein condensate in a higher universe's science fair project. Because our q-bit earth's location state is represented by vibration, technically the Earth does NOT revolve around the Sun!
If you can't figure out Science, denying it's existence is not going to help.
Like, everyone believes the same religion, right?
Science has proof.
Just like Courts, where all these Traitors are going to end up.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
Side 1: The Earth revolves around the sun
Side 2: The sun revolves around the Earth
Side 3 (the "Truth"): The Earth and the sun both revolve about the center-of-mass of the Earth-Sun system. This rotation point lies neither at the center of the Earth, nor at the center of the sun.
Maybe this should serve as a lesson that the "Truth" often lies between the extremes.
no one ever asked epa to provide "proof" that global warming exists
Conservatives have asked, on numerous occasions. It has been provided as research papers, peer reviewed. And in some cases the data has been collected from multiple sources. And the hypothesis are testable and in some cases independently reproduced.
Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean you weren't given an answer.
tl;dr- climate change is occurring. oceans are warming. global changes in weather is inevitable. these changes is caused, at least partially, by human activity. these are the things we know. ask me in 10 years and I can give you an answer with more detail and be able to predict even more.
Then give us a link to a kilo or two of this evidence.
Apart from you apparently not understanding the difference between climate and weather, you're just plain wrong - the models certainly do include oceans.
Given your evident lack of understanding, you shoulnd't be debating this topic here, or indeed anywhere.
You can look to the Flat Earth people for that; you could put them in orbit, or send them around the Moon and back, and they'd still claim it's all smoke and mirrors. In that scenario I wouldn't at all be surprised if they tried to open the door of the capsule while in transit, convinced they were on a Hollywood sound stage.
First, you have to prove global warming is happening
Yes, I believe this is called "end of the last ice age".
Show us your PhD in Climate Science (with timestamp) to back up your 'opinions' on this anonymous news aggregation-and-discussion site. Otherwise you're just one more climate-change-denying jackass with an 'opinion' you can't back up with anything more than the lint in your pockets. I'm no scientist either, but I'd sooner listen to a room full of people who spent 6-8-10 years getting their degrees plus however many decades of experience than I would some fool (or politician, same difference) when it comes to something like this -- and I'm far from alone.
I guess the problem is that uncertainty is a thing, and even where we may be certain about specific bits of science, our "science" of economics is notoriously uncertain, and a straight line cannot be drawn between where we know things, like the absorption spectrum of CO2, and to a field where we obviously don't, like economics.
So even if you accept that AGW is real, significant, measurable, and unprecedented, there is no fundamental justification for believing it would be catastrophic, much less what economic policies would be the most efficient in addressing the problem (say, dramatically curtailing energy usage versus funding adaptation strategies).
I'll leave with this - I believe that if any viable economic model existed that could reliably predict the future, we would have found it by now. The entire western world is incentivized towards it, with the base greed inherent in humanity fueling its fire. But there is no possible way that we can predict what 2050 is going to look like economically, just as the people of 1968 had no possible way of predicting what the economies of 2018 would look like. Heck, we've got no reliable model of economics on *any* timescale :)
Now, to really screw with your head, compare world economics to world climate, and ask yourself which is the simpler problem to solve :)
One thing that does not change in the Universe is that the Universe is undergoing constant change.
Oooh, another way to torture logic: proof by plattitude. This one is relatively rare. Congratulations, you're trying to be original.
As it happens, this particular change, namely the current climate change, is indeed the universe undergoing a change, namely a change effected by humans messing with the atmosphere of the earth. This climate change has been recorded in lots and lots of detail, and has been explained beyond reasonable doubt by the behaviour of humans in the last centuries. No need to drag in Santa Clause, any gods, or insinuating that people are lying.
Ocean temperature rise may or may not be human-caused, that's why the research needs to continue. The current administration wants to just say "it's not human caused, case closed", and start burning the research, censuring or outright firing scientists that disagree, and actively discouraging anyone, government or private, from doing any further research. That's the sort of bullshit that needs to be stopped; it smacks of Dominionism, of religious zealots who actually believe the Earth is only 6000 years old, and that we don't have to give a damn about it because it's all going to end soon anyway. This isn't just about climate change, it's about Real Facts and the neverending search for Real Truth versus dogma.
Copernicus could not prove his opinion, that was not done until Newton.
Judge isn't asking Pruitt to prove anything. He is asking for him to show his sources. Seriously, calm down. The EPA made a lot of recommendations based on lots of science which can also be cited. Pruitt came in and reversed a lot of policy real fast without citing any mitigating evidence.
The science behind CO2, methane, and thousands of other greenhouse gases are quite well defined and very reproducible as we actually have these things called greenhouses. That means yes, there are naturally contributing factors as well as man-made factors in the temperature, humidity, and barometric pressure.
When you look how choked most cities are in Asia and compare LA from now to LA in the 60 (Hint there are pictures) it is quite obvious that man has a tremendous ability to effect the atmosphere that we can easily see let alone what is not easy to see. The ozone hole was shrinking when we banned CFCs for instance but now some asshole is make it again and surprise we're seeing the hole come back! When we can blow up the planets hundreds of times over I'm still amazed there are people that think we can't affect anything on a global scale.
Ocean currents are not generally been part of the climate models... sigh this is not the place to debate science anymore.
Dude, you are so wrong; wrong enough that I've wasted quite a few mod points to post this.
5 seconds with Bing and the search term 'gcm that includes ocean currents' had Evaluation of the GISS GCM ModelE in the top few results. This article is dated 2002 and talked about how ocean currents are included in the GISS GCM. Ocean currents have been part of GCMs (General Circulation Models) for at least that amount of time.
Now, I am skeptical of the robustness of GCMs. Their predictive power appears to be weak over time (look at how accurate the CFSV2 is over a three month period, for example); and probably because their resolution is quite low; GCMs typically having a horizontal resolution of between 250 and 600 km, 10 to 20 vertical layers in the atmosphere and sometimes as many as 30 layers in the oceans. But that will change as computers get faster or more massively paralleled.
Disagree with GCSs all you want. But at least try and do some rudimentary research on why you disagree with them..
In the 1970s scientists floated the premise we were on the cusp of an ice age, and to mitigate that threat proposed melting the polar ice caps by spreading lampblack over them.
This was a tiny minority of the scientists studying climate, and nobody now would even remember this except that the mainstream media of the time picked up on it and ran with it, perhaps because the average citizen would conflate this with another big problem back then, the concept of nuclear winter. Fast forward a few decades and cretinous turds with a few dozen brain cells are trying to present this as if the majority of climate scientists bought into this concept, that the whole community flipped from believing in cooling to believing in warming, and that somehow this is fucking relevant despite the huge advances in technology and data acquisition since then.
"I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
What is the "other side" to Copernicus' view that the Earth revolves around the Sun? It's been almost half a millennium, so you've had plenty of time to come up with something.
Copernicus showed that an earlier belief (earth as the center of the sun's orbit) was wrong. However, Copernicus' position was not the final word on celestial mechanics. Newton's work on mechanics gave a better model that showed an error in Copernicus's work: Both the Sun and the earth are moving around each other. The Sun's larger mass moves the common point inside the Sun, so that the earth causes a slight wobble in its position. Newtonian mechanics was not the final word on the subject: His formulas ignore relativistic effects (thow they do not matter much at the speeds involved).
You seem to be trying to argue that Copernicus "won" the debate, and to use this as an example of a case where a result is so obviously correct that no one should challenge it in the future. This is not such an example.
In science, you can prove a theory wrong with an experiment. YOu can never prove that a theory is true. Copernicus had a theory that was less wrong than the one he displaced. But his theory was also wrong, and future generations were right to challenge his bogus ideas.
I'm looking at Pruitt's wording, and I have to say, he isn't incorrect the way he worded it. CO2 isn't the primary cause of climate change. That would be the Milankovich cycles. CO2 is causing it to change at an accelerated rate though. Semantics, but whatever.
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
Except the Democratic party actually finds ways to pay for what they spend. The Republicans love their deficit spending. Bush Sr did it. Clinton had to clean it up which is why a lot of military folks hate him for closing all those bases except that Republicans forced him to balance the budget so he did what he hand to.
So basically you are saying one Democrat president found a way to pay for what was being spent because the republicans forced him to?
And yes, I'm frustrated that the only time the Republican's have managed to balance the budget is when we had a Democrat for president. Just as I am sure Democrats are frustrated that the Democrats wait for a Republican congress before attempting amnesty. It's a shame it takes losing power to spur our parties into action.
What is the "other side" to Copernicus' view that the Earth revolves around the Sun?
Agreed. Since Copernicus' view was later proven correct we should assume all views will later be proved as correct.
Then give us a link to a kilo or two of this
I'm just curious... Is there any link that could honestly be supplied that would change your mind?
So, you're agreeing with the original poster who believes "proper science never has just one side"?
You're setting up a strawman to refute something I never said.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The Holocene climatic optimum was a period 8–5 kyr ago when annual mean surface temperatures in Greenland were 2–3C warmer than present-day values... For all the simulated icesheet histories, the ice sheet is approaching a steady state at the end of the 20th century
. So it was considerably warmer back in the time of the Pharaohs, and at least the Greenland ice sheet is approaching a stead state of size at this time. That would imply that things have changed significantly - cooler - over the last 5 to 8K years, no?
There is also this little bit of data which is what led Phil Jones, Director of the CRU of East Anglia and a primary contributor to the IPCC, to agree that:
according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical
. So if the heating over those periods - two well before the rapid rise in CO2 - are the same as the "big trigger" that caused the whole IPCC/global warming issue in the first place, then how do we know that it's because of CO2?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Good job!
You found two. Now you only need a few thousand more.
Beyond that, show me a model that has currents included in it, then remove the currents. Show me how removing currents affects the results.
Here is one, by Professor Don Easterbrook, based on the PDO. And his model nicely fits the data - including the 1940 to 1970 cooling trend and the pause/drop from 2000 to 2015 - that is available. In other words, it is the oceans (and the currents therein, that distribute the heat), not the atmosphere that drives things. Which makes sense, given the amount of heat that can be stored/distributed by each...
:Sigh: ... these high UID kids these days don't know how to debate science anymore...
Low UID doesn't seem to matter much, either...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
IOW, you cannot provide EVIDENCE that something DIDN'T occur.
You can prove something didn't happen. For example, person X didn't go inside the bank lobby between 1 and 3pm. however that person was in jail with a constant video feed, thus assuring that it didnt happen.
With respect to something not repeatable, like the earths climate, on one hand you can't run multiple trials, but on the other hand it's disingenuous, ignorant, and in blatant denial of reality to say we can make no claims or predictions. Adding CO2 and methane are easily shown by repeatable experiment to increase the worlds temperature. If someone wanted to make a scientific claim as to why they wouldn't, in practice, they would need to actually come up with a better explanation, say some feedback mechanism such as increased cloud cover, or plant growth. But to just hand wave it away without a rational explanation is moronic and may simply be dismissed without evidence.
How do you make the retrograde motion of planets work in a geocentric system? You really going to try to make planets jumping around in space "work"?
I'd suggest you do a quick primer on frames of reference in the theory of relativity. But who knows, maybe Einstein was wrong about all that stuff... An Earth-centered frame of reference is perfectly valid as the GP stated; the math is ugly, and the motions of the planets become extremely complex from an equation standpoint, but it is completely consistent and nothing "jumps" around. Unless you think Einstein is wrong?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Why is that strange? CO2 concentration started rising in early 1800-s: https://robertscribbler.files....
but there's Youtube videos of a guy debating flat earthers. They've got all sorts of explanations.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Actually, no. His model makes no sense whatsoever. It's basically "Pacific ocean warm, Ogg happy". Meanwhile, the warming in the recent 20 years is now way over 95% significance threshold. The acceleration of the global warming rate is also now statistically significant.
Oldie, but goodie: https://skepticalscience.com/g...
Epicycles. You have your planets moving in circles which are centered upon points which are themselves moving in circles. Add more circles if you need to. That's how the geocentric astronomers did it. They didn't realise it, but they'd gotten half-way towards inventing the fourier transform. The model actually does work to some extent - it's unwieldy, but it will predict the motions of the planets with a good degree of accuracy. The geocentrists of old were not idiots - they simply had limited observational data with which to test their models.
"Grammar school" is a type of school in the British education system. It does not actually focus upon grammar any more than other schools. There was a time they did, some generations ago when knowledge of latin and greek was respected, and the name is just a vestige of that era.
The main characteristic of a grammar school is an academically selective admission. Potential students need to demonstrate good grades to be accepted, while the regular comprehensive schools will take students regardless of academic ability.
Unfortunately, the two are intrinsically linked, so any solution will be complex.
I highly suggest reading the book Doughnut Economics on this topic. The essential argument the author makes is that ultimately our economies are based upon the systems of the earth. We can make things out of wood without trees, we can't grow food without soil, etc. Even things like mineral extraction and fossil fuel use are also ultimately rooted in earth systems.
If we want to have a robust world economy that creates opportunity for everybody, it *must* be ecologically sustainable. Anything else is just borrowing from future generations and will eventually collapse when resources run out.
The doughnut economics book also traces a lot of the history of economic theory to sets of mathematical models invented to describe things limited in scope that have now been taken grossly out of the original context.
There are also plenty of economic models that are just too damn simple. A number of these came about shortly after Newton wrote down the basic laws of planetary motion, which inspired other disciplines to describe the world with mathematics. Of course, the systems are radically different. Planetary systems are relatively simple when compared to economics, which can involve literally millions of people making independent decisions.
Not really needed, if you remember the quote from Einstein. One simple experimental result that shows your model is wrong is all it takes.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The models claim that temperature correlates with CO2. But here is data that shows the two do not correlate. So which is right - the data or the model?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I'll preface this by saying that I'm a non-smoker. I'm bringing this up because I'm sick of fanciful research claims... actual facts should be convincing arguments by themselves without having to inflate the results.
This reminds me of that time in the 1990s when the Surgeon Generals' office produced a report saying that cigarettes contain over 2,000 chemicals, a statement that was picked up and repated by many media outlets and other government departments around the world.
The Surgeon Generals' office was forced to retract that report when they could not actually produce said list of 2,000 chemicals. Yet that number is still being quoted in current government literature, e.g.: a Spit Tobacco Preventation Network document hosted by the Texas Department of State Health Services (https://www.dshs.texas.gov/region1/documents/tmp-SmokelessTobacco.pdf).
That's already been demonstrated by the temperature of the sea rising.
Not arguing with you; there's no question whether increased quantities of CO2 have caused atmospheric warming... but would this necessarily lead to average ocean temps rising? Acidification, sure... but I was under the impression that one of the bigger, immediate ramifications of global warming was ocean cooling - and the resulting chance in currents - caused by melting glaciers/icecaps. Take that with a grain of salt; I'm well out of my area...
Correct. The temperature depends on the CO2 concentration, in an equilibrium system with long-time inertia and hysteresis. In early 1880-s the CO2 concentration had started to rise because of the rising fossil fuel use (coal) and so the temperature began to grow.
Then you didn't look at his model. It matches the temperature record quite well (better than most of the IPCC as Dr. Roy Spencer has shown), and is based on the PDO. In other words, it is the PDO (and to a lesser extent the AMO) that drive the climate, not CO2.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Except they DID provide the evidence global warning exists, now the current administration is claiming otherwise without presenting any evidence for why they changed conclusions.
The thing is, his model is basically curve fitting. It's a purely phenomenological model with lots of tunable parameters. And as Fermi said: "With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk."
Meanwhile, CO2-based climate forcing has purely theoretical explanation. In the end it's a simple heat balance equation.
And you get stars travelling in circular paths at speeds far greater than lightspeed. But nobody really knew (although the were working on it - parallax works up to a point) back then how far away the stars are. Now we do know...
AC
I'm pretty sure the top cause of warming is the heat given off by nuclear reactions. Some in the sun, but mostly the heat from nuclear decay in the Earth's core. Remove those and we wouldn't be warming.
That's not what he meant though of course. He meant "lalalalalala tax cuts and regulation cuts for donors lalalalalalala". Same as most of the Republicans in office the last thirty odd years.
Don't force your morality on me.
Of course, I'm a firm believer in the scientific method. Show me the evidence.
CO2 isn't the primary cause of climate change. That would be the Milankovich cycles.
It is a significant contribution but not strictly true. Milankovich cycles count for up to 23% from trough to peak. We're not starting from either the top or bottom so we're looking at an even smaller contribution than that theoretical maximum.
Maybe if Bernie won and the next generation learned some basic mathematics with their free college education we'd be able to have better discussions and make better policy decisions. Until then we have a lot of nitwits sharing their opinions. Worse, some of the really clever nitwits sound scientific or speak in half truths.
Any scientific organizational leader that doesn't make policy based on scientific research is incompetent.
FTFY
That is a demonstrably false statement. Not basing policy on scientific research can demonstrate competence.
Consider that the United States obesity epidemic has been caused by a government policy to promote carbohydrate consumption and discourage fat consumption. That policy was based on scientific research. Those government officials who based that policy on research are incompetent and any (hypothetical) government officials who did not base public policy on that scientific research would have acted competantly.
It was always obvious to a many that the policy and science were wrong. My father was a biophysicist and he always knew government anti-fat propaganda was based on junk science. There is nothing extraordinary about that. His standard for judging scientific conclusions was the formerly-conventional strong inference standard.
Those who knew better and spoke up at the time of the anti-fat propaganda were shouted down by people such as yourself, wielding precisely the same argument which you now make. There is a staggering cost in money, lives and well-being of obeying your faulty logic. You and your ilk have oceans of blood on your hands.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
The technology exists to greatly reduce our net emissions. It's the responsible thing to do. Climate change or not, we should pollute less.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Our falsely elected leader, who is working directly for Putin, has devolved America into Chaos over his 500 days in office.
His only "Accomplishment" was giving all his billionare buddies a Huge tax cut, and everyone else a sixpack.
In the meantime, his cronies have been arrested, charged, and are either awaiting trial, or have served a sentence and been deported.
I'm just waiting for them to fly Air Force One to russia with all the criminals onboard, and try to set up a "Government in Exile."
This is what happens when you remove school funding for 30 years; Americans are too stupid to recognize Propaganda, and Outright Lies.
Welcome to America!
Now get the fuck off my lawn, or we shoot you.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
How do you make the retrograde motion of planets work in a geocentric system? You really going to try to make planets jumping around in space "work"?
I'd suggest you do a quick primer on frames of reference in the theory of relativity. But who knows, maybe Einstein was wrong about all that stuff...
Bringing up Special Relativity when the subject is rotating non-inertial reference
frames doesn't really help your case. You might want to dial down your smugness.
He's broken so many laws, he better hope the Repubs stay in power forever, or that the Russian President is saving a pardon for him.
I hope they send him and Trump to Angola (Deep South, not the country), they'd like the other inmates, I'm sure. :)
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
Theee cheers for Pruitt!
He'd like it there.
Hunter S. Thompson was a bastard, but a heck of a guy; this guy using his Nick obviously never knew him, or read any of his books.
We've been in Bat(shit crazy) country for 500 days and counting, lol.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
You are seriously delusional.
Any time the entire worlds scientists in any field have more than a 90% consensus on it, there is literally tons of proof (as in published peer reviewed papers on the subject supporting it printed in the old dead tree format so it can be weighed.)
It's up to the dissenters to provide proof to overturn the plethora of evidence we already have. So far you deniers have provided squat if we don't bother to count all the hot air you've been spewing. By the way, your breath stinks of corruption.
You know... because asking someone to provide proof of a claim is anti-conservative.
When you only ask one side to provide proof of something, that's bullshit.
When the one side making the absurd claims is the side that has not conducted any repeatable experiments on the matter, has not been able to accurately predict things, and keeps revising both their models and data points in order to fit their hypothesis, yet they're the "accepted" side, that's bullshit.
But the most bullshit thing is not realizing the simple fact that carbon dioxide is absolutely not the primary cause of global warming. Not only is CO2 a weak greenhouse gas, human production of it doesn't account for the majority of it. The primary cause of warming and cooling is the fucking sun, by far. If you want to get into secondary factors, then plain ol' water vapor beats out CO2 by a country mile.
The Christian vision is not primarily about "going to Heaven when you die." The Christian vision is the kingship of Jesus coming down to Earth.
Christ loves you anyway.
Consider that the United States obesity epidemic has been caused by a government policy to promote carbohydrate consumption and discourage fat consumption. That policy was based on scientific research.
Not true.
These recommendations emanated from hearings held in the mid-to-late 1970s by the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, despite a “boisterous mob of critics,” including those within the scientific community who pleaded with the Committee to wait for more research “before we make announcements to the American public.” In response, Committee Chairman Sen. McGovern responded that “Senators don’t have the luxury that the research scientist does of waiting until every last shred of evidence is in.”
This was a classic case of, "We have to do something, this is something, we have to do this." The scientists were very clear that there was no research supporting the policy recommendation.
Nope, no sig
And the hypothesis are testable and in some cases independently reproduced.
Where are the test Earth's where we control everything from the magnetosphere to the sun and test only changes in CO2 emissions?
So we're in an airplane ready for our parachute jump and realize we've forgotten our chutes. We know we just wasted $200 if we don't jump. We can't prove for certain we'll die if we jump. In fact there are a few sparse reports of people surviving.
So in your opinion, we should definitely jump?
We're altering the data. Pray we do not alter it further.
Yes. Its the equivalent of 'I don't remember' which was H. Clinton's mantra in the recent past.
Because our q-bit earth's location state is represented by vibration, technically the Earth does NOT revolve around the Sun!
So the Beach Boy's song "Good Vibrations" is actually a quantum-science statement?
Fascinating!
Strat :)
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Mathematical theories can absolutely be proven true, often by proving something else false.
If 'Bernie won' his free education giveaway would completely flatten the education system. We would all get free junior college degrees.
Better discussions? You're kidding, right?
People in these forums are determined that The Truth be known and that Government Muscle be exercised to enforce actions based on that Truth.
It's almost like the Science practiced in Moscow in 1936.
See, Pruitt thought you meant reviewed by the Peer-in-Chief.
That's the only peer-reviewed science he "believes" in.
That and the Little Red Handbook of Russian Operatives Destroying America ...
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Dogma-Cow is just a silly and indeterminate Icon on the Mac desktop.
Is it a cow?
Is it a dog?
Oh, how the clever people of 1986 would argue the issue!
1: Pretend to take a reasoned view
2: Cite some sciency-sounding but nonsensical factoids
3: Attempt to shift the goalposts
4:
Christ loves you anyway.
The next step will probably be trying to argue the Bible has something to say about the issue.
And as Fermi said: "With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk."
Why go through so much work. A simple hockey stick shape will suffice.
There are no complete climate models, and, in addition, there cannot be. Weather is chaotic, and therefore climate is also chaotic. You cannot collect sufficient data to have a complete model.
What you can have is models that work fairly well. Normally what they do is create an ensemble of models that work well on past data and project the places where they agree. Unfortunately, for, among other reasons, political reason, the ICCC eliminated from consideration models that made extreme forecasts. This caused them to underestimate the amount of warming to expect. They felt they had to do that to avoid being seen as alarmist if the projections were wrong.
OTOH, since controls of CO2 haven't been applied even as strongly as has been agreed upon, things are looking rather ... unpleasant. Expect continued slowing of the jet stream and for hurricanes, heat waves and cold spells to continue to become more extreme (due to lingering in one place for longer).
Please note that the prediction includes more extreme cold spells as the result of global warming. This is why they called it climate change rather than global warming, because people have a hard time understanding that a local cold snap can be due to warming elsewhere. Most of the warming, however, has been in the Arctic and Antarctic areas, as was expected. This has resulted in slower jet streams. It's not yet clear how ocean currents will be affected. It's possible that the Greenland melt will shut down the northern branch of the gulf stream, which could lead to extreme freezing on the US East Coast and in Europe. So far it's weakened, but has maintained it's direction, if not speed. OTOH, if it slows sufficiently, then the sea level rise along the US East coast should be diluted by being spread elsewhere. I don't know how this would affect Europe.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Ah, a Trump voter, I see.
Peer reviewed journals of scientology?
Does elron know about this?
Actually, it's quite possible to create a set of equations that are Earth-centric, and fully compatible with Relativity. They'd be a real pain in the ass to work out, even compared to the Einsteinian equations, but they'd be completely compatible.
IIUC, the first thing you do is rescale your metric so that all spacial variations are restated as temporal variations. I'm not sure what the next step is, as that first one was enough of a pain.
But Geocentric coordinate systems can be just as accurate as Heliocentric. They're just a huge much more pain to calculate with.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Actually, if things are going to hell, we might need to harness all possible resources to deal with the problems that will soon manifest.
If we're facing a really bad situation, we might need to keep trying like hell, not handicap our economy.
I know, I know, that doesn't fit in well with what Gaia wants us to do.
Nevertheless, he's correct about ocean current being pivotal in the climate and weather. What he's missing is that they don't change without cause. Yes, they've changed, and that has had a great impact on the weather. But their change was not some random happening, but has a multitude of causal antecedents, many of which are summed up in the phrase "global warming".
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
They are all clowns. Mostly all the same sort of clowns just manipulating the issues they've capitalized on to feel important and powerful.
The idea of an outsider like Trump is kinda reassuring in a way. The traditional Republicans hate his guts. He killed the Bush Dynasty and while he plays golf, the Country Club Republicans despise him.
We just need to remain skeptical, because things necessarily will go to shit again. Trump's presidency is a Drano mechanism. It will eventually be neutralized. You can count on that from Politicians, if not much else.
a room full of people who spent 6-8-10 years at the seminary getting their degrees plus
very reproducible as we actually have these things called greenhouses.
The idea that we can model the earth's climate in a little glass box is ludicrous. Do you have anything else stupid to contribute?
5: Prophet!
Yeah he's just going to be releasing his used toilet paper and calling it a day, nobody is going to be shocked he just pulled it out of his ass.
Flag as Inappropriate
Personally I just wipe. Is shoving the paper actually up there something we expect from those in high office?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Welp found the contrarian.
They laughed at Einstein. They also laughed at Bozo the Clown. You ain't Einstein.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Both solar radiation and water vapor are more important factors than CO2.
And that is quite possibly the case - but it makes them look REALLY bad if they have to admit that the agency charged with protecting the environment has taken an official position in direct opposition to the scientific consensus, without having ANY evidence to back their position. Makes Pruitt look like a traitorous corporate whore, and the rest of the agency like his complicit bitch.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Agreed. Since Copernicus' view was later proven correct we should assume all views will later be proved as correct.
Well, that's the first time I've seen someone genuinely honest about denialism.
Usually the argument of "someone who was right was once thought wrong. I'm though wrong, ergo I'm right" is made implicitly. At least you're being direct.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Science is more than a "set of equations". There's also observation to take into account. And we have observations now from Voyager and other long-range spacecraft.
You are welcome on my lawn.
If we're facing a really bad situation, we might need to keep trying like hell, not handicap our economy.
False dichotomy. Our economy needs sustainability for feasibility.
I know, I know, that doesn't fit in well with what Gaia wants us to do.
Sorry, me laddo. I'm not a hippie, I'm a believer in physics.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Except what you said is wrong.
Including budgetary and immigration. The resistance to any meaningful accomplishment comes from the nihilists who get elected to destroy government.
The resistance to any meaningful accomplishment comes from the nihilists who get elected to destroy government.
When are these ass-clowns going to figure out that Bannon wasn't joking about this?
Dude you just mixed up a bunch of half related facts with shit assumptions and false forecasts... just to fit your incorrect world view.
What a disingenuous example. The barycentre of the Earth-Sun system is just 0.000646 AUs from the centre of the Sun, which is pretty damn close to one of those "extremes".
So yeah, Copernicus was 99.94% correct. Insisting that anything less than 100% is "somewhere in between" two such dramatically different hypotheses is pure sophism.
When I see a highly active story, I like to look for funny comments. Lately there have been quite few.
About 10 levels down in this thread there was a slightly funny and visible comment, which motivated me to crawl up the thread to try to understand more about the joke. Turned out it was full of hidden AC trolls and your hidden-by-down-moderation troll-play comment. I think you helped the ACs waste that much of my time, so...
Please don't feed the trolls.
There are solution approaches, but Slashdot doesn't have the capabilities (certainly not financial and probably not technical, either) to move towards implementing any of them. I myself favor the EPR approach.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Oh bugger!
I knew I missed a trick there.
I'm not sure if it's clear what "ecologically sustainable" means in the context of an eternally changing ecological system.
I can think off the top of my head, two completely opposite interpretations:
1) behaving in such a way that the status quo is sustained eternally;
2) behaving in such a way that any human growth is sustained eternally.
My guess is that neither is possible.
Mathematical theories are pure abstractions and don't need to be tested against the real world.
>and vote for something better.
Like libtards that want to rely on solar and wind even though every scientist has said that we can't without massive grid changes.
Fun fact, there is no PROOF that man made anything is the issue. Its all theory. And the models rely on the garbage in, garbage out method.
Fact is WATER is the biggest contributor to warming. CO2 is no even close.
at one time all the 'scientist' claimed the world was flat.
Science is not consensus.
Fact is WATER VAPOR is the largest reason for climate change. Just because you try and add 'man made' to rule out all larger and natural causes doesn't make it right.
And also 90% of the scientist don't study the climate. They just agree like lemming so they appear to be smart. Most 'science' today is NOT hard science. Its questions like 'how do you feel'. Or worse, they try and make 'new science' by simple using statistical analysis on old data.
If only we could agree on the definition of "pollution" :)
And even after we agreed on that, there's the question of costs and benefits - is it okay to emit one unit of "pollution" if it causes $1 of harm, and $100 of benefit?
I still remember the whole elementary school lesson on photosynthesis and respiration - it was always so amazing to me that the "pollution" of plants was actually required for animals, and vice versa.
Your analogy isn't really very persuasive.
Try and build an analogy where you have $1000, and you have to decide whether or not to do a call or put option on Tesla stock today.
Do you have a foolproof model for the price of Tesla stock?
Does this model work for all other stocks?
In your opinion, what stock should we buy calls on, and what stock should we buy puts on?
you are an idiot. water doesnt cause global warming it is the volcanic activity amplified a thousand times by airplane contrails
Your analogy fails to capture the magnitude of the consequences. It also fails to consider the considerable externalities.
The judge should demand proof of the opposite also, but unfortunately, all evidence supporting climate change is based on theory that is in constant flux. Legal cases require hard proof, which neither side can produce. Might as well save the court system's resources for cases with actual legal basis rather than grandstanding a political ideology. I'm all for environmentalism, but as a taxpayer 21 trillion in debt, this is a waste of money.
He should provide all the documentation which demonstrates that he has stopped beating his wife.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
You're right - those two scenarios are not reasonable.
Ecological sustainability is basically the question of whether or not a given practice could be done for a long time without causing damage. Think for example of the air we breath. A question of sustainability is a measure of how much pollution we are putting out. Is it little enough that it can break down at least as fast as we make it? What is washing into the various lakes, rivers, etc and what is the half life on all of those things? How does that rate compare to the rate of input? Another example is the rate of soil formation compared to the rate of soil loss with industrial agriculture. Too much of that leads to desertification. What is the rate of groundwater formation compared to aquifer extraction?
We are not doing well at most of these metrics right now, which is only going to bite us in the ass down the road. This is all without even mentioning climate change.
This balancing of the load we put on the rest of the planet with our own outputs is exactly what is meant by ecologically sustainable.
Naturally, this will be ever evolving.
There's zero science in the current EPA, as well as most of Trump's administration. He cannot produce any real science because he has none. Or at most, he'll be giving a bunch of stuff that have some pretty curious links to coal corporations, produced in the late 70s or something.
And it'll either be blatant lies that wouldn't pass peer review, or just something vague like "more evidence is needed", which btw, we already have.
I needs no repeating, but there is OVERWHELMING evidence and consensus that climate change is man made by the entire scientific community. And this includes people who have been studying it for a good part of their lifetimes. It includes an incredibly substantial body of evidence from multiple perspectives. It comes from analysis with historical records, measurements taken from recent years, modeling and prediction, how the planet is already changing, and the relationship with all sorts of pollution that you can go out and see today.
I don't think deniers get how massive the body of evidence is. We even have researchers from a couple of decades ago hired by oil companies saying it was happening back then, only of course these companies chose to hide the research and exploit the information for themselves instead of releasing it in public.
"I doubt it" by brainless politicians and by the coal industry do not get a pass. I don't know what else is needed for deniers to get this, but I suspect it's gotten to such an extreme that they'd rather drown in a coastal city while shouting it's not happening rather than considering the idea that they might just have been wrong all this time. It doesn't take a whole lot to step out of your cult-like status and think a bit.
All the extreme weather events that are likely related to climate change happening several times a year and somehow it's still hard to believe. This sort of stubborness only ends in death. Asking to produce science will do nothing, because it was never backed by it. It will eventually get to a point where it's either them with their baseless claims or it's us paying the price for their ignorance.
The worst thing of it all is that even in the fictional scenario that they were right, there is simply no reason to be against the general measures against climate change. US is just like the anti-social entitled asshole idiot that behaves like a baby while the rest of the world is taking responsibility. Coal, oil and gas dependancy have always been a health hazard, it benefits no one to keep it, and even countries that were highly dependant on those are realizing after too long a time that it's simply not worth the damages it causes... you know, countries like China, famous for cities so heavily polluted during some days of the year with coal mines that people were simply collapsing and dying on the streets. Both China and India already have some generations condemned to live with lung related and respiratory diseases, why would anyone want to follow their past model?
Do people really want to get into scenarios like those, or go back to industrial revolution era pollution levels? Like, fortunately the global economy, scientific community, people who already accepted man made climate change as a reality, and people overall against Trump's EPA have enough power to continue the transition... coal dependancy will end whether politicians like it or not. But if it wasn't for that, de-regulation and climate change denial would logically end up resulting in pollution levels of the same scale of China and India.
And it's not like the US isn't already littered with superfund sites to show what happens when things like that gets ignored.
It's incredibly sad to see how entire groups of people cannot learn anything from history. Makes me think that in the end, our species will meet it's mass extinction event way sooner than other species because of our so called great "intelligence".
The Earth is warming and Mars is warming. The cause is obviously extra-terrestrial, probably solar.
If all whites die, it would be the end to white privilege and all racism, so it would be a net benefit for the world.
Of course it is. In the glorious past, people didn't need no science to believe in stuff, no matter how crazy it was. Conservatives would like to conserve it.
Ezekiel 23:20
Yeah like this gem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
brandelf -t FreeBSD
Mod me down if you want, but it is the truth.
The Invisible Pink Unicorn places the planets in their supposedly observed positions whenever those "pesky astronomers" make their studies, then moves them back again afterwards to their correct positions orbiting the planet Pluto!
That sound? Is of the IPU traveling at 0.75c, relativistic effects included!
at one time all the 'scientist' claimed the world was flat.
I've heard that claim several times, but can you name any of these alleged scientists, and perhaps even provide links to their peer-reviewed research? Because I thought, but could very well be wrong, that the earliest known descriptions of a vaguely scientific method and the earliest known convincing arguments for a round earth dated to pretty much the same period of time.
So if there ever was a time when the scientific consensus was that the earth is flat, I would be interested to learn about it.
It's a transparent salad bowl turned upside down, a co2 cartridge, and a thermometer. Feel free to do the experiments yourself.
Sometimes it is difficult to produce evidence though, for things that are clearly correct. It's a bit like when geeks challenge Homeopathy and call it fake. Millions of people use it daily yet 'science' labels it fiction. Just because science is lagging shouldn't stop people being able to use powerful homeopathic medicine. I like to call it 'Post-Science' - things that people know in their gut but cannot prove to boffins in white coats - yet!
Maybe you didn't understand the BBC link. (It does go against your core beliefs.) He is basically saying that yes, you can pick and choose small timescales where the data will match, but it's meaningless to consider such things. They are no more than coincidences. You could sift through stock market chats and find similar patterns too it you like, equally as meaningless. Except to the true believers that it.
"I would not agree that X" is not the same thing as "I claim not X". The initial burden of proof rests with those that claim X. On supplying an argument, Pruitt would be challenged with debunking that argument, not defending "I claim not X".
Also, "A mountain of peer-reviewed studies" is not an argument. Select one pertinent study to start with to represent the argument for (so not a 1000 page monstrosity but something convincing to a well-read adult) and allow Pruitt time to respond to it.
I hear Pruitt's scientific proof will be based on the fact that a particularly nasty storm having no connection at all to Global Warming apparently blew up out of a bunch of Chick-fil-A emails.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
There are recent papers that disprove greenhouse gas theory, and demonstrate that ghe is caused by adiabatic compression of the atmosphere by gravity. Unfortunately for the greenhouse gas theorists, it removes the foundation of their argument. Concensus is political, I mean scientific concensus was the planets and sun rotated around the earth until Gallilaeo proved otherwise.
Ghe theory on back radiation isn't hard to disprove, try insulating yourself with cold CO2 from a fire extinguisher and see if the back radiation it emits that originated from your body's warmth makes you feel warmer.
There is no way to produce something as "without doubt" because you will insist that you DO doubt it, even when there is no reason, EVEN IF YOU ARE LYING.
The case is closed. AGW is real, caused by human emissions and CO2 is the major driver of the change. Get over yourself, asshole.
If you want to see the proof, go to the IPCC home page and read the report, then read the papers used in the report. Feel free to claim you doubt it all you like, YOUR doubt does not make a lick of difference since you're in deep denial.
You don't even know what models are nor what their results are, all you have is the trollidiocy of the denial echo chamber.
No, he is incorrect. It is not milankovich cycles that are the biggest driver because the cycle is currently in a cooling phase, so since it is warming, there must be a change BIGGER than the milankovich cycle changing it in the other direction.
You moronic asshole.
Except that source does NOT prove the rest wrong. They don't even try. What Einstein was talking about but you are too far from Einstein to know, is one contrary FACT, not one contrary OPINION.
CO2 is a pollutant when it's a byproduct we do not need or want that produces a negative outcome. Your agreement to the term pollutant is irrelevant since you're merely contrarian and will disagree with anything if you feel like your political outlook requires it.
You are not important.
Back to Pascal's wager :)
Since the consequence for not believing in the savior Lord Jesus Christ is eternal damnation, obviously, given the magnitude of the consequences, belief in God is the right choice :)
Okay, so let's play with that one - how do we weigh feeding people and supporting population with possible desertification in specific regions?
I think it would probably be better to focus on efficiency when we talk about sustainability - the more efficient we are, the more people we can support, with less per capita impact. Considering the huge beneficial impact of the industrial age, it's hard to argue that we would be better off with several billion less people and the technology of 1850.
As a Catholic you should know that Jesus established a Church on earth. If you reject His Church you reject Him.
Quite why you want the government treated fairly when you were really shitting on the government when a black dude from the wrong party was in charge a few years ago is something patently obvious.
Pruitt already looks like traitorous corporate whore and is making his agency rubbish. That's way el Presidente Tweetie says he likes what he's doing at EPA. The shit won't hit the fan until these jokers are out of office.
Having a sense of proportion matters: discretionary spending is 1/3 of the budget and defense spending is about half of that 1/3. Most economists who have looked at the budget say that the 2/3's on entitlements is going to break the U.S. via debt. Defense spending is roughly $700 Billion out of about a $4 Trillion budget. The yearly deficit will be about $700 Billion but may rise to $1 Trillion. And with the Republican giveaways in the last tax bill boondoggle, economists expect $1 Trillion deficits every year until Congress does something.
Don't hold your breath. The Republicans' big idea is to grant more tax giveaways. The Democrats' big idea is to boost domestic spending. I don't see either side aiming to raise taxes. Whacking defense won't solve the problem. Taking money away from the Blue Haired is not going to pass.
That policy was based on scientific research.
No it wasn't. It was based on soundbite summaries of scientific research providing small digestible (pun intended) headlines for the complex topics studied and the complex conclusions which were drawn.
I remember reading the research behind "omg fat bad" stories. Most of them weakly identified correlations between certain foods while concluding that you should be eating a balanced diet.
But that didn't sound sexy.
You betray your ignorance here, as elsewhere. It doesn't matter how fast or massively parallel computers get, they will never be able to accurately model the Earth's climate. What they're good at is providing fodder for presentations that impress idiots in Congress, the media and Slashdot. They're utterly useless for making predictions and anybody who invokes them as evidence in favour of or against any kind of policy is a fucking moron.
And the American public supports both parties in their excesses. Oh, there is talk of self control, but anyone who raises taxes or cuts benefits gets voted out of office. So there it is: you can expect to see this through to bankruptcy, however long that takes.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
BTW when you state that the global changes (i.e. warming!) is caused 'partially' by human activity you are right... ...in the same way you would be right that when a middelaged person is run over by a truck that his/her dead was caused 'partially' by the collision. Since he/she was already middel aged there was allways going to be some concern about his/her health anyway, right?
Just to point out: the evidence that human activity is primary and, for all intents and purposes, solely responsible for the current global warming are enormous.
What is the "other side" to Copernicus' view that the Earth revolves around the Sun?
Einstein's relativity.
The Moon, Sun, planets, their moons etc. orbit Earth, in increasingly convoluted orbits.
Here is an interesting one
An interesting paper, thanks. I'd say the authors have substantially contributed to our understanding of the long term evolution of ice sheets, and their models will (within boundaries and with significant uncertainties) go some way towards predicting how the northern hemisphere ice sheets will change over the coming decades.
Still, it's worth pointing out that the fact that it was briefly warmer 5000 years ago doesn't contradict either the notions that CO2 traps heat or that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere causes global warming, or the notion that mankind is responsible for rapidly increasing the concentration of atmospheric CO2.
As regards your other nugget:
...which is what led Phil Jones, Director of the CRU of East Anglia and a primary contributor to the IPCC, to agree that
according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical
. So if the heating over those periods - two well before the rapid rise in CO2 - are the same as the "big trigger" that caused the whole IPCC/global warming issue in the first place, then how do we know that it's because of CO2?
That's a good question, and I guess the answer is "We don't, completely". Numerous factors influence the climate, not just levels of CO2. The fact remains though that we are rapidly increasing the levels of atmospheric CO2, whereas we have no control over the other factors.
I feel it's worth pointing out, just in case someone reads your post and doesn't follow the links, a couple of things:
Firstly, unlike your "quote" which is actually the question that was asked (missing the question mark), Phil Jones' response was that "the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other. Ascribing false certainty, as you do, might lead one to question the integrity of your argument.
Secondly, it's also worth pointing out that, since the rates are similar, it also follows that temperatures have been consistently rising, and are continuing to rise. One might think that this alone justifies concern over what will happen as they continue to rise, with regards sea levels, weather patterns and behaviour, and so on.
Finally, since you linked to the article, why don't we give Phil's answer to the question "Would it be reasonable looking at the same scientific evidence to take the view that recent warming is not predominantly manmade?". His answer: "No"
This was a classic case of, "We have to do something, this is something, we have to do this."
You have just there, quite succinctly, summed up nearly all problems with the government regardless of which party or politician is involved.
They know the solutions they offer are bullshit. The public doesn't care, "as long as they do something!", and in the end they find ways to enrich themselves while accomplishing nothing of value.
See my subject & letting you f yourself dumbass https://it.slashdot.org/commen... you inferior moron.
* Don't try "patronize" me BOY when I can show you are less than ZERO fucker... easily.
APK
P.S.=> Your DIM brains are blatantly inferior evidenced by your FAKE NAMES online for FAKE lives of being "ne'er-do-well" scum having the AUDACITY to even TRY "F" w/ me & ones like you you INFERIOR swine as I cast PEARLS before SWINE like you... apk
I assume it is harder to wipe with 100% cotton, foil embossed paper that was paid for with money appropriated to clean water in some superfund site.
So then, the decline in temperatures from ~1940 to 1975 was caused by rising CO2? Or the pause for most of this millenia (and we're almost back down to that temperature, now the big El Nino of 2016 is over) is also caused by rising CO2? Perhaps it's not CO2 that is the big culprit here - if the trends don't correlate, than the chance for causation is essentially nil.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
See subject SOYBoy (rotflmao) in your UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous "courageous" trolling you "not man" - LMAO!
(You know - I understand your SOYMilk & Bisphenol A "notman" SOYBoy formulas have addled your brains but that takes the cake for "illogic logic" from "your kind", lol!)
* The other poster's not I but they are making you get all "triggered" when you see your addled thinking fools nobody but your sick in the head chemically NEUTERED (lol) selves, lmao!
APK
P.S.=> Classic - one for my bookmarks... apk
I've worked on EPA grants before, they're legit. Not so many these days, this admin has been pretty bad for research. Luckily, congress has mostly ignored the president's budget proposals or biomedical research in the US would be smoke in the wind.
The technology exists to greatly reduce our net emissions. It's the responsible thing to do. Climate change or not, we should pollute less.
Well, unless you're one of the anointed elites, like Al Gore or Leo DiCaprio. They are allowed to pollute and emit carbon as much as they want as long as they preach that we must pollute less and emit less carbon.
This is not an easy question, and you are certainly right that going back to 1850 is not the answer. You are also right that part of sustainability is directly tied to efficiency, but efficient by what measure?
The free market is immensely powerful at optimizing, but it is largely just concerned with a single variable - short term, direct financial cost. Our food system is based partly on this variable and partly on the government efforts to avoid food shortages which take the form of food subsidies.
I once did the calculation - if you take the total government subsidies around corn, compare that to the bulk commodity prices, and divide by the total US population, you find that the US government buys every single person in the country about a ton of corn each year. The ripple effect of this policy is that there is a glut of corn, so there is cheap animal feed (and cheap meat), plus a lot of cheap raw material for the industrial food system. Corn syrup is the tip of the iceberg. Read some packaged food ingredients and many of the strange names (xanthan gum, maltose, dextrose, etc.) are made from corn.
I digress, though, one of the biggest issue around food and sustainability is really tied to meat production. This corn feed is brought to concentrated animal feeding operations (CAPO). Although efficient by a measure of money, these operations cause lots of secondary problems. The animal density is so high, diseases are common, hence the push for antibiotics, which then leads to antibiotic resistant microbes, which leads to human health issues. There is also a glut of manure from these operations, which easily turns into another health risk as it trickles downstream into the waterways.
Again, there is no magic bullet solution, but this current system is hugely wasteful. The manure, which is full of all kinds of nutrients, is allowed to just wash away while the original soils get depleted. A step in the right direction is capturing some of this manure and direct injecting it into the soil (to prevent runoff), and people are working on other approaches.
In the end, though, I think food prices are going to have to go up, especially for meat. This then brings us right back around to my original point - the issues of ecological sustainability are directly tied to issues of poverty and global equity.
The exact future system is not clear, but that doesn't mean we can't start working on it. I am lucky enough that I make enough money that I can afford to pay the premium for the local, more sustainably raised foods. It's also tastier. The pasture raised pork I get from a local farm is orders of magnitude tastier than what is sold in the chain grocery stores.
Don Easterbrook Projection vs Observations
Yeah he's just going to be releasing his used toilet paper and calling it a day, nobody is going to be shocked he just pulled it out of his ass.
Flag as Inappropriate
Personally I just wipe. Is shoving the paper actually up there something we expect from those in high office?
The paper is to keep the poo off his head when he has it up there.
THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
If you do any science to prove that humans are causing global warming, you are going to find causes that prove humans are causing global. If you are interested in finding ghosts, you are eventually are going to find evidence that ghosts exist, especially if you are being paid loads of money to find ghosts.
Sure humans are contributing to increased CO2 in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel. Which one of these people pushing their agenda on global warming have stopped burning fossil fuel. I would fathom a guess, none of them. I can't prove my guess as it is only a guess. But looking at everyone's reliance on fossil fuel, I would say pretty accurate. I on the other hand have reduced my burning of fossil fuel in at least in transportation to almost nothing. Here is proof... https://www.strava.com/athlete...
I still burn natural gas to heat my home in the winter and burn natural gas to heat water all year long.
If there wants to be 100% proof that humans are the cause of 100% of the global warming recorded, you would have to study 100% of the causes of global warming and that isn't being done. Only a small fraction of the causes at this time are being studied. I do agree that humans are contributing to it, thus my drastically reducing my footprint when NOBODY else is doing it. But I do believe that the human contribution to global warming is small compared to all the other contributing factors, known and unknown at this time, are not worth the time and energy being spent trying to prove humans are the cause of everything.
If you want to do something about it... Show us how much you have reduced your burning of fossil fuel. Talk it cheap.
Except the Democratic party actually finds ways to pay for what they spend.
Keep enabling the status quo. What is with the heavily democratic Anonymous Cowards today? The system is BROKEN. Choosing either side is choosing a broken system. Just fuck off.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Your god sucks and is an asshole. My god does not judge and does not punish those he professes to love. You need to get yourself a new deity.
and this is why many people hope this amazing administration completes its work replacing all the bias judges with properly vetted not-anti-conservative judges. obama almost destroyed our america by appointing MANY THOUSANDS of liberal biased judged across the country doing terrible judgements like this one. we are now absolute taking america back
+1, Funny
Except the Democratic party actually finds ways to pay for what they spend.
Um, no, they don't. Nobody does.
Historical Debt Outstanding
1900-1949
1950-1999
2000-2015
Yes, everyone at my Church knows that the "Theory of Gravity" is really just a plot to turn children gay and atheist. That's why we're organizing to have our schools teach Intelligent Falling instead of the completely debunked and not-at-all-true "Theory of Gravity".
Fanatically anti-fanatical
The cooling during that period was very slight. It's pretty clear that it was caused by the increased particulates in the air at that time.
https://www.skepticalscience.c...
You are however correct about one thing, CO2 isn't our only big problem
Greed is the root of all evil.
I disagree. I'm pretty Pruitt will produce a thick, professional looking folder that is literally overflowing with all of his evidence, which, of course, will be several hundred photocopies of his butt.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So then, the decline in temperatures from ~1940 to 1975 was caused by rising CO2?
Yeah, what could possible have happened between Sep 1, 1939 and Sep 2, 1945 that could have an effect on the world? I'm sure everything was totally peaceful and nothing at all changed during those years.
Or the pause for most of this millenia (and we're almost back down to that temperature, now the big El Nino of 2016 is over) is also caused by rising CO2?
What pause?
Perhaps it's not CO2 that is the big culprit here - if the trends don't correlate, than the chance for causation is essentially nil.
Who says the trends don't correlate? You? Did you account for confounding variables when you were measuring your correlations?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
and this is why many people hope this amazing administration completes its work replacing all the bias judges with properly vetted not-anti-conservative judges. obama almost destroyed our america by appointing MANY THOUSANDS of liberal biased judged across the country doing terrible judgements like this one. we are now absolute taking america back
Actually, he only appointed 329 in his tenure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Barack_Obama
So your fake news is sad...
Pascal's wager suffers both credibility issues and the problem that one cannot actually believe something because belief is the safe route, one can only act as if they believe.
Being peer reviewed does not make a study valid. Containing actual facts makes a study valid.
I can write 50 pages of horse poop about climate change and as long as I find a dozen peers who believe in the same horse poop that I do, I can publish a "peer-reviewed mountain of horse poop."
Elected people (like presidents) should be running the EPA.
Not judges. Not "their evidence" or whatever.
Not helping is that Mueller wants to decide who is in the White House.
"in an equilibrium system..." Sorry no good. Atmosphere is not and never has been in equilibrium. It hasn't even been a non-equilibrium steady state. It's in the non-eq thermodynamics realm where things are not simply solvable. Chaotic, non-linear, and unique in parameter space. Many relevant causative factors. So it is not so simple.
that's bad news. Because if the sun is the driver of the increase in world average temperature since the beginning of the industrial revolution, it's basically slowly going nova and we're all toast.
... when the stigma of fucking your cousin will be lifted. My cousin is smokin'!
Also, Brawndo's got what plants crave.
#MAGA
Sorry, but almost everything you wrote is wrong.
When you only ask one side to provide proof of something, that's bullshit.
That's true, however...
When the one side making the absurd claims is the side that has not conducted any repeatable experiments on the matter, has not been able to accurately predict things, and keeps revising both their models and data points in order to fit their hypothesis, yet they're the "accepted" side, that's bullshit.
I absolute agree with you that Pruitt needs to produce some evidence to support his position. But, of course, in you thought you were attacking climate scientists. However, nothing you wrote actually applies to them. They provide the data, the methods, the models and the repeatable experiments for virtually everything they do. Curiously, however, your statements apply well to every single alternative theory that tries to explain the observed facts of climate change. None of them have been able to survive even casual scrutiny from interested reviewers.
But the most bullshit thing is not realizing the simple fact that carbon dioxide is absolutely not the primary cause of global warming.
Except, of course, that it actually is. It's the primary driver of global warming because of the volume and longevity of CO2 produced by human activity.
Not only is CO2 a weak greenhouse gas, human production of it doesn't account for the majority of it.
The majority of the total CO2 in the atmosphere? That's true, for now, since pre-industrial levels are estimated to have been lower than 290 ppm and we're currently around 411 ppm. However, human activity has produced all of the increase in CO2 since pre-industrial levels. We know that because natural factors have been acting as a CO2 sink and absorbing more CO2 than they release. CO2 is a relatively weak CO2 gas but again we produce a lot more of it and it last a very long time in the atmosphere so it's the primary driver of the change, and then it is amplified because a little bit of warming from CO2 increases the average amount of water in the air which drives further warming. It's similar to pennies, they might not be worth much individually, but a million pennies is worth a lot more than a dozen hundred dollar bills.
The primary cause of warming and cooling is the fucking sun, by far.
No, it's not. The sun has cooled slightly while the average temperature continues to rise, and that's a good thing because the earth would be warming even faster if the sun were actually warming. In any case, the effect of the sun's tiny variation in output is far smaller than the effects of the increase in the greenhouse effect.
If you want to get into secondary factors, then plain ol' water vapor beats out CO2 by a country mile.
Because water vapour content is driven by average temperature, it's considered an amplifier rather a primary cause of warming. It applies the effect of every other greenhouse gas, but it can not be increased or decreased independently and that's why CO2 is considered more important as a greenhouse gas than water vapour.
You've got a few things right, but you've failed to understand what those things actually mean.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
I'd measure it by joules per unit of output.
I'm agreeing with you as hard as I can. And this is exactly the reason why I'm suspicious of grand plans to use the force of government to create a "sustainable" anything :)
I believe that regardless of the inefficiencies of free and open markets, they are superior to any governmental subsidy or regulation programs.
Which is exactly why I find the "extreme catastrophic consequences are possible!" argument unpersuasive.
Just within the past 100 years, we've had about 1C of warming. There is no clear indication that 1918 was better than 2018, on *any* measure. In fact, I'd argue that in almost every measure of well being of the biosphere, things have gotten *better*.
You're confusing gender as a social construct and biological sex.
It's forgivable because often words used in one discipline has a different or more specific meaning than the same word in general use. What gender means to the soft sciences like psychology, sociology, and anthropology is going to be different than what it means to a biologist, botanist, or medical doctor. But typically you'll find the word "sex" used instead of "gender" in most of the hard science, as sex has a precise definition in those fields.
Science openly admits that biological sex is more complex than a simple binary system that the XY sex-determination system implies. It becomes problematic in the rare cases where a person has a disorder like androgen insensitivity syndrome or the even rarer condition of aneuploidy (extra chromosomes).
Our roles in society are important. People who have difficulty finding their role tend to have stress to the point of being crippled by them. They can become acutely depressed, antisocial, turn to drug use, or even suicidal.
We can coexist as a people better if we operate an inclusive society where roles that were traditionally determined by sex in the 19th century and earlier is now determined by each individual in the 20th and 21st century.
Ultimately I am not inconvenienced if someone with a penis wears make-up, a dress, and uses a feminine pronoun. Sure it's different than how I was raised. But I'm able to adapt to other people and treat them with respect. People who are too rigid in their behavior and who cannot treat their neighbors with respect are the real burden on society.
If I use the wrong pronoun, it was not an intentional slight, and I will quickly adjust. No harm, no foul, we can move past such a minor thing instead of quibbling about it.
He has to exist first
He doesn't care. He just wants to be smug without having to do the work.
Human-caused global warming has been predicted by scientists since Svante Arrhenius in 1896 (See this list of early global warming papers).
Many of these papers were produced during the global cooling trend before 1975. Climate scientists predicted global warming before it happened and now over 90% of climate scientists are in agreement on the subject. Numerous studies show humans as the cause of recent global warming. Yet you think mainstream scientists haven't made their case?
Until you add feedback mechanisms such as the increased absolute humidity that corresponds to increased temperatures (water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas). Then it has a much greater effect.
Sort of. We started with 280 ppm in the atmosphere, now we're up to 410 ppm, so I guess humans are responsible for less than half!
However I assume you are referring to the myth that humans release less than 4% of all the CO2 that is "released" each year.
In a very twisted way, this is correct. A glass of water evaporating in a room with 90% humidity does not just "release" water molecules, it also absorbs them from the air. But if someone uses this fact to argue that water glasses will fill up in a humid room, there is something wrong with that, isn't there?
Similarly the ocean "releases" more CO2 every year than humans, but it absorbs more than it releases. Drawing attention to CO2 coming out of the ocean while completely ignoring the CO2 going into the ocean is highly misleading. The ocean's pH is dropping, why do you think that is?
Humidity depends on environmental conditions. When temperatures increase, the water vapor concentration (absolute humidity aka vapor pressure) also increases.
The 11-year average of solar irradiance has varied by only about 0.1% over the last century and solar output has decreased in recent decades.
You should ask people in coastal Texas about that...
Heat flow from the earth's core is 0.08W/m^2, compared with an average solar insolation of 340 W/m^2 (which has been known to trend by 0.5W/m^2 over periods of several decades) and an additional forcing of almost 2 W/m^2 from the CO2 humans have recently added.
... unless you're suggesting that the souls recently added to Hell from our burgeoning population have caused satan's furnaces to suddenly heat up?
So, no, heat from the earth's core is not really a top contender. And why should it be? Even if this number were much larger, there's no reason Earth's core should suddenly warm the earth much faster than it did in previous centuries and millenia
Correction: the peak insolation at the top of atmosphere (1361 W/m^2) has been known to trend by 0.6W/m^2 over periods of several decades, not the average insolation. See insolation graph.
Are there more people in costal Texas in 2018 than 1918?
Are those people healthier by any measure? Living longer? More prosperous?
Has the foliage greened? Is there more biomass?
More personally, would you rather live in costal Texas in 2018, or in 1918, and *why*?
He should just use all the accurate data provided by Michael Mann to prove his argument in his legal prosecution of Mark Steyn. Oh, wait....
What Phil Jones said was, "Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below)."
The temperature record of the 19th century is not considered particularly precise among experts who study it, nor is a 20-year trend considered important by climate experts because ocean fluctuations lasting several years can affect the trend over such a short time.
But if we assume the early records are accurate, the temperature increase from 1910-1940 can be explained as a combination of (1) human greenhouse gas emissions, as we were indeed burning them before 1960, (2) volcanic activity much lower than average (stratospheric aerosols from volcanoes cause cooling, thus their absence causes warming), (3) increasing average solar irradiance in that time frame, and (4) internal variability, such as differences in ocean currents.
I hate to play the grammar Nazi, but it's pretty evident that what you didn't learn in 'grammer' school was spelling.
You are however correct about one thing, CO2 isn't our only big problem
And that is my point. In fact, the connection between CO2 and global warming is rather tenuous, there are other, bigger forces at play. Some natural, some man-made. But by focusing on CO2 to the exclusion of all else, we're doing really the wrong thing. CO2 is easy to "monitor and control" (read: tax), but it's the wrong thing to focus on. Unfortunately, too many want to "do something" instead of "do the right thing" and thus we're where we're at.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The decline was until the mid 1970s, it didn't stop in the 1940s. Additionally, there was that massive heating (worldwide, might I add) that happened in the 1930s. And the pause is "eliminated" by inclusion of bad satellite data, which the folks who run the satellite system itself (Dr. Roy Spencer and others) say you shouldn't do. Drop the bad data, and we have a pause - even as CO2 continued to increase.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Don't you have more than that to contribute to the discussion?
These equations would predict the same experimental observation. That's what's meant by being compatible.
As a simple analogy, 4 + 2 = 6, but so does 3 + 3 = 6. The equations are different, but the underlying reality is the same. The thing is, in physics the underlying reality is subtler than we can directly detect, so even with choosing the simplest equations that fit the data we end up with multiple consistent interpretations. What this means nobody really knows, though you'll certainly get people who will tell you that this or that interpretation is correct or unreasonable.
Some people prefer to believe the simpler equation, so you get the heliocentric theories. Then it turns out that you need to recast those into the galactic central theories, but that's not really defensible either. Any coordinate system that matches the observations can have at least one set of equations fitted to it. But some are more difficult to work with than others. The ones with a stable fixed point on earth are easy for local values, but become increasingly difficult as you need to consider things more distant. However, if you do them correctly, they remain correct. It's just that epicycles were a gross oversimplification.
Somehow people tend to prefer the forms that are easier to calculate on. And there's nothing wrong with that. There are isomorphic transforms between them.
Now models that deform the earth into a form not topologically equivalent to a sphere are another case. I have a strong suspicion that those cannot be consistent models.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The utter irony that the head of the Environmental Protection Agency should be a climate change denier.. do you people understand what the rest of the world thinks of you?
I see a goalpost moving. There are a great many reasons for people to be healthier now than then. However, you might recall a little rain shower they had a little while ago that left them swimming for their lives. Do you believe they would like to see more or less such events in the future?
They might predict the observation from Earth, but not from say, the ISS or the Moon or Voyager. That's what's meant by being not compatible.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You're turning a multivariate equation into a single variable equation. Do you believe they would be willing to see less of those events, if it required them to return to the technology and lifestyle of 1918? Or do you believe that they would be willing to see more of those events, and live in the technological golden age of 2018?
It is prima facie evident that 2018 is better than 1918. Anyone who would prefer the world of 1918 is deluded or lying, or perhaps really really racist and looking to see Birth of a Nation in the white house again.
There is no reason to believe that 2118, even with another 1C of warming, would be worse than 2018.
So whats the right thing? Pump out as much CO2 as we can to check if it destroys the planet or not?
You present a false dichotomy. That's why my comment about the goalposts moving.
More correctly, do I think they would be willing to move to carbon neutral sources of power and see less of those events, or stay with fossil fuels and see more such events. I am not aware of anyone saying we never should have used fossil fuels. There may be a few kooks who do, but absent a time machine, so what? The reality based question before us is should we move to renewables and/or nuclear power now.
Personally I just wipe. Is shoving the paper actually up there something we expect from those in high office?
It's a new order from Trump to prevents leaks from the White House.
I think you better check out your physics. Explaining orbital motion correctly is impossible without using Relativity, since Mercury's orbit is Relativistic due to it's position in the sun's gravity field.
I think you better check out your physics. Explaining orbital motion correctly is impossible without using Relativity, since Mercury's orbit is Relativistic due to it's position in the sun's gravity field.
And how exactly would Special Relativity help me there?
The decline was until the mid 1970s, it didn't stop in the 1940s.
I suppose all those dead people magically sprang back to life, and all the shattered industry magically repaired itself at the end of the war too? And that's just one factor that you blithely ignored because it was inconvenient.
Additionally, there was that massive heating (worldwide, might I add) that happened in the 1930s.
What massive heating in the 1930s?
And the pause is "eliminated" by inclusion of bad satellite data, which the folks who run the satellite system itself (Dr. Roy Spencer and others) say you shouldn't do. Drop the bad data, and we have a pause - even as CO2 continued to increase.
That post is about an article "Sensitivity of satellite derived tropospheric temperature trends to the diurnal cycle adjustment" which most people would realize is about the troposphere warm spot, and not about the actual temperature record. Do you bother to read or understand things before you link to them or is this just you desperately grasping at any straw to reaffirm you preconceived notions?
Maybe you should do some actual research and come up with something actually coherent before you start playing this mind-numbingly stupid game of whataboutisms? Cherry-picking random facts and claiming they disprove something because you don't understand, is just illustrating that you don't understand.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
I'm going to call projection on this one.
You literally took a multivariate equation (well being on a number of axes, including number of storms per decade), and narrowed it down to a single variable (number of storms per decade), and then presented a false dichotomy (either you like more storms per decade, or you hate more storms per decade).
Whether we start at 1918 and go to 2018, or start at 2018 and go to 2118, there's no reason to believe that the benefits of natural petroleum will not outweigh the costs. From 1918, we know this is true through observation. From 2018, this might be a bit more fuzzy, but it is so in both directions - nobody in 1918 could have made accurate economic predictions for 2018, and there's no rational person who assumes we can write an economic model in 2018 that will accurately represent 2118.
My goalposts start at 1918, and end at 2018. They include all the costs and benefits of natural petroleum during that time.
Indeed.
That you're being voted down for asking for evidence....presumably it's simple to provide.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Scott Pruitt is a cesspool of corruption, entitlement, and imperial ambition. There's no science to be found there, just political maneuvering.
The head of the EPA should be fired immediately for misspending public funds, failing in his role as EPA leader, and incompetence. But then he never should have been hired either, he was a notorious basher of the EPA with nothing positive to bring to that Agency.
In that case, your goalposts are irrelevant to any decision making process (since we cannot now decide what we should do yesterday) and are irrelevant to the discussion (which is about what we should do now.
I agree that there is no reason to believe that the benefits of using petrolium going forward outweigh the costs. That's why I advocate transitioning away.
You can look to the Flat Earth people for that; you could put them in orbit, or send them around the Moon and back, and they'd still claim it's all smoke and mirrors. In that scenario I wouldn't at all be surprised if they tried to open the door of the capsule while in transit, convinced they were on a Hollywood sound stage.
Modern day Darwinism at work
Well, past results do not guarantee future performance and all that, but your assertion of costs outweighing benefits just isn't persuasive given the observed history.
Literally, from 1918 to 2018, over a hundred years, we've got 1C of warming, and grand expansion of humanity and the biosphere. Now you're asserting that if we see another 1C of warming from 2018 to 2118, we're going to see some sort of grand contraction of humanity and the biosphere.
Of course, I know lots of evangelicals who believe in Revelations and the coming apocalypse, but it's never been persuasive enough for me to become a believer :)
And you don't think there were any significant changes in technology during that time?
Do you think there will be no significant technology changes from 2018 to 2118? :)
Seriously, the idea that we've hit some sort of stable state of technology that we can extrapolate out to 2118 is *really* silly. You might have been able to make the case from 1200AD to 1300AD was predictable, or maybe even 1500AD to 1600AD, but given the speed of change in technology from 1900AD to 2000AD, can we really be so bold as to declare we know what 2100AD is going to look like?
Actually, I'm quite sure we will see technology changes. I am also quite sure the laws of physics will NOT change. filling our atmosphere with CO2 will remain a bad idea. We are now at a point where alternatives are pretty close to break even with fossil fuels as long as we don't do anything stupid like subsidize coal and other fossil fuels (oops) or let polluters be as nasty as they want to be (oops).
And you don't think that the technology changes of 2018 to 2118 will make our worries about another 1C of warming completely irrelevant?
You've already seen that 1918 to 2018 that any measurable cost of 1C warming was completely overwhelmed by the technology changes during that period.
Sincerely, trying to understand your position - do you really believe that the technology changes of the next 100 years will be less impressive than the technology changes of the past 100 years?
This big bump in the 1930s, as documented by Dr. James Hansen, noted global warming advocate, in a peer reviewed journal and posted on NASA's server. Of course, it was later "adjusted away" because it didn't support the proper conclusions, so the record was changed. As so aptly put in 1984, "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past."
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I believe that if the only offer is get 1 million bucks AND a kick in the crotch, it's probably worth it, but if there is an offer of a million bucks WITHOUT the crotch kick, take that deal.
In 1918, due to our limited technology, the 1st offer was all we had. We were right to take it. Now, the second is also on offer. We'd have to be stupid to take the first offer again.
Not true.
Horseshit.
"The depth of science...is even more impressive than that for tobacco and health in 1964"
That is from the 1988 Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition Health which identified reduction of fat consumption as "The No. 1 dietary priority of the nation"
There you have it. Stated directly by the government officials setting the policy, the policy was based on what they believed to be strong science.
The scientists were very clear that there was no research supporting the policy recommendation.
Collectively, they most certainly were not. Almost all print and broadcast coverage of the issue in that era stated that dietary fats were harmful and cited scientists and scientific research.
Look, I was around at the time arguing with everyone I knew, telling them the anti-fat stuff was bunk. And they all argued back, telling me that I was wrong because the science supported their side. That was what the government said, what the scientists which it cited said and what Time Magazine and other mainstream news outlets reported. Now some dipshit on Slashdot is telling me that never happened.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
In 1918, you had to take a kick to the crotch to get 1 million.
In 2018, now you're trying to avoid the crotch kick, and still get the 1 million.
I don't think that's the offer on the table. I think that our technology acceleration from 1918 to 2018 is *directly* related to the incredibly low absolute cost of natural petroleum energy - and to think that we can get the same benefit by crippling our energy costs, by making them absolutely costlier, is to misunderstand the choice at hand.
Now, if you can do wind, solar, or nuclear, without any subsidies, and provide cheap, reliable electricity 24/7 without mining a bunch of rare metals in batteries, then great! Maybe you can get the 1 million without the crotch kick! But if in order to avoid the crotch kick, you need to cut your balls off, that's not so good :)
We're right around that tipping point now. But without subsidies is apples to oranges unless we dump the many direct and indirect subsidies fossil fuels enjoy as well.
Also, don't let the term "rare earth" fool you. Those elements aren't at all rare, they just don't tend to be found in high concentrations like metal ores.
I don't recommend a crash conversion, but rather encouraging a transition over a decade or two. At the same time, I don't recommend kicking back to see what happens or "letting the market decide" the market is thoroughly corrupted by the actions of the fossil fuel industry.
Well, I'd avoid counting standard corporate tax deductions available to any industry (depreciation, etc), and I think once you take that away, natural petroleum gets effectively $0/kWh of subsidy. I'd be happy if the $/kWh of subsidy was kept equal, although the best world would be $0/kWh.
If you can beat natural petroleum on the open market, both in terms of price and reliability, there's no need to encourage anything - human greed will do the job for you. Both solar and wind have serious price and reliability problems, but that doesn't mean they can't figure things out eventually. For those who want to invest in companies taking that risk, that's great, but redistributing our wealth to make investments seems like a poor idea to outsource to the government.
Here's the basic truth - we setup systems of incentives, and it will encourage behavior. Setup enough government subsidies, and Elon Musk will create a company to take advantage of it. Create a reliable, stable source of energy that is cheaper than the alternatives, without any subsidies, and every venture capitalist will want a piece of that pie.
No central government 5 year plan ever worked, and no centrally planned initiative has any hope of dealing with the complexities of economies of free individuals. The thought that some infinitely wise technocrats could possibly map out a perfect system of incentives to get to their end goal of replacing 90% of the world's energy in 10 or even 20 years doesn't pass the giggle test.
You have a fairly naive view of things. Do you really think hydro-electric took off based on investors? Look up Hoover Dam. Or that petroleum has not gotten a LOT of subsidies in the form of military support, diplomacy, and a whole lot of looking the other way?
I', not advising any five year plans of anything of the sort. If you want to take a proper libertarian stance, that's fine as long as the fossil fuel industry is ready to pay for the damage caused by storms made worse (you wouldn't be proposing that we socialize the liabilities, would you?). They've got a lot of work ahead of them cleaning up all that lead as well.
Yeah, except for the fact that the butterfly effect blows that all out of the water - can't sue a butterfly on the other side of the planet :)
I guess I would imagine it this way - pretend it takes 200 trillion to reduce emissions. And pretend that we discover a CO2 extraction process in 2075 that only costs 200 billion, to get back to 350ppm. Does it really make sense to start spending the 200 trillion now?
Given the wild impact of technology from 1918 to 2018, I have no idea what we can expect from 2018 to 2118 - and to pretend that today, we could have any rational idea of what the *right* thing to do is, just seems like hubris.
I mean, really, think about just how many billion people we can support today because of natural petroleum and the haber process - we've made life *incredibly* better, even in shithole countries, over the past 100 years. CO2 issues seem like a rounding error in comparison.
Why not jump out of the plane, it's always possible that a stiff updraft will brake our fall.
It's looking a lot like you just want to stick the next generation and employ wishful thinking to absolve your guilt.
So, I'm sitting in 1918. We know about CO2, and about the potential impact it has on global average temperatures.
Do I jump on the natural petroleum bandwagon, and create the miracles of the industrial age and technology, or do I insist that we don't jump out of that plane, and just keep on going with our horse and buggies? :)
I agree, uncertainty can definitely look like wishful thinking - but can you see how your certainty can be seen in the same light?
If we had it to do again, we probably would have taken Diesel's suggestion to run his engine on vegetable oil. We also probably would have stuck with ammonia as a refrigerant. We would have a lot more solar thermal power now. Battery development would likely have gone faster. We probably would have had the Haber process sooner and the Middle East would be a lot less terroristy today.
If we were being especially sensible, we wouldn't have then (or now) tried to change everything overnight, just made sure we were going in the right direction so we wouldn't find ourselves in a bind later.
I'm agreeing with you as hard as I can - there are definitely things we could have done in the early 1900s that could have helped, like making sure the archduke ferdinand was better protected, or killing Ancel Keys in the womb before he was able to promulgate his low-fat hypothesis into our dietary advice :).
But all things considered, besides a few side trips into massive wars and socialist genocides of hundreds of millions of people, I think we've been moving in the right direction for the past 100 years. I mean, as much as I hate jihadis, and love the idea of eradicating them from the planet, they did less harm than either Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot. The twin towers falling was much more symbolic than it was absolutely devastating...and our oversized response to it, while perfectly understandable from a visceral and even an example setting perspective, is arguably a misjudgment of absolute risk.
By the same token, I think our fascination with 1C/century warming, while understandable from a visceral level, and maybe even justifiable in terms of say, driving efficiency, is much more symbolic than say, the evils of socialism and collapse of economies the size of venezuela.
So there's a conspiracy because you can't read the labels on graphs? U.S. temperature is not the same as global temperature.
Is everything stupid you write and do explained away by a mysterious cabal of conspirators who seek to undermine you?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Point out liars, stop slashdot from becoming slashdot. Doh!
So,you can't read?
Cicylsid today?