"Just out of interest...have you seen any AGW 'skeptics', or are they all implicitly 'pseudo-skeptics'? Is it easy for you to tell the difference, and if so, I would be interested in knowing how?"
1. "Non-skeptical scientist" is an oxymoron.
2. An AGW Psuedo-skeptic is someone who rejects one or more of the three basic points in "the consensus" but AT THE SAME TIME cannot produce credible evidence for their stance, "I don't know" is the only intellectually honest answer that requires no evidence. Some psuedo-skeptics are are paid, some are ignorant, some are motivated by politics, many just don't give a shit, the fact it hasn't been debunked is what matters. And lets not get into politics and funding conspracies, you will lose that one too.
"and you show an unhealthy distaste for skepticism"
Please refrain from projecting your faults onto me.
I'm glad you empasised "looks". Politicians are experts at juggling contradictory ideas. I can agree with both those statements but I sure as hell don't want a mandatory blacklist.
The one about the connection speed falls under the "I fully support the trial" type quotes. If all other options were worse I could see the political rationality of "managing" a trial I believe is going to backfire on it's few genuine supporters. Note I think both sides take turns at good cop / bad cop.
Disclaimer: I grew up when the arm flapping and turd flinging was about things like the "little red school book", statues of David appearing in gift shops, missing pages from the schools national geographic collection. Like most familys we had one set of encyclopedia that lasted our entire childhood, their most redeeming feature today is that they smell better than the internet.
"On the other hand it could explain why it was kept pretty silent pre-election."
It "kinda" didn't exist before the election, check how Mr 2% got elected in the WP link. I say "kinda" because it's a cyclical thing...
1. Pre election - no censorship.
2. Post election - New government and a few independent censorship nuts are suddenly sitting members. Their heads swell with the phrase "balance of power" and believing their own bullshit they try and play the big boys against each other.
3. Government sets up an inquiry and wins the support of nut jobs.
4. Government sends draconian bill to the senate, opposition and public don their tinfoil and go into a turd flinging, arm flapping frenzy.
5. The trial drags on until mid-late term when the list is suddenly broad enough to include the nut jobs own supporters.
6. Trail ends, bill is voted down and considered by all not to be worth risking a double dissolution.
7. Goto 1.
8. ????
9. Profit.
I agree, evil prospers and all that. But we don't have to fight on their terms, I'm proposing this is SOE in the Westminster and Republic style democracys, this grain of 'truth' is why the TV show was funny, OTOH if someone convincingly debunks me then I will learn something.
It's a simple mythbusting excercise. I have been posting it to all these Conroy stories these stories but not one slashdotter has been able to point to a quote from Conroy saying he is in favor of a blacklist...here let me clean up then cut & paste my theory from the last story in this predictable political theater...
Labor is playing the same game with Fielding [wikipedia.org] as Howard did when he "wanted" to implement mandatory filters (that his party are now blocking in opposition). There were similar circumstances for Howard at the time (ie: a censorship nut holding a deciding vote on more important legislation). Here let me spell it out.
Labour have a full majority in the house that the Lib's can't block, (that's what makes them the government of the day). However they need the support of the all the Green's and the two independents (ie a coalition) to pass legislation through the senate that the Lib's cannot block. The Lib's also need a coalition to sucessfully block but only have to find one senator to join their coalition if they want to block the legislation.
The two independents holding the balance of power are Xenophon (anti-gambling platform), and Fielding (anti-abortion platform), both wanted a mandatory filter. Labor set up a "trial" to keep them onside for as long as possible. Xenophon gave up on the balcklist (perhaps smelling a rat), Fielding has nowhere to go because he is now in the position of voting for a blacklist that bans his supporters (anti-abortionists). An independent's vote is no longer of much value since the major reform is out of the way ready for the next election, the Lib's, Everyone except Fielding is happy because they have collectively screwed "Mr 2%" for winning on their preference fuckery, KRuddy is happy because Conroy is showing loyalty instead of challenging him in the back rooms like Costello did with Howard, Libs are happy because Labor can be tarred as censors, Labor is happy because Libs can be tarred with the same hypocricy....get my theory.....it's a YES MINISTER episode if ever I saw one.
Oh and check out the nude pictures of Hanson, unfortunately it's only funny because it's happening to someone I don't like.
1. Your strawman is a result of your abject failure to comprehend my post.
2. If you believe AGW is based on nothing more than a correlation you're wrong. In my experience abuse of the phrase in question is highly correlated with AGW psudeo-skeptics, creationists, and anti-science crackpots in general.
"'Hints of a link' becomes the next press campaign leading to millions of worried parents. These kinds of reports can be very damaging."
That's very true but the question then becomes, is the science in cahoots with the "press campaign" or is it being abused by it? To judge that you have to critique the paper. Of course that's impossible to do that for everything that gets reported but to assume the science agrees with or endoreses the press campaign is exactly what every press campaing wants.
A sure sign of a potentially damaging "science based" press campaign is one that doesn't link/reference it's scientific sources.
I find that "correlation is not causation" to be a great way to filter out those with zero (well actually negative because they are actively spreading misinformation) knowledge of statistics.
Personally I think it's a soundbite that states the obvious and is often abused.
Science is the bussiness of correlating models to observations via pedictions, maths provides the language to do that. Soundbites can mean whatever you want them to, the easiest way to attack junk science is to attack the explicit and implicit assumptions it makes. The easiest way to dismiss someones work is with a soundbite.
Papers like this are simply pointing out what common elements they found in the environments of parental-selected Autistic children. There were other correleations in the paper which, if nothing else, are usefull for showing what someone hasn't found. You report what you find, in a lot of cases that is "nothing". However an experiment that did "nothing" also lead to relativity.
Disclaimer: I am assuming there is a peer-reviewed publication somewhere? - I don't care to read it but it would add credibility to the argument that the author(s) already understand basic statistical analysis. An alternate hypothisis is it's you who is missing something "obvious". The test of course would be to read the paper, OTOH if the "significant finding" is the vinyl/autisim thing then I can't think why a non-epidemiologist like me would bother.;)
If it is possible to find good and bad in one person then surely it's possible for large groups of people. There are 3-400 national tribes, the UN is where they come to talk and cut deals. Im A DinnerJacket can get up and say the US is the devil but he will probably be saying it to a near empty audience. Thing is nobody is forced into signing treaties, etc (ie: no power in the general assembly). The only real power is in the security council and the 5 veto votes held by the winners of WW2).
Perhaps a corollary to Orwell's "Freedom is Slavery" we have "Liberty is Tyranny".
Well all you need to do is ask freedom from, or liberty to do, what? What if I wanted to be free to force my crackpot ideas on my neigbours and have the liberty to use ICBM's on the people down the road (yes, you in numer 14)? - The truth is people are free* to do that if they have a big enough army to hold down one or more national tribes (as defined by some imaginary lines that move every now and then). The good news is that the international court has shown some balls and issued an arrest warrant for Bashir, the bad news is the security council is unlikely to follow through.
free* - but surrounded by the vultures they have fed.
"In other words, the IPCC picks and chooses the data that will push the agenda of its supporting members (Kyoto, for example) and backs up the UNFCCC."
Yes it informs the UNFCCC, how many nations in the UNFCCC? I'll leave that as an exercise but the IPCC has 300 odd memeber nations, look it up in the financial records available by searching for "budget" on their site (it's a research method called the original source). Yes, there are a handfull of nations that do not CONTRIBUTE but that has fuck all to do with kyoto. The IPCC is a "state of the science" report written by thousands of scientists using thousands of peer-reviewed papers as input, the papers must be at least a year old so that scientists have time to digest them and see any counter arguments. It's nothing less than a giant fucking textbook that is 2yrs out of date when published. The improbability of getting that many experts to agree on anything virtually dictates that the reports will be scientifically conservative.
In other words it's one of the largest, longest running, and most rigorous, peer-review excercises ever undertaken.
Now before you troll me again with politics we have to agree there is a problem, if you disagree there is a problem then I need to see some extrodinary scientific evidence that one or more of the three basic claims in "the consensus" is either false or exagerated. Since I have been following this shit for 25+yrs I think you will have a hard time but if I didn't look at contra-evidence then I wouldn't be a skeptic would I?
And please, I'm not interested in dragging around red-herrings, give me something orginal, all you have done so far is played the part of the shop keeper in monty python's dead parrot sketch.
As I said before, there is no point in discussing the politics of the issue if you refuse to accept the scientific evidence in favour of your dogmatic belief that (all?) science is agenda driven. Your insistence that it's some sort of conspiracy indicates you have not reasoned yourself into your position. Experience tells me it's unlikely I can reason you out of it since you're the only one who can question your own political dogma with any effectiveness (re: sig below).
You will never understand the problem by analysing the politics but you can often understand the politics by analysing the problem.
This nerd with a lame hat will set you straight, no politics, plain english and way more information that you want. Go to the "no holds barred #1" clip if you want to see a good rundown of where I'm coming from with the IPCC.
One more thing. Your statement that it's closed to non-kyoto nations is bullshit, there are a truckload of scientists and organisation from the US (a non-kyoto nation), including but not limited to NAS, NAAS, NASA, NOAA. Do you even know what the letters WMO stand for?
"Why waste money on [CO2 reduction] when there are far better things to spend it on (like clean water)"
There are a couple of BILLION people depending on the Himalayan glaciers alone, at a minimum a few hundred million will be driven out of low lying areas like China, Bangladesh and other parts of SE Asia. Here in Oz with our "extended drought" we have found that for each 10% drop in rainfall we get a 30% drop if run-off to the catchments and rivers.
AGW really does overwhelm all other global polution problems, the runner up is smog that ironically has a cooling effect but comes at the cost of acid rain, on a global scale both CO2 and smog come mainly from coal.
Like so many other things, clean water for all is currently impossible without a clean environment.
It's not up to the media to decide what is a lie, it's up to the reader, it's the other half of the free speech thing but it's not as popular. If you can't look at an issue and deliberately question your own bias you will never be able to spot other people's lies that appeal to them. You will also never obtain a good understanding of the issue in order to make rational decisions.
Some quick examples that science usually wins the argument, if not the war.
1. Tabacco science.
2. Gaslight industry vs Edison.
3. Lead in petrol.
4. CFC's
5. Smog, (in the west).
6. The road toll, (in the west).
The political truth about AGW is there will be winners and losers no matter how the politician react. The science and economics says there are more losers from AGW than winners. The insurance industry were the first to recognise themselves as losers about a decade ago but most coporates now see themselves as losers and are demanding regulartory certainty in the form of an international cap and trade treaty. Even companies like woodside petroleum here in Oz are using the IPCC reports when risk managing their offshore wells.
OTHO it's becoming more certain the coal industry has only a couple of years left to demonstrate clean coal and avoid near extinction over the next 50yrs, it's kinda natural they are pissed off and lying through their teeth (especially here in Oz at the moment).
"If a citizen of a country can stand in what amounts to the town square and criticize his/her government without fear of reprisal, it's a freedom-based society."
Yes, and that is exactly what happens with "citizens" of Earth at the UN, of course the only power the UN has got is held by the 5 permanent members who religiously veto their own pawns. If you believe your own freedom rhetoric and follow it to it logical conclusion, you will discard the prosters call to censor the OIC and at the same time applaud the UN for (ironically) allowing the OIC to stand up and speak for themselves.
"Better yet, just google IPCC politics and read for yourself."
What's the point in that? Like you I will only find the politics I want to see and we would simply hurl links to our favorite political hacks at each other for a few posts and get nowhere.
I suggest we short circit that argument with some old fashioned intellectual honesty. Try googling for the IPCC BUDGET and other financial information, the main points of which you will find sumarised in my other posts. It is not the "only credible authority", it is a peer review process that is endorsed and performed by virtually EVERY "credible authority" on the planet.
The fact that you posted a link to the heartland institute means we obviously have different interpretations of the meaning of "credible authority", it is run by the geriatric ex tabacoo scientist Fred Singer. Perhaps you could look up who funds them and let us all know, a similar googling makes it look impossible to find out from their own site?
Once you have defeated your political conspiracy delusion, you may want to actually read what the reports say rather than let political hacks tell you what's in them. If you do manage to filter out your own politics and gain a decent understanding of the basic science you may recognise Lindzen for what he is, ie: a WSJ opinion columnist with a political axe to grind.
If you the same intellectual coward that is promoting the notion that science is politically skewed by politics and money then let's look at the favorite target of these attacks, namely the IPCC.
1. The 2500 scientists do not get paid for the peer-review work they are doing (and btw that's all the IPCC does).
2. The lead chapter authors get "free" plane tickets to go to the "free" confrence rooms and work.
3. The budget is $5-6M/yr and is sourced from 300+ politically diverse nations.
"There's big money in pushing global warming, too"
I see you are promoting the notion that warnings from science are politically skewed by politics and money, so let's look at the favorite target of these attacks, namely the IPCC.
1. The 2500 scientists do not get paid for the peer-review work they are doing (and btw that's all the IPCC does).
2. The lead chapter authors get "free" plane tickets to go to the "free" confrence rooms and work.
3. The budget is $5-6M/yr and is sourced from 300+ politically diverse nations, most of it is spent on the "perks" in #2 above.
"I'm surprised how many people believe that there is huge money in climate science."
Thing is the money spent on climate change research is generally viewable, the money spent (by both sides) on climate change propoganda is generally not viewable. The IPCC budget is on the web, it totals $5-6M/yr and is sourced from 300+ politically diverse nations. The IPCC scientists do not get paid for the effort they put into what is essentially the tedious (and generally thankless) job of peer review. Compare this transparency to (say) the Cato institute.
The OP with the list also has to fool himself into believing these problems pop up out of nowhere once per decade, it's what I like to call the "overnight success" delusion. In the list he gives AGW is not the most recent idea, it was first proposed a century ago and the NAS have been issuing warnings about rising CO2 since the 50's. Yes scientists also talked about cooling in the 50's because smog cools while CO2 warms, the biosphere is a system not a series of independent phenomena. The irony here is that if China follows the west and cleans up their smog first, they will remove a large cooling effect.
Pretending something hasn't been wieghed and measured is a common tactic used by people who don't like what the science tells them and haven't got the balls to question their dogma.
In most cases this term is followed by bullshit, your post is no different.
"how could it REBUILD itself naturally in a couple of decades, what took millions/billions to do the first time?"
1) The point is it that the "hole" has stopped growing.
2) The ozone "hole" MAY have started to repair itself.
"Because they are trying to save their jobs."
Can we drop this bullshit, it just an excuse to put your fingers in your ears and make stupid noises. IPCC scientists do not get paid for their work on the reports. The IPCC budget is a total of $5-6 million/yr donated by 300+ nations of all political pursations, most of it goes on plane fares for lead chapter authors and confrence rooms.
The one thing these stories have in common is that they vastly underestimate past civilizations and the difficulty archeologists and historians have in piecing it together.
As Dawkins pointed out with his meme idea, ideas evolve, first they were handed down through speech and gesture, then theatre and drawings, then writing and math, then print, then film, radio, TV... That's where it stood when I was a kid in the 60's. Since then there is so much of the stuff and it's so easy to generate bits to make more stuff that we now simply call it "the net".
Just as past civilizations and tribes have left an excellent dating record in the fashion and technology of their broken pots, we will leave a rich record in our massive landfills and floating islands of plastic. Wether there is anyone around to dig it up in a century or two is anyones guess, but the data isn't looking good right now.
That's a good idea but I think gravity will spoil it with something called an avalanche. I was thinking of a platform going up and down, it would have min g at 1/6 and max g at 11/6, not ideal but would show if variations in gravity had an effect.
Slashdot Mirror
It just gets better doesn't it...
"Just out of interest...have you seen any AGW 'skeptics', or are they all implicitly 'pseudo-skeptics'? Is it easy for you to tell the difference, and if so, I would be interested in knowing how?"
1. "Non-skeptical scientist" is an oxymoron.
2. An AGW Psuedo-skeptic is someone who rejects one or more of the three basic points in "the consensus" but AT THE SAME TIME cannot produce credible evidence for their stance, "I don't know" is the only intellectually honest answer that requires no evidence. Some psuedo-skeptics are are paid, some are ignorant, some are motivated by politics, many just don't give a shit, the fact it hasn't been debunked is what matters. And lets not get into politics and funding conspracies, you will lose that one too.
"and you show an unhealthy distaste for skepticism"
Please refrain from projecting your faults onto me.
I'm glad you empasised "looks". Politicians are experts at juggling contradictory ideas. I can agree with both those statements but I sure as hell don't want a mandatory blacklist.
The one about the connection speed falls under the "I fully support the trial" type quotes. If all other options were worse I could see the political rationality of "managing" a trial I believe is going to backfire on it's few genuine supporters. Note I think both sides take turns at good cop / bad cop.
Disclaimer: I grew up when the arm flapping and turd flinging was about things like the "little red school book", statues of David appearing in gift shops, missing pages from the schools national geographic collection. Like most familys we had one set of encyclopedia that lasted our entire childhood, their most redeeming feature today is that they smell better than the internet.
"On the other hand it could explain why it was kept pretty silent pre-election."
It "kinda" didn't exist before the election, check how Mr 2% got elected in the WP link. I say "kinda" because it's a cyclical thing...
1. Pre election - no censorship.
2. Post election - New government and a few independent censorship nuts are suddenly sitting members. Their heads swell with the phrase "balance of power" and believing their own bullshit they try and play the big boys against each other.
3. Government sets up an inquiry and wins the support of nut jobs.
4. Government sends draconian bill to the senate, opposition and public don their tinfoil and go into a turd flinging, arm flapping frenzy.
5. The trial drags on until mid-late term when the list is suddenly broad enough to include the nut jobs own supporters.
6. Trail ends, bill is voted down and considered by all not to be worth risking a double dissolution.
7. Goto 1.
8. ????
9. Profit.
"we still have to fight it"
I agree, evil prospers and all that. But we don't have to fight on their terms, I'm proposing this is SOE in the Westminster and Republic style democracys, this grain of 'truth' is why the TV show was funny, OTOH if someone convincingly debunks me then I will learn something.
Steve Fielding
It's a simple mythbusting excercise. I have been posting it to all these Conroy stories these stories but not one slashdotter has been able to point to a quote from Conroy saying he is in favor of a blacklist...here let me clean up then cut & paste my theory from the last story in this predictable political theater...
Labor is playing the same game with Fielding [wikipedia.org] as Howard did when he "wanted" to implement mandatory filters (that his party are now blocking in opposition). There were similar circumstances for Howard at the time (ie: a censorship nut holding a deciding vote on more important legislation). Here let me spell it out.
Labour have a full majority in the house that the Lib's can't block, (that's what makes them the government of the day). However they need the support of the all the Green's and the two independents (ie a coalition) to pass legislation through the senate that the Lib's cannot block. The Lib's also need a coalition to sucessfully block but only have to find one senator to join their coalition if they want to block the legislation.
The two independents holding the balance of power are Xenophon (anti-gambling platform), and Fielding (anti-abortion platform), both wanted a mandatory filter. Labor set up a "trial" to keep them onside for as long as possible. Xenophon gave up on the balcklist (perhaps smelling a rat), Fielding has nowhere to go because he is now in the position of voting for a blacklist that bans his supporters (anti-abortionists). An independent's vote is no longer of much value since the major reform is out of the way ready for the next election, the Lib's, Everyone except Fielding is happy because they have collectively screwed "Mr 2%" for winning on their preference fuckery, KRuddy is happy because Conroy is showing loyalty instead of challenging him in the back rooms like Costello did with Howard, Libs are happy because Labor can be tarred as censors, Labor is happy because Libs can be tarred with the same hypocricy....get my theory.....it's a YES MINISTER episode if ever I saw one.
Oh and check out the nude pictures of Hanson, unfortunately it's only funny because it's happening to someone I don't like.
Two points.
1. Your strawman is a result of your abject failure to comprehend my post.
2. If you believe AGW is based on nothing more than a correlation you're wrong. In my experience abuse of the phrase in question is highly correlated with AGW psudeo-skeptics, creationists, and anti-science crackpots in general.
"'Hints of a link' becomes the next press campaign leading to millions of worried parents. These kinds of reports can be very damaging."
That's very true but the question then becomes, is the science in cahoots with the "press campaign" or is it being abused by it? To judge that you have to critique the paper. Of course that's impossible to do that for everything that gets reported but to assume the science agrees with or endoreses the press campaign is exactly what every press campaing wants.
A sure sign of a potentially damaging "science based" press campaign is one that doesn't link/reference it's scientific sources.
I find that "correlation is not causation" to be a great way to filter out those with zero (well actually negative because they are actively spreading misinformation) knowledge of statistics.
;)
Personally I think it's a soundbite that states the obvious and is often abused.
Science is the bussiness of correlating models to observations via pedictions, maths provides the language to do that. Soundbites can mean whatever you want them to, the easiest way to attack junk science is to attack the explicit and implicit assumptions it makes. The easiest way to dismiss someones work is with a soundbite.
Papers like this are simply pointing out what common elements they found in the environments of parental-selected Autistic children. There were other correleations in the paper which, if nothing else, are usefull for showing what someone hasn't found. You report what you find, in a lot of cases that is "nothing". However an experiment that did "nothing" also lead to relativity.
Disclaimer: I am assuming there is a peer-reviewed publication somewhere? - I don't care to read it but it would add credibility to the argument that the author(s) already understand basic statistical analysis. An alternate hypothisis is it's you who is missing something "obvious". The test of course would be to read the paper, OTOH if the "significant finding" is the vinyl/autisim thing then I can't think why a non-epidemiologist like me would bother.
If it is possible to find good and bad in one person then surely it's possible for large groups of people. There are 3-400 national tribes, the UN is where they come to talk and cut deals. Im A DinnerJacket can get up and say the US is the devil but he will probably be saying it to a near empty audience. Thing is nobody is forced into signing treaties, etc (ie: no power in the general assembly). The only real power is in the security council and the 5 veto votes held by the winners of WW2).
/rant
Perhaps a corollary to Orwell's "Freedom is Slavery" we have "Liberty is Tyranny".
Well all you need to do is ask freedom from, or liberty to do, what? What if I wanted to be free to force my crackpot ideas on my neigbours and have the liberty to use ICBM's on the people down the road (yes, you in numer 14)? - The truth is people are free* to do that if they have a big enough army to hold down one or more national tribes (as defined by some imaginary lines that move every now and then). The good news is that the international court has shown some balls and issued an arrest warrant for Bashir, the bad news is the security council is unlikely to follow through.
free* - but surrounded by the vultures they have fed.
"So, which is it?"
Both, duh!
Also, you really need to drop the false dichotomys or else someone might pick up on it and point out your total lack of credibility.
"In other words, the IPCC picks and chooses the data that will push the agenda of its supporting members (Kyoto, for example) and backs up the UNFCCC."
Yes it informs the UNFCCC, how many nations in the UNFCCC? I'll leave that as an exercise but the IPCC has 300 odd memeber nations, look it up in the financial records available by searching for "budget" on their site (it's a research method called the original source). Yes, there are a handfull of nations that do not CONTRIBUTE but that has fuck all to do with kyoto. The IPCC is a "state of the science" report written by thousands of scientists using thousands of peer-reviewed papers as input, the papers must be at least a year old so that scientists have time to digest them and see any counter arguments. It's nothing less than a giant fucking textbook that is 2yrs out of date when published. The improbability of getting that many experts to agree on anything virtually dictates that the reports will be scientifically conservative.
In other words it's one of the largest, longest running, and most rigorous, peer-review excercises ever undertaken.
Now before you troll me again with politics we have to agree there is a problem, if you disagree there is a problem then I need to see some extrodinary scientific evidence that one or more of the three basic claims in "the consensus" is either false or exagerated. Since I have been following this shit for 25+yrs I think you will have a hard time but if I didn't look at contra-evidence then I wouldn't be a skeptic would I?
And please, I'm not interested in dragging around red-herrings, give me something orginal, all you have done so far is played the part of the shop keeper in monty python's dead parrot sketch.
As I said before, there is no point in discussing the politics of the issue if you refuse to accept the scientific evidence in favour of your dogmatic belief that (all?) science is agenda driven. Your insistence that it's some sort of conspiracy indicates you have not reasoned yourself into your position. Experience tells me it's unlikely I can reason you out of it since you're the only one who can question your own political dogma with any effectiveness (re: sig below).
You will never understand the problem by analysing the politics but you can often understand the politics by analysing the problem.
This nerd with a lame hat will set you straight, no politics, plain english and way more information that you want. Go to the "no holds barred #1" clip if you want to see a good rundown of where I'm coming from with the IPCC.
One more thing. Your statement that it's closed to non-kyoto nations is bullshit, there are a truckload of scientists and organisation from the US (a non-kyoto nation), including but not limited to NAS, NAAS, NASA, NOAA. Do you even know what the letters WMO stand for?
"Why waste money on [CO2 reduction] when there are far better things to spend it on (like clean water)"
There are a couple of BILLION people depending on the Himalayan glaciers alone, at a minimum a few hundred million will be driven out of low lying areas like China, Bangladesh and other parts of SE Asia. Here in Oz with our "extended drought" we have found that for each 10% drop in rainfall we get a 30% drop if run-off to the catchments and rivers.
AGW really does overwhelm all other global polution problems, the runner up is smog that ironically has a cooling effect but comes at the cost of acid rain, on a global scale both CO2 and smog come mainly from coal.
Like so many other things, clean water for all is currently impossible without a clean environment.
"That is really incorrect.
It's not up to the media to decide what is a lie, it's up to the reader, it's the other half of the free speech thing but it's not as popular. If you can't look at an issue and deliberately question your own bias you will never be able to spot other people's lies that appeal to them. You will also never obtain a good understanding of the issue in order to make rational decisions.
Some quick examples that science usually wins the argument, if not the war.
1. Tabacco science.
2. Gaslight industry vs Edison.
3. Lead in petrol.
4. CFC's
5. Smog, (in the west).
6. The road toll, (in the west).
The political truth about AGW is there will be winners and losers no matter how the politician react. The science and economics says there are more losers from AGW than winners. The insurance industry were the first to recognise themselves as losers about a decade ago but most coporates now see themselves as losers and are demanding regulartory certainty in the form of an international cap and trade treaty. Even companies like woodside petroleum here in Oz are using the IPCC reports when risk managing their offshore wells.
OTHO it's becoming more certain the coal industry has only a couple of years left to demonstrate clean coal and avoid near extinction over the next 50yrs, it's kinda natural they are pissed off and lying through their teeth (especially here in Oz at the moment).
"If a citizen of a country can stand in what amounts to the town square and criticize his/her government without fear of reprisal, it's a freedom-based society."
Yes, and that is exactly what happens with "citizens" of Earth at the UN, of course the only power the UN has got is held by the 5 permanent members who religiously veto their own pawns. If you believe your own freedom rhetoric and follow it to it logical conclusion, you will discard the prosters call to censor the OIC and at the same time applaud the UN for (ironically) allowing the OIC to stand up and speak for themselves.
"So that means they are completely infallible and must be completely correct then?"
No, it means you're a fool standing on the shoulders of a giant strawman.
"Better yet, just google IPCC politics and read for yourself."
What's the point in that? Like you I will only find the politics I want to see and we would simply hurl links to our favorite political hacks at each other for a few posts and get nowhere.
I suggest we short circit that argument with some old fashioned intellectual honesty. Try googling for the IPCC BUDGET and other financial information, the main points of which you will find sumarised in my other posts. It is not the "only credible authority", it is a peer review process that is endorsed and performed by virtually EVERY "credible authority" on the planet.
The fact that you posted a link to the heartland institute means we obviously have different interpretations of the meaning of "credible authority", it is run by the geriatric ex tabacoo scientist Fred Singer. Perhaps you could look up who funds them and let us all know, a similar googling makes it look impossible to find out from their own site?
Once you have defeated your political conspiracy delusion, you may want to actually read what the reports say rather than let political hacks tell you what's in them. If you do manage to filter out your own politics and gain a decent understanding of the basic science you may recognise Lindzen for what he is, ie: a WSJ opinion columnist with a political axe to grind.
If you the same intellectual coward that is promoting the notion that science is politically skewed by politics and money then let's look at the favorite target of these attacks, namely the IPCC.
1. The 2500 scientists do not get paid for the peer-review work they are doing (and btw that's all the IPCC does).
2. The lead chapter authors get "free" plane tickets to go to the "free" confrence rooms and work.
3. The budget is $5-6M/yr and is sourced from 300+ politically diverse nations.
Here are your citations, now STFU with your unoriginal corruption meme.
"There's big money in pushing global warming, too"
I see you are promoting the notion that warnings from science are politically skewed by politics and money, so let's look at the favorite target of these attacks, namely the IPCC.
1. The 2500 scientists do not get paid for the peer-review work they are doing (and btw that's all the IPCC does).
2. The lead chapter authors get "free" plane tickets to go to the "free" confrence rooms and work.
3. The budget is $5-6M/yr and is sourced from 300+ politically diverse nations, most of it is spent on the "perks" in #2 above.
Here are the gory details, now can we drop the unoriginal corruption meme.
"I'm surprised how many people believe that there is huge money in climate science."
Thing is the money spent on climate change research is generally viewable, the money spent (by both sides) on climate change propoganda is generally not viewable. The IPCC budget is on the web, it totals $5-6M/yr and is sourced from 300+ politically diverse nations. The IPCC scientists do not get paid for the effort they put into what is essentially the tedious (and generally thankless) job of peer review. Compare this transparency to (say) the Cato institute.
The OP with the list also has to fool himself into believing these problems pop up out of nowhere once per decade, it's what I like to call the "overnight success" delusion. In the list he gives AGW is not the most recent idea, it was first proposed a century ago and the NAS have been issuing warnings about rising CO2 since the 50's. Yes scientists also talked about cooling in the 50's because smog cools while CO2 warms, the biosphere is a system not a series of independent phenomena. The irony here is that if China follows the west and cleans up their smog first, they will remove a large cooling effect.
Pretending something hasn't been wieghed and measured is a common tactic used by people who don't like what the science tells them and haven't got the balls to question their dogma.
"the REAL facts"
In most cases this term is followed by bullshit, your post is no different.
"how could it REBUILD itself naturally in a couple of decades, what took millions/billions to do the first time?"
1) The point is it that the "hole" has stopped growing.
2) The ozone "hole" MAY have started to repair itself.
"Because they are trying to save their jobs."
Can we drop this bullshit, it just an excuse to put your fingers in your ears and make stupid noises. IPCC scientists do not get paid for their work on the reports. The IPCC budget is a total of $5-6 million/yr donated by 300+ nations of all political pursations, most of it goes on plane fares for lead chapter authors and confrence rooms.
The one thing these stories have in common is that they vastly underestimate past civilizations and the difficulty archeologists and historians have in piecing it together.
As Dawkins pointed out with his meme idea, ideas evolve, first they were handed down through speech and gesture, then theatre and drawings, then writing and math, then print, then film, radio, TV... That's where it stood when I was a kid in the 60's. Since then there is so much of the stuff and it's so easy to generate bits to make more stuff that we now simply call it "the net".
Just as past civilizations and tribes have left an excellent dating record in the fashion and technology of their broken pots, we will leave a rich record in our massive landfills and floating islands of plastic. Wether there is anyone around to dig it up in a century or two is anyones guess, but the data isn't looking good right now.
That's a good idea but I think gravity will spoil it with something called an avalanche. I was thinking of a platform going up and down, it would have min g at 1/6 and max g at 11/6, not ideal but would show if variations in gravity had an effect.