Please demonstrate the causal link between carbon emissions reduction schemes, and a doubling of the cost of fuel in Kenya.
You're avoiding the question again.
Clearly this is not the case as I am the one asking, and you are the one failing to answer. So: returning to the subject at hand:
Please demonstrate the causal link between carbon emissions reduction schemes, and a doubling of the cost of fuel in Kenya.
I see - as you say, the incidence and severity of hurricanes in the North Atlantic is on the rise, so much so that the average today is already at the boundary condition (experienced in the 1950s). So by posting that quote you seem to have contradicted the point you were trying to make - also:
1. Is Bangladesh bordering on the North Atlantic, or in fact, nowhere near it?
2. When I use the phrase "extreme weather events" am I referring primarily to hurricanes?
Please clarify then. For example, would you assert that an increase in devastating cold snaps such as those currently killing people in Peru is due to global warming?
Again, bad luck on your unsuccessful attempt to change the subject by introducing a strawman. Maybe you'll have better luck next time. In the meantime, I'll repeat the questions again:
1. Is Bangladesh bordering on the North Atlantic, or in fact, nowhere near it?
2. When I use the phrase "extreme weather events" am I referring primarily to hurricanes?
Wait a tic, you're the one making an assertion here
No, that is you - you asserted that introducing a carbon emissions trading scheme will double the cost of fuel in Kenya. Now is your opportunity to provide the evidence that will convince us - where is it? Is it under your hat? Did it drop behind the couch?
Nope, I'm not offering an alternative here
No point denying it, I even referenced it above for your convenience: that adaptation will be less costly than mitigation.
So - what evidence do you have for your assertion? Or are you unable to tell us because of a vow of secrecy? Will the pope have you knocked off if you reveal your modelling?
Please demonstrate the causal link between carbon emissions reduction schemes, and a doubling of the cost of fuel in Kenya. Bearing in mind that Kenya, as a least developed country, is not required to buy carbon credits for it's emissions.
And again, you've failed to clarify your question - if you're talking about exempting 3rd world countries from any CO2 scheme, what benefit is that going to do for global CO2 levels?
Please refer to a dictionary in order to understand what a clarification is. Since you speculation over the efficacy of a CO2 emissions pricing scheme DOES NOT translate into any sort clarification, we'll return to the question at hand:
Please demonstrate the causal link between carbon emissions reduction schemes, and a doubling of the cost of fuel in Kenya.
Now you appear to be claiming that Climate Change will NOT lead to an increase in violent weather events in Bangladesh.
" Although there has been a dramatic increase in the number of hurricanes occurring in the North Atlantic since mid-1990s when compared to the period starting in the 1970s, the distribution of hurricanes in the 1950s was similar to today’s activity level. "
I see - as you say, the incidence and severity of hurricanes in the North Atlantic is on the rise, so much so that the average today is already at the boundary condition (experienced in the 1950s). So by posting that quote you seem to have contradicted the point you were trying to make - also:
1. Is Bangladesh bordering on the North Atlantic, or in fact, nowhere near it?
2. When I use the phrase "extreme weather events" am I referring primarily to hurricanes?
To repeat, the accepted hypothesis states that adaption is an order of magnitude more expensive than mitigation
Okay, if that's your hypothesis,
It's not. If it were MY hypothesis, I would have said so. To repeat, we are discussing the evidence that supports YOUR hypothesis, the secondary failing of your hypothesis being that it is contradicted by the accepted hypothesis - that is to say, the evidence that supports it. The PRIMARY failing of you hypothesis, of course, is that you are unable to produce any evidence in support of it. Not one model. Not one calculation.
what observations would convince you that the hypothesis is wrong?
By which you mean - what will convince us that your hypothesis is right. Well certainly, statements of personal belief, criticisms of public figures, misrepresenting the work of climate scientists, death threats to climate scientists, threatening to rape the children of climate scientists, lying, and engaging in conversations on the subject with the presumption that somehow, YOU can make assertions without being required to substantiate them with actual evidence - these are all practices which WILL NOT convince us that your hypothesis has foundation, and would in fact, add an air of incredibility to your statements. So:
1. Stop doing those things
2. Show us the evidence for you hypothesis, starting with the one which is on topic: that adaptation will be less costly than mitigation.
So let's be clear here - you expect to give a free pass to all 3rd world countries on CO2 emissions, and only place caps on 1st world countries? All this does is redistribute wealth, and redistribute CO2 emissions...it doesn't seem like such a system would do anything to stop CO2 levels from rising at all.
You've failed to answer or even address the question - which I repeat for your convenience:
Please demonstrate the causal link between carbon emissions reduction schemes, and a doubling of the cost of fuel in Kenya. Bearing in mind that Kenya, as a least developed country, is not required to buy carbon credits for it's emissions.
Be specific. If you're asserting that warming climate causes an increase in hurricanes, well, supposedly the last few years since Katrina have been the warmest ever, but hurricanes have been quiet.
Conversely, if cooling climate causes a decrease in hurricanes, I would love to know what temperature we'd have to get to in order to have zero hurricanes. Show your work!
Now you appear to be claiming that Climate Change will NOT lead to an increase in violent weather events in Bangladesh. I'd be interested to see that model that you theory is based on, with data. In your own time.
Oooh, oooh, I know the answer to this one! GLACIERGATE!
I do hope you are inadvertently, rather than deliberately, wasting my time. Neither option by the way, lends credence to you assertion that adaption will be cheaper than mitigation - with particular reference to east Developed Countries.
Sure it is. You've just decided that the value that other people put on some mythical idea of "climate" is incorrect.
But since you have had several opportunities to present a convincing case to to why we should accept you hypothesis (that adaption will be cheaper than mitigation - with particular reference to east Developed Countries) and have consistently (and might I say miserably) failed to do so, we will continue to accept the current hypothesis, based on the logic described previously. To repeat, the accepted hypothesis states that adaption is an order of magnitude more expensive than mitigation, and since adding even the lower cost to fossil fuels makes them more expensive than alternatives, we can conclude that what you describe as "cheap energy" is not cheap at all.
Increase the transportation costs by making petroleum more expensive to say, 20%.
Please demonstrate the causal link between carbon emissions reduction schemes, and a doubling of the cost of fuel in Kenya. Bearing in mind that Kenya, as a least developed country, is not required to buy carbon credits for it's emissions.
Okay, first off, "climate induced flooding" is arm waving - hurricane flooding is *weather* not *climate*.
What? Climate change causes an increase in hurricanes, which translates to flooding in Bangladesh because the whole country is basically a low lying river delta - the water cannot get away fast enough and the incoming winds cause higher tides with subsequent flooding upriver. In addition Climate Change causes disruption the natural snow melt cycle on the mountains where the rivers begin (the himalayas). This also causes major flooding, subsidence, etc. The latter cause of flooding is what I was referring to, since it's effect will/is more or less permanent.
Second of all, Bangladesh has 55,599 sq mi of area - even a cursory glance at google maps shows that in the event of a hurricane, there is land to take shelter further inland.
Mm. So, which of those 55,599 sq miles DOESN'T already have bangladeshis living on it, this making it suitable for the displaced people to settle on?
Instead of pretending like we can make the big bad wolf stay away by refusing to exhale, why not build the brick house by utilizing the cheapest energy we can get our hands on?
Well, because it turns out that the cheap energy isn't cheap at all.
Okay, here's your choice - a) watch your children die of starvation this year. b) survive an extra two hurricanes in your lifetime, and relocate inland 5 miles over your lifetime.
So, how are these our choices?
1. How would pricing carbon emissions cause children to starve? Demonstrate the causal link. You can use the proposed pricing models going into Copenhagen for reference if you like.
2. Assuming that the hurricane analogy is in reference to bangladesh, the classic example of a poor country affected by hurricanes - please show us on a map the 5 mile radius where displaced persons could move to to get away from climate induced flooding in bangladesh. You can use google maps if you like.
Yes. Artificially increasing the price of energy will harm the poorest of the poor, and increase poverty and misery throughout the world. Cheap energy means better lives for humanity, period. Telling a family in Africa that they have to watch their children die of malnourishment, exposure to the elements and disease because we're going to make it too expensive for them to afford energy is pretty drastic.
Well, firstly carbon emissions pricing mechanisms aren't artificial. Rather those mechanisms reflect the fact that removing the carbon from the atmosphere has a real economic cost associated with it, and the practice of dumping the carbon into the atmosphere ought to reflect that follow on cost. What would be artificial would be ignoring the follow on future cost - like using a credit card on the assumption that someone else will pay it off for you.
Secondly the Stern Review indicates that whilst there is a cost associated with reducing our carbon emissions to a sustainable level, that cost is a fraction of the cost of doing it later PLUS adapting to a new climate. Emissions reduction @ 2% and Adaption @ 20% of global GDP. Or in simple terms, we start making our repayments now, or later goons will arrive and take our stuff. Which makes the most economic sense?
Which puts a lie to the notion that emissions reduction is the worse option for the poorest of the poor. I don't know how much you know about the 'poorest of the poor' - by the sounds of it, not much. But the key thing is that they are not contributing to the emissions problem, and therefore have no need to contribute to the cost of it.
But they DO have marginal arable land, and they DO have (like all of us) a critical dependence on a good water supply for drinking and agriculture. Climate change will take those things away, displacing those people - making them refugees. Displacement is the 'goons arrive to take our stuff' outcome. If we care at all about the poorest of the poor, the poor in general, or even if we were cynical and cared only for our own economic outcome, we'd start emissions reduction immediately.
Just a few decades ago, and for thousands of years previous, there were very few great advancements that did not put someone's life in jeopardy. In my mind, that is where NASA went wrong.
Where I think NASA went wrong was the Apollo Program. Kennedy wanted something showy, something big to prove American superiority to the world and lift the morale of the nation whose ego was badly bruised by early advances by the Soviets. Less showy, but more scientific proposals were rejected. As a result of that legacy, NASA keeps being distracted from useful and exciting projects by the glitzy, but ultimately dead end and useless 'manned' space program.
Nevertheless, NASA has got many things right - Viking, Pioneer, Voyager, Cassini, the Mars Rovers, Hubble to name the big ones. These projects have greatly advanced the boundaries of our knowledge.
I would wager we could build a space shuttle replacement for 1/10th the cost but with double of the failure rate and still have the best and brightest clamoring to get aboard!
Today, there are billions wasted and many opportunities to learn missed in an effort to prevent catastrophe. Though I understand the logic, I think that risk avoidance is what has brought so many exciting government, and private sector, programs to a slow crawl.
You've misunderstood the purpose of the shuttle. The purpose of the shuttle was to support industry in the districts of certain US Senators via the injection of federal money. More broadly, the shuttle was required to service the ISS. The ISS was required to justify funding for the shuttle, without which, other (arguably better) craft would be purposed to the task of servicing the ISS. OK, that's a bit cynical:-) The purpose of the ISS is so that humans have a confined area to float around in.
It wouldn't be difficult to find someone willing to travel to Mars on a low budget/high risk mission. Sure they may not come home, but they would go anyway. I'd bet you could find someone to take a one way flight to the outer solar system, just for the sake of exploration.
You're right - there are crowds of fanatics and lunatics prepared to die for a multitude of personal causes - regardless of how inane or meaningless those causes might appear to the rest of us.
However, there is no link between the reality of someone dying alone on Mars and the advancement of our race generally, let alone calling such an activity 'exploration'. All that such an activity would teach us is details of how corpses decompose in a cold, dry vacuum. If we wanted to know that, we can stick a body in a cold, dry vacuum on earth.
A few hundred years ago, humanity had great respect for explorers and scientists who were willing to put their lives on the line for the sake of progress. How many discoveries were made when men and women risked, and often lost, their lives exploring uncharted territory, or trying risky experiments.
Google 'Burke and Wills'. There is the classic example of the phenomena that you are alluding to - that is, hero worship of the explorers, a focus on political prestige rather than scientific outcomes, a burdening of the expedition with useless baggage and inappropriate methodology (*) because of the need to maintain a profile. In the case of Burke and Wills, the huge expense invested in Camels (which in retroespect were inappropriate for the terrain) and vast amount of supplies and men doomed their expedition. In your case, your expedition is doomed by the presence of the suicidal human - a lump of useless baggage, a technology completely inappropriate for terrain of outer space. They may have been feted as heroes at the time - now, we know better.
The same could have been said of America or Australia from the perspective of Europe, before colonisation.
It could be said, but only incorrectly, since the Europeans were well aware that those places were inhabitable before colonising them. Also, in both cases, there was specific reasons why humans were sent (or went of their own accord). In those days, infections often meant amputation. These days, we are able to cure most infections using penicillin. Similarly, in those days, exploring or exploiting remote, inhospitable locations meant sending humans. These days, we no longer need to send humans to exploit or explore remote locations, instead we do so using robots.
The real problems started in Australian politics when the christian fundys managed to get a guy into parliament.
Look again.
The 'guy' in question, Senator Steve Fielding might be a Christian but the policies of his party (Family First) have nothing to do with Christianity. A look at the website http://www.familyfirst.org.au/ makes no mention of Christianity and lays out policies that directly conflict with the teachings of Christianity. Even the name 'Family First' is in conflict with Christian teachings. Reading the website you can see that the driver for the party has less to do with faith, and more to do with fear. In other words, these policies are meant to appeal to the subset of the population who view the changes in society as something (a) that can be corrected by government and (b) something to be afraid of.
One must remember that rejecting the null hypothesis does not prove the alternative, nor does accepting the null hypothesis prove the contra-positive.
Yes, exactly. Hence, neither the claim "There is a God", nor the claim "There is no God" can be tested using the null hypothesis.
Your example of extra-solar planets is an excellent one to show why your 'semantic trick' doesn't stand up to scrutiny. There are several cases of possible extra-solar planets 100 years go. There might be planets that orbit another star, there might be planets that don't orbit any star but have periodic orbits (eg. galactic etc), and there might be planets that have no periodic orbits at all. Using the technology available 100 years ago, there was very little evidence available: no matter what your prior curve, the posterior was bound to be nearly flat, and no hypothesis could be confirmed or rejected. Today, we have considerably more evidence available, enough to confirm one of the above hypotheses: that there are extra-solar planets in orbit around other stars (and allows us to reject the equivalent of the null hypothesis: there are no extra-solar planets). The other cases do not have enough evidence to accept or reject.
Yes, exactly. Therefore to claim that something known to unobservable does not exist because there are no observations to support it's existence, well, that would be irrational.
If we apply this to the atheism argument, at first glance a similar situation ensues: There is little evidence either for the existence of one or more deities, and there is little evidence against the existence of any deity. Therefore regardless of the prior, the posterior is going to be nearly flat which would support the supposition “we don’t know if there is a deity or not”.
Agree up to this point. It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of any deity using the scientific method.
But we live in a world where there are a finite number of deities whose existence has been proposed. And in many of these cases, the proposal of the deity has been accompanied by claims of that deity’s powers, claims which are measurable.
And straight away, your argument falls down. For one, the set of proposed deities is unbounded. For two, the question of existence is orthagonal to the question of what people believe. I say this, being fully aware that weak atheism attempts to conflate the two by answering the question thusly:
Q: Are there any deities?
A: I don't believe in any of the deities that others believe in.
In their own minds they've answered the question. To the rest of us, it looks like avoidance, since they didn't address the question at hand.
People ignorant of science, logic, reason, and philosophy who've either been browbeaten or brainwashed into believing some incarnation of mythology based on bronze-age nomadic Jewish traditions that have evolved over time to incorporate aspects of Zoroastrianism, Mithraism, various Greek and pagan influences, and other cultural artifacts.
Wonderful. Religiously inspired diatribes. But then, you knew what I meant and chose not to answer the question, that speaks volumes.
I am more familiar with the international spread of Christianity than perhaps you imagine.
Surprising then, that you used the phrase 'most Christians' when what you meant is 4 blokes from Podunk, Nebraska.
I'm glad you feel that way. Not everyone agrees with you.
True, but then I wasn't aiming to have concordance.
Given that I am discussing American Creationists and given the large number of translations into English this statement is nonsensical.
Nonsensical?
Don't you think your use of the phrase 'most Christians' would suggest that you were, in fact, referring to most Christians?
The number of Christians I've met who cannot read a bible due to lack of education is very, very low.
That suggests that your sample "Christians you've met" is not representative of the whole. There are a huge number of Christians who have been prevented by poverty, war, or lack of infrastructure from receiving and education - especially in South East Asia, India, Africa. And then there are the other issues.
It's simply not an excuse the vast majority of them can call upon when admitting their ignorance of the book.
The vast majority?
What do you imagine is the makeup of the Christian population?
It is often considered a threat to Christianity because without a literal Adam and Eve there was no "fall" and therefor we didn't inherit a "sinful nature" from them making the need for God to sacrifice himself, as a child of himself, to himself, to save us from himself, unnecessary.
I'd say that evolution doesn't exclude the possibility of a physical Adam and Eve, and also that a physical Adam and Eve isn't strictly necessary to support the doctrine of a 'fall', although some actual physical event - the orignal sin, would have had to occur, otherwise the relevant New Testament passages that refer to it become problematic.
I find that most Christians (people in general, really) are startlingly ignorant of the content of the bible and the actual mechanisms and theory of evolution.
Which is, in itself, not that suprising given that most Christians do not have the text in their own language, or are not afforded a sufficient education to be able to read, or are prevented from meeting together and discussing such matters by hostile authorities, or a combination of those factors.
>> 1. That the null hypothesis is that there is no deity. This is demonstrably false. The null hypothesis is that we don't know whether there is a deity or not.
You don't actually know what a null hypothesis [wikipedia.org] is.
Actually I have a major in statistics and have in fact taught the statistical method at a university level, so I'm guessing that I'm familiar with the concept of a null hypothesis. What I did do is to overlook your invalid use of the term to foreshorten the argument, which was pure laziness. But never mind. You've attempted to game the statistical method. You've done this by proposing a hypothesis without a valid test.
To demonstrate the semantic trick that you are playing, let me apply the same trick:
I hypothesise that no deity exists. I sample, there is no evidence to support the hypothesis in the available data. Therefore the default hypothesis: that one or more deities exist, is proven.
Saying, "We don't know if there is a deity or not" is functionally equivalent to saying, "The null hypothesis -- there is no deity -- has not been disproven." "We don't know if there is a deity or not" isn't a hypothesis, much less a null one.
No it isn't, because observation is only a useful test of the things that are observable. If 100 years ago I had said "there are no extra solar planets" I would have been wrong. Extra solar planets existed despite the fact that we had no capacity to observe them.
Nobody has any obligation to convince me of anything, so long as they have no say in how I live my life. But to the extent that they want their beliefs about the will of God to influence the laws I have to obey, the material that gets taught to children, or anything else, then It. Is. On.
Firstly, the vast majority of people act out of self interest, and you know, we live thrown together with our shoulders rubbing, so other people trying to tell you how to live your life is inevitable. That is not a function of theism, it's a function of society, of living in a community. Notably, I don't have go far to find a book by Richard Dawkins which attempts to tell ME what I should believe and how I ought to conduct myself in society.
And secondly, well, I'll just say that i wonder if you really understand your society and the worldviews that influence it as well as you think. But I don't know that I can speak with authority on you situation.
I'm not interested in spending any more time debating your hypothetical believer with his untestable and unspecified beliefs about what may or may not be a deity. Like creme soda, it's unpleasant after the first sip.
Well, we are speaking about atheism, and atheists, and you are appear to be an atheist, so I would have hoped you were entertained, but, whatever. As for the creme (creaming) soda, I'll agree on that - I prefer the brown type to the red type, but neither really aid me in my quest to stay on good terms with my pancreas.
>> Really? What religion claims this?
I'd be more interested in knowing what religion doesn't.
I'd be more interested in you providing some proof of your assertions.
As for the rest of it, You don't actually understand what atheism means. [wikipedia.org]
Proof needed for that assertion. I've already stated that there is a cognitive dissonance amongst some atheists (the 'weak' atheists) who attempt via semantic gymnastics to equate what they believe as a proof of non-existence. If you don't KNOW whether there is a deity, it is perfectly acceptable to say that you don't know. To equate ignorance with establishing a fact is actually the same argument as used by climate change denialists, who equate their own 'disbelief' of climate change with an actual disproof of the science.
Anyhow, once people start asking me to disprove the existence of their Invisible Pink Unicorn [wikipedia.org], I consider them to have lost the debate.
Well, have fun burning your strawman.
If you don't care what properties your deity embodies, so long as the resulting deity is "undisprovable", there is little reason to take you or your deity seriously.
I don't accept the premise that I want to convince you of anything other than a disproof of the doctrines of atheism. The problem you face is that you live in a post-modernist society where the vast majority of people accept that a deity could exist, but do not ascribe particular properties to the theoretical deity. If atheism cannot construct a convincing argument against the deity that these post modernists choose to believe in, then it will never be lifted from obscurity.
While some atheists may assert positively that there is no deity, many make a different claim:
Ah. So is the first group wrong then? Because we wouldn't want atheists to fall into the habit of speaking as if there was an equivalence between belief and actual existence. This would make them open to accusations of semantic manipulation.
Bit disappointing to see that you yourself have made the same mistake below.
There is little evidence of a deity, and since asserting the existence of a deity is a rather bold claim, there should be evidence to back it up. In this context, there is nothing to disprove.
The problem that you face, then, is demonstrating that what you call 'the context' is true. The assertions in your context are:
1. That the null hypothesis is that there is no deity. This is demonstrably false. The null hypothesis is that we don't know whether there is a deity or not.
2. That you have some valid framework for testing for the existence of a deity - this is, as yet, unproven.
Atheists need only evaluate whether the evidence for any particular deity is convincing or not.
You are assuming that the deity or the proponents of the deity have some obligation to convince you. If they do not, then all you are doing is burning a strawman.
Yep I'm well aware of the cognitive dissonance at the heart of atheism but also I'm aware that claiming that agnostics are actually atheists is offensive to people who consider themselves to be agnostics. Therefore whether atheists like it or not we'll call agnostics agnostics, and atheists, we'll call atheists. You'll have to deal with the widely acknowledged fact that agnosticism differs from atheism and this conflicts with your doctrines.
Lacking this information, I fear you have no basis for discussing religious or philosophical matters. Go back to school. Don't pass go...
If only we had asked you guys to define philosophy and religion for us, then we would know when we were allowed to speak, and when we needed to remain silent in the presence of your awesome intellect. Guess we just forgot.
Even though in theory a generic omnipotent deity could affect the outcome of any given scientific study and create a false null result, in practice most religions make specific claims about their deities
But the claim of atheism is that there is no deity - of any kind, and not restricted to the deities that other people happen to believe in. Were atheists able to disprove specific properties that other people claim of their deity, they would still not even be at the starting line of disproving the existence of a deity.
For instance, a common one is that God listens to prayer and will heal the sick if we pray for them.
I very much doubt that incivility will any much needed credence to your position.
You have taken an extremely complex equation, with what seems like an infinite number of variables, and completely thrown it out the window.
You claim the atmosphere is far too complex for science to be able to understand the consequences of adding more CO2 to it, yet at the same time, claim that there ARE NO consequences.
You have chosen to focus on a single variable, namely CO2, because you found that CO2 in s jar behaves as a greenhouse gas. What you fail to realize is how that variable affects the entire equation. It's quite possible that the variable you hav chosen to focus on has such a minimal effect on the entire equation, that it can be ignored.
Again, you claim that some other variable changes to counteract the effects of the additional greenhouse gas.
What is that variable? What is this compensatory mechanism? Explain how this mechanism works, and show working.
Understand that the point of the glass jar illustration is not a PROOF, but a DISPROOF - a mechanism for cutting through the handwaving, the strawmen, the baseless assertions that constitute the body of arguments that is climate change denial.
I don't believe that CO2 is driving climate change for the simple reason that I have an extensive background in geology, and I know that CO2 concentrations have been much higher in Earth's geological past than they are now, without the corresponding temperature increase that the current climatologists attribute to CO2.
Which era was this? And how did you go about measuring the rate of temperature change from the geological record, given that our current climate change is not happening on a geological timeframe?
If current models are correct (and they're not), the earth would have been baked to a crisp long ago.
Which models are those? Who made the prediction that we would be burnt to a crisp in 2010?
I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. I have simply stated, time and again, that the scientists haven't yet been able to demonstrate the magnitude of it's effect in our atmosphere.
Scientists aren't under any obligation offer further proof to you. If you have a theory that contradicts the findings of science (that increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, including CO2, are driving the current climate change), by all means offer it up for peer review.
Slashdot Mirror
Please demonstrate the causal link between carbon emissions reduction schemes, and a doubling of the cost of fuel in Kenya.
You're avoiding the question again.
Clearly this is not the case as I am the one asking, and you are the one failing to answer. So: returning to the subject at hand: Please demonstrate the causal link between carbon emissions reduction schemes, and a doubling of the cost of fuel in Kenya.
I see - as you say, the incidence and severity of hurricanes in the North Atlantic is on the rise, so much so that the average today is already at the boundary condition (experienced in the 1950s). So by posting that quote you seem to have contradicted the point you were trying to make - also: 1. Is Bangladesh bordering on the North Atlantic, or in fact, nowhere near it? 2. When I use the phrase "extreme weather events" am I referring primarily to hurricanes?
Please clarify then. For example, would you assert that an increase in devastating cold snaps such as those currently killing people in Peru is due to global warming?
Again, bad luck on your unsuccessful attempt to change the subject by introducing a strawman. Maybe you'll have better luck next time. In the meantime, I'll repeat the questions again: 1. Is Bangladesh bordering on the North Atlantic, or in fact, nowhere near it? 2. When I use the phrase "extreme weather events" am I referring primarily to hurricanes?
Wait a tic, you're the one making an assertion here
No, that is you - you asserted that introducing a carbon emissions trading scheme will double the cost of fuel in Kenya. Now is your opportunity to provide the evidence that will convince us - where is it? Is it under your hat? Did it drop behind the couch?
Nope, I'm not offering an alternative here
No point denying it, I even referenced it above for your convenience: that adaptation will be less costly than mitigation. So - what evidence do you have for your assertion? Or are you unable to tell us because of a vow of secrecy? Will the pope have you knocked off if you reveal your modelling?
Please demonstrate the causal link between carbon emissions reduction schemes, and a doubling of the cost of fuel in Kenya. Bearing in mind that Kenya, as a least developed country, is not required to buy carbon credits for it's emissions.
And again, you've failed to clarify your question - if you're talking about exempting 3rd world countries from any CO2 scheme, what benefit is that going to do for global CO2 levels?
Please refer to a dictionary in order to understand what a clarification is. Since you speculation over the efficacy of a CO2 emissions pricing scheme DOES NOT translate into any sort clarification, we'll return to the question at hand: Please demonstrate the causal link between carbon emissions reduction schemes, and a doubling of the cost of fuel in Kenya.
Now you appear to be claiming that Climate Change will NOT lead to an increase in violent weather events in Bangladesh.
" Although there has been a dramatic increase in the number of hurricanes occurring in the North Atlantic since mid-1990s when compared to the period starting in the 1970s, the distribution of hurricanes in the 1950s was similar to today’s activity level. "
I see - as you say, the incidence and severity of hurricanes in the North Atlantic is on the rise, so much so that the average today is already at the boundary condition (experienced in the 1950s). So by posting that quote you seem to have contradicted the point you were trying to make - also:
1. Is Bangladesh bordering on the North Atlantic, or in fact, nowhere near it?
2. When I use the phrase "extreme weather events" am I referring primarily to hurricanes?
To repeat, the accepted hypothesis states that adaption is an order of magnitude more expensive than mitigation
Okay, if that's your hypothesis,
It's not. If it were MY hypothesis, I would have said so. To repeat, we are discussing the evidence that supports YOUR hypothesis, the secondary failing of your hypothesis being that it is contradicted by the accepted hypothesis - that is to say, the evidence that supports it. The PRIMARY failing of you hypothesis, of course, is that you are unable to produce any evidence in support of it. Not one model. Not one calculation.
what observations would convince you that the hypothesis is wrong?
By which you mean - what will convince us that your hypothesis is right. Well certainly, statements of personal belief, criticisms of public figures, misrepresenting the work of climate scientists, death threats to climate scientists, threatening to rape the children of climate scientists, lying, and engaging in conversations on the subject with the presumption that somehow, YOU can make assertions without being required to substantiate them with actual evidence - these are all practices which WILL NOT convince us that your hypothesis has foundation, and would in fact, add an air of incredibility to your statements. So:
1. Stop doing those things
2. Show us the evidence for you hypothesis, starting with the one which is on topic: that adaptation will be less costly than mitigation.
So let's be clear here - you expect to give a free pass to all 3rd world countries on CO2 emissions, and only place caps on 1st world countries? All this does is redistribute wealth, and redistribute CO2 emissions...it doesn't seem like such a system would do anything to stop CO2 levels from rising at all.
You've failed to answer or even address the question - which I repeat for your convenience: Please demonstrate the causal link between carbon emissions reduction schemes, and a doubling of the cost of fuel in Kenya. Bearing in mind that Kenya, as a least developed country, is not required to buy carbon credits for it's emissions.
Be specific. If you're asserting that warming climate causes an increase in hurricanes, well, supposedly the last few years since Katrina have been the warmest ever, but hurricanes have been quiet. Conversely, if cooling climate causes a decrease in hurricanes, I would love to know what temperature we'd have to get to in order to have zero hurricanes. Show your work!
Now you appear to be claiming that Climate Change will NOT lead to an increase in violent weather events in Bangladesh. I'd be interested to see that model that you theory is based on, with data. In your own time.
Oooh, oooh, I know the answer to this one! GLACIERGATE!
I do hope you are inadvertently, rather than deliberately, wasting my time. Neither option by the way, lends credence to you assertion that adaption will be cheaper than mitigation - with particular reference to east Developed Countries.
Sure it is. You've just decided that the value that other people put on some mythical idea of "climate" is incorrect.
But since you have had several opportunities to present a convincing case to to why we should accept you hypothesis (that adaption will be cheaper than mitigation - with particular reference to east Developed Countries) and have consistently (and might I say miserably) failed to do so, we will continue to accept the current hypothesis, based on the logic described previously. To repeat, the accepted hypothesis states that adaption is an order of magnitude more expensive than mitigation, and since adding even the lower cost to fossil fuels makes them more expensive than alternatives, we can conclude that what you describe as "cheap energy" is not cheap at all.
Increase the transportation costs by making petroleum more expensive to say, 20%.
Please demonstrate the causal link between carbon emissions reduction schemes, and a doubling of the cost of fuel in Kenya. Bearing in mind that Kenya, as a least developed country, is not required to buy carbon credits for it's emissions.
Okay, first off, "climate induced flooding" is arm waving - hurricane flooding is *weather* not *climate*.
What? Climate change causes an increase in hurricanes, which translates to flooding in Bangladesh because the whole country is basically a low lying river delta - the water cannot get away fast enough and the incoming winds cause higher tides with subsequent flooding upriver. In addition Climate Change causes disruption the natural snow melt cycle on the mountains where the rivers begin (the himalayas). This also causes major flooding, subsidence, etc. The latter cause of flooding is what I was referring to, since it's effect will/is more or less permanent.
Second of all, Bangladesh has 55,599 sq mi of area - even a cursory glance at google maps shows that in the event of a hurricane, there is land to take shelter further inland.
Mm. So, which of those 55,599 sq miles DOESN'T already have bangladeshis living on it, this making it suitable for the displaced people to settle on?
Instead of pretending like we can make the big bad wolf stay away by refusing to exhale, why not build the brick house by utilizing the cheapest energy we can get our hands on?
Well, because it turns out that the cheap energy isn't cheap at all.
Okay, here's your choice - a) watch your children die of starvation this year. b) survive an extra two hurricanes in your lifetime, and relocate inland 5 miles over your lifetime.
So, how are these our choices?
1. How would pricing carbon emissions cause children to starve? Demonstrate the causal link. You can use the proposed pricing models going into Copenhagen for reference if you like.
2. Assuming that the hurricane analogy is in reference to bangladesh, the classic example of a poor country affected by hurricanes - please show us on a map the 5 mile radius where displaced persons could move to to get away from climate induced flooding in bangladesh. You can use google maps if you like.
Yes. Artificially increasing the price of energy will harm the poorest of the poor, and increase poverty and misery throughout the world. Cheap energy means better lives for humanity, period. Telling a family in Africa that they have to watch their children die of malnourishment, exposure to the elements and disease because we're going to make it too expensive for them to afford energy is pretty drastic.
Well, firstly carbon emissions pricing mechanisms aren't artificial. Rather those mechanisms reflect the fact that removing the carbon from the atmosphere has a real economic cost associated with it, and the practice of dumping the carbon into the atmosphere ought to reflect that follow on cost. What would be artificial would be ignoring the follow on future cost - like using a credit card on the assumption that someone else will pay it off for you. Secondly the Stern Review indicates that whilst there is a cost associated with reducing our carbon emissions to a sustainable level, that cost is a fraction of the cost of doing it later PLUS adapting to a new climate. Emissions reduction @ 2% and Adaption @ 20% of global GDP. Or in simple terms, we start making our repayments now, or later goons will arrive and take our stuff. Which makes the most economic sense?
Which puts a lie to the notion that emissions reduction is the worse option for the poorest of the poor. I don't know how much you know about the 'poorest of the poor' - by the sounds of it, not much. But the key thing is that they are not contributing to the emissions problem, and therefore have no need to contribute to the cost of it.
But they DO have marginal arable land, and they DO have (like all of us) a critical dependence on a good water supply for drinking and agriculture. Climate change will take those things away, displacing those people - making them refugees. Displacement is the 'goons arrive to take our stuff' outcome. If we care at all about the poorest of the poor, the poor in general, or even if we were cynical and cared only for our own economic outcome, we'd start emissions reduction immediately.
Just a few decades ago, and for thousands of years previous, there were very few great advancements that did not put someone's life in jeopardy. In my mind, that is where NASA went wrong.
Where I think NASA went wrong was the Apollo Program. Kennedy wanted something showy, something big to prove American superiority to the world and lift the morale of the nation whose ego was badly bruised by early advances by the Soviets. Less showy, but more scientific proposals were rejected. As a result of that legacy, NASA keeps being distracted from useful and exciting projects by the glitzy, but ultimately dead end and useless 'manned' space program.
Nevertheless, NASA has got many things right - Viking, Pioneer, Voyager, Cassini, the Mars Rovers, Hubble to name the big ones. These projects have greatly advanced the boundaries of our knowledge.
I would wager we could build a space shuttle replacement for 1/10th the cost but with double of the failure rate and still have the best and brightest clamoring to get aboard!
Today, there are billions wasted and many opportunities to learn missed in an effort to prevent catastrophe. Though I understand the logic, I think that risk avoidance is what has brought so many exciting government, and private sector, programs to a slow crawl.
You've misunderstood the purpose of the shuttle. The purpose of the shuttle was to support industry in the districts of certain US Senators via the injection of federal money. More broadly, the shuttle was required to service the ISS. The ISS was required to justify funding for the shuttle, without which, other (arguably better) craft would be purposed to the task of servicing the ISS. OK, that's a bit cynical :-) The purpose of the ISS is so that humans have a confined area to float around in.
It wouldn't be difficult to find someone willing to travel to Mars on a low budget/high risk mission. Sure they may not come home, but they would go anyway. I'd bet you could find someone to take a one way flight to the outer solar system, just for the sake of exploration.
You're right - there are crowds of fanatics and lunatics prepared to die for a multitude of personal causes - regardless of how inane or meaningless those causes might appear to the rest of us.
However, there is no link between the reality of someone dying alone on Mars and the advancement of our race generally, let alone calling such an activity 'exploration'. All that such an activity would teach us is details of how corpses decompose in a cold, dry vacuum. If we wanted to know that, we can stick a body in a cold, dry vacuum on earth.
A few hundred years ago, humanity had great respect for explorers and scientists who were willing to put their lives on the line for the sake of progress. How many discoveries were made when men and women risked, and often lost, their lives exploring uncharted territory, or trying risky experiments.
Google 'Burke and Wills'. There is the classic example of the phenomena that you are alluding to - that is, hero worship of the explorers, a focus on political prestige rather than scientific outcomes, a burdening of the expedition with useless baggage and inappropriate methodology (*) because of the need to maintain a profile. In the case of Burke and Wills, the huge expense invested in Camels (which in retroespect were inappropriate for the terrain) and vast amount of supplies and men doomed their expedition. In your case, your expedition is doomed by the presence of the suicidal human - a lump of useless baggage, a technology completely inappropriate for terrain of outer space. They may have been feted as heroes at the time - now, we know better.
Should I be happy or sad? Really this post like random statement of trivial facts e.g I heard on the radio that it was sunny in Minsk today ?!?
We won't get to Mars for decades
Huh? We've been to Mars several times in the past decade already - we are still there if being in orbit counts as being 'there'.
The same as a dead civilian. Aaaand you know what that means. It means you getting out your chequebook.
The same could have been said of America or Australia from the perspective of Europe, before colonisation.
It could be said, but only incorrectly, since the Europeans were well aware that those places were inhabitable before colonising them. Also, in both cases, there was specific reasons why humans were sent (or went of their own accord). In those days, infections often meant amputation. These days, we are able to cure most infections using penicillin. Similarly, in those days, exploring or exploiting remote, inhospitable locations meant sending humans. These days, we no longer need to send humans to exploit or explore remote locations, instead we do so using robots.
The real problems started in Australian politics when the christian fundys managed to get a guy into parliament.
Look again.
The 'guy' in question, Senator Steve Fielding might be a Christian but the policies of his party (Family First) have nothing to do with Christianity. A look at the website http://www.familyfirst.org.au/ makes no mention of Christianity and lays out policies that directly conflict with the teachings of Christianity. Even the name 'Family First' is in conflict with Christian teachings. Reading the website you can see that the driver for the party has less to do with faith, and more to do with fear. In other words, these policies are meant to appeal to the subset of the population who view the changes in society as something (a) that can be corrected by government and (b) something to be afraid of.
One must remember that rejecting the null hypothesis does not prove the alternative, nor does accepting the null hypothesis prove the contra-positive.
Yes, exactly. Hence, neither the claim "There is a God", nor the claim "There is no God" can be tested using the null hypothesis.
Your example of extra-solar planets is an excellent one to show why your 'semantic trick' doesn't stand up to scrutiny. There are several cases of possible extra-solar planets 100 years go. There might be planets that orbit another star, there might be planets that don't orbit any star but have periodic orbits (eg. galactic etc), and there might be planets that have no periodic orbits at all. Using the technology available 100 years ago, there was very little evidence available: no matter what your prior curve, the posterior was bound to be nearly flat, and no hypothesis could be confirmed or rejected. Today, we have considerably more evidence available, enough to confirm one of the above hypotheses: that there are extra-solar planets in orbit around other stars (and allows us to reject the equivalent of the null hypothesis: there are no extra-solar planets). The other cases do not have enough evidence to accept or reject.
Yes, exactly. Therefore to claim that something known to unobservable does not exist because there are no observations to support it's existence, well, that would be irrational.
If we apply this to the atheism argument, at first glance a similar situation ensues: There is little evidence either for the existence of one or more deities, and there is little evidence against the existence of any deity. Therefore regardless of the prior, the posterior is going to be nearly flat which would support the supposition “we don’t know if there is a deity or not”.
Agree up to this point. It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of any deity using the scientific method.
But we live in a world where there are a finite number of deities whose existence has been proposed. And in many of these cases, the proposal of the deity has been accompanied by claims of that deity’s powers, claims which are measurable.
And straight away, your argument falls down. For one, the set of proposed deities is unbounded. For two, the question of existence is orthagonal to the question of what people believe. I say this, being fully aware that weak atheism attempts to conflate the two by answering the question thusly:
Q: Are there any deities?
A: I don't believe in any of the deities that others believe in.
In their own minds they've answered the question. To the rest of us, it looks like avoidance, since they didn't address the question at hand.
That is, your remarks on an international website, about the curriculum in Queensland.
People ignorant of science, logic, reason, and philosophy who've either been browbeaten or brainwashed into believing some incarnation of mythology based on bronze-age nomadic Jewish traditions that have evolved over time to incorporate aspects of Zoroastrianism, Mithraism, various Greek and pagan influences, and other cultural artifacts.
Wonderful. Religiously inspired diatribes. But then, you knew what I meant and chose not to answer the question, that speaks volumes.
I am more familiar with the international spread of Christianity than perhaps you imagine.
Surprising then, that you used the phrase 'most Christians' when what you meant is 4 blokes from Podunk, Nebraska.
I'm glad you feel that way. Not everyone agrees with you.
True, but then I wasn't aiming to have concordance.
Given that I am discussing American Creationists and given the large number of translations into English this statement is nonsensical.
Nonsensical?
Don't you think your use of the phrase 'most Christians' would suggest that you were, in fact, referring to most Christians?
The number of Christians I've met who cannot read a bible due to lack of education is very, very low.
That suggests that your sample "Christians you've met" is not representative of the whole. There are a huge number of Christians who have been prevented by poverty, war, or lack of infrastructure from receiving and education - especially in South East Asia, India, Africa. And then there are the other issues.
It's simply not an excuse the vast majority of them can call upon when admitting their ignorance of the book.
The vast majority?
What do you imagine is the makeup of the Christian population?
It is often considered a threat to Christianity because without a literal Adam and Eve there was no "fall" and therefor we didn't inherit a "sinful nature" from them making the need for God to sacrifice himself, as a child of himself, to himself, to save us from himself, unnecessary.
I'd say that evolution doesn't exclude the possibility of a physical Adam and Eve, and also that a physical Adam and Eve isn't strictly necessary to support the doctrine of a 'fall', although some actual physical event - the orignal sin, would have had to occur, otherwise the relevant New Testament passages that refer to it become problematic.
I find that most Christians (people in general, really) are startlingly ignorant of the content of the bible and the actual mechanisms and theory of evolution.
Which is, in itself, not that suprising given that most Christians do not have the text in their own language, or are not afforded a sufficient education to be able to read, or are prevented from meeting together and discussing such matters by hostile authorities, or a combination of those factors.
>> 1. That the null hypothesis is that there is no deity. This is demonstrably false. The null hypothesis is that we don't know whether there is a deity or not. You don't actually know what a null hypothesis [wikipedia.org] is.
Actually I have a major in statistics and have in fact taught the statistical method at a university level, so I'm guessing that I'm familiar with the concept of a null hypothesis. What I did do is to overlook your invalid use of the term to foreshorten the argument, which was pure laziness. But never mind. You've attempted to game the statistical method. You've done this by proposing a hypothesis without a valid test.
To demonstrate the semantic trick that you are playing, let me apply the same trick:
I hypothesise that no deity exists. I sample, there is no evidence to support the hypothesis in the available data. Therefore the default hypothesis: that one or more deities exist, is proven.
Saying, "We don't know if there is a deity or not" is functionally equivalent to saying, "The null hypothesis -- there is no deity -- has not been disproven." "We don't know if there is a deity or not" isn't a hypothesis, much less a null one.
No it isn't, because observation is only a useful test of the things that are observable. If 100 years ago I had said "there are no extra solar planets" I would have been wrong. Extra solar planets existed despite the fact that we had no capacity to observe them.
Nobody has any obligation to convince me of anything, so long as they have no say in how I live my life. But to the extent that they want their beliefs about the will of God to influence the laws I have to obey, the material that gets taught to children, or anything else, then It. Is. On.
Firstly, the vast majority of people act out of self interest, and you know, we live thrown together with our shoulders rubbing, so other people trying to tell you how to live your life is inevitable. That is not a function of theism, it's a function of society, of living in a community. Notably, I don't have go far to find a book by Richard Dawkins which attempts to tell ME what I should believe and how I ought to conduct myself in society. And secondly, well, I'll just say that i wonder if you really understand your society and the worldviews that influence it as well as you think. But I don't know that I can speak with authority on you situation.
I'm not interested in spending any more time debating your hypothetical believer with his untestable and unspecified beliefs about what may or may not be a deity. Like creme soda, it's unpleasant after the first sip.
Well, we are speaking about atheism, and atheists, and you are appear to be an atheist, so I would have hoped you were entertained, but, whatever. As for the creme (creaming) soda, I'll agree on that - I prefer the brown type to the red type, but neither really aid me in my quest to stay on good terms with my pancreas.
>> Really? What religion claims this? I'd be more interested in knowing what religion doesn't.
I'd be more interested in you providing some proof of your assertions.
As for the rest of it, You don't actually understand what atheism means. [wikipedia.org]
Proof needed for that assertion. I've already stated that there is a cognitive dissonance amongst some atheists (the 'weak' atheists) who attempt via semantic gymnastics to equate what they believe as a proof of non-existence. If you don't KNOW whether there is a deity, it is perfectly acceptable to say that you don't know. To equate ignorance with establishing a fact is actually the same argument as used by climate change denialists, who equate their own 'disbelief' of climate change with an actual disproof of the science.
Anyhow, once people start asking me to disprove the existence of their Invisible Pink Unicorn [wikipedia.org], I consider them to have lost the debate.
Well, have fun burning your strawman.
If you don't care what properties your deity embodies, so long as the resulting deity is "undisprovable", there is little reason to take you or your deity seriously.
I don't accept the premise that I want to convince you of anything other than a disproof of the doctrines of atheism. The problem you face is that you live in a post-modernist society where the vast majority of people accept that a deity could exist, but do not ascribe particular properties to the theoretical deity. If atheism cannot construct a convincing argument against the deity that these post modernists choose to believe in, then it will never be lifted from obscurity.
While some atheists may assert positively that there is no deity, many make a different claim:
Ah. So is the first group wrong then? Because we wouldn't want atheists to fall into the habit of speaking as if there was an equivalence between belief and actual existence. This would make them open to accusations of semantic manipulation.
Bit disappointing to see that you yourself have made the same mistake below.
There is little evidence of a deity, and since asserting the existence of a deity is a rather bold claim, there should be evidence to back it up. In this context, there is nothing to disprove.
The problem that you face, then, is demonstrating that what you call 'the context' is true. The assertions in your context are:
1. That the null hypothesis is that there is no deity. This is demonstrably false. The null hypothesis is that we don't know whether there is a deity or not.
2. That you have some valid framework for testing for the existence of a deity - this is, as yet, unproven.
Atheists need only evaluate whether the evidence for any particular deity is convincing or not.
You are assuming that the deity or the proponents of the deity have some obligation to convince you. If they do not, then all you are doing is burning a strawman.
Lacking this information, I fear you have no basis for discussing religious or philosophical matters. Go back to school. Don't pass go...
If only we had asked you guys to define philosophy and religion for us, then we would know when we were allowed to speak, and when we needed to remain silent in the presence of your awesome intellect. Guess we just forgot.
Even though in theory a generic omnipotent deity could affect the outcome of any given scientific study and create a false null result, in practice most religions make specific claims about their deities
But the claim of atheism is that there is no deity - of any kind, and not restricted to the deities that other people happen to believe in. Were atheists able to disprove specific properties that other people claim of their deity, they would still not even be at the starting line of disproving the existence of a deity.
For instance, a common one is that God listens to prayer and will heal the sick if we pray for them.
Really? What religion claims this?
Pac-Man is a male.
you are a tool.
I very much doubt that incivility will any much needed credence to your position.
You have taken an extremely complex equation, with what seems like an infinite number of variables, and completely thrown it out the window.
You claim the atmosphere is far too complex for science to be able to understand the consequences of adding more CO2 to it, yet at the same time, claim that there ARE NO consequences.
You have chosen to focus on a single variable, namely CO2, because you found that CO2 in s jar behaves as a greenhouse gas. What you fail to realize is how that variable affects the entire equation. It's quite possible that the variable you hav chosen to focus on has such a minimal effect on the entire equation, that it can be ignored.
Again, you claim that some other variable changes to counteract the effects of the additional greenhouse gas.
What is that variable? What is this compensatory mechanism? Explain how this mechanism works, and show working.
Understand that the point of the glass jar illustration is not a PROOF, but a DISPROOF - a mechanism for cutting through the handwaving, the strawmen, the baseless assertions that constitute the body of arguments that is climate change denial.
I don't believe that CO2 is driving climate change for the simple reason that I have an extensive background in geology, and I know that CO2 concentrations have been much higher in Earth's geological past than they are now, without the corresponding temperature increase that the current climatologists attribute to CO2.
Which era was this? And how did you go about measuring the rate of temperature change from the geological record, given that our current climate change is not happening on a geological timeframe?
If current models are correct (and they're not), the earth would have been baked to a crisp long ago.
Which models are those? Who made the prediction that we would be burnt to a crisp in 2010?
I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. I have simply stated, time and again, that the scientists haven't yet been able to demonstrate the magnitude of it's effect in our atmosphere.
Scientists aren't under any obligation offer further proof to you. If you have a theory that contradicts the findings of science (that increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, including CO2, are driving the current climate change), by all means offer it up for peer review.
which is to say it would if