No COMMUNISM is when the Gov't owns the businesses. Socialism is making everyone "equal" via wealth transfer from those who have the wealth to those who do not.
Sorry, wrong again!
Although I would not want to argue that the dictionary definition is the final word, here's what the OED has to say:
socialism
1. A theory or policy of social organization which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all.
2. A state of society in which things are held or used in common.
And please don't tell me what Wikipedia says as I'm too busy to correct it right at the moment.:p
Communism in fact (as you should know from your reading of Marx), is a putative stateless society which comes about because private property has been abolished and the state, being nothing but "a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie" (Marx), having lost its reason for existence simply "fades away," (or so the story goes). Communists regard Socialism is a "transitional state," where the proletariat capture the bourgeios state (the "dictatorship of the proletariat") and turn it to its own ends to pave the way for the emergence of the communist utopia.
You will notice the the party that ran the Soviet Union was called the Communist Party, yet the various Soviet Republics were called Soviet Socialist Republics. Now you know the reason why.
Business can refuse service to anyone they want, excepting reasons of sex, race, sexual preference and veteran status.
Hello? We're not in Kansas anymore! We're in Germany!
Thats socialism not capitalism.
No socialism is when the government owns businesses, capitalism is when they regulate them. This is definitely a case of regulation, though I believe in times past the relevant corporation (Deutsche Telecom) was government owned.
>>?"Of course proving the non-existence of God is equally impossible."
Not exactly a point for God. Proving the non-existence of gruphhalumph is equally impossible too.
Which is, of course, why the onus of proof falls on the person making an assertion (eg the existence of God), rather than denying that assertion.
Remind me... are these the same scientists, or different ones, that attested with equal certainty as to human activity causing Global Cooling?
Different ones. Also there were a handful of climatologists calling cooling (judging by the infamous Newsweek article, I still have not been shown a peer-reviewd paper arguing cooling), almost the entire profession agree that we are facing a warming trend, plus that it is man-made.
See this is how it works. In the 70s a handful of climatologists (contra the mainstream of the profession) argued for global cooling. In the 90s a handful of climatologists (contra the mainstream) argued that Global Warming was not occuring. In both these instances the mainstream of the profession was proved correct.
There is still NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that the temperature changes we're seeing nowadays aren't part of some long term cyclical effect that we haven't yet been able to detect
That is quite true. In fact evidence disproving something we aren't able to detect is difficult to find at the best of times. It is just as true to point out that there is still NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that the temperature changes we're seeing aren't being caused by heat rays emitted by flying saucers we haven't yet been able to detect, belonging to an alient species we haven't yet been able to detect.
Fortunately Science doesn't spend too much time trying to find evidence to disprove the undetectable. There being, as you point out, no evidence (either way) of some undetected (or undetectable) long term cyclical change, we will have to consider other causes for "the temperature changes we're seeing nowadays." As it happens anthropgenic greenhouse gases (AGGs) go some way towards filling that gap. So much so that we are now 90% certain that AGGs are a major cause of the currently observed (for which see the SPM to the IPCC's AR4.)
It might have been interesting to have a back-and-forth with you, but when somebody calls me a "denier," suggesting that my skepticism about AGW can in any way be compared with holocaust denial
You are no skeptic! Just look at the uncritical way you lapped up Svensmark's work along with the claim that this somehow invalidated the (by now well-established) role of human activity in GW! Was your skepticism on holidays?
Skeptics are more likely to accept scientific orthodoxy while rejecting pseudo=science, fringe science and conspiracy theories. GW denialists do the exact opposite.
I wouldn't accuse you of holocaust denial though. More like being in denial when you've just been told you have terminal cancer, and you are willing to grasp at any pseudo=scientific cure which promises complete remission.
Suppose the mechanism for global-warming is a natural(i.e. not caused by industrialization) and self stabilizing process.
But we know with 90% confidence that it isn't natural (ie it has been caused by industrialisation). Why would we want to make such a fancyful supposition?!
That being said, we don't have to go around making counter-factual assumptions to be extremely worried about the unanticipated effects of taking "aggressive and irreversible" steps to cool the planet down.
Please guys there is nothing insightful about this post whatsoever. In the first place it merely cut and pasted an article from elsewhere (how much insight does that require?) Secondly Calder's article has already been debunked.
The Svensmark experiment was doing the rounds 6 months ago. Are the Denialists running out of steam?
This is an EU political story that does not belong on slashdot at all.
True it has been mislabeled and doesn't belong in the 'Politics' section however the FAQ also says
Slashdot is U.S.-centric. We readily admit this, and really don't see it as a problem. Slashdot is run by Americans, after all, and the vast majority of our readership is in the U.S. We're certainly not opposed to doing more international stories, but we don't have any formal plans for making that happen. All we can really tell you is that if you're outside the U.S. and you have news, submit it, and if it looks interesting, we'll post it.
This looks like an interesting story, which is technology related. It probably won't cause too much psychic distress, even for US residents, to keep informed about how the internet is being regulated in other jurisdicitions.
See this is the problem when you put a site up on the big bad internet --you are publishing internationally and your audience will be an international one (unless you have specifically restricted access). What's more some of these nasty foreigners will have the impertinence to answer back via commenting mechanisms or, horror of horrors, to submit content. So deal with it!... or if you don't want to, just skip over the stories you have no interest in reading... works for me!
Expensive relative to what? Relative to fossil fuel power?
There is a crowd (which I'm not saying you are part of) which understands the need to eliminate the use of fossil fuels, but at the same time can't get around their distrust of nuclear energy (which was unfortunately introduced to humanity as a WMD). But to argue both that we need (sensibly) to stop burning coal and oil, and that we can't use nuclear energy as a replacement because it isn't economically viable, seems like wanting to have one's cake and eat it to.
I then asked him whether he thought it was a good idea to have corporations considered "persons" in a court of law... I then asked him whether he thought it was a good idea to have corporations considered "persons" in a court of law. He said that he'd never thought about it.
I'm not an American lawyer, but I hope this in some way redresses your "Professor's"... um... lack of reflection?
The fact that a corporation is a legal person is the very criterium by which a corporation is defined (limited liability is itself the result of such personality). Being a person allows a corporation to own property in it's own right, sue and be sued in its own name etc.
Before the development of the Corporate form (ie. a company with legal personality), the the joint stock company (a kind of giant partnership) was the predominant form of organising shareholders. This was dangerous for shareholders since they were jointly and severally liable (ie. any damage comitted could be recouped from a single shareholder, all of the shareholders, or anything in between). This did not make investing in overly large companies particularly enticing. When it became necessary to raise large sums to fund the massive capital development which we know as the Industrial Revolution, Parliament addressed this impediment by creating the Corporate form, that is to say a company with legal personality, which could deal in its own name, and take the wrap for any wrongdoing on its part.
This history is instructive in two ways. Firstly it demonstrates that our way of life is predicated on the Corporate form. Corporations, though their influence is occasionally (some might say largely) negative, are necessary (well at least if we want to live in the kinds of mercantile culture we inhabit, and enjoy the standard of living this entails). Secondly, there is absolutely nothing natural about corporations (even in the way a partnership might be described as 'natural').
Corporations are creatures of Parliament. They were created for the social benefit they bequeath, and they were granted limited liability, which is in effect a cost imposed upon everyone else in society. In other words it is a quid pro quo. Consequently there can be no objection to the regulation of corporations, as if this constituted intervention into some natural right of individuals to form corporations. Indeed, when the sacrifice made by society, (in terms of limited liability, lower tax rates etc.) is not being returned by corporations, when the mischief the corporation makes is greater than the mischief Parliament sought to cure, then Parliament ought to address the regulation of corporations. Needless to say, such regulation, must not strangle the goose that laid the golden egg.
It's essentially the default theory - it has been studied for decades and everytime someone increases the CO2 levels in a greenhouse the plants grow better than the control greenhouse. It's been done thousands of times.
There's no dispute here that CO2 encourages plant growth. However, the effect of increasing C02 on a global level (ie not just in a greenhouse) has now been studied for decades as well. Despite many remaining uncertainties, there is general agreement about expected climatic changes. (So much so that we seen downward revisions being made of some prior predictions, ie. the observation that sealevels will not rise as much as previously expected reflects an increasing precisions of the modelling.) This general agreement is now the "default theory." The rosy scenario painted by OP doesn't agree with with the null hypothesis.
Do you require people to provide references when they claim the Earth orbits the sun due to gravity as well?
Firstly I did not require people to provide references, OP did that. I merely pointed out he was not entitled to ask for them. (And in fact on precisely the same basis you raise). What OP essentially did was make a claim outside our current scientific understanding, like "the sun revolves around the earth" (to use your example), when someone told him that was wrong, he demanded references. As you point out you shouldn't need to reestablish factoids that are generally accepted among experts in the field, a fortiori when it is you who are making some positive assertion which disagrees (which is not to say it is incorrect) with current thought.
Of course while it's the default theory, it can crumble if further evidence is found.
Exactly, the null hypothesis moves with increasing scientific understanding. In terms of GW, the default theory is conveniently summed up in the IPCC reports, which are the subject of this topic. Nobody's modelling is coming up with a "More crops, more habitable lands" scenario, and it cannot in any way be considered the default theory at this time (as nice as it would be if it turns out to be true).
At least is a reasonable conjecture, while the opposite idea just flies in the face of logic.
You seemed to have missed my point, which was one of logic, not of climatology. You are the person making a positive assertion, you are the person upon whom the onus of proof falls. Thus it is not open to you to argue that someone who does not buy (what you have now admitted to be) your unsubstantiated conjecture needs to provide references. They don't - you do.
>Global warming does not imply more crops, or more habitable lands. It implies less.
Sorry, but I can't take your word for it. I would need references.
Since you kicked off this discussion with the claim that global warming does imply more crops, the onus is actually on you to provide the references. Affirmanti non neganti incumbit probatio and all that (excuse my Latin spelling).
So where are your references?
The idea that Global Warming will result in more crops is pure conjecture on your part lacking any supporting evidence. It's a bogus claim, now put up, or get back into your box!
Just checked Wikipedia, according to which we are both correct. He invented the seed drill and...
... also advocated the use of horses over oxen, invented a horse-drawn hoe for clearing weeds, and made changes to the design of the plough which are still visible in modern versions.
I think it was actually the hoe I was thinking of, having seen a pic of some such thing in a history book way back at school... which was about the same time that Jethro Tull were having their hay day.
Supposedly the bible states that you are not to judge other people, you are to "turn the other cheek". But then jesus contradicts this by supposedly saying that "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"
Could you point me to the place where the words "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" emmanate from Jesus' mouth? You can't, of course, because that quote is from Exodus. Now unless you accept the unity of YHVH (the one who wanted witches killed) and Jesus as part of the Holy Trinity, which apparently you don't, you can hardly say that Jesus contradicted himself there, can you?
Instead of getting rid of the greenhouse gases, we are going to continue to literally mask the problem.
And think of the potential. Countries like China, could claim carbon credits for the copious particulate matter they produce, thus cancelling out their escalting C02 emissions! I hope Cutzen's attempts to "startle policy makers" doesn't backfire in this fashion.
Next we'll have some bright spark suggesting using Nuclear Winter, in a similar fashion. You know kill two birds with one stone... take out the largest fossil fuel burning population centres and cool the planet at the same time. Ooops, I just suggested it, didn't I?
I'm sorry, I completely misread your as saying the science...
Back in my university days circa 1978, I did a bit of research and computer modeling on the effects of increasing CO2 concentrations on global temperatures some 14 years before Al Gore invented global warming.
Kudos to you... also I didn't realise that Gore invented global warming all the way back in '92, for myself I only became seriously (to the point of reading the literature) involved with it in '89. As I recall there was still a lively debate concerning inter alia heat island effects, which was being published, but perhaps I should actually take the time to search for some, before I commit to that...;) I'm no longer seriously involved in the science, but in perusing the abstracts recently I'm struck by the fact that the debate has moved on from whether it is happening, and whether anthropogenic contributions are significant, to largely cataloging localised instances of climatic change.
The science-by-consensus argument to the exclusion of all other viewpoints is fallacious. From Wikipedia, which I might add, has one of the best explanations of the scientific method that I've seen:
There we will have to part company, unfortunately I read Feyerabend a too young an age and it has permanently warped my mind. I don't accept that science is defined by any putative 'scientific method,' nor that Popperian falsificationism is an apt description of science (neither of which is to denigrate the experimental method, nor the desirability of falsifiable predicitons). On the other hand, pointing out that consensus has pretty much been achieved (twas not always so) on the questions of warming and the (at least partially) anthropogenic nature thereof, shouldn't be read as proffering a "science-by-consensus argument" (if by that you mean Kuhnian paradigm theory).
Yes, I personally believe that the increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere from pre-industrial levels is man-made. I also believe that increasing concentrations of CO2 will lead to increase warming. How much of a warming is open to debate as it has always has been from day one. What is less settled are the global and local effects of this warming.
We are of one mind on that then (although I still entertain the possibility that non-human sources of CO2 are additionally responsible).
I'm perfectly willing to admit that I could be wrong... are you?
More than perfectly willing, I genuinely hope that I am wrong! Unfortunately, living in Australia, that seems a hope that becoming increasingly difficult to sustain.
The relevance is that for years you could hardly find anything published in reputable peer reviewed journals supporting the theory that ulcers are bacterial in origin, despite the fact that the theory was correct. He was illustrating that your challenge does not carry the weight you'd like it to, given that peer reviewed journals have in the past shown egregious and irrefutable bias against theories that upset the status quo, even when they're true.
If that was his case, you have put it far more effectively then he was able to. So much so that I concede that what he wrote is not invalid for lack of relevance, but rather because it is a tendency argument. It is also demonstrably untrue. If Nature rejected McIntyre and McKitrick's paper, then Geophysical Research Letters accepted it. (Though admittedly McIntyre and McKitrck aren't really scientitsts this represents the best answer to my challenge;) since Feb 2005 might still be counted as "current") There are a lot of journals out there, which is why eventually "truth" will win through.
I never said that what is published is either unbiased or true, merely that it reflects the current scientific (as opposed to political) debate (or consensus). And please people do take a look at what is actually being written before you mischaracterise a debate. That being said a bias against theories which upset the status quo (providing such bias is not egregious, of course) isn't necessarily undesireable. I think conservatism in science is kind of a good thing.
Yes it was. After nearly a decade of repeated experimentation and rejected paper submissions, the medical science community finally accepted the truth.
These two sentences directly contradict one and other. Remember I asked whether "the effort to prevent disclosure... [was] ultimately successful?" Once again, despite initial conservatism, when there is work of worth, the status quo will eventually be revised. Although a decade represents probably too much conservatism in any particular field.
Oh give me a break! I have seen too many journals succumb to peer-pressure within nominally "scientific" areas such as computer science to believe that most journals are un-biased.
Which leaves you relying for your science on the Sunday Telegraph?
In any case you reply lacks any relevance. No claim was made that any particular journal, nor the entire world of journals was unbiased. I simply pointed out that you need to be reading journal papers (not the political press) to get an idea of where the scientific debate (or lack thereof) is at. The OP, in assuming that this issue is scientifically controversial, evidently has not.
BTW, was the "sustained amount of effort to prevent the disclosure of ulcers having a bacterial source" ultimately successful?
Slashdot Mirror
No COMMUNISM is when the Gov't owns the businesses. Socialism is making everyone "equal" via wealth transfer from those who have the wealth to those who do not.
Sorry, wrong again!
Although I would not want to argue that the dictionary definition is the final word, here's what the OED has to say:
socialism1. A theory or policy of social organization which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all.
2. A state of society in which things are held or used in common.
And please don't tell me what Wikipedia says as I'm too busy to correct it right at the moment. :p
Communism in fact (as you should know from your reading of Marx), is a putative stateless society which comes about because private property has been abolished and the state, being nothing but "a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie" (Marx), having lost its reason for existence simply "fades away," (or so the story goes). Communists regard Socialism is a "transitional state," where the proletariat capture the bourgeios state (the "dictatorship of the proletariat") and turn it to its own ends to pave the way for the emergence of the communist utopia.
You will notice the the party that ran the Soviet Union was called the Communist Party, yet the various Soviet Republics were called Soviet Socialist Republics. Now you know the reason why.
Business can refuse service to anyone they want, excepting reasons of sex, race, sexual preference and veteran status.
Hello? We're not in Kansas anymore! We're in Germany!
Thats socialism not capitalism.
No socialism is when the government owns businesses, capitalism is when they regulate them. This is definitely a case of regulation, though I believe in times past the relevant corporation (Deutsche Telecom) was government owned.
>>?"Of course proving the non-existence of God is equally impossible."
Not exactly a point for God. Proving the non-existence of gruphhalumph is equally impossible too.
Which is, of course, why the onus of proof falls on the person making an assertion (eg the existence of God), rather than denying that assertion.
Remind me... are these the same scientists, or different ones, that attested with equal certainty as to human activity causing Global Cooling?
Different ones. Also there were a handful of climatologists calling cooling (judging by the infamous Newsweek article, I still have not been shown a peer-reviewd paper arguing cooling), almost the entire profession agree that we are facing a warming trend, plus that it is man-made.
See this is how it works. In the 70s a handful of climatologists (contra the mainstream of the profession) argued for global cooling. In the 90s a handful of climatologists (contra the mainstream) argued that Global Warming was not occuring. In both these instances the mainstream of the profession was proved correct.
This recent article linking cosmic rays and global warming is the start.
This has already been debunked I'm afraid.
There is still NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that the temperature changes we're seeing nowadays aren't part of some long term cyclical effect that we haven't yet been able to detect
That is quite true. In fact evidence disproving something we aren't able to detect is difficult to find at the best of times. It is just as true to point out that there is still NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that the temperature changes we're seeing aren't being caused by heat rays emitted by flying saucers we haven't yet been able to detect, belonging to an alient species we haven't yet been able to detect.
Fortunately Science doesn't spend too much time trying to find evidence to disprove the undetectable. There being, as you point out, no evidence (either way) of some undetected (or undetectable) long term cyclical change, we will have to consider other causes for "the temperature changes we're seeing nowadays." As it happens anthropgenic greenhouse gases (AGGs) go some way towards filling that gap. So much so that we are now 90% certain that AGGs are a major cause of the currently observed (for which see the SPM to the IPCC's AR4.)
It might have been interesting to have a back-and-forth with you, but when somebody calls me a "denier," suggesting that my skepticism about AGW can in any way be compared with holocaust denial
You are no skeptic! Just look at the uncritical way you lapped up Svensmark's work along with the claim that this somehow invalidated the (by now well-established) role of human activity in GW! Was your skepticism on holidays?
Skeptics are more likely to accept scientific orthodoxy while rejecting pseudo=science, fringe science and conspiracy theories. GW denialists do the exact opposite.
I wouldn't accuse you of holocaust denial though. More like being in denial when you've just been told you have terminal cancer, and you are willing to grasp at any pseudo=scientific cure which promises complete remission.
BTW you did check out OP's link re cosmic rays (or the response the the Calder article), didn't you.
Suppose the mechanism for global-warming is a natural(i.e. not caused by industrialization) and self stabilizing process.
But we know with 90% confidence that it isn't natural (ie it has been caused by industrialisation). Why would we want to make such a fancyful supposition?!
That being said, we don't have to go around making counter-factual assumptions to be extremely worried about the unanticipated effects of taking "aggressive and irreversible" steps to cool the planet down.
Please guys there is nothing insightful about this post whatsoever. In the first place it merely cut and pasted an article from elsewhere (how much insight does that require?) Secondly Calder's article has already been debunked.
The Svensmark experiment was doing the rounds 6 months ago. Are the Denialists running out of steam?
This is an EU political story that does not belong on slashdot at all.
True it has been mislabeled and doesn't belong in the 'Politics' section however the FAQ also says
This looks like an interesting story, which is technology related. It probably won't cause too much psychic distress, even for US residents, to keep informed about how the internet is being regulated in other jurisdicitions.
See this is the problem when you put a site up on the big bad internet --you are publishing internationally and your audience will be an international one (unless you have specifically restricted access). What's more some of these nasty foreigners will have the impertinence to answer back via commenting mechanisms or, horror of horrors, to submit content. So deal with it! ... or if you don't want to, just skip over the stories you have no interest in reading ... works for me!
nuclear power is expensive. THAT is a problem
Expensive relative to what? Relative to fossil fuel power?
There is a crowd (which I'm not saying you are part of) which understands the need to eliminate the use of fossil fuels, but at the same time can't get around their distrust of nuclear energy (which was unfortunately introduced to humanity as a WMD). But to argue both that we need (sensibly) to stop burning coal and oil, and that we can't use nuclear energy as a replacement because it isn't economically viable, seems like wanting to have one's cake and eat it to.
I then asked him whether he thought it was a good idea to have corporations considered "persons" in a court of law ... I then asked him whether he thought it was a good idea to have corporations considered "persons" in a court of law. He said that he'd never thought about it.
I'm not an American lawyer, but I hope this in some way redresses your "Professor's" ... um ... lack of reflection?
The fact that a corporation is a legal person is the very criterium by which a corporation is defined (limited liability is itself the result of such personality). Being a person allows a corporation to own property in it's own right, sue and be sued in its own name etc.
Before the development of the Corporate form (ie. a company with legal personality), the the joint stock company (a kind of giant partnership) was the predominant form of organising shareholders. This was dangerous for shareholders since they were jointly and severally liable (ie. any damage comitted could be recouped from a single shareholder, all of the shareholders, or anything in between). This did not make investing in overly large companies particularly enticing. When it became necessary to raise large sums to fund the massive capital development which we know as the Industrial Revolution, Parliament addressed this impediment by creating the Corporate form, that is to say a company with legal personality, which could deal in its own name, and take the wrap for any wrongdoing on its part.
This history is instructive in two ways. Firstly it demonstrates that our way of life is predicated on the Corporate form. Corporations, though their influence is occasionally (some might say largely) negative, are necessary (well at least if we want to live in the kinds of mercantile culture we inhabit, and enjoy the standard of living this entails). Secondly, there is absolutely nothing natural about corporations (even in the way a partnership might be described as 'natural').
Corporations are creatures of Parliament. They were created for the social benefit they bequeath, and they were granted limited liability, which is in effect a cost imposed upon everyone else in society. In other words it is a quid pro quo. Consequently there can be no objection to the regulation of corporations, as if this constituted intervention into some natural right of individuals to form corporations. Indeed, when the sacrifice made by society, (in terms of limited liability, lower tax rates etc.) is not being returned by corporations, when the mischief the corporation makes is greater than the mischief Parliament sought to cure, then Parliament ought to address the regulation of corporations. Needless to say, such regulation, must not strangle the goose that laid the golden egg.
It's essentially the default theory - it has been studied for decades and everytime someone increases the CO2 levels in a greenhouse the plants grow better than the control greenhouse. It's been done thousands of times.
There's no dispute here that CO2 encourages plant growth. However, the effect of increasing C02 on a global level (ie not just in a greenhouse) has now been studied for decades as well. Despite many remaining uncertainties, there is general agreement about expected climatic changes. (So much so that we seen downward revisions being made of some prior predictions, ie. the observation that sealevels will not rise as much as previously expected reflects an increasing precisions of the modelling.) This general agreement is now the "default theory." The rosy scenario painted by OP doesn't agree with with the null hypothesis.
Do you require people to provide references when they claim the Earth orbits the sun due to gravity as well?
Firstly I did not require people to provide references, OP did that. I merely pointed out he was not entitled to ask for them. (And in fact on precisely the same basis you raise). What OP essentially did was make a claim outside our current scientific understanding, like "the sun revolves around the earth" (to use your example), when someone told him that was wrong, he demanded references. As you point out you shouldn't need to reestablish factoids that are generally accepted among experts in the field, a fortiori when it is you who are making some positive assertion which disagrees (which is not to say it is incorrect) with current thought.
Of course while it's the default theory, it can crumble if further evidence is found.
Exactly, the null hypothesis moves with increasing scientific understanding. In terms of GW, the default theory is conveniently summed up in the IPCC reports, which are the subject of this topic. Nobody's modelling is coming up with a "More crops, more habitable lands" scenario, and it cannot in any way be considered the default theory at this time (as nice as it would be if it turns out to be true).
At least is a reasonable conjecture, while the opposite idea just flies in the face of logic.
You seemed to have missed my point, which was one of logic, not of climatology. You are the person making a positive assertion, you are the person upon whom the onus of proof falls. Thus it is not open to you to argue that someone who does not buy (what you have now admitted to be) your unsubstantiated conjecture needs to provide references. They don't - you do.
No references are needed for this. Simple physics.
Sorry, must have posted before having my coffee ... I thought we were discussing planetary climatology with all the complexities that imports.
There is no conjecture, but that is how the laws of nature work. A warmer Earth is a more fruitful place for all.
Sorry but that is nothing but conjecture. I'll classify your opinions as unsubstantiated.
>Global warming does not imply more crops, or more habitable lands. It implies less.
Sorry, but I can't take your word for it. I would need references.
Since you kicked off this discussion with the claim that global warming does imply more crops, the onus is actually on you to provide the references. Affirmanti non neganti incumbit probatio and all that (excuse my Latin spelling).
So where are your references?
The idea that Global Warming will result in more crops is pure conjecture on your part lacking any supporting evidence. It's a bogus claim, now put up, or get back into your box!
Surely not someone advocating "Security through Obscurity" on Slashdot of all places?
You can frame it that way if you want to, but another way of looking at it is that we shouldn't be doing their brainwork for them.
Now these possibilities need to be considered by the intelligence community, but not all of them need to be communicated to the terrorists.
Just checked Wikipedia, according to which we are both correct. He invented the seed drill and ...
I think it was actually the hoe I was thinking of, having seen a pic of some such thing in a history book way back at school ... which was about the same time that Jethro Tull were having their hay day.
Who the fuck is "Jethro Tull"?
Some guy who invented some new type of plough in the early 1700s.
His point is that we can't just burn the methane, because that would produce water vapor and carbon dioxide, which hardly makes the problem better...
I'm sorry? Methane has a forcing potential of up to 24 times as much of CO2.
Supposedly the bible states that you are not to judge other people, you are to "turn the other cheek". But then jesus contradicts this by supposedly saying that "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"
Could you point me to the place where the words "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" emmanate from Jesus' mouth? You can't, of course, because that quote is from Exodus. Now unless you accept the unity of YHVH (the one who wanted witches killed) and Jesus as part of the Holy Trinity, which apparently you don't, you can hardly say that Jesus contradicted himself there, can you?
Instead of getting rid of the greenhouse gases, we are going to continue to literally mask the problem.
And think of the potential. Countries like China, could claim carbon credits for the copious particulate matter they produce, thus cancelling out their escalting C02 emissions! I hope Cutzen's attempts to "startle policy makers" doesn't backfire in this fashion.
Next we'll have some bright spark suggesting using Nuclear Winter, in a similar fashion. You know kill two birds with one stone ... take out the largest fossil fuel burning population centres and cool the planet at the same time. Ooops, I just suggested it, didn't I?
I was talking about science in general.
I'm sorry, I completely misread your as saying the science ...
Back in my university days circa 1978, I did a bit of research and computer modeling on the effects of increasing CO2 concentrations on global temperatures some 14 years before Al Gore invented global warming.Kudos to you ... also I didn't realise that Gore invented global warming all the way back in '92, for myself I only became seriously (to the point of reading the literature) involved with it in '89. As I recall there was still a lively debate concerning inter alia heat island effects, which was being published, but perhaps I should actually take the time to search for some, before I commit to that ... ;) I'm no longer seriously involved in the science, but in perusing the abstracts recently I'm struck by the fact that the debate has moved on from whether it is happening, and whether anthropogenic contributions are significant, to largely cataloging localised instances of climatic change.
The science-by-consensus argument to the exclusion of all other viewpoints is fallacious. From Wikipedia, which I might add, has one of the best explanations of the scientific method that I've seen:
There we will have to part company, unfortunately I read Feyerabend a too young an age and it has permanently warped my mind. I don't accept that science is defined by any putative 'scientific method,' nor that Popperian falsificationism is an apt description of science (neither of which is to denigrate the experimental method, nor the desirability of falsifiable predicitons). On the other hand, pointing out that consensus has pretty much been achieved (twas not always so) on the questions of warming and the (at least partially) anthropogenic nature thereof, shouldn't be read as proffering a "science-by-consensus argument" (if by that you mean Kuhnian paradigm theory).
Yes, I personally believe that the increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere from pre-industrial levels is man-made. I also believe that increasing concentrations of CO2 will lead to increase warming. How much of a warming is open to debate as it has always has been from day one. What is less settled are the global and local effects of this warming.
We are of one mind on that then (although I still entertain the possibility that non-human sources of CO2 are additionally responsible).
I'm perfectly willing to admit that I could be wrong ... are you?
More than perfectly willing, I genuinely hope that I am wrong! Unfortunately, living in Australia, that seems a hope that becoming increasingly difficult to sustain.
The relevance is that for years you could hardly find anything published in reputable peer reviewed journals supporting the theory that ulcers are bacterial in origin, despite the fact that the theory was correct. He was illustrating that your challenge does not carry the weight you'd like it to, given that peer reviewed journals have in the past shown egregious and irrefutable bias against theories that upset the status quo, even when they're true.
If that was his case, you have put it far more effectively then he was able to. So much so that I concede that what he wrote is not invalid for lack of relevance, but rather because it is a tendency argument. It is also demonstrably untrue. If Nature rejected McIntyre and McKitrick's paper, then Geophysical Research Letters accepted it. (Though admittedly McIntyre and McKitrck aren't really scientitsts this represents the best answer to my challenge ;) since Feb 2005 might still be counted as "current") There are a lot of journals out there, which is why eventually "truth" will win through.
I never said that what is published is either unbiased or true, merely that it reflects the current scientific (as opposed to political) debate (or consensus). And please people do take a look at what is actually being written before you mischaracterise a debate. That being said a bias against theories which upset the status quo (providing such bias is not egregious, of course) isn't necessarily undesireable. I think conservatism in science is kind of a good thing.
Yes it was. After nearly a decade of repeated experimentation and rejected paper submissions, the medical science community finally accepted the truth.
These two sentences directly contradict one and other. Remember I asked whether "the effort to prevent disclosure ... [was] ultimately successful?" Once again, despite initial conservatism, when there is work of worth, the status quo will eventually be revised. Although a decade represents probably too much conservatism in any particular field.
Oh give me a break! I have seen too many journals succumb to peer-pressure within nominally "scientific" areas such as computer science to believe that most journals are un-biased.
Which leaves you relying for your science on the Sunday Telegraph?
In any case you reply lacks any relevance. No claim was made that any particular journal, nor the entire world of journals was unbiased. I simply pointed out that you need to be reading journal papers (not the political press) to get an idea of where the scientific debate (or lack thereof) is at. The OP, in assuming that this issue is scientifically controversial, evidently has not.
BTW, was the "sustained amount of effort to prevent the disclosure of ulcers having a bacterial source" ultimately successful?