Unlike most, I'm comfortable admitting that I don't deal in climate science for a living, so my interests land on both sides.
That doesn't follow. Why would a person who "doesn't deal in climate science for a living" have interests "on both sides"?
No, it's not obvious to me what resources and laws are appropriate for dealing with global climate change. That doesn't at all mean I think the answer is "none", it means I want to know if there's a difference between ten billion and twenty, and if any of that would be better spent on other things that worry us too.
Are they qualified at all to tell us how to spend our money? What motivation have we to listen to them?
On the one hand we have a set of facts and a system that we normally trust implicitly, and argument based on logic and a set of observations that a 5 year old could understand. On the other,a bunch of known fraudsters acting in transparently fraudulent ways, telling us not only that this science is corrupt but that the whole institution of science is corrupt and that we should trust them with our money and our future instead of science and logic because they are "good guys".
Should the U.S. go back to its 'Let's put a man on the moon' ideology?
No they shouldn't. People seem to easily forget that the Apollo missions, at least up until Apollo 11, were exactly that - ideology. The ideology that the American way was better than the Soviet way, replete with the American Hero striding out where no man has gone before - albeit that last part was probably largely accidental, as the idea of sending a black man, or (God forbid) a woman probably never occurred to anyone and the career path to being an astronaut didn't allow for it anyway.
The whole construct of the lingering notions of colonising near earth objects (like the Moon or Mars) is based upon the frontier myth - a combination of misremembered American history and a version of the future shaped by movies. In reality, the frontier is not what you remember from grade school lessons, spaghetti westerns and Little House on the Prairie. In reality, space travel and exploration will never be like Star Trek or Avatar. At best, we might get as far as (the original) Planet of the Apes - without the apes. No amount of effort will shape reality into the myth.
You do realise that a political allegiance doesn't actually allow to escape the bonds of reality? that the scientific method has nothing at all to do with negotiating a mutually acceptable solution for everybody?
"Cheese Makes you Fat!"
"Shows what you know! I'm in the CHEESEMAKING PARTY! Cheese will just give me a healthy glow!"
"I'm sorry Mr Ridebacher, you have lung cancer"
"No, that's unacceptable. You're interfering with my rights! Tell you what, why don't we compromise and say that I have a bad cold?"
By future space missions, they mean for steering rovers (from ta): But don't hold your breath, says JPL senior research scientist Adrian Stoica. "While potential uses for space applications exist, in terms of uses for planetary rover remote control, this is still a speculative idea," he says.
Of course they would have to weigh this against the benefits of giving the rovers better ai for moving from place to place.
Well, as a non-atheist, let me point out that each of your concerns applies equally to atheism:
- athiests have historically engaged in unethical acts ( read your history )
- atheists have beliefs people not brought up in atheism would call superstition ( and less respectful terms )
- much of what atheists say would classify as myths - for people who are not atheists
- atheism (from the vantage point of a non-atheist) is man-made (apologies to the women in the audience for the term )
Why would we distinguish between your beliefs and those you criticise?
No disrespect meant to anyone.
None taken. You have a different set of beliefs. Spend any time at all in the real world. and you'll discover there is a diversity of views and in general nobody is surprised to discover that their neighbour, friend or workmate has a different set of beliefs to themselves, and this is not offensive or personally challenging in any way. Many non-atheists (and sometimes even atheists) suffer terribly for their sincerely held beliefs, yet hold to them anyway. The fact that you have a different opinion is so trivial that nobody would raise an eyebrow, let alone stir themselves to feel anything like offence.
You sure did. Why is that? Why did it become so important to you to focus on Manning himself and not on the content of the leaks?
What big horrible crimes did Manning's leaks reveal? The only thing close was a video of an airstrike in Baghdad, which he found in a Judge advocates file because it was being investigated by the military already.
Isn't that the one that we later found out the US military had counted as insurgent deaths - when in fact it was a bunch of civilians and a reuters cameraman? The one with the helicopter crew whooping and laughing whilst innocent people are killed, and then later, when they find out that there were kids there, they justified it to themselves by saying that civilians shouldn't have been wandering around - in their own city?
You're right. That wasn't the worst of it.
I suspect that the discovery that some military sub contractors are a hive of pederasts (specifically, they like to buy under age Afghan boys and then rape them) and that the US government knew and did nothing - and still has done nothing - that ranks in the top ten. Maybe not the worst though.
Bradley committed a crime a really bad crime. It was treason.
Arguably. It could also be argued that the people he exposed, those that committed the criminal acts he exposed, those that were complicit, those that created the framework where such disgusting, amoral and hideous acts could be committed - it could be argued that these people were the criminals, and Manning the patriot for exposing them. They were and are acting against the interest of the United States - not Manning. They were, and are, by their actions betraying the principles and ideals that unite the United States - not Manning.
Arguably, he is a true patriot.
When do you suppose those whose crimes were exposed by Wikileaks will be brought to justice?
Our western notion of a social contract, where society collectively steps in and protects its weakest, the infirm and those otherwise incapable of seeing to themselves is, without question, superior to asian views on the rights of man in general and their so-called work "ethic" in particular.
That you can even bring up a word such as "entitlement" in this context disqualifies you from taking part in a debate amongst adults.
This.
This is absolutely a question of ethics - we speak negatively of 'entitlement' but ethically humans are, by dint of being humans (and nothing else) entitled. This is the meaning of inalienable rights. In contrast, notional and insubstantial structures - the feelings of stockbrokers, corporations, these have no rights, they are rather, granted (by us) certain privileges and allowed to continue whilst they benefit us.
Read any denialist website and you'll soon see that they hold several contradictory assertions to be simultaneously true. Why then, would we accept that any of these assertions are true?
So what is your definition of "logically sound"? It sounds like it's equivalent to "the most plausible at any given time that doesn't involve admitting that we must take action to mitigate climate change" Qualifying what is allowed to be real doesn't sound like accepting reality - reality is not negotiating with us for a mutually acceptable outcome.
Oh, and one final thing. If you want to know whether or not feedbacks are negative, neutral or positive, read just about any denialist website. They'll tell you that in the climate record, there are instances where CO2 has lagged a climate change. What does this mean? What it really means is that climate sensitivity is positive. These people are disproving themselves and they don't even realise it. Ironic, no?
So, in fact, you don't know how many people will be killed by anthropogenic global warming, and cannot predict a rate of mortality even up to 2030?
This being the case, why would we accept your assertion If AGW is the worst thing facing humanity, then we're currently in a REALLY good situation. - or are you now retracting that assertion?
Also, please cite the scientists you've mentioned, so that we can examine their claims in some detail:
1. Cite the scientist(s) who you say claims that the number of deaths will be zero. Out of the total pool of predictions, what percentage say zero?
2. Cite the scientist(s) who you say are predicting the end of civilisation. What does this amount to in population impacts? What percentage predict this upper bound? (if indeed, it is the upper bound?)
Once again you are citing Huffington post, which got its info from DARA
Yes, I did, and presumably the latter part is true also, although the relevance of that factoid is not yet clear.
Which is why you are confused. Stop doing that.
Well, (a) that makes no sense whatsoever - posting a link is hardly likely to make the poster confused and (b) Rest assured that I'll continue to do whatever takes my fancy.
But back to the topic at hand - do you know how many people are likely to die due to anthropogenic climate change?
Is 100 million (by 2030) roughly the right figure?
The only thing I'm finding confusing at the moment is the apparent discrepancy between your assertions and the lack of any available evidence to support those assertions - by which I mean the statement
If AGW is the worst thing facing humanity, then we're currently in a REALLY good situation.
And this one (highlighted)
What metric did you use to define the relative likelihood + impacts of a nuclear winter versus anthropogenic global warming?
The IPCC report. I don't claim to know the full impact of nuclear winter, but we are talking about hundreds of millions dead in the first few days
I've seen figures of the order of 100 million deaths by 2030 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/26/climate-change-deaths_n_1915365.html) - is this an acceptable order of magnitude?
I've seen figures of the order of 100 million deaths by 2030 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/26/climate-change-deaths_n_1915365.html) - is this an acceptable order of magnitude?
That's an interesting point of view. What metric did you use to define the relative likelihood + impacts of a nuclear winter versus anthropogenic global warming?
I suspect people may know more than you give them credit for. Besides which, it is quite a large and relatively populous place - there are 7.2 million people living there - it's larger than most US states by population or area. Should we start qualifying US states? Minnesota (USA) at 5.3 million Commonwealth of Massachusetts (USA) at 6.6 million? If not, why not?
Conditions have been quite bad the last week or so, by which I mean fires have been spotting 20 kms ahead of the firefront - that means that your firebreak would need to be 20 kms wide to be effective. Also, the fire in question covers 40000 hectares. Check out this site (Click on Wambelong for the fire in question) http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/dsp_content.cfm?cat_id=683. The large blacked out patches on the map are what burnt last wednesday.
I don't think your chainsaw will cut it, pun intended.
Ever since terrorism became such a huge problem in Australia, ASIO have been unable to catch a single terrorist. So hampered were they by a lack of access to my computer, they have been unable to foil a single, credible terrorist plot. In the last decade or so, an attack by terrorists has been imminent, at any moment, I expect to be attacked by terrorists. The lack of an actual attack, the lack of any suspicion of an actual attack, the lack of any identifiable group with any plausible reason to attack, the lack of any identifiable person associated with any group planning to attack, these are simply indicators of how clever these devious, brown people are. If only someone would use my computer to hack into theirs, then Australians would know the reason for the constant stream of messages telling us to fear.
You are right to some extent. The current decadal temperature trending is higher than the models predicted, and although you have a right to be concerned about that and to call it out, due to the danger it poses, this discrepancy it is entirely due to assumptions made about the amount of CO2 emissions. Even the worst case scenarios didn't see us pumping out the amount of CO2 which we are pumping out at the moment. Hence the temperature is rising faster than the models predicted.
So in other words, it's not a problem with the models, or with the peer review process. It is a problem with humans who know the danger and do nothing about it.
Copy paste? Afraid that your lies, misinformation and scaremongering lose their power unless they're blindly repeated?
It would hardly be appropriate to carry on ignoring the implausibility and self contradictory nature of your position. You are apparently reluctant to explain these discrepancies. So we'll continue to focus on them until you address them.
Your entire platform rests on the science not being falsifiable, yet all along, you thought it was. You were lying from the start. You said that NOAA 2008 includes a statement on falsification, in contradiction to your central platform. You didn't demonstrate any actual falsification of the models referenced in the paper, but now claim that the NOAA 2008 falsifies not only the models, but the underlying theory. To cover your arse when called on the latter specifically, you modified your citation of yourself to replace the reference to the model with a reference to the underlying theory. You lied on top of your lie. To sum up:
Falsifiabilty
You claimed that the models and the theory were not falsifiable, when all along you thought they were. You lied, your entire platform is a lie and a fraud.
Actually Falsified?
You initially claimed that the NOAA 2008 might 'be falsified'. You didn't demonstrate any actual falsification. You then claimed *it had been falsified*. The paper is referring to the HadCM3 climate model (Gordon et al. 2000). You tried to imply that it was referring to the underlying theory. Your attempted falsification failed, but you conflate this with a renewed claim of unfalsifability, whilst your attempted falsification is still out there,dangling like a noose.
Your lies
1. Claiming that the models and science were not falsifiable, when all along you thought they were.
2. Conflating *not falsified* with *unfalsifiable*
3. Claiming to have falsified the HadCM3 model based on a statement in the NOAA 2008 Climate Assessment, without demonstrating that the criteria specified in the paper had actually been met.
4. Post Hoc misquoting of the paper AGAIN to extend the scope of what might be falsified
Slashdot Mirror
Unlike most, I'm comfortable admitting that I don't deal in climate science for a living, so my interests land on both sides.
That doesn't follow. Why would a person who "doesn't deal in climate science for a living" have interests "on both sides"?
No, it's not obvious to me what resources and laws are appropriate for dealing with global climate change. That doesn't at all mean I think the answer is "none", it means I want to know if there's a difference between ten billion and twenty, and if any of that would be better spent on other things that worry us too.
Are they qualified at all to tell us how to spend our money? What motivation have we to listen to them?
On the one hand we have a set of facts and a system that we normally trust implicitly, and argument based on logic and a set of observations that a 5 year old could understand. On the other,a bunch of known fraudsters acting in transparently fraudulent ways, telling us not only that this science is corrupt but that the whole institution of science is corrupt and that we should trust them with our money and our future instead of science and logic because they are "good guys".
No they shouldn't. People seem to easily forget that the Apollo missions, at least up until Apollo 11, were exactly that - ideology. The ideology that the American way was better than the Soviet way, replete with the American Hero striding out where no man has gone before - albeit that last part was probably largely accidental, as the idea of sending a black man, or (God forbid) a woman probably never occurred to anyone and the career path to being an astronaut didn't allow for it anyway.
The whole construct of the lingering notions of colonising near earth objects (like the Moon or Mars) is based upon the frontier myth - a combination of misremembered American history and a version of the future shaped by movies. In reality, the frontier is not what you remember from grade school lessons, spaghetti westerns and Little House on the Prairie. In reality, space travel and exploration will never be like Star Trek or Avatar. At best, we might get as far as (the original) Planet of the Apes - without the apes. No amount of effort will shape reality into the myth.
"Cheese Makes you Fat!"
"Shows what you know! I'm in the CHEESEMAKING PARTY! Cheese will just give me a healthy glow!"
"I'm sorry Mr Ridebacher, you have lung cancer"
"No, that's unacceptable. You're interfering with my rights! Tell you what, why don't we compromise and say that I have a bad cold?"
Of course they would have to weigh this against the benefits of giving the rovers better ai for moving from place to place.
This is covered in the simulations as well. Is there something in particular preventing you from reading it?
- athiests have historically engaged in unethical acts ( read your history )
- atheists have beliefs people not brought up in atheism would call superstition ( and less respectful terms )
- much of what atheists say would classify as myths - for people who are not atheists
- atheism (from the vantage point of a non-atheist) is man-made (apologies to the women in the audience for the term )
Why would we distinguish between your beliefs and those you criticise?
No disrespect meant to anyone.
None taken. You have a different set of beliefs. Spend any time at all in the real world. and you'll discover there is a diversity of views and in general nobody is surprised to discover that their neighbour, friend or workmate has a different set of beliefs to themselves, and this is not offensive or personally challenging in any way. Many non-atheists (and sometimes even atheists) suffer terribly for their sincerely held beliefs, yet hold to them anyway. The fact that you have a different opinion is so trivial that nobody would raise an eyebrow, let alone stir themselves to feel anything like offence.
I missed something.
You sure did. Why is that? Why did it become so important to you to focus on Manning himself and not on the content of the leaks?
What big horrible crimes did Manning's leaks reveal? The only thing close was a video of an airstrike in Baghdad, which he found in a Judge advocates file because it was being investigated by the military already.
Isn't that the one that we later found out the US military had counted as insurgent deaths - when in fact it was a bunch of civilians and a reuters cameraman? The one with the helicopter crew whooping and laughing whilst innocent people are killed, and then later, when they find out that there were kids there, they justified it to themselves by saying that civilians shouldn't have been wandering around - in their own city? You're right. That wasn't the worst of it.
I suspect that the discovery that some military sub contractors are a hive of pederasts (specifically, they like to buy under age Afghan boys and then rape them) and that the US government knew and did nothing - and still has done nothing - that ranks in the top ten. Maybe not the worst though.
Would you like know more?
Bradley committed a crime a really bad crime. It was treason.
Arguably. It could also be argued that the people he exposed, those that committed the criminal acts he exposed, those that were complicit, those that created the framework where such disgusting, amoral and hideous acts could be committed - it could be argued that these people were the criminals, and Manning the patriot for exposing them. They were and are acting against the interest of the United States - not Manning. They were, and are, by their actions betraying the principles and ideals that unite the United States - not Manning.
Arguably, he is a true patriot.
When do you suppose those whose crimes were exposed by Wikileaks will be brought to justice?
Our western notion of a social contract, where society collectively steps in and protects its weakest, the infirm and those otherwise incapable of seeing to themselves is, without question, superior to asian views on the rights of man in general and their so-called work "ethic" in particular.
That you can even bring up a word such as "entitlement" in this context disqualifies you from taking part in a debate amongst adults.
This.
This is absolutely a question of ethics - we speak negatively of 'entitlement' but ethically humans are, by dint of being humans (and nothing else) entitled. This is the meaning of inalienable rights. In contrast, notional and insubstantial structures - the feelings of stockbrokers, corporations, these have no rights, they are rather, granted (by us) certain privileges and allowed to continue whilst they benefit us.
Or so it should be. Something has gone wrong.
If you like.
Sure - happy to amend that to mostly in asia since it just makes my point all the more.
Sure - happy to amend that to mostly in asia since it just makes my point all the more.
You might have missed the fact that half of Turkey is in Asia (the other half in Europe).
Here is a guy claiming that Global Warming doesn't exist: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3395415&cid=42645177
Here is a guy claiming that it is real but probably a good thing, he can't wait for more of it: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3395415&cid=42645015
Read any denialist website and you'll soon see that they hold several contradictory assertions to be simultaneously true. Why then, would we accept that any of these assertions are true?
So what is your definition of "logically sound"? It sounds like it's equivalent to "the most plausible at any given time that doesn't involve admitting that we must take action to mitigate climate change" Qualifying what is allowed to be real doesn't sound like accepting reality - reality is not negotiating with us for a mutually acceptable outcome.
Oh, and one final thing. If you want to know whether or not feedbacks are negative, neutral or positive, read just about any denialist website. They'll tell you that in the climate record, there are instances where CO2 has lagged a climate change. What does this mean? What it really means is that climate sensitivity is positive. These people are disproving themselves and they don't even realise it. Ironic, no?
This being the case, why would we accept your assertion If AGW is the worst thing facing humanity, then we're currently in a REALLY good situation. - or are you now retracting that assertion?
Also, please cite the scientists you've mentioned, so that we can examine their claims in some detail:
1. Cite the scientist(s) who you say claims that the number of deaths will be zero. Out of the total pool of predictions, what percentage say zero?
2. Cite the scientist(s) who you say are predicting the end of civilisation. What does this amount to in population impacts? What percentage predict this upper bound? (if indeed, it is the upper bound?)
Once again you are citing Huffington post, which got its info from DARA
Yes, I did, and presumably the latter part is true also, although the relevance of that factoid is not yet clear.
Which is why you are confused. Stop doing that.
Well, (a) that makes no sense whatsoever - posting a link is hardly likely to make the poster confused and (b) Rest assured that I'll continue to do whatever takes my fancy.
But back to the topic at hand - do you know how many people are likely to die due to anthropogenic climate change?
Is 100 million (by 2030) roughly the right figure?
If not, what is the correct forecast?
The only thing I'm finding confusing at the moment is the apparent discrepancy between your assertions and the lack of any available evidence to support those assertions - by which I mean the statement
If AGW is the worst thing facing humanity, then we're currently in a REALLY good situation.
And this one (highlighted)
What metric did you use to define the relative likelihood + impacts of a nuclear winter versus anthropogenic global warming?
The IPCC report. I don't claim to know the full impact of nuclear winter, but we are talking about hundreds of millions dead in the first few days
Which IPCC report? One of these - http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml [www.ipcc.ch]?
To give you an opportunity to clear up any confusion you might have inadvertently caused, I'll ask again:
Which IPCC report? One of these - http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml [www.ipcc.ch]?
And what were the death rates?
I've seen figures of the order of 100 million deaths by 2030 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/26/climate-change-deaths_n_1915365.html) - is this an acceptable order of magnitude?
What metric did you use to define the relative likelihood + impacts of a nuclear winter versus anthropogenic global warming?
The IPCC report. I don't claim to know the full impact of nuclear winter, but we are talking about hundreds of millions dead in the first few days
Which IPCC report? One of these - http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml?
And what were the death rates?
I've seen figures of the order of 100 million deaths by 2030 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/26/climate-change-deaths_n_1915365.html) - is this an acceptable order of magnitude?
That's an interesting point of view. What metric did you use to define the relative likelihood + impacts of a nuclear winter versus anthropogenic global warming?
I suspect people may know more than you give them credit for. Besides which, it is quite a large and relatively populous place - there are 7.2 million people living there - it's larger than most US states by population or area. Should we start qualifying US states? Minnesota (USA) at 5.3 million Commonwealth of Massachusetts (USA) at 6.6 million? If not, why not?
I don't think your chainsaw will cut it, pun intended.
Ever since terrorism became such a huge problem in Australia, ASIO have been unable to catch a single terrorist. So hampered were they by a lack of access to my computer, they have been unable to foil a single, credible terrorist plot. In the last decade or so, an attack by terrorists has been imminent, at any moment, I expect to be attacked by terrorists. The lack of an actual attack, the lack of any suspicion of an actual attack, the lack of any identifiable group with any plausible reason to attack, the lack of any identifiable person associated with any group planning to attack, these are simply indicators of how clever these devious, brown people are. If only someone would use my computer to hack into theirs, then Australians would know the reason for the constant stream of messages telling us to fear.
Moderator, please read the moderation guidelines. "This offends my worldview" is not sufficient reason to mark a post as troll.
So in other words, it's not a problem with the models, or with the peer review process. It is a problem with humans who know the danger and do nothing about it.
Copy paste? Afraid that your lies, misinformation and scaremongering lose their power unless they're blindly repeated?
It would hardly be appropriate to carry on ignoring the implausibility and self contradictory nature of your position. You are apparently reluctant to explain these discrepancies. So we'll continue to focus on them until you address them.
Your entire platform rests on the science not being falsifiable, yet all along, you thought it was. You were lying from the start. You said that NOAA 2008 includes a statement on falsification, in contradiction to your central platform. You didn't demonstrate any actual falsification of the models referenced in the paper, but now claim that the NOAA 2008 falsifies not only the models, but the underlying theory. To cover your arse when called on the latter specifically, you modified your citation of yourself to replace the reference to the model with a reference to the underlying theory. You lied on top of your lie. To sum up:
Falsifiabilty
You claimed that the models and the theory were not falsifiable, when all along you thought they were. You lied, your entire platform is a lie and a fraud.
Actually Falsified?
You initially claimed that the NOAA 2008 might 'be falsified'. You didn't demonstrate any actual falsification. You then claimed *it had been falsified*. The paper is referring to the HadCM3 climate model (Gordon et al. 2000). You tried to imply that it was referring to the underlying theory. Your attempted falsification failed, but you conflate this with a renewed claim of unfalsifability, whilst your attempted falsification is still out there,dangling like a noose.
Your lies
1. Claiming that the models and science were not falsifiable, when all along you thought they were.
2. Conflating *not falsified* with *unfalsifiable*
3. Claiming to have falsified the HadCM3 model based on a statement in the NOAA 2008 Climate Assessment, without demonstrating that the criteria specified in the paper had actually been met.
4. Post Hoc misquoting of the paper AGAIN to extend the scope of what might be falsified