.I was not asking you to hold my hand, it should be clear to you that I am already familiar with the IPCC reports.
This is just a plain fabrication. You might know where they are, how long they are, and what you might expect to find in them, but you are not familiar with them. These are extraordinary long and detailed documents. It would take the work of a graduate student to become familiar with them. Be honest with yourself.
Furthermore, you think I'm talking about science, but I'm talking about risk-management, which is the basis upon which policy should be discussed. There are no certainties in science, and none in risk-management. It seems that only "skeptics" and a bunch of anti-science-green-freaks are certain about climate science. The scientific debate is wholly apart from that morass. The political debate is only just beginning. The propaganda war has been in full force since the 90s.
If you are interested in the science, then go for it. The IPCC reports are full of references to all points of view on the discussed topics -- including Lindzen, McIntyre, and other contrarians. If you are interested in policy, then it is much harder to find good sources, but they do exist. There is a long essay (short book) on the topic "Quarterly Essay 44: Choosing Between Progress and Planet", by Andrew Carlton. If you are interested in the politic discourse around the topic, as chilling as it is, then I would recommend Naomi Oreskes' "Merchants of Doubt".
There is no scam necessary. If the insurance company can make more money by justifying higher premiums (for any reason), they should be expected to do so up to the point it loses them business.
Except for the realities of a free market dictates the opposite. Are you saying the the insurance industry needs to be regulated?
Really, this is a very convoluted argument with regards to AGW.
It's a straight-forward real-world example of the consequences of AGW and risk-management. The argument for the evidence of the expected costs of AGW is a different matter. Read the IPCC and follow the references; I don't need to hold your hand.
I think the GP and GGGP posts are arguing, and justifiably so, that "likely" does not convert to scientific law. It is theory. And not evolutionary theory, but a lower level theory.
If you actually look at the very start of the IPCC, you will see statistically precise definitions of terms like "likely".
Almost all science relies on statistical proofs and there is always uncertainty.
It is a question of risk-management -- like what insurance companies do, and business managers. An insurance company doesn't need proof that your house will burn down at a certain date in order to sell you insurance. They just need the expected risk and costs.
Most people haven't ever cracked any IPCC report open, yet there is an endless stream of arguments between those who hold strongly held beliefs about climate change.
This is completely true. However, the arguments that/scientists/ make are never answered by "skeptics", who are operating on intellectually vacuous territory. In fact, "skeptics" will say anything that sounds good, and just ignore what scientists have to say on the issue, which is why it is called by its true name: denial.
Your complete valid point not-with-standing, I am interested in the scientific debate on the issue -- as so are the actuaries at insurance companies, it would seem.
Also, you really don't understand the point I was making about insurance companies, do you?
Yeah I got it. This could be a price-fixing scam of insurance companies. i.e.: a conspiracy theory -- although a believable one. So it is possible; however, the actuaries are working off actual science. So I think the burden of proof is to show that this is actually a scam.
Insurance companies have a financial incentive to overestimate risk. This is obvious. The disincentive is supposed to be that if they do it too much they will lose business. What conspiracy are you talking about?
Well, obviously the insurance industry thinks they need to make this assessment, and that those who do not are at risk of going out of business.
btw, kudos on actually referencing the IPCC report. Most deniers haven't even cracked it open.
If that's true, there needs to be more competition in the insurance industry. What is stopping them from raising premiums for any reason whatsoever?
I knew that the denial crowd would leap for this. Everything has to be interpreted as a conspiracy, or people lying, or being dishonest, or evil, or stupid. Anything but accept that intelligent people are trying to tell you something.
Well, the actuaries in the insurance industry have done the math, and worked out that they need to raise premiums to deal with the already measurable risk. You can dismiss this out of hand if you like, but you'll still have to pay. Instead, you could, of course, extend yourself by learning something about he issue. And that means you should stop reading partisan blogs, and find/counter-evidence/, like a good skeptic actually would.
Likely has a specific definition in the report. It is then a risk-management decision to evaluate how important this is. Agreed? Well, it doesn't matter, because your insurance company has already agreed, and they'll be setting your premiums.
Environmentalism is an interesting issue because you see the anti-science movement working on both sides. But as for the actual science -- well the actual science says a lot about environmental issues that the conservative movement systematically dismisses, and without any sound argumentation. (See: Naomi Oreskes, "Merchants of Doubt".) Liberal environmentalists are much more selective in their denial, when it comes to issues like GMOs, nuclear power, over-population, and the effects of urbanisation. As usual, the scientists will generate new knowledge, and the political ideologues will butcher it, and argue over it, and cry foul that scientists think they have something important to say on the topic.
The liberal anti-science movement is much more pernicious, since they inhabit the academic departments in the social sciences, psychology, feminism, and the humanities. Pick up Sokal's Beyond the Hoax" from the library to see liberal anti-science mania in action. You can also read Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate", which is full of liberal anti-science fuzzy-thinking nonsense.
Some results of all of this are myths like: rape is about power on not sex, violent media causes violent behaviour, god was once a woman, nuclear power is polluting and unsafe (which is a relative statement), GMOs are inherently bad (a homologue to stem-cell research), there is no biological basis for gendered behaviour,... really the list is quite long, and there are some serious consequences.
The conservative anti-science movement extends well beyond religious institutions. Pretty much every conservative think-tank is part of an anti-science agenda. You should learn more about it, because it is destroying a great party, and conservatives need to push back against the internal forces of greed and ignorance. It is pretty chilling.
There is strong counter-evidence to what you said. Do you even know what the counter-evidence is? "The highest form of ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about." Dr. Wayne W. Dyer.
It seems clear that this article was a title first, and then they crafted the article around the title. No research or poll was done.
And you reached that conclusions without going to look at the actual study by Gauchat in "American Sociological Review". Admittedly it is a forthcoming publication, but here is the author's bio. I am sure that you can read the article in April if you like, and then take up any issues with the author.
I study the anti-science movement in both conservatives and liberals, and the although they are both equally anti-science in their own way, the conservatives have a powerful anti-science champions in fox, the evangelical movement, Beck, Limbaugh, and pretty much every conservative think-tank that I can think of.
I'm an Asian, and I like to shake hands. My Indian friend does too, and he's Asian. Chinese/Japanese natives typically don't like shaking hands, but they also do it when they are in the USA. You know, when in Rome...
Almost everyone wants to think of themselves as a good person. I think you meant "incompetence or outright delusion throughout the institution." I would throw in group-think as well.
The point is that the private sector is full of incompetence too, and that bears out my experience. In fact, I found that government offices were more tightly run, with an eye on the bottom line. The private sector, however, seems to focus on making sales, and that is were most of the effort (and excellent) goes. Actually getting real work done can be ludicrous.
I've worked in two government offices and three private businesses. I can tell you that there is plenty of incompetence to go around. In fact, businesses are even more likely to successfully cover stuff up, since they have no duty to disclose at all. The government, at least in theory, must respond to FOI requests.
Liberals, "We don't tolerate any corruption except the one we're doing ourselves with our friends" led by who-the-fuck-is Bob Rae
To be fair, the liberals didn't brush the corruption scandal under the carpet, but did the right thing be opening a public inquiry. It was politically stupid, and Martin got slaughtered for it, but it was the right thing by the country.
Murdoch is a political ideologue. He wants to shape public opinion. He runs "The Australian" at a lose, simply so that he can do that. Fox News is successful because vitriol sells.
All the more reason to make an example out of Murdoch. What type of society do you want to live in? One where the powerful break the law and cow politicians by endlessly propagandising the public? The Murdoch's probably think of themselves as stand-up guys, but they have caused so much harm that it is an embarrassment to a civilised society. Jobs said that Murdoch should think about his legacy, like somehow the karma boggie-man will do something about his behaviour. I would put more faith in jail-time for serial malfeasance.
Well, the religious freedom issue was also a women's health issue. It depends on whether you have a medieval perspective on the world, or hold modernist enlightenment ideals like science. A compromise can, of course, be reached, as the Obama demonstrated. However, when it comes to scoring political points, the theatre will never end.
"morons that hold public office has been linked to aggressive behavior"
It's not the ones in public office driving this, but pseudo-science social constructionist ideologues in the soft sciences at universities. They have tunnel vision for purely cultural explanations of behaviour, and so therefore, any violence in society/must/ have been taught to children who "internalised" it. Then, looking around, it seems obvious that violent media/must/ be the the cause. So... given they know that violent media is the cause, they then study it "scientifically", and jump up an down when they produce results that -- lo and behold -- validate their preconceptions.
Criticism of this research is never taken seriously in large part because it challenges a greater world-view that is behind radical views on gender roles. So if you look at "scientific review" articles in the literature, you will find criticism and alternative views conspicuously absent. This, of course, find, since these people often promote the post-modern criticism of science: there are not facts anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a hard time understanding why people continually crap on GM about the Volt.
Democrats are for it, which means that Fox, the Koch bothers, and every conservative think tank is against it.
"The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about." -- Wayne Dyer.
.I was not asking you to hold my hand, it should be clear to you that I am already familiar with the IPCC reports.
This is just a plain fabrication. You might know where they are, how long they are, and what you might expect to find in them, but you are not familiar with them. These are extraordinary long and detailed documents. It would take the work of a graduate student to become familiar with them. Be honest with yourself.
Furthermore, you think I'm talking about science, but I'm talking about risk-management, which is the basis upon which policy should be discussed. There are no certainties in science, and none in risk-management. It seems that only "skeptics" and a bunch of anti-science-green-freaks are certain about climate science. The scientific debate is wholly apart from that morass. The political debate is only just beginning. The propaganda war has been in full force since the 90s.
If you are interested in the science, then go for it. The IPCC reports are full of references to all points of view on the discussed topics -- including Lindzen, McIntyre, and other contrarians. If you are interested in policy, then it is much harder to find good sources, but they do exist. There is a long essay (short book) on the topic "Quarterly Essay 44: Choosing Between Progress and Planet", by Andrew Carlton. If you are interested in the politic discourse around the topic, as chilling as it is, then I would recommend Naomi Oreskes' "Merchants of Doubt".
There is no scam necessary. If the insurance company can make more money by justifying higher premiums (for any reason), they should be expected to do so up to the point it loses them business.
Except for the realities of a free market dictates the opposite. Are you saying the the insurance industry needs to be regulated?
Really, this is a very convoluted argument with regards to AGW.
It's a straight-forward real-world example of the consequences of AGW and risk-management. The argument for the evidence of the expected costs of AGW is a different matter. Read the IPCC and follow the references; I don't need to hold your hand.
I think the GP and GGGP posts are arguing, and justifiably so, that "likely" does not convert to scientific law. It is theory. And not evolutionary theory, but a lower level theory.
If you actually look at the very start of the IPCC, you will see statistically precise definitions of terms like "likely".
Almost all science relies on statistical proofs and there is always uncertainty.
It is a question of risk-management -- like what insurance companies do, and business managers. An insurance company doesn't need proof that your house will burn down at a certain date in order to sell you insurance. They just need the expected risk and costs.
Most people haven't ever cracked any IPCC report open, yet there is an endless stream of arguments between those who hold strongly held beliefs about climate change.
This is completely true. However, the arguments that /scientists/ make are never answered by "skeptics", who are operating on intellectually vacuous territory. In fact, "skeptics" will say anything that sounds good, and just ignore what scientists have to say on the issue, which is why it is called by its true name: denial.
Your complete valid point not-with-standing, I am interested in the scientific debate on the issue -- as so are the actuaries at insurance companies, it would seem.
Also, you really don't understand the point I was making about insurance companies, do you?
Yeah I got it. This could be a price-fixing scam of insurance companies. i.e.: a conspiracy theory -- although a believable one. So it is possible; however, the actuaries are working off actual science. So I think the burden of proof is to show that this is actually a scam.
Insurance companies have a financial incentive to overestimate risk. This is obvious. The disincentive is supposed to be that if they do it too much they will lose business. What conspiracy are you talking about?
Well, obviously the insurance industry thinks they need to make this assessment, and that those who do not are at risk of going out of business.
btw, kudos on actually referencing the IPCC report. Most deniers haven't even cracked it open.
If that's true, there needs to be more competition in the insurance industry. What is stopping them from raising premiums for any reason whatsoever?
I knew that the denial crowd would leap for this. Everything has to be interpreted as a conspiracy, or people lying, or being dishonest, or evil, or stupid. Anything but accept that intelligent people are trying to tell you something.
/counter-evidence/, like a good skeptic actually would.
Well, the actuaries in the insurance industry have done the math, and worked out that they need to raise premiums to deal with the already measurable risk. You can dismiss this out of hand if you like, but you'll still have to pay. Instead, you could, of course, extend yourself by learning something about he issue. And that means you should stop reading partisan blogs, and find
Likely has a specific definition in the report. It is then a risk-management decision to evaluate how important this is. Agreed? Well, it doesn't matter, because your insurance company has already agreed, and they'll be setting your premiums.
2. We have some evidence that human pollution has caused some of the symptoms of climate change
We have controvertible proof, and there was consensus on that in the 1979 NAS report. Fixed that for you.
Open your mind, and learn the difference between climate and weather. Note that it isn't the IPWC. It's the IPCC. Big difference.
Environmentalism is an interesting issue because you see the anti-science movement working on both sides. But as for the actual science -- well the actual science says a lot about environmental issues that the conservative movement systematically dismisses, and without any sound argumentation. (See: Naomi Oreskes, "Merchants of Doubt".) Liberal environmentalists are much more selective in their denial, when it comes to issues like GMOs, nuclear power, over-population, and the effects of urbanisation. As usual, the scientists will generate new knowledge, and the political ideologues will butcher it, and argue over it, and cry foul that scientists think they have something important to say on the topic.
The liberal anti-science movement is much more pernicious, since they inhabit the academic departments in the social sciences, psychology, feminism, and the humanities. Pick up Sokal's Beyond the Hoax" from the library to see liberal anti-science mania in action. You can also read Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate", which is full of liberal anti-science fuzzy-thinking nonsense.
Some results of all of this are myths like: rape is about power on not sex, violent media causes violent behaviour, god was once a woman, nuclear power is polluting and unsafe (which is a relative statement), GMOs are inherently bad (a homologue to stem-cell research), there is no biological basis for gendered behaviour,... really the list is quite long, and there are some serious consequences.
The conservative anti-science movement extends well beyond religious institutions. Pretty much every conservative think-tank is part of an anti-science agenda. You should learn more about it, because it is destroying a great party, and conservatives need to push back against the internal forces of greed and ignorance. It is pretty chilling.
There is strong counter-evidence to what you said. Do you even know what the counter-evidence is? "The highest form of ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about." Dr. Wayne W. Dyer.
It seems clear that this article was a title first, and then they crafted the article around the title. No research or poll was done.
And you reached that conclusions without going to look at the actual study by Gauchat in "American Sociological Review". Admittedly it is a forthcoming publication, but here is the author's bio. I am sure that you can read the article in April if you like, and then take up any issues with the author.
I study the anti-science movement in both conservatives and liberals, and the although they are both equally anti-science in their own way, the conservatives have a powerful anti-science champions in fox, the evangelical movement, Beck, Limbaugh, and pretty much every conservative think-tank that I can think of.
All that propaganda has an effect.
I'm an Asian, and I like to shake hands. My Indian friend does too, and he's Asian. Chinese/Japanese natives typically don't like shaking hands, but they also do it when they are in the USA. You know, when in Rome...
malice
Almost everyone wants to think of themselves as a good person. I think you meant "incompetence or outright delusion throughout the institution." I would throw in group-think as well.
The point is that the private sector is full of incompetence too, and that bears out my experience. In fact, I found that government offices were more tightly run, with an eye on the bottom line. The private sector, however, seems to focus on making sales, and that is were most of the effort (and excellent) goes. Actually getting real work done can be ludicrous.
I've worked in two government offices and three private businesses. I can tell you that there is plenty of incompetence to go around. In fact, businesses are even more likely to successfully cover stuff up, since they have no duty to disclose at all. The government, at least in theory, must respond to FOI requests.
Liberals, "We don't tolerate any corruption except the one we're doing ourselves with our friends" led by who-the-fuck-is Bob Rae
To be fair, the liberals didn't brush the corruption scandal under the carpet, but did the right thing be opening a public inquiry. It was politically stupid, and Martin got slaughtered for it, but it was the right thing by the country.
Murdoch is a political ideologue. He wants to shape public opinion. He runs "The Australian" at a lose, simply so that he can do that. Fox News is successful because vitriol sells.
All the more reason to make an example out of Murdoch. What type of society do you want to live in? One where the powerful break the law and cow politicians by endlessly propagandising the public? The Murdoch's probably think of themselves as stand-up guys, but they have caused so much harm that it is an embarrassment to a civilised society. Jobs said that Murdoch should think about his legacy, like somehow the karma boggie-man will do something about his behaviour. I would put more faith in jail-time for serial malfeasance.
Well, the religious freedom issue was also a women's health issue. It depends on whether you have a medieval perspective on the world, or hold modernist enlightenment ideals like science. A compromise can, of course, be reached, as the Obama demonstrated. However, when it comes to scoring political points, the theatre will never end.
"morons that hold public office has been linked to aggressive behavior"
It's not the ones in public office driving this, but pseudo-science social constructionist ideologues in the soft sciences at universities. They have tunnel vision for purely cultural explanations of behaviour, and so therefore, any violence in society /must/ have been taught to children who "internalised" it. Then, looking around, it seems obvious that violent media /must/ be the the cause. So... given they know that violent media is the cause, they then study it "scientifically", and jump up an down when they produce results that -- lo and behold -- validate their preconceptions.
Criticism of this research is never taken seriously in large part because it challenges a greater world-view that is behind radical views on gender roles. So if you look at "scientific review" articles in the literature, you will find criticism and alternative views conspicuously absent. This, of course, find, since these people often promote the post-modern criticism of science: there are not facts anyway.
It is all rather sad an pathetic -- esp. when you have to get the supreme court to label the "science" speculative. I wrote an essay analysing the discourse surrounding violence and the media which contains plenty of references to both sides of the story.