Of course people shop for healthcare. They need to buy it in the US. The insurance companies fight like hell to keep prices down, as do HMOs. Why? So they can offer cheaper policies. If they get it through their employer, their employer is goddam well comparison shopping. So, this whole glib argument is wrong. I don't buy dental insurance, but I also don't shop around for fillings. Nobody does, because commoditizing medical care is stupid.
Everybody knows why medical care is expensive. It is because they have you over a barrel, and there is no consumer protection. You can't say, well, I guess I'll skip that cancer surgery. Just too expensive. Or, you won't if you have the money. If you don't have it, you will start making crack to pay for it. A government healthcare system is like a union. It gives you the ability to collectively bargain with somebody who has you by the balls. You don't have enough power or information on your own to make a good deal for healthcare.
The war on the poor is obvious from the recent attack on food stamps. Your glib dismissal of those in need is a simple demonstration of the sort of mean spirit that pervades the Republicans these days. Regarding the war on women, look here, which gives a better list than I can amass on short notice.
But these polls ignore how much the meanings of the terms have changed. The rightward drift in economic thinking becomes apparent in surveys asking about specific issues. In surveys 25 years ago, 71 percent of Americans believed it was the government’s job to take care of those who couldn’t care for themselves, according the Pew Research Center. This year the share is down to 59 percent. And most of the shift reflects a decline among Republicans.
Dealing with your 'blockquote' style is way too hard. I suspect this is a rathole, and nobody else is reading it, and that you know what you said, so I'll omit the quotes.
So, your assertion is that changes in CO2 levels is NOT caused by human activity, or that the contribution by humans is negligible. Sadly, most authorities disagree with you. I have no way of measuring the effect, so I can't weigh in, other than to mention that I trust folks who do this for a living far more than I trust you. Here are a few links:
The ice core mystery has been explained in such a way that the time differences are in the noise. Here is a link that attempts to explain it: arstechnica. However, one obvious reason why CO2 might follow temperature rises is that lots of CO2 is released in the arctic tundra when the permafrost melts. As solar cycles cause warming CO2 is released. However, it could easily be a situation where small changes in temperature cause CO2 spikes, which then contribute to a feedback loop. Since nobody was there, nobody really knows for sure. However, this article describes a paper in Nature 2012 that describes the feedback loop. Note the paper assumes that excess CO2 causes temperature rises. That is pretty much not contested at this point, I believe, due to a strong theoretical understanding of the interactions. Since there were no excess sources of CO2 in the Pleistocene, the temperature rise precedes the CO2 rise. Since we are artificially increasing CO2, we trigger the warming effect without a requirement for excess solar radiation.
I have read 'Good Calories, Bad Calories' by Taubes. The book is very convincing. The view of nutrition as a power game, with no real science behind it is quite interesting. Sadly for your case, there is LOTS of science to back up the assertions of Global Warming caused by human activity. Too many to simply dismiss.
If there is no problem with CO2 causing global warming, and we are going to be ok despite these emissions, well, that would be wonderful. Due to lobbying by Koch and friends, that is probably what we are going to end up with anyway. However, if there is only a 1% possibility that the worst will happen, and hundreds of millions of people will die because of it, I will still support doing whatever we can to prevent it. Can you really be so sure of your facts, many of which are supported by papers paid for by Koch subsidiaries who have a real financial interest in stopping any action on climate change?
Sure. If carbon levels go up precipitously for, say, 50 years, and the climate does NOT warm, after having corrected for things like solar radiation output, distance from the sun, etc, I would be convinced that CO2 emissions have nothing to do with warming.
Odd, not a single mention of human CO2 emissions
It is clear that humans contribute to the rise of CO2. Even you can't deny that, I think. If you can, please look here. So, the important point is whether there is a correlation between CO2 and warming. So, my experiment is valid, and has already been carried out.
Given a correlation between temperature and CO2, and the fact that human activity is causing a rise in CO2 , there is no doubt that if we continue, there will rising oceans, which will in turn cause massive displacement of humans.
So, hypothesis: CO2 is correlated with Temperature. null hypothesis: CO2 != temperature. Experiment: watch correlations for 50 years. Conclusion, yes, there is a correlation. Experiment: look at ice cores: conclusion: yes, there is a correlation. Experiment: build a computer model that replicates the conditions of the earth, and see what happens. conclusion: CO2 = Temperature.
I can't really say it any more clearly. If you don't believe, well, buy beachfront property.
In his recent book "The Social Conquest of Earth", E.O. Wilson argues against manned missions. His claim is that "nobody is going to emigrate from this planet, not ever.". He calls sending people to the planets instead of robots "a circus stunt".
The book goes on to claim that the dream of colonizing the stars is a "cosmic myopia" and a "dangerous delusion", particularly if we see it as a "solution to be taken when we have used up this planet". He then presents the Fermi Paradox about why we don't see other space critters. In addition, he points out that if a single species had in fact started colonizing the stars only a billion years ago, that by moving from star system to star system only every million years, they long ago would have occupied every habitable star system in the galaxy.
It is a very interesting and thought provoking book, but I was not as convinced by his arguments here as by other arguments. This may be due to bias on my part, caused by my early exposure to Star Trek.
According to the recent human brain study, facts do not matter. So no wonder people still believe in things like Windows (or open-source) safety and security...
This result seems obvious, given the insights into human nature provided by a recent book I just read, called The Social Conquest of Earth by E.O. Wilson. The book maintains that our need to join and protect a tribe or group is a genetic group adaptation. One example he uses is that of religion, where creation myths are believed and taught even when all evidence points to their being false. His claim is that this is an example of multilevel adaptation, where groups who were composed of individuals who 'drank the kool-aid' (my term) were more able to survive than other groups with members who were not so willing to give up personal independence.
So, according to this, republicans are a tribe, democrats are a tribe, mormons are a tribe, etc. Folks in tribes overlook inconsistencies in the core belief set of the tribe simply because pointing them out would make them stand out in the group, possibly leading to expulsion (which would have been fatal for early hominoids). So, the personal stake (adaptation at a personal level) makes them want to stay in the group, and group adaptation makes members of groups who believe the same things more likely to overcome other groups.
What is a little math when you have your survival to consider?
Can you name *any* set of observations of average global CO2 and average global temperature that would cause you to give up your belief?
Sure. If carbon levels go up precipitously for, say, 50 years, and the climate does NOT warm, after having corrected for things like solar radiation output, distance from the sun, etc, I would be convinced that CO2 emissions have nothing to do with warming. Since human activity is, in fact, increasing CO2 levels, and has been for the last 100 years, and global warming has, in fact been occurring, and temperature spikes in the historical record have in fact been correlated with CO2 rises, then I would say that the null hypothesis that there is no correlation between CO2 rises and global warming has been pretty much disproved. Since observations have supported the claim that human activity increases CO2 in the atmosphere (these are facts, as much as anything can be a fact), the further claim that human activity is causing global warming can be judged to be fairly certain.
In addition to our current long running and dangerous experiment, there is other experimental evidence that human activity is causing global warming. Computer models have been built that, in effect, create a 'new world', that can be used to test these sorts of hypotheses. These sorts of studies are confirming and predicting global warming due to CO2 rises. They predict the sorts of temperature rises, on average, that will occur. They have been going on for 30 years, and predicting the sorts of temperature rises we are seeing. So, they are pretty good evidence that CO2 is causative of global warming. Again, that CO2 rise is caused by human activity is not disputed.
Now, you can call me a believer in the 'religion of science' again, but you need to start someplace. You can't be like Descarte, and deny everything, or you get nowhere, or worse, think you've proved the existence of God. My religion, if it is a religion, is that science gets it right much more often than it gets it wrong. It often will get stuck on issues, mainly due to incorrect theoretical explanations, but those incorrect explanations are mostly due to missing facts. As new facts come in, they figure things out, and create a better theory, and the scientific community comes to accept it (perhaps a funeral at a time, as Max Planck quipped). As more observations come in, the theories get better and better. So, yes, I believe what scientists tell me. I have no way to disprove them, and less inclination to try. Their work has made me very comfortable.
The only real puzzle here is how the Koch brothers have managed to convince so much of the population to disbelieve the science, which is in fact as certain as these sorts of things get. They have connected denial of human caused global warming to political belief in a way that makes people who vote republican disbelieve it on an unprecedented scale. This is similar to the belief, after even Bush had disavowed it, that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. It becomes part of the lore of the tribe, and must be protected as a sort of badge of membership. Very clever, but ultimately the millions of deaths projected in this century (estimates are 150,000 people a year being killed by climate change right NOW) will expose them as the villains that they really are.
I would like to thank you. I was dismissive of your views earlier in the thread, and your responses have caused me to read up on the science a bit, something t
How about "more heat in the atmosphere, stronger storms". There, that is a prediction that has been borne out by evidence.
That's certainly a *requirement* for AGW to be true, but your prediction does not rule out *natural* increase in heat in the atmosphere and *naturally* stronger storms.
How about 'More carbon dioxide means higher temperatures"? That has been borne out by ice core studies.
Except the lag shows causality going *from* temperature changes *to* CO2 levels. It's in the wrong direction for your hypothesis.
sez you
How about "It often snows in the winter in new hampshire"? There is a climate prediction that is pretty reliable, despite the fact that the climate is a 'chaotic, stochastic' system.
That's a perfect example, actually - it's not the *prediction* that makes a hypothesis scientific or not, since of course, *anyone* can make a prediction. Astrologists make predictions all the time, and you know what, they even make *correct* predictions. This doesn't make astrology science, though.
What you fail to understand is the concept of *falsifiability*. Your hypothesis must have some set of observations that would reject it, and a logical foundation for assuming that *without* those observations, your hypothesis is the only thing that could possibly be true.
Ah, sophistry! Time to get out the hemlock. Your claim is that in order for something to 'be science', that there must be a hypothesis, a null hypothesis, and some experiments that can contradict the hypothesis (with some level of probablility, but you actually didn't say that anywhere). Is this the only definition? I suspect there are other ways to argue that something is true. For example, you could collect hundreds of thousands of samples, and after analysis, determine that they all seem to possess some property. Take the electrical conductivity of copper. After testing your hundreds of thousands of samples of copper for conductivity, you can assert with some confidence that ALL copper is conductive. However, your null hypothesis (that copper is NOT conductive) cannot be ruled out, because you haven't actually tested EVERY bit of copper everywhere. There is no experiment that can be performed to rule that out, other than testing all copper. So, that isn't science?
Here is another example. I claim that the sun will come up tomorrow. How can I prove that is true in a scientific way? Well, the simple answer is that, given your narrow definition of science, I really can't prove it at all. (As Hume said, 'it is just one damned thing after another'). Every day is a new experiment that can show that my hypothesis is falsified. But, I can't actually run any experiments to falsify that unless I am NASA. Given what I have, I can't test. So, by your narrow definition of scientific truth, it is not a scientific fact that the sun will rise tomorrow.
Another example is evolution. I assert that evolution causes change in species, and that all species evolved by natural selection. What is the null hypothesis? That evolution by natural selection is not occurring. Well, observations indicate that it is occurring. If you line up fossil lines, you see clear patterns. However, fossils are fossils. The past is the past. You want experiments that would conclusively falsify it. Can you think of one? If not, do you also deny natural selection is 'scientific'?
Popper was attempting to solve the demarcation problem with the whole idea of falsifiability. That means that he was attempting to determine what was and was not science. In that, he excludes whole theories that contain no falsifiable statements, like astrology. He explicitly does NOT exclude possibly unfalsifiable statements, such as "Climate Change is caused by People". You appear to be attempting to prove that climate change, as a theory, is unscientific by claiming that there is no way to determine if it is
I pointed out that there is no good alternative, at least that I know of.
So do you deny that it's possible for observed climate variations in the 20th century to be predominantly natural?
No, I deny that it is anywhere near as probable as the hypothesis that it is caused by humans, as do most climate scientists.
I'm not a climate scientist.
And apparently not any type of scientist at all, being unable to understand the concept of falsifiability:)
Ah, ad hominim attack! good move. Next you'll insult my sister.
I watch the news, and tend to believe what these guys, who have been studying this for their entire careers tell me.
So, like many other religious followers, you've outsourced your thinking to others. I'm sure priests and popes have been studying God for their entire careers, and many of the followers tend to believe what they say because they trust in their authority.
That's not science.
You are posing here. Please indicate your credentials. You seem to be implying that you are up to date on the relevant papers. Well, quote some. Some that were NOT funded by Koch or the petroleum institute.
My null hypothesis is that most scientists actually care about the truth
That's not a null hypothesis at all. Your *proposed* hypothesis is that most scientists actually care about the truth. The null hypothesis is that there is no particular relationship between being a scientist and caring about the truth.
Now, just try for a moment to think of observations that would falsify your proposed hypothesis. Can you name some?
Sigh. My proposed hypothesis is that I'm not arguing with a wall. Sadly, the null hypothesis is probably going to win here.
The problem is, you've picked a topic (climate) that is both chaotic and stochastic. That means that precise starting conditions can cause *wild* variations in end state (as say, the 50,000th significant digit somewhere eventually becomes significant), on top of being inherently unpredictable. Your first order approximation means nothing to a chaotic function.
Sorry, this is just wrong. The fact that weather can't be predicted in the short term does not imply that climate trends can't be predicted. How about "more heat in the atmosphere, stronger storms". There, that is a prediction that has been borne out by evidence. How about 'More carbon dioxide means higher temperatures"? That has been borne out by ice core studies. How about "It often snows in the winter in new hampshire"? There is a climate prediction that is pretty reliable, despite the fact that the climate is a 'chaotic, stochastic' system.
Actually, I didn't assert anything. I pointed out that there is no good alternative, at least that I know of. Deniers like you have been pounding on this, with good financial support, for many years, and still have not come up with a reasonable alternative. That, of course, doesn't mean there is no reasonable alternative. It only means that the current state of the art is that there is a preponderance of evidence suggesting that carbon dioxide is causing climate change.
I'm not a climate scientist. I watch the news, and tend to believe what these guys, who have been studying this for their entire careers tell me. My null hypothesis is that most scientists actually care about the truth, and that the Koch brothers have a profit motive to support pseudo-science and propaganda that prevents an obvious threat from being addressed by legislation. Disprove that.
Continuing the off-topic thread, I believe that draconian programs to control population are not going to be successful. However, it is a fact that if women are given control over their reproductive rights, population stops increasing, and in many cases, begins to decline. So, a better way to go is to empower women.
Look here
I invite you to find someone here who doesn't do all those things.
Me. I ask for a necessary and falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, and despite hundreds of thousands of comments from true believers, not a single one has managed to quote or cite any such thing.
Please, if you're able to, explain what observations of CO2 and temperature, past, present or future, that would cause you to reconsider your current beliefs, and why the lack of those observations must lead us *only* to believe in your particular conceit.
If there was a credible hypothesis that explained the current measurements, which does not conflict with existing scientific knowledge, and does not cite global scientific conspiracies, somebody would have come up with it by now. There has been no lack of trying. Scientists make their careers by doing this sort of thing. The Koch brothers have been funding these guys for decades now, and, well, they've come up empty.
'Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth.'
Sherlock Holmes Quote
-The Sign of Four
Chapter 1: "The Science of Deduction"
The USGUMMIT can spy on you, but it can't really do anything to you unless you come here. Sadly, they have all US citizens here already, under their control. If they suddenly decide that they don't like people who wear plaid (and who could blame them?) they can start decrypting orders from amazon, and begin arresting folks who have bought such things in the past. They can't really do that to people outside of the US, since your own gummit would probably object.
electric typewriters? Ha! Also, if you copy the document, you are out of luck; modern xerox machines can keep digital copies of everything they duplicate. Also, if the spooks have sonic access to the typewriters, they can probably figure out much of what is being typed, given enough samples.
Face it, given enough energy and time, nobody can win here. There is only one real solution: have no secrets.
Ah, so the NSA doesn't have root access to kernel.org's servers? If they've tweaked the compilers they use to generate the source in the way Thompson suggests, nobody except the tweakers would ever know. You could scan the source from top to bottom and never see anything wrong.
THIS is the 1%. These are the perpetrators of NSA surveillance, to further their needs...NOT yours. People with connections to these firms need to be removed from any position of power, especially government. Their future actions need to be monitored by the rest of society, if for no other reason then to limit their power.
While this may all be true, there is really nothing you can do about it. They own you and your kids, and they will continue to own you and your kids. All you can really do is keep your head under the radar, and hope to hell they don't spot you. If they do, they have cyber weapons, armies, crime organizations, banks (but I repeat myself) and police to deal with you.
In order to win, you need to play another game. They already have all the property, and have hotels on all of them. The best you can do is concede, and try another game. There are lots of them to choose from. Religion, Science, Philosophy, Sports. Maybe even sailing, running, hiking. You and I, however, are never going to win at their game, which is Monopoly, until this civilization turns belly up. And then, you'll probably be excluded as well, because whoever takes charge will keep you out of their club, which typically consists of the folks who are the most ruthless. Chances are, you are not one of them.
Interesting side note. Turns out that genetic testing concludes that most europeans today come from the stock of kings. If you are from Mongolia, you are quite likely to be descended from Genghis Khan. Poor people just don't survive as well as the 1%. That means breeding, as a game, is probably also lost to you as well, since the poor will starve, or maybe be eaten in whatever apocalypse comes next.
Federal money subsidises states to a very large degree. During the economic meltdown, my state (California) had its federal budget slashed, causing the state to clobber basic services (like education spending). This is called the federal allotment. Look here for more information.
Here is the breakdown of federal spending:
Defense - 19%
Medicare/Medicaid - 21%
Safety net programs - 12%
Interest on Debt - 6%
Benefits for federal retirees and veterans - 7%
Transportation and Infrastructure - 3%
Education - 2%
Science and Medical Research - 2%
Non security international: 1%
All other - 5%
This is based on 2012 estimates by the center on budget and policy priorities
Look here. The US has been a bad guy for many, many years. The last three years have been better than average, I suspect. We've drawn down involvement in illegal wars abroad, and tried to be pro-democracy in the middle east, even against our real economic interests, or the interests of our allies.
Another interesting source (that I just watched on netflix) is here: William Colby. This guy was a real spook, was involved in OSS work during WWII, early vietnam, CIA director under Nixon and Ford, who basically came clean during the Ford administration to congress. Got fired because of it (they hired George HW Bush to replace him!). Think of the things the CIA was doing back then! Assassinations, overthrows of governments, covert shit we still don't know about, and probably never will.
The NSA thing is basically just business as usual. Nearly everybody in congress who had to know about it supports it. You don't think the CIA was tapping phones during the cold war? They just weren't as good at it. If tapping phones is the worst thing they do, I'd be amazed and pleased. If the Snowden release gives them a bit more trouble making mischief, enjoy the respite. They'll be back at it again next week.
The US has been an empire in the americas for a while now, like over 100 years. It has been pretty successful at subjugating central and south america, with the occasional noisy exception. And, like any real empire, we've beat the shit out of large groups of people, overthrown governments we didn't like, and basically acted like an outrageous bully, with nobody to call us on.
The current US foray into the middle east is due to the US being run for a while by a bunch of rich oil men, first with Bush 41, then again with Bush 43. We acted as their personal rentacops, opening up oil fields. Nothing more. There is really no strategic interest in the middle east that we can't buy at this point. War is just cheaper, at least for the oil guys.
Since the end of the cold war, this whole 'world policeman' role is new to us. In fact, the US is very isolationist; we give almost nothing in aid to most countries (per capita), compared to, say, Sweden. Our presidents have had to lie us into every war we've become involved in, other than perhaps Korea. We could mostly care less when millions of people were slaughtered in places like Rwanda or Somalia. That is a job for the UN, right? That's what we pay them for (or don't pay them for).
So, the Syria crisis, and middle east in general, has nothing to do with our 'empire'. It is an annoyance to the current president. He doesn't want either side to win, but he doesn't want to seem like a wimp. So, he'll fire a few cruise missiles, with congress' approval, and go back to ignoring the bloodshed, which is actually in the interests of the US; either side winning is bad for our buddies in the region, so we need to even the odds some. It doesn't hurt that Obama can thumb his nose at Russia and Iran at the same time.
We aren't sending doctors, engineers, diplomats, or even well intentioned soldiers. We are sending supersonic robot bombs. Much cheaper, and as you say, it doesn't really matter what we do anyway.
The evidence points at a 'rogue' commander. That does not obviate Assad's responsibility in this matter. The weapons were available to commanders. They were fired from an area controlled by Assad into an area controlled by the rebels. The army took precautions, like wearing masks, before the attack, so they knew what was happening. The Assad side had been trying to clear this area for months without success.
Assad probably had no personal knowledge of the attack. However, it was his fault. He needs to be punished so that 'accidents' like this do not happen again.
Also, the US needs this war to last as long as possible, so that a negotiated settlement that keeps the WMD from the terrorist they are currently backing can be achieved.
I suspect that the current plan is to level the playing field with some surgical strikes, and let them fight for a few more years, wearing down both sides to a negotiated settlement.
This is NOT the humanitarian thing to do, and Obama knows that. Doing this will allow far more civilians to be killed, on both sides. However, it is probably the only way to prevent the sarin gas from being turned over to extremists, to be used in europe, israel, or the US. Assad is going to lose power. If we kick him out, the extremists will take power, and will then control whatever stockpiles he has. We can't side with Assad for obvious reasons. So, this is a smart compromise. It is horrific, but Kissinger would approve.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, just like crack!
Of course people shop for healthcare. They need to buy it in the US. The insurance companies fight like hell to keep prices down, as do HMOs. Why? So they can offer cheaper policies. If they get it through their employer, their employer is goddam well comparison shopping. So, this whole glib argument is wrong. I don't buy dental insurance, but I also don't shop around for fillings. Nobody does, because commoditizing medical care is stupid.
Everybody knows why medical care is expensive. It is because they have you over a barrel, and there is no consumer protection. You can't say, well, I guess I'll skip that cancer surgery. Just too expensive. Or, you won't if you have the money. If you don't have it, you will start making crack to pay for it. A government healthcare system is like a union. It gives you the ability to collectively bargain with somebody who has you by the balls. You don't have enough power or information on your own to make a good deal for healthcare.
The war on the poor is obvious from the recent attack on food stamps. Your glib dismissal of those in need is a simple demonstration of the sort of mean spirit that pervades the Republicans these days. Regarding the war on women, look here, which gives a better list than I can amass on short notice.
Here is a quote from the article:
But these polls ignore how much the meanings of the terms have changed. The rightward drift in economic thinking becomes apparent in surveys asking about specific issues. In surveys 25 years ago, 71 percent of Americans believed it was the government’s job to take care of those who couldn’t care for themselves, according the Pew Research Center. This year the share is down to 59 percent. And most of the shift reflects a decline among Republicans.
Dealing with your 'blockquote' style is way too hard. I suspect this is a rathole, and nobody else is reading it, and that you know what you said, so I'll omit the quotes.
So, your assertion is that changes in CO2 levels is NOT caused by human activity, or that the contribution by humans is negligible. Sadly, most authorities disagree with you. I have no way of measuring the effect, so I can't weigh in, other than to mention that I trust folks who do this for a living far more than I trust you. Here are a few links:
EPA
IPCC
NOAA
More IPCC
RealClimate
According to folks that study this, the sea level is rising. Here are some links:
Union of Concerned Scientists
National Geographic
EPA
NASA, scroll down.
The ice core mystery has been explained in such a way that the time differences are in the noise. Here is a link that attempts to explain it: arstechnica. However, one obvious reason why CO2 might follow temperature rises is that lots of CO2 is released in the arctic tundra when the permafrost melts. As solar cycles cause warming CO2 is released. However, it could easily be a situation where small changes in temperature cause CO2 spikes, which then contribute to a feedback loop. Since nobody was there, nobody really knows for sure. However, this article describes a paper in Nature 2012 that describes the feedback loop. Note the paper assumes that excess CO2 causes temperature rises. That is pretty much not contested at this point, I believe, due to a strong theoretical understanding of the interactions. Since there were no excess sources of CO2 in the Pleistocene, the temperature rise precedes the CO2 rise. Since we are artificially increasing CO2, we trigger the warming effect without a requirement for excess solar radiation.
I have read 'Good Calories, Bad Calories' by Taubes. The book is very convincing. The view of nutrition as a power game, with no real science behind it is quite interesting. Sadly for your case, there is LOTS of science to back up the assertions of Global Warming caused by human activity. Too many to simply dismiss.
If there is no problem with CO2 causing global warming, and we are going to be ok despite these emissions, well, that would be wonderful. Due to lobbying by Koch and friends, that is probably what we are going to end up with anyway. However, if there is only a 1% possibility that the worst will happen, and hundreds of millions of people will die because of it, I will still support doing whatever we can to prevent it. Can you really be so sure of your facts, many of which are supported by papers paid for by Koch subsidiaries who have a real financial interest in stopping any action on climate change?
Ok, I tried...
Sure. If carbon levels go up precipitously for, say, 50 years, and the climate does NOT warm, after having corrected for things like solar radiation output, distance from the sun, etc, I would be convinced that CO2 emissions have nothing to do with warming.
Odd, not a single mention of human CO2 emissions
It is clear that humans contribute to the rise of CO2. Even you can't deny that, I think. If you can, please look here. So, the important point is whether there is a correlation between CO2 and warming. So, my experiment is valid, and has already been carried out.
Given a correlation between temperature and CO2, and the fact that human activity is causing a rise in CO2 , there is no doubt that if we continue, there will rising oceans, which will in turn cause massive displacement of humans.
So, hypothesis: CO2 is correlated with Temperature. null hypothesis: CO2 != temperature. Experiment: watch correlations for 50 years. Conclusion, yes, there is a correlation. Experiment: look at ice cores: conclusion: yes, there is a correlation. Experiment: build a computer model that replicates the conditions of the earth, and see what happens. conclusion: CO2 = Temperature.
I can't really say it any more clearly. If you don't believe, well, buy beachfront property.
In his recent book "The Social Conquest of Earth", E.O. Wilson argues against manned missions. His claim is that "nobody is going to emigrate from this planet, not ever.". He calls sending people to the planets instead of robots "a circus stunt".
The book goes on to claim that the dream of colonizing the stars is a "cosmic myopia" and a "dangerous delusion", particularly if we see it as a "solution to be taken when we have used up this planet". He then presents the Fermi Paradox about why we don't see other space critters. In addition, he points out that if a single species had in fact started colonizing the stars only a billion years ago, that by moving from star system to star system only every million years, they long ago would have occupied every habitable star system in the galaxy.
It is a very interesting and thought provoking book, but I was not as convinced by his arguments here as by other arguments. This may be due to bias on my part, caused by my early exposure to Star Trek.
According to the recent human brain study, facts do not matter. So no wonder people still believe in things like Windows (or open-source) safety and security...
This result seems obvious, given the insights into human nature provided by a recent book I just read, called The Social Conquest of Earth by E.O. Wilson. The book maintains that our need to join and protect a tribe or group is a genetic group adaptation. One example he uses is that of religion, where creation myths are believed and taught even when all evidence points to their being false. His claim is that this is an example of multilevel adaptation, where groups who were composed of individuals who 'drank the kool-aid' (my term) were more able to survive than other groups with members who were not so willing to give up personal independence.
So, according to this, republicans are a tribe, democrats are a tribe, mormons are a tribe, etc. Folks in tribes overlook inconsistencies in the core belief set of the tribe simply because pointing them out would make them stand out in the group, possibly leading to expulsion (which would have been fatal for early hominoids). So, the personal stake (adaptation at a personal level) makes them want to stay in the group, and group adaptation makes members of groups who believe the same things more likely to overcome other groups.
What is a little math when you have your survival to consider?
Can you name *any* set of observations of average global CO2 and average global temperature that would cause you to give up your belief?
Sure. If carbon levels go up precipitously for, say, 50 years, and the climate does NOT warm, after having corrected for things like solar radiation output, distance from the sun, etc, I would be convinced that CO2 emissions have nothing to do with warming. Since human activity is, in fact, increasing CO2 levels, and has been for the last 100 years, and global warming has, in fact been occurring, and temperature spikes in the historical record have in fact been correlated with CO2 rises, then I would say that the null hypothesis that there is no correlation between CO2 rises and global warming has been pretty much disproved. Since observations have supported the claim that human activity increases CO2 in the atmosphere (these are facts, as much as anything can be a fact), the further claim that human activity is causing global warming can be judged to be fairly certain.
In addition to our current long running and dangerous experiment, there is other experimental evidence that human activity is causing global warming. Computer models have been built that, in effect, create a 'new world', that can be used to test these sorts of hypotheses. These sorts of studies are confirming and predicting global warming due to CO2 rises. They predict the sorts of temperature rises, on average, that will occur. They have been going on for 30 years, and predicting the sorts of temperature rises we are seeing. So, they are pretty good evidence that CO2 is causative of global warming. Again, that CO2 rise is caused by human activity is not disputed.
Now, you can call me a believer in the 'religion of science' again, but you need to start someplace. You can't be like Descarte, and deny everything, or you get nowhere, or worse, think you've proved the existence of God. My religion, if it is a religion, is that science gets it right much more often than it gets it wrong. It often will get stuck on issues, mainly due to incorrect theoretical explanations, but those incorrect explanations are mostly due to missing facts. As new facts come in, they figure things out, and create a better theory, and the scientific community comes to accept it (perhaps a funeral at a time, as Max Planck quipped). As more observations come in, the theories get better and better. So, yes, I believe what scientists tell me. I have no way to disprove them, and less inclination to try. Their work has made me very comfortable.
The only real puzzle here is how the Koch brothers have managed to convince so much of the population to disbelieve the science, which is in fact as certain as these sorts of things get. They have connected denial of human caused global warming to political belief in a way that makes people who vote republican disbelieve it on an unprecedented scale. This is similar to the belief, after even Bush had disavowed it, that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. It becomes part of the lore of the tribe, and must be protected as a sort of badge of membership. Very clever, but ultimately the millions of deaths projected in this century (estimates are 150,000 people a year being killed by climate change right NOW) will expose them as the villains that they really are.
I would like to thank you. I was dismissive of your views earlier in the thread, and your responses have caused me to read up on the science a bit, something t
That's certainly a *requirement* for AGW to be true, but your prediction does not rule out *natural* increase in heat in the atmosphere and *naturally* stronger storms.
Except the lag shows causality going *from* temperature changes *to* CO2 levels. It's in the wrong direction for your hypothesis.
sez you
How about "It often snows in the winter in new hampshire"? There is a climate prediction that is pretty reliable, despite the fact that the climate is a 'chaotic, stochastic' system.
That's a perfect example, actually - it's not the *prediction* that makes a hypothesis scientific or not, since of course, *anyone* can make a prediction. Astrologists make predictions all the time, and you know what, they even make *correct* predictions. This doesn't make astrology science, though.
What you fail to understand is the concept of *falsifiability*. Your hypothesis must have some set of observations that would reject it, and a logical foundation for assuming that *without* those observations, your hypothesis is the only thing that could possibly be true.
Ah, sophistry! Time to get out the hemlock. Your claim is that in order for something to 'be science', that there must be a hypothesis, a null hypothesis, and some experiments that can contradict the hypothesis (with some level of probablility, but you actually didn't say that anywhere). Is this the only definition? I suspect there are other ways to argue that something is true. For example, you could collect hundreds of thousands of samples, and after analysis, determine that they all seem to possess some property. Take the electrical conductivity of copper. After testing your hundreds of thousands of samples of copper for conductivity, you can assert with some confidence that ALL copper is conductive. However, your null hypothesis (that copper is NOT conductive) cannot be ruled out, because you haven't actually tested EVERY bit of copper everywhere. There is no experiment that can be performed to rule that out, other than testing all copper. So, that isn't science?
Here is another example. I claim that the sun will come up tomorrow. How can I prove that is true in a scientific way? Well, the simple answer is that, given your narrow definition of science, I really can't prove it at all. (As Hume said, 'it is just one damned thing after another'). Every day is a new experiment that can show that my hypothesis is falsified. But, I can't actually run any experiments to falsify that unless I am NASA. Given what I have, I can't test. So, by your narrow definition of scientific truth, it is not a scientific fact that the sun will rise tomorrow.
Another example is evolution. I assert that evolution causes change in species, and that all species evolved by natural selection. What is the null hypothesis? That evolution by natural selection is not occurring. Well, observations indicate that it is occurring. If you line up fossil lines, you see clear patterns. However, fossils are fossils. The past is the past. You want experiments that would conclusively falsify it. Can you think of one? If not, do you also deny natural selection is 'scientific'?
Popper was attempting to solve the demarcation problem with the whole idea of falsifiability. That means that he was attempting to determine what was and was not science. In that, he excludes whole theories that contain no falsifiable statements, like astrology. He explicitly does NOT exclude possibly unfalsifiable statements, such as "Climate Change is caused by People". You appear to be attempting to prove that climate change, as a theory, is unscientific by claiming that there is no way to determine if it is
So do you deny that it's possible for observed climate variations in the 20th century to be predominantly natural?
No, I deny that it is anywhere near as probable as the hypothesis that it is caused by humans, as do most climate scientists.
I'm not a climate scientist.
And apparently not any type of scientist at all, being unable to understand the concept of falsifiability :)
Ah, ad hominim attack! good move. Next you'll insult my sister.
So, like many other religious followers, you've outsourced your thinking to others. I'm sure priests and popes have been studying God for their entire careers, and many of the followers tend to believe what they say because they trust in their authority.
That's not science.
You are posing here. Please indicate your credentials. You seem to be implying that you are up to date on the relevant papers. Well, quote some. Some that were NOT funded by Koch or the petroleum institute.
My null hypothesis is that most scientists actually care about the truth
That's not a null hypothesis at all. Your *proposed* hypothesis is that most scientists actually care about the truth. The null hypothesis is that there is no particular relationship between being a scientist and caring about the truth.
Now, just try for a moment to think of observations that would falsify your proposed hypothesis. Can you name some?
Sigh. My proposed hypothesis is that I'm not arguing with a wall. Sadly, the null hypothesis is probably going to win here.
The problem is, you've picked a topic (climate) that is both chaotic and stochastic. That means that precise starting conditions can cause *wild* variations in end state (as say, the 50,000th significant digit somewhere eventually becomes significant), on top of being inherently unpredictable. Your first order approximation means nothing to a chaotic function.
Sorry, this is just wrong. The fact that weather can't be predicted in the short term does not imply that climate trends can't be predicted. How about "more heat in the atmosphere, stronger storms". There, that is a prediction that has been borne out by evidence. How about 'More carbon dioxide means higher temperatures"? That has been borne out by ice core studies. How about "It often snows in the winter in new hampshire"? There is a climate prediction that is pretty reliable, despite the fact that the climate is a 'chaotic, stochastic' system.
Actually, I didn't assert anything. I pointed out that there is no good alternative, at least that I know of. Deniers like you have been pounding on this, with good financial support, for many years, and still have not come up with a reasonable alternative. That, of course, doesn't mean there is no reasonable alternative. It only means that the current state of the art is that there is a preponderance of evidence suggesting that carbon dioxide is causing climate change.
I'm not a climate scientist. I watch the news, and tend to believe what these guys, who have been studying this for their entire careers tell me. My null hypothesis is that most scientists actually care about the truth, and that the Koch brothers have a profit motive to support pseudo-science and propaganda that prevents an obvious threat from being addressed by legislation. Disprove that.
Continuing the off-topic thread, I believe that draconian programs to control population are not going to be successful. However, it is a fact that if women are given control over their reproductive rights, population stops increasing, and in many cases, begins to decline. So, a better way to go is to empower women. Look here
Me. I ask for a necessary and falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, and despite hundreds of thousands of comments from true believers, not a single one has managed to quote or cite any such thing.
Please, if you're able to, explain what observations of CO2 and temperature, past, present or future, that would cause you to reconsider your current beliefs, and why the lack of those observations must lead us *only* to believe in your particular conceit.
If there was a credible hypothesis that explained the current measurements, which does not conflict with existing scientific knowledge, and does not cite global scientific conspiracies, somebody would have come up with it by now. There has been no lack of trying. Scientists make their careers by doing this sort of thing. The Koch brothers have been funding these guys for decades now, and, well, they've come up empty.
'Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth.' Sherlock Holmes Quote -The Sign of Four Chapter 1: "The Science of Deduction"
The USGUMMIT can spy on you, but it can't really do anything to you unless you come here. Sadly, they have all US citizens here already, under their control. If they suddenly decide that they don't like people who wear plaid (and who could blame them?) they can start decrypting orders from amazon, and begin arresting folks who have bought such things in the past. They can't really do that to people outside of the US, since your own gummit would probably object.
electric typewriters? Ha! Also, if you copy the document, you are out of luck; modern xerox machines can keep digital copies of everything they duplicate. Also, if the spooks have sonic access to the typewriters, they can probably figure out much of what is being typed, given enough samples.
Face it, given enough energy and time, nobody can win here. There is only one real solution: have no secrets.
Ah, so the NSA doesn't have root access to kernel.org's servers? If they've tweaked the compilers they use to generate the source in the way Thompson suggests, nobody except the tweakers would ever know. You could scan the source from top to bottom and never see anything wrong.
THIS is the 1%. These are the perpetrators of NSA surveillance, to further their needs...NOT yours. People with connections to these firms need to be removed from any position of power, especially government. Their future actions need to be monitored by the rest of society, if for no other reason then to limit their power.
While this may all be true, there is really nothing you can do about it. They own you and your kids, and they will continue to own you and your kids. All you can really do is keep your head under the radar, and hope to hell they don't spot you. If they do, they have cyber weapons, armies, crime organizations, banks (but I repeat myself) and police to deal with you.
In order to win, you need to play another game. They already have all the property, and have hotels on all of them. The best you can do is concede, and try another game. There are lots of them to choose from. Religion, Science, Philosophy, Sports. Maybe even sailing, running, hiking. You and I, however, are never going to win at their game, which is Monopoly, until this civilization turns belly up. And then, you'll probably be excluded as well, because whoever takes charge will keep you out of their club, which typically consists of the folks who are the most ruthless. Chances are, you are not one of them.
Interesting side note. Turns out that genetic testing concludes that most europeans today come from the stock of kings. If you are from Mongolia, you are quite likely to be descended from Genghis Khan. Poor people just don't survive as well as the 1%. That means breeding, as a game, is probably also lost to you as well, since the poor will starve, or maybe be eaten in whatever apocalypse comes next.
Federal money subsidises states to a very large degree. During the economic meltdown, my state (California) had its federal budget slashed, causing the state to clobber basic services (like education spending). This is called the federal allotment. Look here for more information.
Here is the breakdown of federal spending:
Defense - 19%
Medicare/Medicaid - 21%
Safety net programs - 12%
Interest on Debt - 6%
Benefits for federal retirees and veterans - 7%
Transportation and Infrastructure - 3%
Education - 2%
Science and Medical Research - 2%
Non security international: 1%
All other - 5%
This is based on 2012 estimates by the center on budget and policy priorities
Posting this is putting the illuminati in danger. You will be dealt with.
Look here. The US has been a bad guy for many, many years. The last three years have been better than average, I suspect. We've drawn down involvement in illegal wars abroad, and tried to be pro-democracy in the middle east, even against our real economic interests, or the interests of our allies.
Another interesting source (that I just watched on netflix) is here: William Colby. This guy was a real spook, was involved in OSS work during WWII, early vietnam, CIA director under Nixon and Ford, who basically came clean during the Ford administration to congress. Got fired because of it (they hired George HW Bush to replace him!). Think of the things the CIA was doing back then! Assassinations, overthrows of governments, covert shit we still don't know about, and probably never will.
The NSA thing is basically just business as usual. Nearly everybody in congress who had to know about it supports it. You don't think the CIA was tapping phones during the cold war? They just weren't as good at it. If tapping phones is the worst thing they do, I'd be amazed and pleased. If the Snowden release gives them a bit more trouble making mischief, enjoy the respite. They'll be back at it again next week.
The US has been an empire in the americas for a while now, like over 100 years. It has been pretty successful at subjugating central and south america, with the occasional noisy exception. And, like any real empire, we've beat the shit out of large groups of people, overthrown governments we didn't like, and basically acted like an outrageous bully, with nobody to call us on.
The current US foray into the middle east is due to the US being run for a while by a bunch of rich oil men, first with Bush 41, then again with Bush 43. We acted as their personal rentacops, opening up oil fields. Nothing more. There is really no strategic interest in the middle east that we can't buy at this point. War is just cheaper, at least for the oil guys.
Since the end of the cold war, this whole 'world policeman' role is new to us. In fact, the US is very isolationist; we give almost nothing in aid to most countries (per capita), compared to, say, Sweden. Our presidents have had to lie us into every war we've become involved in, other than perhaps Korea. We could mostly care less when millions of people were slaughtered in places like Rwanda or Somalia. That is a job for the UN, right? That's what we pay them for (or don't pay them for).
So, the Syria crisis, and middle east in general, has nothing to do with our 'empire'. It is an annoyance to the current president. He doesn't want either side to win, but he doesn't want to seem like a wimp. So, he'll fire a few cruise missiles, with congress' approval, and go back to ignoring the bloodshed, which is actually in the interests of the US; either side winning is bad for our buddies in the region, so we need to even the odds some. It doesn't hurt that Obama can thumb his nose at Russia and Iran at the same time.
We aren't sending doctors, engineers, diplomats, or even well intentioned soldiers. We are sending supersonic robot bombs. Much cheaper, and as you say, it doesn't really matter what we do anyway.
The evidence points at a 'rogue' commander. That does not obviate Assad's responsibility in this matter. The weapons were available to commanders. They were fired from an area controlled by Assad into an area controlled by the rebels. The army took precautions, like wearing masks, before the attack, so they knew what was happening. The Assad side had been trying to clear this area for months without success.
Assad probably had no personal knowledge of the attack. However, it was his fault. He needs to be punished so that 'accidents' like this do not happen again.
Also, the US needs this war to last as long as possible, so that a negotiated settlement that keeps the WMD from the terrorist they are currently backing can be achieved.
I suspect that the current plan is to level the playing field with some surgical strikes, and let them fight for a few more years, wearing down both sides to a negotiated settlement.
This is NOT the humanitarian thing to do, and Obama knows that. Doing this will allow far more civilians to be killed, on both sides. However, it is probably the only way to prevent the sarin gas from being turned over to extremists, to be used in europe, israel, or the US. Assad is going to lose power. If we kick him out, the extremists will take power, and will then control whatever stockpiles he has. We can't side with Assad for obvious reasons. So, this is a smart compromise. It is horrific, but Kissinger would approve.