I should take the word of a UK paper's equivalent of Glenn Beck as scientifically sound explanation and reasoning?
o_O
If you'd actually read the research papers where the data was used, it tells you exactly how the data used (including why they don't use it as a proxy for modern data). There's no conspiracy or mystery here.
If you have several proxy data sets that indicate warmer or cooler temperatures including the flora/fauna record and you have one that is out of sync, then in all probability that data set is suspect.
Throwing out data when it doesn't match your preconceived notions (as evidence by data you collected previously) is cherry-picking.
Oh yes, that is cherry picking. But that isn't what happened.
The tree ring proxy data matched very well with all other proxy data sets UNTIL around the 1950's. At that point, the tree ring data started diverging significantly from the temperature record that WE as human beings were recording with THERMOMETERS. That is why the tree ring proxy data from that point forward was abandoned, because it did not accurately reflect the OBSERVED temperature record.
If a proposed proxy doesn't match, it deserves further investigation.
Indeed. In fact, it could be a lot more telling when a reliable proxy suddenly starts becoming unreliable. We have had significant impacts on our environment aside from CO2 so perhaps it's related.
Furthermore, if a proposed proxy has a discontinuity (matching for a long time, then suddenly unmatching, like Briffa's tree-rings), you cannot just throw out the data from that series that you don't like - the whole series is suspect (and the fact that other proxies match it for historical periods may actually cast doubt on their accuracy).
If there were only one other proxy, I would agree with you. If there no other findings or observations, I would agree with you. But that is not the case.
In the case of tree rings, yes perhaps there was just a strong correlation with the other proxies by chance over the past thousands of years or so. Perhaps further research (which is ongoing) will show that tree rings really aren't that good and the whole set will be thrown out. But it is very unlikely that all the proxies are incorrect. That would be astounding for other reasons, and not many of them would be good ones.
Even if, for the sake of argument, you threw out Briffa's work entirely. That still does not negate the thousands of other research papers, models, data sets, etc. that have nothing to do with tree rings.
It's science. You may well be vindicated on further research. You may not. It may turn out that a skeptic will finally provide a model that shows adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will not appreciably affect global temperatures. Maybe a brilliant climatologist will eventually show how the current warming trend can be easily explained by a coincidental matching of parameters and it ill go back to normal in 20 years. Maybe it will turn out that there really is a global Illuminati backed scheme that through climate scientists they are working to take over the world. Science, after all, is not perfect.
However, until new research indicates otherwise (or less likely, irrefutable proof of a global conspiracy) I'm going to stick with the scientific consensus.
First off, they changed the name to sway peoples opinions, that's not science, that's politics.
No, they didn't. How the hell is climate change any better than AGW to the public? How many times have you heard idiotic talking heads on TV proclaim something similar to "It's been so cold, so much for global warming!".
In scientific circles, the names are used interchangeably. They both mean the same thing to people who actually understand what it is they imply. Climate change is a dumbed down term for the masses, since it appears most people can't understand that just because temperatures are going up overall DOES NOT MEAN tmeperatures are going up everywhere.
Second, it is not logical to look at one complex system and say we can't go more then a week out, and then look at another infinitely more complex system and say we can go 100 years out.
Oh yes it is, and we do it all the time. For example, take a look at orbital dynamics, quantum mechanics, or fluid dynamics. All of these are complex systems that we regularly model to make long range predictions. There are models that are used to predict engine wear for cars, to predict the breakdown rates of motor oils, to predict the expected lifetime of airframes, etc. . All of these take a complex system and model it, usually through monte carlo type simulations, to get an idea of what will happen.
I understand that climatology and meteorology are not the same. The main difference is meteorology looks at the short term and climatology looks at the long term of the same thing - weather patterns.
No they don't. Meteorology looks at very short term high frequency features of the earth's atmosphere to create high accuracy forecasts. Due to this, the calculations become noisy very quickly so forecasts are only somewhat reliable after you get more than a few days out.
Climatology, on the other hand, looks at the macro scale features of the Earth's climate and how various aspect impact the climate. Weather does not play a direct role, only the macro type weather features such as average precipitation and such.
To put it simply, meteorology is like trying to predict the path of an air molecule in a balloon. Climatology is trying to predict the overall state of the balloon. Since climatology is looking mainly at the large scale features of the planet, it is A LOT less noisy than meteorology.
And since all current data that Climatologists are getting is the same as the meteorologists, they should both have the same error in their data, and since the climatologists go further into the future, that error would be propagated much more.
No. Climatologists use data going a lot farther back the meteorological data. It's also coarser, both spatially and temporally. You ignorantly claim that this implies greater error, when in fact it is just the opposite. Large scale long term phenomena are EASIER to predict because the data is smoothed out.
As a really simple example, you know it is colder in the northern hemisphere in winter. In fact, you can, with very high confidence, say which month is the coldest month of the year. Even with a very very basic climate model you can determine this.
However, if you were to say on which a blizzard would occur, that's meteorology. Predicting that with any sort of confidence is equivalent to random chance.
So maybe instead of coming out and saying this is what is happening to the planet, they would find out if their data is good enough to use, but they didn't, they released their findings using said tree ring data without knowing for sure if it was ok to use, that is not science. You don't use data for scientific conclusions unless you know its good data, not it might be good data.
Again, you have demonstrated a clear lack of understanding about the subject material. Then you go ahead and discredit and or dismiss the legitimate science and
? Are you saying radioactive decay is calculated by using a computer model using hundreds of poorly understood variables (with hundreds, if not thousands of "unknown unknowns"), with very little verification -- similar to climatology science?
While the example is poor, your rebuttal questions shows you know jack about climate models.
You can have a simple 1D climate model that will demonstrate planetary warming based on a handful of well understood parameters. Of course, a 1D model won't tell you a whole lot more than that. In fact, you can drive a full climate model on just small group of critical prognostic quantities. Check out Model E for example (which is a publicly available climate model complete with the data sets to drive it). The model restart files can be stripped down to something like 7 main components.
But what if you want some finer grained information? How does the atmospheric chemistry effect ozone in the stratosphere? How strong are the cooling effects of sulfur dioxide? What is the impact of a.1% change in albedo at the north pole due to pollution? While some of these things only make slight impacts, together they may accelerate or slow down climate change. But in order to study such things, scientists need to gather data AND add more components to the climate model that they're using.
The core of a climate model is, relatively speaking, is very simple. But if you want to study other aspects of the climate you have to add to that core, or roll your own. Be that as it may, even the most basic climate models, which again can use just a few parameters, show that increasing tropospheric CO2 yields a warmer planet on average.
But can you imagine what would be said if a climate scientist held up a simple model? Your argument would then be "it ain't got 'nough parememeters so it kent be right!".
If you think climatology is as solid as physics, chemistry or evolution, then you are simply ignorant of how they all work.
So are you it seems. The climate models ARE based on chemistry, physics, fluid dynamics, atmospheric dynamics, etc.. It's not like they just sat around and said "Hey, let's through a bunch of FORTRAN together and make some shit up." A point argued out of ignorance is still ignorant.
Go ask a climatologist research if they think their theories and models are as provably accurate as, say, relativity theory, molecular theory or evolutionary theory
The theories, yes. The various formulas you come across in climate science are very well established, drawing on everything from EM theory to chemistry. The theories are very solid.
But models are never solid. Anything that includes chaotic interaction (of which, all your mentioned areas have) can never be perfectly modeled. Hence the need for running large ensembles and using statistical methods to get useful information out of them (though depending on what your looking for, you may not need to go so far). This is also why models come with expectations of error and a thorough analysis of the error.
I refuse to believe there is one out there that is so dishonest that they would say their level of knowledge is on par with physicists or chemists.
That's going to come as quite a surprise to all the physicists and chemists in the field. You seem to be under an impression that climate science is somehow an independent field from physics and chemistry, which is most certainly not the case. Read down any roster of climate research groups. You'll find people from fields as diverse as astronomy to computer science.
I lost faith in the climatologists when they stopped calling it global warming and went for the more neutral "climate change." If that isn't an example of politicizing their own debate then I don't know what is.
What are you talking about? The changed the terminology because most of population, including the mediatainment knowledge-pudding dispensing machine, couldn't muster the neurons to figure out that GLOBAL WARMING != WARM EVERYWHERE. Apparently the concept of global average temperatures increasing and the sometimes non-intuitive results were just too damn complicated and confusing.
In an effort to make things less confounding, they chose climate change. The thinking was to use a term that was temperature neutral and perhaps lower the instances of Joe Simpleton's response of "It dar be cold here, ain't no global wooormin'!".
I hold a skeptics view to the whole Global Warming thing, they say that this is what the earth will do in 100 years...yet they can't guess what its going to do next week with any certainty.
No, you don't hold a skeptics view. You hold an ignorant view. You're statement clearly shows you don't know anything about computer modeling of complex phenomena. You also demonstrate that you don't understand the difference between meteorology and climatology.
You see, a real skeptic is someone who is educated and understand the material they are skeptical about. You're more like the pitchfork and torch wielding peasant; uneducated but fervent in your beliefs.
That and I just read two articles on two different news sites on the Same Day, One claiming that the Spring storms come later and later each year due to global warming and the other claiming that spring comes earlier and earlier due to it.
Again, your criticizing something you don't understand. Try studying (at least) meteorology.
Also, how the hell can they use data that seems to work for centuries "tree rings" and then STOP using it when it doesn't support their conclusions over the past few decades ie the whole Hide the Decline Fiasco.
o_O
It wasn't just tree rings. Look, we don't have climatological data from satellites going back millions of years, so scientists from various branches use proxies. In the case of climatology, scientists use MULTIPLE proxies in order to get a general idea of what the Earth's climate was like.
Now in order to get an accurate picture, and indeed, to even use the proxy it has to "check out" with all the rest of data. If a proposed proxy doesn't match (within reason) the other data then it is tossed out.
In this particular case, the tree ring data held up well as a proxy compared with other sources of data (sediments, isotopes, etc.). However, just recently (within the past 100 years) the tree ring data started to diverge significantly. More to the point, it started to diverge from the actual temperature record (this is being researched). So what do you do? Use the human temperature record which is far more robust and accurate or do you use the RECENT tree ring data which seems to be expressing a flaw?
Upon further research it may turn out that tree ring data is not a good proxy and the whole data set will be thrown out. Any research based on that data set will have to be redone. The process is called science.
Be that as it may, you can't really be a skeptic without having any knowledge of subject your being skeptical about (at least in a scientific aspect). There are legitimate skeptics out there. The ask good solid questions and bring up salient points. But basing your skepticism on your own ignorance of the subject material is like building your house on quicksand.
Come with me brother, and I shall enlighten you to the ways of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He shall caress you with his noodley appendage, and annoint thee with the sauce from his meaty balls. Ramen.
I fail to see what the problem with sexting is. If consenting adults wish to send pornography to each other I could really give a rat's ass less.
"Think of the children!"
I am. I'm thinking about how idiotic selfish parents are so consumed by their own lives that they don't bother to raise their own children anymore. Instead, they repeatedly try to legislate their version of morality onto the rest of population so that it's "one less thing they have to worry about".
Worried about sexting? Don't get a phone with those capabilities for your kid.
Corporations may not be patriotic, but does "patriotic loyalty" demand that we take no steps to reduce our taxes?
I don't think I implied that. There's nothing wrong with reducing your tax burden. The problem comes when you eliminate your tax burden entirely.
If you live/work in this country then you should contribute your fair share. That's it.
But companies like Exxon aren't playing fair. The average US citizen can't hide their income streams in offshore accounts or shell corporations that just have a PO box. And if they did they'd get locked up.
Companies like Exxon make large uses of OUR infrastructure, and pay nothing for it. If you don't feel like these companies aren't ripping you off then you're not paying attention.
Is the government such an omnibenevolent entity that sending money elsewhere is morally repugnant?
The government nominally has to answer to the people. Companies don't answer to anyone. Even their shareholders (as long as they're not majority shareholders).
Hasn't the Supreme Court maintained that tax avoidance is not tax evasion, and that reduction of taxes within the scope that the law permits is A-OK not-morally-repugnant-at-all?
Tax avoidance is fine. In fact, I would have no problems with you not paying taxes at all. Under one condition though: you cannot use any publicly funded infrastructure/entities/etc. . If you don't want to pay for it, you don't get it.
That's what pisses me off. These big ass corporations, some of which we just bailed out, make huge uses out of our publicly funded entities and infrastructure. And yet most of them pay almost nothing in federal taxes. In fact, some of them also get subsidies.
I don't care if they don't pay taxes. I just don't want them to get all the perks for free.
And where does all that tax savings go, anyway?
Not where you think it does.
Corporations themselves are frequently called "greedy" but they don't really have much need to accumulate tons of money for their own bank accounts;
Bank accounts? Why would a corporation put money in a bank account? That's an extremely lousy asset.
No, corporations have far more creative uses for that income. You won't see a lot of it of course, since the money is offshore and not necessarily subject to the same rules and regulations that we have here in the US. But a chunk of it goes to lobbying/bribing/whatever in order to ensure the sweet deals keep coming their way. Another chunk of it goes to the top of the pyramid. Another chunk goes to Coorporate penthouses, jets, Mercedes, etc. . So on and so forth.
Corporations have LOTS of uses for extra income that doesn't necessarily show itself on the books. Only a foolish business would keep cash lying around.
it's not like General Electric is saving up to buy a really nice condo for itself.
O_o
Corporations are always buying condos/jets/cars/yachts/etc. . It's a nice way to give the big boys toys to play with without it showing up as compensation (while giving the company a way to write off more taxes through depreciating assets).
Doesn't the money either go towards income for shareholders (which is taxed, except for those things like IRAs and ESAs that we've decided are noble and good)
Not really, unless there is a dividend. And even that is paltry compared to the amount saved by not paying taxes.
or investments into business somewhere (which will presumably generate income for shareholders in the future, and generates economic activity in the present?)
Companies only invest when it is profitable to do so. "Safe" investments, like buying out a competitor and dissolving them for example. These days even that is taking a back set to the manufacture and sale of imaginary financial products.
Reality is nothing more than your brain interpreting the stimulus it receives. All it takes is a few chemicals or some brain damage or some malformed neurological constructs and suddenly your reality is very much different than what everyone else perceives.
The horseshit is using faith instead of fact to determine whether or not something exists. This research showed that NDEs can be reproduced through chemical stimulation. So what's more likely? That NDEs are caused by a hyperactive brain just before death or that there really is a heaven with some god/goddess sitting there? Occam's razor.
Taking away our believes, in a better life afterwards, makes people lose hope for this live, losing the moral, making humankind do all kind of bad things, making live for themselves or for others unlivable.
No it doesn't. Secular groups like Humanists believe in making the world better for the sake of future generations. Humanists don't believe in holy wars, or prostrating yourself before some figurehead who claims to speak for some magical cloud people. They believe in the progress and sustainability of the human species.
That's more than I can say for mainstream religions.
Do you honestly think blind people have no sense of self? Do you think they always dream of darkness? Do you think a blind person on acid would experience no hallucinations?
Just because someone is blind does not mean that their visual cortex does not function. In fact, I think their "visual" experiences would be far more dramatic since their brains are not constrained by the boundaries imposed by a lifetime of normal sight.
Heaven (or whatever you want to call it) is a HIGHLY subjective place. Your idea of what it is an my idea of what it is could be very different. Who is right?
Heaven is a construct of the mind. If it exists (which in my opinion it doesn't), then it is nothing like what people think it is.
Even if you don't tax them, they'll still move to India.
Corporations are not altruistic. They are not working for the good of the world or their fellow humans. They have no patriotic loyalty. The people who run them possibly less so. Corporations are looking for profit. More importantly, profit with the least amount of cost. They will do anything and everything they can to meet this end, including illegal activities if the penalties are small compared to the potential profit.
But the best part comes later. When a corporation becomes as large as Citibank or AIG, there's hardly any measures that can be enacted to punish them without having grievous consequences elsewhere. The people at the top have so much money and so many resources that trying to get their asses in jail is like trying to nail jello to the wall with a nail made out water and a hammer made out of meat.
Companies have all the rights of citizen with none of the penalties. In fact they have more rights than citizens do. They are meta-citizens. This wouldn't be a problem if they had a shred of human decency. The only time good works come into play is when there is profit (monetary or political goodwill).
Point being, it doesn't matter what we do. The corporations are going to go where it is most profitable. It doesn't matter what we tax or what kind of legislation is passed, they'll just go somewhere else. In any case, a company doesn't need to be anywhere near you to rake your ass over the coals these days.
Anyone else here think that we are not in a corporatocracy yet? Events like this are just plain fucking insulting.
You don't even need to destroy the company. Just take every asshat involved in the fraud and lock them away for life. Or better yet, take a chunk of their patent portfolio and invalidate it, then forbid the company from downsizing anyone below a certain level/pay grade.
Why doesn't anyone have the balls to put some HURT on these assholes? This is like punishing a two year old for sneaking a cookie by letting him keep the cookie.
Where are their papers? Where is their research? Where are their models that invalidates the current research/models?
Any idiot can stand around and poke holes (or claim to). That's easy. The creationist and ID-ers have been doing it to evolutionists for decades. But from the skeptical camp (the real skeptics, not the mad-dog skeptics) there has been little if any published research an no models I know of.
When Einstein came up with relativity, an experiment was developed to validate it (the precession of Mercury). If the skeptics have something like that, a way to show that the climate will NOT be impacted by additional green house gas input AND can explain why we are currently seeing the climatic changes that we are seeing now, then in the name of $DIETY please publish it!
People who study historical records, geological strata, human migratorial patterns, etc. . You know. Scientists.
The same people who have a) think climate change is extremely important threat to humanity now to the point that some of them have worked out ways to obstruct skeptical inquiry
Logical fallacy. Try again.
, b) receive considerable funds...
Considerable? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
The entire budget for publicly funded climate research for the US is $2 billion, and the majority of that is being used to put up new weather satellites that can ALSO be used for climate research.
The average salary of an established climate researcher is about $75K.
Only a complete idiot believes that climate researchers are doing this for the money. You don't get rich being a climate researcher.
from government agencies that would benefit bureaucratically from exaggerating the threat of climate change, and
As opposed to say, an endless war on terror? Or a pre-emptive war in Iraq?
Listen buddy, I'm not sure what kind of glasses you have but you really need to take them off and look around. Climate science is dirt fucking cheap compared to almost every other venue in the federal budget.
c)thus have incentive to downplay past instances of climate change in order to exaggerate the current risk from human activities.
You've followed logical fallacy with logically fallacy and have come to a conclusion that is...well...a fallacy.
You may well be right. But it's worth noting that the small climate shifts weren't small to the regions effected. That may well mean they weren't small at all.
Some climate changes were local. Others were short lived. In either case, societies develop to live within their particular part of the ecosystem. If mother nature throws a fit that civilization suffered the consequences.
You seem very assured that our technological advances can handle anything mother nature can throw at us. That's pretty arrogant. While only the raving lunatics cry that climate change will end the world (it won't) we are not so technologically advance that we don't still rely heavily on mother nature. A ten year drought in the midwest, for example, would bring a world of hurt to the US.
Sure you can. And it's not a whim unless you think feeding people is a whim. And you have yet to explain why farming can't move north. The "narrow range" isn't that narrow.
Oh farming could move north. What I was pointing out is you don't up and move the agricultural center that feeds 300 million people in a year. To do so would take a considerable amount of effort, time and resources. In the meantime, you would also need interim contingency plans to handle what happens when a loaf of bread suddenly costs $10 or $20.
Don't get me wrong. I don't believe climate change is going to end the world. But it will have it's impacts and some of them may end up being pretty bad. We'll adapt of course, but there will be a cost and it won't be cheap.
I fall into an odd category. I believe GW exists. I don't believe there is evidence which supports man is the sole cause. Personally, I'm extremely perplexed by those who don't believe in GW, but I digress. According to the people who actually develop advanced climate computer simulations, their own models are flawed and still need lots of continued research, development, and new data. Every year, as new data comes out, they are forced to further adjust their entire models; which seemingly don't even correlate over decades, let alone centuries.
Bullshit. Every credible climate model performs calibration runs which simulates historical climate. If they start their model two hundred years in the past and they can't get within a margin of error of today's climate then the model isn't used.
And yes, whenever a new discovery or better measure or better data comes along then it is incorporated into the models, which makes them more accurate. This is NO DIFFERENT than any other computer simulation model out there. There's nothing forced about this, it's STANDARD PRACTICE.
Most importantly, ALL MODELS ARE FLAWED. Any model that simulates a complex system is, by nature, inaccurate. That's why all models are subjected to error analysis to study and quantify those errors. It's a very important part of the process. If you've perused any research based off computer simulations you'll often find something mentioning results are within some bound of error.
Not the least of which, and extremely interesting to me, science has proved magnetic pole reversal is a real phenomenon here on Earth. More recent research, which was until fairly recently unknown, indicates as the poles continue to migrate away from their axial locations, the Earth's magnetosphere will continue to weaken. This is a historical fact that such things have repeatedly happened in the past. As the magnetosphere weakens, much more radiation reaches the Earth's surface. While its known it poses a risk to both life and artificial satellites, I've not heard of any research which attempts to correlate huge increases of radiation and significantly weakened magnetosphere protection with climate research.
Yes there has been. You aren't looking hard enough.
Oddly enough, I have repeatedly heard astrophysicists who claim only minor solar output changes can drastically affect climate change. In this case, seemingly, solar output need not change since the levels received are increasing because of a naturally occurring decrease in Earth's protection.
And according to my dentist, if I use an extra gallon of water on my garden it will grow twice as big.
Point being, an astrophysicist is not a climatologist, or vice versa. Solar output is but one of MANY factors in climate and climate modeling. For instance, if the sun dimmed by 1% but CO2 doubled, global temps would still rise. In the case of a planet like Venus, solar output would need to decrease quite a bit before it had an appreciable affect on it's climate.
Since the weakening of the magnetosphere and its inverse increase of radiation seems to mirror that of climate change, to which man is attributed, it seems to shout loudly that those who claim man is behind GW, are woefully ignorant.
No. No. No.
Only the completely naive or ignorant honestly think that climate scientists who study climatological phenomenology for A LIVING would miss something so COMPLETELY FUCKING OBVIOUS. That's as bead as accusing them of not taking into account solar fluctuations in their models.
Especially since I'm not aware of any such research.
I know. It's hard to use google.
And ultimately, that's the real problem. The more we learn, the more we learn we don't know or understand. We are constantly finding significant and new, first order variables which drive our climate.
History is replete with example of how even small climate shifts can result in devastating impacts on society.
A few years of drought in the Midwest US would be quite devastating. And yes, you do need adequate conditions for crops to produce a good yield. Too little or too much water, too little or too much heat can take a thriving crop and destroy it. Just ask any orange producer in Florida how devastating a late season frost can be to their crops.
You also make the ludicrous assumption that food production can "just move north". It doesn't work that way. You can't just shift a million acres of food production on a whim. Nor can you just start growing on any old piece of soil. Modern day agriculture is a large and complex beast that requires good planning as well as infrastructure to support it.
Our entire food system is built around our current climate, and has a fairly narrow range for maximum yield. New climate conditions or even just new parasites moving in where they've never been before can easily disrupt food production.
I think what he was referring to is related to is the rather infamous quote: "The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter."
Specifically, the problem he is referring to is that democracy is not a good way to enact actions based on unpopular scientific findings. For example, look at tobacco, acid rain, vehicle safety, ozone depletion, or any other issue that would directly impact moneyed interest or people's habits. In almost every case adequate warnings, regulations, and/or legislation to years or decades longer to implement than it would/should have. Why? Mainly selfishness, from the end consumer up to the corporate conglomerates. We want it all and we want it now and $DIETY and fuck everything else.
In these cases you had a body of scientific evidence on one side screaming that bad shit is happening or is going to happen and on the other side you have corporate/consumer America. It's not even a contest. Most big companies spend more in a year on advertising and PR ALONE than any set of grants doled out to researchers COMBINED. It doesn't matter how good a case the scientists make. They don't have a PR machine. They have their research and that just doesn't hold a candle to the mind-numbing media blitz any big corporate interests can put on to the masses who already lack critical analysis skills.
A danger of democracy is when a lies are voted as truth, when fiction trumps fact, and when belief deposes reason. Unpopular scientific research has faced this on multiple occasions, and still faces it today.
This whole 'carbon footprint' and 'green' malarky is just a way to make us feel bad about pretty much anything we do even though we might be able to afford it and so the eventual aim seems to be to usher in an authoritarian regime where everybody is given the absolute minimum necessary to survive.
I think you misspelled corporatocracy.
The "green" malarky that you refer to is about finding a way to SUSTAIN ourselves. We are not sustaining, we are consuming (and at increasing rates). We are not replacing what we consume and recycling is still a far cry from where it needs to be. We will not be able to continue along our current path for much longer. The Earth does have limits and it really isn't too far in our future when we're going to hit those limits.
These doomsday environmentalists are not helping the situation one bit - I am actually interested in renewable energy, electric cars and so on but each time one of these guys opens their mouth I feel like jumping into the car and pouring 70 litres of petrol into the tank while I'm still allowed, you know.
Out of spite? One person does not a quorom make.
Before we are all thrown into a supermassive apartment block and given only rice crackers and water to live off. If we are lucky they might allow us a single CFL in our cell and the very obedient are allowed a recycled netbook with Google Chrome OS or similar Web-only OS.
What are you talking about? We've got a single planet. Just one. We've got only so many resources. A wise species, upon realizing this, would IMMEDIATELY begin work on coming up with ways to sustain their race for the long haul, not spend through resources like drunken sailors (or RNC members at a strip club). And only the naive think they can have their cake and eat it too.
Meanwhile the politicians and scientists behind this regime will obviously be livin' the good live on some island with all the fuel and personal freedom they could possibly ever think of asking for.
O_o
Loosen the tin foil hat buddy. Their is no regime. There is no conspiracy. There are fringe groups (Green Peace, Drill baby Drill), but the vast majority of people of people concerned about the environment are thinking about the future. Not just their immediate future but the future hundreds of years from now.
Now, technology might be developed to allay all concerns but what will the price of that be. How far can we go before nature really starts putting the hurt on us? How many thousands or millions get to suffer before we finally start taking our sustainability seriously? Perhaps not many, or perhaps we'll be looking at a global "French Revolution" style event when the poor unwashed masses finally get fed up.
There's a reasonable expectation for safety with everything you buy.
I'm not in favor of cases that essentially amount to user error. Nor am I in favor of this particular verdict.
However the original statement I was responding to was "If there is a market for it, then we should be able to sell it". My counter argument is that this statement is ludicrous, as it implies everyone would have to an expert in everything in order to ensure the safety of the product they buy.
Back to the case, table saws come with plenty of warnings and explicit safety instructions. This idiot ignored those instructions. The company is not at fault.
Only if your a sociopath. You're basically okaying the exploitation of people's ignorance.
I should be able to by food that won't kill me and DOESN'T require me to be an organic chemist/microbiologist to determine whether or not it can. I also shouldn't have to be an auto-mechanic to ensure that the car I drive won't explode into a fireball while I drive it.
That being said, I don't agree with this verdict. If your already perfoming unsafe actions a safety feature is only going to do so much.
Slashdot Mirror
I should take the word of a UK paper's equivalent of Glenn Beck as scientifically sound explanation and reasoning?
o_O
If you'd actually read the research papers where the data was used, it tells you exactly how the data used (including why they don't use it as a proxy for modern data). There's no conspiracy or mystery here.
~X~
That's classic confirmation bias.
No it isn't.
If you have several proxy data sets that indicate warmer or cooler temperatures including the flora/fauna record and you have one that is out of sync, then in all probability that data set is suspect.
Throwing out data when it doesn't match your preconceived notions (as evidence by data you collected previously) is cherry-picking.
Oh yes, that is cherry picking. But that isn't what happened.
The tree ring proxy data matched very well with all other proxy data sets UNTIL around the 1950's. At that point, the tree ring data started diverging significantly from the temperature record that WE as human beings were recording with THERMOMETERS. That is why the tree ring proxy data from that point forward was abandoned, because it did not accurately reflect the OBSERVED temperature record.
If a proposed proxy doesn't match, it deserves further investigation.
Indeed. In fact, it could be a lot more telling when a reliable proxy suddenly starts becoming unreliable. We have had significant impacts on our environment aside from CO2 so perhaps it's related.
Furthermore, if a proposed proxy has a discontinuity (matching for a long time, then suddenly unmatching, like Briffa's tree-rings), you cannot just throw out the data from that series that you don't like - the whole series is suspect (and the fact that other proxies match it for historical periods may actually cast doubt on their accuracy).
If there were only one other proxy, I would agree with you. If there no other findings or observations, I would agree with you. But that is not the case.
In the case of tree rings, yes perhaps there was just a strong correlation with the other proxies by chance over the past thousands of years or so. Perhaps further research (which is ongoing) will show that tree rings really aren't that good and the whole set will be thrown out. But it is very unlikely that all the proxies are incorrect. That would be astounding for other reasons, and not many of them would be good ones.
Even if, for the sake of argument, you threw out Briffa's work entirely. That still does not negate the thousands of other research papers, models, data sets, etc. that have nothing to do with tree rings.
It's science. You may well be vindicated on further research. You may not. It may turn out that a skeptic will finally provide a model that shows adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will not appreciably affect global temperatures. Maybe a brilliant climatologist will eventually show how the current warming trend can be easily explained by a coincidental matching of parameters and it ill go back to normal in 20 years. Maybe it will turn out that there really is a global Illuminati backed scheme that through climate scientists they are working to take over the world. Science, after all, is not perfect.
However, until new research indicates otherwise (or less likely, irrefutable proof of a global conspiracy) I'm going to stick with the scientific consensus.
~X~
First off, they changed the name to sway peoples opinions, that's not science, that's politics.
No, they didn't. How the hell is climate change any better than AGW to the public? How many times have you heard idiotic talking heads on TV proclaim something similar to "It's been so cold, so much for global warming!".
In scientific circles, the names are used interchangeably. They both mean the same thing to people who actually understand what it is they imply. Climate change is a dumbed down term for the masses, since it appears most people can't understand that just because temperatures are going up overall DOES NOT MEAN tmeperatures are going up everywhere.
Second, it is not logical to look at one complex system and say we can't go more then a week out, and then look at another infinitely more complex system and say we can go 100 years out.
Oh yes it is, and we do it all the time. For example, take a look at orbital dynamics, quantum mechanics, or fluid dynamics. All of these are complex systems that we regularly model to make long range predictions. There are models that are used to predict engine wear for cars, to predict the breakdown rates of motor oils, to predict the expected lifetime of airframes, etc. . All of these take a complex system and model it, usually through monte carlo type simulations, to get an idea of what will happen.
I understand that climatology and meteorology are not the same. The main difference is meteorology looks at the short term and climatology looks at the long term of the same thing - weather patterns.
No they don't. Meteorology looks at very short term high frequency features of the earth's atmosphere to create high accuracy forecasts. Due to this, the calculations become noisy very quickly so forecasts are only somewhat reliable after you get more than a few days out.
Climatology, on the other hand, looks at the macro scale features of the Earth's climate and how various aspect impact the climate. Weather does not play a direct role, only the macro type weather features such as average precipitation and such.
To put it simply, meteorology is like trying to predict the path of an air molecule in a balloon. Climatology is trying to predict the overall state of the balloon. Since climatology is looking mainly at the large scale features of the planet, it is A LOT less noisy than meteorology.
And since all current data that Climatologists are getting is the same as the meteorologists, they should both have the same error in their data, and since the climatologists go further into the future, that error would be propagated much more.
No. Climatologists use data going a lot farther back the meteorological data. It's also coarser, both spatially and temporally. You ignorantly claim that this implies greater error, when in fact it is just the opposite. Large scale long term phenomena are EASIER to predict because the data is smoothed out.
As a really simple example, you know it is colder in the northern hemisphere in winter. In fact, you can, with very high confidence, say which month is the coldest month of the year. Even with a very very basic climate model you can determine this.
However, if you were to say on which a blizzard would occur, that's meteorology. Predicting that with any sort of confidence is equivalent to random chance.
So maybe instead of coming out and saying this is what is happening to the planet, they would find out if their data is good enough to use, but they didn't, they released their findings using said tree ring data without knowing for sure if it was ok to use, that is not science. You don't use data for scientific conclusions unless you know its good data, not it might be good data.
Again, you have demonstrated a clear lack of understanding about the subject material. Then you go ahead and discredit and or dismiss the legitimate science and
? Are you saying radioactive decay is calculated by using a computer model using hundreds of poorly understood variables (with hundreds, if not thousands of "unknown unknowns"), with very little verification -- similar to climatology science?
While the example is poor, your rebuttal questions shows you know jack about climate models.
You can have a simple 1D climate model that will demonstrate planetary warming based on a handful of well understood parameters. Of course, a 1D model won't tell you a whole lot more than that. In fact, you can drive a full climate model on just small group of critical prognostic quantities. Check out Model E for example (which is a publicly available climate model complete with the data sets to drive it). The model restart files can be stripped down to something like 7 main components.
But what if you want some finer grained information? How does the atmospheric chemistry effect ozone in the stratosphere? How strong are the cooling effects of sulfur dioxide? What is the impact of a .1% change in albedo at the north pole due to pollution? While some of these things only make slight impacts, together they may accelerate or slow down climate change. But in order to study such things, scientists need to gather data AND add more components to the climate model that they're using.
The core of a climate model is, relatively speaking, is very simple. But if you want to study other aspects of the climate you have to add to that core, or roll your own. Be that as it may, even the most basic climate models, which again can use just a few parameters, show that increasing tropospheric CO2 yields a warmer planet on average.
But can you imagine what would be said if a climate scientist held up a simple model? Your argument would then be "it ain't got 'nough parememeters so it kent be right!".
If you think climatology is as solid as physics, chemistry or evolution, then you are simply ignorant of how they all work.
So are you it seems. The climate models ARE based on chemistry, physics, fluid dynamics, atmospheric dynamics, etc.. It's not like they just sat around and said "Hey, let's through a bunch of FORTRAN together and make some shit up." A point argued out of ignorance is still ignorant.
Go ask a climatologist research if they think their theories and models are as provably accurate as, say, relativity theory, molecular theory or evolutionary theory
The theories, yes. The various formulas you come across in climate science are very well established, drawing on everything from EM theory to chemistry. The theories are very solid.
But models are never solid. Anything that includes chaotic interaction (of which, all your mentioned areas have) can never be perfectly modeled. Hence the need for running large ensembles and using statistical methods to get useful information out of them (though depending on what your looking for, you may not need to go so far). This is also why models come with expectations of error and a thorough analysis of the error.
I refuse to believe there is one out there that is so dishonest that they would say their level of knowledge is on par with physicists or chemists.
That's going to come as quite a surprise to all the physicists and chemists in the field. You seem to be under an impression that climate science is somehow an independent field from physics and chemistry, which is most certainly not the case. Read down any roster of climate research groups. You'll find people from fields as diverse as astronomy to computer science.
~X~
I lost faith in the climatologists when they stopped calling it global warming and went for the more neutral "climate change." If that isn't an example of politicizing their own debate then I don't know what is.
What are you talking about? The changed the terminology because most of population, including the mediatainment knowledge-pudding dispensing machine, couldn't muster the neurons to figure out that GLOBAL WARMING != WARM EVERYWHERE. Apparently the concept of global average temperatures increasing and the sometimes non-intuitive results were just too damn complicated and confusing.
In an effort to make things less confounding, they chose climate change. The thinking was to use a term that was temperature neutral and perhaps lower the instances of Joe Simpleton's response of "It dar be cold here, ain't no global wooormin'!".
I hold a skeptics view to the whole Global Warming thing, they say that this is what the earth will do in 100 years...yet they can't guess what its going to do next week with any certainty.
No, you don't hold a skeptics view. You hold an ignorant view. You're statement clearly shows you don't know anything about computer modeling of complex phenomena. You also demonstrate that you don't understand the difference between meteorology and climatology.
You see, a real skeptic is someone who is educated and understand the material they are skeptical about. You're more like the pitchfork and torch wielding peasant; uneducated but fervent in your beliefs.
That and I just read two articles on two different news sites on the Same Day, One claiming that the Spring storms come later and later each year due to global warming and the other claiming that spring comes earlier and earlier due to it.
Again, your criticizing something you don't understand. Try studying (at least) meteorology.
Also, how the hell can they use data that seems to work for centuries "tree rings" and then STOP using it when it doesn't support their conclusions over the past few decades ie the whole Hide the Decline Fiasco.
o_O
It wasn't just tree rings. Look, we don't have climatological data from satellites going back millions of years, so scientists from various branches use proxies. In the case of climatology, scientists use MULTIPLE proxies in order to get a general idea of what the Earth's climate was like.
Now in order to get an accurate picture, and indeed, to even use the proxy it has to "check out" with all the rest of data. If a proposed proxy doesn't match (within reason) the other data then it is tossed out.
In this particular case, the tree ring data held up well as a proxy compared with other sources of data (sediments, isotopes, etc.). However, just recently (within the past 100 years) the tree ring data started to diverge significantly. More to the point, it started to diverge from the actual temperature record (this is being researched). So what do you do? Use the human temperature record which is far more robust and accurate or do you use the RECENT tree ring data which seems to be expressing a flaw?
Upon further research it may turn out that tree ring data is not a good proxy and the whole data set will be thrown out. Any research based on that data set will have to be redone. The process is called science.
Be that as it may, you can't really be a skeptic without having any knowledge of subject your being skeptical about (at least in a scientific aspect). There are legitimate skeptics out there. The ask good solid questions and bring up salient points. But basing your skepticism on your own ignorance of the subject material is like building your house on quicksand.
~X~
Come with me brother, and I shall enlighten you to the ways of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He shall caress you with his noodley appendage, and annoint thee with the sauce from his meaty balls. Ramen.
~X~
I fail to see what the problem with sexting is. If consenting adults wish to send pornography to each other I could really give a rat's ass less.
"Think of the children!"
I am. I'm thinking about how idiotic selfish parents are so consumed by their own lives that they don't bother to raise their own children anymore. Instead, they repeatedly try to legislate their version of morality onto the rest of population so that it's "one less thing they have to worry about".
Worried about sexting? Don't get a phone with those capabilities for your kid.
~X~
Awww that's no fun. Lawyers always win.
~X~
Corporations may not be patriotic, but does "patriotic loyalty" demand that we take no steps to reduce our taxes?
I don't think I implied that. There's nothing wrong with reducing your tax burden. The problem comes when you eliminate your tax burden entirely.
If you live/work in this country then you should contribute your fair share. That's it.
But companies like Exxon aren't playing fair. The average US citizen can't hide their income streams in offshore accounts or shell corporations that just have a PO box. And if they did they'd get locked up.
Companies like Exxon make large uses of OUR infrastructure, and pay nothing for it. If you don't feel like these companies aren't ripping you off then you're not paying attention.
Is the government such an omnibenevolent entity that sending money elsewhere is morally repugnant?
The government nominally has to answer to the people. Companies don't answer to anyone. Even their shareholders (as long as they're not majority shareholders).
Hasn't the Supreme Court maintained that tax avoidance is not tax evasion, and that reduction of taxes within the scope that the law permits is A-OK not-morally-repugnant-at-all?
Tax avoidance is fine. In fact, I would have no problems with you not paying taxes at all. Under one condition though: you cannot use any publicly funded infrastructure/entities/etc. . If you don't want to pay for it, you don't get it.
That's what pisses me off. These big ass corporations, some of which we just bailed out, make huge uses out of our publicly funded entities and infrastructure. And yet most of them pay almost nothing in federal taxes. In fact, some of them also get subsidies.
I don't care if they don't pay taxes. I just don't want them to get all the perks for free.
And where does all that tax savings go, anyway?
Not where you think it does.
Corporations themselves are frequently called "greedy" but they don't really have much need to accumulate tons of money for their own bank accounts;
Bank accounts? Why would a corporation put money in a bank account? That's an extremely lousy asset.
No, corporations have far more creative uses for that income. You won't see a lot of it of course, since the money is offshore and not necessarily subject to the same rules and regulations that we have here in the US. But a chunk of it goes to lobbying/bribing/whatever in order to ensure the sweet deals keep coming their way. Another chunk of it goes to the top of the pyramid. Another chunk goes to Coorporate penthouses, jets, Mercedes, etc. . So on and so forth.
Corporations have LOTS of uses for extra income that doesn't necessarily show itself on the books. Only a foolish business would keep cash lying around.
it's not like General Electric is saving up to buy a really nice condo for itself.
O_o
Corporations are always buying condos/jets/cars/yachts/etc. . It's a nice way to give the big boys toys to play with without it showing up as compensation (while giving the company a way to write off more taxes through depreciating assets).
Doesn't the money either go towards income for shareholders (which is taxed, except for those things like IRAs and ESAs that we've decided are noble and good)
Not really, unless there is a dividend. And even that is paltry compared to the amount saved by not paying taxes.
or investments into business somewhere (which will presumably generate income for shareholders in the future, and generates economic activity in the present?)
Companies only invest when it is profitable to do so. "Safe" investments, like buying out a competitor and dissolving them for example. These days even that is taking a back set to the manufacture and sale of imaginary financial products.
Trickle down eco
Reality is nothing more than your brain interpreting the stimulus it receives. All it takes is a few chemicals or some brain damage or some malformed neurological constructs and suddenly your reality is very much different than what everyone else perceives.
The horseshit is using faith instead of fact to determine whether or not something exists. This research showed that NDEs can be reproduced through chemical stimulation. So what's more likely? That NDEs are caused by a hyperactive brain just before death or that there really is a heaven with some god/goddess sitting there? Occam's razor.
~X~
Taking away our believes, in a better life afterwards, makes people lose hope for this live, losing the moral, making humankind do all kind of bad things, making live for themselves or for others unlivable.
No it doesn't. Secular groups like Humanists believe in making the world better for the sake of future generations. Humanists don't believe in holy wars, or prostrating yourself before some figurehead who claims to speak for some magical cloud people. They believe in the progress and sustainability of the human species.
That's more than I can say for mainstream religions.
~X~
Do you honestly think blind people have no sense of self? Do you think they always dream of darkness? Do you think a blind person on acid would experience no hallucinations?
Just because someone is blind does not mean that their visual cortex does not function. In fact, I think their "visual" experiences would be far more dramatic since their brains are not constrained by the boundaries imposed by a lifetime of normal sight.
~X~
Heaven (or whatever you want to call it) is a HIGHLY subjective place. Your idea of what it is an my idea of what it is could be very different. Who is right?
Heaven is a construct of the mind. If it exists (which in my opinion it doesn't), then it is nothing like what people think it is.
~X~
Even if you don't tax them, they'll still move to India.
Corporations are not altruistic. They are not working for the good of the world or their fellow humans. They have no patriotic loyalty. The people who run them possibly less so. Corporations are looking for profit. More importantly, profit with the least amount of cost. They will do anything and everything they can to meet this end, including illegal activities if the penalties are small compared to the potential profit.
But the best part comes later. When a corporation becomes as large as Citibank or AIG, there's hardly any measures that can be enacted to punish them without having grievous consequences elsewhere. The people at the top have so much money and so many resources that trying to get their asses in jail is like trying to nail jello to the wall with a nail made out water and a hammer made out of meat.
Companies have all the rights of citizen with none of the penalties. In fact they have more rights than citizens do. They are meta-citizens. This wouldn't be a problem if they had a shred of human decency. The only time good works come into play is when there is profit (monetary or political goodwill).
Point being, it doesn't matter what we do. The corporations are going to go where it is most profitable. It doesn't matter what we tax or what kind of legislation is passed, they'll just go somewhere else. In any case, a company doesn't need to be anywhere near you to rake your ass over the coals these days.
~X~
Anyone else here think that we are not in a corporatocracy yet? Events like this are just plain fucking insulting.
You don't even need to destroy the company. Just take every asshat involved in the fraud and lock them away for life. Or better yet, take a chunk of their patent portfolio and invalidate it, then forbid the company from downsizing anyone below a certain level/pay grade.
Why doesn't anyone have the balls to put some HURT on these assholes? This is like punishing a two year old for sneaking a cookie by letting him keep the cookie.
~X~
And that's great. That's what science should be.
BUT....
Where are their papers? Where is their research? Where are their models that invalidates the current research/models?
Any idiot can stand around and poke holes (or claim to). That's easy. The creationist and ID-ers have been doing it to evolutionists for decades. But from the skeptical camp (the real skeptics, not the mad-dog skeptics) there has been little if any published research an no models I know of.
When Einstein came up with relativity, an experiment was developed to validate it (the precession of Mercury). If the skeptics have something like that, a way to show that the climate will NOT be impacted by additional green house gas input AND can explain why we are currently seeing the climatic changes that we are seeing now, then in the name of $DIETY please publish it!
~X~
Who gets to estimate the climate of these times?
People who study historical records, geological strata, human migratorial patterns, etc. . You know. Scientists.
The same people who have a) think climate change is extremely important threat to humanity now to the point that some of them have worked out ways to obstruct skeptical inquiry
Logical fallacy. Try again.
, b) receive considerable funds...
Considerable? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
The entire budget for publicly funded climate research for the US is $2 billion, and the majority of that is being used to put up new weather satellites that can ALSO be used for climate research.
The average salary of an established climate researcher is about $75K.
Only a complete idiot believes that climate researchers are doing this for the money. You don't get rich being a climate researcher.
from government agencies that would benefit bureaucratically from exaggerating the threat of climate change, and
As opposed to say, an endless war on terror? Or a pre-emptive war in Iraq?
Listen buddy, I'm not sure what kind of glasses you have but you really need to take them off and look around. Climate science is dirt fucking cheap compared to almost every other venue in the federal budget.
c)thus have incentive to downplay past instances of climate change in order to exaggerate the current risk from human activities.
You've followed logical fallacy with logically fallacy and have come to a conclusion that is...well...a fallacy.
You may well be right. But it's worth noting that the small climate shifts weren't small to the regions effected. That may well mean they weren't small at all.
Some climate changes were local. Others were short lived. In either case, societies develop to live within their particular part of the ecosystem. If mother nature throws a fit that civilization suffered the consequences.
You seem very assured that our technological advances can handle anything mother nature can throw at us. That's pretty arrogant. While only the raving lunatics cry that climate change will end the world (it won't) we are not so technologically advance that we don't still rely heavily on mother nature. A ten year drought in the midwest, for example, would bring a world of hurt to the US.
Sure you can. And it's not a whim unless you think feeding people is a whim. And you have yet to explain why farming can't move north. The "narrow range" isn't that narrow.
Oh farming could move north. What I was pointing out is you don't up and move the agricultural center that feeds 300 million people in a year. To do so would take a considerable amount of effort, time and resources. In the meantime, you would also need interim contingency plans to handle what happens when a loaf of bread suddenly costs $10 or $20.
Don't get me wrong. I don't believe climate change is going to end the world. But it will have it's impacts and some of them may end up being pretty bad. We'll adapt of course, but there will be a cost and it won't be cheap.
~X~
I fall into an odd category. I believe GW exists. I don't believe there is evidence which supports man is the sole cause. Personally, I'm extremely perplexed by those who don't believe in GW, but I digress. According to the people who actually develop advanced climate computer simulations, their own models are flawed and still need lots of continued research, development, and new data. Every year, as new data comes out, they are forced to further adjust their entire models; which seemingly don't even correlate over decades, let alone centuries.
Bullshit. Every credible climate model performs calibration runs which simulates historical climate. If they start their model two hundred years in the past and they can't get within a margin of error of today's climate then the model isn't used.
And yes, whenever a new discovery or better measure or better data comes along then it is incorporated into the models, which makes them more accurate. This is NO DIFFERENT than any other computer simulation model out there. There's nothing forced about this, it's STANDARD PRACTICE.
Most importantly, ALL MODELS ARE FLAWED. Any model that simulates a complex system is, by nature, inaccurate. That's why all models are subjected to error analysis to study and quantify those errors. It's a very important part of the process. If you've perused any research based off computer simulations you'll often find something mentioning results are within some bound of error.
Not the least of which, and extremely interesting to me, science has proved magnetic pole reversal is a real phenomenon here on Earth. More recent research, which was until fairly recently unknown, indicates as the poles continue to migrate away from their axial locations, the Earth's magnetosphere will continue to weaken. This is a historical fact that such things have repeatedly happened in the past. As the magnetosphere weakens, much more radiation reaches the Earth's surface. While its known it poses a risk to both life and artificial satellites, I've not heard of any research which attempts to correlate huge increases of radiation and significantly weakened magnetosphere protection with climate research.
Yes there has been. You aren't looking hard enough.
Oddly enough, I have repeatedly heard astrophysicists who claim only minor solar output changes can drastically affect climate change. In this case, seemingly, solar output need not change since the levels received are increasing because of a naturally occurring decrease in Earth's protection.
And according to my dentist, if I use an extra gallon of water on my garden it will grow twice as big.
Point being, an astrophysicist is not a climatologist, or vice versa. Solar output is but one of MANY factors in climate and climate modeling. For instance, if the sun dimmed by 1% but CO2 doubled, global temps would still rise. In the case of a planet like Venus, solar output would need to decrease quite a bit before it had an appreciable affect on it's climate.
Since the weakening of the magnetosphere and its inverse increase of radiation seems to mirror that of climate change, to which man is attributed, it seems to shout loudly that those who claim man is behind GW, are woefully ignorant.
No. No. No.
Only the completely naive or ignorant honestly think that climate scientists who study climatological phenomenology for A LIVING would miss something so COMPLETELY FUCKING OBVIOUS. That's as bead as accusing them of not taking into account solar fluctuations in their models.
Especially since I'm not aware of any such research.
I know. It's hard to use google.
And ultimately, that's the real problem. The more we learn, the more we learn we don't know or understand. We are constantly finding significant and new, first order variables which drive our climate.
That's a complete load
You have no idea what you're talking about.
History is replete with example of how even small climate shifts can result in devastating impacts on society.
A few years of drought in the Midwest US would be quite devastating. And yes, you do need adequate conditions for crops to produce a good yield. Too little or too much water, too little or too much heat can take a thriving crop and destroy it. Just ask any orange producer in Florida how devastating a late season frost can be to their crops.
You also make the ludicrous assumption that food production can "just move north". It doesn't work that way. You can't just shift a million acres of food production on a whim. Nor can you just start growing on any old piece of soil. Modern day agriculture is a large and complex beast that requires good planning as well as infrastructure to support it.
Our entire food system is built around our current climate, and has a fairly narrow range for maximum yield. New climate conditions or even just new parasites moving in where they've never been before can easily disrupt food production.
~X~
I think what he was referring to is related to is the rather infamous quote: "The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter."
Specifically, the problem he is referring to is that democracy is not a good way to enact actions based on unpopular scientific findings. For example, look at tobacco, acid rain, vehicle safety, ozone depletion, or any other issue that would directly impact moneyed interest or people's habits. In almost every case adequate warnings, regulations, and/or legislation to years or decades longer to implement than it would/should have. Why? Mainly selfishness, from the end consumer up to the corporate conglomerates. We want it all and we want it now and $DIETY and fuck everything else.
In these cases you had a body of scientific evidence on one side screaming that bad shit is happening or is going to happen and on the other side you have corporate/consumer America. It's not even a contest. Most big companies spend more in a year on advertising and PR ALONE than any set of grants doled out to researchers COMBINED. It doesn't matter how good a case the scientists make. They don't have a PR machine. They have their research and that just doesn't hold a candle to the mind-numbing media blitz any big corporate interests can put on to the masses who already lack critical analysis skills.
A danger of democracy is when a lies are voted as truth, when fiction trumps fact, and when belief deposes reason. Unpopular scientific research has faced this on multiple occasions, and still faces it today.
~X~
This whole 'carbon footprint' and 'green' malarky is just a way to make us feel bad about pretty much anything we do even though we might be able to afford it and so the eventual aim seems to be to usher in an authoritarian regime where everybody is given the absolute minimum necessary to survive.
I think you misspelled corporatocracy.
The "green" malarky that you refer to is about finding a way to SUSTAIN ourselves. We are not sustaining, we are consuming (and at increasing rates). We are not replacing what we consume and recycling is still a far cry from where it needs to be. We will not be able to continue along our current path for much longer. The Earth does have limits and it really isn't too far in our future when we're going to hit those limits.
These doomsday environmentalists are not helping the situation one bit - I am actually interested in renewable energy, electric cars and so on but each time one of these guys opens their mouth I feel like jumping into the car and pouring 70 litres of petrol into the tank while I'm still allowed, you know.
Out of spite? One person does not a quorom make.
Before we are all thrown into a supermassive apartment block and given only rice crackers and water to live off. If we are lucky they might allow us a single CFL in our cell and the very obedient are allowed a recycled netbook with Google Chrome OS or similar Web-only OS.
What are you talking about? We've got a single planet. Just one. We've got only so many resources. A wise species, upon realizing this, would IMMEDIATELY begin work on coming up with ways to sustain their race for the long haul, not spend through resources like drunken sailors (or RNC members at a strip club). And only the naive think they can have their cake and eat it too.
Meanwhile the politicians and scientists behind this regime will obviously be livin' the good live on some island with all the fuel and personal freedom they could possibly ever think of asking for.
O_o
Loosen the tin foil hat buddy. Their is no regime. There is no conspiracy. There are fringe groups (Green Peace, Drill baby Drill), but the vast majority of people of people concerned about the environment are thinking about the future. Not just their immediate future but the future hundreds of years from now.
Now, technology might be developed to allay all concerns but what will the price of that be. How far can we go before nature really starts putting the hurt on us? How many thousands or millions get to suffer before we finally start taking our sustainability seriously? Perhaps not many, or perhaps we'll be looking at a global "French Revolution" style event when the poor unwashed masses finally get fed up.
~X~
They open their eggs from the little end....
~X~
There's a reasonable expectation for safety with everything you buy.
I'm not in favor of cases that essentially amount to user error. Nor am I in favor of this particular verdict.
However the original statement I was responding to was "If there is a market for it, then we should be able to sell it". My counter argument is that this statement is ludicrous, as it implies everyone would have to an expert in everything in order to ensure the safety of the product they buy.
Back to the case, table saws come with plenty of warnings and explicit safety instructions. This idiot ignored those instructions. The company is not at fault.
~X~
I had already said I thought the case was idiotic. However the comment before implied that exploiting ignorance was okay in the name of profit.
There's a big difference between someone ignoring safety procedures and getting injured and someone selling a defective product.
~X~
Only if your a sociopath. You're basically okaying the exploitation of people's ignorance.
I should be able to by food that won't kill me and DOESN'T require me to be an organic chemist/microbiologist to determine whether or not it can. I also shouldn't have to be an auto-mechanic to ensure that the car I drive won't explode into a fireball while I drive it.
That being said, I don't agree with this verdict. If your already perfoming unsafe actions a safety feature is only going to do so much.
~X~