I haven't been making comments because there's no point with all the beta trash talk. Once the betatards leave, I'm sure things will get back to normal. Probably better than ever, in fact.
It's basically the same thing the global warming skeptics do: "the climate always changes," "we have data for only 0.01% of Earth's history," "humans are small and Earth is big so humans can't affect Earth," "the warming stopped 20 years ago," "carbon dioxide is plant food," "it was warmer in the past," "warming is a good thing." All these statements are easy to throw out, but they take time to explain why they don't mean we shouldn't reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Meanwhile, the people who have already made up their minds about which way they believe don't listen to the long-winded explanation and just take the snarky remark and repeat it.
Surely they knew there was a significant probability for the snow to hit Atlanta. You don't have to make 100% accurate predictions to be able to prepare for the future. That's why weather forecasts give a probability of precipitation, rather than a binary rain/no rain prediction. If you know rain is likely, you can carry your umbrella just in case. The attitude should not be "You need to prove something bad will happen before I prepare for it," but rather "Let me know if something bad might happen so I can prepare for it."
I think K-12 funds could be used to greater benefit for teaching fundamental skills such as a core STEM curriculum. If students have a good foundation in mathematics and science and have had to use standard computer programs such as a word processor and spreadsheet program, they should be all ready to begin a computer science curriculum. From what I've heard, CS classes in high school are a joke and seem to turn students off to programming. I studied programming on my own and achieved a 5 on the computer science AP exam even though computer science was not taught at my school. Are there any of you who have a good experience with a programming class in high school, or did you just learn it on your own like I did?
There's also a discrepancy involving the size of the proton. Measuring the size two different ways gives two different results, which is unpossible. There must be something going on during these experiments that we don't understand yet.
Even the most dire predictions don't forecast climate change ending all life on Earth. Here's a sample worst-case scenario. It's bad, not as bad as the effects of a widespread nuclear war or an impact from a moderately sized asteroid, but bad enough to warrant spending a few percent of our GDP to avoid the worst scenarios of global warming.
It's interesting watching election votes come in. When they show maps of how counties are voting, it's generally Democrats in the urban areas and Republicans in the rural areas. So the maps are giant swathes of red (Republican) with small dots of blue (Democrats) tightly packed in large cities. Like in this map for example.
Yes, I'm glad to hear a skeptic being honest for a change. It's uncomfortable to think about, so many ignore it or try to rationalize it away. That's what's behind the skepticism, not rational scientific arguments.
You don't necessarily need to accurately predict solar output to be able to make predictions that are better than guesses for future climate. You can construct a probabilistic model of solar output and use a Monte Carlo simulation to get a confidence interval for predicted temperatures. Of course, higher than average volcanism or an asteroid impact could mean that we see less warming than we would predict. But just because our predictions are not spot on doesn't mean they're no better than an uninformed guess.
I think the poster is saying that when people do not minimize the negative consequences of their actions, but instead deny that their actions have negative consequences, they are being irrational. An example is when an alcoholic keeps drinking and rationalizing his or her behavior to avoid guilt. It's easier to deny the problem exists than to deal with the problem.
Applying the scientific method means being able to interpret our observations. And that depends on understanding the science in textbooks. So, yes, scientific understanding depends heavily on scientific knowledge. You're not going to make much of a scientist until you spend years memorizing what's in those textbooks that scientists have written and are able to parrot it back.
That's fine to believe it. I fully respect your beliefs. But if you want to convince many others, I would suggest you provide some solid evidence that would lead others to believe the same thing. Now if you present an argument and it contains an obvious error in it, I will point it out. I don't respect poor reasoning. But if you just want to believe in whatever you want, go ahead...
The issue is presented in a political way because we need the cooperation of many countries to effectively deal with the problem. Even within the US we need the cooperation of two parties to effectively reduce fossil fuel use. It's the politicians who make the decisions, so the decision about what to do about it lies in the hands of politicians.
Individual sacrifice will not solve the problem. We need to rework the infrastructure that produces energy so it doesn't rely as heavily on fossil fuels. I think this is the biggest misconception. Reducing fossil fuel use doesn't mean we suffer. If anything, we get a better quality of life because of more energy efficient appliances, homes, and cars, and less pollution. Well, I suppose if you can't stand any of the new light bulbs, you may need to suffer a bit. But you can still buy incandescent bulbs if you want... they're just halogen now instead of tungsten filament.
As far as I can see, the objections to believing the anthropogenic global warming are not scientific. And I see several comments in Slashdot to the effect that this issue is being used by Socialists to gain power and force their will on others. So, yes, the objections seem to be based in ignorance and politics. Show me a valid scientific reason to believe the earth isn't warming, the warming isn't due to greenhouse gases emitted by humans, or that the warming will have little negative effects, and that would be different.
I'm just saying that I think your assertion that the congressman was merely raising doubts is incorrect. It's okay to ask those questions, but they weren't worded in such a way as to merely raise a doubt. They were accusatory in tone, accusing scientists of making unfounded assumptions and claiming all warming is due to CO2.
Because certain people think that socialists and liberals are using climate change to force their ideals on people against their will. They make any excuse they can to say that it's not warming, or the warming isn't due to mankind, or that it's nothing to be worried about, because they're afraid their lifestyle will need to change. It's denialism.
They would be good questions if they were not loaded. Asking "When you see warming, why do you think it's manmade?" or "If it was warmer during the Medieval period, what was the cause of the warming?" See the difference?
You're referring to the temperature escalator. That argument uses cherry picking to throw away most of the temperature data to arrive at that conclusion. It's one of the tactics of denialism.
I clearly heard the congressman say "When you see warming, why do you automatically assume it's manmade?" and "If it was warmer during the Medieval period, how could we blame it on CO2 emissions?" He's asking questions, but they're loaded questions. They make a presumption that scientists automatically assume warming is manmade and all due to CO2 emissions. He not saying AGW is not happening, but he's implying that arguments that suggest CO2 emissions are causing warming are dumb by the way he's asking those questions. He doesn't sound like he's honestly trying to learn the science, but rather he seems to have a chip on his shoulder.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, good comeback! I'm sure the site will be much better with people like you gone for good. So long!
I haven't been making comments because there's no point with all the beta trash talk. Once the betatards leave, I'm sure things will get back to normal. Probably better than ever, in fact.
It's basically the same thing the global warming skeptics do: "the climate always changes," "we have data for only 0.01% of Earth's history," "humans are small and Earth is big so humans can't affect Earth," "the warming stopped 20 years ago," "carbon dioxide is plant food," "it was warmer in the past," "warming is a good thing." All these statements are easy to throw out, but they take time to explain why they don't mean we shouldn't reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Meanwhile, the people who have already made up their minds about which way they believe don't listen to the long-winded explanation and just take the snarky remark and repeat it.
Surely they knew there was a significant probability for the snow to hit Atlanta. You don't have to make 100% accurate predictions to be able to prepare for the future. That's why weather forecasts give a probability of precipitation, rather than a binary rain/no rain prediction. If you know rain is likely, you can carry your umbrella just in case. The attitude should not be "You need to prove something bad will happen before I prepare for it," but rather "Let me know if something bad might happen so I can prepare for it."
I think K-12 funds could be used to greater benefit for teaching fundamental skills such as a core STEM curriculum. If students have a good foundation in mathematics and science and have had to use standard computer programs such as a word processor and spreadsheet program, they should be all ready to begin a computer science curriculum. From what I've heard, CS classes in high school are a joke and seem to turn students off to programming. I studied programming on my own and achieved a 5 on the computer science AP exam even though computer science was not taught at my school. Are there any of you who have a good experience with a programming class in high school, or did you just learn it on your own like I did?
There's also a discrepancy involving the size of the proton. Measuring the size two different ways gives two different results, which is unpossible. There must be something going on during these experiments that we don't understand yet.
Even the most dire predictions don't forecast climate change ending all life on Earth. Here's a sample worst-case scenario. It's bad, not as bad as the effects of a widespread nuclear war or an impact from a moderately sized asteroid, but bad enough to warrant spending a few percent of our GDP to avoid the worst scenarios of global warming.
It's interesting watching election votes come in. When they show maps of how counties are voting, it's generally Democrats in the urban areas and Republicans in the rural areas. So the maps are giant swathes of red (Republican) with small dots of blue (Democrats) tightly packed in large cities. Like in this map for example.
I joined a Facebook group in protest, so I'm good.
There are no known reports of fatalities due to it, and there are no regulations against its use, so I conclude it must be perfectly safe!
Okay... so where's the evidence that leads to a different conclusion?
Yes, I'm glad to hear a skeptic being honest for a change. It's uncomfortable to think about, so many ignore it or try to rationalize it away. That's what's behind the skepticism, not rational scientific arguments.
You don't necessarily need to accurately predict solar output to be able to make predictions that are better than guesses for future climate. You can construct a probabilistic model of solar output and use a Monte Carlo simulation to get a confidence interval for predicted temperatures. Of course, higher than average volcanism or an asteroid impact could mean that we see less warming than we would predict. But just because our predictions are not spot on doesn't mean they're no better than an uninformed guess.
I think the poster is saying that when people do not minimize the negative consequences of their actions, but instead deny that their actions have negative consequences, they are being irrational. An example is when an alcoholic keeps drinking and rationalizing his or her behavior to avoid guilt. It's easier to deny the problem exists than to deal with the problem.
Did you stop to consider that it might be because Sun's Current Solar Activity Cycle Is Weakest in a Century?
Applying the scientific method means being able to interpret our observations. And that depends on understanding the science in textbooks. So, yes, scientific understanding depends heavily on scientific knowledge. You're not going to make much of a scientist until you spend years memorizing what's in those textbooks that scientists have written and are able to parrot it back.
And the guilt isn't even necessary. When I look at the ways to reduce greenhouse has emissions, I don't see a single item that calls for self sacrifice.
That's fine to believe it. I fully respect your beliefs. But if you want to convince many others, I would suggest you provide some solid evidence that would lead others to believe the same thing. Now if you present an argument and it contains an obvious error in it, I will point it out. I don't respect poor reasoning. But if you just want to believe in whatever you want, go ahead...
The issue is presented in a political way because we need the cooperation of many countries to effectively deal with the problem. Even within the US we need the cooperation of two parties to effectively reduce fossil fuel use. It's the politicians who make the decisions, so the decision about what to do about it lies in the hands of politicians.
Individual sacrifice will not solve the problem. We need to rework the infrastructure that produces energy so it doesn't rely as heavily on fossil fuels. I think this is the biggest misconception. Reducing fossil fuel use doesn't mean we suffer. If anything, we get a better quality of life because of more energy efficient appliances, homes, and cars, and less pollution. Well, I suppose if you can't stand any of the new light bulbs, you may need to suffer a bit. But you can still buy incandescent bulbs if you want... they're just halogen now instead of tungsten filament.
As far as I can see, the objections to believing the anthropogenic global warming are not scientific. And I see several comments in Slashdot to the effect that this issue is being used by Socialists to gain power and force their will on others. So, yes, the objections seem to be based in ignorance and politics. Show me a valid scientific reason to believe the earth isn't warming, the warming isn't due to greenhouse gases emitted by humans, or that the warming will have little negative effects, and that would be different.
I'm just saying that I think your assertion that the congressman was merely raising doubts is incorrect. It's okay to ask those questions, but they weren't worded in such a way as to merely raise a doubt. They were accusatory in tone, accusing scientists of making unfounded assumptions and claiming all warming is due to CO2.
Because certain people think that socialists and liberals are using climate change to force their ideals on people against their will. They make any excuse they can to say that it's not warming, or the warming isn't due to mankind, or that it's nothing to be worried about, because they're afraid their lifestyle will need to change. It's denialism.
They would be good questions if they were not loaded. Asking "When you see warming, why do you think it's manmade?" or "If it was warmer during the Medieval period, what was the cause of the warming?" See the difference?
You're referring to the temperature escalator. That argument uses cherry picking to throw away most of the temperature data to arrive at that conclusion. It's one of the tactics of denialism.
Yeah, it's already happening, but it seems to not be happening fast enough to actually reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Perhaps Republicans can propose eliminating subsidies to the fossil fuel industry to help alternative energy sources compete with fossil fuels on cost.
I clearly heard the congressman say "When you see warming, why do you automatically assume it's manmade?" and "If it was warmer during the Medieval period, how could we blame it on CO2 emissions?" He's asking questions, but they're loaded questions. They make a presumption that scientists automatically assume warming is manmade and all due to CO2 emissions. He not saying AGW is not happening, but he's implying that arguments that suggest CO2 emissions are causing warming are dumb by the way he's asking those questions. He doesn't sound like he's honestly trying to learn the science, but rather he seems to have a chip on his shoulder.