According to Ford's own customer surveys, the majority of people who buy SUVs tend be below average intelligence and/or below average size. They either tend to think that a bigger car is safer than a smaller car or they enjoy being higher than other people on the road because it makes them feel powerful and respected.
It's no wonder they tend to drive poorly and aggressively.
The problem we have here is that the "no warming for 15 years" involve drawing a line from an anomalously high year to a later year which is less anomalous and about as warm. Do you understand the problem with that? 1998 was much warmer than 97 and 99. 2010 was only a little warmer than 2009 and probably will be a little warmer than 2011. It's probably not coincidence that 9 of the ten warmest years on record occurred since 1998. That's clear evidence that warming is continuing, at a slightly slower pace than expected.
I'm always amused by people who try to assert that the decade with 9 of the 10 warmest years isn't warmer than the one that preceded it.
Yes, CO2 is usually a feedback in the system. Warming starts due to orbital changes which releases CO2 which causes further warming which releases more CO2 and the cycle continues until CO2 levels reach an equilibrium point where they can no longer increase. It's the fact that CO2 usually trails temperature increases that has many people worried. After all, if a small change in the orbit triggers a massive change in the climate, maybe we'll accidentally trigger a dramatic rise by burning fossil fuels. Those would be the "tipping points" that they talk about, and they figure the first ones will be triggered between 2 and 4 degrees of warming. Once they're triggered we would probably have to resort to geoforming solutions to stop or reverse the warming.
It is important to note that the label “ad hominem” is ambiguous, and that not every kind of ad hominem argument is fallacious.
Also, an original research paper is effectively an argument from authority, and when an argument from authority is presented, attacks on the credibility of the authority are not fallacious. You can argue that believing in Intelligent Design and signing a declaration that "God won't let Global Warming happen" do not discredit the authority on Climate Change, but I think you'll have trouble making that argument convincing.
That's a pretty foolish stand to take. The argument isn't that he's wrong because he holds anti-science views on fundamental science views, it's that his work is unreliable. Frankly, that's the proper view for practically every bit of new science, regardless of the credibility of the scientist. The news media and the public should be waiting until after the work has been verified and reproduced. Of course, that's what real skeptics do. You don't assume that he's wrong, you assume that what he's written is unreliable, until reviewed and verified by others in his field of expertise.
However, the holding of crazy views does diminish the chance that his research will be validated. As I understand it, Newton, for example, accomplished most of his significant research before he became infatuated with Alchemy and Biblical predictions, and that he produced little of value once he began to focus on his "silly beliefs".
Many believe that some sort of intelligence was behind the initial creation of the Universe and didn't interfere with anything after the initial conditions were set, not that everything was created in six days six thousand years ago.
Except, that's not Intelligent Design. Note the capitals please. Intelligent Design says all animals (and people) were created in their current form and thus evolution can't exist because animals don't change*. The belief that some creator set the initial conditions and doesn't interfere is called Deism, and directly contradicts the precepts of Intelligent Design. A scientist can believe in God and still be a credible scientist. In short, believing that the Universe was designed is not the same as Intelligent Design.
* some may add "very much" if they acknowledge so-called micro-evolution.
According to the graphs in his paper. Yes. He seems to be showing that more heat is lost before a heat peak event than predicted and less heat loss after wards. Of course, as we know already, China's massive increase in coal emissions has actually altered the content of our atmosphere enough to throw the predictions off a little bit. It's quite likely that the "less warming than predicted" that he found is directly related to Chinese coal emissions.
On the other hand he could be right and you could be wrong about AGW.
One of things that lends credibility to that view is that the fact that you equate unreliable with automatically wrong. When an expert's testimony is brought into question by relevant behavior the proper response to exclude the expert's testimony and ignore it until it can be corroborated by a reliable source. You never assume it is 100% wrong and believe the opposite of what the unreliable expert says, that's just plain foolhardy. The mere fact that you don't understand this diminishes your credibility.
Actually we haven't. We've got from "we may be cooling the planet" and "we may be warming the planet" to "we're warming the planet". In the 70s several groups of scientists thought the overall impact of industrialization would be a cooling effect. They found out they were wrong, and the other groups who thought it would be a warming effect were right.
The other you mention claims seem to be based on the media coverage of science, not actual science and there is a difference.
There are many, many falsifiable hypotheses. Only a few of them are critical to anthropomorphic global warming. For example if you could prove that CO2 doesn't allow light to pass through and absorb heat, then you'd be able to prove that CO2 as a greenhouse gas is impossible. Of course, you probably can't do that, it's been proven over and over again that it does that. It seems to me, that the problem you're having might be that you can't find any hypothesis that you can falsify, rather than finding any that are falsifiable.
Just to be clear, I'm not sure the magazine in question uses peer review. Someone else noted that the magazine was, in fact, published by the Heartland Institute which is an advocacy/lobby group for conservatives and Christians. And even if it was peer reviewed, the article itself is only about comparing climate models to measurements of atmospheric temperatures. The paper is about the comparison, and not actual research on why the differences exist.
However, there has been a vast increase in the amount of coal burned in China. Between 2002 and 2007 China (already the largest coal burning nation in the world in 2002) doubled the number of coal burning power plants in their country. The SO2 emissions from those plants are enough to temporarily mask the effects of a significant amount of CO2 thus slowing the warming trend a little bit for a few years, it's like a constant mini-eruption. However SO2 has a relatively short atmospheric life of less than a decade, while the CO2 emissions from those plants will last for centuries, and the warming trend is still solidly up, just a little slower rate for now, once the rate of coal use in China stabilizes the warming trend will end up where it was.
With pollution becoming a giant problem in China (1/5 of the country's fresh water is currently unfit for human contact), the Chinese government is trying to clamp down on pollution. If they reduce SO2 emissions, we will have a few year of more rapid warming as the cooling effect of the SO2 disappears.
I often see global warming skeptics point to Galileo as an example of a scientist going against the science establishment and proving them wrong... Except there wasn't a science establishment in the 16th century and Galileo's discovery was not overly controversial among his fellow astronomers, in fact most of them converted to one of the new heliocentric models within a few years of the publishing of his discovery. Galileo struggled with the religious establishment, not other scientists. In my opinion, he was attacked by the very same type of people who attack global warming now. He struggled against entrenched interests and power brokers in Rome and he was eventually defeated by the inquisition (but his ideas were not).
If "it takes more energy to produce and ship wind turbines than they will produce in the first 10 years", why would anyone install them? That claim is obvious tripe, because generation rates are dependent on where they're installed and if it was that incredibly inefficient you wouldn't find any company willing to use wind turbines to generate electricity.
Really, do you ever bother thinking before you post? You could try posting something that's at least plausible to someone with half a brain.
Because they're capitalist companies, they don't need a reason to avoid paying for anything. It's actually the legal duty of corporate executives to avoid paying for anything that doesn't increase profits (even if they're legally required to pay it). Not to mention that most executives have huge bonuses riding on increasing profitability and stock prices. The system is designed to make sure that companies won't do anything about cleaning things up unless they're compelled by laws (with penalties stiff enough to affect profits) or overwhelming public opinion (again, enough to reduce profits).
Not really, I'm just pointing out that if what scientists really want is money, that "research scientist" is a poor method for achieving the goal, and most of the people who are research scientists are smart enough to be aware of this. I expect they still want reasonable and just compensation for their work, however, the notion that all scientists are willing to sell out for the modest money they are paid, seems ludicrously conspiratorial. It would require Saturday morning cartoon villain thinking to take that approach to getting rich.
Also, I think Computer Science may be qualitatively different from other sciences (I also have a degree in it).
As I understand it, it couldn't be much than 10% more expensive. The province of Ontario (not the ideal place for Solar, by the way) pays about a 10% premium for Solar power to encourage renewable energy deployments. If I remember correctly it's a $0.01 per Mwh premium and the consumer price is about $0.097 per Mwh. The actual cost disadvantage may be less than that, since the premium is fixed and at least some companies are finding it profitable to produce solar power at that price.
You really don't understand what he's talking about do you?
In economics, the only reason a rational participant in a market place cares about efficiency is because it lowers costs. If, as the other poster said, it doesn't lower costs (instead it becomes surplus profit due to, let's say, monopolistic control) then a rational participant has no interest in efficiency at all because they gain no benefit from it.
If efficiency doesn't affect either supply or demand, then why does the market care?
I'm not sure I follow the logic that it is a disincentive for producers to make those systems more economical. Given that these subsidies are temporary and not permanent and controversial among the heavily indebted to oil and gas Republicans, it seems like it gives them a very big incentive to become more economical. The subsidies are likely to be taken away as soon as the Republicans can muster enough votes to quash them again. That means, if history is any indicator, soon enough they will be in open competition with no subsidies and at a disadvantage to the still subsidized fossil fuel plants.
Slashdot Mirror
According to Ford's own customer surveys, the majority of people who buy SUVs tend be below average intelligence and/or below average size. They either tend to think that a bigger car is safer than a smaller car or they enjoy being higher than other people on the road because it makes them feel powerful and respected.
It's no wonder they tend to drive poorly and aggressively.
I think they call that "having an MBA" around here.
The problem we have here is that the "no warming for 15 years" involve drawing a line from an anomalously high year to a later year which is less anomalous and about as warm. Do you understand the problem with that? 1998 was much warmer than 97 and 99. 2010 was only a little warmer than 2009 and probably will be a little warmer than 2011. It's probably not coincidence that 9 of the ten warmest years on record occurred since 1998. That's clear evidence that warming is continuing, at a slightly slower pace than expected.
I'm always amused by people who try to assert that the decade with 9 of the 10 warmest years isn't warmer than the one that preceded it.
Yes, CO2 is usually a feedback in the system. Warming starts due to orbital changes which releases CO2 which causes further warming which releases more CO2 and the cycle continues until CO2 levels reach an equilibrium point where they can no longer increase. It's the fact that CO2 usually trails temperature increases that has many people worried. After all, if a small change in the orbit triggers a massive change in the climate, maybe we'll accidentally trigger a dramatic rise by burning fossil fuels. Those would be the "tipping points" that they talk about, and they figure the first ones will be triggered between 2 and 4 degrees of warming. Once they're triggered we would probably have to resort to geoforming solutions to stop or reverse the warming.
From your link:
It is important to note that the label “ad hominem” is ambiguous, and that not every kind of ad hominem argument is fallacious.
Also, an original research paper is effectively an argument from authority, and when an argument from authority is presented, attacks on the credibility of the authority are not fallacious. You can argue that believing in Intelligent Design and signing a declaration that "God won't let Global Warming happen" do not discredit the authority on Climate Change, but I think you'll have trouble making that argument convincing.
Well yes, but most people on Slashdot aren't trying to do science by posting here. If you are, you're doing it wrong.
That's a pretty foolish stand to take. The argument isn't that he's wrong because he holds anti-science views on fundamental science views, it's that his work is unreliable. Frankly, that's the proper view for practically every bit of new science, regardless of the credibility of the scientist. The news media and the public should be waiting until after the work has been verified and reproduced. Of course, that's what real skeptics do. You don't assume that he's wrong, you assume that what he's written is unreliable, until reviewed and verified by others in his field of expertise.
However, the holding of crazy views does diminish the chance that his research will be validated. As I understand it, Newton, for example, accomplished most of his significant research before he became infatuated with Alchemy and Biblical predictions, and that he produced little of value once he began to focus on his "silly beliefs".
Often it's because the messenger is dishonest and his message is false.
Many believe that some sort of intelligence was behind the initial creation of the Universe and didn't interfere with anything after the initial conditions were set, not that everything was created in six days six thousand years ago.
Except, that's not Intelligent Design. Note the capitals please. Intelligent Design says all animals (and people) were created in their current form and thus evolution can't exist because animals don't change*. The belief that some creator set the initial conditions and doesn't interfere is called Deism, and directly contradicts the precepts of Intelligent Design. A scientist can believe in God and still be a credible scientist. In short, believing that the Universe was designed is not the same as Intelligent Design.
* some may add "very much" if they acknowledge so-called micro-evolution.
According to the graphs in his paper. Yes. He seems to be showing that more heat is lost before a heat peak event than predicted and less heat loss after wards. Of course, as we know already, China's massive increase in coal emissions has actually altered the content of our atmosphere enough to throw the predictions off a little bit. It's quite likely that the "less warming than predicted" that he found is directly related to Chinese coal emissions.
On the other hand he could be right and you could be wrong about AGW.
One of things that lends credibility to that view is that the fact that you equate unreliable with automatically wrong. When an expert's testimony is brought into question by relevant behavior the proper response to exclude the expert's testimony and ignore it until it can be corroborated by a reliable source. You never assume it is 100% wrong and believe the opposite of what the unreliable expert says, that's just plain foolhardy. The mere fact that you don't understand this diminishes your credibility.
Actually we haven't. We've got from "we may be cooling the planet" and "we may be warming the planet" to "we're warming the planet". In the 70s several groups of scientists thought the overall impact of industrialization would be a cooling effect. They found out they were wrong, and the other groups who thought it would be a warming effect were right.
The other you mention claims seem to be based on the media coverage of science, not actual science and there is a difference.
You'd hear more if you paused to listen.
There are many, many falsifiable hypotheses. Only a few of them are critical to anthropomorphic global warming. For example if you could prove that CO2 doesn't allow light to pass through and absorb heat, then you'd be able to prove that CO2 as a greenhouse gas is impossible. Of course, you probably can't do that, it's been proven over and over again that it does that. It seems to me, that the problem you're having might be that you can't find any hypothesis that you can falsify, rather than finding any that are falsifiable.
Just to be clear, I'm not sure the magazine in question uses peer review. Someone else noted that the magazine was, in fact, published by the Heartland Institute which is an advocacy/lobby group for conservatives and Christians. And even if it was peer reviewed, the article itself is only about comparing climate models to measurements of atmospheric temperatures. The paper is about the comparison, and not actual research on why the differences exist.
A lot of Christians would probably be surprised to find out that Islamic belief also treats Jesus as a prophet of God.
However, there has been a vast increase in the amount of coal burned in China. Between 2002 and 2007 China (already the largest coal burning nation in the world in 2002) doubled the number of coal burning power plants in their country. The SO2 emissions from those plants are enough to temporarily mask the effects of a significant amount of CO2 thus slowing the warming trend a little bit for a few years, it's like a constant mini-eruption. However SO2 has a relatively short atmospheric life of less than a decade, while the CO2 emissions from those plants will last for centuries, and the warming trend is still solidly up, just a little slower rate for now, once the rate of coal use in China stabilizes the warming trend will end up where it was.
With pollution becoming a giant problem in China (1/5 of the country's fresh water is currently unfit for human contact), the Chinese government is trying to clamp down on pollution. If they reduce SO2 emissions, we will have a few year of more rapid warming as the cooling effect of the SO2 disappears.
I often see global warming skeptics point to Galileo as an example of a scientist going against the science establishment and proving them wrong... Except there wasn't a science establishment in the 16th century and Galileo's discovery was not overly controversial among his fellow astronomers, in fact most of them converted to one of the new heliocentric models within a few years of the publishing of his discovery. Galileo struggled with the religious establishment, not other scientists. In my opinion, he was attacked by the very same type of people who attack global warming now. He struggled against entrenched interests and power brokers in Rome and he was eventually defeated by the inquisition (but his ideas were not).
If "it takes more energy to produce and ship wind turbines than they will produce in the first 10 years", why would anyone install them? That claim is obvious tripe, because generation rates are dependent on where they're installed and if it was that incredibly inefficient you wouldn't find any company willing to use wind turbines to generate electricity.
Really, do you ever bother thinking before you post? You could try posting something that's at least plausible to someone with half a brain.
Because they're capitalist companies, they don't need a reason to avoid paying for anything. It's actually the legal duty of corporate executives to avoid paying for anything that doesn't increase profits (even if they're legally required to pay it). Not to mention that most executives have huge bonuses riding on increasing profitability and stock prices. The system is designed to make sure that companies won't do anything about cleaning things up unless they're compelled by laws (with penalties stiff enough to affect profits) or overwhelming public opinion (again, enough to reduce profits).
Not really, I'm just pointing out that if what scientists really want is money, that "research scientist" is a poor method for achieving the goal, and most of the people who are research scientists are smart enough to be aware of this. I expect they still want reasonable and just compensation for their work, however, the notion that all scientists are willing to sell out for the modest money they are paid, seems ludicrously conspiratorial. It would require Saturday morning cartoon villain thinking to take that approach to getting rich.
Also, I think Computer Science may be qualitatively different from other sciences (I also have a degree in it).
As I understand it, it couldn't be much than 10% more expensive. The province of Ontario (not the ideal place for Solar, by the way) pays about a 10% premium for Solar power to encourage renewable energy deployments. If I remember correctly it's a $0.01 per Mwh premium and the consumer price is about $0.097 per Mwh. The actual cost disadvantage may be less than that, since the premium is fixed and at least some companies are finding it profitable to produce solar power at that price.
When you discover an infinite supply of coal.
You really don't understand what he's talking about do you?
In economics, the only reason a rational participant in a market place cares about efficiency is because it lowers costs. If, as the other poster said, it doesn't lower costs (instead it becomes surplus profit due to, let's say, monopolistic control) then a rational participant has no interest in efficiency at all because they gain no benefit from it.
If efficiency doesn't affect either supply or demand, then why does the market care?
Right! That's why the term "Natural Monopoly" doesn't exist.
Wait...
I'm not sure I follow the logic that it is a disincentive for producers to make those systems more economical. Given that these subsidies are temporary and not permanent and controversial among the heavily indebted to oil and gas Republicans, it seems like it gives them a very big incentive to become more economical. The subsidies are likely to be taken away as soon as the Republicans can muster enough votes to quash them again. That means, if history is any indicator, soon enough they will be in open competition with no subsidies and at a disadvantage to the still subsidized fossil fuel plants.