True, but if you have radical changes to the environment and there have been a few in our planet's history then life-forms which cannot adapt are going to become extinct.
But do you have any evidence that intelligence helps species adapt?
In addition to that, [bacteria] will never be able to actively prevent their own extinction on a solar or galactic level, nor will they be able to actively spread on those levels.
Any evidence that humans will achieve those feats? So far our "spreading on a solar or galactic level" consists of a few day trips to a nearby moon nearly 50 years ago.
SSDs don't have this problem. 50,000 IOPS is "no big deal" for an SSD, meaning that even if you have 40 million tiny 10k documents, you can still saturate your 6 Gbit SATA interface with sweet, sweet data.
SATA. Bleurgh. How do you do multi-initiator with SATA?
The real point - he doesn't want to do something, so it's impossible to do anything, so there is nothing that need to be done.
That's not what #5 said at all. You just lost all credibility with that straw man.
You're right. That's not wjat #5 says. It is, however, what #1+#2+#3+#4+#5+#6 says. This is a pure example of motivated reasoning and if you're unable to see that that tells us pretty much all we need to know about you.
He likes to point out how virtually every climate model has fallen down, badly, during the current warming pause.
But that happens to not be the case. The cause of the current "pause" seems to be ENSO. Climate models can't predict ENSO, because ENSO is weather not climate. If one constrains a climate model with the current ENSO conditions it turns out that the pause is modeled very well.
He believes #2 for the same reason he admits that CO2 likely has a warming effect. Scientists can both explain theoretically and demonstrate the mechanisms by which they occur.
Which scientists believe that feedback mechanisms will "mute the severity of CO2-induced warming." will outweigh the feedback mechanisms that enhance global warming.
He's only seeing the things that reinforce what he wants to be true. Motivated reasoning at it's finest.
The question isn't whether "CO2 causes warming" but whether a change from 290 to 330 ppm in the troposphere can be the cause of a measurable change in the heat content of troposphere
Wyoming may not be "politically correct" on the issue, but they are correct that "global warming" being caused primarily by man-made emissions isn't settled science. (And no, computer scientists are not the correct scientists.;) )
Regardless of local effects, the basic problem is that we should be warming right now, and we aren't.
But we are.
Why should we be warming right now? The Medieval Warm Period (950-1250) was much warmer than the period that followed - and warmer than now.
[ citation needed]
Wine grape grew in England back then.
Uh, wine grapes are grown in England today
This was followed by the Little Ice Age (1350-1850). These are considered cyclical,
1. The earth's climate is too complex to accurately model and predict.
Argument from disbelief.
2. There are feedback mechanisms that mute the severity of CO2-induced warming.
If he believes that (1) is true how can he know that (2) is true.
3. Even if warming happens at the predicted rate, we can't really know what the impact will be in terms of human suffering.
Argument from disbelief again.
4. From #1 and #2, the dire predictions on future warming can't be trusted.
But 1 and 2 are contradictory
5. Even if warming were going to happen at the predicted rate and the consequences would be as dire as predicted, the economic cost of transitioning of fossil fuels on a global level would induce a huge amount of human suffering on its own,
The real point - he doesn't want to do something, so it's impossible to do anything, so there is nothing that need to be done.
6. Given the cost, there's no way the various world governments are going to come to an agreement and actually make a significant dent in fossil fuel usage anyway. So the whole discussion is academic.
The final proof that he is arguing backwards from what he wants to happen (or not happen) to what he wants to be true.
Deniers! Start from the science! Don't start from your personal feelings and work back to the science, that's not how it's done.
...should a lawyer get to determine the science curriculum?
Perhaps we should get a musician to determine the law curriculum and a scientist to determine the arts curriculum. It makes just as much sense.
No, it makes much more sense. Musicians often have to deal with the law and most scientists like art. Lawyers however appear to have less respect for the law than anyone else.
How in the world will we head for an extinction level event?
Obviously we aren't headed for a global extinction event. We are already in the global extinction event.
You do realize that this planet has seen CO2 levels 10 times what we have today (even 20 times higher) and not once did an extinction event play out due to CO2 increases.
Because the PETM didn't happen on your alternate earth?
In fact, at one point in our past, the planet had roughly 2000 PPM CO2 (5 times today's levels) and we were in the midst of an ice-age.
Slashdot Mirror
Life does not need intelligence.
True, but if you have radical changes to the environment and there have been a few in our planet's history then life-forms which cannot adapt are going to become extinct.
But do you have any evidence that intelligence helps species adapt?
In addition to that, [bacteria] will never be able to actively prevent their own extinction on a solar or galactic level, nor will they be able to actively spread on those levels.
Any evidence that humans will achieve those feats? So far our "spreading on a solar or galactic level" consists of a few day trips to a nearby moon nearly 50 years ago.
How is intelligence a 'handicap'? The human species is the most evolutionary successful mammal in any way you choose to measure success.
Oh yeah? Probably more rats than humans on earth.
For all you Euro computer idiots....
Computers don't operate in decimal, they operate in binary.
Oh really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_1620
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICT_1300
SSDs don't have this problem. 50,000 IOPS is "no big deal" for an SSD, meaning that even if you have 40 million tiny 10k documents, you can still saturate your 6 Gbit SATA interface with sweet, sweet data.
SATA. Bleurgh. How do you do multi-initiator with SATA?
If it's not SAS I can't see any use for it.
I can't tell. Poe?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
Sea ice you moron.
For a real trip, though, play Fallout 3, then go through the DC metro system.
You stole my comment, you bastard.
But you're seriously right there.
The real point - he doesn't want to do something, so it's impossible to do anything, so there is nothing that need to be done.
That's not what #5 said at all. You just lost all credibility with that straw man.
You're right. That's not wjat #5 says. It is, however, what #1+#2+#3+#4+#5+#6 says. This is a pure example of motivated reasoning and if you're unable to see that that tells us pretty much all we need to know about you.
He likes to point out how virtually every climate model has fallen down, badly, during the current warming pause.
But that happens to not be the case. The cause of the current "pause" seems to be ENSO. Climate models can't predict ENSO, because ENSO is weather not climate. If one constrains a climate model with the current ENSO conditions it turns out that the pause is modeled very well.
Kosaka and Xie (2013, Nature, doi:10.1038/nature12534)
He believes #2 for the same reason he admits that CO2 likely has a warming effect. Scientists can both explain theoretically and demonstrate the mechanisms by which they occur.
Which scientists believe that feedback mechanisms will "mute the severity of CO2-induced warming." will outweigh the feedback mechanisms that enhance global warming.
He's only seeing the things that reinforce what he wants to be true. Motivated reasoning at it's finest.
We are always in an extinction event
Simply not true.
No, "we don't know what the fuck is going on" is not the "null hypothesis".
Except his logic differs from that of the IPCC which tells us that warming before 1950 was mostly natural.
Does it? Where?
National or UN derived standards (common core) are wrong - keep education control local to meet local requirements. Way to go Wyoming.
Because reality is purely local.
By the way, UN helicopters aren't black, they're white.
http://news.abidjan.net/photos/photos/610x%20(1)(156).jpg
The question isn't whether "CO2 causes warming" but whether a change from 290 to 330 ppm in the troposphere can be the cause of a measurable change in the heat content of troposphere
Where do you get 330 ppm?
Wyoming may not be "politically correct" on the issue, but they are correct that "global warming" being caused primarily by man-made emissions isn't settled science. (And no, computer scientists are not the correct scientists. ;) )
Regardless of local effects, the basic problem is that we should be warming right now, and we aren't.
But we are.
Why should we be warming right now? The Medieval Warm Period (950-1250) was much warmer than the period that followed - and warmer than now.
[ citation needed]
Wine grape grew in England back then.
Uh, wine grapes are grown in England today
This was followed by the Little Ice Age (1350-1850). These are considered cyclical,
By who? What is the mechanism for these "cycles"?
The other problems they had probably weren't interesting to reporters.
Yeah, they really don't dig quantum chromodynamics in Wyoming.
1. The earth's climate is too complex to accurately model and predict.
Argument from disbelief.
2. There are feedback mechanisms that mute the severity of CO2-induced warming.
If he believes that (1) is true how can he know that (2) is true.
3. Even if warming happens at the predicted rate, we can't really know what the impact will be in terms of human suffering.
Argument from disbelief again.
4. From #1 and #2, the dire predictions on future warming can't be trusted.
But 1 and 2 are contradictory
5. Even if warming were going to happen at the predicted rate and the consequences would be as dire as predicted, the economic cost of transitioning of fossil fuels on a global level would induce a huge amount of human suffering on its own,
The real point - he doesn't want to do something, so it's impossible to do anything, so there is nothing that need to be done.
6. Given the cost, there's no way the various world governments are going to come to an agreement and actually make a significant dent in fossil fuel usage anyway. So the whole discussion is academic.
The final proof that he is arguing backwards from what he wants to happen (or not happen) to what he wants to be true.
Deniers! Start from the science! Don't start from your personal feelings and work back to the science, that's not how it's done.
As someone who believes in climate change, I'm growing very uneasy with the language being used by both sides to describe dissenting opinions.
Concern troll is concerned.
Tell ya what, there is a new book out that shows race has a genetic factor.
A new book "shows" something? A book written by a "science writer, not a scientist himself.".
Got a reference to the peer reviewed science?
...should a lawyer get to determine the science curriculum?
Perhaps we should get a musician to determine the law curriculum and a scientist to determine the arts curriculum. It makes just as much sense.
No, it makes much more sense. Musicians often have to deal with the law and most scientists like art. Lawyers however appear to have less respect for the law than anyone else.
How in the world will we head for an extinction level event?
Obviously we aren't headed for a global extinction event. We are already in the global extinction event.
You do realize that this planet has seen CO2 levels 10 times what we have today (even 20 times higher) and not once did an extinction event play out due to CO2 increases.
Because the PETM didn't happen on your alternate earth?
In fact, at one point in our past, the planet had roughly 2000 PPM CO2 (5 times today's levels) and we were in the midst of an ice-age.
Boring zombie argument #49. http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm
What is the chance the current temperature rise is just natural variation (i.e. noise) ?
0.1% http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/eprints/eprintLovejoy/neweprint/Anthro.climate.dynamics.13.3.14.pdf
Next question?
No, "natural causes" is not a competing theory of climate change.
Without details about what "natural causes" you're talking about it isn't even a theory.
Well, no. The whole "google is upset" thing is part of the joke.
Or, to put it in a way slashdot readers can understand:
Woosh!
[ insert slashdot editor in car-crash analogy here ]