Leaving aside the questionable "science" in this article, how *exactly* is somebody a "so-called skeptic"? Most folks I've met fall into 4 categories on the issue:
- Unquestioning believers in the AGW theory;
- Skeptical of either the magnitude, the cause, or the existence of AGW;
- Don't know (have no opinion whatsoever; consider it all too esoteric and/or complicated);
- Don't care.
So what's a "so-called skeptic"? Somebody who *says* they don't believe in AGW but who secretly does, just doesn't want to pay for the alleged "fixes"? Some who claims to be a skeptic but who nods their heads with each new AGW pronouncement?
Just curious (which is why I'm a Skeptic, non "so-called").
My high school was exactly the same way, for exactly the same reasons. Half the trucks had rifle racks in them and there weren't shootings of any kind, at all. Even the drunk rednecks knew better than that.
Teach kids better. THAT is the answer, not silly tech gizmos....and I speak as I hard core "tech gizmo" kinda guy.
When I took hunter safety years ago we did some of that....it's one of the reasons I like revolvers over semi-autos, since some semi-autos have all the switches/levers on only one side vs. thru-and-thru.
Guns do not have "the explicit purpose of being fatal". Mine have blissfully never taken a life as of this posting, and I hope they never need to. They have the purpose of leveling the field, making a 95-pound woman just as tough as a 250-pound man. Guns work best when they are not fired, when just showing one is enough to make the bad guy change his mind, go elsewhere, or perhaps even reconsider his career choices.
A gun not firing when needed is an increase in murder and rape, not an increase in safety.
....and really this shouldn't be a surprise to anybody. There have been any number of science fiction novels with this premise (that machines replaced human beings for virtually all work), usually at the detriment of the humans.
We're already at the point where some people think it's better to just collect stipends from the government and sit on their butts doing whatever. I believe right now we're in a "transition period" of sorts, where human-only work and best-done-by-machines work will fluctuate back and forth depending on social development, new areas of technology, etc. If we can get ourselves into space then the opportunities for human-required stuff will boom since there's so much we hairless monkeys are better are doing than machine are--at least for now.
Down the road (a hundred years if we don't get off planet, perhaps a thousand if we do) we'll have to fundamentally transform society to allow machines to do most of the work and yet somehow find a way to provide necessities and luxuries to people. That's gonna be a bit of a wrenching transition and will likely happen gradually if we're dispersed around the solar systems and/or stars.
As noted by jbolden and a careful reading of the extract/summary, there's nothing on the page indicating that any plants are "harmed" (your word) by increased CO2 levels. In fact that word isn't even on the page. On the contrary, it notes that all plant types experienced increased growth and growth rates, with the C4 types (which you claim represents most of our food crops--that's not in the summary either) simply not competing "as well as" C3 types. Of course there will be individual species differences, and a study of this nature can only sample a small number of known plant species.
I would suspect the study proper has considerably more detail, so I've downloaded it to add to my collection. As I've said in other posts, global warming studies (and simulations) are something of a hobby of mine. A geek's idea of light reading, perhaps.
On balance, however, the study referenced says almost *precisely* the opposite of what was claimed, which is what's important here.
Warmites would do well to study the data presented at CO2Science in more detail. Their Medieval Warm Project is particularly fascinating to me, as it shows the MWP was global in nature (thus making it quite inconvenient to various climatologists).
The site really IS a pretty useful one, one of the better ones NOAA actually has. Recommended for any kind of study of localized readings especially.
I'm curious myself why the measurements show most of the Arctic getting *lower*, not higher. If in fact there was rampant icemelt you'd think there would be a "bulge" there that gradually decreased as the water exited the (relatively isolated) Arctic Ocean.
You act like there was some grand plan 10,000 years ago deciding who would settle where and when, blatantly ignoring some kind of list of warnings or something.
"We" didn't "put" anybody anywhere....if nothing else the theory of AGW is pretty recent, as would be (if true) any oceanic rise due to it. Hardly something that anybody "putting" people would have run into at the time.
Really, the histrionics are getting tiresome......
I'm sorry allcool....the actual issue being discussed is that of reported rising seas in yet another "global warming is vindicated!" story. Those seem to come every couple of weeks...I've never seen a movement more desperate for love and attention.
Last I saw four nations participated in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, as required under the 1991 treaty which Iraq was in violation of. I'm not sure where you're from so you may be factually correct that "we" didn't step up to prevent people from being fed into wood chippers, but of course that's for you to deal with not me.
Not really sure WHAT this to do with the theory of AGW or even rising seas, except perhaps very tangentially when Iraq set fire to oil fields in Kuwait--I suppose that action did release a considerable amount of CO2.
Presuming that's directed at me...absolutely I deny categorically such nonsense (not that it has anything to do with the theory of AGW).
America is responsible for the greater part of the world's advances and expressions of humanity can not the "cause of all the world's problems". Without it the world would be facing jack-booted thugs in various flavors unrestrained; with it democracy, representative government, and freedom all went from theory to reality.
I don't completely understand what you're saying here....
That energy (I presume electricity and gasoline would be the primaries here) should be free? I don't get the "force you to pay to do anything" bit.....could you elaborate?
....is the loaded language used by the report writers specifically and AGW theorists in general.
One is "carbon pollution"...that's great as it attempts to automatically put somebody who has questions in the role of supporting pollution. A disingenuous position at best...morally corrupt at worst.
Another is "..may be biased low". Yeah, sure...but they may *also* be "biased high". Based on recent purchases by some of AGW theorists (such as Al's beachfront property) I'm wondering how much *they* really believe it themselves.
Just noticed that here in the morning....I'm sure more hyperbole will pop out once I've dug into the latest claims....
The problem I would have with something as you suggest (a TV filter) is that YOUR "low quality crap" might be something I love, and vice versa. I don't think you want to turn such a decision over to the machine...and I sure as heck don't want to turn it over to somebody else....
Slashdot Mirror
So what's a "so-called skeptic"? Somebody who *says* they don't believe in AGW but who secretly does, just doesn't want to pay for the alleged "fixes"? Some who claims to be a skeptic but who nods their heads with each new AGW pronouncement?
Just curious (which is why I'm a Skeptic, non "so-called").
Ferret
YES! THIS.
My high school was exactly the same way, for exactly the same reasons. Half the trucks had rifle racks in them and there weren't shootings of any kind, at all. Even the drunk rednecks knew better than that.
Teach kids better. THAT is the answer, not silly tech gizmos....and I speak as I hard core "tech gizmo" kinda guy.
Ferret
Guns are NOT designed to kill, per se. They're designed to make the 95-pound woman just as "big" as the 250-pound thug.
If that means killing him so much the better, but that's not their "purpose" per se.
Ferret
Exactly right!
When I took hunter safety years ago we did some of that....it's one of the reasons I like revolvers over semi-autos, since some semi-autos have all the switches/levers on only one side vs. thru-and-thru.
All this stuff would do is get people killed.
Ferret
Who in the *heck* rated this as "Insightful"?
Guns do not have "the explicit purpose of being fatal". Mine have blissfully never taken a life as of this posting, and I hope they never need to. They have the purpose of leveling the field, making a 95-pound woman just as tough as a 250-pound man. Guns work best when they are not fired, when just showing one is enough to make the bad guy change his mind, go elsewhere, or perhaps even reconsider his career choices.
A gun not firing when needed is an increase in murder and rape, not an increase in safety.
Ferret
....and really this shouldn't be a surprise to anybody. There have been any number of science fiction novels with this premise (that machines replaced human beings for virtually all work), usually at the detriment of the humans.
We're already at the point where some people think it's better to just collect stipends from the government and sit on their butts doing whatever. I believe right now we're in a "transition period" of sorts, where human-only work and best-done-by-machines work will fluctuate back and forth depending on social development, new areas of technology, etc. If we can get ourselves into space then the opportunities for human-required stuff will boom since there's so much we hairless monkeys are better are doing than machine are--at least for now.
Down the road (a hundred years if we don't get off planet, perhaps a thousand if we do) we'll have to fundamentally transform society to allow machines to do most of the work and yet somehow find a way to provide necessities and luxuries to people. That's gonna be a bit of a wrenching transition and will likely happen gradually if we're dispersed around the solar systems and/or stars.
Ferret
....was getting "free money".
How *exactly* does sending money to other nations help fight alleged climate change?
Ferret
This is true....
Ferret
As noted by jbolden and a careful reading of the extract/summary, there's nothing on the page indicating that any plants are "harmed" (your word) by increased CO2 levels. In fact that word isn't even on the page. On the contrary, it notes that all plant types experienced increased growth and growth rates, with the C4 types (which you claim represents most of our food crops--that's not in the summary either) simply not competing "as well as" C3 types. Of course there will be individual species differences, and a study of this nature can only sample a small number of known plant species.
I would suspect the study proper has considerably more detail, so I've downloaded it to add to my collection. As I've said in other posts, global warming studies (and simulations) are something of a hobby of mine. A geek's idea of light reading, perhaps.
On balance, however, the study referenced says almost *precisely* the opposite of what was claimed, which is what's important here.
Warmites would do well to study the data presented at CO2Science in more detail. Their Medieval Warm Project is particularly fascinating to me, as it shows the MWP was global in nature (thus making it quite inconvenient to various climatologists).
Ferret
Nope...what I said was provably factual to anybody not blind with envy.
The hyperbole is, in fact, with those who see America as the root of all the problems in the world.
Ferret
Well said.
The site really IS a pretty useful one, one of the better ones NOAA actually has. Recommended for any kind of study of localized readings especially.
I'm curious myself why the measurements show most of the Arctic getting *lower*, not higher. If in fact there was rampant icemelt you'd think there would be a "bulge" there that gradually decreased as the water exited the (relatively isolated) Arctic Ocean.
Ferret
"We stupidly put"?????
You act like there was some grand plan 10,000 years ago deciding who would settle where and when, blatantly ignoring some kind of list of warnings or something.
"We" didn't "put" anybody anywhere....if nothing else the theory of AGW is pretty recent, as would be (if true) any oceanic rise due to it. Hardly something that anybody "putting" people would have run into at the time.
Really, the histrionics are getting tiresome......
Ferret
This is intriguing to me, as I've seen no studies that stated this.
Cite?
Ferret
Ah, Utopia...always just one execution away isn't it?
Ferret
Heh.
Personally I liked that movie.....just say'in....
Ferret
Thank you! I was going to post some of those very links; you beat me to it.
Watch now as the *true* "deniers" post to either belittle the sources or ignore them.....
Ferret
Based on my observations Germans generally eat healthier than Americans, and have fewer smokers....
Might/probably have some little bit to do with it, I'm thinking...
Ferret
I'm sorry allcool....the actual issue being discussed is that of reported rising seas in yet another "global warming is vindicated!" story. Those seem to come every couple of weeks...I've never seen a movement more desperate for love and attention.
Last I saw four nations participated in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, as required under the 1991 treaty which Iraq was in violation of. I'm not sure where you're from so you may be factually correct that "we" didn't step up to prevent people from being fed into wood chippers, but of course that's for you to deal with not me.
Not really sure WHAT this to do with the theory of AGW or even rising seas, except perhaps very tangentially when Iraq set fire to oil fields in Kuwait--I suppose that action did release a considerable amount of CO2.
Ferret
Presuming that's directed at me...absolutely I deny categorically such nonsense (not that it has anything to do with the theory of AGW).
America is responsible for the greater part of the world's advances and expressions of humanity can not the "cause of all the world's problems". Without it the world would be facing jack-booted thugs in various flavors unrestrained; with it democracy, representative government, and freedom all went from theory to reality.
Talk about hyperbole....
Ferret
I don't completely understand what you're saying here....
That energy (I presume electricity and gasoline would be the primaries here) should be free? I don't get the "force you to pay to do anything" bit.....could you elaborate?
Ferret
....is the loaded language used by the report writers specifically and AGW theorists in general.
One is "carbon pollution"...that's great as it attempts to automatically put somebody who has questions in the role of supporting pollution. A disingenuous position at best...morally corrupt at worst.
Another is "..may be biased low". Yeah, sure...but they may *also* be "biased high". Based on recent purchases by some of AGW theorists (such as Al's beachfront property) I'm wondering how much *they* really believe it themselves.
Just noticed that here in the morning....I'm sure more hyperbole will pop out once I've dug into the latest claims....
Ferret
The problem I would have with something as you suggest (a TV filter) is that YOUR "low quality crap" might be something I love, and vice versa. I don't think you want to turn such a decision over to the machine...and I sure as heck don't want to turn it over to somebody else....
Steve
You may be on to something here....
Ferret
Heheheheh....okay, that's good.
Ferret
Here's a wild idea...how about we do BOTH?!?!?!
Drill baby drill.....produce so much oil that imports plummet.
Grow baby grow....produce so much biodiesel that we're exporting the stuff.
Then let Middle East rust back into insignificance, or let Russia and China fight over it
Ferret