I'm sure someone will accuse me of being a communist for this but I find sourcewatch informative, pity more people don't use it before linking to anti-AGW front sites put up by the CEI, the heartland institue and other anti-science lobbyists.
As an Aussie I enjoy cheaper and higher quality health care than someone in the US but it wasn't always that way I do remeber my parents stuggling with doctors bills in the early 70's. I also remeber the hollow predictions of economic armargedon that would supposedly be ignited by adopting a sane UHC system. IMHO you guys need to get angry about the lobbyists sitting in your senate, their blatant corruption affects everyone not just US citizens.
Yes, it's the only site I can think of where I occasionally learn something from people I violently disagree with. The comment system allows me to easily carry on a debate or discussion with another user, IMHO it is second to none. I look forward to another 10yrs of humuor and insight.
Of course there would be nothing to discuss without the much maligned editors, so thanks and keep up the good work.
"You appear to be suggesting that everybody who has been thinking about how to improve internal combustion engines over the years simply failed to come up with anything smart."
No that's the implication of your statement, not his.
Despite the fact you refuse to use the caveat "some" I will give it one more shot...
"Previous laboratory experiments have shown that decreased carbonate ion concentrations cause many marine calcareous organisms to show reduced calcification rates. If these results are widely applicable to ocean settings,
ocean acidification could lead to ecosystem shifts." - link
"Recent field and laboratory studies (Table S1) reveal that the degree of
supersaturation has a profound effect on the calcification rates of individual species and communities in both planktonic and benthic habitats. The calcification rate of almost all calcifying organisms investigated to date decreased in response to decreased CaCO3 saturation state, even when the carbonate saturation level was >1. This response holds across multiple taxa—from single-celled protists to reef-building corals—and across all CaCO3 mineral phases" - link
"Ocean acidification is rapidly changing the carbonate system of the world oceans.
Past mass extinction events have been linked to ocean acidification, and the current rate of change in seawater chemistry is unprecedented. Evidence suggests that these changes will have significant consequences for marine taxa, particularly those that build skeletons, shells, and tests of biogenic calcium carbonate. Potential changes in species distributions and abundances could propagate through multiple trophic levels of marine food webs, though research into the long-term ecosystem impacts of ocean acidification is in its infancy." - Link
It took under 10 minutes to find those random papers, I really don't see how you can't find further evidence by yourself, after all the first skill a genuine skeptic must master is self-skepticisim.
"We've known about evolution for about 150 years and have had all that time to collect data but the same cannot be said for climatology as an actual science."
Fourier predicted the properties of CO2 in the 1820's, Faraday confirmed his prediction in the 1850's, Arrhenius first proposed the idea of AGW in 1896, the National Academies of Science warned the US government it had detected a strong AGW signal in the 1950's. The IPCC is widely regarded by scientists as the most robust review of any scientific question ever undertaken by manking. But yes, evolution and AGW still have their "skeptics".
I hardly find it surprising that Monbiot has spotted a "crisis" but I will give him credit for putting across a more reasoned case than the WSJ article linked in the summary.
From the WSJ link - "The EPA admitted "varying degrees of uncertainty across many of these scientific issues." Again, this puts hard science in the new position of saying, close enough is good enough. One hopes civil engineers never build bridges under this theory."
That quote, if not the whole article, makes exactly the same absurd argument that Asminov dissmissed so eloquently in his essay The Relativity of wrong.
"Do they study the changes in the Earth's climate over billions of years? No, geologists do that."
Actually paleoclimatologists study ancient climate but they do have much in common with geologists, in fact many of them are geologists.
"When geologists start telling me its time to panic, I'll panic."
If by "telling you to panic" you mean repeating the IPCC's warnings of dire consequences then get ready to start flailing your arms and running into walls.
""Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.... A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects.... Moreover, research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer.... The unprecedented increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, together with other human influences on climate over the past century and those anticipated for the future, constitute a real basis for concern." - American Geophysical Union
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning.... GSA strongly encourages that the following efforts be undertaken internationally: (1) adequately research climate change at all time scales, (2) develop thoughtful, science-based policy appropriate for the multifaceted issues of global climate change, (3) organize global planning to recognize, prepare for, and adapt to the causes and consequences of global climate change, and (4) organize and develop comprehensive, long-term strategies for sustainable energy, particularly focused on minimizing impacts on global climate." - Geological Society of America
""Global climate change is increasingly recognised as the key threat to the continued development – and even survival - of humanity.... We find that the evidence for human-induced climate change is now persuasive, and the need for direct action compelling." - Geological Society of London
The above institutions speak for a lrage chunk of the world's geologists and have all been involved and refererenced in the IPCC's reports, their expertly considered opinions are virtually identical to the opinions of every reputable scientific institution on the planet (geologic or otherwise).
I was a HS dropout and blue collar worker for 15yrs before I gained a BSc and got wise to how little I know about other people's expertise. I offer the following advice in good faith; you have been duped by expertly crafted anti-science propoganda and you are not alone.
Well done! Your complete ignorance of even the basic terminology of climate science offers stunning confirmation for the proposition that all ideas are not equally valid.
I can't speak for the GP but one reason I have an opinion is most eloquently express by Sagan...
"We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces."
I don't belive you because I do not believe the fully qualified bloggers you link to.
Why? - Because the senate inquisition into Mann vs McKyntre called on the National Acediemes of Science to offer an opinion on McKyntre's claims. Much to the dismay of the inquisitors who organised the witch trial, the NAS testimony came down firmly in favour of Mann's "hockey stick".
They did however make some minor criticisims of Mann's confidence levels. Mann has since published an extended study in the Journal of Science (the Journal published by his NAS critics). McKyntre's paper failed to withstand the test of time and he has since failed to publish anything other than a web site. However, to McKyntre's credit he has recently dissacociated himself from the propogandists at WUWT.
Yes, Mann did not want McKyntre's paper in the 2007 IPCC reports for the simple reason that flogging a dead horse is pointless, nevertheless it WAS included despite his objections. I'm not going to link directly to proof of that claim since I think you would learn a lot more digging through the IPCC data collection yourself.
"My personal point of view: "We can't stop the trend, and our money is better spent on adjusting than attempting to stop the inevitable."
And why is it that everyone who makes this statement fails to recognise that cutting emmission through a global treaty IS an adaption?
Politicians are becoming concerned because the scientific communtity is scared shitless. Is this not how it is supposed to work, if you are in an industrial boiler room and the fitters start running for the door in a panic, would it not be wise to follow them under the assumption that maybe they know what they are doing and have good reason to be scared?
"For a bloody good read, try Tom Clancy's "State of Fear". It puts an awful lot of these issues into the perspective of the common man."
That statement is as factually incorrect as the rest of your post. The book was written by Michael Chriton. Chriton is indeed a good writer of fiction but he is also an anti-science propogandist. You may think propogandist is a harsh term but let's have a look at the plots for some of his other works of fiction...
See the pattern? Chriton uses the same literary technique as Dan Brown, the technique has a name, it's called False Document. As any story teller will attest the trick to story telling is to get ones audience to "suspend disbelief". When an authour attempts to extended the suspension of disbelief into the real world it becomes nothing more than lies and propoganda.
BTW: I have nine more years studying at the school of life, you may want to check some more advanced lessons on propoganda. We have all been a victim of it at one stage or another, the trick is to recognise it when it's pointed out to you and act accordingly.
I was talking about the obervations from sediments in the southern ocean that show reduced calcification in many organisims. The southern ocean is of particular interest since it's turbulance means gasses are more readibly absorbed. As for predictions, I fail to see how one can make a prediction about anything without using a model or a time machine.
Excuse me if I don't go and chase up any more papers for you, like Asimov I am well aware of frat boy debating techniques and have grown weary of your willfull ignorance.
This is automated survailence. We are working on a robo mall cop but as you say, it's a tricky thing. The prototype blew away our board of directors and then threw itself down the stairwell. Of course the upside to that minor glitch is we now have more money to spend on the robots.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure someone will accuse me of being a communist for this but I find sourcewatch informative, pity more people don't use it before linking to anti-AGW front sites put up by the CEI, the heartland institue and other anti-science lobbyists.
As an Aussie I enjoy cheaper and higher quality health care than someone in the US but it wasn't always that way I do remeber my parents stuggling with doctors bills in the early 70's. I also remeber the hollow predictions of economic armargedon that would supposedly be ignited by adopting a sane UHC system. IMHO you guys need to get angry about the lobbyists sitting in your senate, their blatant corruption affects everyone not just US citizens.
Yes, it's the only site I can think of where I occasionally learn something from people I violently disagree with. The comment system allows me to easily carry on a debate or discussion with another user, IMHO it is second to none. I look forward to another 10yrs of humuor and insight.
Of course there would be nothing to discuss without the much maligned editors, so thanks and keep up the good work.
"You appear to be suggesting that everybody who has been thinking about how to improve internal combustion engines over the years simply failed to come up with anything smart."
No that's the implication of your statement, not his.
To paraphrase Robin Williams; Never have I seen a slashdotter in more dire need of a blowjob.
No, under the channel to the Disneyland the French pretend they haven't got.
Similar tax breaks apply here in Australia.
I have no idea if it's true but I remember reading that diesel sold in the US is "low quality" compared to diesel sold in the EU.
And if you visit Indonesia you will see a lot of subsidised Palm Oil plantations where rainforest used to be.
Choices, choices.... Do I hand over the care for my personal privacy to Beelzebub or Ba'al?
My tip would be to take some personal responsibility for what you tell others about yourself.
"Actually, the article is far less irritating than the summary had led me to believe."
You must be new around here.
"I bet many of us played games that had gore as teens."
Agreed, I was into Aussie rules football back in the seventies.
Despite the fact you refuse to use the caveat "some" I will give it one more shot...
"Previous laboratory experiments have shown that decreased carbonate ion concentrations cause many marine calcareous organisms to show reduced calcification rates. If these results are widely applicable to ocean settings, ocean acidification could lead to ecosystem shifts." - link
"Recent field and laboratory studies (Table S1) reveal that the degree of supersaturation has a profound effect on the calcification rates of individual species and communities in both planktonic and benthic habitats. The calcification rate of almost all calcifying organisms investigated to date decreased in response to decreased CaCO3 saturation state, even when the carbonate saturation level was >1. This response holds across multiple taxa—from single-celled protists to reef-building corals—and across all CaCO3 mineral phases" - link
"Ocean acidification is rapidly changing the carbonate system of the world oceans. Past mass extinction events have been linked to ocean acidification, and the current rate of change in seawater chemistry is unprecedented. Evidence suggests that these changes will have significant consequences for marine taxa, particularly those that build skeletons, shells, and tests of biogenic calcium carbonate. Potential changes in species distributions and abundances could propagate through multiple trophic levels of marine food webs, though research into the long-term ecosystem impacts of ocean acidification is in its infancy." - Link
It took under 10 minutes to find those random papers, I really don't see how you can't find further evidence by yourself, after all the first skill a genuine skeptic must master is self-skepticisim.
"We've known about evolution for about 150 years and have had all that time to collect data but the same cannot be said for climatology as an actual science."
Fourier predicted the properties of CO2 in the 1820's, Faraday confirmed his prediction in the 1850's, Arrhenius first proposed the idea of AGW in 1896, the National Academies of Science warned the US government it had detected a strong AGW signal in the 1950's. The IPCC is widely regarded by scientists as the most robust review of any scientific question ever undertaken by manking. But yes, evolution and AGW still have their "skeptics".
I hardly find it surprising that Monbiot has spotted a "crisis" but I will give him credit for putting across a more reasoned case than the WSJ article linked in the summary.
From the WSJ link - "The EPA admitted "varying degrees of uncertainty across many of these scientific issues." Again, this puts hard science in the new position of saying, close enough is good enough. One hopes civil engineers never build bridges under this theory."
That quote, if not the whole article, makes exactly the same absurd argument that Asminov dissmissed so eloquently in his essay The Relativity of wrong.
"Do they study the changes in the Earth's climate over billions of years? No, geologists do that."
... A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects. ... Moreover, research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer. ... The unprecedented increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, together with other human influences on climate over the past century and those anticipated for the future, constitute a real basis for concern." - American Geophysical Union
... GSA strongly encourages that the following efforts be undertaken internationally: (1) adequately research climate change at all time scales, (2) develop thoughtful, science-based policy appropriate for the multifaceted issues of global climate change, (3) organize global planning to recognize, prepare for, and adapt to the causes and consequences of global climate change, and (4) organize and develop comprehensive, long-term strategies for sustainable energy, particularly focused on minimizing impacts on global climate." - Geological Society of America
... We find that the evidence for human-induced climate change is now persuasive, and the need for direct action compelling." - Geological Society of London
Actually paleoclimatologists study ancient climate but they do have much in common with geologists, in fact many of them are geologists.
"When geologists start telling me its time to panic, I'll panic."
If by "telling you to panic" you mean repeating the IPCC's warnings of dire consequences then get ready to start flailing your arms and running into walls.
""Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning.
""Global climate change is increasingly recognised as the key threat to the continued development – and even survival - of humanity.
The above institutions speak for a lrage chunk of the world's geologists and have all been involved and refererenced in the IPCC's reports, their expertly considered opinions are virtually identical to the opinions of every reputable scientific institution on the planet (geologic or otherwise).
I was a HS dropout and blue collar worker for 15yrs before I gained a BSc and got wise to how little I know about other people's expertise. I offer the following advice in good faith; you have been duped by expertly crafted anti-science propoganda and you are not alone.
Well done! Your complete ignorance of even the basic terminology of climate science offers stunning confirmation for the proposition that all ideas are not equally valid.
Come to SE Australia and ask an "old farmer", they are generally considerably less superstisious than those found in the midwest.
"So why? Why do you have an opinion?"
I can't speak for the GP but one reason I have an opinion is most eloquently express by Sagan...
"We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces."
I don't belive you because I do not believe the fully qualified bloggers you link to.
Why? - Because the senate inquisition into Mann vs McKyntre called on the National Acediemes of Science to offer an opinion on McKyntre's claims. Much to the dismay of the inquisitors who organised the witch trial, the NAS testimony came down firmly in favour of Mann's "hockey stick".
They did however make some minor criticisims of Mann's confidence levels. Mann has since published an extended study in the Journal of Science (the Journal published by his NAS critics). McKyntre's paper failed to withstand the test of time and he has since failed to publish anything other than a web site. However, to McKyntre's credit he has recently dissacociated himself from the propogandists at WUWT.
Yes, Mann did not want McKyntre's paper in the 2007 IPCC reports for the simple reason that flogging a dead horse is pointless, nevertheless it WAS included despite his objections. I'm not going to link directly to proof of that claim since I think you would learn a lot more digging through the IPCC data collection yourself.
"My personal point of view: "We can't stop the trend, and our money is better spent on adjusting than attempting to stop the inevitable."
And why is it that everyone who makes this statement fails to recognise that cutting emmission through a global treaty IS an adaption?
Politicians are becoming concerned because the scientific communtity is scared shitless. Is this not how it is supposed to work, if you are in an industrial boiler room and the fitters start running for the door in a panic, would it not be wise to follow them under the assumption that maybe they know what they are doing and have good reason to be scared?
"For a bloody good read, try Tom Clancy's "State of Fear". It puts an awful lot of these issues into the perspective of the common man."
That statement is as factually incorrect as the rest of your post. The book was written by Michael Chriton. Chriton is indeed a good writer of fiction but he is also an anti-science propogandist. You may think propogandist is a harsh term but let's have a look at the plots for some of his other works of fiction...
Andromeda strain, plot = science gone mad.
Jurassic Park, plot = science gone mad.
Westworld, plot = science gone mad.
Airframe, plot = science gone mad.
State of Fear, plot = science gone mad.
See the pattern? Chriton uses the same literary technique as Dan Brown, the technique has a name, it's called False Document. As any story teller will attest the trick to story telling is to get ones audience to "suspend disbelief". When an authour attempts to extended the suspension of disbelief into the real world it becomes nothing more than lies and propoganda.
BTW: I have nine more years studying at the school of life, you may want to check some more advanced lessons on propoganda. We have all been a victim of it at one stage or another, the trick is to recognise it when it's pointed out to you and act accordingly.
Have we ever had exploding bacteria before?
Yes, but they don't make a loud bang so most people didn't notice.
"This hydrogen nonsense was a huge waste of money, and should have been invested in biofuels."
This coal burning nonesense was a huge waste of money and lives, we should have invested in unproven technology X.
I was talking about the obervations from sediments in the southern ocean that show reduced calcification in many organisims. The southern ocean is of particular interest since it's turbulance means gasses are more readibly absorbed. As for predictions, I fail to see how one can make a prediction about anything without using a model or a time machine.
Excuse me if I don't go and chase up any more papers for you, like Asimov I am well aware of frat boy debating techniques and have grown weary of your willfull ignorance.
"Automating enforcement is a tricky thing"
This is automated survailence. We are working on a robo mall cop but as you say, it's a tricky thing. The prototype blew away our board of directors and then threw itself down the stairwell. Of course the upside to that minor glitch is we now have more money to spend on the robots.