It's funny you should say that. There was a comment earlier in the this thread about how Creationists, when presented with more evidence of Evolution, just move the goal posts and say "now there's two more gaps in the 'just a theory' of Evolution!"... My thought was: "Huh. Just like Global Climate Change 'skeptics'."
Ever notice the similarity? I have.
If you think that the way the critics are treated is bad?
Climate scientists have to deal with harassing lawsuits from Republican attorney generals (a climate change "skeptic") and baseless accusations of fraud from "skeptics". Makes me think the "skeptics" aren't really as honest, independent, nor sincere, as they claim to be. Every day "skeptics" accuse Climate scientists of being in some shadowy international conspiracy.
The point is that we're not making snap judgements about "non-problems".
We're talking about reducing human contributions to the problem of Global Climate Change (the most obvious way being reducing emissions of green house gasses).
Based on your comment it seems that you've never really attempted to familiarize yourself with the even the most basic information about climate change.
A good place to get started is: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/
You could say the same thing about any branch of scientific study.
Why bother studying distant stars when we could be curing HIV or cancer!
Why bother studying life when we could be putting people on Mars!
Why bother studying rocks when we could be developing artificial intelligence!
Understanding how the climate of the planet we live on behaves and changes seems like a very important thing to know.
That's weird. On climate change topics I'm always being told that you can assume governments exaggerate bad news.
How can it be that governments, simultaneously, exaggerate and understate bad news?
"A million people can call the mountains a fiction, yet it need not trouble you as you stand atop them"
"But he's a US Senator!"
"Ah. Then yes, we do have a bit of a situation."
"Man shoots own son in 'burglary'
A US man mistakenly shot dead his 15-year-old son while investigating what appeared to be an attempted burglary next door, police say."http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19756499
What you hear is true.
As someone who has played all 5 of the Civilization games to-date I have to say that they've streamlined the game.
I've always loathed the process (in Civs 1 - 4) of naval invasion. It's my least favorite part of those games.
In Civ 5 they have removed *most* of the hassle of naval invasion. You don't have to build transports. You just send your unit to the coast and say "embark" and a transport appears out of nowhere to carry the unit across the water.
When I look up in the sky I do not want to see 'Urrectum'*!
* I propose that if NASA must name things based on the most popular choice then eventually there will be a celestial body named Urrectum. It is inevitable.
As a layman I say that "I believe in science".
By saying that I do not mean to belittle science.
By saying that I do not mean to create a false equivalency between the epistemologies of 'empiricism' and 'divine revelation'.
When I say that "I believe in science" it is only because I am not familiar enough with the details of scientific theories nor the volumes of evidence to make the claim that I "know" it.
To be clear:
I would not argue if a Biologist said "I know the theory of Evolution", but I only feel comfortable saying that "I believe the theory of Evolution".
I would not argue if a Physicist said "I know the theory of Relativity", but I would only feel comfortable saying that "I believe the theory of Relativity".
I would not argue if a Climatologist said "I know the theory of Climate Change", but I would only feel comfortable saying that "I believe the theory of Climate Change".
"Why is it that people who have no knowledge at all, people who don't know the difference between a machine gun and a pistol, want to decide on gun regulations?"
I ask myself a very similar question every time I see some internet know-nothing claim that the scientific theory of Global Climate Change is a hoax/fraud/scam.
I think pretty much everyone already does blame "the person" in tragedies like this. That's why (if he was still alive) "the person" would be convicted and imprisoned.
Nobody has ever suggested putting his gun on trial. Nobody has ever suggested imprisoning his gun.
The culpability for the shooting has always been on "the person".
What some people, like myself, have noticed is that there are other people out there who are like "the person". They have similar mental disorders and they also have access to similar arsenals of assault weaponry.
Blaming "the person" is not enough. It does not solve the problem of all the other nut jobs out there.
When I ask gun-nuts whether the 2nd Amendment means civilians should have access to military grade weaponry (RPGs, anti-air craft guns, surface-to-air missiles, armor piercing rounds, high explosives) they usually say "no" (an occasion gun-super-nut will say "yes").
Thanks to your comment I now know that gun-nuts are lying and that they actually do want military grade weaponry in civilian hands.
... There: Now I don't actually believe that, but I've written it out anyway to show how easy it is to make the slippery-slope slide in the other direction.
I was going to ask exactly the same question!
When I imagine myself buying a plane ticket and sales person asks for my credit card *before* they have given me a price-quote: I'm going to be suspicious.
"Why do you need my credit card? I haven't told you where I'm going and you haven't told me how much it will cost."
I'm sure that the conservative billionaires would love to fund research that proves "there's no such thing as Global Climate Change"... the problem is that last time they tried that: The research group didn't produce the conclusion their conservative billionaire pay-masters wanted!
"Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."
Because their scientific arguments are so weak: The conservative billionaires have to resort to funding public relations campaigns against climate research.
I wonder how many "skeptics" you can buy with 120 million dollars?
I'm not really interested in unsubstantiated conspiracy theories from Anonymous Cowards; in my experience scientists, speaking within their field of expertise, are a much more reliable source of information.
There's this game that "skeptics" of the scientific theory of Global Climate Change like to play.
They assume that climatologists have come to their conclusions (that the Earth is warming due to greenhouse gas emissions and human activity is partly responsible) because the scientists (they say) "were paid by people and governments to come to that conclusion".
While us "warmists" have been providing the scientific evidence; the "skeptics", on the other hand, argue politics "follow the MONEY!!!" (they say)
The problem is that when you do take their advice and the money leads to conservative billionaires, the Heartland Institute, Exxon Mobil (Fossil Fuel industries), and others who have a financial and political interest in denying the science of Climate Change:
All of a sudden the "skeptics" want us to forget about following the money!
So here we have a dilemma.
An Anonymous Coward on Slashdot says the IPCC predictions are a dismal failure.
On the other hand David J. Frame & Dáithí A. Stone compared the IPCC model predictions against the observed temperatures and found the predictions to be accurate (source).
So I guess the question is who am I going to believe:
The unsubstantiated claims of an Anonymous Coward on Slashdot -OR- the detailed research of scientists that has passed the peer-review process?
Tough call!
Slashdot Mirror
It's funny you should say that. There was a comment earlier in the this thread about how Creationists, when presented with more evidence of Evolution, just move the goal posts and say "now there's two more gaps in the 'just a theory' of Evolution!"... My thought was: "Huh. Just like Global Climate Change 'skeptics'."
Ever notice the similarity? I have.
What solution to the problem of human contributions to Global Climate Change has MightyMartian advocated that "requires fascism to be implemented"?
If you think that the way the critics are treated is bad?
Climate scientists have to deal with harassing lawsuits from Republican attorney generals (a climate change "skeptic") and baseless accusations of fraud from "skeptics". Makes me think the "skeptics" aren't really as honest, independent, nor sincere, as they claim to be. Every day "skeptics" accuse Climate scientists of being in some shadowy international conspiracy.
The point is that we're not making snap judgements about "non-problems".
We're talking about reducing human contributions to the problem of Global Climate Change (the most obvious way being reducing emissions of green house gasses). Based on your comment it seems that you've never really attempted to familiarize yourself with the even the most basic information about climate change.
A good place to get started is: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/
You could say the same thing about any branch of scientific study.
Why bother studying distant stars when we could be curing HIV or cancer!
Why bother studying life when we could be putting people on Mars!
Why bother studying rocks when we could be developing artificial intelligence!
Understanding how the climate of the planet we live on behaves and changes seems like a very important thing to know.
That's weird. On climate change topics I'm always being told that you can assume governments exaggerate bad news.
How can it be that governments, simultaneously, exaggerate and understate bad news?
Can you provide some examples of who it is that denies Economics or Human Nature and what it is that they deny about those fields of study?
I think XKCD summarizes the topic pretty well:
http://xkcd.com/154/
"A million people can call the mountains a fiction, yet it need not trouble you as you stand atop them"
"But he's a US Senator!"
"Ah. Then yes, we do have a bit of a situation."
Even worse is the contradiction between his denial of Global Warming and his stated position of "stronger national defense". The Pentagon acknowledges that Climate Change poses threats to national defense as an "accelerant of instability and conflict."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=us-military-forges-ahead-with-plans-to-combat-climate-change
"Dwarf Planet" could be a cool name for a sci-fi sequel to "Dwarf Fortress".
"Man shoots own son in 'burglary'
A US man mistakenly shot dead his 15-year-old son while investigating what appeared to be an attempted burglary next door, police say." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19756499
If only his son was carrying a gun amirite!?!
I completely agree and it is beyond frustrating how gun nuts fail to understand the obvious.
What you hear is true.
As someone who has played all 5 of the Civilization games to-date I have to say that they've streamlined the game.
I've always loathed the process (in Civs 1 - 4) of naval invasion. It's my least favorite part of those games.
In Civ 5 they have removed *most* of the hassle of naval invasion. You don't have to build transports. You just send your unit to the coast and say "embark" and a transport appears out of nowhere to carry the unit across the water.
When I look up in the sky I do not want to see 'Urrectum'*!
* I propose that if NASA must name things based on the most popular choice then eventually there will be a celestial body named Urrectum. It is inevitable.
Now we know which plane Mourns-For-Trees comes from.
As a layman I say that "I believe in science".
By saying that I do not mean to belittle science.
By saying that I do not mean to create a false equivalency between the epistemologies of 'empiricism' and 'divine revelation'.
When I say that "I believe in science" it is only because I am not familiar enough with the details of scientific theories nor the volumes of evidence to make the claim that I "know" it.
To be clear:
I would not argue if a Biologist said "I know the theory of Evolution", but I only feel comfortable saying that "I believe the theory of Evolution".
I would not argue if a Physicist said "I know the theory of Relativity", but I would only feel comfortable saying that "I believe the theory of Relativity".
I would not argue if a Climatologist said "I know the theory of Climate Change", but I would only feel comfortable saying that "I believe the theory of Climate Change".
"Why is it that people who have no knowledge at all, people who don't know the difference between a machine gun and a pistol, want to decide on gun regulations?"
I ask myself a very similar question every time I see some internet know-nothing claim that the scientific theory of Global Climate Change is a hoax/fraud/scam.
Oooh that's a Godwin.
Stay classy "skeptic"!
I think pretty much everyone already does blame "the person" in tragedies like this. That's why (if he was still alive) "the person" would be convicted and imprisoned.
Nobody has ever suggested putting his gun on trial. Nobody has ever suggested imprisoning his gun.
The culpability for the shooting has always been on "the person".
What some people, like myself, have noticed is that there are other people out there who are like "the person". They have similar mental disorders and they also have access to similar arsenals of assault weaponry.
Blaming "the person" is not enough. It does not solve the problem of all the other nut jobs out there.
When I ask gun-nuts whether the 2nd Amendment means civilians should have access to military grade weaponry (RPGs, anti-air craft guns, surface-to-air missiles, armor piercing rounds, high explosives) they usually say "no" (an occasion gun-super-nut will say "yes").
... There: Now I don't actually believe that, but I've written it out anyway to show how easy it is to make the slippery-slope slide in the other direction.
Thanks to your comment I now know that gun-nuts are lying and that they actually do want military grade weaponry in civilian hands.
I was going to ask exactly the same question!
When I imagine myself buying a plane ticket and sales person asks for my credit card *before* they have given me a price-quote: I'm going to be suspicious.
"Why do you need my credit card? I haven't told you where I'm going and you haven't told me how much it will cost."
"Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."
Richard Muller, Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature.
Because their scientific arguments are so weak: The conservative billionaires have to resort to funding public relations campaigns against climate research.
I wonder how many "skeptics" you can buy with 120 million dollars?
I'm not really interested in unsubstantiated conspiracy theories from Anonymous Cowards; in my experience scientists, speaking within their field of expertise, are a much more reliable source of information.
On that note: Did you know that the national academies of science of the G8 + 5 nations all endorse the science of Global Climate Change?
There's this game that "skeptics" of the scientific theory of Global Climate Change like to play.
They assume that climatologists have come to their conclusions (that the Earth is warming due to greenhouse gas emissions and human activity is partly responsible) because the scientists (they say) "were paid by people and governments to come to that conclusion".
While us "warmists" have been providing the scientific evidence; the "skeptics", on the other hand, argue politics "follow the MONEY!!!" (they say)
The problem is that when you do take their advice and the money leads to conservative billionaires, the Heartland Institute, Exxon Mobil (Fossil Fuel industries), and others who have a financial and political interest in denying the science of Climate Change:
All of a sudden the "skeptics" want us to forget about following the money!
So here we have a dilemma.
An Anonymous Coward on Slashdot says the IPCC predictions are a dismal failure.
On the other hand David J. Frame & Dáithí A. Stone compared the IPCC model predictions against the observed temperatures and found the predictions to be accurate (source).
So I guess the question is who am I going to believe:
The unsubstantiated claims of an Anonymous Coward on Slashdot -OR- the detailed research of scientists that has passed the peer-review process?
Tough call!