Good grief. How does asking (good) questions of a scientist equate to ignoring science? I would suggest that not inviting scientists to testify to congressional committees would be an easier way to ignore science. This fellow is doing the opposite -- he's very much paying attention to and engaging with the scientific community.
Do you think Richard Lindzen is ignorant on the subject? I think you just want the congressman to submit to the AGW alarmists, and not push back. You don't want to admit that there are two views here (well, of course there are more than two).
Scientists who try to prevent others from validating their work, who sway politicians using graphs without error bars, and who put confidence in extrapolation of curve fits to chaotic systems and insist that others share their confidence without really articulating why. Stuff like that.
I'm not saying everything he does and says is wrong, but climate science is really in its infancy, and is not prepared to instigate the kinds of global policy mandates that Hansen periodically trumpets.
Maybe you weren't aware of this, but the whole reason everybody was there is that AGW advocates are claiming that current warming is man-made. Asking why they think that, is actually OK, even if you don't prefer the way the question was worded.
No, he's just raising questions also raised by scientists skeptical of AGW alarmism. They are good questions. Also, it is possible to believe that CO2 has a greenhouse gas warming effect on earth without subscribing to climate alarmism -- the positive feedback loop aspect of the alarmist models has been by no means validated. In fact, various models have arguably been discredited by the last few decades' measurements. Anyway.
I guess you don't need to refute your opponent if you ignore what they say. Brilliant!
because he's laboring under the clearly unspoken assumption
Once again, brilliant! You have convicted him of the crime of saying something which he didn't actually say ("clearly unspoken").
that if something else caused warming in the past, CO2 cannot be causing it today.
My hat's off to you, sir, the winner of the day. That congressman's whole point was obviously this hobby horse of yours, even though he somehow neglected to ever mention it or even remotely allude to it.
Somehow I listened to the same thing, and thought the congressman was merely raising doubts, not confidently asserting against AGW.
That was an interesting video, thanks for posting it. The participants were obviously enjoying the exchange. I wouldn't say that anyone made a fool of themselves, though I guess I may have missed something.
People in general are good at making fools out of themselves. That is why Doing Science Right (tm) involves disclosing your source data, frequently blurting out to the world everything that may possibly be wrong with your approach, and placing trust in an experiment or model's results only as far as commensurate with the demonstrated reliability of those results.
For anyone keeping score, several of the alarmists have made fools of themselves as well. James Hansen comes to mind as an example of a cargo cult scientist.
Seriously, you have captured the essential mindset of the denialists: there can only be one cause for anything. That assumption underlies most of the denialist arguments.
Maybe it makes you feel good to think that, but the AGW skeptical material I've read certainly doesn't match that characterization. Maybe the fluff posted in the comments section on YouTube or Fox News or MSNBC etc.
Am I wrong? Why don't you link to a post in one of the major climate skeptic websites that shows this "can be only one cause for anything" attitude you describe. Or maybe you're just making stuff up in an attempt to portray your opponents in debate as fools.
I could easily say the "side effects" as you put them are down to the rise of the religious right and their aim to put womens rights back into the dark ages as thats what the shiity book thells them
That makes absolutely no sense. I don't think anybody (besides you) is claiming that the prevalence of divorce and emergence of single parent households dependent on government welfare is due to the religious right. If you seriously believe that, though, and aren't just flaming, then I would be interested to hear why. I'm always willing to learn something new.
If you don't think women should be equal then just say so, don;t hide it behind attacks on the feminist movement.
You need to chill, dude. I didn't say anything about women not being equal. And the feminist movement encompasses a lot more than equality for the sexes. For one thing, many feminists have no intention of achieving equality - they are quite comfortable asserting female superiority (and can articulate all kinds of reasons why, such as linking testosterone to war and crime).
The feminist movement (like all large human movements) is a mixed bag with both good stuff and bad stuff. You're oversimplifying things and debating a straw man, rather than responding to what I actually said.
Then I **highly** recommend the Verbatim keyboard.
I said that I really wanted two features: (1) the Microsoft Natural ergonomic shape, and (2) backlit. As far as I can tell, the Verbatim keyboard is neither of those? At least what I googled up... So I have to ask, are you paid to promote Verbatim keyboards, or why did you post that? Just curious.
I would pay a lot of money for a backlit, Microsoft Natural style keyboard. Googling indicates I'm not alone. I don't care about gaming, but when I walk into my home office at night and sit down, I want to see where all the keys are. And I'm used to the Microsoft Natural keyboard shape from many years of exclusive use.
You getting this, Microsoft / clone manufacturers?
turning lights on and off remotely, opening and closing window blinds, zoned HVAC, automated porch light with motion detection.
I don't see those as boring; I'd like to do the same things (eventually). And even a smart thermostat is a little bit exciting to me, just not $250-exciting, or billion-dollar-business-exciting, at least not by itself.
Yes, we have a ton of ignorant social conservatives in poorer, less educated parts of the country, and they do stupid things like claiming that feminism has caused greater dependence on public welfare, while glossing over the alternative of women staying with terrible men who dominate and abuse them.
Reading your statement carefully, it sounds like you agree that feminism led to these effects, but you consider the alternative worse. I agree with you that the alternative is worse. But why are you so adamant that it's bad to talk about the negative effects, since you apparently admit that these effects are a real phenomenon? Are some facts OK to talk about, and we should self-censor on others?
(I can't shake the perception that it was a mistake to post at all on this thread, as it amounts to a two-minutes-hate exercise against Texas and anybody else who sticks their neck out, even if to attempt to engage in rational conversation.)
I don't think we should ever let these stupid, superstitious people take the lead again. Awful, constantly lying, religious authoritarians are finally being marginalized after a terrible history of letting them get their way.
Why don't you tell us how you really feel, Jeff?:)
I love the idea of home automation, and have been involved in a couple significant DIY projects involving my own scripting (no custom electronics design, that's not my skill). I've focused on things like multi room audio and intelligent video surveillance. If somebody offered me a $250 thermostat (yes, I saw that they did it for $70 here), my response is "really? Isn't that kind of... boring?"
Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that they're innovating in the thermostat space. But I want much, much more than that.
I'm (not trolling, genuinely) curious to know if you don't see any link between the feminist movement and the social side effects I listed. Is your objection to the factuality of my statement, or is it your view that I was discussing facts that Should Not Be Uttered? Note that I didn't say that feminism's goals are wrong, or that I wished the feminist movement didn't happen, but merely commented on social and economic features that emerged as side effects.
Those moderators who read the above and thought I was trolling need to get out more, and realize that very close to half of the country is not in lock-step with social liberalism. If on the other hand moderators did such because there's no "-1, Disagree", then my apologies for misinterpreting their intent.:p
Did feminism lead to single parent homes with greater financial dependency on public welfare? Unless I'm very much mistaken, it did promote movement in that direction. We can't blame women (entirely) for this, as both sexes have done a really lousy job of sustaining the two parent homes they usually start out with, leading to both social problems and economic problems when they break up. Does anybody actually think that divorced, single parent homes are an improvement?
Is Western Civilization superior? It depends on how you mean the question, but... yeah, in some respects. I'll take the best elements of what are traditionally lumped under Western Civilization any day over the alternatives. Things like representative government, the traditional freedoms of speech and property, the rule of law instead of the whims of a tyrant. It's these elements that have logically driven us to the point today where we don't put gays to death, and we disallow religious people to indoctrinate in public schools. Western Civ FTW. (Yes, of course the same good ideas have been raised in other parts of the world, and there is some romanticizing going on in classifying it as Western Civilization... but there is still a recognizable strain of historical excellence that emerged through Western civilization more profoundly than elsewhere in the world, and it's only silly, self-flagellating liberals who try to deny it.)
You are correct that the law of unintended consequences generally applies anywhere we commit to an action, and that doesn't mean we should never make decisions. One can never say everything in a few short sentences, and I was assuming readers were aware both that the ethanol mandate is very controversial among strident environmentalists, and that there are drawbacks even to CFLs that make them less of an improvement over incandescents than they sound like at first blush. You can google "ethanol controversy", and read the Wikipedia article on CFLs (see the Lifespan section's caveats) to see more info on what I'm talking about.
Of course just saying "law of unintended consequences" doesn't prove anything, so I guess I was assuming readers were already generally familiar with these issues specific to ethanol and CFLs.
In the US innovation has produced bulbs for those who want them.
"those who want them" A funny concept. Almost as if people should be free to make their own choices, instead of having the nanny state decree their choices for them.
Just like the ethanol mandate there are always unintended consequences to government interference. In the case of CFL's, it's the spread of noxious poisons through our households, communities, and landfills. Not to mention that the claimed efficiencies and lifespans are grossly misleading due to very specific assumed patterns of use -- if you leave the lights on all the time, CFL's are great; but if you turn them on and off frequently, like as you walk into and out of rooms, then the advantage breaks down rapidly.
Slashdot Mirror
Good grief. How does asking (good) questions of a scientist equate to ignoring science? I would suggest that not inviting scientists to testify to congressional committees would be an easier way to ignore science. This fellow is doing the opposite -- he's very much paying attention to and engaging with the scientific community.
Do you think Richard Lindzen is ignorant on the subject? I think you just want the congressman to submit to the AGW alarmists, and not push back. You don't want to admit that there are two views here (well, of course there are more than two).
If you read the following, you will understand:
http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html
Scientists who try to prevent others from validating their work, who sway politicians using graphs without error bars, and who put confidence in extrapolation of curve fits to chaotic systems and insist that others share their confidence without really articulating why. Stuff like that.
I'm not saying everything he does and says is wrong, but climate science is really in its infancy, and is not prepared to instigate the kinds of global policy mandates that Hansen periodically trumpets.
Why would it not reference CO2 contributing? You can accept CO2 as a greenhouse gas without espousing alarmist models of positive CO2 feedback.
Maybe you weren't aware of this, but the whole reason everybody was there is that AGW advocates are claiming that current warming is man-made. Asking why they think that, is actually OK, even if you don't prefer the way the question was worded.
No, he's just raising questions also raised by scientists skeptical of AGW alarmism. They are good questions. Also, it is possible to believe that CO2 has a greenhouse gas warming effect on earth without subscribing to climate alarmism -- the positive feedback loop aspect of the alarmist models has been by no means validated. In fact, various models have arguably been discredited by the last few decades' measurements. Anyway.
His line of questioning is irrelevant
I guess you don't need to refute your opponent if you ignore what they say. Brilliant!
because he's laboring under the clearly unspoken assumption
Once again, brilliant! You have convicted him of the crime of saying something which he didn't actually say ("clearly unspoken").
that if something else caused warming in the past, CO2 cannot be causing it today.
My hat's off to you, sir, the winner of the day. That congressman's whole point was obviously this hobby horse of yours, even though he somehow neglected to ever mention it or even remotely allude to it.
Somehow I listened to the same thing, and thought the congressman was merely raising doubts, not confidently asserting against AGW.
That was an interesting video, thanks for posting it. The participants were obviously enjoying the exchange. I wouldn't say that anyone made a fool of themselves, though I guess I may have missed something.
People in general are good at making fools out of themselves. That is why Doing Science Right (tm) involves disclosing your source data, frequently blurting out to the world everything that may possibly be wrong with your approach, and placing trust in an experiment or model's results only as far as commensurate with the demonstrated reliability of those results.
For anyone keeping score, several of the alarmists have made fools of themselves as well. James Hansen comes to mind as an example of a cargo cult scientist.
Seriously, you have captured the essential mindset of the denialists: there can only be one cause for anything. That assumption underlies most of the denialist arguments.
Maybe it makes you feel good to think that, but the AGW skeptical material I've read certainly doesn't match that characterization. Maybe the fluff posted in the comments section on YouTube or Fox News or MSNBC etc.
Am I wrong? Why don't you link to a post in one of the major climate skeptic websites that shows this "can be only one cause for anything" attitude you describe. Or maybe you're just making stuff up in an attempt to portray your opponents in debate as fools.
I could easily say the "side effects" as you put them are down to the rise of the religious right and their aim to put womens rights back into the dark ages as thats what the shiity book thells them
That makes absolutely no sense. I don't think anybody (besides you) is claiming that the prevalence of divorce and emergence of single parent households dependent on government welfare is due to the religious right. If you seriously believe that, though, and aren't just flaming, then I would be interested to hear why. I'm always willing to learn something new.
If you don't think women should be equal then just say so, don;t hide it behind attacks on the feminist movement.
You need to chill, dude. I didn't say anything about women not being equal. And the feminist movement encompasses a lot more than equality for the sexes. For one thing, many feminists have no intention of achieving equality - they are quite comfortable asserting female superiority (and can articulate all kinds of reasons why, such as linking testosterone to war and crime).
The feminist movement (like all large human movements) is a mixed bag with both good stuff and bad stuff. You're oversimplifying things and debating a straw man, rather than responding to what I actually said.
Then I **highly** recommend the Verbatim keyboard.
I said that I really wanted two features: (1) the Microsoft Natural ergonomic shape, and (2) backlit. As far as I can tell, the Verbatim keyboard is neither of those? At least what I googled up... So I have to ask, are you paid to promote Verbatim keyboards, or why did you post that? Just curious.
I would pay a lot of money for a backlit, Microsoft Natural style keyboard. Googling indicates I'm not alone. I don't care about gaming, but when I walk into my home office at night and sit down, I want to see where all the keys are. And I'm used to the Microsoft Natural keyboard shape from many years of exclusive use.
You getting this, Microsoft / clone manufacturers?
turning lights on and off remotely, opening and closing window blinds, zoned HVAC, automated porch light with motion detection.
I don't see those as boring; I'd like to do the same things (eventually). And even a smart thermostat is a little bit exciting to me, just not $250-exciting, or billion-dollar-business-exciting, at least not by itself.
Yes, we have a ton of ignorant social conservatives in poorer, less educated parts of the country, and they do stupid things like claiming that feminism has caused greater dependence on public welfare, while glossing over the alternative of women staying with terrible men who dominate and abuse them.
Reading your statement carefully, it sounds like you agree that feminism led to these effects, but you consider the alternative worse. I agree with you that the alternative is worse. But why are you so adamant that it's bad to talk about the negative effects, since you apparently admit that these effects are a real phenomenon? Are some facts OK to talk about, and we should self-censor on others?
(I can't shake the perception that it was a mistake to post at all on this thread, as it amounts to a two-minutes-hate exercise against Texas and anybody else who sticks their neck out, even if to attempt to engage in rational conversation.)
I don't think we should ever let these stupid, superstitious people take the lead again. Awful, constantly lying, religious authoritarians are finally being marginalized after a terrible history of letting them get their way.
Why don't you tell us how you really feel, Jeff? :)
I love the idea of home automation, and have been involved in a couple significant DIY projects involving my own scripting (no custom electronics design, that's not my skill). I've focused on things like multi room audio and intelligent video surveillance. If somebody offered me a $250 thermostat (yes, I saw that they did it for $70 here), my response is "really? Isn't that kind of... boring?"
Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that they're innovating in the thermostat space. But I want much, much more than that.
I'm (not trolling, genuinely) curious to know if you don't see any link between the feminist movement and the social side effects I listed. Is your objection to the factuality of my statement, or is it your view that I was discussing facts that Should Not Be Uttered? Note that I didn't say that feminism's goals are wrong, or that I wished the feminist movement didn't happen, but merely commented on social and economic features that emerged as side effects.
Those moderators who read the above and thought I was trolling need to get out more, and realize that very close to half of the country is not in lock-step with social liberalism. If on the other hand moderators did such because there's no "-1, Disagree", then my apologies for misinterpreting their intent. :p
Did feminism lead to single parent homes with greater financial dependency on public welfare? Unless I'm very much mistaken, it did promote movement in that direction. We can't blame women (entirely) for this, as both sexes have done a really lousy job of sustaining the two parent homes they usually start out with, leading to both social problems and economic problems when they break up. Does anybody actually think that divorced, single parent homes are an improvement?
Is Western Civilization superior? It depends on how you mean the question, but... yeah, in some respects. I'll take the best elements of what are traditionally lumped under Western Civilization any day over the alternatives. Things like representative government, the traditional freedoms of speech and property, the rule of law instead of the whims of a tyrant. It's these elements that have logically driven us to the point today where we don't put gays to death, and we disallow religious people to indoctrinate in public schools. Western Civ FTW. (Yes, of course the same good ideas have been raised in other parts of the world, and there is some romanticizing going on in classifying it as Western Civilization... but there is still a recognizable strain of historical excellence that emerged through Western civilization more profoundly than elsewhere in the world, and it's only silly, self-flagellating liberals who try to deny it.)
Well regarded for his accomplishments: check.
Long life: um, extra-check!
So why are you sorry to read it?
Same here. Ours had a 13 inch mirror at the bottom.
You are correct that the law of unintended consequences generally applies anywhere we commit to an action, and that doesn't mean we should never make decisions. One can never say everything in a few short sentences, and I was assuming readers were aware both that the ethanol mandate is very controversial among strident environmentalists, and that there are drawbacks even to CFLs that make them less of an improvement over incandescents than they sound like at first blush. You can google "ethanol controversy", and read the Wikipedia article on CFLs (see the Lifespan section's caveats) to see more info on what I'm talking about.
Of course just saying "law of unintended consequences" doesn't prove anything, so I guess I was assuming readers were already generally familiar with these issues specific to ethanol and CFLs.
In the US innovation has produced bulbs for those who want them.
"those who want them" A funny concept. Almost as if people should be free to make their own choices, instead of having the nanny state decree their choices for them.
I suppose so, assuming you have a peanut allergy.
Just like the ethanol mandate there are always unintended consequences to government interference. In the case of CFL's, it's the spread of noxious poisons through our households, communities, and landfills. Not to mention that the claimed efficiencies and lifespans are grossly misleading due to very specific assumed patterns of use -- if you leave the lights on all the time, CFL's are great; but if you turn them on and off frequently, like as you walk into and out of rooms, then the advantage breaks down rapidly.