The freedoms cost as much as you are going to sacrifice for it. Sacrifice means that you sacrifice something personal for communal good. That act of selflessness is largely incompatible with individualistic basis of American culture.
Don't ignore the fact that the American revolution was mostly driven by a small minority of elites that were tired of paying what they considered excessive taxes. It was done against the popular opinion, which was a significant majority against revolution. Sure, they wrapped it in the cloak of a greater good, which I'm not arguing it wasn't, but it certainly wasn't about being selfless. How many of the "founders" were killed during the revolution?
Selflessness and selfishness only matter when power is more centralized. Distributed selfishness, as was the entire intent of the whole experiment, will get you a remarkably similar result to what is intended to be achieved by centralizing selflessness.
The problem with American culture is we're centralizing selfishness and the power needed to achieve it's desires. There's nothing left to motivate people to be selfless. If you "need" something, you've got a right to get it, regardless of what imposition on others is required.
When a "right" is something that requires others to be compelled to give it to you rather than not infringe upon it, we've lost complete touch with the real definition of freedom.
It's the classic corporate-welfare strategy: you failed in the market, so get the government to force people to pay you.
Sounds like the big insurance company strategy... Destroy the efficiency of health care to the point that people can no longer afford it on their own, drive your prices up until people stop buying it and no longer have "health care" and then get a law passed requiring everyone to buy your broken product...
The big guys just love our 2 party system... Less hands to grease...
Maybe if the climate "researchers" would open up their methodologies, source code and data, I might be able to understand it.
Possibly, but I doubt it. There's a wealth of information available to you now (the above article alone cites 5 different studies), yet you continue to focus on "motive" as a reason to disbelieve the science. As was evidenced by the ClimateGate scandal, when the general public is given free access to data, they misinterpret it. In all of the information that was released to the public, not once is there a single e-mail or reference that says "our AWG conspiracy is on track...muwahahah!" Instead, you have statisticians talking about "tricks" as "proof" of AGW fraud. My wife showed me a "trick" this weekend for making better pancakes, the result was still pancakes.
I think that what "Climategate" shows us is that if you have a position on either side of this issue that holds there's no possibility that the other side MIGHT be right and thus completely unacceptable to investigate the possibilities, you're an idiot. Do the "deniers" monkey with their data? I have no doubt. Do the "warmers" monkey with their data? We have "peer reviewed" evidence of that.
We're not discussing science. We're discussing politics. This is a holy war. I'm just a conscientious objector.
that would seek to replicate and evaluate your results, you're not practicing science.
But, as stated, that's not what happens. What happens is you get deniers nitpicking over irrelevant details (the Himalayan glaciers thing of the last few weeks springs immediately to mind). They don't attempt to replicate the experiments or studies, they simply denigrate them without any empirical evidence to back it up. It turns into...well, the situation we have today...
Do you think hiding data and methodologies so that people can't look at it has less of a negative impact to your cause than being transparent and dealing with legitimate criticisms in the open?
If there's anything we should learn from human history, it's to not trust people when they are hiding things from us... and certainly not when they're doing it in "our best interest." Keeping it hidden makes people inherently suspicious. It's much better to give them something they can't understand than to give them the boogeyman their imagination will create to fight against.
When I hear someone talking out of both sides of their mouth explaining exception after exception to their mythical model that has all the answers, I assume I am dealing with a charlatan.
Who is explaining exceptions? What I see is false claims being raised and then disproven with actual evidence.
Who's evidence? There's so much made up shit all over the Internet, I wonder if anyone here really knows. Everyone has their position and the data to back it up. I hear about it every time this subject comes up. There's dogma all over the place on this issue.
Science is ENTIRELY about being a skeptic. The AGW crowd demean skeptics. Thus, the AGW crowd must not be scientists.
The only thing I'm denying is myself the duty of joining either cult. I want to be right. But, I don't have to be the source of that answer.
How you choose to view my comment will determine in which camp you reside. If you choose, for example, to peruse the site I've linked to a couple of times and review the cited studies to construct one view of the argument and then find contradictory studies to construct the oth
I doubt you would be able to really understand it but their methodologies are available in the peer reviewed literature they have published and more data and code than you could probably analyze in your life is available from the many links on this page.
Which is all the more reason to not be jumping to conclusions... And a good indicator of how little anyONE, especially the hysterics on BOTH sides lurking around slashdot, actually understands what the "true facts" (I use that term because we're discussing a political issue here) are.
It doesn't really matter anyway. Assume that the worst case AGW scenarios are true. What the hell are we going to do? The nations of the world are in a prisoners dilemma that will only result in no action being taken no matter how dire any purports the consequences to be because the short term costs are not politically worth the long term gains from making any change.
So, it doesn't really matter what the "true facts" are, anyway. Until Washington DC and all the other world political capitals are completely submerged under water, there's not going to be any progress on any real issue... much less one that clearly has two politically strong sides.
So, if it makes you feel better to worry about all of the changing, knock yourself out. I just try to be adaptable myself. Climate has always changed regardless of cause. And the rate of change has been much greater in the past than it has recently. If there's anything to learn from the dinosaurs, it's that you better be ready to adapt or die.
The reason it was modded insightful is because when this subject comes up for discussion, there seem to be a large number of participants joining in that have no knowledge of the scientific method. Science doesn't PROVE anything. It just says that we haven't disproven it... YET.
Regardless of the probabilities of disproving something, scientists have the responsibility to seek EVERY possible explanation and theory to disprove a hypothesis. And regardless of how "settled" you think the science might be with AGW, there's plenty of alternative hypotheses that are possible explanations for our observations that have not had much exploration.
And don't think "science" has all the answers just because someone told you so. We still don't know how gravity relates to the nuclear and electromagnetic forces. That's a very fundamental thing that we don't have an answer for.
This whole thing has devolved into a religious discussion. There's too many people using terms like believe and denier when this subject arises. Those terms don't belong in a scientific discussion. Scientists, the real kind, are not believers. They are skeptics.
Based on the fact that the numbers he used for deforestation were not applicable to the problem, aggregated over different collection methods, and completely irrelevant to the problem caused by deforestation: loss of habitat for endemic species.
From what I can tell about the climate "research" that does support AGW (that which isn't hid away and only shared with other "believers"), you could say exactly the same thing. Data is being mashed up all over the place with no clear indication of what "normalizing" is being done to it.
And yes, I read his crap. It was a massive disappointment, and the only conclusion I could come to was that he was either ignorant beyond belief, or dishonest.
So yes, we can ignore him. As for your statement "that global warming "scientists" were dishonest in their research", that's not true either. The closest thing that has been demonstrated is that some researchers are human and petty in their responses to other people's requests and research. That's a long way from demonstrating that EVERY researcher has faked his research.
And, once again, you can say that about the "skeptics." Of course, back in my day, skeptic was another word for scientist.
Feel free to argue otherwise, but to be credible, you're going to have to demonstrate that every single paper arguing for AGW is dishonest. Go ahead.
The funniest thing about the whole debate to me is those that "believe in" AGW demean those that don't "believe" by calling them "skeptics."
I must have completely misunderstood the explanation of the scientific method when I was in school. My understanding was that the ENTIRE POINT of science is to be a skeptic. But, apparently, the point is to "believe in" and not be a "denialist".
Either science is really religion, or climate science isn't really science.
Before humans, temperature was driving the change, and CO2 caused the feedback.
Now, CO2 is driving the change (cause we have coal power plants now), and temperature causes the feedback (because warming up the oceans still reduces their capacity to hold CO2)
So the existence humans changed the laws of physics?
The coldest period in the last half billion years had atmospheric CO2 levels 10 times what we have today. Why wasn't the CO2 driving the change then? It certainly wasn't the temperature.
Maybe if the climate "researchers" would open up their methodologies, source code and data, I might be able to understand it.
I understand why they don't, though. It would be like MS opening up the Windows source code. People would feel very ripped off about what they've been paying for.
If you hide your data AND your entire methodology from ANYONE that would seek to replicate and evaluate your results, you're not practicing science. And until that is all publicly available for consumption (which it IS NOT), I can't consider AGW to be science.
When I hear someone talking out of both sides of their mouth explaining exception after exception to their mythical model that has all the answers, I assume I am dealing with a charlatan. Science is ENTIRELY about being a skeptic. The AGW crowd demean skeptics. Thus, the AGW crowd must not be scientists.
It seemingly cannot be stated enough, because the "skeptics" don't get it: of COURSE temperature leads CO2 levels. What would a sudden, pre-temperature rise of CO2 levels come from?
Ok. Just to play devils advocate, I have a couple of questions.
Why all the hysteria about increasing CO2 causing an increase in temperature if the actual relationship is inverse? Sounds too much like doublespeak for people to easily believe.
If a temperature increase precedes a CO2 increase, why is it that the coldest period in the last half billion years had CO2 levels 10 times what we have today?
This stigma against homeschooling has GOT to go already. Not all homeschoolers are teaching racial bias or inaccurate science. Not by far.
The mantra is repeated so that parents that have outsourced their entire responsibility to ensure their children are educated can feel like they aren't making the easy choice to be irresposible...
I do, however, have a major issue with people pulling their children out of public school so they can be home-schooled according to religious criteria. I recognize this is a slippery slope, but based on what I've read so far I support the German government.
Slippery slope? Very much so...
Religious freedom allows you to worship, but it does not in my mind give one free license to program children with it.
Is there a difference?
Children are not property.
What are they then? Not that I disagree, but either they are minors subject to parental leadership or adults. Another choice could be minors subject to governmental leadership, I suppose. Regardless, someone has to decide how they are to be raised. It's either them, parents or government.
Religious conflict with a secular school is not a valid reason for home-schooling.
What is a "valid" reason? And who determines what makes it "valid?"
Further, home schooled children should be subject to, at the very least, the same aptitude tests and subject material criteria as public school children. (Yes, I know most public school criteria and tests are a joke, but it's at least a starting point.)
Where I live, they are. And, they score SIGNIFICANTLY higher than the average of students government educated. So... now that we have the data you requested, what are we supposed to do with it?
It has to do with the fact that in most jurisdictions, homeschooled kids being out and about during school is treated as prima facie evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the parents and can subject them to having their kids forced back into public schools or even taken away in some areas.
And the kids are told all about that, which is why they aren't entirely at ease.
I've dealt with several homeschooling peers; when they were adults they were perfectly fine at social interactions.
Or it could just be that they're sitting in a dentist's chair...
True. My daughter is a dentist. She has told me that she has a good chance of identifying the home schooled kids by their behavior in her office. They have a sense of unease about them in the office that kids who go to regular schools don't.
(She usually asks children about school while they are in the chair as part of the make-them-feel-comfortable chit-chat.)
Are you actually saying that being uneasy in the dentist chair is because they haven't been "socialized?" I don't think I would consider that an appropriate context to evaluate how well people have been "socialized."
It blows my mind at how anti-homeschooling people seem to only have the socialization argument to support government schooling. I never hear about the superior education from the highly trained teachers. I never hear about how much higher the government educated students score on tests than the homeschooling students. I never hear about the higher college acceptance rate of government educated students compared to homeschooled students.
Why is that? Why is it that in a discussion about the best way to educate a child, those advocated one position talk NOTHING about education. They only talk about "socialization" like homeschooled kids are kept isolated in a box and only let out for spelling bees.
The fact is, there are a large number of government educated children that are "socialized" but despite that, they sure as hell are anti-social. Could it be that it has more to do with the social nature of the parents than the child's educational environment? Many of the "unsocialized" homeschooled children (the ones that most people imagine when they think of homeschooling) have parents that aren't exactly the type to embrace socialization outside of a religious context.
We homeschool our children. We don't do it for religious reasons. We only choose to do it because our kids are getting a much higher quality of education. And, we are also highly social people in our community. So, our kids get plenty of "socialization" in real life. People we interact with on a regular basis are always shocked to find out that our kids are homeschooled. They're even more social than their peers and can interact just as well with adults as they can children. And, since they don't spend the large excess of their formative time around other socially undeveloped children, they have a good perspective on what is a socially acceptable action and what isn't.
Where was the line for you between, "I'll do this myself" and "Extend/correct/expound/refine what they learned at school"?
When we had a child while living in a state that was ranked 50th in the nation for education... It was the only responsible choice after considering the overpriced and marginally better quality of the local private schools.
Of the teachers I know, the best students weren't always the smartest but they were the ones whose parents took an active interest in what they were learning and who added on to that at home.
And there you've touched on the problem with compulsory government education... If the home life doesn't value and prioritize education, it doesn't matter how highly trained the teacher is, the child is most likely not going to contribute positively to the class. Parents have outsourced their responsibility to government and most don't bother to accept their fiduciary responsibility to ensure that education is happening. Kids notice it's not that important to parents (except MAYBE around report card time) and they will act accordingly. Then school is really just where you go to hang out with your friends all day and "socialize."
That is what makes it all break down for those that actually want to learn...
You're being atypically logical for this discussion... Yes, you are correct...
I'm simply talking about the more recent data sets that are misused graphically to erroneously assert the cause/effect hypothesis suggested by one correctly analyze the time sequence in reverse. But, even correlation != causation and looking at geological time scales we see outliers that disprove that notion in certain datasets. Of course, one must keep in mind that the definition of coldest is defined through geologic records (since there are no ice cores that go back that far) so the resolution of temperature measurement is necessarily constrained by our avalable methods.
Even today our measurements aren't the best. And our methods of our older records grow questionable the further back we go. I don't think we know what we think we know.
I, as a student of physics, cannot say that man does not have a significant impact on our planet. I'm not convinced we can impact on some of the scales being suggested. But, I'm sincerely willing to be convinced.
I'm a skeptic. Today I think that's equivalent to heretic. It used to be a synonym for scientist. Unfortunately, it seems that today scientist is a synonym for politician.
How are we ever going to understand what is REALLY happening and what needs to be done if this whole thing has turned into some left/right holy war with fundamentalists on both sides that REFUSE to listen to anything suggested by anyone that doesn't support our current world view? If people can't come to this discussion begging to have their minds changed, we never will.
Science is all about being a skeptic. And the number one thing you're supposed to do is be a skeptic of yourself. You're supposed to welcome challenges to you're ideas.
This thing is just two sides trying to yell each other down.
On an unrelated note, why is quantification, proper logic, and science so hard for Slashdot users to understand?
No kidding. Why are we still wasting our time focusing on CO2? All the climate data suggests that CO2 increase does not lead temperature increase, but follows. Even John Houghton, who was co-chair of the IPCC and is a supporter of the idea of anthropogenic global warming, admits "Carbon dioxide content and temperature correlate so closely during the last ice age is not evidence of carbon dioxide driving the temperature but rather the other way round... I often show that diagram in my lectures on climate change but always make the point that it gives no proof of global warming due to increased carbon dioxide."
My guess is that the politicians got involved and got the propaganda machines running...
No, he is saying that the question of whether AGW is real has been reasearched for over 100yrs, culimanating with two decades spent on what is probably the largest scientific effort ever undertaken by mankind. He is also saying there is zero eveidence in the scientific litrature to dispute the OBSERVATION that pumping half a trillion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere over the last 150yrs has already fucked up the climate.
And the amazing thing is that with all of this research and media attention, people still have the misconception that CO2 increase causes temperature increase. All the climate data suggests that CO2 increase does not lead temperature increase, but follows. Even John Houghton, who was co-chair of the IPCC and is a supporter of the idea of antropogenic global warming, admits "Carbon dioxide content and temperature correlate so closely during the last ice age is not evidence of carbon dioxide driving the temperature but rather the other way round... I often show that diagram in my lectures on climate change but always make the point that it gives no proof of global warming due to increased carbon dioxide."
I'm certain that we do have some effect on the climate. I'm not certain what that is. However, it's pretty clear from the science that CO2 is not a direct contributor to temperature increase. Unfortunately, the propaganda has diverted our focus from the facts. And, regardless of what issues you're trying to solve, ignoring the facts is a sure way to a bad solution.
Check the data. CO2 FOLLOWS temperature increase, not the other way around as seems to be the common mis-conception. The coldest period in the last half-billion years had 10 times the CO2 levels that we have today.
Water vapor is a much more significant "greenhouse gas" anyway. So, cut down on the hot beverages.
The data does not have to be made available to YOU. It IS made available to the peer-reviewers.
That's fine. But, don't use my money for anything or compel me to behave in any particular manner based on "evidence" that I'm not allowed to see.
Would you also like to have just anyone review papers on nuclear research? If you were a company providing LIDAR data services, would you want researchers freely giving it away?
Yes. I would. It's the same argument as which is more secure, open or closed source code. Environments that are open to the light tend to require much less disinfecting.
YOU are free to go to the scientists and convince them that you are a legitimate reviewer who needs the data. In MOST cases, the data is available freely. However, if the data used in research is from a proprietary third party then the researcher will not be able to distribute the data freely. This should not come as any surprise.
That's fine. While I do dispute the notion of "proprietary" data, if we do allow for it, it should not be allowed to affect any policies other than those that are proprietary. Public policy should be based on public information.
And as far as the person doing the research deciding if someone is a "legitimate" reviewer, that sounds a bit dubious. So, the person that will get the credit and prestige for the results of their work decides who is "legitimate" to check their work? I wish I could have done that through college. I'd have had a 4.0 at graduation.
REAL science isn't proprietary. And, it doesn't fear who will be reviewing results. Anything that acts in a contrary manner is not real science. It's think tank propaganda.
If you think this should be changed so that all data is freely released, then convince your politicians to make it so that scientists are not allowed to use classified, confidential, or proprietary data sources in their research.
The scientists can do what they like. If the politicians are using the information to decide public policy, the public which is subject to that policy should be able to review it. Otherwise, we're being asked to take the word of politicians and those in their employ. Do you really want to live somewhere where all the policies are set based on data and analysis that no one except those in power are allowed to see?
So, what you're saying is that just because the data we have indicates one type of relationship, it doesn't mean that it can't work in the other direction. That must be a model created with some new strange form of regression I'm not familiar with. Or, we're just ignoring the data that doesn't fit our preconceived conclusions.
All the climate data suggests that CO2 increase does not lead temperature increase, but follows. Even John Houghton, who was co-chair of the IPCC and is a supporter of the idea of antropogenic global warming, admits "Carbon dioxide content and temperature correlate so closely during the last ice age is not evidence of carbon dioxide driving the temperature but rather the other way round... I often show that diagram in my lectures on climate change but always make the point that it gives no proof of global warming due to increased carbon dioxide."
Can't we stop arguing our political positions and just look at the science? I realize it's hard to do because politicians on both sides have hijacked the discussion, so it's difficult to find the real facts through all of the noise that has been created on the subject. But, both sides need to just shut up and learn how to analyze data instead of issuing talking points that twist the truth into propaganda.
They discussed how to spin their results so as their findings wouldn't be used by the opposition to score political points and they discussed politics (including how to marginalize an opponent).
And you don't find that disturbing? And if you don't, how would you feel about someone on the other side of the issue from you doing the same thing?
That clearly illustrates we're dealing entirely with a political issue here masking itself as a scientific one. Even the "scientists" are acting and scheming like politicians.
Or are you going to operate under the assumption that all science is invalid unless you personally can view everything? Good luck with that.
Actually, that's part of the scientific method, sharing your research. So, if you're not doing that, then you're not really practicing science. You're just issuing position papers like any other politician.
Should public policy be made using "science" that can't be validated? How much money would we have dumped on cold fusion if that was standard practice?
Slashdot Mirror
The freedoms cost as much as you are going to sacrifice for it. Sacrifice means that you sacrifice something personal for communal good. That act of selflessness is largely incompatible with individualistic basis of American culture.
Don't ignore the fact that the American revolution was mostly driven by a small minority of elites that were tired of paying what they considered excessive taxes. It was done against the popular opinion, which was a significant majority against revolution. Sure, they wrapped it in the cloak of a greater good, which I'm not arguing it wasn't, but it certainly wasn't about being selfless. How many of the "founders" were killed during the revolution?
Selflessness and selfishness only matter when power is more centralized. Distributed selfishness, as was the entire intent of the whole experiment, will get you a remarkably similar result to what is intended to be achieved by centralizing selflessness.
The problem with American culture is we're centralizing selfishness and the power needed to achieve it's desires. There's nothing left to motivate people to be selfless. If you "need" something, you've got a right to get it, regardless of what imposition on others is required.
When a "right" is something that requires others to be compelled to give it to you rather than not infringe upon it, we've lost complete touch with the real definition of freedom.
Greed IS good. - Gordon Gecko
It's the classic corporate-welfare strategy: you failed in the market, so get the government to force people to pay you.
Sounds like the big insurance company strategy... Destroy the efficiency of health care to the point that people can no longer afford it on their own, drive your prices up until people stop buying it and no longer have "health care" and then get a law passed requiring everyone to buy your broken product...
The big guys just love our 2 party system... Less hands to grease...
Maybe if the climate "researchers" would open up their methodologies, source code and data, I might be able to understand it.
Possibly, but I doubt it. There's a wealth of information available to you now (the above article alone cites 5 different studies), yet you continue to focus on "motive" as a reason to disbelieve the science. As was evidenced by the ClimateGate scandal, when the general public is given free access to data, they misinterpret it. In all of the information that was released to the public, not once is there a single e-mail or reference that says "our AWG conspiracy is on track...muwahahah!" Instead, you have statisticians talking about "tricks" as "proof" of AGW fraud. My wife showed me a "trick" this weekend for making better pancakes, the result was still pancakes.
I think that what "Climategate" shows us is that if you have a position on either side of this issue that holds there's no possibility that the other side MIGHT be right and thus completely unacceptable to investigate the possibilities, you're an idiot. Do the "deniers" monkey with their data? I have no doubt. Do the "warmers" monkey with their data? We have "peer reviewed" evidence of that.
We're not discussing science. We're discussing politics. This is a holy war. I'm just a conscientious objector.
that would seek to replicate and evaluate your results, you're not practicing science.
But, as stated, that's not what happens. What happens is you get deniers nitpicking over irrelevant details (the Himalayan glaciers thing of the last few weeks springs immediately to mind). They don't attempt to replicate the experiments or studies, they simply denigrate them without any empirical evidence to back it up. It turns into...well, the situation we have today...
Do you think hiding data and methodologies so that people can't look at it has less of a negative impact to your cause than being transparent and dealing with legitimate criticisms in the open?
If there's anything we should learn from human history, it's to not trust people when they are hiding things from us... and certainly not when they're doing it in "our best interest." Keeping it hidden makes people inherently suspicious. It's much better to give them something they can't understand than to give them the boogeyman their imagination will create to fight against.
When I hear someone talking out of both sides of their mouth explaining exception after exception to their mythical model that has all the answers, I assume I am dealing with a charlatan.
Who is explaining exceptions? What I see is false claims being raised and then disproven with actual evidence.
Who's evidence? There's so much made up shit all over the Internet, I wonder if anyone here really knows. Everyone has their position and the data to back it up. I hear about it every time this subject comes up. There's dogma all over the place on this issue.
Science is ENTIRELY about being a skeptic. The AGW crowd demean skeptics. Thus, the AGW crowd must not be scientists.
Not true, we demean deniers, completely different. Simply playing John Cleese' role in the Argument Sketch does not make one a skeptic. Simply denying everything as true does not make one a skeptic.
The only thing I'm denying is myself the duty of joining either cult. I want to be right. But, I don't have to be the source of that answer.
How you choose to view my comment will determine in which camp you reside. If you choose, for example, to peruse the site I've linked to a couple of times and review the cited studies to construct one view of the argument and then find contradictory studies to construct the oth
Perhaps a new term is needed.
I just consider myself a conscientious objector.
I doubt you would be able to really understand it but their methodologies are available in the peer reviewed literature they have published and more data and code than you could probably analyze in your life is available from the many links on this page.
Which is all the more reason to not be jumping to conclusions... And a good indicator of how little anyONE, especially the hysterics on BOTH sides lurking around slashdot, actually understands what the "true facts" (I use that term because we're discussing a political issue here) are.
It doesn't really matter anyway. Assume that the worst case AGW scenarios are true. What the hell are we going to do? The nations of the world are in a prisoners dilemma that will only result in no action being taken no matter how dire any purports the consequences to be because the short term costs are not politically worth the long term gains from making any change.
So, it doesn't really matter what the "true facts" are, anyway. Until Washington DC and all the other world political capitals are completely submerged under water, there's not going to be any progress on any real issue... much less one that clearly has two politically strong sides.
So, if it makes you feel better to worry about all of the changing, knock yourself out. I just try to be adaptable myself. Climate has always changed regardless of cause. And the rate of change has been much greater in the past than it has recently. If there's anything to learn from the dinosaurs, it's that you better be ready to adapt or die.
You can only control so much.
The reason it was modded insightful is because when this subject comes up for discussion, there seem to be a large number of participants joining in that have no knowledge of the scientific method. Science doesn't PROVE anything. It just says that we haven't disproven it... YET.
Regardless of the probabilities of disproving something, scientists have the responsibility to seek EVERY possible explanation and theory to disprove a hypothesis. And regardless of how "settled" you think the science might be with AGW, there's plenty of alternative hypotheses that are possible explanations for our observations that have not had much exploration.
And don't think "science" has all the answers just because someone told you so. We still don't know how gravity relates to the nuclear and electromagnetic forces. That's a very fundamental thing that we don't have an answer for.
This whole thing has devolved into a religious discussion. There's too many people using terms like believe and denier when this subject arises. Those terms don't belong in a scientific discussion. Scientists, the real kind, are not believers. They are skeptics.
Based on the fact that the numbers he used for deforestation were not applicable to the problem, aggregated over different collection methods, and completely irrelevant to the problem caused by deforestation: loss of habitat for endemic species.
From what I can tell about the climate "research" that does support AGW (that which isn't hid away and only shared with other "believers"), you could say exactly the same thing. Data is being mashed up all over the place with no clear indication of what "normalizing" is being done to it.
And yes, I read his crap. It was a massive disappointment, and the only conclusion I could come to was that he was either ignorant beyond belief, or dishonest.
So yes, we can ignore him. As for your statement "that global warming "scientists" were dishonest in their research", that's not true either. The closest thing that has been demonstrated is that some researchers are human and petty in their responses to other people's requests and research. That's a long way from demonstrating that EVERY researcher has faked his research.
And, once again, you can say that about the "skeptics." Of course, back in my day, skeptic was another word for scientist.
Feel free to argue otherwise, but to be credible, you're going to have to demonstrate that every single paper arguing for AGW is dishonest. Go ahead.
That's a two-way street, you know...
The funniest thing about the whole debate to me is those that "believe in" AGW demean those that don't "believe" by calling them "skeptics."
I must have completely misunderstood the explanation of the scientific method when I was in school. My understanding was that the ENTIRE POINT of science is to be a skeptic. But, apparently, the point is to "believe in" and not be a "denialist".
Either science is really religion, or climate science isn't really science.
Before humans, temperature was driving the change, and CO2 caused the feedback.
Now, CO2 is driving the change (cause we have coal power plants now), and temperature causes the feedback (because warming up the oceans still reduces their capacity to hold CO2)
So the existence humans changed the laws of physics?
The coldest period in the last half billion years had atmospheric CO2 levels 10 times what we have today. Why wasn't the CO2 driving the change then? It certainly wasn't the temperature.
Maybe if the climate "researchers" would open up their methodologies, source code and data, I might be able to understand it.
I understand why they don't, though. It would be like MS opening up the Windows source code. People would feel very ripped off about what they've been paying for.
If you hide your data AND your entire methodology from ANYONE that would seek to replicate and evaluate your results, you're not practicing science. And until that is all publicly available for consumption (which it IS NOT), I can't consider AGW to be science.
When I hear someone talking out of both sides of their mouth explaining exception after exception to their mythical model that has all the answers, I assume I am dealing with a charlatan. Science is ENTIRELY about being a skeptic. The AGW crowd demean skeptics. Thus, the AGW crowd must not be scientists.
It seemingly cannot be stated enough, because the "skeptics" don't get it: of COURSE temperature leads CO2 levels. What would a sudden, pre-temperature rise of CO2 levels come from?
Ok. Just to play devils advocate, I have a couple of questions.
This stigma against homeschooling has GOT to go already. Not all homeschoolers are teaching racial bias or inaccurate science. Not by far.
The mantra is repeated so that parents that have outsourced their entire responsibility to ensure their children are educated can feel like they aren't making the easy choice to be irresposible...
I do, however, have a major issue with people pulling their children out of public school so they can be home-schooled according to religious criteria. I recognize this is a slippery slope, but based on what I've read so far I support the German government.
Slippery slope? Very much so...
Religious freedom allows you to worship, but it does not in my mind give one free license to program children with it.
Is there a difference?
Children are not property.
What are they then? Not that I disagree, but either they are minors subject to parental leadership or adults. Another choice could be minors subject to governmental leadership, I suppose. Regardless, someone has to decide how they are to be raised. It's either them, parents or government.
Religious conflict with a secular school is not a valid reason for home-schooling.
What is a "valid" reason? And who determines what makes it "valid?"
Further, home schooled children should be subject to, at the very least, the same aptitude tests and subject material criteria as public school children. (Yes, I know most public school criteria and tests are a joke, but it's at least a starting point.)
Where I live, they are. And, they score SIGNIFICANTLY higher than the average of students government educated. So... now that we have the data you requested, what are we supposed to do with it?
It has to do with the fact that in most jurisdictions, homeschooled kids being out and about during school is treated as prima facie evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the parents and can subject them to having their kids forced back into public schools or even taken away in some areas.
And the kids are told all about that, which is why they aren't entirely at ease.
I've dealt with several homeschooling peers; when they were adults they were perfectly fine at social interactions.
Or it could just be that they're sitting in a dentist's chair...
True. My daughter is a dentist. She has told me that she has a good chance of identifying the home schooled kids by their behavior in her office. They have a sense of unease about them in the office that kids who go to regular schools don't.
(She usually asks children about school while they are in the chair as part of the make-them-feel-comfortable chit-chat.)
Are you actually saying that being uneasy in the dentist chair is because they haven't been "socialized?" I don't think I would consider that an appropriate context to evaluate how well people have been "socialized."
How do you address the social aspects of school?
It blows my mind at how anti-homeschooling people seem to only have the socialization argument to support government schooling. I never hear about the superior education from the highly trained teachers. I never hear about how much higher the government educated students score on tests than the homeschooling students. I never hear about the higher college acceptance rate of government educated students compared to homeschooled students.
Why is that? Why is it that in a discussion about the best way to educate a child, those advocated one position talk NOTHING about education. They only talk about "socialization" like homeschooled kids are kept isolated in a box and only let out for spelling bees.
The fact is, there are a large number of government educated children that are "socialized" but despite that, they sure as hell are anti-social. Could it be that it has more to do with the social nature of the parents than the child's educational environment? Many of the "unsocialized" homeschooled children (the ones that most people imagine when they think of homeschooling) have parents that aren't exactly the type to embrace socialization outside of a religious context.
We homeschool our children. We don't do it for religious reasons. We only choose to do it because our kids are getting a much higher quality of education. And, we are also highly social people in our community. So, our kids get plenty of "socialization" in real life. People we interact with on a regular basis are always shocked to find out that our kids are homeschooled. They're even more social than their peers and can interact just as well with adults as they can children. And, since they don't spend the large excess of their formative time around other socially undeveloped children, they have a good perspective on what is a socially acceptable action and what isn't.
Where was the line for you between, "I'll do this myself" and "Extend/correct/expound/refine what they learned at school"?
When we had a child while living in a state that was ranked 50th in the nation for education... It was the only responsible choice after considering the overpriced and marginally better quality of the local private schools.
Of the teachers I know, the best students weren't always the smartest but they were the ones whose parents took an active interest in what they were learning and who added on to that at home.
And there you've touched on the problem with compulsory government education... If the home life doesn't value and prioritize education, it doesn't matter how highly trained the teacher is, the child is most likely not going to contribute positively to the class. Parents have outsourced their responsibility to government and most don't bother to accept their fiduciary responsibility to ensure that education is happening. Kids notice it's not that important to parents (except MAYBE around report card time) and they will act accordingly. Then school is really just where you go to hang out with your friends all day and "socialize."
That is what makes it all break down for those that actually want to learn...
I'm simply talking about the more recent data sets that are misused graphically to erroneously assert the cause/effect hypothesis suggested by one correctly analyze the time sequence in reverse. But, even correlation != causation and looking at geological time scales we see outliers that disprove that notion in certain datasets. Of course, one must keep in mind that the definition of coldest is defined through geologic records (since there are no ice cores that go back that far) so the resolution of temperature measurement is necessarily constrained by our avalable methods.
Even today our measurements aren't the best. And our methods of our older records grow questionable the further back we go. I don't think we know what we think we know.
I, as a student of physics, cannot say that man does not have a significant impact on our planet. I'm not convinced we can impact on some of the scales being suggested. But, I'm sincerely willing to be convinced.
I'm a skeptic. Today I think that's equivalent to heretic. It used to be a synonym for scientist. Unfortunately, it seems that today scientist is a synonym for politician.
How are we ever going to understand what is REALLY happening and what needs to be done if this whole thing has turned into some left/right holy war with fundamentalists on both sides that REFUSE to listen to anything suggested by anyone that doesn't support our current world view? If people can't come to this discussion begging to have their minds changed, we never will.
Science is all about being a skeptic. And the number one thing you're supposed to do is be a skeptic of yourself. You're supposed to welcome challenges to you're ideas.
This thing is just two sides trying to yell each other down.
On an unrelated note, why is quantification, proper logic, and science so hard for Slashdot users to understand?
No kidding. Why are we still wasting our time focusing on CO2? All the climate data suggests that CO2 increase does not lead temperature increase, but follows. Even John Houghton, who was co-chair of the IPCC and is a supporter of the idea of anthropogenic global warming, admits "Carbon dioxide content and temperature correlate so closely during the last ice age is not evidence of carbon dioxide driving the temperature but rather the other way round... I often show that diagram in my lectures on climate change but always make the point that it gives no proof of global warming due to increased carbon dioxide."
My guess is that the politicians got involved and got the propaganda machines running...
No, he is saying that the question of whether AGW is real has been reasearched for over 100yrs, culimanating with two decades spent on what is probably the largest scientific effort ever undertaken by mankind. He is also saying there is zero eveidence in the scientific litrature to dispute the OBSERVATION that pumping half a trillion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere over the last 150yrs has already fucked up the climate.
And the amazing thing is that with all of this research and media attention, people still have the misconception that CO2 increase causes temperature increase. All the climate data suggests that CO2 increase does not lead temperature increase, but follows. Even John Houghton, who was co-chair of the IPCC and is a supporter of the idea of antropogenic global warming, admits "Carbon dioxide content and temperature correlate so closely during the last ice age is not evidence of carbon dioxide driving the temperature but rather the other way round... I often show that diagram in my lectures on climate change but always make the point that it gives no proof of global warming due to increased carbon dioxide."
I'm certain that we do have some effect on the climate. I'm not certain what that is. However, it's pretty clear from the science that CO2 is not a direct contributor to temperature increase. Unfortunately, the propaganda has diverted our focus from the facts. And, regardless of what issues you're trying to solve, ignoring the facts is a sure way to a bad solution.
Check the data. CO2 FOLLOWS temperature increase, not the other way around as seems to be the common mis-conception. The coldest period in the last half-billion years had 10 times the CO2 levels that we have today.
Water vapor is a much more significant "greenhouse gas" anyway. So, cut down on the hot beverages.
How you ever discussed a climate paper where you had access to both the data and methodology used by its authors?
And actually understood how to analyze both...
You've got to be kidding me.
Nope. I'm not.
The data does not have to be made available to YOU. It IS made available to the peer-reviewers.
That's fine. But, don't use my money for anything or compel me to behave in any particular manner based on "evidence" that I'm not allowed to see.
Would you also like to have just anyone review papers on nuclear research? If you were a company providing LIDAR data services, would you want researchers freely giving it away?
Yes. I would. It's the same argument as which is more secure, open or closed source code. Environments that are open to the light tend to require much less disinfecting.
YOU are free to go to the scientists and convince them that you are a legitimate reviewer who needs the data. In MOST cases, the data is available freely. However, if the data used in research is from a proprietary third party then the researcher will not be able to distribute the data freely. This should not come as any surprise.
That's fine. While I do dispute the notion of "proprietary" data, if we do allow for it, it should not be allowed to affect any policies other than those that are proprietary. Public policy should be based on public information.
And as far as the person doing the research deciding if someone is a "legitimate" reviewer, that sounds a bit dubious. So, the person that will get the credit and prestige for the results of their work decides who is "legitimate" to check their work? I wish I could have done that through college. I'd have had a 4.0 at graduation.
REAL science isn't proprietary. And, it doesn't fear who will be reviewing results. Anything that acts in a contrary manner is not real science. It's think tank propaganda.
If you think this should be changed so that all data is freely released, then convince your politicians to make it so that scientists are not allowed to use classified, confidential, or proprietary data sources in their research.
The scientists can do what they like. If the politicians are using the information to decide public policy, the public which is subject to that policy should be able to review it. Otherwise, we're being asked to take the word of politicians and those in their employ. Do you really want to live somewhere where all the policies are set based on data and analysis that no one except those in power are allowed to see?
Sounds extremely dangerous to me...
Yes, in the past, the increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere lagged behind temperature increases. But that does not mean that an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide cannot cause an increase in temperatures now.
So, what you're saying is that just because the data we have indicates one type of relationship, it doesn't mean that it can't work in the other direction. That must be a model created with some new strange form of regression I'm not familiar with. Or, we're just ignoring the data that doesn't fit our preconceived conclusions.
All the climate data suggests that CO2 increase does not lead temperature increase, but follows. Even John Houghton, who was co-chair of the IPCC and is a supporter of the idea of antropogenic global warming, admits "Carbon dioxide content and temperature correlate so closely during the last ice age is not evidence of carbon dioxide driving the temperature but rather the other way round... I often show that diagram in my lectures on climate change but always make the point that it gives no proof of global warming due to increased carbon dioxide."
Can't we stop arguing our political positions and just look at the science? I realize it's hard to do because politicians on both sides have hijacked the discussion, so it's difficult to find the real facts through all of the noise that has been created on the subject. But, both sides need to just shut up and learn how to analyze data instead of issuing talking points that twist the truth into propaganda.
Climate model always predict disaster
That's because we don't have many witch doctors around these days...
They discussed how to spin their results so as their findings wouldn't be used by the opposition to score political points and they discussed politics (including how to marginalize an opponent).
And you don't find that disturbing? And if you don't, how would you feel about someone on the other side of the issue from you doing the same thing?
That clearly illustrates we're dealing entirely with a political issue here masking itself as a scientific one. Even the "scientists" are acting and scheming like politicians.
Or are you going to operate under the assumption that all science is invalid unless you personally can view everything? Good luck with that.
Actually, that's part of the scientific method, sharing your research. So, if you're not doing that, then you're not really practicing science. You're just issuing position papers like any other politician.
Should public policy be made using "science" that can't be validated? How much money would we have dumped on cold fusion if that was standard practice?