Just wait a little longer and the next conflict will start. The number of immigrants crossing the border to the "western" European countries is increasing on a daily basis.
Conflict should happen within the next few years.
"And you can't repeat the experiment to see if it would have supported the conclusion, you just have to trust the original researcher's models." as in astrophysics, and yet it is highly predictive since it is based on physics.
Sure, you can. For example, for stellar physics you have something like 100 or more billion stars to study just in our galaxy. That gives you a vast population of objects to study, in various stages of the lifespan of a star and a variety of mass, composition, companion objects, etc. While for climatogy you have one climate with roughly 30 years of good data, another century of so so surface data, and progressively worsening temperature proxy data as you go back further in time.
As to being based on physics, they can't nail the temperature sensitivity of carbon dioxide beyond a factor of two (usual estimate is 2-4 C mean global temperature increase per doubling of CO2 concentration and that might be too high). Sure, it's physics, but it's physics that we don't understand very well.
The 'emotion and rhetoric' comes when some people don't like the consequences of the answers.
Or because actual science isn't being done. Keep in mind that there's a lot of money riding on anthropogenic global warming being a sufficiently urgent threat that governments can be convinced to spend vast amounts of public funds - more than the entire fossil fuels industry takes in as profit. I think that money buys a lot of favorable and biased climatology research.
And there's an interesting example of faulty research which blames the shifting population of a particular butterfly on climate change:
Parmesan tactfully offered lip service to altered landscapes, but stated that her âoeprobabilistic modelâ accurately separated the effects of land use from climate change. To demonstrate her modelâ(TM)s power, she wrote, âoeConsider the case of the silver-spotted skipper butterfly (Hesperia comma) that has expanded its distribution close to its northern boundary in England over the past 20 years. Possible ecological explanations for this expansion are regional warming and changes in land use. Comparing the magnitudes and directions of these two factors suggests that climate change is more likely than land-use change to be the cause of expansion.â That was a very odd claim.
This was the very same Silver-spotted Skipper that Jeremy Thomasâ(TM) detailed studies and subsequent conservation prescriptions had saved from extinction along with the Large Blue. Parmesan was hijacking a conservation success story to spin a tale of climate disruption. Her âoeproofâ that climate change was driving the Silver-spotted Skipper northward came from the work of her old friend C.D. Thomas, known for predicting that rising CO2 levels had committed 60% of the worldâ(TM)s species to extinction.5 Using a mesmerizing statistical model, C.D. Thomas argued that because the Silver-spotted Skipper âoeneeds warmth,â only global warming could account for its recent colonization of a few cooler north-facing slopes of Englandâ(TM)s southern hills.
The Skipper is indeed fond of hotter south-facing slopes. However, the butterfly had historically inhabited cooler northern slopes if those slopes had been grazed. Like the Large Blue, the Skipper had disappeared from both cool north-facing slopes and warm south-facing slopes whenever the turf grew too high.6,7 C.D. Thomasâ(TM) model was statistically significant only if he ignored recent conservation efforts to promote warmer, short-turf habitat. At the end of his paper, relegated to his methods sections, he quietly stated, âoewe assumed that grazing patterns were the same in 1982 as in 2000.â4 Parmesan and C.D. were guilty of grave sins of omission.
Yet. We'll see if there's anything to the story. After all, if these were instructions to falsify anything, then it's most likely something that's been done before and the evidence will be in previous papers.
Mars is certainly NOT a very nice place to visit and unsuited for setting up a self contained, self supporting human colony.
Well, I guess you have to build a little infrastructure then to acquire the resources you need which are all present on the surface of Mars and to provide the living environment you need. Next.
0
Other locations you mention are either too hot or way to cold and ALL of them lack breathable atmospheres.
I guess we'll have to build infrastructure to provide that then. Next.
On the travel time... This is EXACTLY the issue. It takes a LONG time to get just about anywhere outside the solar system.
Ok, it takes a long time. We'll just have to be patient then. Next.
The radiation exposure in space is survivable for short terms, but when you have that kind of exposure for YEARS, it's going to kill a significant percentage of the crew.
Ok. Need radiation shielding - lots of it. No need for FTL.
Ok, you've probably never thought about these sorts of problems before. I guess there's no shame in that. You are right about the time issue. It's not like we're going to do this in the next few decades nor will it be a short hop over to any other star systems. And this stuff probably will never ever matter to you.
The thing is, most of these obstacles are just standard engineering problems about which we already know a number of solutions including some already working stuff on Earth. I guess I just don't get the point of trying to exaggerate the difficulty of doing things in space.
You sound like you believe climate change is problematic, but you're going to leave it for the next generation of people to do something about it.
What's wrong with that? The next generation of people isn't going to be a bunch of helpless bobbleheads. And in the meantime we have bigger problems than climate change. For example, desertification is going to destroy as much arable land in a year or two as climate change is alleged to do (ignoring I might add creation of new arable land in the northern hemisphere) by 2100. That's roughly two orders of magnitude more destruction of farmland. Similarly, somewhere around a billion people are still living in abject poverty. Doing nothing about climate change helps those people more than doing something does, because the former doesn't hinder the global economy - the engine by which those people are being lifted out of poverty.
So what should we do? Addressing the more important problems of today, which will in turn have a far more beneficial effect on the future than slight mitigation of climate change? Or squandering vast resources on ineffective climate change mitigation, which incidentally our descendants will be fully capable of dealing with?
Heh,and it'll be good when plants have finished burying all that evil carbon that got loose.
Also, all that carbon was sequestered in stars until one or more stars went supernova. So we're probably risking a supernova until we can get it all back into the ground again.
Simple thermostats don't measure temperature directly they measure the level of the bend in a strip made of metals with different expansions at different temperatures
That is quite deceptive. I'll just note that there is a direct, accurate, and well known correlation between the bending of those metals and the temperature of those metals. And the thermostat is designed to limit the extent of other effects. That makes it a direct measurement of temperature.
For ice cores the proxy is the isotope balance of the gas trapped in the bubbles between what would have been snow but is now compacted and sealed ice, tree rings measure plant growth rates, sea levels obvious but crude measure of polar ice, and sediment measures such as how much desert on the planet at a given time via radioisotope dating can also be used. These are not more complex nor more distant you need something that lasts and is effected by climate in a reactively constant manner that can be measured today and that we can calibrate from modern measurements, hard to do but simple in principle.
Tree rings can't. Recall one of the many dramas of climategate was the private discussion of the discarding of tree ring data from after 1960 precisely because it failed as a temperature proxy. And I find it interesting how you ignore difficulties (such as not measuring what you think proxies should be measuring) as "simple in principle".
In practice, you are wasting my time with breezy generalizations.
The closest planet we *might* be able to make a go of is Mars.
And it would be adequate. We also can colonize many of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, Mercury, the Moon, a vast number of asteroids, etc.
Providing enough shielding to make a 10 year (one way) trip to some close earth like planet is going to take a HUGE amount of mass and then you have to come up with a way to get all that mass moving in the right direction, and stop it when you get to the destination. This is obviously not possible.
Fission powered electric propulsion. Just increase the travel time well beyond ten years and those propulsion systems become viable.
Yeah, about that, there's no habitable planets close by, like within even a generation or two of constant travel, and seeing as my weatherman has problems predicting 5 days out, I think terraforming the moon or Mars or whatever is a pipe dream right now.
But terraforming won't be when it gets done.
What we have to do is put real money into fusion, build more plants, and battery tech for cars. Keep this planet alive for a few more thousand years.... so, Idk, our species will survive to the point we're ready to colonize (if ever).
We've already done that, spending money on the very things you mention. And you know what? The internal combustion engine might not be the most efficient engine out there, but the standard automobile fuel tank is the most efficient way to store energy out there (at least until you get to strong/weak force-based storage such as fission, fusion, nuclear isomers, anti-matter, etc).
OTOH, humanity can change it's tactics, if forced to. The only question will that force going to be strong leadership or nature herself?
I suggest nature. At least, you'd have a valid reason for changing tactics rather than because some idiot decided carbon was bad.
First, they deny the NSA spying allegations. They half-admit the allegations while simultaneously going after the whistleblower full bore. Now, Obama starts speaking of transparency? Where was that transparency this whole time? It's lie after lie after lie.
Please please please could someone tell me just what you believe is being done with this information?
It's a standard tactic in modern tyrannies. If you know everything about your subjects, then you have much more power over them. That comes both from the raw information, such as the weaknesses and associations of your subjects, and the fear inspired in them by that knowledge.
But I'm trying and failing to think of something bad being done with it that would still be secret.
Well, what would a Gestapo or KGB do with such information? You having any luck thinking now?
Ah yes we should dismiss a the fact that the latest 6% of the data is different from the remaining 94% of the data in a manner that makes sense and matches predictions given our current understanding of climate systems.
Yes. Especially when you consider that most of the 94% is pretty bad. And there's always confirmation bias. You might remember me talking about that. There will always be some sort of extreme 1 in 15 weather in any given decade of the last 150 years.
The predictions based on these models matches the current trend confirming them, the fact that it is also found to be extreme enough that this decade is exceptional is not a lone point and adds to this, you can not dismiss the models as unproven when you have proof or the weather as just weird when it matches models which are based on such extensive data that point in to a further trend.
The big thing you are missing here is that for something to be evidence, it has to distinguish between the null hypothesis and the hypothesis you desire. The presence of extreme weather, especially when starting with the skimpy data we've collected over all history, is to be expected. It doesn't support your model any more than it supports the negation of your model.
Numbers and selective evidence notwithstanding, I'd hardly consider the last decade an exemplary war-free period.
Selective evidence that involves at least two thirds of the world's population being in more peaceful environment than their regions have ever been since the introduction of humans?
Tell me more about this relativism that has you thinking we're no longer a warlike species.
Don't confuse absence of wars with absence of warlike characteristics. We don't wage wars just because we can. The incentives have to be there. And for most of the world, they aren't.
You're just an anonymous idiot on the internet. You have even less credibility than wikipedia.
Sure most of the major conflicts are in the Middle East and Africa. But what about all the, guess you call it small crimes then, shootings, beatings, robing, homicide, all keeps going up.
And here's an example of your idiocy. Ever heard of the highly technical media phrase "If it bleeds, it leads"? News is about reporting bad things that happen. Those small crimes go up in some places and down in others. There's no trend toward greater levels of crime.
But even if there were such a trend, it's still peace. Military action is a whole different ballgame than small crime.
Indirect measurements work well, very well, much of our modern technology relies on them to work at all, so a vast proportion of our society would fail if they where not both reliable and accurate.
Because someone went through the trouble of directly measuring what was being indirectly measured to insure that the indirect measurement was good enough. That's not happening with climatology. And that's generous granting that you might really know some society-crucial indirect measurements in the first place.
If they disagree then we need to understand why, but given that the are each from a fundamentally different source the chance that they would be different from reality in the same way at the same time to the same extent is vanishingly small.
Not unless the bias comes from a common source. For example, most such temperature proxies have been handled, aggregated, interpreted by the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, which has a known bias to support AGW (to the extent that they would refuse to discuss issues with temperature proxies in public).
Finally, you're committing the fallacy of assuming that because we did something successfully elsewhere that we're doing it just as successfully in climatology.
War on Drugs
War on Terror, Patriot Act and all the security theater
ObamaCare
Southern Strategy
Note what I said, "just because someone claims to have a common goal, doesn't mean that they do." Every single one of your examples is such a case where the people pushing the project/plan had ulteriour motives for doing so.
"War on Drugs". Nixon needed to look tough on crime. Druggies aren't popular with the voters. And subsequent expansions of power to seize property used in drug transactions was a great way to increase the budget and power of law enforcement organizations.
"War on Terror", "Patriot Act", all that. Naked power grab under the pretense of protecting us from the terrorists.
"Obamacare". Complete failure as health care reform. Huge gift to insurance companies. Substantially increases the power of the federal government and creates precedent for future control of US citizen economic behavior.
"Southern Strategy." Classic "us versus them" fake.
Their irrational moral compasses actually thinks "we" should all participate in their "common goal" in regulating drugs or guns or the Internet or education or the bedroom or who gets to marry whom.
So what? This is completely irrelevant to my claim. I didn't say, "Come up with an idea and then force the US population to go along with it."
Note that none of these examples have anything to do with my idea, a group of like-minded people coming together to do something.
Then why aren't you trolling Salgak1 for not having evidence?
Because there's plenty of people to challenge his claims. There isn't plenty of people to challenge the conventional wisdom of climate change. Look at the size of the threads replying to his post. The herd is running the other way.
I would give you a link to a very insightful study but you would no doubt dismiss it as commie propaganda.
Why speculate when we can just look at someone who did that? For example, we have this gem who claimed "statistical methods" were used to show that extreme events were more likely than they would in an unchanged environment. A glance at the paper told me everything. The claim was based on a mere ten years of weather data and the authors had no idea what extreme weather should look like in the absence of a "human influence on climate". It has to be Communists!
So it is probably for the best that you didn't challenge me with a link. I might have to look at the abstract and find the glaring flaws in the study again.
if you will only believe that witch you can measure directly then you cant even make a modern computer.
Well, I can't make a modern computer either way. So I guess your argument is a waste of your time.
Indirectly measurable effects are still real and sources of data for indirect measurements from sources which are different in nature and seem to match each other (ice cores from different regions tree rings sediment types and see level effects on rocks) should be trusted unless the person questioning them can come up with a valid reason not too
Such as those metrics don't actually measure what you think they are measuring? Do you have any other concerns I can address while we're at it?
And the title of the alleged research is "A decade of weather extremes". Only a decade which is especially unconvincing given that there are no more than about 15 such decades of weather records anywhere in the world. So insufficient data for the claim that is made. This is the sort of tiresome crap you think is evidence.
Is this supposed to be a trick question? Let's give an example of the peace, Europe. This is the most peaceful Europe has been since probably before man arrived in Europe. They haven't had any military conflicts on the entire continent since the end of the Yugoslavia wars in 1999. That's more than ten years of no military conflicts whatsoever.
Let's given some developing world examples, China and India. China has no border skirmishes with barbarians which differentiates this era from most of the past eras of relatively peaceful empire. India is unified with no border conflicts between rival kingdoms and only the occasional minor skirmish with Pakistan or China.
Let's glance at Wikipedia. Military conflicts in the Americas are substantially lower than they used to be. The current big conflict is the battles between drug cartels in Mexico. There's also the low grade civil war in Colombia. Outside of that, things are pretty peaceful over two whole continents.
And most of the big conflicts are in Africa and the Middle East.
Slashdot Mirror
... for a little over TEN whole years!?
That's a long time for Europe.
Just wait a little longer and the next conflict will start. The number of immigrants crossing the border to the "western" European countries is increasing on a daily basis. Conflict should happen within the next few years.
Sure, it will.
"And you can't repeat the experiment to see if it would have supported the conclusion, you just have to trust the original researcher's models." as in astrophysics, and yet it is highly predictive since it is based on physics.
Sure, you can. For example, for stellar physics you have something like 100 or more billion stars to study just in our galaxy. That gives you a vast population of objects to study, in various stages of the lifespan of a star and a variety of mass, composition, companion objects, etc. While for climatogy you have one climate with roughly 30 years of good data, another century of so so surface data, and progressively worsening temperature proxy data as you go back further in time.
As to being based on physics, they can't nail the temperature sensitivity of carbon dioxide beyond a factor of two (usual estimate is 2-4 C mean global temperature increase per doubling of CO2 concentration and that might be too high). Sure, it's physics, but it's physics that we don't understand very well.
The 'emotion and rhetoric' comes when some people don't like the consequences of the answers.
Or because actual science isn't being done. Keep in mind that there's a lot of money riding on anthropogenic global warming being a sufficiently urgent threat that governments can be convinced to spend vast amounts of public funds - more than the entire fossil fuels industry takes in as profit. I think that money buys a lot of favorable and biased climatology research.
And there's an interesting example of faulty research which blames the shifting population of a particular butterfly on climate change:
Parmesan tactfully offered lip service to altered landscapes, but stated that her âoeprobabilistic modelâ accurately separated the effects of land use from climate change. To demonstrate her modelâ(TM)s power, she wrote, âoeConsider the case of the silver-spotted skipper butterfly (Hesperia comma) that has expanded its distribution close to its northern boundary in England over the past 20 years. Possible ecological explanations for this expansion are regional warming and changes in land use. Comparing the magnitudes and directions of these two factors suggests that climate change is more likely than land-use change to be the cause of expansion.â That was a very odd claim.
This was the very same Silver-spotted Skipper that Jeremy Thomasâ(TM) detailed studies and subsequent conservation prescriptions had saved from extinction along with the Large Blue. Parmesan was hijacking a conservation success story to spin a tale of climate disruption. Her âoeproofâ that climate change was driving the Silver-spotted Skipper northward came from the work of her old friend C.D. Thomas, known for predicting that rising CO2 levels had committed 60% of the worldâ(TM)s species to extinction.5 Using a mesmerizing statistical model, C.D. Thomas argued that because the Silver-spotted Skipper âoeneeds warmth,â only global warming could account for its recent colonization of a few cooler north-facing slopes of Englandâ(TM)s southern hills.
The Skipper is indeed fond of hotter south-facing slopes. However, the butterfly had historically inhabited cooler northern slopes if those slopes had been grazed. Like the Large Blue, the Skipper had disappeared from both cool north-facing slopes and warm south-facing slopes whenever the turf grew too high.6,7 C.D. Thomasâ(TM) model was statistically significant only if he ignored recent conservation efforts to promote warmer, short-turf habitat. At the end of his paper, relegated to his methods sections, he quietly stated, âoewe assumed that grazing patterns were the same in 1982 as in 2000.â4 Parmesan and C.D. were guilty of grave sins of omission.
Yet. We'll see if there's anything to the story. After all, if these were instructions to falsify anything, then it's most likely something that's been done before and the evidence will be in previous papers.
Mars is certainly NOT a very nice place to visit and unsuited for setting up a self contained, self supporting human colony.
Well, I guess you have to build a little infrastructure then to acquire the resources you need which are all present on the surface of Mars and to provide the living environment you need. Next.
0
Other locations you mention are either too hot or way to cold and ALL of them lack breathable atmospheres.
I guess we'll have to build infrastructure to provide that then. Next.
On the travel time... This is EXACTLY the issue. It takes a LONG time to get just about anywhere outside the solar system.
Ok, it takes a long time. We'll just have to be patient then. Next.
The radiation exposure in space is survivable for short terms, but when you have that kind of exposure for YEARS, it's going to kill a significant percentage of the crew.
Ok. Need radiation shielding - lots of it. No need for FTL.
Ok, you've probably never thought about these sorts of problems before. I guess there's no shame in that. You are right about the time issue. It's not like we're going to do this in the next few decades nor will it be a short hop over to any other star systems. And this stuff probably will never ever matter to you.
The thing is, most of these obstacles are just standard engineering problems about which we already know a number of solutions including some already working stuff on Earth. I guess I just don't get the point of trying to exaggerate the difficulty of doing things in space.
You sound like you believe climate change is problematic, but you're going to leave it for the next generation of people to do something about it.
What's wrong with that? The next generation of people isn't going to be a bunch of helpless bobbleheads. And in the meantime we have bigger problems than climate change. For example, desertification is going to destroy as much arable land in a year or two as climate change is alleged to do (ignoring I might add creation of new arable land in the northern hemisphere) by 2100. That's roughly two orders of magnitude more destruction of farmland. Similarly, somewhere around a billion people are still living in abject poverty. Doing nothing about climate change helps those people more than doing something does, because the former doesn't hinder the global economy - the engine by which those people are being lifted out of poverty.
So what should we do? Addressing the more important problems of today, which will in turn have a far more beneficial effect on the future than slight mitigation of climate change? Or squandering vast resources on ineffective climate change mitigation, which incidentally our descendants will be fully capable of dealing with?
How many mega-cities were right by the seashore during those previous times?
Too bad we can't move those cities even an inch. I guess they'll just have to hold their breath.
Heh,and it'll be good when plants have finished burying all that evil carbon that got loose.
Also, all that carbon was sequestered in stars until one or more stars went supernova. So we're probably risking a supernova until we can get it all back into the ground again.
Simple thermostats don't measure temperature directly they measure the level of the bend in a strip made of metals with different expansions at different temperatures
That is quite deceptive. I'll just note that there is a direct, accurate, and well known correlation between the bending of those metals and the temperature of those metals. And the thermostat is designed to limit the extent of other effects. That makes it a direct measurement of temperature.
For ice cores the proxy is the isotope balance of the gas trapped in the bubbles between what would have been snow but is now compacted and sealed ice, tree rings measure plant growth rates, sea levels obvious but crude measure of polar ice, and sediment measures such as how much desert on the planet at a given time via radioisotope dating can also be used. These are not more complex nor more distant you need something that lasts and is effected by climate in a reactively constant manner that can be measured today and that we can calibrate from modern measurements, hard to do but simple in principle.
Tree rings can't. Recall one of the many dramas of climategate was the private discussion of the discarding of tree ring data from after 1960 precisely because it failed as a temperature proxy. And I find it interesting how you ignore difficulties (such as not measuring what you think proxies should be measuring) as "simple in principle".
In practice, you are wasting my time with breezy generalizations.
We have to clean up our act here or we will go extinct, period.
Nobody did that math, contrary to your claim.
The closest planet we *might* be able to make a go of is Mars.
And it would be adequate. We also can colonize many of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, Mercury, the Moon, a vast number of asteroids, etc.
Providing enough shielding to make a 10 year (one way) trip to some close earth like planet is going to take a HUGE amount of mass and then you have to come up with a way to get all that mass moving in the right direction, and stop it when you get to the destination. This is obviously not possible.
Fission powered electric propulsion. Just increase the travel time well beyond ten years and those propulsion systems become viable.
Yeah, about that, there's no habitable planets close by, like within even a generation or two of constant travel, and seeing as my weatherman has problems predicting 5 days out, I think terraforming the moon or Mars or whatever is a pipe dream right now.
But terraforming won't be when it gets done.
What we have to do is put real money into fusion, build more plants, and battery tech for cars. Keep this planet alive for a few more thousand years.... so, Idk, our species will survive to the point we're ready to colonize (if ever).
We've already done that, spending money on the very things you mention. And you know what? The internal combustion engine might not be the most efficient engine out there, but the standard automobile fuel tank is the most efficient way to store energy out there (at least until you get to strong/weak force-based storage such as fission, fusion, nuclear isomers, anti-matter, etc).
OTOH, humanity can change it's tactics, if forced to. The only question will that force going to be strong leadership or nature herself?
I suggest nature. At least, you'd have a valid reason for changing tactics rather than because some idiot decided carbon was bad.
First, they deny the NSA spying allegations. They half-admit the allegations while simultaneously going after the whistleblower full bore. Now, Obama starts speaking of transparency? Where was that transparency this whole time? It's lie after lie after lie.
He abandoned his country...family....and job.
So would you be able to make a similar painful sacrifice, if you uncovered such wrong doing?
GW Bush signed the patriot act
So everything is just fine because Boosh did it first? Who else agrees with that?
Please please please could someone tell me just what you believe is being done with this information?
It's a standard tactic in modern tyrannies. If you know everything about your subjects, then you have much more power over them. That comes both from the raw information, such as the weaknesses and associations of your subjects, and the fear inspired in them by that knowledge.
But I'm trying and failing to think of something bad being done with it that would still be secret.
Well, what would a Gestapo or KGB do with such information? You having any luck thinking now?
Ah yes we should dismiss a the fact that the latest 6% of the data is different from the remaining 94% of the data in a manner that makes sense and matches predictions given our current understanding of climate systems.
Yes. Especially when you consider that most of the 94% is pretty bad. And there's always confirmation bias. You might remember me talking about that. There will always be some sort of extreme 1 in 15 weather in any given decade of the last 150 years.
The predictions based on these models matches the current trend confirming them, the fact that it is also found to be extreme enough that this decade is exceptional is not a lone point and adds to this, you can not dismiss the models as unproven when you have proof or the weather as just weird when it matches models which are based on such extensive data that point in to a further trend.
The big thing you are missing here is that for something to be evidence, it has to distinguish between the null hypothesis and the hypothesis you desire. The presence of extreme weather, especially when starting with the skimpy data we've collected over all history, is to be expected. It doesn't support your model any more than it supports the negation of your model.
Numbers and selective evidence notwithstanding, I'd hardly consider the last decade an exemplary war-free period.
Selective evidence that involves at least two thirds of the world's population being in more peaceful environment than their regions have ever been since the introduction of humans?
Tell me more about this relativism that has you thinking we're no longer a warlike species.
Don't confuse absence of wars with absence of warlike characteristics. We don't wage wars just because we can. The incentives have to be there. And for most of the world, they aren't.
Guess you have not turned on the new lately?
You're just an anonymous idiot on the internet. You have even less credibility than wikipedia.
Sure most of the major conflicts are in the Middle East and Africa. But what about all the, guess you call it small crimes then, shootings, beatings, robing, homicide, all keeps going up.
And here's an example of your idiocy. Ever heard of the highly technical media phrase "If it bleeds, it leads"? News is about reporting bad things that happen. Those small crimes go up in some places and down in others. There's no trend toward greater levels of crime.
But even if there were such a trend, it's still peace. Military action is a whole different ballgame than small crime.
Indirect measurements work well, very well, much of our modern technology relies on them to work at all, so a vast proportion of our society would fail if they where not both reliable and accurate.
Because someone went through the trouble of directly measuring what was being indirectly measured to insure that the indirect measurement was good enough. That's not happening with climatology. And that's generous granting that you might really know some society-crucial indirect measurements in the first place.
If they disagree then we need to understand why, but given that the are each from a fundamentally different source the chance that they would be different from reality in the same way at the same time to the same extent is vanishingly small.
Not unless the bias comes from a common source. For example, most such temperature proxies have been handled, aggregated, interpreted by the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, which has a known bias to support AGW (to the extent that they would refuse to discuss issues with temperature proxies in public).
Finally, you're committing the fallacy of assuming that because we did something successfully elsewhere that we're doing it just as successfully in climatology.
War on Drugs
War on Terror, Patriot Act and all the security theater
ObamaCare
Southern Strategy
Note what I said, "just because someone claims to have a common goal, doesn't mean that they do." Every single one of your examples is such a case where the people pushing the project/plan had ulteriour motives for doing so.
"War on Drugs". Nixon needed to look tough on crime. Druggies aren't popular with the voters. And subsequent expansions of power to seize property used in drug transactions was a great way to increase the budget and power of law enforcement organizations.
"War on Terror", "Patriot Act", all that. Naked power grab under the pretense of protecting us from the terrorists.
"Obamacare". Complete failure as health care reform. Huge gift to insurance companies. Substantially increases the power of the federal government and creates precedent for future control of US citizen economic behavior.
"Southern Strategy." Classic "us versus them" fake.
Their irrational moral compasses actually thinks "we" should all participate in their "common goal" in regulating drugs or guns or the Internet or education or the bedroom or who gets to marry whom.
So what? This is completely irrelevant to my claim. I didn't say, "Come up with an idea and then force the US population to go along with it." Note that none of these examples have anything to do with my idea, a group of like-minded people coming together to do something.
Then why aren't you trolling Salgak1 for not having evidence?
Because there's plenty of people to challenge his claims. There isn't plenty of people to challenge the conventional wisdom of climate change. Look at the size of the threads replying to his post. The herd is running the other way.
I would give you a link to a very insightful study but you would no doubt dismiss it as commie propaganda.
Why speculate when we can just look at someone who did that? For example, we have this gem who claimed "statistical methods" were used to show that extreme events were more likely than they would in an unchanged environment. A glance at the paper told me everything. The claim was based on a mere ten years of weather data and the authors had no idea what extreme weather should look like in the absence of a "human influence on climate". It has to be Communists!
So it is probably for the best that you didn't challenge me with a link. I might have to look at the abstract and find the glaring flaws in the study again.
if you will only believe that witch you can measure directly then you cant even make a modern computer.
Well, I can't make a modern computer either way. So I guess your argument is a waste of your time.
Indirectly measurable effects are still real and sources of data for indirect measurements from sources which are different in nature and seem to match each other (ice cores from different regions tree rings sediment types and see level effects on rocks) should be trusted unless the person questioning them can come up with a valid reason not too
Such as those metrics don't actually measure what you think they are measuring? Do you have any other concerns I can address while we're at it?
Do you see the hypocrisy?
In other words, confirmation bias is ok, as long as it's in your favor.
And the title of the alleged research is "A decade of weather extremes". Only a decade which is especially unconvincing given that there are no more than about 15 such decades of weather records anywhere in the world. So insufficient data for the claim that is made. This is the sort of tiresome crap you think is evidence.
Is it really the most peaceful
Is this supposed to be a trick question? Let's give an example of the peace, Europe. This is the most peaceful Europe has been since probably before man arrived in Europe. They haven't had any military conflicts on the entire continent since the end of the Yugoslavia wars in 1999. That's more than ten years of no military conflicts whatsoever.
Let's given some developing world examples, China and India. China has no border skirmishes with barbarians which differentiates this era from most of the past eras of relatively peaceful empire. India is unified with no border conflicts between rival kingdoms and only the occasional minor skirmish with Pakistan or China.
Let's glance at Wikipedia. Military conflicts in the Americas are substantially lower than they used to be. The current big conflict is the battles between drug cartels in Mexico. There's also the low grade civil war in Colombia. Outside of that, things are pretty peaceful over two whole continents.
And most of the big conflicts are in Africa and the Middle East.