Who agree on the general facts that we're warming up the earth by burning fossil fuels, and the results are generally going to be bad.
Yes, so what? Dying of cholera is bad. Having your country taken over by fascists or socialists is bad. Having a decade of zero real economic growth is bad. Wearing socks with sandals and wearing white after Labor Day are bad. There are lots of things that are "bad". The question is "bad" compared to what? "Bad" is about tradeoffs.
Past IPCC reports tried to quantify this, and they generally came to the conclusion that the quantifiable costs of mitigation vs intervention are about the same, and then they try to justify intervention based on intangibles (the current IPCC report conveniently avoids talking about it). If that's the economic tradeoffs, then the unequivocally rational thing is to do nothing now and mitigate later.
But even that isn't the whole story. That IPCC analysis assumes that government intervention is actually effective, but nobody has yet proposed a politically and economically feasible plan for carbon emissions reductions. (Another problem is that it falsely assumes that the "do nothing" scenario will not result is carbon emission reductions.)
So, whether the science of AGW is settled, or what climate scientists believe, is irrelevant at this point. Even stipulating that the climate science is correct, there still is no clear, rational justification for action based on political and economic considerations.
If AGW researchers turn around and say "oh, not a problem after all", most of that funding simply evaporates. The consequences would be personally devastating for anybody working in the area: tenured professors would lose their funding, their research groups and their students
YOUR. OWN. WORDS.
Yes, my own words. Let me go through it again, step by step:
FACT: Annual research funding for climate science was increased tenfold after 1988 based on the belief that AGW is a threat.
FACT: The belief of our elected representatives that AGW is a threat is based on testimony to Congress and public statements by climate science researchers.
CONCLUSION: If climate science researchers testify and communicate that AGW is not a threat anymore, annual research funding for climate science will return to pre-1988 levels, i.e., it will decrease by 90%.
FACT: The number of people working in a scientific field is roughly proportional to funding.
CONCLUSION: If funding for climate science decreases by 90%, roughly 90% of the researchers in climate science will lose their funding, and hence their jobs in climate science.
OVERALL CONCLUSION: If climate science researchers testify that AGW is not a threat, then 90% of climate science researchers will lose their jobs in climate science.
OVERALL CONCLUSION: Climate science researchers have a strong motivation in reaching the conclusion that AGW is a threat.
I'm done here since you are clearly willing to contradict yourself to pretend you're winning an argument.
I'm not "winning an argument" since we aren't having an argument, and you can't be "done" because you never started. An "argument" would involve for you to actually engage in a rational and logical discussion about facts and conclusions. All you have done is tried to paint me as a shill, as a AGW denier, or as someone unreasonable. And you obviously avoid engaging in a rational and logical discussion because you know you couldn't win it if you tried.
Now, once you recognize the obvious conclusion that climate change researchers have a strong incentive structure in reaching the conclusions they are reaching, then we can turn to the question of how that has influenced their behavior. There you pose the false dichotomy ("AGW true/false") and you play a shell game with what "AGW" actually is. One can talk about the errors in that view as well, but if you are incapable of having a rational argument about even the simple syllogisms above, obviously, you're just not up to engaging in more complex arguments about science.
Yes, and the default for a century has been not to admit people unless we can be reasonably certain that they don't pose a threat and that they leave again.
you're referring to Trump's EO of questionable legality just now
Stop repeating that bullshit. Trump's EO is neither of "questionable legality", nor is it any different from what other presidents have done before him.
Take it from an actual immigrant: people get stuck outside the US because of something the executive branch all the time.
Your claim is that if they disprove AGW they'll be out of jobs. That's flatly untrue.
Pulling facts and conclusions out of your ass again, I see.
I.E. The military, corporations, coastal states.
And those organizations can pay for that out of their own budget. Most of that isn't climatology research anyway, it isn't even science. The science is pretty much settled as far as the climatology is concerned.
So why would we simply start ignoring a significant threat to our society of it wasn't AGW related?
I know this is hard for statists and authoritarians to grasp, but cutting the federal budget for a bunch of scientists isn't the same as "ignoring" something. You'd be amazed at how many things "we" pay tons of attention to that the federal government doesn't spend a dime on.
It was "considered for the general case" in that any traveler from a country without adequate record keeping might be able to use it. Right now, there are seven such countries.
But the average EU citizen with a good police record, no intelligence record, and a steady job won't need a social media profile, for all the obvious reasons that every Slashdot nerd keeps repeating... over... and... over... again.
I have stated again and again: yes, it is. Really, repeatedly asking this question must get tired even for an acolyte of left wing propaganda strategies.
(I wouldn't expect funding to stay at those levels. Enjoy.)
please answer the other question that refutes your claims.
Well, no. I suggest you go back through the thread, identify what my (single) claim actually was, and then you'll see that it is not inconsistent with actually accepting that AGW is happening.
In any case, thanks for this finger exercise in responding to your little Alinsky party games with the truth; I'm not very good at it yet, but every opportunity helps.
Look, RTFA, that tells you what they are considering it for today; that is (surprise) the Obama and Trump administrations are considering slightly different policies.
In any case, I hope Trump will not adopt this: people who can't provide enough official documentation should simply be banned altogether, except under special circumstances (e.g. US military translators). No futzing around with social media profiles.
Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly told Congress on Tuesday the measure was one of several being considered to vet refugees and visa applicants from seven Muslim-majority countries.
I have to note, this is an ad hominem argument of some type, and you do seem fairly interested in seeing me as a bad person
It is "ad hominem" (about the man) because you keep making this "ad hominem" (about yourself):
I do see climate science advocacy as a patriotic expression; there are only a few tens of thousands of people in this country with comparable experiences. Glacial ice loss is pretty easy to dismiss if you haven't happened to watch twenty cubic miles of ice vanish. It's a thankless task, but on the other hand the alternative is to be silent and hence complicit in the destruction. I hope that's comprehensible even if you don't condone it.
Romanticism, patriotism, environmentalism... yes, it's quite comprehensible, and I certainly do not condone it. I hope few people do.
For student, business, and immigrant visas, police records and financial documents are part of the process; DHS can now request many of them directly from some foreign governments (that's a convenience; in the past you had to supply them yourself).
For visa-free travel, it's fuzzier. Here is the official statement:
Note that they are performing "advance vetting" and "data sharing". They don't tell you the precise nature of the data they share or use, but from past cases and decisions, it's likely it includes criminal records, some kinds of financial data, and some intelligence data.
Well, they certainly haven't mattered for the past eight years, with Obama pushing one policy after another that's unsupported by facts: income redistribution, green energy, gun control, welfare spending, tax policy, ACA, drone killings, anti-terrorism efforts, education policy, etc., all rooted in cronyism, lobbyism, and knee-jerk policy making.
That's just evidence of funding, based upon what is generally agreed as a major threat.
Well, and if those scientists said "it isn't a major threat anymore", then most of that funding would disappear, and many of them would lose their jobs. Logically, therefore, they have a strong incentive to reach the conclusion that AGW is a major threat. QED
If you have some specific evidence of collaboration by scientists to essentially take taxpayer and foundations' money in a scheme of fraud, then provide it.
I never claimed that there was a "collaboration by scientists to essentially take taxpayer and foundations' money in a scheme of fraud"; that is merely your confabulation.
I have no idea what the consequence of these incentives has been, but the incentives are there, that's just a fact.
and it never really seemed like I could actually be a part of that polity
I emigrated to the US because of discrimination, speaking little English, leaving everything and everybody behind. You were born into one of the richest states in one of the richest countries on earth, into an open and tolerant societies with a world of opportunity available to you. All you had to do was get on a bus.
You, in turn, have very little perspective on daily life in rural Alaska. I'm not clear on why you are insisting otherwise, or what it could possibly say about me.
Well, you certainly are rapidly filling in the blanks about yourself.
As far as I can tell the decision had nothing to do with Trump
Lower corporate taxes and fewer regulations seem like good incentives, and it's not just Trump but also the GOP Congress that's been around for a while.
You're using a statement of fact with questionable value to the discussion as a way to imply falsehood. You *are* doing that.
No, I am simply pointing out that both oil executives and climate science researchers have a personal stake in the matter.
You're also braindead about letting AGW "run its course." To let it "run its course" would require the immediate complete cessation of all alteration of the long and short-term carbon cycle fluxes that were are fucking with
I'm sorry, you misunderstood. By saying "it will run its course" I included continued human emissions, economic, and scientific developments. That is, markets will gradually move to alternative energy over the next few decades and carbon emissions will go down to the intermediate scenarios by themselves.
And I didn't say "let it run its course", I said "it will run its course", meaning that climate agreements will not have a significant impact. Notice how Western democracies are all electing right wing nationalists right now? That's why.
You can look up the budgets for climate change research; FY2015 was more than $2b, explicitly justified with concerns over climate change, and FY1988 was somewhere below $200m (in constant dollars). Therefore, 90% of climate science funding is justified through the threat of climate change and would disappear if that threat disappeared. What other evidence do you need?
Check this article [wikipedia.org], which gives this PDF [bea.gov] as a source, which contains a figure of around 44,000 in 2005 dollars
You claimed:
Alaska has the fifth-smallest GSP in the United States (gross), and sixth-smallest per capita GSP.
It is the second claim that is wrong: Alaska has the second largest per capita GSP in the US and a larger per capita GDP than Sweden. This was in response to your suggestion that Sweden was "wealthy" and Alaska beset by "grinding poverty". Alaska also ranks high on median income and per capita income and has the highest per capita government spending ($18100). You tried to play the victim card ("my homeland", "grinding poverty") when you, in fact, come from one of the wealthiest and most privileged "homelands" on the planet.
You don't understand; the default is simply for you not to get admitted if you are from one of those seven countries; they don't need to look at your social media account for that, they just deny your visa.
That's about $67000, vs Sweden's $60000. You can look up the relative income statistics yourself.
our precise viewpoint is still unclear
My precise viewpoint is what I stated: climate scientists are not unbiased and have a strong personal stake in the conclusions they reach, nothing more and nothing less.
I think I scored higher on style and virtue signaling and won some popularity points
Well, yes, and that was your function here: to summarize what the current talking points of the progressive political bubble are.
Well, it's funny how you said that Congress needs to not spend as much money on climate science, and again, whatever reasoning you have for this continues to be elusive. I think I'm becoming less interested in it though.
Well, as I was saying: Congress and the president will make a cost/benefit analysis. I suspect they'll cut funding for climate research substantially, but we'll see. You can scream at them if you don't like it.
Actually, the above reason is why the US tried banning (which is currently in the courts) people from these 7 countries
That's my point: the US government is offering to look at people's social media accounts in lieu of official government records.
Anyway, the reason they probably want to know their social media activities is that for now, they are forced to let in people from these countries that they can't vet.
I expect the court order will be overturned quickly. Not admitting people from countries without good government records is reasonable and within Trump's authority.
Syria, it's tough to expect that the Assad regime, which the US had been trying to topple (not sure if that's still Trump's policy)
Trump, like Obama, was elected on the promise of putting an end to these kinds of unwise foreign adventures. We'll have to see whether he does a better job than Obama.
What a waste of time and resources, and a completely unnecessary invasion of privacy.
This only applies to the seven banned countries, countries that don't have reliable records.
If you travel to the US from Europe, the US requests your police, financial, and surveillance records from your home country. In that case, they don't need your social media accounts, because that contains everything from your political affiliations to the terms of endearment you use with your Swedish mistress.
If you travel to the US from a place like Somalia, the US can't get any reliable official records on you. By default, that means you won't get admitted. The US immigration system is offering to look at your social media accounts to see whether they show enough stability, financial resources, family connections, etc. to still admit you.
Think of immigration like a mortgage: you only get it if you can prove that you are good for it, and social media is another option for establishing that you are (in fact, both for immigration and mortgages). Frankly, I think it's a bad idea, but it is intended to help people.
Besides, if they get password access how can they use ANYTHING they find as evidence of anything? They've got WRITE access, for crying out loud! The evidence chain isn't just poisoned, it's rotted right through.
You're not on trial. They are trying to find evidence that's in your favor, not evidence against you. If they don't want to admit you, they don't have to bother planting evidence, they just stamp "denied" on your visa application.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, so what? Dying of cholera is bad. Having your country taken over by fascists or socialists is bad. Having a decade of zero real economic growth is bad. Wearing socks with sandals and wearing white after Labor Day are bad. There are lots of things that are "bad". The question is "bad" compared to what? "Bad" is about tradeoffs.
Past IPCC reports tried to quantify this, and they generally came to the conclusion that the quantifiable costs of mitigation vs intervention are about the same, and then they try to justify intervention based on intangibles (the current IPCC report conveniently avoids talking about it). If that's the economic tradeoffs, then the unequivocally rational thing is to do nothing now and mitigate later.
But even that isn't the whole story. That IPCC analysis assumes that government intervention is actually effective, but nobody has yet proposed a politically and economically feasible plan for carbon emissions reductions. (Another problem is that it falsely assumes that the "do nothing" scenario will not result is carbon emission reductions.)
So, whether the science of AGW is settled, or what climate scientists believe, is irrelevant at this point. Even stipulating that the climate science is correct, there still is no clear, rational justification for action based on political and economic considerations.
Yes, my own words. Let me go through it again, step by step:
FACT: Annual research funding for climate science was increased tenfold after 1988 based on the belief that AGW is a threat.
FACT: The belief of our elected representatives that AGW is a threat is based on testimony to Congress and public statements by climate science researchers.
CONCLUSION: If climate science researchers testify and communicate that AGW is not a threat anymore, annual research funding for climate science will return to pre-1988 levels, i.e., it will decrease by 90%.
FACT: The number of people working in a scientific field is roughly proportional to funding.
CONCLUSION: If funding for climate science decreases by 90%, roughly 90% of the researchers in climate science will lose their funding, and hence their jobs in climate science.
OVERALL CONCLUSION: If climate science researchers testify that AGW is not a threat, then 90% of climate science researchers will lose their jobs in climate science.
OVERALL CONCLUSION: Climate science researchers have a strong motivation in reaching the conclusion that AGW is a threat.
I'm not "winning an argument" since we aren't having an argument, and you can't be "done" because you never started. An "argument" would involve for you to actually engage in a rational and logical discussion about facts and conclusions. All you have done is tried to paint me as a shill, as a AGW denier, or as someone unreasonable. And you obviously avoid engaging in a rational and logical discussion because you know you couldn't win it if you tried.
Now, once you recognize the obvious conclusion that climate change researchers have a strong incentive structure in reaching the conclusions they are reaching, then we can turn to the question of how that has influenced their behavior. There you pose the false dichotomy ("AGW true/false") and you play a shell game with what "AGW" actually is. One can talk about the errors in that view as well, but if you are incapable of having a rational argument about even the simple syllogisms above, obviously, you're just not up to engaging in more complex arguments about science.
Yes, and the default for a century has been not to admit people unless we can be reasonably certain that they don't pose a threat and that they leave again.
Stop repeating that bullshit. Trump's EO is neither of "questionable legality", nor is it any different from what other presidents have done before him.
Take it from an actual immigrant: people get stuck outside the US because of something the executive branch all the time.
Pulling facts and conclusions out of your ass again, I see.
And those organizations can pay for that out of their own budget. Most of that isn't climatology research anyway, it isn't even science. The science is pretty much settled as far as the climatology is concerned.
I know this is hard for statists and authoritarians to grasp, but cutting the federal budget for a bunch of scientists isn't the same as "ignoring" something. You'd be amazed at how many things "we" pay tons of attention to that the federal government doesn't spend a dime on.
It was "considered for the general case" in that any traveler from a country without adequate record keeping might be able to use it. Right now, there are seven such countries.
But the average EU citizen with a good police record, no intelligence record, and a steady job won't need a social media profile, for all the obvious reasons that every Slashdot nerd keeps repeating... over... and... over... again.
I have stated again and again: yes, it is. Really, repeatedly asking this question must get tired even for an acolyte of left wing propaganda strategies.
OK, I get it, you lack even elementary web search skills. http://www.gao.gov/key_issues/...
(I wouldn't expect funding to stay at those levels. Enjoy.)
Well, no. I suggest you go back through the thread, identify what my (single) claim actually was, and then you'll see that it is not inconsistent with actually accepting that AGW is happening.
In any case, thanks for this finger exercise in responding to your little Alinsky party games with the truth; I'm not very good at it yet, but every opportunity helps.
Look, RTFA, that tells you what they are considering it for today; that is (surprise) the Obama and Trump administrations are considering slightly different policies.
In any case, I hope Trump will not adopt this: people who can't provide enough official documentation should simply be banned altogether, except under special circumstances (e.g. US military translators). No futzing around with social media profiles.
At least bother reading the announcement!
It is "ad hominem" (about the man) because you keep making this "ad hominem" (about yourself):
Romanticism, patriotism, environmentalism... yes, it's quite comprehensible, and I certainly do not condone it. I hope few people do.
For student, business, and immigrant visas, police records and financial documents are part of the process; DHS can now request many of them directly from some foreign governments (that's a convenience; in the past you had to supply them yourself).
For visa-free travel, it's fuzzier. Here is the official statement:
https://www.ustravel.org/sites...
Note that they are performing "advance vetting" and "data sharing". They don't tell you the precise nature of the data they share or use, but from past cases and decisions, it's likely it includes criminal records, some kinds of financial data, and some intelligence data.
Well, they certainly haven't mattered for the past eight years, with Obama pushing one policy after another that's unsupported by facts: income redistribution, green energy, gun control, welfare spending, tax policy, ACA, drone killings, anti-terrorism efforts, education policy, etc., all rooted in cronyism, lobbyism, and knee-jerk policy making.
I'm hoping that is changing now. We will see.
I prefer PBAJ to PBUH.
Rosling was a voice of reason and sanity. He will be missed.
Well, and if those scientists said "it isn't a major threat anymore", then most of that funding would disappear, and many of them would lose their jobs. Logically, therefore, they have a strong incentive to reach the conclusion that AGW is a major threat. QED
I never claimed that there was a "collaboration by scientists to essentially take taxpayer and foundations' money in a scheme of fraud"; that is merely your confabulation.
I have no idea what the consequence of these incentives has been, but the incentives are there, that's just a fact.
I emigrated to the US because of discrimination, speaking little English, leaving everything and everybody behind. You were born into one of the richest states in one of the richest countries on earth, into an open and tolerant societies with a world of opportunity available to you. All you had to do was get on a bus.
Well, you certainly are rapidly filling in the blanks about yourself.
Lower corporate taxes and fewer regulations seem like good incentives, and it's not just Trump but also the GOP Congress that's been around for a while.
No, I am simply pointing out that both oil executives and climate science researchers have a personal stake in the matter.
I'm sorry, you misunderstood. By saying "it will run its course" I included continued human emissions, economic, and scientific developments. That is, markets will gradually move to alternative energy over the next few decades and carbon emissions will go down to the intermediate scenarios by themselves.
And I didn't say "let it run its course", I said "it will run its course", meaning that climate agreements will not have a significant impact. Notice how Western democracies are all electing right wing nationalists right now? That's why.
You can look up the budgets for climate change research; FY2015 was more than $2b, explicitly justified with concerns over climate change, and FY1988 was somewhere below $200m (in constant dollars). Therefore, 90% of climate science funding is justified through the threat of climate change and would disappear if that threat disappeared. What other evidence do you need?
You claimed:
It is the second claim that is wrong: Alaska has the second largest per capita GSP in the US and a larger per capita GDP than Sweden. This was in response to your suggestion that Sweden was "wealthy" and Alaska beset by "grinding poverty". Alaska also ranks high on median income and per capita income and has the highest per capita government spending ($18100). You tried to play the victim card ("my homeland", "grinding poverty") when you, in fact, come from one of the wealthiest and most privileged "homelands" on the planet.
You don't understand; the default is simply for you not to get admitted if you are from one of those seven countries; they don't need to look at your social media account for that, they just deny your visa.
Not even close. As of 2012, Alaska has the second highest per capita GSP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
That's about $67000, vs Sweden's $60000. You can look up the relative income statistics yourself.
My precise viewpoint is what I stated: climate scientists are not unbiased and have a strong personal stake in the conclusions they reach, nothing more and nothing less.
Well, yes, and that was your function here: to summarize what the current talking points of the progressive political bubble are.
Well, as I was saying: Congress and the president will make a cost/benefit analysis. I suspect they'll cut funding for climate research substantially, but we'll see. You can scream at them if you don't like it.
That's my point: the US government is offering to look at people's social media accounts in lieu of official government records.
I expect the court order will be overturned quickly. Not admitting people from countries without good government records is reasonable and within Trump's authority.
Trump, like Obama, was elected on the promise of putting an end to these kinds of unwise foreign adventures. We'll have to see whether he does a better job than Obama.
I assume only Facebook and LinkedIn would help you make a case that you should be admitted.
This only applies to the seven banned countries, countries that don't have reliable records.
If you travel to the US from Europe, the US requests your police, financial, and surveillance records from your home country. In that case, they don't need your social media accounts, because that contains everything from your political affiliations to the terms of endearment you use with your Swedish mistress.
If you travel to the US from a place like Somalia, the US can't get any reliable official records on you. By default, that means you won't get admitted. The US immigration system is offering to look at your social media accounts to see whether they show enough stability, financial resources, family connections, etc. to still admit you.
Think of immigration like a mortgage: you only get it if you can prove that you are good for it, and social media is another option for establishing that you are (in fact, both for immigration and mortgages). Frankly, I think it's a bad idea, but it is intended to help people.
You're not on trial. They are trying to find evidence that's in your favor, not evidence against you. If they don't want to admit you, they don't have to bother planting evidence, they just stamp "denied" on your visa application.