It seems to me that if you were confident of your own predictions, you would put some money down against mine. The fact that you won't tells me your don't believe your own bullshit.
We are (collectively) able to judge good science from bad, by following the inbuilt methodology that forces science to improve over time: e.g. peer review, repeatable experiments, justifiable results. Not that this system is perfect: but compared to the political methodology, it is height of reliability.
There is no judge, because no-one person or group should be considered infallible (which was my original point: treating politicians as infallible priests who cannot be contradicted is the height of foolishness).
See above: People who adopt a position on science based on treating political opinions as inviolate are self selecting themselves out of the gene pool. Seriously.
We can't have a situation where every time some political hack carries snowballs into congress to make a point it is rightfully dismissed as crackpot antics. Yet when there is a specific incident on the other side of the ledger be a storm or heat wave it becomes acceptable to try and publically link instances of weather to "climate change".
That means we have to bar scientists from speaking on a subject if their fact based statements contradict or offend someones political views. So the President of the US is allowed to celebrate his ignorance and reach an audience of millions with his factually incorrect take on climate, but someone with a scientific discovery and the evidence to prove it can't speak to it, because political opinion is sacrosanct.
That is very troubling.
Here's an alternative approach: the arguments made by politicians on science should be judged on their scientific merit. The arguments made by scientists on science should be judged on their scientific merit. If a scientist makes a political statement, judge it on it's political merit - unless they claim it is science, in which case, judge it on it's scientific merit. It's possible, even essential, to tell good science from bad. A political argument framed as a scientific view does not pass a simple sniff test, and is readily exposed.
People who adopt a position on science based on treating political opinions as inviolate are self selecting themselves out of the gene pool. Seriously.
Here's a prediction: The average (global) tropospheric temperature for the decade 2015-2025 will be higher than the average temperature for the decade 2005-2015. And on the other side: I predict that in the year 2025 there will still be no verifiable proof of the alternate theory: That climate change is a massive 170 year long conspiracy perpetuated by time traveling Chinese, in order to steal American jobs. That's 2 predictions to start.
Humnan nature I suppose but if not anthropogenic why do we have the right to "fix" the problem?
Who said it wasn't anthropogenic?
So if we caused climate change to power our cars we need to fix it, but if nature has decided tough shit guys time for you to go, again we need to fix it? So what you are saying is everything revolves around us right?
Nature?? Well, I guess a nature goddess causing climate change because she's a bitch is as plausible as most denialist theories...
So why do we care if the hairy bare assed wilderbeast in Kenya goes extinct?
Tough shit daddy needs a second TV.
Errrr cause they are one and the same? Daddy can fix climate change, save the wildebeest and buy a new tv, or not fix climate change, let the wildebeest die out, and lose his job because climate change tanked the economy and never buy a TV again.
Also, historically I don't think the funding was as good. A dude with a studio apartment, porridge and a microscope is cheap versus all the crap that goes into something major like climate
No idea what you are talking about.
Anyways my biggest criticism is the claimed level of precision. "Concensus numbers" aka we took a dozen papers of people all receiving federal funding to investigate the "global warming" problem (hmm I wonder which side you'll land on), get averaged together and somehow that becomes the Truth. Then not saying it won't suck or change ecosystems, but because the blue billled pecker wood in middle of nowhere Alberta will go extinct that automatically means death to all life. Really? Do you really think humans are so powerful that we'll somehow manage to survive just long enough to kill Everything before dying out? Again it'll suck but we'll have massive die outs/reduction in our resource use long before we get there IMO baring massive nuclear war. We use a lot of energy but we just don't need that much energy really per year to not allow population die off stabilize things. The world will be different but it has always been different.
Again, a TL;DR. I can't even tell who or what you are criticizing.
Trump himself made the claim that this event was symptomatic of a problem with the theory of climate change (how that could possibly be true is something he failed to mention - lack of space in the tweet presumably?). He is not a king, nor a deity, so is not above correction from the likes of us. When he is wrong, the public benefit lies with saying so, regardless of political persuasion.
As for your own response, the question I have is, why did you bother to post at all? So you 'stopped reading' - so what? Since when is your reading habits a matter of interest to the rest of us?
That's because so many of the solutions bandied about are stupid.
Well, firstly, if you think the solutions are stupid, then come up with a better one. Secondly, just because the problem is hard, doesn't mean there is no problem. You can't cure cancer by denying it exists.
Nice theory (wait...hypothesis since you have no confirmed experiments) you have there. ANYTHING that happens is accounted for.
Kinda weird that here is an article citing yet another direct observation (on top of the direct and repeatable, and repeated observations made previously, such as satellite observation, direct observation of the properties of CO2, ice core sampling of the geological record, historical temperature readings, and on and on): I supposed all of these observations were faked, were they?
I directly observe the moon and yet (according to you and your friends) there are no direct observations of the moons existence. If I predict based on observation that the moon will rise, and it does. then this is yet more evidence that the moon is fake.
Sadly, that is true, at least according to some research.
I just find it weird that when people say "the models are inaccurate" somehow it must mean there isn't a problem. If the models aren't reliable we actually have a bigger problem than we though.
So what's your solution? I tried to participate in the discussion for awhile, but got "denier" screamed at me over and over for Daring to Question The Holy Truth, and so I view the climate change discussion as a big political clusterfuck.
That doesn't make sense to me.
People express skepticism at your alternate theories, and call you names: and because they called you a name, it must be politically motivated? What?
That just doesn't make sense.
Name real solutions, that will actually solve the problem.
So: intuitively, if the high concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are causing a problem, wouldn't the resolution be to reduce the concentrations of those gases to more normal levels?
Yes, it's all a vast chinese time travelling zombie conspiracy to take American jobs. There's an easily repeatable test that CO2 behaves exactly as described by Arrhenius, Fourier et, al, but the results are always faked. How? Chinese conspirators travel through time detecting instances where the experiment falsifies the observation of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, and give the experimenters vaccines with mercury. Then the experimenters and their audiences are vulnerable to hypnotic suggestions, so that they think they saw direct evidence to the contrary. They've done this thousands of times.
And the direct satellite evidence?
Faked.
The future chinese brought back transmitters from the future to send signals because there are no satellites because, the truth is, there is no space. Space, and the moon, are a vast liberal conspiracy. That's how the whole thing started: Fourier surmised that the reason the earth's temperature was so different from the moon's is because of the presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but he would say that, because he is a zombie Knights Templar who is/was/will be in league with the time travelling chinese.
I have 800,000 years of direct, measurable evidence that the earth's climate cycles between warming and cooling, and that we are, in fact, in the fifth such cycle.
Ah, a new theory. Here's a basic sniff test: In all the cycles over the past 800 000 years, what caused the climate to change?
And what is causing it to change this time?
You, on the other hand, have what-if models that account only for unending warming, something which hasn't happened in 800,000 years.
The only models I've seen suggesting an unending warming cycle are those used by denialists. Which is to say, if you can't adequately explain the current warming, then you cannot rule out a never ending warming cycle. So: what is causing the current warming event?
Until not that long ago it was extremely dangerous and expensive to travel more than 100 miles from home and in many places it still is.
And not so long ago people had no choice but to physically travel in order to do things that we now do remotely without even thinking about it.
With that kind of logic, humans would never have left their village let alone their continent.
And now, we achieve far more, without leaving our village or continent, because like every clever generation before us, we recognise the value of building things that do what we want, better than our limited fleshy bodies in order to push beyond the limits set by the flesh. Why we would insist that space travel be limited by our flesh bodies, forever confining us to one or two nearby planets? That is simply bizarre - unthinkable! We don't limit our mining to what we can dig with our hand. We don't limit our transport to what we can physically lift with our puny arms. Why would we treat space travel and the possibilities it contains, to such contempt?
No, we've already broken that bound. Machines have gone in our place, to Saturn, and Jupiter and Pluto, places we could never go in the flesh: and achieved far more than we could if we went in person.
I think the biggest value of the manned space program isn't the space travel, really, but the sense of inspiration it provides, the notion that humanity is actually going somewhere and somehow progressing in the process
What inspiration? What progress?
Some people might well enjoy the spectacle of humans in space, like we enjoy a steam train passing by, or the sight of a biplane. What about this spectacle has to do with actual human progress, rather than nostalgia?
Or neither: perhaps subjective inspiration is just that: subjective. Initiatives that expensive require an objective good to call upon in order to be sustained. In other words, we were excited by Apollo, but that excitement fell away because the hard fact is, human space travel hasn't demonstrated a universal, objective value that can't be more readily achieved via other means.
Strong atheism requires you to believe that there is no God or gods. That qualifies as belief in the accepted ontology, because there is no objective proof of that assertion.
Atheism also states that we were not created by deities, but instead they were created by us. This becomes problematic for a number of reasons. The first is that the individual atheist has not studied the full set of deities that are accepted by one or more of the multitude forms of theism around the world, so they cannot speak objectively to this statement: it is just a statement arising from worldview (a religious assertion). The second is that atheism demands that there be no god or gods at all, not even the ones that nobody believes in. Otherwise, there could be god or gods that nobody believes in. So arguments about the deities that people believe in get's us nowhere down the path to a rational foundation for atheism.
If you genuinely think that we are afraid of the Nazis, then I have a nasty shock for you. We never have been, and never will be : not even when Nazism and Fascism are just a smeared memory and the windscreen. Fascism is an infection, a weeping open boil on the side of humanity, and you treat infection, to be rid of it, becuase infection isn't something you regard as your equal, let alone something to be afraid of.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems to me that if you were confident of your own predictions, you would put some money down against mine. The fact that you won't tells me your don't believe your own bullshit.
We are (collectively) able to judge good science from bad, by following the inbuilt methodology that forces science to improve over time: e.g. peer review, repeatable experiments, justifiable results. Not that this system is perfect: but compared to the political methodology, it is height of reliability.
There is no judge, because no-one person or group should be considered infallible (which was my original point: treating politicians as infallible priests who cannot be contradicted is the height of foolishness).
Did you accidentally submit before completing your post? What part of the above article constitutes 'evidence otherwise'?
whoooooooosh!
Translation: You don't know.
See above: People who adopt a position on science based on treating political opinions as inviolate are self selecting themselves out of the gene pool. Seriously.
Is that a yes? You want to make it interesting?
We can't have a situation where every time some political hack carries snowballs into congress to make a point it is rightfully dismissed as crackpot antics. Yet when there is a specific incident on the other side of the ledger be a storm or heat wave it becomes acceptable to try and publically link instances of weather to "climate change".
That means we have to bar scientists from speaking on a subject if their fact based statements contradict or offend someones political views. So the President of the US is allowed to celebrate his ignorance and reach an audience of millions with his factually incorrect take on climate, but someone with a scientific discovery and the evidence to prove it can't speak to it, because political opinion is sacrosanct.
That is very troubling.
Here's an alternative approach: the arguments made by politicians on science should be judged on their scientific merit. The arguments made by scientists on science should be judged on their scientific merit. If a scientist makes a political statement, judge it on it's political merit - unless they claim it is science, in which case, judge it on it's scientific merit. It's possible, even essential, to tell good science from bad. A political argument framed as a scientific view does not pass a simple sniff test, and is readily exposed.
People who adopt a position on science based on treating political opinions as inviolate are self selecting themselves out of the gene pool. Seriously.
In fact let's make it interesting - shall we?
Hey! I liked the Elf theory. More plausible than most proposals put forward by denialists to explain the current climate anomaly.
Humnan nature I suppose but if not anthropogenic why do we have the right to "fix" the problem?
Who said it wasn't anthropogenic?
So if we caused climate change to power our cars we need to fix it, but if nature has decided tough shit guys time for you to go, again we need to fix it? So what you are saying is everything revolves around us right?
Nature?? Well, I guess a nature goddess causing climate change because she's a bitch is as plausible as most denialist theories...
So why do we care if the hairy bare assed wilderbeast in Kenya goes extinct? Tough shit daddy needs a second TV.
Errrr cause they are one and the same? Daddy can fix climate change, save the wildebeest and buy a new tv, or not fix climate change, let the wildebeest die out, and lose his job because climate change tanked the economy and never buy a TV again.
Also, historically I don't think the funding was as good. A dude with a studio apartment, porridge and a microscope is cheap versus all the crap that goes into something major like climate
No idea what you are talking about.
Anyways my biggest criticism is the claimed level of precision. "Concensus numbers" aka we took a dozen papers of people all receiving federal funding to investigate the "global warming" problem (hmm I wonder which side you'll land on), get averaged together and somehow that becomes the Truth. Then not saying it won't suck or change ecosystems, but because the blue billled pecker wood in middle of nowhere Alberta will go extinct that automatically means death to all life. Really? Do you really think humans are so powerful that we'll somehow manage to survive just long enough to kill Everything before dying out? Again it'll suck but we'll have massive die outs/reduction in our resource use long before we get there IMO baring massive nuclear war. We use a lot of energy but we just don't need that much energy really per year to not allow population die off stabilize things. The world will be different but it has always been different.
Again, a TL;DR. I can't even tell who or what you are criticizing.
As for your own response, the question I have is, why did you bother to post at all? So you 'stopped reading' - so what? Since when is your reading habits a matter of interest to the rest of us?
Did you accidentally submit before completing your post? What part of the above article constitutes 'evidence otherwise'?
That's because so many of the solutions bandied about are stupid.
Well, firstly, if you think the solutions are stupid, then come up with a better one. Secondly, just because the problem is hard, doesn't mean there is no problem. You can't cure cancer by denying it exists.
Nice theory (wait...hypothesis since you have no confirmed experiments) you have there. ANYTHING that happens is accounted for.
Kinda weird that here is an article citing yet another direct observation (on top of the direct and repeatable, and repeated observations made previously, such as satellite observation, direct observation of the properties of CO2, ice core sampling of the geological record, historical temperature readings, and on and on): I supposed all of these observations were faked, were they?
I directly observe the moon and yet (according to you and your friends) there are no direct observations of the moons existence. If I predict based on observation that the moon will rise, and it does. then this is yet more evidence that the moon is fake.
What 'evidence otherwise' do you have?
I just find it weird that when people say "the models are inaccurate" somehow it must mean there isn't a problem. If the models aren't reliable we actually have a bigger problem than we though.
I don't like to disappoint.
So the situation could be worse than the models predict?
So what's your solution? I tried to participate in the discussion for awhile, but got "denier" screamed at me over and over for Daring to Question The Holy Truth, and so I view the climate change discussion as a big political clusterfuck.
That doesn't make sense to me.
People express skepticism at your alternate theories, and call you names: and because they called you a name, it must be politically motivated? What?
That just doesn't make sense.
Name real solutions, that will actually solve the problem.
So: intuitively, if the high concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are causing a problem, wouldn't the resolution be to reduce the concentrations of those gases to more normal levels?
What's the issue?
And the direct satellite evidence?
Faked.
The future chinese brought back transmitters from the future to send signals because there are no satellites because, the truth is, there is no space. Space, and the moon, are a vast liberal conspiracy. That's how the whole thing started: Fourier surmised that the reason the earth's temperature was so different from the moon's is because of the presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but he would say that, because he is a zombie Knights Templar who is/was/will be in league with the time travelling chinese.
I have 800,000 years of direct, measurable evidence that the earth's climate cycles between warming and cooling, and that we are, in fact, in the fifth such cycle.
Ah, a new theory. Here's a basic sniff test: In all the cycles over the past 800 000 years, what caused the climate to change?
And what is causing it to change this time?
You, on the other hand, have what-if models that account only for unending warming, something which hasn't happened in 800,000 years.
The only models I've seen suggesting an unending warming cycle are those used by denialists. Which is to say, if you can't adequately explain the current warming, then you cannot rule out a never ending warming cycle. So: what is causing the current warming event?
In the US the president declares a item to be 'fake news' whereas in Vietnam: - oh wait. Carry on.
Until not that long ago it was extremely dangerous and expensive to travel more than 100 miles from home and in many places it still is.
And not so long ago people had no choice but to physically travel in order to do things that we now do remotely without even thinking about it.
With that kind of logic, humans would never have left their village let alone their continent.
And now, we achieve far more, without leaving our village or continent, because like every clever generation before us, we recognise the value of building things that do what we want, better than our limited fleshy bodies in order to push beyond the limits set by the flesh. Why we would insist that space travel be limited by our flesh bodies, forever confining us to one or two nearby planets? That is simply bizarre - unthinkable! We don't limit our mining to what we can dig with our hand. We don't limit our transport to what we can physically lift with our puny arms. Why would we treat space travel and the possibilities it contains, to such contempt?
No, we've already broken that bound. Machines have gone in our place, to Saturn, and Jupiter and Pluto, places we could never go in the flesh: and achieved far more than we could if we went in person.
I think the biggest value of the manned space program isn't the space travel, really, but the sense of inspiration it provides, the notion that humanity is actually going somewhere and somehow progressing in the process
What inspiration? What progress?
Some people might well enjoy the spectacle of humans in space, like we enjoy a steam train passing by, or the sight of a biplane. What about this spectacle has to do with actual human progress, rather than nostalgia?
Or neither: perhaps subjective inspiration is just that: subjective. Initiatives that expensive require an objective good to call upon in order to be sustained. In other words, we were excited by Apollo, but that excitement fell away because the hard fact is, human space travel hasn't demonstrated a universal, objective value that can't be more readily achieved via other means.
Atheism also states that we were not created by deities, but instead they were created by us. This becomes problematic for a number of reasons. The first is that the individual atheist has not studied the full set of deities that are accepted by one or more of the multitude forms of theism around the world, so they cannot speak objectively to this statement: it is just a statement arising from worldview (a religious assertion). The second is that atheism demands that there be no god or gods at all, not even the ones that nobody believes in. Otherwise, there could be god or gods that nobody believes in. So arguments about the deities that people believe in get's us nowhere down the path to a rational foundation for atheism.
If you genuinely think that we are afraid of the Nazis, then I have a nasty shock for you. We never have been, and never will be : not even when Nazism and Fascism are just a smeared memory and the windscreen. Fascism is an infection, a weeping open boil on the side of humanity, and you treat infection, to be rid of it, becuase infection isn't something you regard as your equal, let alone something to be afraid of.