denialists really say that more CO2 in the atmosphere will help plant life,
Wait wait, are you *really* denying that more CO2 in the atmosphere will help plant life? You do know we've got table top experiments that can prove this - not to mention CO2 enriched greenhouses for growing plants.
The truth of the matter is that the science is not really in dispute.
Let's get back to basics -> what falsifiable hypothesis statement do you think is not in dispute? After a useful conversation with microbox, we agreed that the most trivial formulation of AGW (that is, humans have a positive effect, no matter how small, on global average temperature because of human CO2) isn't really in dispute at all. Making the jump from that trivial formulation, to one that either has a specific magnitude attached, or even further, asserts that the specific magnitude will be catastrophic for humanity and the biosphere, was elusive though.
Care to take a stab at playing the science game with an AGW falsifiable hypothesis statement that makes a claim of specific magnitude, or a CAGW falsifiable hypothesis statement?
I'll certainly admit it's fair to say there are myriad interpretations of the Bible, based on cultural and textual context, but I think so far, even given the most generous context and intent of the Abraham story, it's still like a bad episode of a sitcom written by scabs during a writer's strike. If you want to tell a story that says "Human Sacrifice is Wrong", there are better ways to do it. If you're trying to tell a story that says "Loyalty is Important", there are better ways of getting that across too without resorting to drawing your protagonist as a sociopath.
Now, I know it's probably unreasonable to expect the same quality of storytelling and writing from some ancient semite than from some emmy award winning sitcom writer with a rich history of examples at their disposal, but I'd like to think even with the limitations of time and technology, I could've come up with something better. And if we were to entertain the idea for a moment that these are actually the intended words of an all powerful deity brought to us through divine intervention, the deity should've time traveled forward, grabbed some bunch of writers from "The Practice", and had them do the work for him.
If we can also determine how big the effects are of other climate drivers, like albedo, solar radiation, earth orbit changes, and aerosols (manmade and volcanic) we can add everything together in a global climate model, and see how well it matches the measured temperature.
The problem I have with GCMs is that they act as unfalsifiable hypotheses - we start off with certain assumptions of the behavior of human generated CO2, and then fudge factor everything else until it comes to some close match. When it starts diverging from reality, instead of challenging our assumptions, we simply add in ad hoc special pleadings to account for the discrepancy. While an interesting exercise in speculation, I have yet to see any GCM make a clear statement "if we predict this, but observe something different, there are problems with our underlying assumptions that we need to address".
A hypothesis which predicts every possible observation doesn't predict anything very useful.
The point of evolution is that species mutate and are naturally selected for, leading to extinctions of old species and emergence of new species. This is a natural process, and thanks to this process, we've got humanity today - most who believe in evolution would consider this to be a good thing. The impulse to preserve endangered species is a conscious attempt to stop this natural process (even if our activity is a part of any particular extinction), and subsequently, would prevent the emergence of whatever other good things may have yet to come.
Now, perhaps it is consistent if one considers humanity and the status quo perfection, and we want to prevent the emergency of any post-humans (or post-spotted owls, or post-condors, or whatever particular specie you want to admire), so it's simply a matter of self interest that we try to stop evolution at this point. But somehow I doubt that your average tree hugging hippie sees themselves as a selfish and petulant lifeform trying desperately to prevent the next stage of evolution from happening.
Let's talk about scientific facts - what observations would falsify your hypothesis that climate changes are primarily controlled by human activity, and that a warmer world will cause more harm than benefit to humanity or the biosphere as a whole?
Or are you simply asserting these things as true, no matter what observational data we may ever record?
We have seen many CO2 doublings in the climate history, and temperature changes that go with it.
Citation, please. In particular, one where CO2 leads, rather than lags temperature change.
Also, the 4-5C degrees was a bit too much. Best current estimate is around 3C temperature rise after a CO2 doubling
What observations will show us that 3C is too much? What observations will show us that 2C is too much? What observations will show us that 1C is too much?
It seems to me that there are huge differences still left to iron out.
So I think we agree - Abraham showed poor judgement in being willing to kill his child to demonstrate his loyalty. Now I can see the argument that the story shows God being an effective (if cruel) teacher, but shouldn't we *expect* people to know killing their child is the wrong thing to do? Shouldn't that simply be basic to our inherent humanity? Must we really believe that every man is simply a sociopathic murderer until God comes along and says, "no, no, you don't need to do that"?
What if God had asked Abraham to rape his child? Or torture him with knives? Any normal human being knows these things aren't right - what kind of sick sociopath does Abraham need to be to overcome our inherent aversion to this kind of action?
The whole idea that we should idolize loyalty above all else seems like an abrogation of our responsibility to think morally for ourselves.
PV cells have been decreasing in cost at the rate of 22% per doubling of production capacity for three decades now. There are good reasons to think that this trend will continue.
There are fanciful reasons to think that this trend will continue, but hey, if it does happen, great! In the meantime, the idea that we can simply subsidize our way to affordability makes energy more expensive, increases poverty, and makes humanity less able to cope with natural climate change. In fact, any subsidies only serve to reduce the market pressures for greater innovation and price efficiency.
The ultimate good here is cheap energy. Not just "cheaper than " energy thanks to subsidies, or taxes, or regulation, but absolutely cheaper energy. When every man woman and child on the planet can afford the same amount of energy as your average US citizen, then we'll have nothing but 1st world nations.
Still not okay to ask their parents to murder them. Place them in jail, maybe oppose them politically and take them into exile, sure. But murder of your own child simply isn't a moral thing to be *willing* to do, much less actually implement.
Maybe if God had told Hitler's parents to take him on a pilgrimage to a small island in the South Pacific for him to live out his days, the Holocaust would've been avoided. Or maybe if God hadn't made Hitler evil (hardened his heart, so to speak), the Holocaust would've been avoided. Lots of options when you're an all powerful deity:)
I guess I don't know what you mean by "excellent". Sure, it may have been particularly convincing to the ancient people of the time, but insofar as being a clear explanation by a deity to let people know child sacrifice isn't moral...that's a stretch. At the very least it makes Abraham a completely amoral creature willing to do anything for his powerful benefactor, which is an awfully poor moral lesson to promote.
IOW: since we can't tell the difference between a hypothesis of catastrophic warming, and a hypothesis of mild warming, let's just assume we've got control over the global thermostat and must take dramatic action rolling back civilization that might not even make a difference:)
Sure, you could also interpret as Abraham lying to his son so he wouldn't struggle, or at least pulling an obi-wan kenobi "from a certain point of view" trick (since God provided Issac in the first place.
Funny how flexible the bible is about interpretation:)
So if there's no rational foundation for morality to exist, then just pretend I've got some magic voice in my head that has told me that I should look out for my own enlightened self interest and attachment responsibilities:)
As for Jesus as described in the Bible, which particular version of Jesus do you take as your example? The one whose last words were "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" or the one whose last words were "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit", or the one whose last words were "It is finished"? The descriptions of Jesus (and the theological implications behind those descriptions) vary greatly between Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
All very self convincing rationales, I'm sure, but ultimately they're just convenient glosses over inherently contradictory positions. If government is wasteful, it shouldn't be in charge of taking care of the poor and elderly. If we can decide that someone subject to a death penalty isn't human, there's no reason why someone else can't use that same rationale when defining the humanity of a zygote. If we're trying to preserve endangered species because they're "natural", we're interrupting the natural course of events when we prevent their natural extinction. And blaming humanity for the weather implies that it would simply stay the same if humanity stopped altering it.
The funny part about cognitive dissonance is that it can effect people who are surely positive that it doesn't effect them at all.
Just like those silly 2012 end of the world deniers, or those Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse deniers, or anyone who denies that the world is going to end soon unless we repent!:)
Seriously though, anyone who thinks we have control over the global thermostat is in severe denial of natural climate change.
Actually the story of Abraham doesn't necessarily make God evil (since he knew ahead of time that he was going to stop the sacrifice), but it does make him a bit of a cruel puppeteer (much like the whole hardening of Pharaoh's heart). Abraham is evil for listening, *even if God exists*. No matter if the powerful benefactor can control life after death, or even if the powerful benefactor could reverse death, the murder of one's child is simply not a moral act.
Put another way, what limits are there for the demands of God if we're expected to do even the most atrocious things by his command? What if God had told Abraham to anally rape his son while his wife watched, but told him it was a joke just before penetration took place? Should we admire Abraham's commitment to God in this case?
If you believe that you must hold onto "moral" teachings that have been handed down for thousands of years, and in order to defend these teachings you must take a book literally from cover to cover, you're going to have a conflict with science.
Understanding that these "moral" teachings can be critiqued, analyzed, and discarded when necessary leaves you open to the possibility that one can not only improve in scientific knowledge, but also in morality.
One can only hope there is some upper limit to morality that one day we can all reach, but until then we can hope:)
Climate always changes. We build our civilization wherever we *can* build it, and when we can no longer build it that way, we change. The fall of the Maya, the Greenland Vikings, or any number of civilizations that had to dramatically change are a testament to the continuously changing climate of the world.
The speculation is whether or not warming is going to be any more, or less costly than the climate changes that have always happened, and whether or not any of our proposed interventions can do *anything* to stop things from changing, much less at a lower cost than what adaptation would entail.
My bet is simple - I believe in climate change, and I expect it to continue to change no matter what we do, so the best thing to do is to find cheaper and cheaper sources of energy to bring people out of poverty, support more humans on the planet, and prepare ourselves for any change that can possibly occur.
Even if my mother *was* The Creator, that wouldn't make child sacrifice proper, or even a willingness to sacrifice a child proper.
Any solid examples? 20th centuries philosophers have struggled to postulate anything outside existencialism.
Sure, Hobbes, Kant.
What is *your* rational foundation for morality?
Generally enlightened self interest and attachment - as a tool, cooperation brings more benefits than conflict, and so one tries to treat others as one would like to be treated, but we can't ignore the fact that we have stronger and weaker relationships with people (and animals and things for that matter), that make some connections and responsibilities more important than others.
Can I assume that you don't have any rational foundation for your morality, and that it is simply communicated to you through authorities you consider superior to your own intellect?
So hospitality trumps having your daughters raped? Look, no doubt Lot had a bunch of bad options (maybe he'd have been better off if he had sufficient weapons and allies to fight the mob directly), but can we really say he picked the best out of the bunch?
Of course the story is supposed to be simple, and counterfactuals kind of miss the point, but if the moral of the story was to emphasize how a good host should behave, shouldn't it have been more about sharing the best cut of meat with his guests, or letting them have the nice blanket? Instead, the story treats women as chattel, denigrates any idea of a noble martial defense of ones' guests or ones' family, and begs the question, if the mob was so powerful that it could get Lot to offer his daughters up for rape, why didn't they just take the women, and the angels, and Lot for good measure? Are we supposed to infer that Lot's daughters were just really good at tuckering the mob out with wild sex, that their appetites had been satisfied? Or are we supposed to believe that the mob, while completely irrational in their need for rape, figured that hey, we got the girls, let's not push our luck?
When I say morality is awfully fluid, of course I refer to the fact that back when the story of Abraham, or even Lot, was written, there were probably a bunch of otherwise normal, average people who just didn't see anything offensive about the stories (although frankly, that's speculation on my part - maybe most people thought it was egregiously offensive, but those indoctrinated into it at a young age came to accept it).
Certainly, but it's a poor explanation. It turns Abraham into a monster willing to do something he should consider evil *inherently*, and turns God into a fairly petty puppeteer to drive him to that point. They could have just written a vignette where God says, "Children are precious, and you have a responsibility to care for them. Go forth and stop that evil pagan over there from sacrificing his son, and instead raise him as your own so that he may be a blessing on this earth."
In the original, the fact that the Hebrew deity doesn't *require* child sacrifice doesn't seem to give any particular good reason why child sacrifice is a bad thing. It's like having a government that doesn't require you to pay a use tax on something bought out of state - great, I don't have to do it, but is that tax a moral thing or not?
Okay, so we've got a theoretical "4-5C warming if we double CO2 and everything else stays *exactly the same*". I might even buy that.
A world where any significant portion of it stays *exactly the same*? That's fantasy:)
The real question is this - we could have started with the theory "0.04-0.05C warming if we double CO2 and everything else stays *exactly the same*", and made the same excuses we're making today for the warming prediction 100 times higher. How could we discern between those two hypotheses? What observations would exclude one or the other from being true?
Slashdot Mirror
Wait wait, are you *really* denying that more CO2 in the atmosphere will help plant life? You do know we've got table top experiments that can prove this - not to mention CO2 enriched greenhouses for growing plants.
Let's get back to basics -> what falsifiable hypothesis statement do you think is not in dispute? After a useful conversation with microbox, we agreed that the most trivial formulation of AGW (that is, humans have a positive effect, no matter how small, on global average temperature because of human CO2) isn't really in dispute at all. Making the jump from that trivial formulation, to one that either has a specific magnitude attached, or even further, asserts that the specific magnitude will be catastrophic for humanity and the biosphere, was elusive though.
Care to take a stab at playing the science game with an AGW falsifiable hypothesis statement that makes a claim of specific magnitude, or a CAGW falsifiable hypothesis statement?
I'll certainly admit it's fair to say there are myriad interpretations of the Bible, based on cultural and textual context, but I think so far, even given the most generous context and intent of the Abraham story, it's still like a bad episode of a sitcom written by scabs during a writer's strike. If you want to tell a story that says "Human Sacrifice is Wrong", there are better ways to do it. If you're trying to tell a story that says "Loyalty is Important", there are better ways of getting that across too without resorting to drawing your protagonist as a sociopath.
Now, I know it's probably unreasonable to expect the same quality of storytelling and writing from some ancient semite than from some emmy award winning sitcom writer with a rich history of examples at their disposal, but I'd like to think even with the limitations of time and technology, I could've come up with something better. And if we were to entertain the idea for a moment that these are actually the intended words of an all powerful deity brought to us through divine intervention, the deity should've time traveled forward, grabbed some bunch of writers from "The Practice", and had them do the work for him.
Not really that Cheerful, huh :)
Well, Troll on dear sir! It seems to be working out for you :)
Maybe if God had done a better job of keeping him banished, or banished him when he was just a child, things would've been better :)
Obligatory cite of french military victories: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html
The problem I have with GCMs is that they act as unfalsifiable hypotheses - we start off with certain assumptions of the behavior of human generated CO2, and then fudge factor everything else until it comes to some close match. When it starts diverging from reality, instead of challenging our assumptions, we simply add in ad hoc special pleadings to account for the discrepancy. While an interesting exercise in speculation, I have yet to see any GCM make a clear statement "if we predict this, but observe something different, there are problems with our underlying assumptions that we need to address".
A hypothesis which predicts every possible observation doesn't predict anything very useful.
The point of evolution is that species mutate and are naturally selected for, leading to extinctions of old species and emergence of new species. This is a natural process, and thanks to this process, we've got humanity today - most who believe in evolution would consider this to be a good thing. The impulse to preserve endangered species is a conscious attempt to stop this natural process (even if our activity is a part of any particular extinction), and subsequently, would prevent the emergence of whatever other good things may have yet to come.
Now, perhaps it is consistent if one considers humanity and the status quo perfection, and we want to prevent the emergency of any post-humans (or post-spotted owls, or post-condors, or whatever particular specie you want to admire), so it's simply a matter of self interest that we try to stop evolution at this point. But somehow I doubt that your average tree hugging hippie sees themselves as a selfish and petulant lifeform trying desperately to prevent the next stage of evolution from happening.
Let's talk about scientific facts - what observations would falsify your hypothesis that climate changes are primarily controlled by human activity, and that a warmer world will cause more harm than benefit to humanity or the biosphere as a whole?
Or are you simply asserting these things as true, no matter what observational data we may ever record?
Citation, please. In particular, one where CO2 leads, rather than lags temperature change.
What observations will show us that 3C is too much? What observations will show us that 2C is too much? What observations will show us that 1C is too much?
It seems to me that there are huge differences still left to iron out.
So I think we agree - Abraham showed poor judgement in being willing to kill his child to demonstrate his loyalty. Now I can see the argument that the story shows God being an effective (if cruel) teacher, but shouldn't we *expect* people to know killing their child is the wrong thing to do? Shouldn't that simply be basic to our inherent humanity? Must we really believe that every man is simply a sociopathic murderer until God comes along and says, "no, no, you don't need to do that"?
What if God had asked Abraham to rape his child? Or torture him with knives? Any normal human being knows these things aren't right - what kind of sick sociopath does Abraham need to be to overcome our inherent aversion to this kind of action?
The whole idea that we should idolize loyalty above all else seems like an abrogation of our responsibility to think morally for ourselves.
There are fanciful reasons to think that this trend will continue, but hey, if it does happen, great! In the meantime, the idea that we can simply subsidize our way to affordability makes energy more expensive, increases poverty, and makes humanity less able to cope with natural climate change. In fact, any subsidies only serve to reduce the market pressures for greater innovation and price efficiency.
The ultimate good here is cheap energy. Not just "cheaper than " energy thanks to subsidies, or taxes, or regulation, but absolutely cheaper energy. When every man woman and child on the planet can afford the same amount of energy as your average US citizen, then we'll have nothing but 1st world nations.
Still not okay to ask their parents to murder them. Place them in jail, maybe oppose them politically and take them into exile, sure. But murder of your own child simply isn't a moral thing to be *willing* to do, much less actually implement.
Maybe if God had told Hitler's parents to take him on a pilgrimage to a small island in the South Pacific for him to live out his days, the Holocaust would've been avoided. Or maybe if God hadn't made Hitler evil (hardened his heart, so to speak), the Holocaust would've been avoided. Lots of options when you're an all powerful deity :)
I guess I don't know what you mean by "excellent". Sure, it may have been particularly convincing to the ancient people of the time, but insofar as being a clear explanation by a deity to let people know child sacrifice isn't moral...that's a stretch. At the very least it makes Abraham a completely amoral creature willing to do anything for his powerful benefactor, which is an awfully poor moral lesson to promote.
Because of course there is only one true past temperature set, right, and that's the one Hansen published :)
Hansen was wrong. Not just a little wrong, but tremendously wrong. You've got two choices now:
A) consider Hansen falsified, and pick another model (or another base hypothesis entirely) to bet on that had a better prediction accuracy;
B) make ad hoc special pleadings to preserve Hansen's model even as it diverges from reality.
Pick your poison! :)
IOW: since we can't tell the difference between a hypothesis of catastrophic warming, and a hypothesis of mild warming, let's just assume we've got control over the global thermostat and must take dramatic action rolling back civilization that might not even make a difference :)
Sure, you could also interpret as Abraham lying to his son so he wouldn't struggle, or at least pulling an obi-wan kenobi "from a certain point of view" trick (since God provided Issac in the first place.
Funny how flexible the bible is about interpretation :)
So if there's no rational foundation for morality to exist, then just pretend I've got some magic voice in my head that has told me that I should look out for my own enlightened self interest and attachment responsibilities :)
As for Jesus as described in the Bible, which particular version of Jesus do you take as your example? The one whose last words were "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" or the one whose last words were "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit", or the one whose last words were "It is finished"? The descriptions of Jesus (and the theological implications behind those descriptions) vary greatly between Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
All very self convincing rationales, I'm sure, but ultimately they're just convenient glosses over inherently contradictory positions. If government is wasteful, it shouldn't be in charge of taking care of the poor and elderly. If we can decide that someone subject to a death penalty isn't human, there's no reason why someone else can't use that same rationale when defining the humanity of a zygote. If we're trying to preserve endangered species because they're "natural", we're interrupting the natural course of events when we prevent their natural extinction. And blaming humanity for the weather implies that it would simply stay the same if humanity stopped altering it.
The funny part about cognitive dissonance is that it can effect people who are surely positive that it doesn't effect them at all.
Just like those silly 2012 end of the world deniers, or those Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse deniers, or anyone who denies that the world is going to end soon unless we repent! :)
Seriously though, anyone who thinks we have control over the global thermostat is in severe denial of natural climate change.
Actually the story of Abraham doesn't necessarily make God evil (since he knew ahead of time that he was going to stop the sacrifice), but it does make him a bit of a cruel puppeteer (much like the whole hardening of Pharaoh's heart). Abraham is evil for listening, *even if God exists*. No matter if the powerful benefactor can control life after death, or even if the powerful benefactor could reverse death, the murder of one's child is simply not a moral act.
Put another way, what limits are there for the demands of God if we're expected to do even the most atrocious things by his command? What if God had told Abraham to anally rape his son while his wife watched, but told him it was a joke just before penetration took place? Should we admire Abraham's commitment to God in this case?
If you believe that you must hold onto "moral" teachings that have been handed down for thousands of years, and in order to defend these teachings you must take a book literally from cover to cover, you're going to have a conflict with science.
Understanding that these "moral" teachings can be critiqued, analyzed, and discarded when necessary leaves you open to the possibility that one can not only improve in scientific knowledge, but also in morality.
One can only hope there is some upper limit to morality that one day we can all reach, but until then we can hope :)
Climate always changes. We build our civilization wherever we *can* build it, and when we can no longer build it that way, we change. The fall of the Maya, the Greenland Vikings, or any number of civilizations that had to dramatically change are a testament to the continuously changing climate of the world.
The speculation is whether or not warming is going to be any more, or less costly than the climate changes that have always happened, and whether or not any of our proposed interventions can do *anything* to stop things from changing, much less at a lower cost than what adaptation would entail.
My bet is simple - I believe in climate change, and I expect it to continue to change no matter what we do, so the best thing to do is to find cheaper and cheaper sources of energy to bring people out of poverty, support more humans on the planet, and prepare ourselves for any change that can possibly occur.
Even if my mother *was* The Creator, that wouldn't make child sacrifice proper, or even a willingness to sacrifice a child proper.
Sure, Hobbes, Kant.
Generally enlightened self interest and attachment - as a tool, cooperation brings more benefits than conflict, and so one tries to treat others as one would like to be treated, but we can't ignore the fact that we have stronger and weaker relationships with people (and animals and things for that matter), that make some connections and responsibilities more important than others.
Can I assume that you don't have any rational foundation for your morality, and that it is simply communicated to you through authorities you consider superior to your own intellect?
So hospitality trumps having your daughters raped? Look, no doubt Lot had a bunch of bad options (maybe he'd have been better off if he had sufficient weapons and allies to fight the mob directly), but can we really say he picked the best out of the bunch?
Of course the story is supposed to be simple, and counterfactuals kind of miss the point, but if the moral of the story was to emphasize how a good host should behave, shouldn't it have been more about sharing the best cut of meat with his guests, or letting them have the nice blanket? Instead, the story treats women as chattel, denigrates any idea of a noble martial defense of ones' guests or ones' family, and begs the question, if the mob was so powerful that it could get Lot to offer his daughters up for rape, why didn't they just take the women, and the angels, and Lot for good measure? Are we supposed to infer that Lot's daughters were just really good at tuckering the mob out with wild sex, that their appetites had been satisfied? Or are we supposed to believe that the mob, while completely irrational in their need for rape, figured that hey, we got the girls, let's not push our luck?
When I say morality is awfully fluid, of course I refer to the fact that back when the story of Abraham, or even Lot, was written, there were probably a bunch of otherwise normal, average people who just didn't see anything offensive about the stories (although frankly, that's speculation on my part - maybe most people thought it was egregiously offensive, but those indoctrinated into it at a young age came to accept it).
Certainly, but it's a poor explanation. It turns Abraham into a monster willing to do something he should consider evil *inherently*, and turns God into a fairly petty puppeteer to drive him to that point. They could have just written a vignette where God says, "Children are precious, and you have a responsibility to care for them. Go forth and stop that evil pagan over there from sacrificing his son, and instead raise him as your own so that he may be a blessing on this earth."
In the original, the fact that the Hebrew deity doesn't *require* child sacrifice doesn't seem to give any particular good reason why child sacrifice is a bad thing. It's like having a government that doesn't require you to pay a use tax on something bought out of state - great, I don't have to do it, but is that tax a moral thing or not?
Okay, so we've got a theoretical "4-5C warming if we double CO2 and everything else stays *exactly the same*". I might even buy that.
A world where any significant portion of it stays *exactly the same*? That's fantasy :)
The real question is this - we could have started with the theory "0.04-0.05C warming if we double CO2 and everything else stays *exactly the same*", and made the same excuses we're making today for the warming prediction 100 times higher. How could we discern between those two hypotheses? What observations would exclude one or the other from being true?