I can say I have a spirit, a set of behaviors that are independent of my "body"
Doubtful. Your brain belongs to your body and all your behaviours are encoded in the pathways of the brain. It's just a game of following the input signals, observing the outputs and realising there's not central processing "place" etc.
Book suggestion: Consciousness : An Introduction - Susan Blackmore
I think you'd be amazed as to how many people simply use the simplest distribution channel possible. A Swedish author (Unni Drougge) recently tried releasing an audio book for free on The Pirate Bay. With PayPal-account information included.
Peak oil has nothing to do with anthropogenic global warming. That doesn't mean that science isn't being done on peak oil:) You seem to argue that it's not important whether the science behind AGW is valid since we "have to" give up on oil anyway.
So, as you can see, even though it's true that English isn't my primary language - I have no problems deconstructing arguments into logical components and deducing valid conclusions from them;)
The science behind AGW isn't sound. I like sound science.
I'm curious. Does it take much effort for you to completely misunderstand what someone writes?
If so, I hope you're not peer reviewing much:)
(I'm a researcher by profession)
1) I never said there's no science being done on peak oil 2) I never said there is a greenhouse effect... so if you're serious about debating the topic at hand - please try again.
I'm not sure I follow you. Do you believe in "the science is settled" or that there's no peer reviewed research that does not blame human CO2-emissions for "global warming"?
If so, you're wrong:) Now the _politics_ might be settled, but don't confuse that with science.
Again. The models (AGW, see IPCC) have shown to be inaccurate. A real scientists doesn't start talking about peak oil or that humans are dirty animals - but instead looks for other ways to describe the reality around us.
Sun -> winds -> oceans would be my bet. High correlation anyway:)
You might want to study the concept of the scientific process before replying like that;) To do science is to postulate hypothesises and then test them. If they fit, they might be of use. If they don't, you either modify them or throw them away.
Oh my idea is to do science:) I really don't see why you're mixing completely unrelated topics (like peak oil) into a discussion on whether our current climate models are accurate enough (science says "no!" btw) to base our whole economy on.
You want to read Bjorn Lomborg, "Cool It", for more discussions on the economics behind "acting before we know" btw;)
To verify AGW according to the scientific method (and I subscribe to Popper's ideas here) you would want a few models created according to some hypothesises (for example, that increased atmospheric CO2 cause increased global temperatures) and then you'd test those models with real data. If they don't fit the data, they're falsified.
That's what has happened in the last decade. The models have shown one thing, the world another.
According to the scientific method, that means it's time for some other hypothesis to step forward. There are a few.
Oh and by the way the ice sheet shows pretty clearly that when co2 levels increases then so does the temperature
No, they don't. They do however show that when the temperature changes so do the CO2 levels. They're a lagging indicator, not a leading one. You want to look into the oceans as to why.
We in the industry of making things that are easy to duplicate and distribute might have to re-think our business model. Larry makes an excellent case for re-thinking a lot of things in the above book. It's a well worth read.
Slashdot Mirror
I can say I have a spirit, a set of behaviors that are independent of my "body"
Doubtful. Your brain belongs to your body and all your behaviours are encoded in the pathways of the brain. It's just a game of following the input signals, observing the outputs and realising there's not central processing "place" etc.
Book suggestion: Consciousness : An Introduction - Susan Blackmore
I think you'd be amazed as to how many people simply use the simplest distribution channel possible. A Swedish author (Unni Drougge) recently tried releasing an audio book for free on The Pirate Bay. With PayPal-account information included.
I think you know where I'm going with this.
Her own information release on it:
http://newsmill.se/artikel/2009/04/22/drougge-darfor-lagger-jag-ut-min-ljudbok-pa-pirate-bay
Her own Twitter comment about the result:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3653/3476793043_21a0a5d667.jpg
Translation of the tweet:
"Who said file sharers are thieves? Money keeps flowing in, without me having charged for it even!"
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=lessig&l=cc&ss=0&ct=0&w=all
How would it melt down a pebble bed reactor?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor
At my local airport there's a sign saying "you should drink 1 litre of water for every flight hour"
I regularly fly trans-atlantic to the US west coast. A 9.5 hour flight.
Fail.
I source a lot of presentation backdrops from Flickr - Creative Commons licensed (thanks Larry!)
Copyrighted and licensed - at the same time! Who could've thought ;)
Peak oil has nothing to do with anthropogenic global warming. That doesn't mean that science isn't being done on peak oil :) You seem to argue that it's not important whether the science behind AGW is valid since we "have to" give up on oil anyway.
So, as you can see, even though it's true that English isn't my primary language - I have no problems deconstructing arguments into logical components and deducing valid conclusions from them ;)
The science behind AGW isn't sound. I like sound science.
*sigh* .. "never said there isn't a greenhouse effect" of course ..
I'm curious. Does it take much effort for you to completely misunderstand what someone writes?
If so, I hope you're not peer reviewing much :)
(I'm a researcher by profession)
1) I never said there's no science being done on peak oil ... so if you're serious about debating the topic at hand - please try again.
2) I never said there is a greenhouse effect
I'm not sure I follow you. Do you believe in "the science is settled" or that there's no peer reviewed research that does not blame human CO2-emissions for "global warming"?
If so, you're wrong :) Now the _politics_ might be settled, but don't confuse that with science.
Again. The models (AGW, see IPCC) have shown to be inaccurate. A real scientists doesn't start talking about peak oil or that humans are dirty animals - but instead looks for other ways to describe the reality around us.
Sun -> winds -> oceans would be my bet. High correlation anyway :)
You might want to study the concept of the scientific process before replying like that ;) To do science is to postulate hypothesises and then test them. If they fit, they might be of use. If they don't, you either modify them or throw them away.
Search for "scientific process" and "Karl Popper"
Oh my idea is to do science :) I really don't see why you're mixing completely unrelated topics (like peak oil) into a discussion on whether our current climate models are accurate enough (science says "no!" btw) to base our whole economy on.
You want to read Bjorn Lomborg, "Cool It", for more discussions on the economics behind "acting before we know" btw ;)
they all seem to show that climate change is due to human activity and the climate change is likely to get worse in the future
Yes I know about those models. They have been falsified (i.e, predicted something that didn't happen) for about a decade now.
There are much better hypothesises on how the system works, and if we really were doing science we'd be concentrating on them now.
... and what data will such articles reference?
NOAA, et al.
When not drawing conclusions, "peer review" has no meaning.
I'm not sure you understand what you're looking at then :)
Or, maybe you don't know what "peer reviewed research" is in reality.
(I was expecting you to be able to parse the link to the image - but ok: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ )
I'm still waiting for you to source your original statement about the amount of ice in the world dramatically decreasing :)
science works by consensus
It most certainly does NOT. Where on earth did you get that from?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
To verify AGW according to the scientific method (and I subscribe to Popper's ideas here) you would want a few models created according to some hypothesises (for example, that increased atmospheric CO2 cause increased global temperatures) and then you'd test those models with real data. If they don't fit the data, they're falsified.
That's what has happened in the last decade. The models have shown one thing, the world another.
According to the scientific method, that means it's time for some other hypothesis to step forward. There are a few.
Feel free to verify through Lomborg's _very_ extensive reference list.
hairy - temperatures rise high enough to boil the oceans off and dry our the earth
[---]
The earth in past has done so
citation needed
Oh and by the way the ice sheet shows pretty clearly that when co2 levels increases then so does the temperature
No, they don't. They do however show that when the temperature changes so do the CO2 levels. They're a lagging indicator, not a leading one. You want to look into the oceans as to why.
Lots of people die everywhere due to cold (more soe than from heat waves). In fact, we'd gain as a species from having a more temperate climate.
You want to read "Cool It" by Bjorn Lomborg.
Overall, however, the amount of ice in the world is dramatically decreasing
I'm sorry - but can you please source that statement?
The global sea ice anomaly is positive:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
I'm sorry, but your post is simply factually incorrect.
http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/april-2009-update-on-global-temperature-uah/
(The reason for using satellite data vs surface data is because of the strong UHI influence - as seen on http://surfacestations.org/ )
the problem has got that much bigger
Global temperatures have dropped in the last decade, please explain what you mean by the problem having got "bigger" .. ?
The future of Ideas - Lawrence Lessig
We in the industry of making things that are easy to duplicate and distribute might have to re-think our business model. Larry makes an excellent case for re-thinking a lot of things in the above book. It's a well worth read.