Yea, I should have clarified that statement wasn't directed at you.
That's okay, I didn't think it was.
I could tell from your post you're smart enough to realize that a particular label does not, generally, define a person.
Absolutely not. I have a theory (probably not original) about the way that humans conceptualise complexity or large sizes. That is, we view things as if through a telephoto lens. So, for example, we can accurately visualise the difference between 10km and 100km. But when we visualise the difference between 1000 and 1100 that seems much smaller - even though it is in fact more.
Similarly when we view (from afar) a group of people we simplify them so that they all appear to be the same - witness for example, the simplification on./ of chinese people and chinese culture into one conformant mass when in fact they are hugely diverse.
Actually I know quite a few catholics. They are the same as everybody else. Everybody.
The same... except they're catholics.
Yes - and you are whatever you label is.
If you let religion define you or control your life, you got it all wrong. It's your religion and you define it.
More likely, everybody is controlled by their beliefs, some unknowingly. Some cannot even accept that they believe things at all - such a notion conflicts with their beliefs.
Again - everybody does that, and atheists not the least of them. That is a description that you could apply to any strawman you choose.
You seem to have missed the phrase "no demonstrable basis in reality."
No - I didn't.
All statements are not equally true, or else we might as well give up on logic and communication entirely and go back to being animals.
But people are not single points on a graph, and their beliefs are a set, not a single assertion. In that set, everybody has some assertions which are true (or will prove to be true) and some that are (or will) not. I do. And so do you. And so do group x, where x is the the particular caricature that we are choosing to despise at any one time - be it jews, blacks, gays, catholics, the irish.
Well, not quite right, because Abraham (the father of Israel and spiritual father of the church) negotiated with God and so did Moses (the proto-messianic example) - although you might need be playing the proto-messianic role of mediator to be able to reproduce that, which is kind of tricky.
But anyway, that's not my point. My point was to dig into the motivations that underly denialism - one clear example being the desire to hold out for a better deal. If we deny climate change for long enough, perhaps science will come back and want to deal. I mean, they need us right? Right?
Nasa can, and does, get regularly beyond LEO. Off the top of my head:
1. Spirit and Opportunity rovers - huge success
2. Cassini-Huygens: Despite some issues, still managed to collect an enormous amount of data on probably the most (or perhaps second most) interesting place in the solar system - including a landing on Titan. Arguably the high point of space exploration so far.
3. Curiousity Rover - again, hugely successful
4. MESSENGER probe - has has it's mission extended, having achieved every mission objective
5. And of course New Horizons my current favourite
Their launch capacity has been diminishing steadily for the past 40 years.
Appearances can be deceptive. It's certainly true that by distance Voyager I/II (I assume this is what you are alluding to) has travelled a greater distance than any other mission - but in a sense that is a matter of coasting along and observing what the data tells you. Not to take anything away from Voyager, let me emphasise, it was, and is, an astounding achievement.
Thank goodness it's not entirely up to them anymore.
I'm not sure there was ever a time when it was entirely up to them but it seems to me that NASA are the ones doing the interesting stuff at the moment. Sending apes/humans into LEO? Kinda been done before. Sending humans into orbit around Mars? Ummm.. Why? That planet, apart from being generally boring (excluding the possibility of some sort of life there) has already been thoroughly mapped from space by the Mars Orbiter. And we learnt years ago that humans aren't required on locale to make missions work. Hardly groundbreaking stuff.
Nope. Nothing wrong with the chart. Why do you ask? Are you hoping for a game of spot the difference?
Weren 't you supposed to b e finding evidence for your statement: It has leveled off since then but looking back at the last 100 yrs of records it looks like we should expect a couple decades of warming followed by a few of stability. rather than evidence of decade on decade warming due to CO2 forcing?
I'm arguing that the evidence that warming was occurring was not that strong until the late 1990s.
Really? Can you describe that evidence? In detail please.
It has leveled off since then but looking back at the last 100 yrs of records it looks like we should expect a couple decades of warming followed by a few of stability.
It sounds like you are claiming that temperature records are the primary evidence of climate change, which means you don't know the first thing about it. Also it sounds like you think the temperature has stabilised - you are, plainly, and transparently wrong, about that as well. Did you think we couldn't find the data for ourselves?
The attitude I observe on slashdot is that it was wrong to ever be skeptical of this trend. This is unscientific.
You apparently can't tell the difference between people who call themselves skeptical and people who are skeptical.
Surprisingly, declaring yourself to be the King of England does actually make you the King of England - I know! Shocking isn't it? Instead you need, in fact, solid evidence to make a solid claim, or you will simply not be heard. The same applies with climate change skepticism - we have people who like to claim the crown, but sadly, no evidence at all to bolster their claims to genuine skepticism. Instead, we find profound ignorance of the basics of climate science - ignorance is not skepticism.
Another thing is that people who believed the earth is warming based on previous weaker evidence are not in any way better or more scientific than those more skeptical who required further evidence.
Actually no, that's not a thing. "Who is better" was never a thing. CO2 doesn't care what you believe about it. You are never actually going to be able to negotiate with it.
Perhaps a device could included that could extend from the side and act as a third point of contact when the vehicle is stationary. We could call this, I dunno, your foot.
So you admit that (a) The science is correct and so are the people who repeat it and defend it and (b) you were in fact, burning a strawman and were caught out, and now you feel all red faced and butt hurt about it.
That doesn't follow. Why would a person who "doesn't deal in climate science for a living" have interests "on both sides"?
It makes perfect sense to me.
A meaningless statement if ever there was one.
I want a livable earth for me and my family. I also don't want to be wildly throwing (my) money at a problem without understanding what we can and can't manage with realistic resources.
But this is merely a repeat of your earlier remarks, not an explanation. Again: Why would a person who "doesn't deal in climate science for a living" have interests "on both sides"?
What are "the sides"?
I've think you've imagined a scenario in which people are coming to you and asking for money. Are you Hu Jintao?
As for the rest, you can't convince rational people by shouting down the exact same sort of people on the other side. Do the work and show us how much to spend on what. You know you'll get your money... we already throw many billions of dollars at this stuff.
Your first mistake is to assume that I (or somebody else) is aiming to convince you of anything. Your second mistake is to assume that I think you are rational. Do you want to be treated as a rational person? Make a rational argument grounded in reality.
Denialists seem to have a propensity toward forgetfulness. For instance, they seem to forget on an almost daily basis what they said the day before. Tuesdays, they will tell us that the climate is not warming. Wednesday, that it is warming, but due to natural causes. Thursday, that the warming is anthropogenic, but it will be a good thing. Friday, back to it not warming again. If they thought about it at all, they would realise how transparently fraudulent they sound.
A second thing they forget is their own liability for their statements. Amongst the myriad of other delusions is the notion that they cannot and will never be held accountable for their lies.
Thirdly, is they forget that the passage of time will lead to less of an appetite for compromise. They seem to expect that if they can hold out for long enough, someone will offer them a deal. In fact, the opposite is happening.
The fourth thing: they forget that nobody has the job of convincing them of anything. They are responsible for their own research. Nobody cares if they are offended. I like to remind people regularly - because with surprising regularity, they seem to forget again.
And having checked a wide range of predictions and statements by AGW activists, I can say that a large fraction of them are scientifically either unsupported or plain wrong.
Really?
What claims by climate scientists have been shown to be wrong - Noting that to prove your assertion we will need a least 50% of claims to be wrong.
Show me a skeptic, I'll consider whether it is worth while trying to convince them.
One-hundred twenty million, but is their side true? Address the facts, don't engage in ad hominem attacks.
Sure. Here are the facts: these people are engaged in a massive, and possibly illegal attempt to cover up the truth for the purposes of financial gain. Just as Union Carbide, James Hardie, Exxon, Shell, American tobacco did before them.
And, just like those companies did before them, one day they'll be made to pay. Where does that leave the individuals who stood beside them?
Improvements in quality of life has as much to do with the adoption of the scientific method as anything else. If you live in an area where cholera is rampant and you have no idea what causes it, you'll die soon regardless of whether you have a large bag of money or a small one.
If follows then, that if we want quality of life improvements we should ignore those people screaming at us to abandon the scientific method and trust that magical pink unicorns will eat our CO2 emissions.
So you are saying that this $120 Million was spent on climate research?
No I didn't say that.
I see.
If they are not spending that money on science, what is it being spent on?
But since the think tanks that are being funded by the $120 million, are arguing against a lot of mainstream research, it makes sense to compare the two.
Except there is no comparison - since we have established that one group is not, in fact, performing science, and the other is. How do we compare fact to fiction?
As to the incentives, if 1% of scientists are denialists and they are getting 1/130'th of the money, then no, there is not proportionally more money going to them.
So, by worked example, where does Anthony Watts get his money from? What is his motivation to be open minded? Why does he claim that he has a scientific basis for his assertions, if, in fact, there is no science that underlies them?
Why would we accept as true statements that, by any logic and metric, appear to be completely fraudulent?
So you are saying that this $120 Million was spent on climate research?
What was the result of this research?
Please provide links to the relevant research papers - I'd be interested to see what these billionares received for their money.
Also, I note that at > 98% acceptance of the standard model amongst climate scientists, there is a clear monetary advantage from 'going rogue' - proportionally more money to go around for denialist "scientists" compared to the rest.
Slashdot Mirror
Yea, I should have clarified that statement wasn't directed at you.
That's okay, I didn't think it was.
I could tell from your post you're smart enough to realize that a particular label does not, generally, define a person.
Absolutely not. I have a theory (probably not original) about the way that humans conceptualise complexity or large sizes. That is, we view things as if through a telephoto lens. So, for example, we can accurately visualise the difference between 10km and 100km. But when we visualise the difference between 1000 and 1100 that seems much smaller - even though it is in fact more.
Similarly when we view (from afar) a group of people we simplify them so that they all appear to be the same - witness for example, the simplification on ./ of chinese people and chinese culture into one conformant mass when in fact they are hugely diverse.
Actually I know quite a few catholics. They are the same as everybody else. Everybody.
The same... except they're catholics.
Yes - and you are whatever you label is.
If you let religion define you or control your life, you got it all wrong. It's your religion and you define it.
More likely, everybody is controlled by their beliefs, some unknowingly. Some cannot even accept that they believe things at all - such a notion conflicts with their beliefs.
Again - everybody does that, and atheists not the least of them. That is a description that you could apply to any strawman you choose.
You seem to have missed the phrase "no demonstrable basis in reality."
No - I didn't.
All statements are not equally true, or else we might as well give up on logic and communication entirely and go back to being animals.
But people are not single points on a graph, and their beliefs are a set, not a single assertion. In that set, everybody has some assertions which are true (or will prove to be true) and some that are (or will) not. I do. And so do you. And so do group x, where x is the the particular caricature that we are choosing to despise at any one time - be it jews, blacks, gays, catholics, the irish.
There's no difference.
Again - everybody does that, and atheists not the least of them. That is a description that you could apply to any strawman you choose.
Actually I know quite a few catholics. They are the same as everybody else. Everybody.
I don't make a distinction between their lack of common sense and yours.
People believe things that other people don't believe. News at 11.
Interesting.
But anyway, that's not my point. My point was to dig into the motivations that underly denialism - one clear example being the desire to hold out for a better deal. If we deny climate change for long enough, perhaps science will come back and want to deal. I mean, they need us right? Right?
Guys?
Guys?
1. Spirit and Opportunity rovers - huge success
2. Cassini-Huygens: Despite some issues, still managed to collect an enormous amount of data on probably the most (or perhaps second most) interesting place in the solar system - including a landing on Titan. Arguably the high point of space exploration so far.
3. Curiousity Rover - again, hugely successful
4. MESSENGER probe - has has it's mission extended, having achieved every mission objective
5. And of course New Horizons my current favourite
Their launch capacity has been diminishing steadily for the past 40 years.
Appearances can be deceptive. It's certainly true that by distance Voyager I/II (I assume this is what you are alluding to) has travelled a greater distance than any other mission - but in a sense that is a matter of coasting along and observing what the data tells you. Not to take anything away from Voyager, let me emphasise, it was, and is, an astounding achievement.
Thank goodness it's not entirely up to them anymore.
I'm not sure there was ever a time when it was entirely up to them but it seems to me that NASA are the ones doing the interesting stuff at the moment. Sending apes/humans into LEO? Kinda been done before. Sending humans into orbit around Mars? Ummm.. Why? That planet, apart from being generally boring (excluding the possibility of some sort of life there) has already been thoroughly mapped from space by the Mars Orbiter. And we learnt years ago that humans aren't required on locale to make missions work. Hardly groundbreaking stuff.
Is there something wrong with this chart? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2012.svg
Nope. Nothing wrong with the chart. Why do you ask? Are you hoping for a game of spot the difference?
Weren 't you supposed to b e finding evidence for your statement: It has leveled off since then but looking back at the last 100 yrs of records it looks like we should expect a couple decades of warming followed by a few of stability. rather than evidence of decade on decade warming due to CO2 forcing?
Butthurt much?
I'm arguing that the evidence that warming was occurring was not that strong until the late 1990s.
Really? Can you describe that evidence? In detail please.
It has leveled off since then but looking back at the last 100 yrs of records it looks like we should expect a couple decades of warming followed by a few of stability.
It sounds like you are claiming that temperature records are the primary evidence of climate change, which means you don't know the first thing about it. Also it sounds like you think the temperature has stabilised - you are, plainly, and transparently wrong, about that as well. Did you think we couldn't find the data for ourselves?
The attitude I observe on slashdot is that it was wrong to ever be skeptical of this trend. This is unscientific.
You apparently can't tell the difference between people who call themselves skeptical and people who are skeptical.
Surprisingly, declaring yourself to be the King of England does actually make you the King of England - I know! Shocking isn't it? Instead you need, in fact, solid evidence to make a solid claim, or you will simply not be heard. The same applies with climate change skepticism - we have people who like to claim the crown, but sadly, no evidence at all to bolster their claims to genuine skepticism. Instead, we find profound ignorance of the basics of climate science - ignorance is not skepticism.
Another thing is that people who believed the earth is warming based on previous weaker evidence are not in any way better or more scientific than those more skeptical who required further evidence.
Actually no, that's not a thing. "Who is better" was never a thing. CO2 doesn't care what you believe about it. You are never actually going to be able to negotiate with it.
Perhaps a device could included that could extend from the side and act as a third point of contact when the vehicle is stationary. We could call this, I dunno, your foot.
I note you still exhaust yourself in ad hominems
Your argument might be more effective if you knew what an ad hominem was. Might. Let me know if need some schooling on correct usage.
Gotcha.
That doesn't follow. Why would a person who "doesn't deal in climate science for a living" have interests "on both sides"?
It makes perfect sense to me.
A meaningless statement if ever there was one.
I want a livable earth for me and my family. I also don't want to be wildly throwing (my) money at a problem without understanding what we can and can't manage with realistic resources.
But this is merely a repeat of your earlier remarks, not an explanation. Again: Why would a person who "doesn't deal in climate science for a living" have interests "on both sides"?
What are "the sides"?
I've think you've imagined a scenario in which people are coming to you and asking for money. Are you Hu Jintao?
As for the rest, you can't convince rational people by shouting down the exact same sort of people on the other side. Do the work and show us how much to spend on what. You know you'll get your money... we already throw many billions of dollars at this stuff.
Your first mistake is to assume that I (or somebody else) is aiming to convince you of anything. Your second mistake is to assume that I think you are rational. Do you want to be treated as a rational person? Make a rational argument grounded in reality.
A second thing they forget is their own liability for their statements. Amongst the myriad of other delusions is the notion that they cannot and will never be held accountable for their lies.
Thirdly, is they forget that the passage of time will lead to less of an appetite for compromise. They seem to expect that if they can hold out for long enough, someone will offer them a deal. In fact, the opposite is happening.
The fourth thing: they forget that nobody has the job of convincing them of anything. They are responsible for their own research. Nobody cares if they are offended. I like to remind people regularly - because with surprising regularity, they seem to forget again.
And having checked a wide range of predictions and statements by AGW activists, I can say that a large fraction of them are scientifically either unsupported or plain wrong.
Really?
What claims by climate scientists have been shown to be wrong - Noting that to prove your assertion we will need a least 50% of claims to be wrong.
If you want to convince skeptics...
Show me a skeptic, I'll consider whether it is worth while trying to convince them.
One-hundred twenty million, but is their side true? Address the facts, don't engage in ad hominem attacks.
Sure. Here are the facts: these people are engaged in a massive, and possibly illegal attempt to cover up the truth for the purposes of financial gain. Just as Union Carbide, James Hardie, Exxon, Shell, American tobacco did before them.
And, just like those companies did before them, one day they'll be made to pay. Where does that leave the individuals who stood beside them?
1. A person who makes assertions they know to be false, for the purposes of financial gain, to the detriment of others :- guilty of fraud
2. A person or persons who conspire with others to propagate fraud: Conspiracy to commit fraud.
If follows then, that if we want quality of life improvements we should ignore those people screaming at us to abandon the scientific method and trust that magical pink unicorns will eat our CO2 emissions.
So you are saying that this $120 Million was spent on climate research?
No I didn't say that.
I see.
If they are not spending that money on science, what is it being spent on?
But since the think tanks that are being funded by the $120 million, are arguing against a lot of mainstream research, it makes sense to compare the two.
Except there is no comparison - since we have established that one group is not, in fact, performing science, and the other is. How do we compare fact to fiction?
As to the incentives, if 1% of scientists are denialists and they are getting 1/130'th of the money, then no, there is not proportionally more money going to them.
So, by worked example, where does Anthony Watts get his money from? What is his motivation to be open minded? Why does he claim that he has a scientific basis for his assertions, if, in fact, there is no science that underlies them?
Why would we accept as true statements that, by any logic and metric, appear to be completely fraudulent?
What was the result of this research?
Please provide links to the relevant research papers - I'd be interested to see what these billionares received for their money.
Also, I note that at > 98% acceptance of the standard model amongst climate scientists, there is a clear monetary advantage from 'going rogue' - proportionally more money to go around for denialist "scientists" compared to the rest.