1. What makes you think that information isn't available? All you have to do is read the published literature. 2. What makes you think they're not continuing to gather tree ring proxies? 3. What makes you think differing hypotheses are not considered if they have scientific value? 4. If they've got evidence to back it up and no substantial dissent then why not? 5. Ok. 6. If they have no scientific basis then why shouldn't I be dismissive? 7. Always.
Well, of course now members of Congress and many of their staffers are required to buy their insurance from the same exchanges as everybody else but before the ACA Congress got the same deal as every other employee of the Federal Government which admittedly wasn't bad but the idea that members of Congress got some gold plated health coverage over and above what other Federal employees got is wrong.
When people are polled about it Medicare and the VA are consistently among the highest rated medical systems for satisfaction with the care received in this country.
Yeah, right. A large part of that cost is in the profits of insurance companies. A single payer non-profit system would take care of that. Unfortunately that wasn't politically possible.
I am just curious why the US is willing to pay 50-100% more than the rest of the world for health care per person for outcomes that aren't any better and in some cases worse than the rest of the world.
Well, I'm confident that climate scientists have pretty much proven their case. There are plenty of details to work out yet but the basics are pretty well understood and observations of the real world largely support the scientists. The opposition like in the evolution/creationism debate is largely based on unscientific and political nonsense. If they ever produced an real science that held up they'd have my ear but it hasn't happened in the 25 years I've been following the subject.
As far as getting others to go along with green policies I think it could be as simple as imposing a carbon tax that includes tariffs on the carbon emitted in producing imports. The tax should start out so you barely notice it and increase each year until in 30 years or so it reaches the point of making it too expensive to use carbon emitting technologies. Also I support the idea of tax and dividend. Rather than put the money into the general fund it should be returned in equal shares to all citizens which would punish the big emitters of carbon and help those on the lower end of the scale cover the increased costs.
If we reach the point of being well and truly fucked then it will be way to late to do anything about it and we'll be reduced to scrambling to adapt probably spending an order of magnitude more money than it would have cost to address it in the first place. Homo sapiens is unlikely to go extinct but it wouldn't surprise me if global population was reduced to less than half of what it is now by 2100. I'm old enough that if I live another 25 years I'll be beating the odds so it probably won't destroy my life personally but it will affect my kids and grandkids lives immensely and I care about that.
You still have the problem of physical reality. That is what will ultimately decide the question. If what you say is true then perhaps those organizations can sustain the gravy train for a while longer but ultimately it will end when the truth (as you apparently see it) becomes obvious. How long do you think they can keep it going before the physical reality catches up with them? I just can't attribute that much stupidity to the (majority of) scientists who are studying the climate.
BTW, good correction on the UN because I was going to comment on it.
And you don't think that if it's all proven to be a farce it won't lead to personal and financial ruin too? Worldwide fame and financial benefits and maybe a Nobel Prize are there for the taking to the scientists that show it was all a farce. After more than 20 years I'm still waiting.
Once more: "The underlying physical reality that science studies doesn't give a damn about money." It's there for anyone to discover.
Not to mention that there are so many people who have so heavily invested their reputation in this that if they were to be proved even mostly wrong their credibility as a scientist would be deeply wounded for life.
Do you really think that if scientists are worried about their credibility they are going to produce science they know to be wrong? Most of them are way to smart to think they could get away with that for any length of time. All it takes is one person to point out that the emperor has no clothes to destroy their credibility and they know it.
I repeat again: "The underlying physical reality that science studies doesn't give a damn about money." It's there for anyone to discover.
Scientists are not asking for power and any grants they get are already audited. If they don't produce good science with the grant money they receive they soon find that source of funding drying up. And if you think they are being forced to produce a particular outcome by the people giving those grants I suggest you do some research. In the US government grants are a matter of public record. A good place to start would be with the National Science Foundation. Go there and see if you can find any evidence of bias in the grant process. If you can come back to me with any actual evidence that is happening then I'll be more willing to listen to you.
And you're wasting my time by making financial arguments about something that needs to be settled scientifically first. If as you appear to believe the science it being twisted by political/financial pressures then it shouldn't be that hard to counter that science. The underlying physical reality is immune to any political pressure so until you can demonstrate the current mainstream of climate science is wrong your arguments hold no meaning to me.
I repeat: "The underlying physical reality that science studies doesn't give a damn about money."
If your view of the science is dependent on your fears that someone is going to get rich off of you you're doing it wrong. Produce some actual science that shows the current mainstream views wrong and I'll listen. Until then you have nothing to stand on as far as I'm concerned.
So you don't think the fossil fuel industry lining their pockets with an order of magnitude more money is suspicious too?
The underlying physical reality that science studies doesn't give a damn about money. It's not a binary choice of climate models being right or wrong. As George Box famously said "All models are wrong but some are useful." There is nothing we have that does any better than climate models and temperatures are still within the margin of error so it's impossible to just say that they are flat wrong. It sounds to me like your expectations of climate models are unrealistic.
Part of the reason some of the BEST studies had trouble getting published was because they were just repetitious of other work that had been published years before.
I would call Muller a true skeptic in the tradition of science. He had questions about the temperature records but when he headed up BEST and did an independent analysis of global temperatures group found they agreed with the other temperature records within the margin of error. They even included all of the temperature stations the others dropped from their networks as redundant to make sure there wasn't a bias in that selection process. So Muller's questions got answered and he no longer had reason to be skeptical about that subject.
Ok. You want me to state something of my own that could be proven wrong? Karmashock stated "They have a vested interest in specific results." I say that (most) scientists are way to smart to pervert the science for political reasons and while there may be some political spin that goes into some documents like the IPCC SPM's the underlying science has not been distorted by mainstream scientists because they care more about science than they do about politics. Prove me wrong.
So what you're saying is that until we have it all figured out we don't know enough to say anything. If that's true then there is very little in science we can depend on. I imagine you must not believe the scientific story of evolution either.
Slashdot Mirror
An analysis of the peer reviewed literature from 1965 to 1979 [PDF] found 42 papers on global warming and only 7 on global cooling. There were some headlines in the popular press but it was never a leading theory in the scientific field.
1. What makes you think that information isn't available? All you have to do is read the published literature.
2. What makes you think they're not continuing to gather tree ring proxies?
3. What makes you think differing hypotheses are not considered if they have scientific value?
4. If they've got evidence to back it up and no substantial dissent then why not?
5. Ok.
6. If they have no scientific basis then why shouldn't I be dismissive?
7. Always.
Well, of course now members of Congress and many of their staffers are required to buy their insurance from the same exchanges as everybody else but before the ACA Congress got the same deal as every other employee of the Federal Government which admittedly wasn't bad but the idea that members of Congress got some gold plated health coverage over and above what other Federal employees got is wrong.
When people are polled about it Medicare and the VA are consistently among the highest rated medical systems for satisfaction with the care received in this country.
Why should you care? This is the faculty of Harvard to the school's administration. It just means more shares on the open market for you to invest in.
Of course the finance company may require that you carry coverage on your own vehicle if you want a loan to buy it.
Yeah, right. A large part of that cost is in the profits of insurance companies. A single payer non-profit system would take care of that. Unfortunately that wasn't politically possible.
Analogy fail! You can choose not to own a car. The only way you can assure us that you'll never need health care is by not living in the first place.
I am just curious why the US is willing to pay 50-100% more than the rest of the world for health care per person for outcomes that aren't any better and in some cases worse than the rest of the world.
And mainframe computers.
Well, I'm confident that climate scientists have pretty much proven their case. There are plenty of details to work out yet but the basics are pretty well understood and observations of the real world largely support the scientists. The opposition like in the evolution/creationism debate is largely based on unscientific and political nonsense. If they ever produced an real science that held up they'd have my ear but it hasn't happened in the 25 years I've been following the subject.
As far as getting others to go along with green policies I think it could be as simple as imposing a carbon tax that includes tariffs on the carbon emitted in producing imports. The tax should start out so you barely notice it and increase each year until in 30 years or so it reaches the point of making it too expensive to use carbon emitting technologies. Also I support the idea of tax and dividend. Rather than put the money into the general fund it should be returned in equal shares to all citizens which would punish the big emitters of carbon and help those on the lower end of the scale cover the increased costs.
If we reach the point of being well and truly fucked then it will be way to late to do anything about it and we'll be reduced to scrambling to adapt probably spending an order of magnitude more money than it would have cost to address it in the first place. Homo sapiens is unlikely to go extinct but it wouldn't surprise me if global population was reduced to less than half of what it is now by 2100. I'm old enough that if I live another 25 years I'll be beating the odds so it probably won't destroy my life personally but it will affect my kids and grandkids lives immensely and I care about that.
Well, not quite as black and white as that since the FAA does make some allowances for outfits like AngelFlight.
You ought to explain to the general slashdot population what Part 141 & Part 135 are. Unless you're a pilot you probably don't know.
You still have the problem of physical reality. That is what will ultimately decide the question. If what you say is true then perhaps those organizations can sustain the gravy train for a while longer but ultimately it will end when the truth (as you apparently see it) becomes obvious. How long do you think they can keep it going before the physical reality catches up with them? I just can't attribute that much stupidity to the (majority of) scientists who are studying the climate.
BTW, good correction on the UN because I was going to comment on it.
And you don't think that if it's all proven to be a farce it won't lead to personal and financial ruin too? Worldwide fame and financial benefits and maybe a Nobel Prize are there for the taking to the scientists that show it was all a farce. After more than 20 years I'm still waiting.
Once more: "The underlying physical reality that science studies doesn't give a damn about money." It's there for anyone to discover.
Not to mention that there are so many people who have so heavily invested their reputation in this that if they were to be proved even mostly wrong their credibility as a scientist would be deeply wounded for life.
Do you really think that if scientists are worried about their credibility they are going to produce science they know to be wrong? Most of them are way to smart to think they could get away with that for any length of time. All it takes is one person to point out that the emperor has no clothes to destroy their credibility and they know it.
I repeat again: "The underlying physical reality that science studies doesn't give a damn about money." It's there for anyone to discover.
Scientists are not asking for power and any grants they get are already audited. If they don't produce good science with the grant money they receive they soon find that source of funding drying up. And if you think they are being forced to produce a particular outcome by the people giving those grants I suggest you do some research. In the US government grants are a matter of public record. A good place to start would be with the National Science Foundation. Go there and see if you can find any evidence of bias in the grant process. If you can come back to me with any actual evidence that is happening then I'll be more willing to listen to you.
And you're wasting my time by making financial arguments about something that needs to be settled scientifically first. If as you appear to believe the science it being twisted by political/financial pressures then it shouldn't be that hard to counter that science. The underlying physical reality is immune to any political pressure so until you can demonstrate the current mainstream of climate science is wrong your arguments hold no meaning to me.
I repeat: "The underlying physical reality that science studies doesn't give a damn about money."
If your view of the science is dependent on your fears that someone is going to get rich off of you you're doing it wrong. Produce some actual science that shows the current mainstream views wrong and I'll listen. Until then you have nothing to stand on as far as I'm concerned.
So you don't think the fossil fuel industry lining their pockets with an order of magnitude more money is suspicious too?
The underlying physical reality that science studies doesn't give a damn about money. It's not a binary choice of climate models being right or wrong. As George Box famously said "All models are wrong but some are useful." There is nothing we have that does any better than climate models and temperatures are still within the margin of error so it's impossible to just say that they are flat wrong. It sounds to me like your expectations of climate models are unrealistic.
Collective human social behavior or not scientists can't escape the underlying physical reality. You can't fudge that.
Part of the reason some of the BEST studies had trouble getting published was because they were just repetitious of other work that had been published years before.
I would call Muller a true skeptic in the tradition of science. He had questions about the temperature records but when he headed up BEST and did an independent analysis of global temperatures group found they agreed with the other temperature records within the margin of error. They even included all of the temperature stations the others dropped from their networks as redundant to make sure there wasn't a bias in that selection process. So Muller's questions got answered and he no longer had reason to be skeptical about that subject.
Ok. You want me to state something of my own that could be proven wrong? Karmashock stated "They have a vested interest in specific results." I say that (most) scientists are way to smart to pervert the science for political reasons and while there may be some political spin that goes into some documents like the IPCC SPM's the underlying science has not been distorted by mainstream scientists because they care more about science than they do about politics. Prove me wrong.
So what you're saying is that until we have it all figured out we don't know enough to say anything. If that's true then there is very little in science we can depend on. I imagine you must not believe the scientific story of evolution either.
No, there's just more of us than there are of you.