If there's a disagreement about where a comma should be placed, you should discuss it on the talk page and abide by the consensus agreement. If you want to dispute the decision, there are ways of resolving disputes that don't involve an edit war. The placement of a comma can make a huge difference in the meaning of a sentence.
I revert edits all the time, especially from anonymous editors. Typically the reason is that the editor did not follow Wikipedia policies or made a very poor edit such as adding information that is wrong.
Poorly. The real Wikipedia policy is: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If you cannot find a reliable source to verify your claim, it does not meet the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with whether it is true or not.
The fact that Opera fanboys keep modding me down for speaking the truth just makes Opera look desperate to be noticed. Do you think pretending that Opera develops all new features before any other browser makes people want to use it? Or does it make you look desperate for attention?
Government wants to change my lifestyle for a 0.117% change in total greenhouse gas output?
Who in the government is asking you to change your lifestyle? You'll just get electricity from low-carbon sources, have high efficiency appliances and good insulation on your home, and have a car that gets great gas mileage. I think most of the argument against global warming comes from resisting a "lifestyle change" that no one is even proposing!
You can't confirm or falsify anything with a sample of one observation that lies outside a 95% confidence interval. What we need is repeated predictions and observations. If 19 out of 20 observations are within the 95% confidence interval, that's very good confirmation of the prediction. The fact that such big news is being made from just one observation that lies just outside the 95% confidence interval suggests that previous observations did fall within the confidence interval.
So..... given that any changes in the weather prove global warming, what would disprove global warming?
Changes in weather will not disprove global warming, because weather is not climate. Lack of predicted changes to the climate will disprove global warming. If the global average temperature cools, or remains stable, or even slows significantly (for example, less than 0.1 degrees Celsius for at least a few decades), that would disprove the current climate models which predict several degrees Celsius temperature increase this century if we keep emitting carbon dioxide at an increasing rate.
What's wrong with keeping our emissions of CO2 is that it is a greenhouse gas. It is predicted to cause significant warming, of several degrees Celsius, if we double the atmospheric concentration from 285 ppm to 570 ppm. If we keep emitting CO2 at an increasing rate, the temperature increase is predicted to be several degrees this century, causing sea level rise of a meter this century and several more meters after that. This will inundate urban coastal areas causing widespread economic loss.
Erring on the safe side is done all the time in science. When a new drug is approved, a safe and efficacious dose is determined. Do you think they give increasing doses of new drugs to human trial subjects until they find the lethal dose, or do you think they stay on the safe side? You can even analyze CO2 emissions using risk management. Now if George would finally present his research on risk management instead of telling stupid Ovaltine jokes, we could get on with it.
Why would the net loss in volume more than double from 22 cu mi per year to 53 cu mi per year in recent years? Could perhaps the globe be not only warming, but warming at a rapidly increasing rate? Could this be why Antarctic ice is also melting at an increasing rate?
I honestly don't care who believes and who doesn't believe. The more important fact is that peer-reviewed papers consistently come to the conclusion that AGW is happening. I have yet to see a peer-reviewed paper that comes to the conclusion that AGW is not happening. If there were evidence that AGW were not happening, I would think someone would think it important enough to write up a paper about it. Do they all just write blogs and make YouTube videos and never think to write a paper?
We won't die due to climate change. At least the vast majority of us almost certainly won't. I don't know where people get this stuff. Global warming certainly is something to be avoided for many reasons, but it's not going to be the end of civilization. Most people in developed countries will hardly be affected.
We can reduce CO2 emissions in two ways without reducing economic activity:
1) Increase energy efficiency
2) Get more energy from sources that emit less carbon dioxide, such as nuclear, solar, wind, hydroelectric. Even generating energy from natural gas instead of coal will reduce emissions.
Although there is an economic cost to doing this, it is predicted to cost less than the effects of global warming. That's precisely why we're trying to reduce emissions right now with the Copenhagen Accord.
The hypothesis of AGW does not say that only human activity can cause warming. In the past, the cooling and warming were natural, caused by changes in the Earth's orbit. Right now, most warming seems to be due to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.
You are correct that there is no "right" temperature for the Earth, but if the Earth warms up by several more degrees and the sea level rises by several meters, trillions of dollars of wealth will be lost as coastal urban areas are inundated by the ocean. The fact is that it is economically advantageous for us to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
One question for the warmers reading. Can the theory of AGW be falsified?
Of course it can. It wouldn't be a valid scientific hypothesis if it couldn't be falsified. If the global average temperature decreases or stabilizes over the timescale of decades, even as the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continues to increase, that would invalidate the notion that increased carbon dioxide causes significant warming. If the Arctic ice and Antarctic ice stop melting, that would show that the warming has stopped. It should be trivial to falsify, if it is false. If it cannot be falsified, that that means the hypothesis has been confirmed.
Reproducability doesn't mean you take someone else's data and get the same results. Reproducability means you do your own experiment (i.e your own design, your own data collection, your own analysis) and come to the same conclusion. There are hundreds of papers that come to the conclusion that AGW is happening. Therefore, the result has been reproduced. If you want to show it isn't happening, do your own experiment and show how you came to the conclusion that it isn't.
There's a large body of research that shows AGW is happening. If someone points out a flaw in one paper that comes to the conclusion that AGW is happening, they have not shown anything about AGW. But what I hear many people say is that errors in AGW papers means that they don't trust claims about AGW. What you would need to do to show AGW isn't happening is to write a paper that comes to the conclusion that AGW isn't happening. No amount of nitpicking or critiquing papers in favor of AGW can ever show that the hypothesis of AGW is incorrect. Can you understand?
It seems to me there's a difference between taking someone's data and doing your own science with it, and taking someone's data and nitpicking their science with it. Sure, you can go back and nitpick the science that Newton, Mendel, and Millikan did, but you're not showing that their conclusions were wrong. You're never going to show that a hypothesis is incorrect by critiquing the science of others. You're going to have to do your own science, and reach your own conclusions.
What about physics? Schön was a physicist who was discovered to have published papers based on outright fraudulent research. Do you not "go along" with physics because they're "shady people"?
Slashdot Mirror
If there's a disagreement about where a comma should be placed, you should discuss it on the talk page and abide by the consensus agreement. If you want to dispute the decision, there are ways of resolving disputes that don't involve an edit war. The placement of a comma can make a huge difference in the meaning of a sentence.
I revert edits all the time, especially from anonymous editors. Typically the reason is that the editor did not follow Wikipedia policies or made a very poor edit such as adding information that is wrong.
Poorly. The real Wikipedia policy is: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If you cannot find a reliable source to verify your claim, it does not meet the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with whether it is true or not.
The fact that Opera fanboys keep modding me down for speaking the truth just makes Opera look desperate to be noticed. Do you think pretending that Opera develops all new features before any other browser makes people want to use it? Or does it make you look desperate for attention?
So I was trolling, eh? Mozilla Firebird had DOM Inspector in 2003. It was in development as early as 2001. Sheesh! Will you Opera fanbois never give up? Opera even copied the name from Mozilla!
I propose a new betting pool: How long until an Opera fanatic claims Opera developed Dragonfly first, and Firebug is just a ripoff.
And you are lynching Negroes. Uh, I mean, and we are lynching Negroes. I think.
Who in the government is asking you to change your lifestyle? You'll just get electricity from low-carbon sources, have high efficiency appliances and good insulation on your home, and have a car that gets great gas mileage. I think most of the argument against global warming comes from resisting a "lifestyle change" that no one is even proposing!
You can't confirm or falsify anything with a sample of one observation that lies outside a 95% confidence interval. What we need is repeated predictions and observations. If 19 out of 20 observations are within the 95% confidence interval, that's very good confirmation of the prediction. The fact that such big news is being made from just one observation that lies just outside the 95% confidence interval suggests that previous observations did fall within the confidence interval.
Changes in weather will not disprove global warming, because weather is not climate. Lack of predicted changes to the climate will disprove global warming. If the global average temperature cools, or remains stable, or even slows significantly (for example, less than 0.1 degrees Celsius for at least a few decades), that would disprove the current climate models which predict several degrees Celsius temperature increase this century if we keep emitting carbon dioxide at an increasing rate.
What's wrong with keeping our emissions of CO2 is that it is a greenhouse gas. It is predicted to cause significant warming, of several degrees Celsius, if we double the atmospheric concentration from 285 ppm to 570 ppm. If we keep emitting CO2 at an increasing rate, the temperature increase is predicted to be several degrees this century, causing sea level rise of a meter this century and several more meters after that. This will inundate urban coastal areas causing widespread economic loss.
Erring on the safe side is done all the time in science. When a new drug is approved, a safe and efficacious dose is determined. Do you think they give increasing doses of new drugs to human trial subjects until they find the lethal dose, or do you think they stay on the safe side? You can even analyze CO2 emissions using risk management. Now if George would finally present his research on risk management instead of telling stupid Ovaltine jokes, we could get on with it.
Why would the net loss in volume more than double from 22 cu mi per year to 53 cu mi per year in recent years? Could perhaps the globe be not only warming, but warming at a rapidly increasing rate? Could this be why Antarctic ice is also melting at an increasing rate?
I honestly don't care who believes and who doesn't believe. The more important fact is that peer-reviewed papers consistently come to the conclusion that AGW is happening. I have yet to see a peer-reviewed paper that comes to the conclusion that AGW is not happening. If there were evidence that AGW were not happening, I would think someone would think it important enough to write up a paper about it. Do they all just write blogs and make YouTube videos and never think to write a paper?
We won't die due to climate change. At least the vast majority of us almost certainly won't. I don't know where people get this stuff. Global warming certainly is something to be avoided for many reasons, but it's not going to be the end of civilization. Most people in developed countries will hardly be affected.
We can reduce CO2 emissions in two ways without reducing economic activity:
1) Increase energy efficiency
2) Get more energy from sources that emit less carbon dioxide, such as nuclear, solar, wind, hydroelectric. Even generating energy from natural gas instead of coal will reduce emissions.
Although there is an economic cost to doing this, it is predicted to cost less than the effects of global warming. That's precisely why we're trying to reduce emissions right now with the Copenhagen Accord.
The thickness of the Antarctic ice is also decreasing. In fact, the rate of melting is increasing.
The hypothesis of AGW does not say that only human activity can cause warming. In the past, the cooling and warming were natural, caused by changes in the Earth's orbit. Right now, most warming seems to be due to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.
You are correct that there is no "right" temperature for the Earth, but if the Earth warms up by several more degrees and the sea level rises by several meters, trillions of dollars of wealth will be lost as coastal urban areas are inundated by the ocean. The fact is that it is economically advantageous for us to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Asphalt parking lots would not make the Arctic ice and Antarctic ice melt.
It only ends once. Anything that happens before that is just progress.
For the last time, climate is not weather.
Of course it can. It wouldn't be a valid scientific hypothesis if it couldn't be falsified. If the global average temperature decreases or stabilizes over the timescale of decades, even as the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continues to increase, that would invalidate the notion that increased carbon dioxide causes significant warming. If the Arctic ice and Antarctic ice stop melting, that would show that the warming has stopped. It should be trivial to falsify, if it is false. If it cannot be falsified, that that means the hypothesis has been confirmed.
It would be misguided to cut down forests to grow switchgrass. We should use degraded or barren land or land that switchgrass already grows on.
Reproducability doesn't mean you take someone else's data and get the same results. Reproducability means you do your own experiment (i.e your own design, your own data collection, your own analysis) and come to the same conclusion. There are hundreds of papers that come to the conclusion that AGW is happening. Therefore, the result has been reproduced. If you want to show it isn't happening, do your own experiment and show how you came to the conclusion that it isn't.
There's a large body of research that shows AGW is happening. If someone points out a flaw in one paper that comes to the conclusion that AGW is happening, they have not shown anything about AGW. But what I hear many people say is that errors in AGW papers means that they don't trust claims about AGW. What you would need to do to show AGW isn't happening is to write a paper that comes to the conclusion that AGW isn't happening. No amount of nitpicking or critiquing papers in favor of AGW can ever show that the hypothesis of AGW is incorrect. Can you understand?
It seems to me there's a difference between taking someone's data and doing your own science with it, and taking someone's data and nitpicking their science with it. Sure, you can go back and nitpick the science that Newton, Mendel, and Millikan did, but you're not showing that their conclusions were wrong. You're never going to show that a hypothesis is incorrect by critiquing the science of others. You're going to have to do your own science, and reach your own conclusions.
What about physics? Schön was a physicist who was discovered to have published papers based on outright fraudulent research. Do you not "go along" with physics because they're "shady people"?