We'll have to agree to disagree. I think the fame, glory, and RICHES (all of which is the "prize") which would come from a scientist "breaking ranks" and "uncovering the conspiracy" or whatever you believe, would be far more attractive to at least one of the conspirators, than to get funding for another five years of obscurity earning a middle-class income.
No, that is not the important comparison, because your argument would rely on the assumption that government money is tainted by a pro-AGW agenda. That, right there, is wrong, and we can tell its wrong because tree huggers don't have nearly so much political power or influence on the government as oil companies. And even if they did, which remember they don't, it STILL wouldn't show anything because you would furthermore have to impugn the entire worldwide community of climate scientists, saying they are all shills for the ideology of their paymasters, not at all concerned for the truth, or their reputations, and not at all interested in being the person who blows the lid off of the huge conspiracy.
Look, dude, its turtles all the way down. The science is what it is. There is no conspiracy. There is no untoward influence. The science isn't being driven by ideology. Really. Really.
And by the way, saying that preservation of resources is done better by private owners rather than governments is so laughably out of touch with reality that I won't bother much with it. Game reserves in Africa? What, seriously? You're going to impugn government land reserves based on an example of a place with a powerless and ineffective government? That's totally stupid. The problem there is the lack of government, not too much government. But yes, it was clever of them to involve the local people and give them a financial incentive to help deter poachers. Notice we don't have such a problem with poachers in America where we have a functioning government. I won't respond again on that topic, but you can compare deforestation in Haiti (terrible, owned by private individuals) versus Dominican Republic (not so bad, owned by the government) if you feel so inclined. Or, ask yourself, why isn't there a huge string of million-dollar mansions all along the rim of the Grand Canyon? Is it because private land owners are so responsible that they want to preserve the Canyon for other people and for future generations? Give me a break, man. Your ideology is a big problem; you should reconsider it.
I don't understand what you mean. Of course you can slowly migrate. Humans slowly migrated over the whole world. In fact my understanding of the world migrate requires slowness. A fast migration is called exodus or flight or evacuation or something.
It's true. I don't live anywhere near a coast today, so if I live here until I die then sea level rise won't cause me to move at all. But I've lived most of my life on coasts, like most people. And if I had to, I'd move uphill.
I have a completely unrelated question. Is your name a reference to the Chali 2na album? I only ask because I'm a 2na fan. I realize that your name could also just be usage of the common phrase.
Yeah. Then those people would move. They would all be affected, yes; they would have to build new homes, yes; but its hardly cataclysm. They would have a century to slowly migrate 100 kilometers? Yeah, I see the problem, and the problem I see is small. Why pays for relocation is a political question; my prognostication is that, no, the rest of the world would shed them a tear then tell them to move themselves uphill.
Also, yes, grain yields will decrease (maybe, if we don't engineer different grain) in traditional growing areas (USA) and will increase in other growing areas (Canada, Russia). Yes, there will be winners and losers. Yes, I see the problem, and the problem I see is small.
But hey, I'm just a guy. I've never studied this stuff. I'm open to being convinced that these are bigger problems than I imagine, or that there are bigger problems than these. Still, I haven't yet been convinced that a slightly deeper ocean is a big problem.
You know, the whole question of coastal cities has always been unconvincing to me. If sea levels rise by nine feet, then humans will... uh... move nine feet up the hill. Yes, that means that some coastal properties will be destroyed, and new coastal properties will be created. Yes, there might be some expense in that. But nobody is going to die with a one-millimeter-per-year sea level rise. I don't know -- that always seemed like a losing argument of the environmentalists to me.
You're right. Libertarians don't want the government to tell people how to live their lives; they want corporations to tell people how to live their lives.
Me? I prefer to have a vote in who tells me how to live my life. And I mean a real vote, not a fake vote-by-dollar, which isn't a vote at all. Even when I spend zero dollars at a store, that store still tells me that I have to drive past its billboards on the way to work. If I want a billboard-free drive, the only way to get that is by having government "tell billboard makers how to live their lives". Alas...
Right. I know. You are for some reason focusing on one study instead of the whole literature, which is gigantic and has been peer reviewed for decades. We don't keep wasting our time trying to re-confirm that the moon isn't made of green cheese, and we shouldn't keep wasting our time re-confirming previously confirmed GW conclusions.
Mmm hmmm. None of that is relevant. Here's the whole GW argument, boiled down:
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. 2. CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere. 3. PREDICTION the earth must warm up.
This is the GW hypothesis. I rarely hear anyone deny any of that. Here's the AGW argument, boiled down:
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. 2. The accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere is due to human activity. 3. CONCLUSION the earth's recorded spike in warming is due to human activity.
I do hear people say that 2 is wrong because, uh, because volcanoes do it or something.
Indeed, I believe that is the explicit plan: fuck the facts, I have my job to protect, and I'm going to convince policy makers to punt until it's too late, and then we'll just do nothing. Fait accompli.
So, renewables got about one-twelfth the money that hydrocarbons got. Is that what you were asking? So, the hydrocarbon industries have something like twelve times the sway on government spending than renewable-energy industries? And thus government conspiracies would be twelve times as likely to fund anti-AGW science as pro-AGW science? Is that the kind of argument you are trying to make?
Not me. I'm just trying to point out that it is absurd, preposterous, and demonstrably wrong to suggest that somehow the tree huggers have taken over government, resulting in a gigantic multinational conspiracy to push the false myth of AGW onto an unsuspecting public in order to advance an anti-human ideological agenda. That argument is retarded, and people who make it are kooks.
Oh, okay. I understand. So you simply mean that "independent" is a meaningless concept, in every case, for AGW, for GW, for all of science, and in fact for all of everything in the human experience and in the universe, because everything in the universe is interconnected?
So, you have a very strict definition, but I think that's okay. You should consider accepting "independent" as it is meant by the others around you.
Dude, don't worry, after this there are still lots and lots of places for you to move the goalpost to. You have plenty of options left to preserve your denial until you are dead. You will never have to face the truth.
Even after the anthropogenic part is undeniable even to folks like you (having been proven in the 1990s), you can move the goalpost to "but it's insignificant", and then to "okay, but it's too expensive to fix", to "okay, but it's too hard to fix", to "okay, but humanity will never cooperate to fix it", to "oh, well I just don't want to fix it". I bet there are even more steps in between you can fall back on.
So don't be too concerned. Your denial is as safe as any other denial. Toward the end of your life, you can just devolve into a delusion of universal conspiracy, where even your tending nurse is getting paid off.
Really? Huh. I wasn't aware of any research centers which DO have a very large vested interest in Global Climate Change ("change" is is what I assume you meant even though you didn't say it).
Are you aware of the incredible fame and fortune given to any scientist who can demonstrate that a widely accepted scientific theory is wrong? Do you deny the attraction of that fame and fortune? If a scientist could successfully demonstrate with facts that the accepted climate theories are wrong, he would become by far the most famous climate scientist, and possibly the most famous living scientist. But, no, you probably think the scientists aren't interested in that, instead they're motivated by conforming to myths.
Awesome. That's the first time I've had anyone bite on that bait.
Okay, now this is an important follow up: please say that yes, "tree huggers" have MORE of a 'direct line' to the general treasury of the USA than the big oil companies. That was implied in my first question, but you didn't really address it.
If you are willing to say that, out loud, then wow I'll have no retort. We will simply disagree on who has more power and influence and money -- big oil or big tree.
I haven't read the paper, but others in this forum are saying that this paper doesn't demonstrate the A part of AGW, but rather only the GW part. That makes me (ahem) skeptical of your claim that you are taking this paper as sufficient proof for AGW. Furthermore, I'm surprised that you would accept this paper, and none of the thousands of others. Is it really just because this paper was paid for by deniers? That is enough for you? What will you think next week, when some other denier starts pointing to some funding source which isn't ideologically denial-pure?
To continue your tangent: you correctly call it a war on drug users, but it can also be correctly described as literally thought crime. "Drugs" (in this context) is what we call a substance which affects your thinking, thus to make a drug illegal is literally not figuratively thought-crime. Whether or not this is good policy is a political question, but it sure sounds bad.
There it is, folks, a plainly stated denial. He rejects the data, thus there is no convincing him. He isn't an evidence-based thinker -- and that's fine, if he admits it, but it's not fine if he won't admit it.
Climate-change-deniers often say that government paid studies are fake because governments are encouraging the scientists to come back with fake positives to promote various policies...... they can't say that anymore.
You underestimate the power of denial. I'm 100% certain that they can say that anymore.
Absolutely true. I'm waiting for the goalpost to move as such:
* How do we know this CO2 gas isn't a myth? * How do we know that thermometers actually measure temperature? * How do we know that the Earth's atmosphere is actually made of gas? * How do we know that burning oil produces CO2? * How do we know that cause follows effect? * How do we know that natural phenomena are ruled by natural laws?
I think you give them too much credit. Here's how I phrase it: science doesn't prove things. It can't prove things. Nothing can be proven, ever, because proof is theoretically impossible. Any evidence could overturn existing scientific conclusions. But, even though science can't prove things, it can demonstrate them beyond a reasonable doubt. And in the case of AGW, science has demonstrated it beyond a reasonable doubt, leaving only unreasonable doubt, such as yours.
Slashdot Mirror
Why doesn't anyone ever suggest "DO legalize, but DON'T regulate, and DON'T tax marijuana"? That's a petition I could sign.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I think the fame, glory, and RICHES (all of which is the "prize") which would come from a scientist "breaking ranks" and "uncovering the conspiracy" or whatever you believe, would be far more attractive to at least one of the conspirators, than to get funding for another five years of obscurity earning a middle-class income.
No, that is not the important comparison, because your argument would rely on the assumption that government money is tainted by a pro-AGW agenda. That, right there, is wrong, and we can tell its wrong because tree huggers don't have nearly so much political power or influence on the government as oil companies. And even if they did, which remember they don't, it STILL wouldn't show anything because you would furthermore have to impugn the entire worldwide community of climate scientists, saying they are all shills for the ideology of their paymasters, not at all concerned for the truth, or their reputations, and not at all interested in being the person who blows the lid off of the huge conspiracy.
Look, dude, its turtles all the way down. The science is what it is. There is no conspiracy. There is no untoward influence. The science isn't being driven by ideology. Really. Really.
And by the way, saying that preservation of resources is done better by private owners rather than governments is so laughably out of touch with reality that I won't bother much with it. Game reserves in Africa? What, seriously? You're going to impugn government land reserves based on an example of a place with a powerless and ineffective government? That's totally stupid. The problem there is the lack of government, not too much government. But yes, it was clever of them to involve the local people and give them a financial incentive to help deter poachers. Notice we don't have such a problem with poachers in America where we have a functioning government. I won't respond again on that topic, but you can compare deforestation in Haiti (terrible, owned by private individuals) versus Dominican Republic (not so bad, owned by the government) if you feel so inclined. Or, ask yourself, why isn't there a huge string of million-dollar mansions all along the rim of the Grand Canyon? Is it because private land owners are so responsible that they want to preserve the Canyon for other people and for future generations? Give me a break, man. Your ideology is a big problem; you should reconsider it.
I don't understand what you mean. Of course you can slowly migrate. Humans slowly migrated over the whole world. In fact my understanding of the world migrate requires slowness. A fast migration is called exodus or flight or evacuation or something.
It's true. I don't live anywhere near a coast today, so if I live here until I die then sea level rise won't cause me to move at all. But I've lived most of my life on coasts, like most people. And if I had to, I'd move uphill.
I have a completely unrelated question. Is your name a reference to the Chali 2na album? I only ask because I'm a 2na fan. I realize that your name could also just be usage of the common phrase.
Yeah. Then those people would move. They would all be affected, yes; they would have to build new homes, yes; but its hardly cataclysm. They would have a century to slowly migrate 100 kilometers? Yeah, I see the problem, and the problem I see is small. Why pays for relocation is a political question; my prognostication is that, no, the rest of the world would shed them a tear then tell them to move themselves uphill.
Also, yes, grain yields will decrease (maybe, if we don't engineer different grain) in traditional growing areas (USA) and will increase in other growing areas (Canada, Russia). Yes, there will be winners and losers. Yes, I see the problem, and the problem I see is small.
But hey, I'm just a guy. I've never studied this stuff. I'm open to being convinced that these are bigger problems than I imagine, or that there are bigger problems than these. Still, I haven't yet been convinced that a slightly deeper ocean is a big problem.
And yet one tiny drop of ricin can kill an entire human being. Huh. How is that even possible?
Holy motherfucking shit. Great link. Thanks.
You know, the whole question of coastal cities has always been unconvincing to me. If sea levels rise by nine feet, then humans will... uh... move nine feet up the hill. Yes, that means that some coastal properties will be destroyed, and new coastal properties will be created. Yes, there might be some expense in that. But nobody is going to die with a one-millimeter-per-year sea level rise. I don't know -- that always seemed like a losing argument of the environmentalists to me.
You're right. Libertarians don't want the government to tell people how to live their lives; they want corporations to tell people how to live their lives.
Me? I prefer to have a vote in who tells me how to live my life. And I mean a real vote, not a fake vote-by-dollar, which isn't a vote at all. Even when I spend zero dollars at a store, that store still tells me that I have to drive past its billboards on the way to work. If I want a billboard-free drive, the only way to get that is by having government "tell billboard makers how to live their lives". Alas...
Right. I know. You are for some reason focusing on one study instead of the whole literature, which is gigantic and has been peer reviewed for decades. We don't keep wasting our time trying to re-confirm that the moon isn't made of green cheese, and we shouldn't keep wasting our time re-confirming previously confirmed GW conclusions.
Mmm hmmm. None of that is relevant. Here's the whole GW argument, boiled down:
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
2. CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere.
3. PREDICTION the earth must warm up.
This is the GW hypothesis. I rarely hear anyone deny any of that. Here's the AGW argument, boiled down:
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
2. The accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere is due to human activity.
3. CONCLUSION the earth's recorded spike in warming is due to human activity.
I do hear people say that 2 is wrong because, uh, because volcanoes do it or something.
Indeed, I believe that is the explicit plan: fuck the facts, I have my job to protect, and I'm going to convince policy makers to punt until it's too late, and then we'll just do nothing. Fait accompli.
Are you asking me to do your research for you? Okay, I'll do it, but only this once:
"Bloomberg New Energy Finance identified US$43–$46 billion last year allotted by governments for renewable energy. Meanwhile, oil, coal and gas received $557 billion"
So, renewables got about one-twelfth the money that hydrocarbons got. Is that what you were asking? So, the hydrocarbon industries have something like twelve times the sway on government spending than renewable-energy industries? And thus government conspiracies would be twelve times as likely to fund anti-AGW science as pro-AGW science? Is that the kind of argument you are trying to make?
Not me. I'm just trying to point out that it is absurd, preposterous, and demonstrably wrong to suggest that somehow the tree huggers have taken over government, resulting in a gigantic multinational conspiracy to push the false myth of AGW onto an unsuspecting public in order to advance an anti-human ideological agenda. That argument is retarded, and people who make it are kooks.
Oh, okay. I understand. So you simply mean that "independent" is a meaningless concept, in every case, for AGW, for GW, for all of science, and in fact for all of everything in the human experience and in the universe, because everything in the universe is interconnected?
So, you have a very strict definition, but I think that's okay. You should consider accepting "independent" as it is meant by the others around you.
The process worked in the 1980s and 1990s. We're way, way, way past that. This study IS the further confirmation of the settled science.
Dude, don't worry, after this there are still lots and lots of places for you to move the goalpost to. You have plenty of options left to preserve your denial until you are dead. You will never have to face the truth.
Even after the anthropogenic part is undeniable even to folks like you (having been proven in the 1990s), you can move the goalpost to "but it's insignificant", and then to "okay, but it's too expensive to fix", to "okay, but it's too hard to fix", to "okay, but humanity will never cooperate to fix it", to "oh, well I just don't want to fix it". I bet there are even more steps in between you can fall back on.
So don't be too concerned. Your denial is as safe as any other denial. Toward the end of your life, you can just devolve into a delusion of universal conspiracy, where even your tending nurse is getting paid off.
Really? Huh. I wasn't aware of any research centers which DO have a very large vested interest in Global Climate Change ("change" is is what I assume you meant even though you didn't say it).
Are you aware of the incredible fame and fortune given to any scientist who can demonstrate that a widely accepted scientific theory is wrong? Do you deny the attraction of that fame and fortune? If a scientist could successfully demonstrate with facts that the accepted climate theories are wrong, he would become by far the most famous climate scientist, and possibly the most famous living scientist. But, no, you probably think the scientists aren't interested in that, instead they're motivated by conforming to myths.
Awesome. That's the first time I've had anyone bite on that bait.
Okay, now this is an important follow up: please say that yes, "tree huggers" have MORE of a 'direct line' to the general treasury of the USA than the big oil companies. That was implied in my first question, but you didn't really address it.
If you are willing to say that, out loud, then wow I'll have no retort. We will simply disagree on who has more power and influence and money -- big oil or big tree.
I haven't read the paper, but others in this forum are saying that this paper doesn't demonstrate the A part of AGW, but rather only the GW part. That makes me (ahem) skeptical of your claim that you are taking this paper as sufficient proof for AGW. Furthermore, I'm surprised that you would accept this paper, and none of the thousands of others. Is it really just because this paper was paid for by deniers? That is enough for you? What will you think next week, when some other denier starts pointing to some funding source which isn't ideologically denial-pure?
To continue your tangent: you correctly call it a war on drug users, but it can also be correctly described as literally thought crime. "Drugs" (in this context) is what we call a substance which affects your thinking, thus to make a drug illegal is literally not figuratively thought-crime. Whether or not this is good policy is a political question, but it sure sounds bad.
the data we have means nothing
There it is, folks, a plainly stated denial. He rejects the data, thus there is no convincing him. He isn't an evidence-based thinker -- and that's fine, if he admits it, but it's not fine if he won't admit it.
Climate-change-deniers often say that government paid studies are fake because governments are encouraging the scientists to come back with fake positives to promote various policies... ... they can't say that anymore.
You underestimate the power of denial. I'm 100% certain that they can say that anymore.
Absolutely true. I'm waiting for the goalpost to move as such:
* How do we know this CO2 gas isn't a myth?
* How do we know that thermometers actually measure temperature?
* How do we know that the Earth's atmosphere is actually made of gas?
* How do we know that burning oil produces CO2?
* How do we know that cause follows effect?
* How do we know that natural phenomena are ruled by natural laws?
I think you give them too much credit. Here's how I phrase it: science doesn't prove things. It can't prove things. Nothing can be proven, ever, because proof is theoretically impossible. Any evidence could overturn existing scientific conclusions. But, even though science can't prove things, it can demonstrate them beyond a reasonable doubt. And in the case of AGW, science has demonstrated it beyond a reasonable doubt, leaving only unreasonable doubt, such as yours.
Unreasonable doubt. He has it.