Wrong . 6 degrees is what will happen if we burn through all the tar sands and oil, where "will" means, as best anyone can project which is of course not perfectly.
Aside from that, 6 degrees is also the exact trajectory we're on amongst the various trajectories projected given a various assumptions .
For an overview of what all these degrees would mean;
Have you read this thread? If you read my other posts, you'll see where I get this number from.
So good question and the answer is yes, I have evidence and no i did not pull it out of my ass and yes "think of the chiildren" is total bullshit reasoning.
Too many temperature datasets are generated by inferred parameters for me to be comfortable asserting the latter, and there is too much funding to be had by researchers who toe the AGW line to be sure of the former.
You have specific data sets in mind which also have the property that the expected variation between actual and observed measurements would significantly and negatively impact the theory of AGW, obviously.
What we're being asked to accept is the obvious implication regarding someone who explicit rejects the consensus opinion of duly qualified scientists on a technical subject matter they know nothing about in favor of their own , home-brewed scientific theory.
here are the pay-per-posters. The ones that Koch funded think tanks pay organizations to spread right talking points to help generate false grassroots campaigns. They get paid a few cents for each post they make on a variety of popular forums and discussion boards.
BTW, no big deal but can you substantiate this ? Not that I doubt you at all, just wondering if you have any specific evidence of this in mind. It's important.
Re: your analysis, don't be too hard on yourself There is nothing special about people who dont fall into a trap other than they didn't walk that way too soon.
All Japanese were fascists during WWII and now they're baseball loving technophiles who make outsized contributions to all areas of creative and scientific endeavor relative to their population. What changed? NOthing except they didn't hear X when they were at a vulnerable stage in their development and everyone around them wasn't telling them that X was truwe.
Ditto the Germans.
It's not something about those people, it's something about all people. Any of us - even the very finest- can be induced into falsehood and fascism and delusion . That's not my philosophical opinion, that's the tale of the tape.
p.
Thanks for the kind words. Peace.
. Temperature is broadly (and significantly) speaking linearly related to C02 emissions . The flucuations of temperature because the climate is a complicated system within that context are irrelevant Climate sensitivity is NOT going to save you, it's mentioned because accurate predictions for the near future require it be incorporated.
It's not a "
throw carbon into the atmosphere and suffer no further consequences for free" card.
Re: your earlier assertion that of a "few inches" of ocean rise From the IPCC report, it is in fact.59 meters, a lot more than a few inches. What's more:::
Contraction of the Greenland Ice Sheet is projected to continue to contribute to sea level rise after 2100.
Current models suggest that ice mass losses increase with temperature more rapidly than gains due to precipitation and that the surface mass balance becomes negative at a global average warming (relative to pre-industrial values) in excess of 1.9ÂC to 4.6ÂC.
If a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland Ice Sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m.
The corresponding future temperatures in Greenland are comparable to those inferred for the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago, when palaeoclimatic information suggests reductions of polar land ice extent and 4 to 6 m of sea level rise
No the accurate thing to say is you prefer that hundreds of millions of people die so tath you can be convinced of a theory about which you're inherently incapable of understanding even the basic science which supports it.
It's important to speak accurately.
The science has been done for 30-40 years. The consensus is now present. We will act on that consensus.
People who set about to deceive others about that consensus are criminals and doing so is an Act Of War.
People who are well aware that they are not qualified to adjudicate this issue owing to lack of expertise, or can be expected to be aware that they are not so qualified, but project themselves and their opinions as duly qualified are also guilty of a lesser crime.
You cannot claim to be a lawyer when you are not,. That's a law. So also with a medical doctor. Guess what's coming next.
Criminals decide what the laws will be, not anyone else.
If you elect to weaponize the process of debating science, then you will have your' "fweedom" taken away from you.
assume that it captures objective reality with 100% certainty is disingenous
No one. least of all me, is doing this. Since I don't have that as a belief, it's unlikely I would articulate it..I am not saying you're saying I did (but if you are, please quote me so I can either rebut or concede and mea culpa) .
I also hold out hope against hope for a revolutionary technology. I do. But it's just that- hope against hope.
As is said, pray to God, but row for shore. We need to now man up (or woman up) and row to shore- hard.
One thing is, when you see deniers online in a forum, I feel a moral imperative to engage them.
Some of them have menatal health issues and they're making AGW the focus of those issues. Some of them are venal and sociopathic. Some of them are unbalanced in other ways, extremists of some variety - extremist libertarians, extremist Objectvists, extremist dominionists etc.
But some of them really just believe this shit because Koch and FoxNews and The CATO Institute and the Heritage Foundation and all the other merchants of death have, in point of fact, created a false veneer of legitimate scientific doubt.
We owe it to those people to not just answer their arguments but also answer the arguments of the "other" sort of denier, the sociopath / extremist, because they too are enunciating the denier talking points and the honest doubter needs to see those points effectively rebutted.
Believe me I take little joy in this task. It's not how I want to spend my time, but if we don't participate in the public debate when we get a chance then we are culpable for what happens also.
Democracy can only work with an informed populace.
Given the magnitude of what's coming at us, the amount of death and destruction rolling our way, in what sense is this not WWIII?
It's WWIII and the battlefield, at least for now, is in in the hearts and minds of individual people. Our goal is to win on this battle field so there aren't any others we have to win on.
You have to participate. You have to get down in the mud with the assholes and join the slugfest. You can't be above it; you can't be a snob. If you lose your composure and your dignity then oh well, you're human. But you can't just look at their posts and think "that's fucking stupid" and just let it pass.
This is a plea to everyone of goodwill and sound mind to fully engage this issue to the best of your abilities at least occasionally. Trust me, I have better things to do too. We know the majority of Americans understand AGW is real and at least somewhat serious; they are not deniers.
It's evangelicals and, on slashdot, libertarians and conservatives who are the hold outs.
They won't stay hold outs forever, most of them, but by the time they climb on board it will just be too late to save civilization, barring technological lucky breaks of the sort we both wish for.
You have to do it. You have to get in there and make your voice heard both to your legislator and to your fellow netizens. It's an shirkable moral obligation we owe to our children and all future generations.
This is the paranoid psychotic rejection of all authority that people mock slashdotters for. Any implementation fo policy, no matter the evidence, over anyone's objectiions is equated to fascism and totalitarianism.
Go live in a bunker on a hill in in Montana somewhere (ahhh.. I LOVE Montana and the people in it BTW) with Ted K. This is your perspective so go love it.
The rest of us will stay here and keep civilization going and not expect or even want any thanks from head cases like yourself.
Go drop out of society. You reject the fundamental notions of civil society in the first place, so just go find somewhere where you can be:"fwee".
The only people trolling this thread are the deniers such as yourself.
Smirk. I love it when deniers step up to defined science against the politicization of science! So principled! Such reasonable people!
Smirk.
OK point by point... your assertion- that there has to be zealot free debate on this topic. What about the 30 years of science that has been conducted in peer reviewed literature. This is not just that debate? Please explain.
Why are scientists not capable of determining what constitutes a scientific debate? According to them, this is what they've been doing, You disagree. So please explain to me and them why they are wrong and you are right. Why we should listen to you and not to the established process of science.
Because the non-scientists demands that science conform to THEIR strictures and not those that make sense to scientists smacks of exactly Hitler's assault on his own scientists.
In fact, the AG of Virginia, Ken Cucinelli, is right now using the power of the state to harass and pursue Michael Mann:
As to Eugenics its a red herring argument. The fact that some dead people in another time believed some false theory is totally irrelevant to the material truth of falsehood of the data and models which are AGW.
You attempt to inject that into the discussion is a perfect example of a known logical fallacy in thinking.
It is TOTALLY irrelevant because there is not some enduring set of people who exist over generations "the scientists" who "cannot be trusted" just as the people who are alive today who in no way bear any responsibility for what the Germans did in 1932 despite their being German.
If that's the criteria- and it can't be if we're to live rationally at all- then we have to be suspicious of literally everyone and all institutions for all time.
At Nuremberg, the Nazi defense team , in an attempt to legitimize their mass murder, quoted Oliver Wendell Holmes from the infamous 1927 Buck v. Bell trial. where he wrote: , âoeIt is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind . . . Three generations of imbeciles are enough.â
It didn't work then and it's not going to work now.
They explicitly refute Watt's claims. Reading your post, I would think otherwise.
They do not praise Watt's "work" at all. The "errors" he "found" were actually well within the range that the models allowed for and Watt's "errors" had no impact on the theory of AGW whatsoever.
So Watt's - non-scientist's that he is- had his hypothesis - that the uncertainty in temp data undermined AGW -proven exactly wrong.
Which is pretty much what you'd expect from the theorizing of a non-scientist.
I will make damn sure that I read the fine print, and that the people involved are not pulling one over on us.
Who the FUCK is "they" ? Who? Who is using science to "pull one over on you"??
You at least know what the word paranoid means, right?
From WebMD
Delusional disorder, previously called paranoid disorder, is a type of serious mental illness called a "psychosis" in which a person cannot tell what is real from what is imagined.
The main feature of this disorder is the presence of delusions, which are unshakable beliefs in something untrue.
People with delusional disorder experience non-bizarre delusions, which involve situations that could occur in real life, such as being followed, poisoned, deceived, conspired against....
These delusions usually involve the misinterpretation of perceptions or experiences. In reality, however, the situations are either not true at all or highly exaggerated.
People with delusional disorder often can continue to socialize and function normally, apart from the subject of their delusion, and generally do not behave in an obviously odd or bizarre manner.
You're not a scientist so that's actually not going to be possible.
If we hold off a little longer, as we patiently wait for the raw data to be released
What the fuck are you talking about? What "raw data to be released" are you talking about?
This is some fucking fantasy you're involved in, like all denier arguments. What raw data has not been released? Please tell me. Please tell us all. We're waiting.
Denier just throw this shit around as though it had some basis in fact to see how much of it will stick, i.e. go unchallenged.
We couldn't convince the South that it was wrong either. We couldn't convince Hitler to stop either. They both had talk talk which attempted to assume the shape of "a reasonable argument" also. They both engaged in stalling and diversionary tactics in an attempt to head off the inevitable. If we had acted sooner in both cases, a lot more people would have been spared. .
You think you can just talk and talk the time away and demand more proof with shit phrases like "release of raw data " (which you're going to elaborate on presently ) .
Read history . At some point, the talking is over. At some point, talks break down and action is taken and anyone who doesn't like it can either shut up and go along with it or be processed like the criminal they are by society.
Maybe the earth is flat. maybe evolution is a conspiracy. Maybe we didn't land on the moon. Maybe a lot of thing. So the fuck what?
As to reading the fine priont- you're incapable of understanding the fine print. It's a personal limitation you have. You have to face that fact like a man
?
What's happening that you can't stand is the sciencification of politics. Science will have an outsized voice in public policy.
What you WANT is the politicization of science , where, Stalin-like, politics determines what "truth" and "conclusions" science shall come to.
Sorry. The science says we need to act, we can't wait any longer. The science doesn't say we need to convince every last member of society of the need to act. If you want to line up on the wrong side of history, so be it.
2)What we know is that humans are only responsible for a small fraction of the CO2 going into the atmosphere and America is only responsible for a fraction of that (on track for 1-10% by 2050)
WRONG!. We know that the excess carbon in the atmosphere is a result of our burning fossil fuels because the increase in carbon is from a specific isotope which is found in fossil fuels.
As far as the exact amount, the relative percentage, the question is not what's the relative percentage of the total the question is what increase is required to cause a deleterious temperature change , right?
So you can't even FORMULATE the right question to ask. Yet you STILL want to hold forth and be considered as a person offering convincing arguments and have YOUR opinion be put on equal footing with people who have spent their entire lives doing nothing but earning their PhDs and conducting research and asking the RIGHT questions for decades.
You can't even formulate scientific questions at the level we'd expect from a B student sixth grader yet you think you have the killer argument "they're" trying to suppress !
I am sorry that's ridiculous. I linked to a page with a video , text adnlinks. Anyone who is really interested can get a good picture of Watts by reading the page I provided and following those links
In fact, Watts' claims that the surface temperature measurements were distorting the theory of AGW is specifically mentioned in this video and uncategorically proven wrong.
Here is one of the links on the page I provided that out Watts not just as a non-climatologist but as a non-scientist:
By the way, the NSF link "vindicating" the hockey stick is useless to your hateful argument:
Offered without discussion or proof of any kind.
They admit the interpretation of the data is up for debate.
Offered without context or qualification of any kind. The "data" or conclusions are NOT up for debate according to them. That is the POINT of the report. The EXACT accuracy of each of the models - of any model- is always up for debate but that in no way means the models are "wrong:", it means the degree of precision is given to be within a range with associated probabilities.
This is how science is done. Naive people think that if the numbers aren't hammered down exactly, that somehow implicates the correctness of the model and predictions. Wrong.
You just came on and made two vague claims without offering an ounce of evidence or even clarifying what they allegedly mean.
And this is the kinds of reasoning you'd let trump actual science..
And you also claim not to be a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States of America.
Oh you're interested in the process of science all of a a sudden?
p>
The process of science has been going on with respect to AGW for 30 plus years now.
Too bad you weren't a participant. Probably has something to do with your utter lack of qualifications.
There's the science that tells us what reality is,. That has reached and re-reached a consensus now. Further discussion is welcome however, one the the particulars of this specific scientific discussion is it points up the fact that we're going to destroy the habitability of the earth for everyone if we don't act NOW.
At some point, your desire to block action on global warming becomes a threat to national security. That point would be now, actually, yesterday.
You have exactly zero right to threaten the existence of everyone else on this planet, through any means no matter what they are or what form they take.
The government has an absolute right to put the national security of the people of this nation above your "right" to kill them.
And they will do just that. The only question is- how much damage will you ave inflicted before that right gets exercised?
There is no chance you will live in a future dominated by AGW>
But to your point, yes you woudl rather do that, i am quite sure
This is not something to gloss over. I have had occasion to see a largish number of religious conservatives die in various ways.
The one thing that strikes me is how little they actually cared for being alive. It's almost like they were waiting to get this annoying business of living over. They're perfectly happy to strap that metaphorical bomb on and die.
The wya you'll die is probably the following. When the consequences of what you've done set in, you'll shoot your mouth off about AGW in the way you do here online and the people around you will conspire to murder you. The lucky ones will get trials. The unlucky ones will go back to basics.
That's pretty much what happens to people who attempt to unilaterally inflict death on large numbers of other other people because of "their rights", whether it be Mussolini at the hands of the Italian population or what would happen to mass murderers in jail if they weren't kept segregated.
It doesn't matter what you think of yourself. The Nazis thought well of themselves up until the end too.
Goering asserted during his trial that "Why, in 30 years time, they'll be building statues to me in every public square".
What actually happened to the defendants at Nuremberg is a good case study of what mass murders are vulnerable to even under the most controlled of environments.
It seems that- for some reason- the Allies couldn't get straight what it takes to hang a man swiftly and efficiently.
Whether is was because the drop was not long enough or the rope wasn't tied correctly or for whatever reason, none of them died the instant they were hung.
instead, they had to hang there, for minutes and hours and slowly strangulate, their eyes popping out of their skulls, the pressure building up ion their skulls, kicking and straining to keep alive with their hands tied behind them, all to the hoots and jeers of those assembled.
Yeah, people who are perceived to be responsible for mass murderer , irrespective of how they view themselves, really have a bleak outlook at the hands of the people they would have presumed to wield the power of life and death over.
1). Acording to the IPCC we're talking about a couple of degrees and a few inches of sea level rise over the next 100 years.
2)What we know is that humans are only responsible for a small fraction of the CO2 going into the atmosphere and America is only responsible for a fraction of that (on track for 1-10% by 2050)
3)
so to make even a measurable difference we'd basically have to completely eliminate GHG.
4)We also know that with current technology, alternative energy sources are something like 2-3x as expensive as what we're using and doubling energy costs would completely cripple our economy which is heavily dependent on mechanisation.
5) Real people would certainly be unable to feed their families, pay their mortgages etc. Real social and political instability would result in real death.
Typical denier talking points
1) WRONG! The IPCC report gives a range of values for different scenarios. The worst case they included was what they called A1FI, which represented, under certain emissions conditions , a change of 6.4 degrees.
Actual emissions have exceeded the assumptions in the A1FI scenario, as shown in this paper:.
People who don't know anything about climate science may think "Well , what's a few degrees in temp change going to mean really? So it was 85 outside and now it will be 87. It's not so bad".
In fact, at 4 degrees, the average summer temp in Zurich would be about 118 F.
This is the end of agriculture over much of the globe and mass starvation is a virtual certainty. . At 4 degrees. we've essentially lost our ability to control future temp increases and 6 degrees becomes not an "if" but a "when" .
For those still living in civilization at 4 degrees, the certainty of 6 degrees will effectively end civilization because civilization requires its participants to believe they have a shared future. This is not a world you want to try to survive in. There is no law and order, there is no government (hey Libertarians! Finally!) and there is no social contract, no hope no long term thinking at all. Only murder, rape, starvation, desolation and death.
My job its to make goddamn sure this scenario never materializes.
No all I said to you was the content of the link you ignored which directly addressed your claim.
Ithat's not all I could say to you by any means.
But it's enough.
Thanks for creating this thread. I love it when obviously uninformed deniers create brain dead "arguments" then have the stupidity to enter them into the public record where individuals, classrooms, churches and such like can review the relative merits of each side's arguments and draw conclusions.
Thanks for playing, and be sure to come back often!
Slashdot Mirror
Aside from that, 6 degrees is also the exact trajectory we're on amongst the various trajectories projected given a various assumptions .
For an overview of what all these degrees would mean;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_1wL7_yn2g Recommended reading:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0007209053?tag=marklynasorg-21&camp=1406&creative=6394&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=0007209053&adid=0TVTAMT868WYZQ76V3D1&
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2625686&cid=38735164
We'll let readers adjudicate whether or not I supported my argument.
So good question and the answer is yes, I have evidence and no i did not pull it out of my ass and yes "think of the chiildren" is total bullshit reasoning.
Too many temperature datasets are generated by inferred parameters for me to be comfortable asserting the latter, and there is too much funding to be had by researchers who toe the AGW line to be sure of the former.
You have specific data sets in mind which also have the property that the expected variation between actual and observed measurements would significantly and negatively impact the theory of AGW, obviously.
So don't hold back. Do share.
Waiting.. waiting...
What we're being asked to accept is the obvious implication regarding someone who explicit rejects the consensus opinion of duly qualified scientists on a technical subject matter they know nothing about in favor of their own , home-brewed scientific theory.
here are the pay-per-posters. The ones that Koch funded think tanks pay organizations to spread right talking points to help generate false grassroots campaigns. They get paid a few cents for each post they make on a variety of popular forums and discussion boards.
BTW, no big deal but can you substantiate this ? Not that I doubt you at all, just wondering if you have any specific evidence of this in mind. It's important.
Re: your analysis, don't be too hard on yourself There is nothing special about people who dont fall into a trap other than they didn't walk that way too soon.
All Japanese were fascists during WWII and now they're baseball loving technophiles who make outsized contributions to all areas of creative and scientific endeavor relative to their population. What changed? NOthing except they didn't hear X when they were at a vulnerable stage in their development and everyone around them wasn't telling them that X was truwe.
Ditto the Germans.
It's not something about those people, it's something about all people. Any of us - even the very finest- can be induced into falsehood and fascism and delusion . That's not my philosophical opinion, that's the tale of the tape. p. Thanks for the kind words. Peace.
I only have to argue until such time any doubt in a thoughtful readers' mind is removed about who is right and who is wrong.
So thanks again.
. Temperature is broadly (and significantly) speaking linearly related to C02 emissions . The flucuations of temperature because the climate is a complicated system within that context are irrelevant Climate sensitivity is NOT going to save you, it's mentioned because accurate predictions for the near future require it be incorporated.
It's not a " throw carbon into the atmosphere and suffer no further consequences for free" card.
BTW: http://co2now.org/
Furthermore, the oceans appear to be losing their ability to absorb C02:
http://www.watthead.org/2007/05/warnings-from-warming-world-new-study.html
Re: your earlier assertion that of a "few inches" of ocean rise From the IPCC report, it is in fact .59 meters, a lot more than a few inches. What's more: ::
Contraction of the Greenland Ice Sheet is projected to continue to contribute to sea level rise after 2100.
Current models suggest that ice mass losses increase with temperature more rapidly than gains due to precipitation and that the surface mass balance becomes negative at a global average warming (relative to pre-industrial values) in excess of 1.9ÂC to 4.6ÂC.
If a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland Ice Sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m.
The corresponding future temperatures in Greenland are comparable to those inferred for the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago, when palaeoclimatic information suggests reductions of polar land ice extent and 4 to 6 m of sea level rise
It's important to speak accurately.
The science has been done for 30-40 years. The consensus is now present. We will act on that consensus.
People who set about to deceive others about that consensus are criminals and doing so is an Act Of War.
People who are well aware that they are not qualified to adjudicate this issue owing to lack of expertise, or can be expected to be aware that they are not so qualified, but project themselves and their opinions as duly qualified are also guilty of a lesser crime.
You cannot claim to be a lawyer when you are not,. That's a law. So also with a medical doctor. Guess what's coming next.
Criminals decide what the laws will be, not anyone else.
If you elect to weaponize the process of debating science, then you will have your' "fweedom" taken away from you.
assume that it captures objective reality with 100% certainty is disingenous
No one. least of all me, is doing this. Since I don't have that as a belief, it's unlikely I would articulate it ..I am not saying you're saying I did (but if you are, please quote me so I can either rebut or concede and mea culpa) .
I also hold out hope against hope for a revolutionary technology. I do. But it's just that- hope against hope.
As is said, pray to God, but row for shore. We need to now man up (or woman up) and row to shore- hard.
One thing is, when you see deniers online in a forum, I feel a moral imperative to engage them.
Some of them have menatal health issues and they're making AGW the focus of those issues. Some of them are venal and sociopathic. Some of them are unbalanced in other ways, extremists of some variety - extremist libertarians, extremist Objectvists, extremist dominionists etc.
But some of them really just believe this shit because Koch and FoxNews and The CATO Institute and the Heritage Foundation and all the other merchants of death have, in point of fact, created a false veneer of legitimate scientific doubt.
We owe it to those people to not just answer their arguments but also answer the arguments of the "other" sort of denier, the sociopath / extremist, because they too are enunciating the denier talking points and the honest doubter needs to see those points effectively rebutted.
Believe me I take little joy in this task. It's not how I want to spend my time, but if we don't participate in the public debate when we get a chance then we are culpable for what happens also.
Democracy can only work with an informed populace.
Given the magnitude of what's coming at us, the amount of death and destruction rolling our way, in what sense is this not WWIII?
It's WWIII and the battlefield, at least for now, is in in the hearts and minds of individual people. Our goal is to win on this battle field so there aren't any others we have to win on.
You have to participate. You have to get down in the mud with the assholes and join the slugfest. You can't be above it; you can't be a snob. If you lose your composure and your dignity then oh well, you're human. But you can't just look at their posts and think "that's fucking stupid" and just let it pass.
This is a plea to everyone of goodwill and sound mind to fully engage this issue to the best of your abilities at least occasionally. Trust me, I have better things to do too. We know the majority of Americans understand AGW is real and at least somewhat serious; they are not deniers.
It's evangelicals and, on slashdot, libertarians and conservatives who are the hold outs.
They won't stay hold outs forever, most of them, but by the time they climb on board it will just be too late to save civilization, barring technological lucky breaks of the sort we both wish for.
You have to do it. You have to get in there and make your voice heard both to your legislator and to your fellow netizens. It's an shirkable moral obligation we owe to our children and all future generations.
Go live in a bunker on a hill in in Montana somewhere (ahhh.. I LOVE Montana and the people in it BTW) with Ted K. This is your perspective so go love it.
The rest of us will stay here and keep civilization going and not expect or even want any thanks from head cases like yourself.
Go drop out of society. You reject the fundamental notions of civil society in the first place, so just go find somewhere where you can be :"fwee".
Smirk. I love it when deniers step up to defined science against the politicization of science! So principled! Such reasonable people!
Smirk.
OK point by point ... your assertion- that there has to be zealot free debate on this topic. What about the 30 years of science that has been conducted in peer reviewed literature. This is not just that debate? Please explain.
Why are scientists not capable of determining what constitutes a scientific debate? According to them, this is what they've been doing, You disagree. So please explain to me and them why they are wrong and you are right. Why we should listen to you and not to the established process of science.
Because the non-scientists demands that science conform to THEIR strictures and not those that make sense to scientists smacks of exactly Hitler's assault on his own scientists.
In fact, the AG of Virginia, Ken Cucinelli, is right now using the power of the state to harass and pursue Michael Mann:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/science/earth/23virginia.html?pagewanted=all
As to Eugenics its a red herring argument. The fact that some dead people in another time believed some false theory is totally irrelevant to the material truth of falsehood of the data and models which are AGW.
You attempt to inject that into the discussion is a perfect example of a known logical fallacy in thinking.
It is TOTALLY irrelevant because there is not some enduring set of people who exist over generations "the scientists" who "cannot be trusted" just as the people who are alive today who in no way bear any responsibility for what the Germans did in 1932 despite their being German.
If that's the criteria- and it can't be if we're to live rationally at all- then we have to be suspicious of literally everyone and all institutions for all time.
At Nuremberg, the Nazi defense team , in an attempt to legitimize their mass murder, quoted Oliver Wendell Holmes from the infamous 1927 Buck v. Bell trial. where he wrote: , âoeIt is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind . . . Three generations of imbeciles are enough.â
It didn't work then and it's not going to work now.
Well it would hardly be the first known example of conservative hypocrisy now, would it?
Your characterization of it is highly deceptive .
They explicitly refute Watt's claims. Reading your post, I would think otherwise.
They do not praise Watt's "work" at all. The "errors" he "found" were actually well within the range that the models allowed for and Watt's "errors" had no impact on the theory of AGW whatsoever.
So Watt's - non-scientist's that he is- had his hypothesis - that the uncertainty in temp data undermined AGW -proven exactly wrong.
Which is pretty much what you'd expect from the theorizing of a non-scientist.
I will make damn sure that I read the fine print, and that the people involved are not pulling one over on us.
Who the FUCK is "they" ? Who? Who is using science to "pull one over on you"??
You at least know what the word paranoid means, right?
From WebMD
Delusional disorder, previously called paranoid disorder, is a type of serious mental illness called a "psychosis" in which a person cannot tell what is real from what is imagined.
The main feature of this disorder is the presence of delusions, which are unshakable beliefs in something untrue.
People with delusional disorder experience non-bizarre delusions, which involve situations that could occur in real life, such as being followed, poisoned, deceived, conspired against....
These delusions usually involve the misinterpretation of perceptions or experiences. In reality, however, the situations are either not true at all or highly exaggerated.
People with delusional disorder often can continue to socialize and function normally, apart from the subject of their delusion, and generally do not behave in an obviously odd or bizarre manner.
fight me like a scientist in the ring.
You're not a scientist so that's actually not going to be possible.
If we hold off a little longer, as we patiently wait for the raw data to be released
What the fuck are you talking about? What "raw data to be released" are you talking about?
This is some fucking fantasy you're involved in, like all denier arguments. What raw data has not been released? Please tell me. Please tell us all. We're waiting.
Denier just throw this shit around as though it had some basis in fact to see how much of it will stick, i.e. go unchallenged.
We couldn't convince the South that it was wrong either. We couldn't convince Hitler to stop either. They both had talk talk which attempted to assume the shape of "a reasonable argument" also. They both engaged in stalling and diversionary tactics in an attempt to head off the inevitable. If we had acted sooner in both cases, a lot more people would have been spared. .
You think you can just talk and talk the time away and demand more proof with shit phrases like "release of raw data " (which you're going to elaborate on presently ) .
Read history . At some point, the talking is over. At some point, talks break down and action is taken and anyone who doesn't like it can either shut up and go along with it or be processed like the criminal they are by society.
Maybe the earth is flat. maybe evolution is a conspiracy. Maybe we didn't land on the moon. Maybe a lot of thing. So the fuck what?
As to reading the fine priont- you're incapable of understanding the fine print. It's a personal limitation you have. You have to face that fact like a man
? What's happening that you can't stand is the sciencification of politics. Science will have an outsized voice in public policy.
What you WANT is the politicization of science , where, Stalin-like, politics determines what "truth" and "conclusions" science shall come to.
Sorry. The science says we need to act, we can't wait any longer. The science doesn't say we need to convince every last member of society of the need to act. If you want to line up on the wrong side of history, so be it.
2)What we know is that humans are only responsible for a small fraction of the CO2 going into the atmosphere and America is only responsible for a fraction of that (on track for 1-10% by 2050)
WRONG!. We know that the excess carbon in the atmosphere is a result of our burning fossil fuels because the increase in carbon is from a specific isotope which is found in fossil fuels.
As far as the exact amount, the relative percentage, the question is not what's the relative percentage of the total the question is what increase is required to cause a deleterious temperature change , right?
So you can't even FORMULATE the right question to ask. Yet you STILL want to hold forth and be considered as a person offering convincing arguments and have YOUR opinion be put on equal footing with people who have spent their entire lives doing nothing but earning their PhDs and conducting research and asking the RIGHT questions for decades.
You can't even formulate scientific questions at the level we'd expect from a B student sixth grader yet you think you have the killer argument "they're" trying to suppress !
In fact, Watts' claims that the surface temperature measurements were distorting the theory of AGW is specifically mentioned in this video and uncategorically proven wrong.
Here is one of the links on the page I provided that out Watts not just as a non-climatologist but as a non-scientist:
http://desmogblog.com/anthony-watts
By the way, the NSF link "vindicating" the hockey stick is useless to your hateful argument:
Offered without discussion or proof of any kind.
They admit the interpretation of the data is up for debate.
Offered without context or qualification of any kind. The "data" or conclusions are NOT up for debate according to them. That is the POINT of the report. The EXACT accuracy of each of the models - of any model- is always up for debate but that in no way means the models are "wrong:", it means the degree of precision is given to be within a range with associated probabilities.
This is how science is done. Naive people think that if the numbers aren't hammered down exactly, that somehow implicates the correctness of the model and predictions. Wrong.
You just came on and made two vague claims without offering an ounce of evidence or even clarifying what they allegedly mean.
And this is the kinds of reasoning you'd let trump actual science..
And you also claim not to be a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States of America.
IS this supposed to MEAN something or otherwise constitute an argument for or against something?
Too bad you weren't a participant. Probably has something to do with your utter lack of qualifications.
There's the science that tells us what reality is,. That has reached and re-reached a consensus now. Further discussion is welcome however, one the the particulars of this specific scientific discussion is it points up the fact that we're going to destroy the habitability of the earth for everyone if we don't act NOW.
At some point, your desire to block action on global warming becomes a threat to national security. That point would be now, actually, yesterday.
You have exactly zero right to threaten the existence of everyone else on this planet, through any means no matter what they are or what form they take.
The government has an absolute right to put the national security of the people of this nation above your "right" to kill them.
And they will do just that. The only question is- how much damage will you ave inflicted before that right gets exercised?
But to your point, yes you woudl rather do that, i am quite sure
This is not something to gloss over. I have had occasion to see a largish number of religious conservatives die in various ways.
The one thing that strikes me is how little they actually cared for being alive. It's almost like they were waiting to get this annoying business of living over. They're perfectly happy to strap that metaphorical bomb on and die.
The wya you'll die is probably the following. When the consequences of what you've done set in, you'll shoot your mouth off about AGW in the way you do here online and the people around you will conspire to murder you. The lucky ones will get trials. The unlucky ones will go back to basics.
That's pretty much what happens to people who attempt to unilaterally inflict death on large numbers of other other people because of "their rights", whether it be Mussolini at the hands of the Italian population or what would happen to mass murderers in jail if they weren't kept segregated.
It doesn't matter what you think of yourself. The Nazis thought well of themselves up until the end too.
Goering asserted during his trial that "Why, in 30 years time, they'll be building statues to me in every public square".
What actually happened to the defendants at Nuremberg is a good case study of what mass murders are vulnerable to even under the most controlled of environments.
It seems that- for some reason- the Allies couldn't get straight what it takes to hang a man swiftly and efficiently.
Whether is was because the drop was not long enough or the rope wasn't tied correctly or for whatever reason, none of them died the instant they were hung.
instead, they had to hang there, for minutes and hours and slowly strangulate, their eyes popping out of their skulls, the pressure building up ion their skulls, kicking and straining to keep alive with their hands tied behind them, all to the hoots and jeers of those assembled.
Yeah, people who are perceived to be responsible for mass murderer , irrespective of how they view themselves, really have a bleak outlook at the hands of the people they would have presumed to wield the power of life and death over.
1). Acording to the IPCC we're talking about a couple of degrees and a few inches of sea level rise over the next 100 years.
2)What we know is that humans are only responsible for a small fraction of the CO2 going into the atmosphere and America is only responsible for a fraction of that (on track for 1-10% by 2050)
3) so to make even a measurable difference we'd basically have to completely eliminate GHG.
4)We also know that with current technology, alternative energy sources are something like 2-3x as expensive as what we're using and doubling energy costs would completely cripple our economy which is heavily dependent on mechanisation.
5) Real people would certainly be unable to feed their families, pay their mortgages etc. Real social and political instability would result in real death.
Typical denier talking points
1) WRONG! The IPCC report gives a range of values for different scenarios. The worst case they included was what they called A1FI, which represented, under certain emissions conditions , a change of 6.4 degrees.
Actual emissions have exceeded the assumptions in the A1FI scenario, as shown in this paper:.
ahref=http://www.pnas.org/content/104/24/10288.abstractrel=url2html-19999http://www.pnas.org/content/104/24/10288.abstract>
People who don't know anything about climate science may think "Well , what's a few degrees in temp change going to mean really? So it was 85 outside and now it will be 87. It's not so bad".
In fact, at 4 degrees, the average summer temp in Zurich would be about 118 F.
This is the end of agriculture over much of the globe and mass starvation is a virtual certainty. . At 4 degrees. we've essentially lost our ability to control future temp increases and 6 degrees becomes not an "if" but a "when" .
http://skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/globalWarmingUrgency.htm
For those still living in civilization at 4 degrees, the certainty of 6 degrees will effectively end civilization because civilization requires its participants to believe they have a shared future. This is not a world you want to try to survive in. There is no law and order, there is no government (hey Libertarians! Finally!) and there is no social contract, no hope no long term thinking at all. Only murder, rape, starvation, desolation and death.
My job its to make goddamn sure this scenario never materializes.
Next post I'll address your 2.
Look forward to it presently.
Ithat's not all I could say to you by any means.
But it's enough.
Thanks for creating this thread. I love it when obviously uninformed deniers create brain dead "arguments" then have the stupidity to enter them into the public record where individuals, classrooms, churches and such like can review the relative merits of each side's arguments and draw conclusions.
Thanks for playing, and be sure to come back often!