I don't think you read what I posted. 1996 was the hottest year in the 20th century for the entire earth (the 1930's weren't even close). That the arctic had a warmer year than this does not change that fact.
I don't know much more about polar bears than I do about the dust bowl. However, in doing a little background reading, I researched Polyakov. It seems figure 2 from Polyakov disagrees with the one you posted. So, it seems that someone is misrepresenting Polyakov. So, I went looking around TCS and found the article from which the plot came. If you want more from Polyakov (without the TCS filter telling you what to believe), here's an article he actually wrote: http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~igor/research/am plif/amplif_jul02_2.pdf
That's the funny thing about those denying global warming. If you actually read the few scientific articles they say support their position, you usually find out that those articles do NOT support their position.
Would it make it automatically true if someone told you that this food shifted from edible to toxic again because of something man did to alter its growing conditions?
No, but if they explained to me how it was happening, I'd definitely listen to them. If I were capable of understanding what they said (which in this case, I am) I'd examine their explanations to see if they make sense (and they do). If I were incapable of understanding what they said, the only option would be to figure out who to trust. If the option were either the food scientists (who explained why the alteration was happening) or those selling the food (who at first denied it was toxic at all), I'd trust the food scientists.
What if there were other very reputable people who researched the food and found that the change was simply a phase the food item went through, and that man had nothing to do with its sudden toxicity?
Very good question. Can you find one such person with respect to anthropogenic global warming? All the scientists that I know of cited by ExxonMobil and friends actually believe that AGW is real, just not as serious as most climatologists believe it is. For example, Dr. Michaels believes that technology will automagically appear that fixes the problem (akin to believing that doctors will find a cure for the toxicity), but does not deny AGW itself.
Would it automatically make the person a fool to point this out?
No. However, he is a fool if after pointing this out he discovers that every food scientist on the planet is aware of this, and are quite certain that it's something man does that is causing the current toxicity, and he still believes that it's just natural because those selling him the food tell him so. (After all, pointing out that they're the ones selling the food is just an ad hominem attack, right?)
P.S.: Your analogy isn't that bad considering many of those behind the disinformation campaign on AGW were also behind denying that smoking is bad for you.
For the first link, I didn't realize it was password protected. As I have a University proxy account, I evidently got past the password protection without even realizing it was there. The second link was an copy-and-paste error.
Here's the most salient quote from the article: "President Bush concedes that humans are warming Earth but sees more research and better technology as the solution." Unfortunately, that's most likely doublespeak for "do nothing". Still, admitting you have a problem is an important first step.
If you Google on "Bush anthropogenic global warming", you'll probably be able to find articles that aren't password protected that back up what I'm saying.
The highest global temperatures of the 20th century were in the 1990's, not the 1930's. I'm definitely no expert on the dust bowl, however, and I could easily have some of my facts wrong.
Here's another one! What happens to the temperature of the water if you put a pot of ice water over a flame?
(Answer: the average temperature barely changes until all the ice melts. Then, it skyrockets! Luckily, we're not in a pot of ice water over a flame. Of course, neither are we in a glass of ice.)
The other was submitted to (and accepted by) a journal. Submitting to a journal, of course, is more like submitting for a grade than doing a project for a client.
Are you actually claiming that China and India would be in violoation of the Kyoto protocols if they decreased their emissions? Or, are you simply complaining that they're not forced to decrease them? There is a difference, you know. It reminds me of the time when an apartment complex claimed that the city was forcing them to raise the rates of their lowest priced units, when the reality was that the city was allowing them to raise the rates. A letter from the apartment complex actually blamed the city for the increased rates.
Again, as I said elsewhere, the Kyoto protocols are flawed. Misrepresenting them does not help explain why they're flawed..
Given that the earth has had dramatic climate changes well before people could have possibly had anything to do with it...why is that anyone who believes this could be the case here must be some type of moronic fool?
I think an open minded person would have to say there are only two or three ways to go here. The person is some type of "moronic fool" who doesn't understand the science despite their best efforts. The person is actually a shill whose livelihood depends on him and/or others not understanding it. The person hasn't read up on the climate science and has been exposed to misinformation from the likes of ExxonMobil. Personally, I usually prefer to go with the last option on most people.
As for climate changes that have gone on in the past, it's true, they have. However, if you started eating some food and noticed that it was making you ill, would you say "I think an open minded person would have to say there are only two or three ways to go here. People have died from natural causes in the past, so perhaps I'm just getting sick from natural causes. Maybe I'm getting sick from natural causes and this food is just a factor in it. Maybe this food is killing me." Would you still have that blasé approach after someone told you that there was poison in it?
Well, scientists have know for many decades that:
CO2 absorbs infrared radiation.
The levels of CO2 have been drastically increased due to human activities. (We're now at levels approximately 100 ppmv higher than the last 800,000 years. The max and min over that range only differed by about 100 ppmv!)
Absorbing infrared radiation leads to a higher thermal equilbrium point.
So, much like in the example I mentioned, the doctors have detected the poison that's "killing us". (I use quotes because that could be considered an exaggeration.) The fact that "people have died before" does not make the poison any less "lethal".
The one who confuses "get to" with "makes", or the one who calls him on it? The GP clearly emphasized that no one is forcing China to increase its greenhouse gases. The GGP post (yours) implied that increasing greenhouse gases for China was somehow part of the plan of Kyoto. That's silly. No one wants China to increase its greenhouse gases. However, since they have much lower per capita greenhouse emissions than developed nations, Kyoto acknowledges that it would be very difficult for them to acheive modernization without modest increases in greenhouse emissions. No one expects them to increase their per capita emissions beyond ours, however.
Having said that, the Kyoto Protocol IS flawed. Pointing that out whenever a discussion of global warming comes up is as useful as pointing out that Mark Foley is a pervert whenever discussing whether to vote for Republican candidate X. It seems to be a new flavor of Godwin's law. (As with Godwin's law, there are a few discussions where it's relevant, but not very many - and when it is relevant, having brought it up over and over again lessens its power as an argument.)
Although Bush has donemuch to harm the environment, denying anthropogenic global warming is not in his toolbox. I mean, as much as I hate to defend the man, we should be clear about the few things he hasn't done wrong.:)
IIRC, at least 2/3 of what you write should be your own conclusions, described in your own words, with the bulk of the rest expected to be comprise conclusions reached by others, but described in your own words. Direct quotations should not make up more than a very small part of any academic paper.
If you're writing a summary article (e.g., on the current state of data mining), then as little as 10% (or even less) could be your own conclusions. However, if you're writing about your own research, then you definitely want most of it to be your own conclusions. (The first paragraph of what you wrote, however, is spot on.)
By exposing supposed flaws in the evidence. Every good Creationist "knows", for example, that Mount St. Helens disproves all of thost geologic studies that calculate the age of the Earth. (Google on Creation Science St Helens for more information.)
Granted, as perhaps you can tell, I'm not the best person to explain this, but I suspect you get the idea...
Read up on Dick Pombo and it's easy to figure out what his motivations are. I would rather trust wildlife experts to tell me when a species has recovered than trust a politician who enjoys *eating* endangered animals.
Personally, my temperature is usually slightly below 98, which is interesting because longevity also runs in my family (primarily on my father's side).
The PATRIOT Act is probably the worst example of the list, but it's one that most slashdotters love to hate. I regret including it. However, let's consider the "Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act". In case you're not aware of what the act proposes, it proposes "recovering" threatened and endangered species by removing them from the endangered species list - therefore allowing destruction of their habitat and/or hunting of the critters. So I ask, is that a "flattering" name or is it doublespeak?
If it helps, consider who Dick Pobmo is, and why he sponsored this bill.
I apologize if you think I tricked you into reading it. I thought it very apropos considering your "stay on message" comment.
What do you make of Bush's recent statement that he's "never been stay the course"? Do you think it was just another malapropsim? (That's actually what I believe. I don't think Bush is as stupid as many would like to think. However, he does seem to have a problem with public speaking.)
Of course, then there are the more deliberate and undeniable Orwellian statements. "We don't do torture." "We never claimed Saddam was linked to 9/11." "Clear Skies Initiative", "Healthy Forests Initiative", "Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act" (this one has to be the worst doublespeak EVER), "PATRIOT act", "it's the Dems fault that the Foley scandal was released in October". Am I claiming that Bush & Co. holds a monoply on this type of talking? No. But they do seem to have perfected it.
Saying that the election officials shouldn't have hired these crooks/incompetents doesn't mean that these people aren't repsonsible for being crooks/incompetents. It just means that there's more than one group to blame! I agree with ScentCone that we shouldn't give our election officials an easy out by just blaming Diebold. But that doesn't mean that blaming Diebold is inappropriate!
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think you read what I posted. 1996 was the hottest year in the 20th century for the entire earth (the 1930's weren't even close). That the arctic had a warmer year than this does not change that fact.
I don't know much more about polar bears than I do about the dust bowl. However, in doing a little background reading, I researched Polyakov. It seems figure 2 from Polyakov disagrees with the one you posted. So, it seems that someone is misrepresenting Polyakov. So, I went looking around TCS and found the article from which the plot came. If you want more from Polyakov (without the TCS filter telling you what to believe), here's an article he actually wrote: http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~igor/research/am plif/amplif_jul02_2.pdf
That's the funny thing about those denying global warming. If you actually read the few scientific articles they say support their position, you usually find out that those articles do NOT support their position.
No, but if they explained to me how it was happening, I'd definitely listen to them. If I were capable of understanding what they said (which in this case, I am) I'd examine their explanations to see if they make sense (and they do). If I were incapable of understanding what they said, the only option would be to figure out who to trust. If the option were either the food scientists (who explained why the alteration was happening) or those selling the food (who at first denied it was toxic at all), I'd trust the food scientists.
Very good question. Can you find one such person with respect to anthropogenic global warming? All the scientists that I know of cited by ExxonMobil and friends actually believe that AGW is real, just not as serious as most climatologists believe it is. For example, Dr. Michaels believes that technology will automagically appear that fixes the problem (akin to believing that doctors will find a cure for the toxicity), but does not deny AGW itself.
No. However, he is a fool if after pointing this out he discovers that every food scientist on the planet is aware of this, and are quite certain that it's something man does that is causing the current toxicity, and he still believes that it's just natural because those selling him the food tell him so. (After all, pointing out that they're the ones selling the food is just an ad hominem attack, right?)
P.S.: Your analogy isn't that bad considering many of those behind the disinformation campaign on AGW were also behind denying that smoking is bad for you.
I've always suspected there was a connection between creation science and anthropogenic global warming denial...
For the first link, I didn't realize it was password protected. As I have a University proxy account, I evidently got past the password protection without even realizing it was there. The second link was an copy-and-paste error.
Here's the most salient quote from the article: "President Bush concedes that humans are warming Earth but sees more research and better technology as the solution." Unfortunately, that's most likely doublespeak for "do nothing". Still, admitting you have a problem is an important first step.
If you Google on "Bush anthropogenic global warming", you'll probably be able to find articles that aren't password protected that back up what I'm saying.
The highest global temperatures of the 20th century were in the 1990's, not the 1930's. I'm definitely no expert on the dust bowl, however, and I could easily have some of my facts wrong.
The Antarctic? Nope. Canada's eastern Arctic Archipelago? Nope. The Western Arctic? Nope. (See previous link) Greenland? Nope.
So, I ask you: where is it gaining?Here's another one! What happens to the temperature of the water if you put a pot of ice water over a flame?
(Answer: the average temperature barely changes until all the ice melts. Then, it skyrockets! Luckily, we're not in a pot of ice water over a flame. Of course, neither are we in a glass of ice.)
The other was submitted to (and accepted by) a journal. Submitting to a journal, of course, is more like submitting for a grade than doing a project for a client.
Are you actually claiming that China and India would be in violoation of the Kyoto protocols if they decreased their emissions? Or, are you simply complaining that they're not forced to decrease them? There is a difference, you know. It reminds me of the time when an apartment complex claimed that the city was forcing them to raise the rates of their lowest priced units, when the reality was that the city was allowing them to raise the rates. A letter from the apartment complex actually blamed the city for the increased rates.
Again, as I said elsewhere, the Kyoto protocols are flawed. Misrepresenting them does not help explain why they're flawed..
Who knows? Maybe that's the reason he hasn't denied it.
The poor practices of landowners led the way to the dust bowl, and to the local increases in temperatures here in the US.
I think an open minded person would have to say there are only two or three ways to go here. The person is some type of "moronic fool" who doesn't understand the science despite their best efforts. The person is actually a shill whose livelihood depends on him and/or others not understanding it. The person hasn't read up on the climate science and has been exposed to misinformation from the likes of ExxonMobil. Personally, I usually prefer to go with the last option on most people.
As for climate changes that have gone on in the past, it's true, they have. However, if you started eating some food and noticed that it was making you ill, would you say "I think an open minded person would have to say there are only two or three ways to go here. People have died from natural causes in the past, so perhaps I'm just getting sick from natural causes. Maybe I'm getting sick from natural causes and this food is just a factor in it. Maybe this food is killing me." Would you still have that blasé approach after someone told you that there was poison in it?
Well, scientists have know for many decades that:
- CO2 absorbs infrared radiation.
- The levels of CO2 have been drastically increased due to human activities. (We're now at levels approximately 100 ppmv higher than the last 800,000 years. The max and min over that range only differed by about 100 ppmv!)
- Absorbing infrared radiation leads to a higher thermal equilbrium point.
So, much like in the example I mentioned, the doctors have detected the poison that's "killing us". (I use quotes because that could be considered an exaggeration.) The fact that "people have died before" does not make the poison any less "lethal".The one who confuses "get to" with "makes", or the one who calls him on it? The GP clearly emphasized that no one is forcing China to increase its greenhouse gases. The GGP post (yours) implied that increasing greenhouse gases for China was somehow part of the plan of Kyoto. That's silly. No one wants China to increase its greenhouse gases. However, since they have much lower per capita greenhouse emissions than developed nations, Kyoto acknowledges that it would be very difficult for them to acheive modernization without modest increases in greenhouse emissions. No one expects them to increase their per capita emissions beyond ours, however.
Having said that, the Kyoto Protocol IS flawed. Pointing that out whenever a discussion of global warming comes up is as useful as pointing out that Mark Foley is a pervert whenever discussing whether to vote for Republican candidate X. It seems to be a new flavor of Godwin's law. (As with Godwin's law, there are a few discussions where it's relevant, but not very many - and when it is relevant, having brought it up over and over again lessens its power as an argument.)
The current administration does not deny anthropogenic global warming. Many other conservative think tanks do, but not the Bush administration.
Although Bush has done much to harm the environment, denying anthropogenic global warming is not in his toolbox. I mean, as much as I hate to defend the man, we should be clear about the few things he hasn't done wrong. :)
If you're writing a summary article (e.g., on the current state of data mining), then as little as 10% (or even less) could be your own conclusions. However, if you're writing about your own research, then you definitely want most of it to be your own conclusions. (The first paragraph of what you wrote, however, is spot on.)
By exposing supposed flaws in the evidence. Every good Creationist "knows", for example, that Mount St. Helens disproves all of thost geologic studies that calculate the age of the Earth. (Google on Creation Science St Helens for more information.)
Granted, as perhaps you can tell, I'm not the best person to explain this, but I suspect you get the idea...
Read up on Dick Pombo and it's easy to figure out what his motivations are. I would rather trust wildlife experts to tell me when a species has recovered than trust a politician who enjoys *eating* endangered animals.
Man, that's deep in a way that I don't think most people are going to get. Oh well, their loss.
Personally, my temperature is usually slightly below 98, which is interesting because longevity also runs in my family (primarily on my father's side).
The PATRIOT Act is probably the worst example of the list, but it's one that most slashdotters love to hate. I regret including it. However, let's consider the "Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act". In case you're not aware of what the act proposes, it proposes "recovering" threatened and endangered species by removing them from the endangered species list - therefore allowing destruction of their habitat and/or hunting of the critters. So I ask, is that a "flattering" name or is it doublespeak?
If it helps, consider who Dick Pobmo is, and why he sponsored this bill.
You know, free as in beer?
(No, I don't really believe that's what they meant.)
I apologize if you think I tricked you into reading it. I thought it very apropos considering your "stay on message" comment.
What do you make of Bush's recent statement that he's "never been stay the course"? Do you think it was just another malapropsim? (That's actually what I believe. I don't think Bush is as stupid as many would like to think. However, he does seem to have a problem with public speaking.)
Of course, then there are the more deliberate and undeniable Orwellian statements. "We don't do torture." "We never claimed Saddam was linked to 9/11." "Clear Skies Initiative", "Healthy Forests Initiative", "Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act" (this one has to be the worst doublespeak EVER), "PATRIOT act", "it's the Dems fault that the Foley scandal was released in October". Am I claiming that Bush & Co. holds a monoply on this type of talking? No. But they do seem to have perfected it.
Speaking of staying on message, I recommend reading this journal entry. Or, go straight to the story it refers to.
Saying that the election officials shouldn't have hired these crooks/incompetents doesn't mean that these people aren't repsonsible for being crooks/incompetents. It just means that there's more than one group to blame! I agree with ScentCone that we shouldn't give our election officials an easy out by just blaming Diebold. But that doesn't mean that blaming Diebold is inappropriate!
This isn't an either/or.