Daniel Dennett actually suggests that you should internally signal an alarm when someone uses the word "surely" in an argument. A statement prefixed by surely is quite often the weakest part of the argument, and if your surely alarm goes off automatically when you hear or read the word, you can know a good place to look for a flawed argument. I think that surely we can say the same for "clearly." Did your alarm go off just now with my use of "surely?"
That's not the reasoning behind the statement that the greenhouse effect warms the Earth. There are calculations and predictions behind it. If you predict the temperature of the Earth without the greenhouse effect, you get far colder temperatures than we observe. When you add in the greenhouse effect, you do get the observed temperatures. That's the scientific method -- hypothesis, prediction, and observation. Arrhenius even used this reasoning to predict in the 1800s that burning fossil fuels would cause warming. Hypothesis, prediction, and observation. You know, actual science.
That's an interesting thought process... "some warming is natural" means "no warming is artificial." It's like claiming at your murder trial that someone's death was natural, so therefore humans can't cause other humans to die. Talk about grasping at straws!
Ah, it took me a while to find it. Under Filter preferences... there's a checkbox for "Allow some non-intrusive advertising." It was already checked when I first found it -- the documentation says it's enabled by default. It doesn't seem to allow much advertising through, yet. Maybe if more advertisers read about the feature and sign the Acceptible Ads Manifesto that will change.
I never thought of that as the reason that Firefox became popular (and why Mozilla was quickly becoming popular before that). Back then, Mozilla's built-in popup blocker blocked nearly all popups. IE didn't have any corresponding feature? That sure would be a compelling reason to switch browsers!
When I read the article, the thought I had was that I installed AdBlock Plus only to disable the popups that Firefox didn't block with its built-in blocker when popups evolved to get around it. Is there still not an ad blocker that blocks only the most annoying ads such as popups?
Who said anything about panic? Anyway, you're using linear extrapolation to estimate future sea level rise, because it gives you results you like. The actual estimates of future sea level rise are far larger than your naive and optimistic guess.
This is exactly what I referred to above. When "skeptics" can't argue the issue, they dismiss the evidence they don't want by labeling it "propaganda". You can also take a look at my signature.
Most of the heat is going into the oceans and causing the sea level to rise due to thermal expansion. Much of the rest of the heat is continuing to melt the ice caps in the Arctic and Antarctic.
I don't think it's climatologists who are the ones dismissing results they don't want. Actually, everyone would love to see that carbon dioxide emissions cause very little warming, but that's just not what the bulk of the data shows.
When applied to other animals, the term is "breed". Do you agree that different breeds of dogs have different physical characteristics, right? Remember that dogs of different breeds can mate and produce fertile offspring, so they are not different species.
I was taught that using marijuana leads to heroin use. When you see many people around you that do not adhere to that model, you start disregarding the information as BS. After realizing how ridiculous some of the information presented about drugs was, I disregarded it all, so it actually backfired. The purpose of drug programs should be to inform students of the real consequences of drug use, not to make up horror stories to scare students.
The whole notion of a "gateway drug" is the misconception that correlation implies causation. Just because someone used caffiene, nicotine, alcohol, or marijuana before moving on to more powerful drugs does not mean that they caused the use of more powerful drugs. You could ban all of those drugs, and some other drug would become the first one users try.
Science is about generating hypotheses, then determining which are incorrect. Many things we take for granted in science now sounded too fantastic to believe when they were proposed. Quantum physics, plate tectonics, and ulcers caused by h. pylori are three examples that come to mind. On the other hand, you shouldn't blindly believe any new hypothesis just because you like it -- you should demand evidence before you accept a new idea.
All that stuff in science textbooks has been the consensus of scientists for years. How else are you going to decide what to put in a textbook beside consensus? Just put in your textbook things you would like to believe are true?
The problem seems to be with drivers who were born between 1893 and 1897. If the DMV existed with computerized records in 1960, these people would have been in their sixties and probably still have drivers licenses. Apparently their records are still in the system.
Everything is nothing more than an honor system. You trust the operating system to accept only the password you chose when someone tries to log in to your account. You trust the compiler not to secretly install backdoors into software. You trust the hardware manufacturers not to implement secret knocks to allow backdoor access. You trust your browser to handle SSL certificates appropriately. If you don't like it, you can build your own hardware and software from scratch and feel safe in the knowledge that it's secure. That is, if you trust that you didn't make a mistake.
I don't think they have agreed it's the most cost-effective solution. I think the bottom line is that they agree that the effects of a warming of 2 degrees Celsius are so bad that we should try hard to avert it. We don't have the technology to remove enough carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to meet that goal, so the only option is to reduce emissions. Now, if you have a better idea, please speak up!
Slashdot Mirror
Daniel Dennett actually suggests that you should internally signal an alarm when someone uses the word "surely" in an argument. A statement prefixed by surely is quite often the weakest part of the argument, and if your surely alarm goes off automatically when you hear or read the word, you can know a good place to look for a flawed argument. I think that surely we can say the same for "clearly." Did your alarm go off just now with my use of "surely?"
That's not the reasoning behind the statement that the greenhouse effect warms the Earth. There are calculations and predictions behind it. If you predict the temperature of the Earth without the greenhouse effect, you get far colder temperatures than we observe. When you add in the greenhouse effect, you do get the observed temperatures. That's the scientific method -- hypothesis, prediction, and observation. Arrhenius even used this reasoning to predict in the 1800s that burning fossil fuels would cause warming. Hypothesis, prediction, and observation. You know, actual science.
That's an interesting thought process... "some warming is natural" means "no warming is artificial." It's like claiming at your murder trial that someone's death was natural, so therefore humans can't cause other humans to die. Talk about grasping at straws!
Yeah, who needs a flutist when you're already a whistleblower?
And yet the melting of ice and sea level rise continue to accelerate as predicted by AGW.
Yo mama!
One could even say it's the opiate of the masses.
Ah, it took me a while to find it. Under Filter preferences... there's a checkbox for "Allow some non-intrusive advertising." It was already checked when I first found it -- the documentation says it's enabled by default. It doesn't seem to allow much advertising through, yet. Maybe if more advertisers read about the feature and sign the Acceptible Ads Manifesto that will change.
I never thought of that as the reason that Firefox became popular (and why Mozilla was quickly becoming popular before that). Back then, Mozilla's built-in popup blocker blocked nearly all popups. IE didn't have any corresponding feature? That sure would be a compelling reason to switch browsers!
When I read the article, the thought I had was that I installed AdBlock Plus only to disable the popups that Firefox didn't block with its built-in blocker when popups evolved to get around it. Is there still not an ad blocker that blocks only the most annoying ads such as popups?
Who said anything about panic? Anyway, you're using linear extrapolation to estimate future sea level rise, because it gives you results you like. The actual estimates of future sea level rise are far larger than your naive and optimistic guess.
This is exactly what I referred to above. When "skeptics" can't argue the issue, they dismiss the evidence they don't want by labeling it "propaganda". You can also take a look at my signature.
That's called the temperature escalator.
Most of the heat is going into the oceans and causing the sea level to rise due to thermal expansion. Much of the rest of the heat is continuing to melt the ice caps in the Arctic and Antarctic.
I don't think it's climatologists who are the ones dismissing results they don't want. Actually, everyone would love to see that carbon dioxide emissions cause very little warming, but that's just not what the bulk of the data shows.
When applied to other animals, the term is "breed". Do you agree that different breeds of dogs have different physical characteristics, right? Remember that dogs of different breeds can mate and produce fertile offspring, so they are not different species.
I was taught that using marijuana leads to heroin use. When you see many people around you that do not adhere to that model, you start disregarding the information as BS. After realizing how ridiculous some of the information presented about drugs was, I disregarded it all, so it actually backfired. The purpose of drug programs should be to inform students of the real consequences of drug use, not to make up horror stories to scare students.
The whole notion of a "gateway drug" is the misconception that correlation implies causation. Just because someone used caffiene, nicotine, alcohol, or marijuana before moving on to more powerful drugs does not mean that they caused the use of more powerful drugs. You could ban all of those drugs, and some other drug would become the first one users try.
Science is about generating hypotheses, then determining which are incorrect. Many things we take for granted in science now sounded too fantastic to believe when they were proposed. Quantum physics, plate tectonics, and ulcers caused by h. pylori are three examples that come to mind. On the other hand, you shouldn't blindly believe any new hypothesis just because you like it -- you should demand evidence before you accept a new idea.
It is what it is, no matter what you call it.
Why? It would take only one scientist to falsify AGW. All we need now is the evidence.
All that stuff in science textbooks has been the consensus of scientists for years. How else are you going to decide what to put in a textbook beside consensus? Just put in your textbook things you would like to believe are true?
The problem seems to be with drivers who were born between 1893 and 1897. If the DMV existed with computerized records in 1960, these people would have been in their sixties and probably still have drivers licenses. Apparently their records are still in the system.
Everything is nothing more than an honor system. You trust the operating system to accept only the password you chose when someone tries to log in to your account. You trust the compiler not to secretly install backdoors into software. You trust the hardware manufacturers not to implement secret knocks to allow backdoor access. You trust your browser to handle SSL certificates appropriately. If you don't like it, you can build your own hardware and software from scratch and feel safe in the knowledge that it's secure. That is, if you trust that you didn't make a mistake.
I don't think they have agreed it's the most cost-effective solution. I think the bottom line is that they agree that the effects of a warming of 2 degrees Celsius are so bad that we should try hard to avert it. We don't have the technology to remove enough carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to meet that goal, so the only option is to reduce emissions. Now, if you have a better idea, please speak up!
We don't have any way of storing energy efficiently? Really?