but doubts that the main driving force at the presence is anthropogenic because I don't, personally, find the evidence sufficiently persuasive and prefer to think for myself.
Then, with probability 1.0 a.s. (almost surely), you get your information from blogs, and you think know better than career scientists who actually study the issue.
Political tribalism is at the heart of most of the denial, including (mostly) wingnut fears of TEH SOCIALISM!!!!. This, of course, has nothing to do with the science either.
Be honest with yourself: how many real climate scientists have you listened to other than Lindzen, Spencer, and a few contrarians? If you think you know so much about the issue, then why do you pick and choose your sources of information?
If you look at the history of the negotiations, the Argentinians walked away when the British insisted that the people living on the Falkland islands have the final say. Then the Argentinians invaded. According to my value system, that's an open and shut case of asshatery.
The British controlled the Falklands in 1810. The Spanish had only briefly controlled it at that point. By your reasoning, the islands really belong to the French.
Argentina because they supposedly owned them 200 years ago,
The _Spanish_ *briefly* controlled the islands for a very short period of time. They got them from the French. The Portuguese first mapped the islands. Argentina didn't exist. The historical claim is tenuous at best, and also *ignores* the wishes of the actual people who live there.
Does anyone care about the actual people who live in the Falklands, and what they want? The UK government did. The Argentinian junta refused to accept the self-determination of the Falklanders. Hence there was a breakdown in negotiations over the island. I grew up hating Thatcher, but learning the history, I realize she did the right thing, and the world is better for it.
I actually know something about the Falkland wars, and encourage your to learn something about it. Grew up hating Thatcher, and learning the history of what happened there was one of the first times that I realized how little I know about the world. It has always been the position of the UK government that the people *living* in the falkland islands should be able to decide if they want to be part of Argentina or not. The military junta that ruled Argentina didn't see it that way -- and in Argentina there is a myth that the Falkland islands were always theirs. (Please, Argentina was colonised by Spanish, and the Spanish had a rather tenuous connection to the Falklands.) When Argentinian soldiers landed on the island, they were shocked, SHOCKED, not to be greeted as liberators. That is how thoroughly propagandized they were.
If you dole sovereignty out first-come-first served, then the Falklands should be Portuguese, and Argentina should be a nation of natives. The French were the first to colonoise the islands, *briefly* conquered by the Spanish, and then transferred to the UK towards the end of the Napoleonic era. Argentina didn't even exist.
The British stood up to a bully. A weak, ineffectual, corrupted, delusional, but still dangerous bully.
...and for once, I find myself grateful for incompetence. Here's hoping it remains that way until we can remove such intent from the world.
The desire to censor and to control the sexuality of others', is innate. Augustus Caesar was such a prude. We cannot wipe the intent from the world, but we can marginalize the wingnuts with a philosophy of do no harm.
Theories are always up for review and revision in the face of new evidence and research.
I don't know, Newton's three laws look settled. Sure there are error bars, but within the error bars, I don't see any dispute.
The problem is, like all relativist arguments, you are taking a small wedge to characterize the totality of what is going on. Sure theories are always being reviewed and revised. Sure there is always uncertainty. But the people who bring this up a pushing a line on global warming that is almost certainly wrong, and we know that very well. If you want to the science is uncertain, then you have to say alternate theories are less certain. But that type of intellectual honesty is not what this is about.
Somewhat humerously these "skeptics" are immune to actually learning something about the real research, and so are about as faithful and tribally loyal and non-scientific as any good young-earther or "creation scientists". Somewhat ironically, these "skeptics" call scientists "alarmists", when really, their opposition to AGW is fundamentally about a neo-liberal economic argument that climate action will destroy the economy, or FREEDOM!!!, or both. The economics profession, of course, disagrees.
In short, we're dealing with madness through and through.
You've never tried to prove something with an experiment have you. I have. It's a humbling experience. Now I hold the main problem with science education is that non-scientists don't have the esoteric experience of demonstrating something empirically -- where all you brilliant brain-farts die a quick and deadly death.
String-theory, the clarion call of non-scientists who want to assert their intellectual supremacy over science. If only physicists weren't look for physical evidence for string theory. If only physicists didn't understand that it's underdetermined. If only string-theory calculations weren't made to comport with 100s of years of experimental observation.
Maybe the last 100 years are more interesting scientifically peaking. But you're suggesting that the field of paleoclimate doesn't exist. (It does.) And that scientists don't know what the broad findings are. (It's taught at undergraduate level.)
I think you're argument belongs in the "Haha, that's a good one" category.
Climate change could be real, but caused by natural factors that are out of our control
That would be one of the "skeptics" main talking points. It's not really an argument, since it is addressed extensively in literature. But the public conversation has trouble with "it's cold in New York, AGW must be a hoax".
which are known for excessively strong anti-conservative leanings
I'm always amused when conservatives appeal to the "they're just biased" defense when defending their own constructed world of spin. Saying that the CBC has an obvious liberal bias flies in the face of academic media analysis, but I'm sure you think the universities are "just biased" too. And you have the truth.
Doesn't matter how warm Europe is. Cold weather mean good times for trolls. These people really mean what they say. The public debate in climate change is barely grapling with the elementary difference between local and global temperatures, and that's exactly what the trolls want.
Global warming *isn't* a good term, which is why climate change is better. Paradoxically, climate change is "softer" on the ears, which is why Frank Luntz selected this weasal-phrase for his AGW misinformation manifesto which was spread around the GOP leadership and Fox. Luntz, today, believes that AGW is real, and has a head-ache. But as smart as the guy is, he still wants to blame Obama squarely for the partisan madness we see today. A luntz is the protege of Gingrich, so that goes to show how far the mind lawyers information so that we can make ourselves out to be the good guy. My prognosis is that Luntz' head-ache will start to clear when he leaves politics behind, or comes clean with himself over his particular role in polticla silly-buggers we see today.
isn't it just that people react emotionally to such things?
I think that's a misunderstanding of what's going on. The problem is that the mind lawyers information. Very few (*very* few) people have the guts to really question themselves and esp. question their tribal loyalties. For the vast majority of us (*vast* majority), everything is a Rorschach test, so two people look at the same information and reach opposite conclusions. But ask each, and they thought the entire thing through, completely logically and dispationately.
This is why propaganda works, and why a small well-funded cadre of ideologues can convince half the people in America that there is some scientific confusion of the issue of climate change.
Slashdot Mirror
Where did *you* get your information on the MWP and the Little Ice Age?
So... where do you get your information on the Medieval Warm and Little Ice Age?
Haha, projection is the last resort of the ignorant mind. Yeah, it's the other guy who's ignorant!!! It's always someone else, isn't it =0.
but doubts that the main driving force at the presence is anthropogenic because I don't, personally, find the evidence sufficiently persuasive and prefer to think for myself.
Then, with probability 1.0 a.s. (almost surely), you get your information from blogs, and you think know better than career scientists who actually study the issue.
Political tribalism is at the heart of most of the denial, including (mostly) wingnut fears of TEH SOCIALISM!!!!. This, of course, has nothing to do with the science either.
Be honest with yourself: how many real climate scientists have you listened to other than Lindzen, Spencer, and a few contrarians? If you think you know so much about the issue, then why do you pick and choose your sources of information?
Just sayin'
It could have been resolved through diplomacy
If you look at the history of the negotiations, the Argentinians walked away when the British insisted that the people living on the Falkland islands have the final say. Then the Argentinians invaded. According to my value system, that's an open and shut case of asshatery.
The British controlled the Falklands in 1810. The Spanish had only briefly controlled it at that point. By your reasoning, the islands really belong to the French.
Argentina because they supposedly owned them 200 years ago,
The _Spanish_ *briefly* controlled the islands for a very short period of time. They got them from the French. The Portuguese first mapped the islands. Argentina didn't exist. The historical claim is tenuous at best, and also *ignores* the wishes of the actual people who live there.
It seems we were negotiating with the Argentinians and could have easily avoided a war.
The sticking point on the negotiations was: the Argentinian junta had to agree that the people living in the Falklands had final say.
Does anyone care about the actual people who live in the Falklands, and what they want? The UK government did. The Argentinian junta refused to accept the self-determination of the Falklanders. Hence there was a breakdown in negotiations over the island. I grew up hating Thatcher, but learning the history, I realize she did the right thing, and the world is better for it.
I actually know something about the Falkland wars, and encourage your to learn something about it. Grew up hating Thatcher, and learning the history of what happened there was one of the first times that I realized how little I know about the world. It has always been the position of the UK government that the people *living* in the falkland islands should be able to decide if they want to be part of Argentina or not. The military junta that ruled Argentina didn't see it that way -- and in Argentina there is a myth that the Falkland islands were always theirs. (Please, Argentina was colonised by Spanish, and the Spanish had a rather tenuous connection to the Falklands.) When Argentinian soldiers landed on the island, they were shocked, SHOCKED, not to be greeted as liberators. That is how thoroughly propagandized they were.
If you dole sovereignty out first-come-first served, then the Falklands should be Portuguese, and Argentina should be a nation of natives. The French were the first to colonoise the islands, *briefly* conquered by the Spanish, and then transferred to the UK towards the end of the Napoleonic era. Argentina didn't even exist.
The British stood up to a bully. A weak, ineffectual, corrupted, delusional, but still dangerous bully.
and without that contract there will likely be firings.
I literally read that as "there will likely be filings", like CGI will sue the government for losing the contract.
Yeah, they also know if you have a gun, vote GOP, and visit wingnut conspiracy websites. Best leave the country immediately.
...and for once, I find myself grateful for incompetence. Here's hoping it remains that way until we can remove such intent from the world.
The desire to censor and to control the sexuality of others', is innate. Augustus Caesar was such a prude. We cannot wipe the intent from the world, but we can marginalize the wingnuts with a philosophy of do no harm.
I like Windows 8. Think fear of change is the biggest problem.
Theories are always up for review and revision in the face of new evidence and research.
I don't know, Newton's three laws look settled. Sure there are error bars, but within the error bars, I don't see any dispute.
The problem is, like all relativist arguments, you are taking a small wedge to characterize the totality of what is going on. Sure theories are always being reviewed and revised. Sure there is always uncertainty. But the people who bring this up a pushing a line on global warming that is almost certainly wrong, and we know that very well. If you want to the science is uncertain, then you have to say alternate theories are less certain. But that type of intellectual honesty is not what this is about.
Somewhat humerously these "skeptics" are immune to actually learning something about the real research, and so are about as faithful and tribally loyal and non-scientific as any good young-earther or "creation scientists". Somewhat ironically, these "skeptics" call scientists "alarmists", when really, their opposition to AGW is fundamentally about a neo-liberal economic argument that climate action will destroy the economy, or FREEDOM!!!, or both. The economics profession, of course, disagrees.
In short, we're dealing with madness through and through.
You've never tried to prove something with an experiment have you. I have. It's a humbling experience. Now I hold the main problem with science education is that non-scientists don't have the esoteric experience of demonstrating something empirically -- where all you brilliant brain-farts die a quick and deadly death.
String-theory, the clarion call of non-scientists who want to assert their intellectual supremacy over science. If only physicists weren't look for physical evidence for string theory. If only physicists didn't understand that it's underdetermined. If only string-theory calculations weren't made to comport with 100s of years of experimental observation.
The world is 10,000 years old, flat, and dinosaurs lived with humans. Think I'm a quack? That's exactly what they talk Galileo.
Maybe the last 100 years are more interesting scientifically peaking. But you're suggesting that the field of paleoclimate doesn't exist. (It does.) And that scientists don't know what the broad findings are. (It's taught at undergraduate level.)
I think you're argument belongs in the "Haha, that's a good one" category.
Climate change could be real, but caused by natural factors that are out of our control
That would be one of the "skeptics" main talking points. It's not really an argument, since it is addressed extensively in literature. But the public conversation has trouble with "it's cold in New York, AGW must be a hoax".
which are known for excessively strong anti-conservative leanings
I'm always amused when conservatives appeal to the "they're just biased" defense when defending their own constructed world of spin. Saying that the CBC has an obvious liberal bias flies in the face of academic media analysis, but I'm sure you think the universities are "just biased" too. And you have the truth.
It seems that Idiot America has come to Canada.
Fascists? Really?
fascists were book burners too.
The article is just saying that that is Hutching's opinion.
Doesn't matter how warm Europe is. Cold weather mean good times for trolls. These people really mean what they say. The public debate in climate change is barely grapling with the elementary difference between local and global temperatures, and that's exactly what the trolls want.
Global warming *isn't* a good term, which is why climate change is better. Paradoxically, climate change is "softer" on the ears, which is why Frank Luntz selected this weasal-phrase for his AGW misinformation manifesto which was spread around the GOP leadership and Fox. Luntz, today, believes that AGW is real, and has a head-ache. But as smart as the guy is, he still wants to blame Obama squarely for the partisan madness we see today. A luntz is the protege of Gingrich, so that goes to show how far the mind lawyers information so that we can make ourselves out to be the good guy. My prognosis is that Luntz' head-ache will start to clear when he leaves politics behind, or comes clean with himself over his particular role in polticla silly-buggers we see today.
isn't it just that people react emotionally to such things?
I think that's a misunderstanding of what's going on. The problem is that the mind lawyers information. Very few (*very* few) people have the guts to really question themselves and esp. question their tribal loyalties. For the vast majority of us (*vast* majority), everything is a Rorschach test, so two people look at the same information and reach opposite conclusions. But ask each, and they thought the entire thing through, completely logically and dispationately.
This is why propaganda works, and why a small well-funded cadre of ideologues can convince half the people in America that there is some scientific confusion of the issue of climate change.