denialists really say that more CO2 in the atmosphere will help plant life,
Wait wait, are you *really* denying that more CO2 in the atmosphere will help plant life? You do know we've got table top experiments that can prove this - not to mention CO2 enriched greenhouses for growing plants.
See other reply for the stock debunking of this canard - and may I say hsthompson69, how personally disappointing it is to see you making a positive assertion of an experimental basis to denialists theories - so unsophisticated compared your usual posing of loaded questions from a self styled sceptic. Do try to do better - you know we rely on you for our exercise.
Let's get back to basics -> what falsifiable hypothesis statement do you think is not in dispute?
That posed by Tyndall. Of course.
fter a useful conversation with microbox, we agreed that the most trivial formulation of AGW (that is, humans have a positive effect, no matter how small, on global average temperature because of human CO2) isn't really in dispute at all. Making the jump from that trivial formulation, to one that either has a specific magnitude attached, or even further, asserts that the specific magnitude will be catastrophic for humanity and the biosphere, was elusive though.
That being the case, the counterintuitive assertion made by denialists of a specific magnitude (trivial to no effect) will need a very strong, falsifiable hypothesis indeed. What is that hypothesis? What happens to the extra heat we would have expected to be retained by the increased levels of CO2?
Care to take a stab at playing the science game with an AGW falsifiable hypothesis statement that makes a claim of specific magnitude, or a CAGW falsifiable hypothesis statement?
That's better - back to your usual style now I see.
The analogous warmist canards would probably be, CO2 is air pollution, it's a terrible thing, and it's such a powerful gas that it will completely kill off all the polar bears, drown Florida and the Maldives, and make the world a permanently hot and sweaty place:)
The difference would be that these are caricatures of the science whereas denialists really say that more CO2 in the atmosphere will help plant life, so repeating that canard is not a strawman.
The really sad thing is that there are probably many things deniers and warmists agree on, but we always end up skipping to the part where if I drive my car I'm going to kill the world with melting glaciers, and if you tell me not to drive my car you're a communist hippie bent on world domination.
You seem to be suggesting that there is a need to arrive at a mutually acceptable understanding - that if the objective facts and measures are not acceptable, some reality between the fantasy world of denial and the objective facts and probabilities defined by observation should be a common meeting point. That is, of course, complete nonsense. For one, what is the advantage of appeasement or compromise in this case? What do we have to gain? And for two, the objective facts stubbornly refuse to change, even if we don't like them.
The truth of the matter is that the science is not really in dispute. Some people do not like the consequences, either because the science contradicts long held ideologies, or because the notion of the planned restraint required to reduce our emissions scares them. They then project backwards to dispute the science, when what they should truthfully say is: screw 'em. We know we are destroying the world for future generations, but we don't give a crack. Let's live like hogs at the trough!. It's the consequence. If this were happening somewhere else, say Venus, nobody would dispute it. If the science said that an excess of CO2 in the atmosphere caused a runaway greenhouse effect on Venus, no layman would dispute it.
Your point - presumably - being, that those violators of human rights are nevertheless prepared to sign the conventions, whereas the U.S. is not prepared to do so, for fear that the acknowledgement of universal human rights might badly affect the strategic position of the U.S. on the world stage?
And these are the guys you want us to trust with the management of the internet?
Capitalism is consensual trade. Government only becomes involved when it is necessary to adjudicate disagreements.
Capitalism is about collecting capital. It's about obtaining capital, and then using that capital to obtain more, and so on.
Some people work better than others. Some people are lazy and try to avoid work entirely. Some people save and invest money, some people are spendthrifts. Under capitalism (i.e. in the absence of government interference) people who work well and invest frequently become a lot richer than those who don't work and waste what little they have. This is what leads jealous and vindictive people like you to say "wealth concentrates."
If that were the case, then the people who work hard should be richer than those that don't - yet this is demonstrably untrue. Instead, most people who are rich because they have benefactors or other fastpaths to capital. Collecting capital & then exploiting it to obtain more is the essence of capitalism - as is ensuring your legacy to exploiting your capital to benefit the favoured few.
Of course there are always counter examples - but those are needed for stability, because if the system was too closed then the unwashed would become restless. Better to have the illusion of opportunity to keep the worker bees quiet.
The UN isn't elected by people, it is made up of governments - many or most of which rule by fear rather than by legitimate democratic means.
The US government is not elected by the people either. In that the vast majority of people don't elect the US government, so they should not be subjected to it's whims. What is that saying? Oh yeah. No internet control without representation. Sound familiar? The British government of the 1800s was democratically elected, yet I notice that the unrepresented people of the time didn't find that compromise satisfactory.
A UN convention is more often a taint than an indicator of good intentions.
Was it good intentions that led to 100s of thousands of deaths in Iraq? What about Pakistan? Was the support for that brutal regime based on good intent? Continued support for Mubarak, even while people protested in Green Square?
The UN might be flawed, but it is not dictatorship, which is what control of the internet by the US government really means.
"otherwise the UN, who will, at least recognise my inherent rights" Is this the same UN that recognizes the inherent right of the People's Republic of China to do whatever is necessary to take away the freedoms of the people of Taiwan?
All the more reason for control of the internet to be given to no-one, or failing that, to the body most representative of our common interest. That is emphatically, and categorically NOT the US government.
The UN Security council is a mechanism established by the US, the UK and the USSR to ensure that the policies of the UN do not stray too far from the polices desired by the most powerful nations. Hence this gem, which is really an instrument of appeasement by the U.S (and others) toward China.
The US is not a signatory to various important UN conventions on human rights. This means that while the US government might make a nominal effort to protect the free speech of it's own citizens, it has no obligation to protect the rights of the other 96% of the worlds population - and consequently, it makes no discernable effort to do so.
We (the 96%) consequently don't intend to entrust ourselves to such an organisation - better for it to be left to no-one, or otherwise the UN, who will, at least recognise my inherent rights and make some effort to uphold them. The US government does not, and would simply rollover and screw me if requested to do so by the Chinese or the Russians.
To use a car analogy: the manual for my car was written when GW Bush rose to power - yet it makes no mention of him at all. Logically, that must mean that he does not exist, right? Or maybe not, because it could be that GW Bush wasn't the subject of my maintenance manual. Not everything written in 1999 is a history text.
As with these Jewish texts which were copied or otherwise authored by a Jewish sect. They are either copies of older Jewish writings (e.g. canonical and non-canonical) as well as texts specific to the sect themselves. In neither case is the subject an upstart teacher who the writer might, or might not have heard of. Neither are a lot of other concurrent events and people that we know existed at the time, and who aren't mentioned.
On the other hand, if you're expecting to have communication and communication drops out, that means something is wrong. And something being wrong on a manned vehicle is what you might call "a bad thing".
I suppose on that basis that if the capsule contains women a few minutes of radio silence is okay? Blessed relief from the jibber jabberin'?
Presumably therefore, you think the upcoming extinction event has a precedent. Please tell us what that precedent is. If you cannot, it's safe to conclude that the term 'unprecedented' is valid.
The paper your link references can't remotely be considered a "conservative estimate", and to suggest that the few degrees change over the next century predicted with "unmitigated climate change" will cost "20% of the world's output" is ridiculous.
Because you have done the economic modelling which describes the impacts of climate change on the world economy - and you will now reference that model and show us your methodology in detail, as well as giving specific detail of where Stern went wrong.
Also, a 2-seat "Smart Car" (which BTW does not meet mandated US fuel economy standards for 2017) is not "better than [cars] were before".
I'm using an objective measure, and not a strawman - possibly because, unlike you, I recognise that employing a strawman argument and not providing credible evidence for my assertions about economic models would make me seem out of my depth and without credibility.
As a UK resident, you are responsible for - twice as much CO2 emissions as a person from china. For Australians and Americans, it is double that again. And notably, a large proportion of chinese emissions are actually due to their huge industrial base - the purpose of that base being: to make goods for the west. If we didn't buy those goods, then chinese emissions would go down. Fairly sure we shouldn't be adopting a posture of moral outrage against the chinese on this issue.
Climate Science has a political agenda in the same way that the banning of DDT or the eradication of smallpox was a socialist conspiracy. Because the U.N. played a central role in the eradication of smallpox, and the end of this horrendous disease benefited the poor and vulnerable and not the super rich, it must therefore have had a leftist agenda and should never have happened.
The objective benefits to millions of people, the mothers, the children will no longer die but can grow to be doctors, scientists, teachers, peacemakers - these objective benefits should take a back seat, because to pursue a policy that benefits poorer people might appear to some pyschopaths to be pursuing a leftist agenda. It's better for faceless people to die rather concede that market failures happen, and concerted, collective effort, and a modicum of self sacrifice is sometimes the righteous path. Such is the fixation of the denialists.
You live the real world now. You can't run to mummy and have her kiss your boo boo and make it better. If you drop your ice cream, nobody has to buy you another. Crying about it won't make it happen any longer. These are problems for adults, and they demand an adult response.
Nobody's demanding trillions of dollars in infrastructure changes because of the diamond star. Nobody's using the coercive force of law to dictate what mileage automobiles get becaus of the diamond star.
Unmitigated climate change, will, at best conservative estimates, cost us 20% of the worlds output, plunging the world economy into depression - as well causing an unprecedented extinction event, and causing millions of people to become refugees.
In contrast, taking action now will cost us much less - maybe 3-5% of the worlds GDP for a few years while we upgrade our infrastructure and transport strategies.
The adult response is to live with the fact that our light bulbs and vehicles are now better than they were before. The adult response is to recognise that we have the responsibility to act, that we have no right to steal from and impoverish the generations that will follow us. The adult response is to recognise that we cannort expect someone else to fix our boo boo.
And the era of human spacetravel came to an end. Not from discovery or war or any disaster. But simple greed.
Technologies that we find romantically appealing (e.g. travel by steam train) often come to an end, because they no longer serve any purpose. Other Technologies simply outpace them. In the case of human spaceflight, we've always known that robotics would advance to the stage where humans are not required in space - this has been known since the sixties, when NASA proposed sending a probe to Mars, but JFK wanted a moon landing - because of it's emotive appeal.
Trapping us all on this tiny blue planet until the inevitable end comes.
So we wait for the next global disaster to wipe us all out in one swipe. Be it a germ, comet, meteor, pole shift, solar flare, gamma burst, supervolcano or the unwise use of technology itself.
You are going to die regardless. So am I. We all are. Space is not the mechanic to bring us immortality, either collectively or individually - any more than pyramids.
There is some element of wilful self deception involved for those who make those arguments (along with other, long debunked myths, e.g. it's cosmic radiation, it's pirates, whatever) . Nobody involved in these discussions could actually be ignorant of the untruth of these theories. Why? It leaves me non-plussed. Why delve to this level of cognitive dissonance, to continue to repeat things you know to be factually untrue?
If the population of the US rose up against a dictator who had seized control of their country, and turned the military against his or her own people, and that population asked for our help, then absolutely, we would provide help. As with the Libyans the concern is for the people of the US, not the government.
Excellent. And I'll need money to research the FACT that the Boogeyman is about to kill all of our children... there is NO evidence that he doesn't exist.
You mean the boogeyman like the U.N and the socialist conspiracy to establish a world government?
And yes, I may become very wealthy. Someone must be paid millions to fly around on private jets to speak to the ignorant masses about the dangers of the Boogeyman.
Pardon me, but to be clear, are you taking a swipe at Christopher Monkton? Or maybe Joanne Nova - you know, those ultra rich denialists who are paid by rich and poor alike to fly around the world and tell lies?
I believe a giant asteroid is gonna hit the world in the next 50 years.
Well that's confusing. First you guys tell me that sea level rise is real, but not a threat, and now you claim there is no evidence that it is real? Which of these contradictory statements represents your position?
What do you think this does for your credibility?
Maybe you guys want to take a moment, and you know, step outside and get your stories straight?
Do you have evidence it is not? We have smaller ones hitting constantly, so how do you KNOW there isn't a bigger one out there? You don't.
Learn the difference between assertion and an evidence backed conclusion. It is not necessary to counter assertion with scientific analysis. It IS however, insufficient to try and counter scientific, peer reviewed analysis with mere assertion. In the latter case, the asserters can be simply dismissed.
No. If you keep repeating "truths" out of all proportion, it is still scaremongering.
Thanks for acknowledging the threat, even if only implicitly.
What would be a disproportionate response to the threat of sea level rise? What would be a proportionate response?
What exactly is wrong with talking about real threats?
This would only be scaremongering if it weren't true.
Have you evidence that it is not?
Surmising (on presently available evidence) that sea rises due to melting ice is likely, how can talking about it be bad? Surely more knowledge is a good thing?
Slashdot Mirror
denialists really say that more CO2 in the atmosphere will help plant life,
Wait wait, are you *really* denying that more CO2 in the atmosphere will help plant life? You do know we've got table top experiments that can prove this - not to mention CO2 enriched greenhouses for growing plants.
See other reply for the stock debunking of this canard - and may I say hsthompson69, how personally disappointing it is to see you making a positive assertion of an experimental basis to denialists theories - so unsophisticated compared your usual posing of loaded questions from a self styled sceptic. Do try to do better - you know we rely on you for our exercise.
Let's get back to basics -> what falsifiable hypothesis statement do you think is not in dispute?
That posed by Tyndall. Of course.
fter a useful conversation with microbox, we agreed that the most trivial formulation of AGW (that is, humans have a positive effect, no matter how small, on global average temperature because of human CO2) isn't really in dispute at all. Making the jump from that trivial formulation, to one that either has a specific magnitude attached, or even further, asserts that the specific magnitude will be catastrophic for humanity and the biosphere, was elusive though.
That being the case, the counterintuitive assertion made by denialists of a specific magnitude (trivial to no effect) will need a very strong, falsifiable hypothesis indeed. What is that hypothesis? What happens to the extra heat we would have expected to be retained by the increased levels of CO2?
Care to take a stab at playing the science game with an AGW falsifiable hypothesis statement that makes a claim of specific magnitude, or a CAGW falsifiable hypothesis statement?
That's better - back to your usual style now I see.
The analogous warmist canards would probably be, CO2 is air pollution, it's a terrible thing, and it's such a powerful gas that it will completely kill off all the polar bears, drown Florida and the Maldives, and make the world a permanently hot and sweaty place :)
The difference would be that these are caricatures of the science whereas denialists really say that more CO2 in the atmosphere will help plant life, so repeating that canard is not a strawman.
The really sad thing is that there are probably many things deniers and warmists agree on, but we always end up skipping to the part where if I drive my car I'm going to kill the world with melting glaciers, and if you tell me not to drive my car you're a communist hippie bent on world domination.
You seem to be suggesting that there is a need to arrive at a mutually acceptable understanding - that if the objective facts and measures are not acceptable, some reality between the fantasy world of denial and the objective facts and probabilities defined by observation should be a common meeting point. That is, of course, complete nonsense. For one, what is the advantage of appeasement or compromise in this case? What do we have to gain? And for two, the objective facts stubbornly refuse to change, even if we don't like them.
The truth of the matter is that the science is not really in dispute. Some people do not like the consequences, either because the science contradicts long held ideologies, or because the notion of the planned restraint required to reduce our emissions scares them. They then project backwards to dispute the science, when what they should truthfully say is: screw 'em. We know we are destroying the world for future generations, but we don't give a crack. Let's live like hogs at the trough!. It's the consequence. If this were happening somewhere else, say Venus, nobody would dispute it. If the science said that an excess of CO2 in the atmosphere caused a runaway greenhouse effect on Venus, no layman would dispute it.
Hence my point - the U.N. is flawed, but unilateral control of the internet by the U.S is dictatorship - a situation that is unacceptable.
Your point - presumably - being, that those violators of human rights are nevertheless prepared to sign the conventions, whereas the U.S. is not prepared to do so, for fear that the acknowledgement of universal human rights might badly affect the strategic position of the U.S. on the world stage?
And these are the guys you want us to trust with the management of the internet?
Really?
Capitalism is consensual trade. Government only becomes involved when it is necessary to adjudicate disagreements.
Capitalism is about collecting capital. It's about obtaining capital, and then using that capital to obtain more, and so on.
Some people work better than others. Some people are lazy and try to avoid work entirely. Some people save and invest money, some people are spendthrifts. Under capitalism (i.e. in the absence of government interference) people who work well and invest frequently become a lot richer than those who don't work and waste what little they have. This is what leads jealous and vindictive people like you to say "wealth concentrates."
If that were the case, then the people who work hard should be richer than those that don't - yet this is demonstrably untrue. Instead, most people who are rich because they have benefactors or other fastpaths to capital. Collecting capital & then exploiting it to obtain more is the essence of capitalism - as is ensuring your legacy to exploiting your capital to benefit the favoured few. Of course there are always counter examples - but those are needed for stability, because if the system was too closed then the unwashed would become restless. Better to have the illusion of opportunity to keep the worker bees quiet.
The UN isn't elected by people, it is made up of governments - many or most of which rule by fear rather than by legitimate democratic means.
The US government is not elected by the people either. In that the vast majority of people don't elect the US government, so they should not be subjected to it's whims. What is that saying? Oh yeah. No internet control without representation. Sound familiar? The British government of the 1800s was democratically elected, yet I notice that the unrepresented people of the time didn't find that compromise satisfactory.
A UN convention is more often a taint than an indicator of good intentions.
Was it good intentions that led to 100s of thousands of deaths in Iraq? What about Pakistan? Was the support for that brutal regime based on good intent? Continued support for Mubarak, even while people protested in Green Square?
The UN might be flawed, but it is not dictatorship, which is what control of the internet by the US government really means.
"otherwise the UN, who will, at least recognise my inherent rights" Is this the same UN that recognizes the inherent right of the People's Republic of China to do whatever is necessary to take away the freedoms of the people of Taiwan?
All the more reason for control of the internet to be given to no-one, or failing that, to the body most representative of our common interest. That is emphatically, and categorically NOT the US government.
The UN Security council is a mechanism established by the US, the UK and the USSR to ensure that the policies of the UN do not stray too far from the polices desired by the most powerful nations. Hence this gem, which is really an instrument of appeasement by the U.S (and others) toward China.
We (the 96%) consequently don't intend to entrust ourselves to such an organisation - better for it to be left to no-one, or otherwise the UN, who will, at least recognise my inherent rights and make some effort to uphold them. The US government does not, and would simply rollover and screw me if requested to do so by the Chinese or the Russians.
As with these Jewish texts which were copied or otherwise authored by a Jewish sect. They are either copies of older Jewish writings (e.g. canonical and non-canonical) as well as texts specific to the sect themselves. In neither case is the subject an upstart teacher who the writer might, or might not have heard of. Neither are a lot of other concurrent events and people that we know existed at the time, and who aren't mentioned.
Of course my nearest starbucks is 300 ks away and the nearest walmart is 5000km or more - so that route for me would be suboptimal indeed.
On the other hand, if you're expecting to have communication and communication drops out, that means something is wrong. And something being wrong on a manned vehicle is what you might call "a bad thing".
I suppose on that basis that if the capsule contains women a few minutes of radio silence is okay? Blessed relief from the jibber jabberin'?
Presumably therefore, you think the upcoming extinction event has a precedent. Please tell us what that precedent is. If you cannot, it's safe to conclude that the term 'unprecedented' is valid.
I'd suggest doing your own research
The paper your link references can't remotely be considered a "conservative estimate", and to suggest that the few degrees change over the next century predicted with "unmitigated climate change" will cost "20% of the world's output" is ridiculous.
Because you have done the economic modelling which describes the impacts of climate change on the world economy - and you will now reference that model and show us your methodology in detail, as well as giving specific detail of where Stern went wrong.
Also, a 2-seat "Smart Car" (which BTW does not meet mandated US fuel economy standards for 2017) is not "better than [cars] were before".
I'm using an objective measure, and not a strawman - possibly because, unlike you, I recognise that employing a strawman argument and not providing credible evidence for my assertions about economic models would make me seem out of my depth and without credibility.
As a UK resident, you are responsible for - twice as much CO2 emissions as a person from china. For Australians and Americans, it is double that again. And notably, a large proportion of chinese emissions are actually due to their huge industrial base - the purpose of that base being: to make goods for the west. If we didn't buy those goods, then chinese emissions would go down. Fairly sure we shouldn't be adopting a posture of moral outrage against the chinese on this issue.
The objective benefits to millions of people, the mothers, the children will no longer die but can grow to be doctors, scientists, teachers, peacemakers - these objective benefits should take a back seat, because to pursue a policy that benefits poorer people might appear to some pyschopaths to be pursuing a leftist agenda. It's better for faceless people to die rather concede that market failures happen, and concerted, collective effort, and a modicum of self sacrifice is sometimes the righteous path. Such is the fixation of the denialists.
Nobody's demanding trillions of dollars in infrastructure changes because of the diamond star. Nobody's using the coercive force of law to dictate what mileage automobiles get becaus of the diamond star.
Unmitigated climate change, will, at best conservative estimates, cost us 20% of the worlds output, plunging the world economy into depression - as well causing an unprecedented extinction event, and causing millions of people to become refugees. In contrast, taking action now will cost us much less - maybe 3-5% of the worlds GDP for a few years while we upgrade our infrastructure and transport strategies. The adult response is to live with the fact that our light bulbs and vehicles are now better than they were before. The adult response is to recognise that we have the responsibility to act, that we have no right to steal from and impoverish the generations that will follow us. The adult response is to recognise that we cannort expect someone else to fix our boo boo.
Summer Glau
PS. Don't forget to check the next Season of The Sarah Connor Chronicles this fall on FOX!
And the era of human spacetravel came to an end. Not from discovery or war or any disaster. But simple greed.
Technologies that we find romantically appealing (e.g. travel by steam train) often come to an end, because they no longer serve any purpose. Other Technologies simply outpace them. In the case of human spaceflight, we've always known that robotics would advance to the stage where humans are not required in space - this has been known since the sixties, when NASA proposed sending a probe to Mars, but JFK wanted a moon landing - because of it's emotive appeal.
Trapping us all on this tiny blue planet until the inevitable end comes. So we wait for the next global disaster to wipe us all out in one swipe. Be it a germ, comet, meteor, pole shift, solar flare, gamma burst, supervolcano or the unwise use of technology itself.
You are going to die regardless. So am I. We all are. Space is not the mechanic to bring us immortality, either collectively or individually - any more than pyramids.
There is some element of wilful self deception involved for those who make those arguments (along with other, long debunked myths, e.g. it's cosmic radiation, it's pirates, whatever) . Nobody involved in these discussions could actually be ignorant of the untruth of these theories. Why? It leaves me non-plussed. Why delve to this level of cognitive dissonance, to continue to repeat things you know to be factually untrue?
If the population of the US rose up against a dictator who had seized control of their country, and turned the military against his or her own people, and that population asked for our help, then absolutely, we would provide help. As with the Libyans the concern is for the people of the US, not the government.
You are aware that Antarctica is a continent right??
Excellent. And I'll need money to research the FACT that the Boogeyman is about to kill all of our children... there is NO evidence that he doesn't exist.
You mean the boogeyman like the U.N and the socialist conspiracy to establish a world government?
And yes, I may become very wealthy. Someone must be paid millions to fly around on private jets to speak to the ignorant masses about the dangers of the Boogeyman.
Pardon me, but to be clear, are you taking a swipe at Christopher Monkton? Or maybe Joanne Nova - you know, those ultra rich denialists who are paid by rich and poor alike to fly around the world and tell lies?
I believe a giant asteroid is gonna hit the world in the next 50 years.
Well that's confusing. First you guys tell me that sea level rise is real, but not a threat, and now you claim there is no evidence that it is real? Which of these contradictory statements represents your position?
What do you think this does for your credibility?
Maybe you guys want to take a moment, and you know, step outside and get your stories straight?
Do you have evidence it is not? We have smaller ones hitting constantly, so how do you KNOW there isn't a bigger one out there? You don't.
Learn the difference between assertion and an evidence backed conclusion. It is not necessary to counter assertion with scientific analysis. It IS however, insufficient to try and counter scientific, peer reviewed analysis with mere assertion. In the latter case, the asserters can be simply dismissed.
No. If you keep repeating "truths" out of all proportion, it is still scaremongering.
Thanks for acknowledging the threat, even if only implicitly.
What would be a disproportionate response to the threat of sea level rise? What would be a proportionate response?
What exactly is wrong with talking about real threats?