The point is that Sique way back when was writing a fairy tale world where "scientists" don't have opinions and don't "tell the government what to do". Phantomfive found a counterexample. Now, it's a bunch of quibbling over whether this particular scientist, James Hansen was acting in his capacity as "scientist" or not.
Glancing at this particular letter, he does use his job title prominently which indicates that he does in part intend to speak with that authority not just as a person with an opinion on the matter. He also has a history of advocating publicly for the AGW theory and AGW mitigation, including appearances in front of Congress.
I don't see oil companies being particularly hungry for shills else they'd have a pile of them.
But sure, scientists are all just paid off by a government conspiracy.
You are all over imaginary connections between oil companies and AGW skeptics while ignoring that "scientists" who happen to propagate a desired outlook on climate are openly funded by government parties with an interest in generating AGW propaganda. Whether or not there is a "conspiracy", there is a blatant conflict of interest being ignored here.
That's a particularly obvious connection. Politicians or bureaucrats need a scare to increase funding for a "green" or "western guilt" project. Climatologists release reports on the fearsome consequences of "climate change". End result is that the politicians/bureaucrats get the propaganda they need and the researcher gets the funding they need.
we humans (and our crops, and our livestock animals) have evolved to survive in a certain climate range
It's worth noting here that a) that the "certain range" is a really broad range and b) the Earth's climate is not expected to leave this temperature range. So I wouldn't call this an issue of understanding but rather one of relevance.
Care to provide a citation to the recent IPCC report that says that they are no longer claiming such?
How about the most recent IPCC report? That would be the definitive citation here and one which Jane Q. Public already provided. Or it might be that Jane Q. Public was expressing an opinion, in which case the definitive citation would circularly be the post that states the opinion.
While there is a place for providing references backing one's words, this demanding for "citations" is getting silly. I'm sure I can still find the tobacco lobby funded research somewhere to back my claims that smoking doesn't hurt anyone. Then the demand for citations has turned a reasonable argument about the dangers of smoking into an insipid argument about whether or not to take this particular research seriously.
Or what happens if I should happen to make a factually correct statement and can't be bothered to look for a citation - say because I don't have the time or the research isn't easily searchable online? Did I just lose the internets?
And in the above post, we have a demand for citations just because a poster is lazy. How hard could it possibly be to grep for "extreme weather" or the like in the relevant parts of the IPCC document?
It wouldn't be a good start for Kansas. The problem with this "think globally, destroy economy locally" thinking is that, aside from that it being a poor idea in the first place, everyone isn't doing this. For example, China currently is generating most of the growth in the rate of CO2 emissions. By most, I mean more than 50%.
So why should Kansas sacrifice its economy for dubious environmental goals while China gets a free pass?
You don't want to feel guilty for living a western lifestyle that generates lots of CO2, something like that?
I don't know about the previous poster, but why should I feel guilt? My western lifestyle does a lot for the future. The guilt argument is based on the assumption that generating CO2 is bad for the future, the world and our descendants. That assumption is not founded in reality since we don't just generate CO2, we generate it to do useful things that help both our world and our future generations.
We can also act now, try to shift our energy production towards carbon neutrality. We will have to eventually anyway, so why not start now? We certainly should shift towards processes that save us money regardless of whether climate disruption is a problem or not.
The obvious rebuttal is that these processes don't actually save us money. That is why we don't do them.
I get that, hence, why I wrote what I did. Those poor people just won't ever be able to figure out how to work with elitist, libertarian WASPs.
I do find it delicious that your libelous accusations of ethnic exclusivity are themselves racist and discriminatory. That's classic hypocrisy of our times.
I'm pretty sure you had some other groups in mind here, but you are wrong.
Employers. And I have to actually be wrong to be wrong.
Capitalists and bankers create nothing. Capitalists just take a cut from the top, and bankers shift peanuts around, taking a cut from the top.
A completely irrelevant observation first, because it is wrong - a common capitalist trick is to create new capital or make existing capital more valuable. And bankers turn money that otherwise would have been rotting in a matress somewhere into capital via lending. That's their primary job.
They also invent false wealth.
Wealth is simply stuff we value. We can collectively change our opinions as to how valuable something is. And as long as there has been trade, someone has been trying to present the thing they want to get rid of as being more valuable.
No, it's not smart to actually use it now for food, or you will be poor!
Since it can be used for stuff you value, such as food, it is wealth.
Obamacare is Romneycare re-packaged and is nothing like single payer and absolutely unlike nationalized healthcare.
I favor the theory that this law is intended to destroy insurance-based health care. Create an exploitable emergency to generate political will for single payer.
Oh, it was the chemical lobby. You know there is a real history to this that you can look up. I recommend doing so, because it is a fascinating window into how power structures really work regarding these types of issues.
Well, I was working at Du Pont at the time as an intern. They were pleased as punch to be able to phase in all these profitable CFC alternatives and be green at the same time. So yes, by all means look into the real history.
A scientific theory is a statement that describes all current known evidence and is contradicted by none.
No, that is not a theory because no one is knowledgeable enough about all current known evidence to even put together such a statement. Theories routinely have "contradicting" evidence such as the flat Earth and spherical Earth models.
There is no such idea as "just a theory" in science because a theory is a very powerful and well vetted tool.
Well, talk to the person I was replying to. They were the ones unclear on what "theory" means in this context.
CFCs are naturally emitted by Earth volcanoes apparently in small amounts. As an interesting bit of off-topic trivial, there's some speculative research that CFCs may be a significant part of lunar volatile compounds (based on some thermodynamic modeling research), but nobody will know for sure until someone drills into some trapped volatiles.
Slashdot Mirror
(a) efficiency is not morality, you haven't answered the question
Another way to say this is that when you make a system inefficient, you're taking away from part of the system.
(d) rationing, if it occurs, is a short-term problem, which the free market (training medical personnel) should fix
Not if costs are kept down. The signal to increase supply of something is by rising price. This also rules out a free market as a result.
The point is that Sique way back when was writing a fairy tale world where "scientists" don't have opinions and don't "tell the government what to do". Phantomfive found a counterexample. Now, it's a bunch of quibbling over whether this particular scientist, James Hansen was acting in his capacity as "scientist" or not.
Glancing at this particular letter, he does use his job title prominently which indicates that he does in part intend to speak with that authority not just as a person with an opinion on the matter. He also has a history of advocating publicly for the AGW theory and AGW mitigation, including appearances in front of Congress.
I was supposed to read the book? It wasn't online at the link.
These big tech fucks move into a town, drive the real estate prices sky-high
Right. I bet that happens all the time. Just don't in places that attract them then.
Ok, so you agree. What is the point of your post aside from dropping a link to that book again?
I don't see the evidence for that claim in the link you provided.
Just like True Scotsmen, amirite? I think Phantamfive's point remains intact.
What if they're being too conservative in efforts to not sound alarmist.
Then their model predictions would be undershooting observed global warming not the other way around.
But sure, scientists are all just paid off by a government conspiracy.
You are all over imaginary connections between oil companies and AGW skeptics while ignoring that "scientists" who happen to propagate a desired outlook on climate are openly funded by government parties with an interest in generating AGW propaganda. Whether or not there is a "conspiracy", there is a blatant conflict of interest being ignored here.
Many of whom are publicly funded
That's a particularly obvious connection. Politicians or bureaucrats need a scare to increase funding for a "green" or "western guilt" project. Climatologists release reports on the fearsome consequences of "climate change". End result is that the politicians/bureaucrats get the propaganda they need and the researcher gets the funding they need.
we humans (and our crops, and our livestock animals) have evolved to survive in a certain climate range
It's worth noting here that a) that the "certain range" is a really broad range and b) the Earth's climate is not expected to leave this temperature range. So I wouldn't call this an issue of understanding but rather one of relevance.
Care to provide a citation to the recent IPCC report that says that they are no longer claiming such?
How about the most recent IPCC report? That would be the definitive citation here and one which Jane Q. Public already provided. Or it might be that Jane Q. Public was expressing an opinion, in which case the definitive citation would circularly be the post that states the opinion.
While there is a place for providing references backing one's words, this demanding for "citations" is getting silly. I'm sure I can still find the tobacco lobby funded research somewhere to back my claims that smoking doesn't hurt anyone. Then the demand for citations has turned a reasonable argument about the dangers of smoking into an insipid argument about whether or not to take this particular research seriously.
Or what happens if I should happen to make a factually correct statement and can't be bothered to look for a citation - say because I don't have the time or the research isn't easily searchable online? Did I just lose the internets?
And in the above post, we have a demand for citations just because a poster is lazy. How hard could it possibly be to grep for "extreme weather" or the like in the relevant parts of the IPCC document?
It wouldn't be a good start for Kansas. The problem with this "think globally, destroy economy locally" thinking is that, aside from that it being a poor idea in the first place, everyone isn't doing this. For example, China currently is generating most of the growth in the rate of CO2 emissions. By most, I mean more than 50%.
So why should Kansas sacrifice its economy for dubious environmental goals while China gets a free pass?
There probably is some tie in between climate change and the health of Iowa's aquifers.
Humans would still be drawing down the aquifer even if there wasn't climate change. So no, there doesn't have to be a tie in.
Because climate change denialists think in lock step.
China has to dump those rare earths into something. Renewable energy is the big fad these days.
You don't want to feel guilty for living a western lifestyle that generates lots of CO2, something like that?
I don't know about the previous poster, but why should I feel guilt? My western lifestyle does a lot for the future. The guilt argument is based on the assumption that generating CO2 is bad for the future, the world and our descendants. That assumption is not founded in reality since we don't just generate CO2, we generate it to do useful things that help both our world and our future generations.
We can also act now, try to shift our energy production towards carbon neutrality. We will have to eventually anyway, so why not start now? We certainly should shift towards processes that save us money regardless of whether climate disruption is a problem or not.
The obvious rebuttal is that these processes don't actually save us money. That is why we don't do them.
I get that, hence, why I wrote what I did. Those poor people just won't ever be able to figure out how to work with elitist, libertarian WASPs.
I do find it delicious that your libelous accusations of ethnic exclusivity are themselves racist and discriminatory. That's classic hypocrisy of our times.
so we have a reasonably long period of measurement
Too bad we don't have reasonable measurements to go with those reasonable periods of measurement.
I'm pretty sure you had some other groups in mind here, but you are wrong.
Employers. And I have to actually be wrong to be wrong.
Capitalists and bankers create nothing. Capitalists just take a cut from the top, and bankers shift peanuts around, taking a cut from the top.
A completely irrelevant observation first, because it is wrong - a common capitalist trick is to create new capital or make existing capital more valuable. And bankers turn money that otherwise would have been rotting in a matress somewhere into capital via lending. That's their primary job.
They also invent false wealth.
Wealth is simply stuff we value. We can collectively change our opinions as to how valuable something is. And as long as there has been trade, someone has been trying to present the thing they want to get rid of as being more valuable.
No, it's not smart to actually use it now for food, or you will be poor!
Since it can be used for stuff you value, such as food, it is wealth.
Obamacare is Romneycare re-packaged and is nothing like single payer and absolutely unlike nationalized healthcare.
I favor the theory that this law is intended to destroy insurance-based health care. Create an exploitable emergency to generate political will for single payer.
Oh, it was the chemical lobby. You know there is a real history to this that you can look up. I recommend doing so, because it is a fascinating window into how power structures really work regarding these types of issues.
Well, I was working at Du Pont at the time as an intern. They were pleased as punch to be able to phase in all these profitable CFC alternatives and be green at the same time. So yes, by all means look into the real history.
Do you even know what a scientific theory is?
Yes, I do.
A scientific theory is a statement that describes all current known evidence and is contradicted by none.
No, that is not a theory because no one is knowledgeable enough about all current known evidence to even put together such a statement. Theories routinely have "contradicting" evidence such as the flat Earth and spherical Earth models.
There is no such idea as "just a theory" in science because a theory is a very powerful and well vetted tool.
Well, talk to the person I was replying to. They were the ones unclear on what "theory" means in this context.
CFCs are naturally emitted by Earth volcanoes apparently in small amounts. As an interesting bit of off-topic trivial, there's some speculative research that CFCs may be a significant part of lunar volatile compounds (based on some thermodynamic modeling research), but nobody will know for sure until someone drills into some trapped volatiles.
Right, because the scientists never thought of that either.
So what? It's still a huge problem no matter how much thinking goes on.
And you know, the economy was going to be RUINED by addressing CFC pollution. It would also lead to global world socialist government.
Phasing out CFCs had higher profit margins for the chemical companies and no significant opposition from anyone else, thus it was done.
I mean, who needs error bars when "extrapolating long time behavior from short term data is fraught with peril".
Who needs to think when you can babble on the internet? "Error bars" don't magically create data that doesn't exist.