Yeah, some scientists do say dumb things sometimes. Apparently once a climatologist told a UK reporter that there would be no snow in Great Britain in a few years due to global warming. It's a ridiculous statement because the climate isn't changing that rapidly or dramatically. But today many people refuse to believe AGW because that prediction didn't come true. Scientists need to watch what they say to journalists, because they can cause entire fields to lose credibility with the public when they make such dumb predictions. Why don't other scientists immediately come out and denounce statements like these to save face?
Can you elaborate? It seems to me we're in for a serious financial crisis if we don't do something about the debt. I just wonder why Republicans weren't calling for action while Bush was running the debt up over $10 billion. Why is it suddenly a problem after Obama took office?
There's speculation that some Wikileaks were a contributing factor ("So, while unemployment and inflation were the underlying causes of the revolution, this WikiLeak may have been the spark that turned the public, and the government, against itself."), but I don't see any evidence that the Tunisian protests were a direct result of Wikileaks.
Just like all this tripe about the country being broke. Life is good in the USA...
It's not going to be for long if we keep running up debt. Life was good for many people while they were running up tens of thousands of dollars debt on their credit cards. Then came the pain of trying to pay it off.
I would agree that the easy and fast communication provided by the Internet is helping the news of successful protests spread, and it's also helping protesters organize. It's also helping Wikileaks spread leaks easily. It sounds like the protests and Wikileaks are caused by a common cause. Similarly, births in an area are tightly correlated with the number of cell phone towers. Both births and cell phone towers are caused by the human population in the area -- it's not the cell phone towers causing the births. Similarly, I think the protests and Wikileaks are caused by Internet communication, but it's not Wikileaks that's causing the protests.
We need two words for those "types" of evolution as much as we need two words for two "types" of tectonic plate movement, one of which is responsible for earthquakes and the other of which is responsible for the plates moving thousands of miles. They're the same thing. Plate movement is plate movement. Lots of small moves add up to big moves over geologic time. Genetic change is genetic change. Lots of small changes add up to big changes over geologic time.
3. This is a misconception on your part. Excluding all possible variables that could influence an experiment is not part of science. When we hypothesize that gravity causes objects to fall at a certain rate, we do not have to show that aliens on Tau Ceti are not influencing the result. What you do in a controlled experiment is control for one variable (the independent variable) and measure the change in another variable (the dependent variable). You do not eliminate all other variables, because there is no possible way to know what the other variables could possibly be.
So you're using one small typo in a document thousands of pages long to try to cast doubt on it? It sounds like you're grasping at straws. Try presenting some actual scientific evidence that the science in the IPCC report is wrong.
What other explanations are there that provide a better fit with the data? There's no need to be secretive about it. The hilarious part of your post is claiming there's some conspiracy that's causing these explanations not to be aired, and yet when you have a forum to do so, you don't even try.
Yes, thermal expansion raises sea level, but much of the raise in sea level is due to ice sheets melting. Where do you think the water goes when the ice on Greenland or Antarctica melt?
In what way is developing alternative energy sources "turning our freedom and technological progress over to a wise priesthood of all-knowing soothsayers"? Could you clarify your claim with a concrete example? I see all kinds of silly claims about what will happen if we even attempt to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and have never seen anyone explain how any of these horrible things would happen. Please do explain. If the government pays $100 million in subsidies to develop solar power plants, biofuel plants, and wind farms, how does that impact our freedom and technological progress in any way?
I'm not going to waste my time watching 50 minutes of video just for yet another crackpot idea. If you can't sum up the idea and support it with evidence in a few paragraphs, I'm not going to bother. I've been led on too many wild goose chases. If there were some good evidence against global warming, wouldn't we hear that strong evidence repeatedly, instead of being pelted with dozens of different weak arguments?
Yes, global warming is bad only for humans. You've got it! Now, as for claiming that wiping out humanity is no big deal, I'm not sure how many other fellow human beings would agree. They seem to be quite unhappy with mere unemployment and gas climbing back to $4 per gallon.
How can all the data be bad? We see many different signs of global warming all around the world. The land instrumental temperature record is only part of the data we have. We also have ocean temperature readings and satellite temperature readings. We see ice sheets and glaciers melting. How can all of it be bad? At some point, you have to admit we've gathered enough evidence. Or is no amount of evidence is ever enough?
So you would wait until there's a 95% chance of an accident occurring unless you put on your brakes, before you would put on your brakes? That seems insane to me. If something bad is even somewhat likely to happen, and I can fairly easily take action to prevent or minimize it, I would take the action. Why would I wait until a disaster is nearly certain before I try to avoid or minimize it?
The last time it was several degrees warmer than it was now there weren't coastal cities with millions of people living in them that cost many billions of dollars each. Let's just take your argument that global warming isn't a problem and replace it with asteroid impacts. "Was it a problem last time a large asteroid impacted earth? Based on the fact that there have been asteroid impacts in the past and we still managed to not only survive, but to prosper I don't see asteroid impacts as an issue."
See what I did there? Do you see now that your argument is ridiculous, because you're arguing that anything that didn't wipe out all life on earth is not any sort of issue at all? This is what all the arguments against AGW are like. They fall apart with any scrutiny whatsoever.
How much evidence will be enough? Is it reasonable that no matter how much evidence is provided that a group of people keeps insisting that there's a reasonable doubt and more evidence is needed? At some point, the "questioning" goes beyond reasonable questioning. Besides, even if there is a reasonable doubt that AGW is happening, why not start working on reducing carbon dioxide emissions? The cost of doing so is expected to be less than the cause of dealing with the warming if the predictions turn out to be accurate.
If it isn't human activities causing the warming in recent decades, what is it? If humans burning fossil fuels is the best hypothesis we have, then it's been established as the best hypothesis we have. We can never conclusively prove it, but then again we can never conclusively prove anything in science. All we have at any given time is the hypothesis that best agrees with our observations.
Yes, global warming will just make things warmer. Ice melts when it warms. It then flows into the ocean and raises sea level. If the sea level rises by a meter, it will flood entire coastal cities, leading to the loss of many billions of dollars of infrastructure. The reasoning isn't that hard to follow, is it?
Please give one concrete example of a politician who has said global warming will kill us all. It's posts like these that make it impossible to discuss AGW rationally.
Of course it's okay to question on scientific grounds, as long as evidence that can be verified is provided and proper reasoning is used. I occasionally see people who do these things, but they tend to be professional climatologists. Nearly everyone else (in other words, nearly everyone) who argues against AGW gives the same sort of excuse for not believing in it, just as ID proponents give excuses for not believing in evolution. Most often the "evidence" turns out to be wrong, such as claiming that temperatures aren't warming. This error can be found by doing simple fact checking. The other main type of error is faulty reasoning. I think "computer literacy" courses should include being able to determine when information on the Internet is made-up baloney. I don't know what we can do to get people to reason better. At least the GRE now has sections on making an argument and critiquing an argument.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, that's a common climate myth.
Yeah, some scientists do say dumb things sometimes. Apparently once a climatologist told a UK reporter that there would be no snow in Great Britain in a few years due to global warming. It's a ridiculous statement because the climate isn't changing that rapidly or dramatically. But today many people refuse to believe AGW because that prediction didn't come true. Scientists need to watch what they say to journalists, because they can cause entire fields to lose credibility with the public when they make such dumb predictions. Why don't other scientists immediately come out and denounce statements like these to save face?
Can you elaborate? It seems to me we're in for a serious financial crisis if we don't do something about the debt. I just wonder why Republicans weren't calling for action while Bush was running the debt up over $10 billion. Why is it suddenly a problem after Obama took office?
There's speculation that some Wikileaks were a contributing factor ("So, while unemployment and inflation were the underlying causes of the revolution, this WikiLeak may have been the spark that turned the public, and the government, against itself."), but I don't see any evidence that the Tunisian protests were a direct result of Wikileaks.
Just like all this tripe about the country being broke. Life is good in the USA...
It's not going to be for long if we keep running up debt. Life was good for many people while they were running up tens of thousands of dollars debt on their credit cards. Then came the pain of trying to pay it off.
I would agree that the easy and fast communication provided by the Internet is helping the news of successful protests spread, and it's also helping protesters organize. It's also helping Wikileaks spread leaks easily. It sounds like the protests and Wikileaks are caused by a common cause. Similarly, births in an area are tightly correlated with the number of cell phone towers. Both births and cell phone towers are caused by the human population in the area -- it's not the cell phone towers causing the births. Similarly, I think the protests and Wikileaks are caused by Internet communication, but it's not Wikileaks that's causing the protests.
But, but, Julian is our hero because information wants to be free!!!
We need two words for those "types" of evolution as much as we need two words for two "types" of tectonic plate movement, one of which is responsible for earthquakes and the other of which is responsible for the plates moving thousands of miles. They're the same thing. Plate movement is plate movement. Lots of small moves add up to big moves over geologic time. Genetic change is genetic change. Lots of small changes add up to big changes over geologic time.
1. We can continue burning fossil fuels and we can observe temperatures not rising. That would falsify AGW.
2. You can find many actual temperature measurements that show the warming. To me what's more convincing is data beyond temperature measurements.
3. This is a misconception on your part. Excluding all possible variables that could influence an experiment is not part of science. When we hypothesize that gravity causes objects to fall at a certain rate, we do not have to show that aliens on Tau Ceti are not influencing the result. What you do in a controlled experiment is control for one variable (the independent variable) and measure the change in another variable (the dependent variable). You do not eliminate all other variables, because there is no possible way to know what the other variables could possibly be.
So, no, AGW is not a big guess. It is something that is easily predictable from knowing that burning fossil fuels emits carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
I don't see anyone saying that human activity is the one and only effect on the climate. You've got a straw man there.
So you're using one small typo in a document thousands of pages long to try to cast doubt on it? It sounds like you're grasping at straws. Try presenting some actual scientific evidence that the science in the IPCC report is wrong.
What other explanations are there that provide a better fit with the data? There's no need to be secretive about it. The hilarious part of your post is claiming there's some conspiracy that's causing these explanations not to be aired, and yet when you have a forum to do so, you don't even try.
Yes, thermal expansion raises sea level, but much of the raise in sea level is due to ice sheets melting. Where do you think the water goes when the ice on Greenland or Antarctica melt?
In what way is developing alternative energy sources "turning our freedom and technological progress over to a wise priesthood of all-knowing soothsayers"? Could you clarify your claim with a concrete example? I see all kinds of silly claims about what will happen if we even attempt to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and have never seen anyone explain how any of these horrible things would happen. Please do explain. If the government pays $100 million in subsidies to develop solar power plants, biofuel plants, and wind farms, how does that impact our freedom and technological progress in any way?
I'm not going to waste my time watching 50 minutes of video just for yet another crackpot idea. If you can't sum up the idea and support it with evidence in a few paragraphs, I'm not going to bother. I've been led on too many wild goose chases. If there were some good evidence against global warming, wouldn't we hear that strong evidence repeatedly, instead of being pelted with dozens of different weak arguments?
Yes, global warming is bad only for humans. You've got it! Now, as for claiming that wiping out humanity is no big deal, I'm not sure how many other fellow human beings would agree. They seem to be quite unhappy with mere unemployment and gas climbing back to $4 per gallon.
How can all the data be bad? We see many different signs of global warming all around the world. The land instrumental temperature record is only part of the data we have. We also have ocean temperature readings and satellite temperature readings. We see ice sheets and glaciers melting. How can all of it be bad? At some point, you have to admit we've gathered enough evidence. Or is no amount of evidence is ever enough?
So you would wait until there's a 95% chance of an accident occurring unless you put on your brakes, before you would put on your brakes? That seems insane to me. If something bad is even somewhat likely to happen, and I can fairly easily take action to prevent or minimize it, I would take the action. Why would I wait until a disaster is nearly certain before I try to avoid or minimize it?
The last time it was several degrees warmer than it was now there weren't coastal cities with millions of people living in them that cost many billions of dollars each. Let's just take your argument that global warming isn't a problem and replace it with asteroid impacts. "Was it a problem last time a large asteroid impacted earth? Based on the fact that there have been asteroid impacts in the past and we still managed to not only survive, but to prosper I don't see asteroid impacts as an issue."
See what I did there? Do you see now that your argument is ridiculous, because you're arguing that anything that didn't wipe out all life on earth is not any sort of issue at all? This is what all the arguments against AGW are like. They fall apart with any scrutiny whatsoever.
How much evidence will be enough? Is it reasonable that no matter how much evidence is provided that a group of people keeps insisting that there's a reasonable doubt and more evidence is needed? At some point, the "questioning" goes beyond reasonable questioning. Besides, even if there is a reasonable doubt that AGW is happening, why not start working on reducing carbon dioxide emissions? The cost of doing so is expected to be less than the cause of dealing with the warming if the predictions turn out to be accurate.
If it isn't human activities causing the warming in recent decades, what is it? If humans burning fossil fuels is the best hypothesis we have, then it's been established as the best hypothesis we have. We can never conclusively prove it, but then again we can never conclusively prove anything in science. All we have at any given time is the hypothesis that best agrees with our observations.
Yes, global warming will just make things warmer. Ice melts when it warms. It then flows into the ocean and raises sea level. If the sea level rises by a meter, it will flood entire coastal cities, leading to the loss of many billions of dollars of infrastructure. The reasoning isn't that hard to follow, is it?
There's plenty of data out there for anyone who's interested. I suggest you start with an article that explains the basics of AGW.
Please give one concrete example of a politician who has said global warming will kill us all. It's posts like these that make it impossible to discuss AGW rationally.
Of course it's okay to question on scientific grounds, as long as evidence that can be verified is provided and proper reasoning is used. I occasionally see people who do these things, but they tend to be professional climatologists. Nearly everyone else (in other words, nearly everyone) who argues against AGW gives the same sort of excuse for not believing in it, just as ID proponents give excuses for not believing in evolution. Most often the "evidence" turns out to be wrong, such as claiming that temperatures aren't warming. This error can be found by doing simple fact checking. The other main type of error is faulty reasoning. I think "computer literacy" courses should include being able to determine when information on the Internet is made-up baloney. I don't know what we can do to get people to reason better. At least the GRE now has sections on making an argument and critiquing an argument.