Yep so the largest mass migration ever in history is no problem. Good to know.
You erroneously believe that this is unprecedented. In fact, "migrations" of this scale and larger are currently happening, for reasons totally unrelated to climate change, and obviously you aren't even aware of them.
The majority of papers didn't agree, they took no position. The "consensus" that a subset of papers agree with is simply that human carbon emissions may have contributed to temperature increases in the 20th century, an absolutely trivial fact of no practical relevance by itself.
Except in case where it does, e.g. the one you live in, but apparently think is a Nazi/Communist conspiracy.
As I was saying: I like living in societies transformed by science, I do not like living in societies transformed by government mandate, whether that transformation is rooted in science or anything else. Governments have no business transforming societies. If they try to, disaster ensues.
So in your mind, the idea that Jews are inferior is rational and scientific?
Are you incapable of understanding basic written English? Are you so daft and unfamiliar with European and US history that a basic historical fact confuses you, namely the fact that racism, both in the US and Europe was widely advocated and justified by the science and scientists at the time?
My statement "Einstein left because the scientists in Germany had concluded that Jews were inferior human beings" should require no further elaboration.
Yes, it is necessary. I was saying that it isn't sufficient. Do you have trouble understanding the difference between "necessary" and "sufficient"?
and the higher the accuracy and more frequent the accuracy, such as with a number of climate models, the more likely, all else being equal, such a theory is correct.
Yes. And for climate models, there is exactly one data point: one prediction over the span of a few years, and the accuracy of that prediction has been low. Therefore, there is very little experimental support for climate
Researchers can construct new models or modify existing ones, make predictions about what One should find, say, in tree rings and/or ice cores and extrapolate if found to be accurate.
None of that has anything to do with testing the validity of climate models that people are actually using to forecast climate change over the next 100 years.
Based on this statement, I will go out on a proverbial limb and say You are not that familiar with what Social Scientists, Economists, or Political Scientists actually do.
It is irrelevant what they "actually do" in general. The question is whether they can answer the specific questions of their disciplines related to climate modeling using the scientific method, and they cannot; that's not a judgment about their disciplines, it's a simple observations about the questions involved.
Ah, so you're not going to have to move population centres (i.e. rebuild) for billions within 100-200 years then. Nice to know.
No, of course, you don't "have to move them", they move themselves quite naturally and gradually to where they find the best jobs and homes, like they always do.
So? about 45% of Americans apparently believe in creationism too. That doesn't make them right.
No, but they have a right to be wrong.
Do you see how that sentence says nothing, not one little tiny thing at all about government regulation?
Congratulations on your attempt at hair splitting and demagoguery. Now knock it off.
The hominid line started about 14 million years ago.
The ice caps first started forming something like 30-40 million years ago.
There was a period of glaciation about 30Ma ago, then thawing for about 15Ma, and slow reglaciation around 12Ma ago. The Quarternary glaciation, when the current permanent ice sheets appeared in the Antarctic, started 2.58Ma ago.
Same thing as a "proven soccer player" or a "proven hairdresser": a theory that delivers good, reliable results in many independent tests.
The A part of AGW is plausible, there's an obvious causal chain, it conforms to observed fact, and nobody's found any other satisfactory explanation. That's about as proven as they get.
I said that: points (1-3) are "mostly accepted".
Nevertheless, that is far from "as proven as they get". Most scientific theories have withstood thousands of independent experiments under a wide variety of conditions. A single observation for which people have found no better explanation is exceptionally weak as far as support for a theory goes.
Not at all. It is the attempt to transform a society based on science that is the hallmark of fascism and communism. The problem with it is that it never succeeds. Science ends up being and corrupted by such attempts.
Got it. I guess that means Einstein was a Nazi collaborator?
Einstein left because the scientists in Germany had concluded that Jews were inferior human beings and Germany's rational, scientific society acted upon that belief. That's the kind of thing that happens when you try to use science as the basis of government: it doesn't result in better government, it merely corrupts science.
Am I a Nazi or a Communist?
I suspect you're ideologically closer to fascism than communism, but differences are minor.
For example, while Newton's theory of gravity did not jibe exactly with experimental results due to, say, wind resistance, the predictions were "close enough" to results for Others to accept the theory
As I was saying, it is not about accuracy. Experiments verifying Newton's theory can be carried out independently by anybody anywhere under a wide range of conditions, requiring no reliance on anybody else's data or devices. That's why people accepted it. That is not true for climate change research. And predictions 10 years out tell us nothing about whether the models are going to be true 100 years out: completely different and untested conditions.
Social science is a science, as are economics and political science.
Questions 5-7 are not scientific questions because they can't be answered using the scientific method. Whether practitioners of those disciplines fancy themselves "scientists" is irrelevant.
Scientific societies are just groups of people interested in a common subject and maybe with some minimal credentials. What makes you think they have any authority? Have you ever been a member of a scientific society?
Only in crazy loopy stenvar world does having to move a few billion people over the course of a century or so count as "not a problem".
The only place "a few billion people move over the course of a century" is to their grave.
You can continue your crazy quest to insist that everything's OK
The world has many problems. You aren't going to fix them through crazy regulations. In any case, at least half of Americans seem to agree with my position, namely that nothing should be done for now.
Lead was eliminated from gasoline (and our air) by government mandate. The same goes for keeping mercury and other crap out of our water.
Regulation of the emission of clearly toxic heavy metals with short term effects is in no way analogous to proposed climate change regulations. Furthermore, those regulations didn't "transform society", they just substituted one product for another, indistinguishable one.
go move to some communist country toxic hellhole city in China or Russia where society polluting HASN'T transformed by government mandate.
Government mandates is why Chinese cities are toxic hellholes. You may live in a fantasy world where governments pass regulations that are good for the public and everybody just follows them, but in the real world, regulations are subject to regulatory capture.
They specifically point out that even if Site X has a legitimate reason to have that personal information online, it does not automatically mean that Service Y (in this case, Google), has a legitimate reason to process that data in the ways they do.
After the speech police, you get the thought police in Europe: you need to justify to police and judges even why you think about something; restricting what you are allowed to say isn't enough.
Site X will still be available. It might not be easy to find it, of course, but cue the "the internet routes around censorship" mantra.
The way this works is that there are jurisdictions who don't have such stupid laws and people put up servers there to ignore those laws. But the fact that people can escape a dystopia doesn't make the dystopia itself good.
Yep and it was fine. Although the majority of the world's 7 billion people lived then as now within the region as to be flooded, the ancients fuilt an impressive series of damns and force-fields, the archaeological evidence of which can clearly be seen.
Billions of people are going to be flooded by a few feet of sea level rise over a century? How exactly does that work? Do you imagine people as trees, planted in the ground, unable to move, but living for centuries? Or do you imagine some evil villain melting the polar ice caps with his giant laser beams? What kind of bizarre fictional world do you live in?
People live where they do because coastal areas are a good place to live. Sea level rise and climate change by their nature are so slow that people adapt to it without even noticing and without any significant cost: their children simply settle somewhere else than where they grew up, something they already do for many other reasons. New York City may disappear entirely and Barrow may become a megacity, you know, like so many other cities have done. You have to have an extremely childish world view to think that that's a problem.
Just 180 years ago, atmospheric CO2 was about 280 ppm. Now it's 400ppm, certainly higher than it has been in nearly 1 million years, and probably higher than any level in the last 20 million years.
And about 20000 years ago, global temperatures were several degrees lower, sea levels were hundreds of feet lower, and large parts of the US and Europe were covered in ice. So what? We live on a dynamic planet.
Most of the fossil fuel carbon was in the atmosphere at once during the carboniferous era when we had, when life was lush and abundant. What are you worried about?
The Arctic Ice Cap is smaller than it has ever been in recorded history.
Good. If we're lucky the damned thing will melt away entirely. Mammals and primates were doing just fine without it through most of their existence.
I'll repeat what I said since apparently you have a psychosis that makes you imagine communists and nazis under every bed:
"Societies transformed by science" is exactly what Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were aiming for. On the other hand, there has never been a society successfully "transformed by science".
Having lived in communist countries and having relatives how lived under the Nazis, I don't have to imagine. And knowing a bit of history, I also know what leads there, and it starts with people like you.
That human activity is the primary cause of warming has been pretty well agreed on by the scientists involved, after repeated failure to come up with other satisfactory explanations
People think it's plausible. Heck, I think it's plausible. That's not a proven scientific theory.
As far as "devastating consequences" go, I haven't seen scientific claims of "devastating". Many of the consequences are going to be pretty bad, but they're hardly likely to end civilization.
More vagueness. In fact, the IPCC does make predictions, and even those aren't "pretty bad". Once you take into account that they are nearly a century from now, the rational thing is to do nothing.
More importantly, the actions proposed by progressives on AGW would almost certainly be counterprodutive: they are going to slow economic development, and thereby lead to more population growth, more fossil fuels use, and less rapid innovation.
We have to stop subsidising oil and apply the true cost of carbon. Then the market will take care of it. Global warming will do more to wreck the economy than anything we do to oil.
Even if it did, that's a century from now. Economically, you have to discount those costs by a factor of 1000. Is 1/1000th of the IPCC predicted costs worth worrying about? No.
We do not need it to prevent ice ages.
You don't understand. It's not about preventing ice ages. We are living in an ice age. We have been living in an ice age for the past 7 million years. The current climate is unusually cold for the planet. Even a complete melting of the polar ice caps would merely take us back to the normal state for mammals and primates.
We're currently in an ice age. The temperatures don't need to stabilize; it can get a lot warmer and we'll still be fine. After all, all that fossil fuel in the ground used to be carbon in the atmosphere, much of it at the same time.
We have to get off the drug of oil, which requires reengineering work, home, transport and many things that can't be done overnight easily.
The fastest way to do that is to stop subsidizing oil, loosen regulations on nuclear, and get out of the way. Trying to force a change in energy source through taxation and legislation is only going to wreck the economy and keep us dependent on fossil fuel longer.
We should be risk averse when it comes to global, irreparable changes.
I am quite risk averse: averse to the risk of war and economic collapse as a consequence of bad government policies.
Isn't it safer to try to limit the change?
No. History shows that humans cope quite well with climate change. Some of the biggest devastation in human history has been due to war and economic collapse, usually precipitated at the hand of centralized, overly powerful governments.
Additionally, science never "proves" anything; it only gathers a body of evidence to show a model is accurate to varying degrees.
I'm sorry you seem to have trouble with scientific terminology. When scientist informally talk about "proven theories", it doesn't mean "proven" in the mathematical sense, it simply means that a theory has very strong experimental support. (4-7) do not.
Such predictions have, to a noticeable extent been quite accurate so far,
It isn't sufficient for predictions to be accurate in order to support a scientific theory.
On points #5-7, the same statement about science "proving" anything applies
In fact, points 5-7 aren't scientific questions at all; they are questions about social science, economics, and politics.
Slashdot Mirror
You erroneously believe that this is unprecedented. In fact, "migrations" of this scale and larger are currently happening, for reasons totally unrelated to climate change, and obviously you aren't even aware of them.
No, sorry, not true. Check the original paper yourself:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748...
The majority of papers didn't agree, they took no position. The "consensus" that a subset of papers agree with is simply that human carbon emissions may have contributed to temperature increases in the 20th century, an absolutely trivial fact of no practical relevance by itself.
As I was saying: I like living in societies transformed by science, I do not like living in societies transformed by government mandate, whether that transformation is rooted in science or anything else. Governments have no business transforming societies. If they try to, disaster ensues.
Are you incapable of understanding basic written English? Are you so daft and unfamiliar with European and US history that a basic historical fact confuses you, namely the fact that racism, both in the US and Europe was widely advocated and justified by the science and scientists at the time?
My statement "Einstein left because the scientists in Germany had concluded that Jews were inferior human beings" should require no further elaboration.
Yes, it is necessary. I was saying that it isn't sufficient. Do you have trouble understanding the difference between "necessary" and "sufficient"?
Yes. And for climate models, there is exactly one data point: one prediction over the span of a few years, and the accuracy of that prediction has been low. Therefore, there is very little experimental support for climate
None of that has anything to do with testing the validity of climate models that people are actually using to forecast climate change over the next 100 years.
It is irrelevant what they "actually do" in general. The question is whether they can answer the specific questions of their disciplines related to climate modeling using the scientific method, and they cannot; that's not a judgment about their disciplines, it's a simple observations about the questions involved.
They are formulated by committees. They are subject to political pressures and peer pressures.
What they are not formulated by is a scientific process.
No, of course, you don't "have to move them", they move themselves quite naturally and gradually to where they find the best jobs and homes, like they always do.
No, but they have a right to be wrong.
Congratulations on your attempt at hair splitting and demagoguery. Now knock it off.
Sorry, but your numbers are wildly wrong.
Primates evolved at least 65 million years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
The hominid line started about 14 million years ago.
There was a period of glaciation about 30Ma ago, then thawing for about 15Ma, and slow reglaciation around 12Ma ago. The Quarternary glaciation, when the current permanent ice sheets appeared in the Antarctic, started 2.58Ma ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q...
Same thing as a "proven soccer player" or a "proven hairdresser": a theory that delivers good, reliable results in many independent tests.
I said that: points (1-3) are "mostly accepted".
Nevertheless, that is far from "as proven as they get". Most scientific theories have withstood thousands of independent experiments under a wide variety of conditions. A single observation for which people have found no better explanation is exceptionally weak as far as support for a theory goes.
Not at all. It is the attempt to transform a society based on science that is the hallmark of fascism and communism. The problem with it is that it never succeeds. Science ends up being and corrupted by such attempts.
Einstein left because the scientists in Germany had concluded that Jews were inferior human beings and Germany's rational, scientific society acted upon that belief. That's the kind of thing that happens when you try to use science as the basis of government: it doesn't result in better government, it merely corrupts science.
I suspect you're ideologically closer to fascism than communism, but differences are minor.
As I was saying, it is not about accuracy. Experiments verifying Newton's theory can be carried out independently by anybody anywhere under a wide range of conditions, requiring no reliance on anybody else's data or devices. That's why people accepted it. That is not true for climate change research. And predictions 10 years out tell us nothing about whether the models are going to be true 100 years out: completely different and untested conditions.
Questions 5-7 are not scientific questions because they can't be answered using the scientific method. Whether practitioners of those disciplines fancy themselves "scientists" is irrelevant.
Scientific societies are just groups of people interested in a common subject and maybe with some minimal credentials. What makes you think they have any authority? Have you ever been a member of a scientific society?
The only place "a few billion people move over the course of a century" is to their grave.
The world has many problems. You aren't going to fix them through crazy regulations. In any case, at least half of Americans seem to agree with my position, namely that nothing should be done for now.
Regulation of the emission of clearly toxic heavy metals with short term effects is in no way analogous to proposed climate change regulations. Furthermore, those regulations didn't "transform society", they just substituted one product for another, indistinguishable one.
Government mandates is why Chinese cities are toxic hellholes. You may live in a fantasy world where governments pass regulations that are good for the public and everybody just follows them, but in the real world, regulations are subject to regulatory capture.
After the speech police, you get the thought police in Europe: you need to justify to police and judges even why you think about something; restricting what you are allowed to say isn't enough.
The way this works is that there are jurisdictions who don't have such stupid laws and people put up servers there to ignore those laws. But the fact that people can escape a dystopia doesn't make the dystopia itself good.
Billions of people are going to be flooded by a few feet of sea level rise over a century? How exactly does that work? Do you imagine people as trees, planted in the ground, unable to move, but living for centuries? Or do you imagine some evil villain melting the polar ice caps with his giant laser beams? What kind of bizarre fictional world do you live in?
People live where they do because coastal areas are a good place to live. Sea level rise and climate change by their nature are so slow that people adapt to it without even noticing and without any significant cost: their children simply settle somewhere else than where they grew up, something they already do for many other reasons. New York City may disappear entirely and Barrow may become a megacity, you know, like so many other cities have done. You have to have an extremely childish world view to think that that's a problem.
Almost everybody you listed is not an authority on the matter.
The problem is that you misrepresent an obfuscate what scientists and science says.
And about 20000 years ago, global temperatures were several degrees lower, sea levels were hundreds of feet lower, and large parts of the US and Europe were covered in ice. So what? We live on a dynamic planet.
Most of the fossil fuel carbon was in the atmosphere at once during the carboniferous era when we had, when life was lush and abundant. What are you worried about?
Good. If we're lucky the damned thing will melt away entirely. Mammals and primates were doing just fine without it through most of their existence.
I guess your posting meets the criteria for "scientific proof by vigorous assertion and appeal to authority".
"Societies transformed by science" is exactly what Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were aiming for. On the other hand, there has never been a society successfully "transformed by science".
Having lived in communist countries and having relatives how lived under the Nazis, I don't have to imagine. And knowing a bit of history, I also know what leads there, and it starts with people like you.
People think it's plausible. Heck, I think it's plausible. That's not a proven scientific theory.
More vagueness. In fact, the IPCC does make predictions, and even those aren't "pretty bad". Once you take into account that they are nearly a century from now, the rational thing is to do nothing.
More importantly, the actions proposed by progressives on AGW would almost certainly be counterprodutive: they are going to slow economic development, and thereby lead to more population growth, more fossil fuels use, and less rapid innovation.
Even if it did, that's a century from now. Economically, you have to discount those costs by a factor of 1000. Is 1/1000th of the IPCC predicted costs worth worrying about? No.
You don't understand. It's not about preventing ice ages. We are living in an ice age. We have been living in an ice age for the past 7 million years. The current climate is unusually cold for the planet. Even a complete melting of the polar ice caps would merely take us back to the normal state for mammals and primates.
Have you ever looked at a temperature graph?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
We're currently in an ice age. The temperatures don't need to stabilize; it can get a lot warmer and we'll still be fine. After all, all that fossil fuel in the ground used to be carbon in the atmosphere, much of it at the same time.
The fastest way to do that is to stop subsidizing oil, loosen regulations on nuclear, and get out of the way. Trying to force a change in energy source through taxation and legislation is only going to wreck the economy and keep us dependent on fossil fuel longer.
I am quite risk averse: averse to the risk of war and economic collapse as a consequence of bad government policies.
No. History shows that humans cope quite well with climate change. Some of the biggest devastation in human history has been due to war and economic collapse, usually precipitated at the hand of centralized, overly powerful governments.
I'm sorry you seem to have trouble with scientific terminology. When scientist informally talk about "proven theories", it doesn't mean "proven" in the mathematical sense, it simply means that a theory has very strong experimental support. (4-7) do not.
It isn't sufficient for predictions to be accurate in order to support a scientific theory.
In fact, points 5-7 aren't scientific questions at all; they are questions about social science, economics, and politics.
Why are you telling me? Do you have a point to make?