You're assuming the warming will continue which means you assume you have a predictive model of the climate... which you do not. You are over stating your knowledge.
As to whether it was warmer then... they were growing wine and oranges in England. So.
As to agriculture, most plants both prefer more warmth and more CO2. So rejoice, if you're right then we'll be able to feed more people.
As to 20 feet, that is absurd. But even if it did raise 20 feet, and there's no evidence of that, then that still leaves a great deal of the earth. We have vast tracts of land that we do nothing with at all. Ever been to the American south west? Nothing for mile upon mile. Why? Because it is dry. OH NOES you say. But we're living in the 21st century and you're complaining about a problem the Romans 2000 years ago could have solved. Build an aqueduct that can carry whatever water you need from point "A" to point "B". Some infrastructure there but not really a big deal. Greening the whole south west would cost less then our last war.
As to that ancient climate record... You can't cite that unless you also accept that we had high levels of CO2 during an ice age. You completely rejected that data point so I see no reason to permit you to cite the record at all back then given that you're cherry picking data.
To the contrary, you're searching for any way to blame CO2 for it.
You have two correlating values and you're refusing to show causation which would be the model.
You are aware that we have lots of climate record data showing CO2 and the global temperature going in opposite directions right?
As to reference material, I'd prefer text because I read a great deal faster then these people speak.
CO2 makes up a relatively tiny portion of the earth's atmosphere. Most of the climate models used to justify CO2 as a forcing variable were modified from models developed for Venus. Never mind that Venus has a completely different atmosphere. CO2 is I believe the most common gas on the planet where as on earth, it is nitrogen, followed by oxygen.
CO2 is literally a trace gas. And while you're going to say that it is disproportionally relevant, the fact remains that your climate models were developed for a world where CO2 was the dominant component.
And worse, even the relevance of CO2 on Venus's atmosphere is controversial because the biggest difference between Venus and the earth is actually the density of that atmosphere. Temperature increases with pressure. If the earth had the same density of atmosphere as Venus... irrelevant to the actual gas used... it would be a great deal hotter.
Not only is the use of an adapted climate model designed for Venus dubious but the validity of that model for Venus itself is dubious.
I don't see why it is especially a problem over such a short time?
Wasn't the world warmer during the Medieval warming period and during the Roman warming period?
From what the histories say, that was generally a good thing.
What is more, human beings are a tropical species. We like heat.
I've never understood why people think a warmer world would be so disastrous for us. We like the heat. Where do our old go to spend their final days? Warm places. What are considered the most pleasant environments for us? Places like Hawaii. We like the tropics.
Think about it... where else can you walk around naked and be comfortable?
Could we be looking at some sea level rises of about a foot or so? Sure. That shouldn't threaten most coastal communities. A few marginal sand bar islands in the Caribbean and south pacific are screwed but they were doomed eventually anyway.
That doesn't mean you know why there is an imbalance. Minor shifts in cloud cover or ice albedo could explain that. I believe they found that one of the major glaciers was melting because dust was getting deposited on it... that was making it darker and the increased darkness was causing it to absorb more sunlight which was what was causing the glacier to melt.
As I remember, the dust was the result of deforestation around the glacier. I think this one is in africa.
Anyway, lots of reasons for things to happen.
You're saying one thing "the earth is warming" and then trying to connect that to "because the CO2"...
You can't do that without a working model.
Note... WORKING. Not just any model some climate scientist pulled out of his ass. It has to actually survive testing.
The reason this hasn't happened is because it is fucking illegal.
Open your eyes on slashdot. We have stories popping up on a regular basis of the big ISPs shutting smaller ISPs out of the market.
Century link which is backed by Qwest recently complained that comcast is doing everything in its power to block Century link from providing service in areas. They've gone so far as to pressure local city councils to forbid century link to operate in the area.
Google with their Google Fiber have been saying the same thing for years.
So no. Frankly I am just offended that you cited experience before as justification for your argument when you're so ignorant of what is going on.
Without runaway global warming, you are going to have a hard time justifying the massive multi trillion dollar tax and regulatory framework that ultimately people are rebelling against.
But moving on. As to research in the 1700s... last time I tell you... no one disputes that. You're citing a red herring. Cite something in the last 20 to 30 years please that includes a model that has been tested under falsifiable conditions and succeeded.
As to models not being science, the conclusions of science are models. All the theories and hypotheses are models. You're saying "this is how I think the universe works".
As to the lower level you seem to want... the climate is a great deal more complex then you are allowing for in your argument. It is not so simple as "CO2 opaques certain spectrums of light ergo if you increase CO2 the earth warms up."
Regardless, if you're not arguing for runaway global warming, then what are you doomsaying?
However, to show that the CO2 increase caused by man is leading to run away global warming you need a functional model that shows that.
You lack that.
Which means it is your OPINION that the increase in CO2 caused by man will lead to run away global warming.
That is great.
My opinion is that the color yellow is pretty.
Absent something substantive which will require real research done sometime during the period of this CO2 increase.... you really don't have anything.
The fact that you're struggling with this should be a big tip off to you that you're in trouble.
Imagine as a counter point if I were contradicting the theory of gravity. You'd have some functional models to use to show I was wrong. You could even show that the models accurately predict the motions of the planets under falsifiable conditions showing that they are in fact valid.
Now... there are no AGW climate models that exist that have passed falsifiable tests. And that is a problem. Because it means you've got nothing.
Here you'll say "but look at all the scientists that agree with me!"
And that is just resorting to politics in the face of logical contradiction. At which point, I'll just respond with the political argument that the public at large doesn't find your research very compelling. Which isn't a scientific argument. It is a political argument. But it is a political argument to counter your political argument.
Not only in the realm of science do you have a problem but in the realm of politics you have a problem. All the surveys from the US and UK are showing increasingly people don't think AGW is a big deal. You're losing the political fight.
And if you don't make scientific arguments which do not rely on how many numbers of certain people agree with you... then I see no reason why I shouldn't just stick with the political counter argument.
Listen and understand. I am not stupid. I am not uneducated.
You can't say the earth is warmer then it would be otherwise unless you can model the effect of CO2. Since you can't, you don't actually know why the earth is warmer.
The models are relevant. You either understand what you are dealing with... or you have an opinion.
Actually you made it political when you referenced a consensus which is not a scientific concept but rather a political one.
Science is not decided on a vote. You don't win a scientific argument by getting more people to agree with you then the opposition.
Truth is truth. The number of people you have on either side of the issue are irrelevant.
Is it more likely that the majority will be right? Yes... but that doesn't automatically mean the majority is right.
One person against a million can be right in science.
I wasn't the one that started with the political arguments. You did.
And as I pointed out, your political position is not as strong as you'd like to present it. Beyond the American and European sphere you have far less credibility.
And if you want to actually talk science for science's sake... then we can go back to those models you said you didn't want to talk about. Because I'm going to hammer you on the lack of falsifiable tests on them until you break or run.
They could just get tickets I guess. Not really reasonable though. Paying the city a fee, getting points on your license, etc just to drive the way they were driving before that was safer.
What the cameras force are sudden stops and accelerations. You can't avoid it. The cameras don't recognize Yellow lights the same way police officers recognize them. And as a result it creates a traffic hazard.
They were a shameless money grab that hurt everyone including the stupid cities that tried to impose them.
We had them installed in Los Angeles despite no one wanting them outside of the city council.
They then installed them in places that didn't actually have accidents such as busy though safe intersections.
The result was actually an increase in accidents because everyone had to start driving dangerously to avoid the cameras.
This was brought to the attention of the city council and they basically ignored it. The accidents were higher. People were unhappy with them. We had one christmas where some group of people wearing santa outfits put big colorfully wrapped cardboard boxes over the speed cameras that said "merry christmas". No one liked these things.
Then after the systems had been in place for awhile and they did a finacial audit... they found the cameras weren't actually making any money because most of the tickets were getting thrown out of court by judges that also didn't like them.
THEN the city council took them down... roughly about a week after that was revealed the cameras were disconnected or gone.
Which really highlights from several angles what this was always about.
Money.
Safety has nothing to do with it. Nothing what so ever. It was money - period. That is all these things are about or have ever been about. Cash. End of story.
The wires run through pipes. You can rewire or even add wire to the pipes typically without tearing anything up.
What is more, in shifting to this model you wouldn't maintain bad aspects of the old system.
You'd roll it out as it became convenient. Things need to be replaced. And when they are, you can very easily lay a conduit down because you are ALREADY ripping up the street.
Going forward, there would be no need to rip up the street at any inconvenient interval.
As to the notion that the cable between the junction box and the home has to be changed every time. You are correct that that model of wiring is absurd.
So... we wouldn't do that. Because as you point out... its dumb. Please assume I am not stupid. Because... I am not stupid. I am not advocating anything that isn't either economical or logistically manageable. If you see something that isn't reasonable and obvious... then assume I am not doing it that way. If you see something I am implying that is not obvious and not reasonable... then ask me if I would do it that way... while I might not have been aware of the issue, you'll probably find that I would not do it in the way that causes the problem.
Rather I will chose effective alternatives that sidestep the issue.
There are oh so many ways to skin a cat. Assume I'm not going to choose the stupid methods.
NK either did it themselves or paid someone to do it.
That said, reprisals are a terrible idea. Totally not worth it. Nothing to be gained by attacking them in any way. All it does is agitate the Chinese.
And while some of you will doubtless respond "Yeee haw! Lets go get those China men!"... that is not a fight you are prepared for and really no one is behind you on that one. So... stop it.
This is the response to the issue. Tell Sony everything they did wrong with their internal security and tell them that if they put everything up on the internet that is their own damn fault.
Seriously, how many naked pictures of celebrities does it take for hollywood to figure out that you don't put that shit on the internet?
But lets say for the sake of argument, I accept that statement.
If you've put down all the politics and won't touch them again.
Where to now? What do you want and what do you want to talk about? Is there anything left out of your position once the politics are stripped out of it? Tell me what is left. What do you think is worth discussing?
See, the science is in many cases a pretext for the politics. Once the end point is removed the means loses meaning. Unless your ends were not political?
If your ends are political, then the entire issue is just politics.
I am not declaring someone else the owner of the cable. You can own that cable. Congratulations.
However, if another company wants to lay cable on that street... what is the problem? That the whole street has to be dug up every time the cable needs to be maintained? First off, the cable tends to run through a pipe and can be strung through the pipe without digging up the street. So it is basically a conduit system already.
As to poles which is going to be what a lot of people are dealing with... no digging needed.
And when we redo the streets as we must every so often because the pavement wears out... we can run more substantial conduits.
You're basically just saying "this isn't the way we currently do things so we couldn't possibly do things differently in the future"
Sure, Al Gore was a politician that didn't like the implications of global warming. You nailed it.
Oh wait... you are instead painting a sad one sided picture of the situation in a transparent attempt to score political points.
What you just did right there is exactly why we can't have a reasonable discussion about AGW. You're not being reasonable and you're doing everything you can to put your political faction in the best light indifferent to the facts.
Until you're prepared to be reasonable you can't be considered reasonable.
Exactly. And the media keeps making out like it could happen to any company. I should seriously hope not. I'd like to think they're not all this stupid.
Not at all. It became controversal when politicians took over the whole thing and made it political.
It has never recovered and never will until the politicians get out of the issue.
Very very simple.
You bring politics into it and you brought politics into it.
When Al Gore started his Inconvenient Truth campaign... the science became irrelevant. Instantly everything polarized on political lines and it isn't going to recover unless people are willing rip the politics out of it.
Slashdot Mirror
You're assuming the warming will continue which means you assume you have a predictive model of the climate... which you do not. You are over stating your knowledge.
As to whether it was warmer then... they were growing wine and oranges in England. So.
As to agriculture, most plants both prefer more warmth and more CO2. So rejoice, if you're right then we'll be able to feed more people.
As to 20 feet, that is absurd. But even if it did raise 20 feet, and there's no evidence of that, then that still leaves a great deal of the earth. We have vast tracts of land that we do nothing with at all. Ever been to the American south west? Nothing for mile upon mile. Why? Because it is dry. OH NOES you say. But we're living in the 21st century and you're complaining about a problem the Romans 2000 years ago could have solved. Build an aqueduct that can carry whatever water you need from point "A" to point "B". Some infrastructure there but not really a big deal. Greening the whole south west would cost less then our last war.
As to that ancient climate record... You can't cite that unless you also accept that we had high levels of CO2 during an ice age. You completely rejected that data point so I see no reason to permit you to cite the record at all back then given that you're cherry picking data.
To the contrary, you're searching for any way to blame CO2 for it.
You have two correlating values and you're refusing to show causation which would be the model.
You are aware that we have lots of climate record data showing CO2 and the global temperature going in opposite directions right?
As to reference material, I'd prefer text because I read a great deal faster then these people speak.
CO2 makes up a relatively tiny portion of the earth's atmosphere. Most of the climate models used to justify CO2 as a forcing variable were modified from models developed for Venus. Never mind that Venus has a completely different atmosphere. CO2 is I believe the most common gas on the planet where as on earth, it is nitrogen, followed by oxygen.
CO2 is literally a trace gas. And while you're going to say that it is disproportionally relevant, the fact remains that your climate models were developed for a world where CO2 was the dominant component.
And worse, even the relevance of CO2 on Venus's atmosphere is controversial because the biggest difference between Venus and the earth is actually the density of that atmosphere. Temperature increases with pressure. If the earth had the same density of atmosphere as Venus... irrelevant to the actual gas used... it would be a great deal hotter.
Not only is the use of an adapted climate model designed for Venus dubious but the validity of that model for Venus itself is dubious.
I don't see why it is especially a problem over such a short time?
Wasn't the world warmer during the Medieval warming period and during the Roman warming period?
From what the histories say, that was generally a good thing.
What is more, human beings are a tropical species. We like heat.
I've never understood why people think a warmer world would be so disastrous for us. We like the heat. Where do our old go to spend their final days? Warm places. What are considered the most pleasant environments for us? Places like Hawaii. We like the tropics.
Think about it... where else can you walk around naked and be comfortable?
Could we be looking at some sea level rises of about a foot or so? Sure. That shouldn't threaten most coastal communities. A few marginal sand bar islands in the Caribbean and south pacific are screwed but they were doomed eventually anyway.
That doesn't mean you know why there is an imbalance. Minor shifts in cloud cover or ice albedo could explain that. I believe they found that one of the major glaciers was melting because dust was getting deposited on it... that was making it darker and the increased darkness was causing it to absorb more sunlight which was what was causing the glacier to melt.
As I remember, the dust was the result of deforestation around the glacier. I think this one is in africa.
Anyway, lots of reasons for things to happen.
You're saying one thing "the earth is warming" and then trying to connect that to "because the CO2"...
You can't do that without a working model.
Note... WORKING. Not just any model some climate scientist pulled out of his ass. It has to actually survive testing.
The reason this hasn't happened is because it is fucking illegal.
Open your eyes on slashdot. We have stories popping up on a regular basis of the big ISPs shutting smaller ISPs out of the market.
Century link which is backed by Qwest recently complained that comcast is doing everything in its power to block Century link from providing service in areas. They've gone so far as to pressure local city councils to forbid century link to operate in the area.
Google with their Google Fiber have been saying the same thing for years.
So no. Frankly I am just offended that you cited experience before as justification for your argument when you're so ignorant of what is going on.
How fucking dare you.
Without runaway global warming, you are going to have a hard time justifying the massive multi trillion dollar tax and regulatory framework that ultimately people are rebelling against.
But moving on. As to research in the 1700s... last time I tell you... no one disputes that. You're citing a red herring. Cite something in the last 20 to 30 years please that includes a model that has been tested under falsifiable conditions and succeeded.
As to models not being science, the conclusions of science are models. All the theories and hypotheses are models. You're saying "this is how I think the universe works".
As to the lower level you seem to want... the climate is a great deal more complex then you are allowing for in your argument. It is not so simple as "CO2 opaques certain spectrums of light ergo if you increase CO2 the earth warms up."
Regardless, if you're not arguing for runaway global warming, then what are you doomsaying?
Government never takes responsibility unless they want to take responsibility.
Most liability laws exempt the government.
Again, no one disputes that.
However, to show that the CO2 increase caused by man is leading to run away global warming you need a functional model that shows that.
You lack that.
Which means it is your OPINION that the increase in CO2 caused by man will lead to run away global warming.
That is great.
My opinion is that the color yellow is pretty.
Absent something substantive which will require real research done sometime during the period of this CO2 increase.... you really don't have anything.
The fact that you're struggling with this should be a big tip off to you that you're in trouble.
Imagine as a counter point if I were contradicting the theory of gravity. You'd have some functional models to use to show I was wrong. You could even show that the models accurately predict the motions of the planets under falsifiable conditions showing that they are in fact valid.
Now... there are no AGW climate models that exist that have passed falsifiable tests. And that is a problem. Because it means you've got nothing.
Here you'll say "but look at all the scientists that agree with me!"
And that is just resorting to politics in the face of logical contradiction. At which point, I'll just respond with the political argument that the public at large doesn't find your research very compelling. Which isn't a scientific argument. It is a political argument. But it is a political argument to counter your political argument.
Not only in the realm of science do you have a problem but in the realm of politics you have a problem. All the surveys from the US and UK are showing increasingly people don't think AGW is a big deal. You're losing the political fight.
And if you don't make scientific arguments which do not rely on how many numbers of certain people agree with you... then I see no reason why I shouldn't just stick with the political counter argument.
Listen and understand. I am not stupid. I am not uneducated.
Reassess your position with that understanding.
You can't say the earth is warmer then it would be otherwise unless you can model the effect of CO2. Since you can't, you don't actually know why the earth is warmer.
The models are relevant. You either understand what you are dealing with... or you have an opinion.
And we all have opinions.
Statistically you're wrong. Your personal experience is irrelevant.
Actually you made it political when you referenced a consensus which is not a scientific concept but rather a political one.
Science is not decided on a vote. You don't win a scientific argument by getting more people to agree with you then the opposition.
Truth is truth. The number of people you have on either side of the issue are irrelevant.
Is it more likely that the majority will be right? Yes... but that doesn't automatically mean the majority is right.
One person against a million can be right in science.
I wasn't the one that started with the political arguments. You did.
And as I pointed out, your political position is not as strong as you'd like to present it. Beyond the American and European sphere you have far less credibility.
And if you want to actually talk science for science's sake... then we can go back to those models you said you didn't want to talk about. Because I'm going to hammer you on the lack of falsifiable tests on them until you break or run.
Anyone that drives finds the answer to be self evident.
They could just get tickets I guess. Not really reasonable though. Paying the city a fee, getting points on your license, etc just to drive the way they were driving before that was safer.
What the cameras force are sudden stops and accelerations. You can't avoid it. The cameras don't recognize Yellow lights the same way police officers recognize them. And as a result it creates a traffic hazard.
They were a shameless money grab that hurt everyone including the stupid cities that tried to impose them.
We had them installed in Los Angeles despite no one wanting them outside of the city council.
They then installed them in places that didn't actually have accidents such as busy though safe intersections.
The result was actually an increase in accidents because everyone had to start driving dangerously to avoid the cameras.
This was brought to the attention of the city council and they basically ignored it. The accidents were higher. People were unhappy with them. We had one christmas where some group of people wearing santa outfits put big colorfully wrapped cardboard boxes over the speed cameras that said "merry christmas". No one liked these things.
Then after the systems had been in place for awhile and they did a finacial audit... they found the cameras weren't actually making any money because most of the tickets were getting thrown out of court by judges that also didn't like them.
THEN the city council took them down... roughly about a week after that was revealed the cameras were disconnected or gone.
Which really highlights from several angles what this was always about.
Money.
Safety has nothing to do with it. Nothing what so ever. It was money - period. That is all these things are about or have ever been about. Cash. End of story.
The wires run through pipes. You can rewire or even add wire to the pipes typically without tearing anything up.
What is more, in shifting to this model you wouldn't maintain bad aspects of the old system.
You'd roll it out as it became convenient. Things need to be replaced. And when they are, you can very easily lay a conduit down because you are ALREADY ripping up the street.
Going forward, there would be no need to rip up the street at any inconvenient interval.
As to the notion that the cable between the junction box and the home has to be changed every time. You are correct that that model of wiring is absurd.
So... we wouldn't do that. Because as you point out... its dumb. Please assume I am not stupid. Because... I am not stupid. I am not advocating anything that isn't either economical or logistically manageable. If you see something that isn't reasonable and obvious... then assume I am not doing it that way. If you see something I am implying that is not obvious and not reasonable... then ask me if I would do it that way... while I might not have been aware of the issue, you'll probably find that I would not do it in the way that causes the problem.
Rather I will chose effective alternatives that sidestep the issue.
There are oh so many ways to skin a cat. Assume I'm not going to choose the stupid methods.
NK either did it themselves or paid someone to do it.
That said, reprisals are a terrible idea. Totally not worth it. Nothing to be gained by attacking them in any way. All it does is agitate the Chinese.
And while some of you will doubtless respond "Yeee haw! Lets go get those China men!"... that is not a fight you are prepared for and really no one is behind you on that one. So... stop it.
This is the response to the issue. Tell Sony everything they did wrong with their internal security and tell them that if they put everything up on the internet that is their own damn fault.
Seriously, how many naked pictures of celebrities does it take for hollywood to figure out that you don't put that shit on the internet?
It isn't happening to Amazon or Google or Paypal or any other company with tech chops.
Dubious claim given your previous posts.
But lets say for the sake of argument, I accept that statement.
If you've put down all the politics and won't touch them again.
Where to now? What do you want and what do you want to talk about? Is there anything left out of your position once the politics are stripped out of it? Tell me what is left. What do you think is worth discussing?
See, the science is in many cases a pretext for the politics. Once the end point is removed the means loses meaning. Unless your ends were not political?
If your ends are political, then the entire issue is just politics.
I am not declaring someone else the owner of the cable. You can own that cable. Congratulations.
However, if another company wants to lay cable on that street... what is the problem? That the whole street has to be dug up every time the cable needs to be maintained? First off, the cable tends to run through a pipe and can be strung through the pipe without digging up the street. So it is basically a conduit system already.
As to poles which is going to be what a lot of people are dealing with... no digging needed.
And when we redo the streets as we must every so often because the pavement wears out... we can run more substantial conduits.
You're basically just saying "this isn't the way we currently do things so we couldn't possibly do things differently in the future"
It is a dumb argument. You should know that.
I've seen big corporate networks that didn't work that way.
They're not all like that.
the attempt to label them deniers is an attempt to compare them to holocaust deniers. that in itself is despicable.
no mercy.
Sure, Al Gore was a politician that didn't like the implications of global warming. You nailed it.
Oh wait... you are instead painting a sad one sided picture of the situation in a transparent attempt to score political points.
What you just did right there is exactly why we can't have a reasonable discussion about AGW. You're not being reasonable and you're doing everything you can to put your political faction in the best light indifferent to the facts.
Until you're prepared to be reasonable you can't be considered reasonable.
Your move...
Exactly. And the media keeps making out like it could happen to any company. I should seriously hope not. I'd like to think they're not all this stupid.
Not at all. It became controversal when politicians took over the whole thing and made it political.
It has never recovered and never will until the politicians get out of the issue.
Very very simple.
You bring politics into it and you brought politics into it.
When Al Gore started his Inconvenient Truth campaign... the science became irrelevant. Instantly everything polarized on political lines and it isn't going to recover unless people are willing rip the politics out of it.